The problem I have with the Minister’s response is twofold. First, the legitimate business issues she is talking about would not suffer any problems as a result of the amendments we have put down because they would be providing additional services. Secondly, when the Minister tells us, as she just has in her intervention, that Google is looking at which copycat websites are appropriate and which are not—obviously if they are appropriate, they are not copycat websites, but I am sure the Minister gets my meaning—if we take the example of TfL and the congestion charge, surely TfL is better placed to determine whether a website is providing an additional service or not. Why should the people at Google, clever as they may be, essentially have to do the job that a provider is far better placed to do? I genuinely do not understand the Government’s persistent objections on these points and I would be very grateful if the Minister could pay serious attention to reviewing them. However, until that point, I will withdraw the amendment.
Consumer Rights Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness King of Bow
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 27 October 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Consumer Rights Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
756 c322GC 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-10-12 15:44:32 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-27/14102718000081
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-27/14102718000081
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-27/14102718000081