Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 9 and 19.”

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the arguments we have had on the Bill. The important point to stress is that there has been a general welcome of this legislation. I would also like to stress that a measure of cross-party co-operation was the hallmark of the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House. Ministers and officials have given their time generously in meetings and have responded promptly and helpfully to the issues that scrutiny has thrown up.

At the heart of the Bill is the regulation of the internet in a way that should prevent market abuse, in particular by big tech. Helpful though the Government have been, they have not provided answers to some important questions, hence amendments being passing on Report. These have been sent back to us by the House of Commons without the Government—save in one respect—making concessions.

One of the areas that gave noble Lords particular concern is the inclusion of amendments in the House of Commons at a late stage, following lobbying of the Government by big tech. A prospective intervention by the regulator is unlikely to be welcomed by big tech companies and, given their enormous legal budgets, will inevitably be challenged. The change of wording from “appropriate” to “proportionate” will make such challenges easier. A reversion to the Bill’s original wording will help to restore balance, and it is hoped that the amendments in my name and those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on appeals against interventions, will achieve that. Our amendments on Motion C are intended to prevent a seepage of arguments on penalty, which involves a merits test, into the judicial review test, which applies to the intervention itself.

Why have the Government made this late change of “appropriate” to “proportionate”? They have been rather coy about this. There has been some waffle—I am afraid I must describe it as such—about increased clarity and the need for a regulator to act in a proportionate manner. That is quite so but, on further probing, the reasoning was revealed: it is intended to reflect the level of challenge derived from jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights and the CJEU, where human rights issues are engaged. I remain bewildered as to why big tech has human rights. This is not what the framers of the convention had in mind.

But if—and it is a big “if”—a convention right is engaged, proportionality is the test, or at least part of it. This is a much lower bar than the normal judicial review test. If the Bill remains unamended, this lower bar will apply to challenges whether or not a convention right is engaged. This is good news for big tech and its lawyers, but not for the Bill and its primary purpose.

I ask the Minister this specific question: if the convention right is engaged, proportionality comes into the analysis anyway, but what if a court were to decide that A1P1—the relevant “human right”—was not engaged? With the Bill unamended, proportionality would apply to a non-convention case, greatly to the advantage of big tech. Is my understanding correct?

It seems that big tech has got its way and that litigation wars can commence—a great pity, most specifically for the smaller players and for the ostensible rationale behind the legislation.

On Motion C1, the test for appeals on penalty is to be a merits-based one, rather than the higher bar that a judicial review standard would, or should, involve. The amendments before your Lordships’ House are intended to prevent seepage from one test to another. His Majesty’s Government say that the courts are well used, in different contexts, to applying different tests as part of an analysis. This is true—in theory. My concern is that if I were advising Meta or Google about an intervention and a consequent hefty fine—this is not an advertisement—it is inevitable that I would advise in favour of appealing both aspects of the intervention: against conviction and sentence, as it were.

It is relatively easy to insulate arguments in criminal cases. One question is, was the conviction unsafe? Another is, was the sentence too long? In the emerging world of internet regulation, however, it is likely to be far more difficult in practice. The question of whether an intervention was disproportionate—disproportionate to what?—will inevitably be closely allied to that of whether the penalty was excessive or disproportionate: another win for big tech, and a successful piece of lobbying on its part.

I look forward to words of reassurance from the Minister. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion B1 and briefly in support of other motions in this group.

Last December, at Second Reading, I said that we on these Benches want to see the Bill and the new competition and consumer powers make a real difference, but that they can do so only with some key changes. On Third Reading, I pointed out that we were already seeing big tech take an aggressive approach to the EU’s Digital Markets Act, and we therefore believed that the Bill needed to be more robust and that it was essential to retain the four key competition amendments passed on Report. That remains our position, and I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks: that the degree of cross-party agreement has been quite exemplary.

