Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

John Penrose Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I wish him the best of luck in the election this afternoon. It is for a very important Committee that will scrutinise this legislation. The final offer mechanism is innovative and represents a positive way forward, in that it will bring parties to the table and they will both have to make sensible offers relating to how they see a fair resolution. This will avoid them putting unrealistic claims on the table, and it could well help the news industry and many other sectors.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), I was concerned that the Minister might be moving on from part 1 a fraction early. This is a welcome Bill that will do an enormous amount of good, and it has allowed me to tick off a large number of the recommendations that I made in my report, which he referenced earlier. The concern about the Digital Markets Unit’s powers is not that they are not good enough; it is that they might over time add more and more of a regulatory burden as ex ante powers build up over the years. Does he have thoughts on how he can ensure that, after those ex ante powers have been in place for a couple of years as regulations, the CMA can analyse whether they could perhaps be replaced by pro-market reforms?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his engagement on this. We have discussed this at length many times, both in my role as a Minister and in my previous role as a Back Bencher, when we looked at the best form of regulation. I think we both agree that ex post regulation is preferable to ex ante regulation, as is a pro-competitive environment, as I said earlier. We should step in only when there is market failure. Of course we should look at the powers and ensure that they are being used wisely, and I have confidence that the CMA will do that. There are a number of checks and balances on the CMA and the DMU, not least through the competition appeal tribunal and the courts, which ensure that decisions are valid and worthwhile, but we should also have a good debate on how we scrutinise the DMU and CMA generally. Obviously they report to Parliament every year, and the Select Committee work is also important. I think that my hon. Friend and I would agree that the best way to regulate markets is through competitive environments, and that is what we should always favour in this discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The annual cost to business is £178 million, which we must consider carefully when we bring forward new regulatory burdens, but most people will think that the measures are needed because there is a huge consumer benefit of roughly £1 billion a year over 10 years, so it is important that we strike that balance. I am not aware that the cost to the state has been calculated, but my right hon. Friend and I are probably most concerned about the cost to business.

[John Penrose]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way again.

The Minister’s response to the question about regulatory burden mentioned the welcome, necessary and important review of economic regulators. However, he will understand that enormous regulatory burden is created by other regulators. There are only eight economic regulators, but there are dozens of other regulators, many of which create vastly more regulatory burden than the economic regulators, although the economic regulators are not exempt. What plans does he have to address those regulatory burdens, which are much broader and cover much more of the economy?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it is why only a few days ago we published a framework for better regulation to look at these things in the round and to make sure we have regulators that serve the public, rather than the interests of the regulator. We do not want to see regulatory creep for any purpose other than consumer benefit, and he and I will continue to have significant dialogue on those issues.

Some Members will argue that we should legislate more like the EU’s Digital Markets Act, by using this Bill to create sweeping, one-size-fits-all measures. However, our Brexit freedoms mean we can draft legislation that drives innovation without placing blanket obligations on firms or creating unnecessary regulatory burdens. Some will respond to the Bill by saying that we should go harder against big tech, but I remind them that the Bill’s primary purpose is to reduce economic harms, to boost competition, to create a fair and level playing field, and to give consumers greater choice and better prices.

We need to act, but we must act proportionally because tech firms make a valuable contribution to the economy and our lives. Big does not equal bad. A war on tech will not create growth. It has already been argued in this debate that the CMA has enough power, and my response is that technology is changing rapidly and our watchdogs need to be equipped to fully support businesses and consumers in this competitive world.

I look forward to engaging with colleagues as the Bill makes its way through the House, and I hope Members will give it their backing so that the Government can continue our work of protecting consumers, increasing competition in all markets and growing the UK economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I echo the points about the need for a careful balance between not interfering from this place, while also ensuring accountability. I believe—parliamentary historians will put me right if I am wrong—that about a decade ago there used to be a Regulatory Reform Committee in this place. It was rarely attended and was basically dropped because it failed to command much interest—let me put it that way. May I caution the hon. Gentleman that more committees might not always be the right answer? Perhaps tightening up some of the statutory duties that we apply to economic and non-economic regulators could be a way to ensure that the powers we are handing over, which as he rightly points out can mushroom, are properly applied. That would give Parliament a clear a brief to say “We want you to use these powers in this way,” and Select Committees would have a clear way to gauge whether such powers were being used in the way that Parliament has set.

[Darren Jones]

I do not claim to be a parliamentary historian, but the Regulatory Reform Committee is very modern history. About two years ago I got a call from the Government Chief Whip, telling me that the Government were collapsing the Regulatory Reform Committee and merging it with mine, but that I should not ask for any additional resource. The Business and Trade Committee now holds, by legacy, responsibility to scrutinise good regulation across the whole of Government. That is the problem. We do not have capacity to do that effectively beyond the remit of our own Department for Business and Trade. The hon. Gentleman is right that if we were to end up with a new Select Committee, being clear about what good outcomes or performance means, how that should be measured, and how regulators should be held to account against those measures, is an important conversation for us to have. If there were to be a new committee, there should be a requirement for it to meet and do that work, and it should be clear about how it was performing those duties.

