UK government ‘closely watching' £120m legal claim against Vodafone
The small business minister, Gareth Thomas, has said he will 'track very carefully' a £120m legal claim brought against Vodafone last year by a group of 62 of about 150 franchise operators.
They allege that drastic cuts to commission rates on selling Vodafone products in the group's high street stores caused many of them to run up huge personal debts. They say they fear for their livelihoods or homes, and some have reported suicidal thoughts.
Their court filing claims the company 'indiscriminately … operated to enrich Vodafone at the expense of its franchisees'.
Thomas told MPs on Wednesday: 'There are without question some very serious allegations being levelled at Vodafone in this case.
'Until now there has not been sustained concern about the quality or effectiveness of the self-regulation of franchises in general. However, I recognise that this particular case has raised concerns across the House and I will track very carefully what happens in this case and the final outcome and conclusions that any court case might come to.'
Thomas was speaking in parliament during an adjournment debate secured by the the former Conservative minister John Hayes. He told MPs: 'Franchising can be used as a method to exaggerate the power of the business at the heart of the franchise and to weaken the position of franchisees. My assertion is that is common and is particular in the case of Vodafone.'
Luke Akehurst, the Labour MP for North Durham, said: 'There are major corporates that treat their franchisees very badly, that sign them up on one set of terms – one rate card – and then change the goalposts.
'And then when people dissent and complain about that, they find that their franchise is withdrawn and they lose their investment when they have put a great deal into that corporate giant. I think this is a matter that, in the near future, is going to require some ministerial attention.'
Talks to settle the franchisees' legal claim against Vodafone ended without resolution in May, leaving the case potentially heading for the high court.
Vodafone was approached for comment. It has previously said: 'This is a complex commercial dispute between Vodafone UK and some franchise partners and as we have said from the beginning, we refute the claims.'
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
The company has also apologised 'unreservedly to anyone whose experiences while operating their business has impacted [their health] in this way' , adding: 'Where issues have been raised, we have sought to rectify these and we believe we have treated our franchisees fairly.'
Vodafone has just completed a deal to merge its UK operation with rival Three to create Britain's biggest mobile phone operator.
Vodafone's chief executive, Margherita Della Valle, said in May that the merger would involve job cuts where the two businesses had a duplication of functions and roles, although overall it would create jobs as it embarked on an €11bn (£9.5bn) upgrade and expansion of its 5G network over the next decade.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Police chiefs call for cuts to number of forces in England and Wales
Police chiefs in England and Wales have told ministers that the number of forces should be cut to end 'the postcode lottery for victims of crime', the Guardian has learned. They believe a reduction from the current 43 forces would save money, cut overheads and boost crime-fighting efforts. Law enforcement leaders told the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, last month at a roundtable on police reform that they were in agreement about the need for the change. Cooper has already backed other police reforms, such as setting up a national centre for policing, and believes the way policing across England and Wales is organised is out of date. But a lack of money threatens to delay changes and some smaller forces may oppose the changes. One source said any changes could start with smaller forces merging or being abolished. In the west, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire could merge. In the Midlands, Warwickshire could join with the West Mercia force or be absorbed by the much bigger West Midlands force. In the east, the Norfolk and Suffolk forces could merge. The West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and the South Yorkshire forces could also merge. Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council, told the Guardian: 'Police reform is about restructuring policing so that it can keep up with modern criminality, retaining the bedrock of community policing whilst modernising our workforce to deal with national threats such as organised crime and violence against women and girls. 'Our current model of 43 different police forces in England and Wales has a wide range of geographical size, workforce size and operational capabilities. There is also real variation in financial resilience and the ability to invest, which means policing operates in subtly different ways with often incompatible technology, which leads to inefficiencies and inconsistency. 'A smaller number of police forces, supported by a national policing organisation, would enable us to make decisions far quicker and maximise funding to invest in technology and our workforce. Making improvements to our service once and for all, instead of in 43 different ways, would help to end the postcode lottery victims face when reporting crime.' One senior source said: 'Everyone is in agreement we need fewer forces. It would create efficiencies and greater effectiveness.' Another source with knowledge of discussions said: 'Chiefs of smaller forces are nervous but accept this is where the tide is going. We hope for a phased reduction over the next decade.' No changes are expected to happen in this parliament, and any change of government after the next election could lead to the agreement to abolish police forces being scuppered. Politically, it was believed a reduction in the number of forces would have to happen under Labour. MPs representing Conservative areas, which tend to be less urban, feared police would move from more rural areas to areas where crime tended to be higher. One chief constable said that if their force absorbed a smaller force, people in more rural areas could be offered a guarantee about how many officers would be ringfenced to protect them. As yet, no detailed plans have been drawn up or presented to the government, but Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, said he favoured a reduction to as few as 12 forces. It is understood that this is the number of forces senior police chiefs think should ultimately cover England and Wales. In a piece for the Sunday Times, Rowley said: 'The 43-force model was designed in the 1960s and hasn't been fit for purpose for at least two decades. It hinders the effective confrontation of today's threats and stops us fully reaping the benefits of technology. 'We need to reduce the number of forces by two-thirds, with the new, bigger and fully capable regional forces supported by the best of modern technology and making better use of the limited funding available.' In Scotland, forces have already merged into one organisation covering the entire country, which is the second largest in the UK behind the Met. Northern Ireland is also covered by a single force.
Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Justice has no age limit warns Met commissioner after Palestine Action protester, 83, is arrested
The head of the Metropolitan Police has said the law 'does not have an age limit' after an 83-year-old reverend was arrested for supporting Palestine Action, which has been banned as a terror group. The Met Police said officers were responding to the demonstration in Parliament Square, London, and later added that 29 people were arrested. The protest started at about 1.10pm and officers were seen taking people away shortly after 1.30pm. Reverend Sue Parfitt, 83, who was sat in a camp chair with placards at her feet, appeared to have been taken away by officers. A woman seen lying on the ground in handcuffs was lifted by officers and put in a police van. Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley was asked on the BBC 's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether it was a good use of police time after the priest was pictured being taken away from the demonstration. He said: 'The law doesn't have an age limit, whether you're 18 or 80. 'If you're supporting proscribed organisations, then the law is going to be enforced. 'Officers, you could see, did it with great care and tried to preserve that person's dignity, but they're breaking a serious law. 'Palestine Action have over the last 18 months, I have to be careful what I say, because there's cases coming to trial, but some really serious criminal offences that they're accused of. There are millions of pounds worth of damage on multiple occasions. There are assaults, there are weapons used. 'It is not about protest. This is about an organisation committing serious criminality and obviously the Home Secretary was persuaded by the papers on her desk to proscribe them, that law has come into force, and if people want to defy that law, then we have to enforce it.' Palestine Action lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday which sought to stop the protest group being banned, less than two hours before the new legislation came into force at midnight. Around two dozen people, including a professor and an emergency care worker who recently returned from Gaza, sat in front of the Gandhi statue in Parliament Square on Saturday expressing support for the group, which is now a proscribed terrorist organisation. They held signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' Shortly after their arrival, police officers could be seen engaging with the protesters and the Met said it had began making arrests. Several people were seen being carried away by officers. A spokesperson for the force said: 'The group is now proscribed and expressing support for them is a criminal offence. Arrests are being made.' Campaign group Defend Our Juries said today's protest will be the first in a series of actions which will see activists take to Parliament Square every week. Around 20 people, including a priest, professor and an emergency care worker who is just back from Gaza, sat in front of the Gandhi statue in Parliament Square on Saturday expressing support for the group It comes after the Home Office today welcomed the ban on Palestine Action, with the group failing to block its proscription as a terrorist organisation in a late-night legal bid. Lawyers representing co-founder Huda Ammori, whose father is Palestinian, asked for the decision to be delayed at least until July 21. The designation as a terror group means that membership of or support for Palestine Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Palestine Action argues it is a protest group that has never incited or encouraged violence, but does support civil disobedience. Activists protest against the continuing war in Gaza, which has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians since October 7 - when 1,200 Israelis were killed by a Hamas incursion into the country. One of those protesting today is former government lawyer Tim Crosland. He said: 'There are already 18 Palestine Actionists held in UK prisons without a trial, following lobbying by the Israeli government and Elbit Systems, the leading supplier of the machinery of genocide. 'If we cannot speak freely about the genocide of Palestinians, if we cannot condemn those who enable it and praise those who resist it, then the right to freedom of expression has no meaning, and democracy in this country is dead.' The Met Police issued a warning ahead of the protest, stating there are a number of events taking place in London this weekend and 'anyone attending should be aware that officers policing these will act where criminal offences, including those related to support of proscribed groups or organisations, are committed'. Proscription makes it a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT) to invite or express support for an organisation through chanting, wearing clothing or displaying articles such as flags, signs or logos, the Met said. It is also illegal to belong to the organisation or publish similar signs of support online. Police arresting protesters in Parliament Square were met with cries of 'Met Police you are puppets of the Zionist state' and 'leave them alone'. Another supporter, not directly involved in the Palestine Action protest, shouted: 'Who do you protect? Who do you serve?' There were also chants of 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free'. A woman seen lying on the floor in handcuffs was carried away in the air by officers and put in a police van. While suspended and flanked by a large group of police, she said calmly: 'Free Palestine, stop the genocide, I oppose genocide, I support the rights of the Palestinian people, I support freedom of speech, I support freedom of assembly'. A mass of people crowded around to film the scene. Officers placed her in the vehicle parked on the road behind the square before returning to the Mahatma Ghandi statue, where almost no protesters remained. Chants of 'shame' broke out, directed at the police, and officers moved behind the Ghandi statue. Most of the police dispersed at around 2.10pm. One of those seen at today's protest is 83-year-old Reverend Sue Parfitt, who has previously been arrested for action she took to call for urgent change to tackle the climate crisis. The group's social media pages were removed overnight on Friday, with leaders stating this was due to the risk of people being prosecuted for liking or sharing posts online She was previously arrested for allegedly attempting to damage the Magna Carta with Just Stop Oil, and for protest action with Insulate Britain. Leslie Tate, 76, a Green councillor from Hertfordshire at the protest, said: 'Palestine Action are not a violent organisation, and the proscription is wrong. 