As we heard on Report, noble Lords made four crucial amendments to Part 1 of the digital markets Bill: first, an amendment whereby, when the Competition and Markets Authority seeks approval of its guidance, the Secretary of State is required within 40 days to approve the guidance or to refuse to approve it and refer it back to the CMA; secondly, an amendment reverting the countervailing benefits exemption to the version originally in the Bill, which included the “indispensable” standard; thirdly, amendments reverting the requirement for the CMA’s conduct requirement and pro-competitive interventions to be “proportionate” back to “appropriate”; and fourthly, amendments reverting the appeals standard to judicial review for penalties.

We welcome the fact that the Government have proposed, through Motion D, Amendment 38A in lieu, which effectively achieves the same aims, ensuring that the approval of the CMA guidance by the Secretary of State does not unduly hold up the operationalisation of the new regime. However, the Government’s Motions A, B and C disagree with the other Lords amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

It goes only so far as its application to the Bill now. I am not aware of any further measures to take it into other Bills and would not expect to see any.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response on that issue. I asked him the same question that I have asked throughout these proceedings—it is the same question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—and there does not seem, with great respect, to be an answer to it. The Minister has mostly allowed, to use a cricketing metaphor, the matter to go past the off stump without playing a shot. What really seems to be the position is that he says that proportionality will apply, even if the Human Rights Act or a convention right is not involved. But I think that, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Minister is saying, “But only in the case of this Bill”. What that means is that big tech is getting a special privilege not afforded to any other litigant in any other context. I ask noble Lords, “Is that a good look?” I do not think that it is.

The Commons reason for preferring “proportionate” to “appropriate” reads as follows:

“Because it is appropriate for the CMA to be required to act proportionately in relation to conduct requirements and pro-competition interventions”.


I do not know whether that was supposed to be a joke, but it is profoundly unsatisfactory. The Government have missed a trick—or rather, they have succumbed to considerable pressure. I welcome the Bill because there is a great deal about it which is good. Having thought very carefully, and with considerable reluctance, I propose to withdraw my amendment.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

16: Clause 19, page 11, line 3, leave out “proportionate” and insert “appropriate”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would restore the Bill’s original wording in relation to Clause 19.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I begin by apologising for not taking part at Second Reading. I have read the excellent debate, including the helpful introduction by the Minister. I also had the privilege of sitting through the first day in Committee, during which I learned a great deal. I refer to my interests in the register. I am not a competition lawyer, but I have experience of judicial review and of the operation of the Human Rights Act. I was chair of the Independent Review of Administrative Law, which reported a couple of years ago and resulted in the Judicial Review and Courts Act.

My amendment, which has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, concerns the use of the word “proportionate” in Clause 19. I also have a similar amendment in this group, Amendment 53, which concerns Clause 46.

Despite some heavy lobbying of the Government by big tech, the right to appeal against an intervention by the CMA will engage the judicial review test, rather than a merits test, except as to penalty. Later amendments will carefully probe this latter aspect and I look forward to hearing the debate.

The original adjective in Clause 19 was “appropriate”. The word “proportionate” replaced it at a relatively late stage in the Bill’s progress through the Commons. Why? In one view, it is an innocuous change. Indeed, one would expect an intervention by the Digital Markets Unit to be proportionate. The word also has a respectable legal pedigree. For example, you can defend yourself against attack, provided that your response is proportionate to the attack. Whether that response is proportionate will be a question of fact, often for a jury to decide.

But judicial review is primarily concerned not with the facts of a decision but with the process by which the decision is made. Classically, the courts got involved only if a decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable public body could have reached it. The scope of judicial review has expanded somewhat to include challenges based on, for example, irrationality or the failure to take into account relevant considerations. There are other grounds, but all are effectively concerned with the process rather than with factual findings, although I readily concede that there are occasions when these distinctions can be somewhat opaque.

Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act, the concept of proportionality has entered the law in relation to judicial review, but only in limited circumstances. The most recent edition of De Smith’s Judicial Review, generally regarded as the leading textbook in this area, says at 6-090:

“Domestic courts are required to review the proportionality of decisions and enactments in two main categories of case: cases involving prima facie infringements of Convention rights and cases involving EU law”.


