Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 261 and 262 stand part.

Amendment 128, in clause 263, page 175, line 40, leave out

“level 5 on the standard scale” and insert—

“the statutory maximum;

(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine (or both).”

This amendment would make subscription traps offences “triable either way”, therefore bringing it in line with other similar offences in the Bill, for example for misleading actions.

Clause 263 stand part.

The clause sets out that the trader commits an offence if they enter into an off-premises subscription contract and do not provide information about a consumer’s initial cooling-off cancellation right. Off-premises contracts mainly consist of contracts that are not concluded on the trader’s business premises and include situations such as doorstep selling.

In off-premises sales, the consumer is typically more vulnerable to poor trading practices. It is therefore necessary to make breach of this requirement an offence to act as an extra deterrent to rogue traders. That approach maintains consistency with the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which stipulate that failure to provide required pre-contract information about cooling-off cancellation rights in the case of off-premises contracts is an offence.

Clause 261 provides a defence for a person charged with the offence set out in clause 260. That is to ensure that if an offence was committed due to the act or omission of a third party and without fault on the part of the person charged, they are not held criminally liable. The trader must prove that they exercised due diligence to avoid the offence being committed by themselves or another person under their control. Clause 262 sets out that an officer can be held criminally liable if an offence was committed by a company or other corporate body with the consent or connivance of that officer or due to their neglect. That is necessary to strengthen the deterrent effect of the offence and hold other responsible people accountable. Clause 263 sets out that traders who commit an offence contrary to clause 260(1) are liable to a fine.

Amendment 128 would allow traders to be prosecuted in both magistrates court and Crown court and increase potential penalties, including imprisonment, where traders do not inform consumers about their cancellation rights before entering off-premises subscription contracts. I appreciate that hon. Members wish to ensure that penalties are consistent with those elsewhere in the Bill. However, the penalties are designed to be consistent with those for failure to provide information about cancellation rights for off-premises contracts in the 2013 regulations, which currently govern all consumer contracts and will continue to govern other off-premises contracts. Consistency is important to ensure that breaches of equivalent rules are treated fairly and consistently, regardless of the type of contract. I therefore urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Clause 260 creates an offence where a trader fails to provide the relevant information on a consumer’s initial cooling-off cancellation rights before entering into an off-premises subscription contract. That contract is defined in subsection (5) and could include contracts concluded by door-to-door sellers or traders using temporary high street stands. It is a welcome clause and an important way of increasing consumer protection, ensuring that all kinds of subscription contracts and not just those entered into online are regulated under the chapter.

Clause 261 introduces a provision providing traders with a defence of due diligence to the offence laid out in clause 260. That defence enables the trader to prove that another person was responsible for the offence and that the trader took all steps to avoid committing the offence. While we recognise that it is important that traders have a right to a defence, I welcome the Minister’s assurances that this has been worked through and there is confidence that rogue traders will not be able to abuse that defence and argue their way out of criminal enforcement by claiming due diligence.

Clause 262 would establish direct liability for company officers for offences committed by the body corporate in circumstances where it is proven to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a company officer or neglect on their part. We welcome the clause.

Finally, clause 263 sets out how a person who commits an offence under clause 260 is liable on summary conviction to a fine. The Minister has outlined his response to that and it is helpful for me to briefly speak to amendment 128, tabled by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. As is clear in the explanatory note, the amendment

“would make subscription traps offences ‘triable either way’, therefore bringing it in line with other similar offences in the Bill, for example for misleading actions.”

The Minister has outlined another way in which he sees that as being consistent with how penalties are applied.

We will not push the amendment to a vote. The most important thing is that there is consistency, and we will look again at what the Minister has said today.

The hon. Lady asks me to address her point about the defence of due diligence. The defences listed in the clause are consistent with defences in other areas of the law, so we are comfortable that they strike the right balance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 260 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 261 and 262 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 263 ordered to stand part of the Bill.