'You do know, of course, that they were proscribed by Parliament with two other groups involved - all three at once - so that was a trick to make sure the Bill went through. 'The evidence from their actions that they've taken from the start of Palestine Action is that they all have been non-violent. 'This protest is necessary to defend our democracy, and this is the creeping edge of totalitarianism, frankly. 'We thought they (the police) would probably take pictures of people. It's the obvious thing to do, to photograph them, then they have their identity, rather than make arrests.' Paddy Friend, a 25-year-old law student from London who was watching the protest said: 'In 2025, we no longer have freedom of speech. We can no longer go down to Parliament Square and hold a sign. 'I'm here because I'm terrified. I'm absolutely terrified about this country and I hope to be as brave as these people (protesting), I really do because we cannot let this happen. 'If now isn't the time for hundreds and thousands of us to come together and stand against this, then when's it going to be? 'All arms exports (to Israel) need to stop. We need to stop providing military assistance, we need to cut off all diplomatic ties with Israel.' It came after Palestine Action lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday evening, which sought to stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Large crowds gathered outside the Court of Appeal yesterday in support of Palestinians. The group's social media pages were removed overnight on Friday, with leaders stating this was due to the risk of people being prosecuted for liking or sharing posts online. A Home Office spokesperson said on Saturday: 'We welcome the Court's decision and Palestine Action are now a proscribed group. 'The Government will always take the strongest possible action to protect our national security and our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of our citizens.' The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million of damage. In a letter to the Home Secretary, protesters said: 'We do not wish to go to prison or to be branded with a terrorism conviction. But we refuse to be cowed into silence by your order.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people - Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 - have all been charged in connection with the incident at Brize Norton. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the BBC's future: the broadcaster's independence and funding face challenges
The BBC will soon charge US users for full news access. In Britain, it may seem a distant prospect, but if universality can be dropped abroad, how long before it's tested at home? With the BBC's charter due for renewal in 2027, the funding debate is intensifying. What becomes of the licence fee will define the broadcaster's future. There is increased scrutiny of Auntie's independence and impartiality after political pressure was applied through censure, funding freezes and contentious board appointments. What the BBC should look like in a fragmented media landscape is uncertain. A big question is whether the licence fee levied on households should be replaced by subscription, limited advertising or public funding. The last option is surely a non-starter, opening the door to more direct political control. Carrying adverts would force the BBC to compete with other broadcasters for cash, and destabilise existing providers. A subscription-style BBC, even if technical hurdles were overcome, wouldn't be a national institution. Those most in need of public-service media – navigating disinformation, political alienation or regional marginalisation – would be left out. Once you charge, the question isn't how to inform, educate and entertain the public; it's who can afford to be included. Partial subscription might keep some core services – like news – free, while others are paywalled. This would entrench a two-tier public service. The BBC is a large organisation and not without its faults. But critics with vested interests often exaggerate them. What began as commercial pressure has been inflamed by culture wars. Success – from Peaky Blinders to Blue Planet – has not shielded it from attack. No wonder the director-general, Tim Davie, warned in May of a looming 'trust crisis'. It's now easier to list the political groups at war with BBC News than those who trust it. The row over Glastonbury – and the BBC's retreat – underscores the pressure on Mr Davie. But the broadcaster's fight isn't just with critics. It's also battling for attention in an ecosystem flooded by algorithmic noise. Since the last charter renewal in 2016, streamers, podcasts and AI have disrupted the landscape, collapsing trust in 'legacy' media. When outrage spreads faster than facts, and filter bubbles shape belief, the BBC's global stature as a respected public institution matters more than ever. Every government leans on the BBC – at a price. The BBC pulled a documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, citing vague concerns about 'partiality'. Channel 4 aired it instead. Meanwhile, Robbie Gibb, a controversial Johnson-era appointee, helps shape BBC editorial priorities as a board member. A former Tory spin doctor, he became the Jewish Chronicle's owner, appointing an editor who pushed a hardline pro-Israel stance and oversaw multiple scandals. He refused to reveal who was funding the paper. His role in guiding how the BBC reviews its Middle East coverage raises concerns about impartiality. More than 400 media figures last week called for his removal. His departure is long overdue. In 1977, the Annan committee reimagined broadcasting for a changing Britain. Channel 4 was the result. The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, who has sensibly called for a modern Annan‑style review, is chary of backing Mr Davie. But broader reform is needed in a time of distrust and disruption. For the BBC, this could offer not just a funding fix but a democratic roadmap. The charter review must rebuild a trusted civic platform – a public good, not a private preserve.