Some think that proportionality should be the test in all cases of judicial review, but that is not currently the law.

I cannot see why an appeal in the context of this Bill would obviously involve a convention right, although those rights have a habit of getting in everywhere. If convention rights are engaged, proportionality comes into the analysis anyway. Choosing to put “proportionate” into the legislation might lead a court to conclude that Parliament had deliberately used the word to widen the scope of a judicial review challenge, even when no convention right is engaged. For my part, that is a risk that I do not think should be taken. Your Lordships’ House is well aware of the risk of expensive, time-consuming litigation that may result from these interventions, which it may be perfectly sensible to bring about.

A proportionality test is far closer to an appeal on the facts than one based on conventional judicial review principles. Whether an intervention is proportionate or not gives the court greater scope for looking at those facts. I would therefore much prefer to revert to the original word, “appropriate”, which does not carry the same heavy legal charge and does not risk expanding the grounds of appeal. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and explanation behind the change in wording. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

I add at this point that, if Amendment 16 were to be agreed, I could not call Amendment 17 by reason of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I will go on to speak more about this. The intention of the Government in “reinforcing” is to bring clarity, particularly since, as I say, A1P1 is not universally applicable to these cases. It brings clarity, and therefore I hope that the effect will be as much closing the door as anything else.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The Minister has talked about A1P1 and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. That may come into the analysis or it may not, but he has taken the view that it may not. If it does, then it is covered by the normal doctrines of judicial review, which include proportionality. If it does not, and he says it may not, why have proportionality in at all?

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I believe that, in most cases, A1P1 rights would be invoked, but there are cases where A1P1 would not necessarily be invoked, rare as those cases are. The intention of the Government is to treat all those cases in the same way. As I say, it is important that we also consider the safeguards around the new powers. Having an explicit requirement for proportionality, rather than just the implicit link to A1P1, sets a framework for the CMA as to how it must design and implement significant remedies. A proportionate approach to regulation supports a pro-innovation regulatory environment and investor confidence. I am also aware, of course, that later we are due to debate concerns noble Lords may have about the accountability of the CMA. Without pre-empting that debate, it is worth pointing out that setting out the requirement for proportionality explicitly will help ensure that the CMA uses its powers responsibly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I am very grateful to the Minister and all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I think it has raised a pretty fundamental point which runs through a number of different parts of this Bill. I do not know whether to take it personally, but I have not received any of this lobbying that so many other noble Lords received about this particular adjective and its use. My approach is simply to look at it as a lawyer with some experience of the way litigation actually works, and it seemed to me egregious in what it is doing, or at least at risk of doing.

The Minister did well to stick with his instructions that this was to provide clarity. I am afraid it does not do that. As I indicated when I was talking about self-defence, the whole problem with proportionality is that it is very much a question of fact. I might regard something as proportionate; someone else might regard it as disproportionate. It is far more difficult than the tests of rationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, the tests that are normally used for judicial review, so it is a much lower bar.

On the question of A1P1, it is not usually the most common of the convention rights relied upon. To the man and woman in the street, the idea that Google or Apple have human rights is perhaps a little counter- intuitive. However, I accept that there are ingenious arguments to the effect that A1P1 may have a role to play, which I acknowledged in my opening remarks. However, the Minister accepted that there would be cases when the European convention is not engaged in the analysis, in which case why have proportionality at all? I am afraid I did not find his answer convincing.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for referring to the communications he had with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who, in the course of the communications, seemed to me to be guilty of a most spectacular own goal and reinforced all the fears which have been expressed around the Committee.

This is not paranoia on our part. We have not received sufficient reassurance for the reason for this change. Of course I concede that we expect regulators to act proportionately, but that is not the same as inserting the particular word “proportionate”, which carries such a heavy charge. If it does not mean anything, do not put it in. If it is put it, it is going to be absolute catnip for the courts and judges. It will give them a chance to examine these decisions in a wholly broader perspective.

Grateful though I am to the Minister, I feel it is almost inevitable that we will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.