Skip to main content

1-20 of 331 results for subject:Subscriptions

Subject X
Competition and Markets Authority

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Competition and Markets Authority (331)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

This paper outlines the current regulation of doorstep selling (or cold calling) under the provisions of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. It also provides information on how 'No Cold Calling Zones' work in practice.

Type
Commons Briefing papers
Date
17 June 2026
Reference
SN05632

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what recent discussions he has had with the Competition and Markets Authority on enforcement action against companies operating misleading subscription models.

Asked by
Andrew Snowden (Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Business and Trade
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
125063
House
House of Commons

Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.

Lead member
Baroness Gustafsson
Answering member
Viscount Camrose
Department
Department for Business and Trade
Type
Debates on delegated legislation
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 cc297-303GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 18 December 2024 and relates to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—the DMCC Act—which received Royal Assent in May 2024. The instrument makes amendments to legislation in consequence of Parts 3 and 4, and Chapter 2 of Part...

Member
Baroness Gustafsson (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 cc297-9GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the shocking thing is that it was only in May of last year that we were working on the then DMCC Bill. It feels, frankly, a great deal longer ago; an awful lot has happened and a lot has changed. Some of the substantive aspects of what I...

Member
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 cc298-1099GC
House
House of Lords

Lest you forget, my Lords. The rest of the Minister’s response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, was:

“Ministers recognise the high importance of foreign states not being allowed to influence the policy of UK newspapers, but there should be a balance to encourage investment into the press...

Member
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 c301GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his characteristically thought-provoking remarks, particularly those on the dynamics of data bridges between the EU and the US, which were very pertinent.

The measures in this SI are intended to facilitate the effective implementation...

Member
Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 cc301-2GC
House
House of Lords

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Viscount for their thoughtful contributions in this debate. I will try to address each of the points raised in turn.

First, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about how much has changed since May 2024 and I really see that, whether it is...

Member
Baroness Gustafsson (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 cc302-4GC
House
House of Lords

Motion to consider. Agreed to on question.

Lead member
Justin Madders
Answering member
Greg Smith
Department
Department for Business and Trade
Type
Debates on delegated legislation; Delegated Legislation Committee proceedings
Committee
First Delegated Legislation Committee
Date
10 February 2025
House
House of Commons

The point about a “proportionate” response is relevant. In the original drafting of the Bill, the word used was “appropriate.” The Government changed that to “proportionate” on Report in this House, and the Lords have sought to reverse that change. What does the Minister think was disproportionate, if you like,...

Member
Damian Collins (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c178
House
House of Commons

We have engaged significantly, throughout the Bill’s passage and before it was introduced, with large tech and challenger tech. Our understanding is that all those cohorts are happy with where the Bill is today. Certainly, during that engagement, concerns were raised about the term “appropriate,” but the clear position that...

Member
Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c178
House
House of Commons

It is clearly important that we understand what “proportionate” means in this context. Is the Government’s position that proportionality implies that there is more for the CMA to think about than just how effectively the imposition of a conduct requirement would fulfil the CMA’s requirements? If so, what can the...

Member
Jeremy Wright (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c178
House
House of Commons

My right hon. and learned Friend will know from his legal background that the term “proportionate” is well established in law. Of course, the courts play an important part here. We do not prescribe everything in our legislation; there is quite rightly the opportunity for people to challenge certain decisions...

Member
Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c179
House
House of Commons

The Minister suggested that stakeholders were now satisfied with the Bill. I can tell him that there is concern about the change from “appropriate” to “proportionate.” The fear is that it will enable the courts to look more broadly, and will allow more scope for challenge than was intended when...

Member
John Whittingdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c179
House
House of Commons

It is not our intention. Our intention is to strike a balance. As I have said, the courts’ approach to proportionality was set out by the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v. Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2), when the Court described the elements to be considered, including, most notably,

“whether a...

Member
Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 cc179-180
House
House of Commons

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that we have debated this point before, and I will discuss it further in my contribution, but I make the point again that there may be legislation, but it is not working. There have been only two prosecutions...

Member
Sharon Hodgson (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c180
House
House of Commons

It is not right to say that there have been only two prosecutions—

Member
Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c180
House
House of Commons

rose—

Member
Sharon Hodgson (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c180
House
House of Commons

I will just finish this answer. There have been two sentences. Two people got a £6.1 million fine. There were four more successful prosecutions in Leeds Crown court only very recently, and sentence is due to be imposed on those individuals. The hon. Lady raises important points, and did great...

Member
Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c180
House
House of Commons

The Government claim that they are doing enough, but that is just not the case. Here is an example for the Minister: on secondary ticketing sites, three tickets for the Taylor Swift show on 21 June are going for £72,000. They had a face value of £170 each. How is...

Member
Baroness Keeley (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 April 2024
Reference
749 c180
House
House of Commons