should like to speak in support of my amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72.
Their purpose is to put a spotlight on what is happening in the world
of online trading, giving us the opportunity to address a problem that
is emerging for consumers in this country. What I want to see is very
simple: consumers who purchase goods and service online should able to
complain online when things go wrong. These amendments would set down
explicitly that the Government and the newly established National
Consumer Council will make it a priority to resolve the
inconsistencies of the rights available to consumers online. That is
why I am pleased to have the support of the National Consumer Council,
which says:

"It should be as easy for consumers to make a complaint or to redress
poor customer service as it is to make a purchase. Consumers do have
power and they can do their bit by not settling for second best and
sticking to their guns on the standards they expect."

The internet is clearly a fantastic tool, which is transforming
peoples lives. At the same time though, it is beginning to run away
from existing legislation. A failure to address that would leave us
open to the risk of damaging long-term consumer confidence in online
markets, and I am sure that no one wants to do that. More and more
people have access to broadband and are buying online. About half the
population are involved at present, although that is set to increase,
as are the connection speeds, which will in turn encourage more people
to use the internet.

It is easy enough to click and buy a flight, a fridge or flowers for a
friend. Companies go out of their way to set up websites and encourage
people to order online, but many are not making it as easy to seek
redress and complain in the same way. Not only will they not allow
online complaints, but existing protection for the online consumer is
very fuzzy. Who pays if someone needs to send a product back? Which
country is the company that someone is purchasing from based in? When
people just bought goods in a shop and something went wrong, they
could simply pop back to the shop, see the manager and be compensated
if the shop was at fault. Now, they often have to navigate through a
thicket of premium-rate numbers and overseas call centres. Most decent
retailers probably either already have such a complaints system, or
understand that it is the smart way to attract and retain customers,
but others need to be obliged to do the right thing—and I hope that
Michael O'Leary is listening.

I was first alerted to the need for legislation to look at online
trading by people's experience of Ryanair—although it is not the only
culprit—which trades online but absolutely refuses to set up an e-mail
for customers. Instead, it says that people should phone a number that
costs 10p a minute, or write a letter or fax the company in Dublin.
Ten pence a minute might not sound a lot, but if people try to call
it, they could be online for about 40 minutes before they even get to
speak to a human at the other end, if at all. Ryanair refused even to
take an e-mail on this issue from me. It is no surprise that Ryanair
has been described as the irresponsible face of capitalism.

This led me to table early-day motion 2643 last year on the Ryanair
complaints mechanism, and I was pleased to see that it attracted
cross-party support and had nearly 60 signatures. The early-day motion

"notes that Ryanair is one of the main providers of cheap flights,
which are popular with consumers; regrets that Ryanair has no plans to
provide an email address for such purposes and directs its customers
to use either a telephone number"—

at a cost of 10p a minute—

"or to post or fax complaints to its head office in Dublin; calls upon
online-based companies such as Ryanair to improve the ability of their
customers to communicate with the company after sales by at least
publishing an email address for this purpose so that redress for poor
service is made less complicated and expensive".

Given the company's point-blank refusal to play ball, my early-day
motion took a drastic step in noting,

"that Caroline Green, Head of Customer Services for Ryanair can be
contacted at greenc@ryanair.com and that the geographical telephone
number for its head office in Dublin is 00 353 18121212, which is
cheaper than its high tariff 0871 number".

When my office later phoned to double-check the company's position on
establishing an e-mail, it refused to talk and insisted that I write
to Dublin. My e-mails still go unanswered; so, Michael O'Leary, if you
are listening, please get your act together and take e-mails. Michael
is, of course, free to e-mail me anytime at hodgsons@parliament.uk, to
say that he will set up an e-mail address. I can assure him that his
e-mail will not go unanswered.

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Lady has made her point,
and I am sure that she can send Mr. O'Leary a copy of the report of
the debate. I ask her to come back to the terms of the amendments.

Mrs. Hodgson: Thank you, Mr. Weir, and I thank the Committee for its
patience on this matter. If the internet is meant to make life easier,
its benefits must be a two-way street. Ryanair could not function
without using online sales, and it should not function without
utilising online customer services. That is the worst possible
practice. Customer service should never be seen as an overhead, but as
an integral part of a company's relations with the consumer. People
would not mind paying a few extra pence if they knew that they could
receive a quality service if things go wrong.

Last year, the NCC produced an excellent report called "The stupid
company: how British businesses throw away money by alienating
consumers". In one part of its analysis, the report comments:

"The stupid company appears distant from consumers and deals with them
in a clinical and sometimes uncaring manner. People detest impersonal
communications, and almost everyone complains about call centres,
automated telephone systems and cold calling. Consumers react
particularly badly when companies do not take ownership of a problem,
or where an individual inquiry is met with a computerised reply that
ignores the particular circumstances."

Accepting these amendments would mean that we could seek to accept a
rule of best practice. Companies cannot maintain an ephemeral online
presence—"here when you want, gone when we don't." The purpose of the
Bill should be praised; it is a good piece of Labour legislation that
will give the little people the chance to stand up to the big boys. It
is a chance to square the playing field and to ensure that consumers
get the information that they need.
Clearly, the fact that the online world without borders and
territories makes enacting catch-all rules difficult and complex, and
I am not suggesting that we should do that. There are already some EU
provisions in place—hopefully, more are to follow with the unfair
commercial practices directive—which would harmonise rights of
European online consumers, but Britain should be proud to lead the
way. We are proud to be doing so on climate change, with that
leadership achieved by taking bold steps and coercing companies to do
the right thing. We should be doing the same for online consumer
rights. I am not the only one who feels that way: I am sure that if
anyone in this room were to ask a colleague or friend, they would be
able share tales of frustration when things go wrong after purchasing
online.

The NCC is the focus of much of the Bill, and it is clear that it
feels that anything that makes it easier for consumers to get what
they deserve by complaining should be welcomed. It seems that at
present, nowhere is the need for greater consumer rights so clear as
in cyberspace. Any good Government should enable their citizens to
empower themselves, and setting out a clear specification that the
Government intend to do just that for those who purchased goods and
services online would be an example of good governance from a good
Government. Establishing lasting protection for the consumer as the
internet age reaches maturity is the reason that I commend the
amendments to the Committee.

Mrs. Hodgson: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his
response. I feel somewhat reassured by it, and I know—I hope that he
will not take this the wrong way—that he is on the side of the little
people. The only proviso that I wish to give is on the EC directive
requiring companies to provide an e-mail address, which is fantastic.
That is the first step, and the Minister is going to take up the fact
that Ryanair is not fulfilling that requirement. I want an online
complaints mechanism so that the whole process of a complaint can be
dealt with online. Some companies provide an e-mail address, but
someone who e-mails gets a reply telling them to write or telephone to
take the process further. With my right hon. Friend's assurances, I am
happy not to press my amendments.