The concerns that some have expressed about additional Committee oversight, administrative demand on regulators, or the influence of lobbyists, can be anticipated and mitigated. As we have discussed, the House is perfectly capable of drafting Standing Orders that make clear the powers and remits of a Select Committee, and the Committee would not be able to change or interfere with decisions of the Competition and Markets Authority. That clarity would, in turn, reduce the impact of lobbying that some people might be concerned about, and Members would need to declare their interests in the normal way. Even if a Joint Committee of both Houses—I will come to that in a second—were tasked with the oversight of regulators and other agencies across Whitehall, its capacity would be limited to a certain extent because of how many bodies and agencies it would need to look at. The amount of inevitable workload for an individual organisation would be fairly self-contained.

If there were to be a new Committee, I would have the normal expectation of collaboration and co-operation between Committees. Departmental Select Committees would still be able to call and engage with regulators when looking at particular issues, but we would be able to work with it to extend the scope of day-to-day co-operation. I am therefore most worried about whether the House, and by extension the Government, would support establishing such oversight and giving it sufficient resource to do the job properly. We would need additional budgets for additional staff and specialists to do that work; some have suggested that a smaller version of the National Audit Office could be one solution.

It is not only the Competition and Markets Authority that operates as a regulator in the digital market space. That is why a number of regulators have created the digital regulation cooperation forum, which is a welcome intervention and allows for co-ordination between digital regulators. Some have called for that to be on a statutory footing, but my Committee thought that was not necessary. Which Committee of this House is the DRCF directly accountable to? I do not think there is a clear answer. What is the cumulative impact of regulatory interventions in digital markets across digital regulators who are collaborating on their interventions? When I served on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee for the Online Safety Bill, we recommended that the House should consider a Joint Committee of both Houses. A number of noble Lords in the other place have great interest in this topic, and that could provide a space to consider such issues.

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, any such enhanced scrutiny to assist Parliament in understanding the consequences of broader remits and decision-making regulators would require the support of Government, because we would need additional capacity to do so. I hope that when he sums up the debate, the Minister might be able to share the Government’s view in that regard.

While I have said that there is insufficient capacity and I have called for additional capacity, of course my Committee and I take our work on behalf of the House seriously. To mark our own performance, in recent years we have taken evidence from 11 of the current 21 and three of the previous additional 14 agencies and public bodies within our remit. I hope that hon. Members concur with my conclusions and that we can persuade the Government to take further action in this space.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

John Penrose Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti]

The whole mechanism is designed to ensure that smaller firms have a say in this. That is why the final offer mechanism is there. I hope that that that gives the hon. Member some reassurance.

Finally, the regime has the potential for significant financial penalties to be imposed, so we have tabled amendments to allow any party subject to a penalty to appeal decisions about the penalty on the merits, rather than on judicial review principles. An appeal on the merits allows the Competition Appeal Tribunal to consider whether it was right to impose the penalty, and to consider the penalty amount. Where appropriate, it also allows the Competition Appeal Tribunal to decide a different penalty amount.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I join the queue of people congratulating the Minister on his new role, which is well deserved. I think that I am right in saying that any appeal against a fine from another economic regulator, such as Ofwat or Ofgem, is made to the CMA on the basis of the JR standard, yet we seem to be creating a different, and arguably more complicated, special deal for large tech platforms. Can he explain the Government’s thinking behind that?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I do not think that there is, as my hon. Friend puts it, a special deal; it is about taking a balanced approach to ensure that firms with penalty decisions that have less direct impact on third parties have the opportunity to challenge them, and take a view on them according to the regime.

[John Penrose]

The Minister is being very generous. I just want to understand why the approach differs from that taken in identical appeals by other companies against other economic regulators.

[Saqib Bhatti]

Given the huge size of the fines, it is only right that that approach is put in place to ensure the penalties are applied appropriately, but it does not apply to decisions that are not made by the CMA.

The regime has the potential for significant financial penalties to be imposed, so we are introducing amendments to allow any party subject to a penalty to appeal decisions about that penalty “on the merits”. An appeal “on the merits” allows the Competition Appeal Tribunal to consider whether it was right to impose the penalty and to consider the penalty amount. Where appropriate, it allows the Competition Appeal Tribunal to decide a different penalty amount. The DMU’s other decisions, including the decision as to whether a breach of the regime occurred, would remain subject to an appeal on judicial review principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

First, let me say how pleased I am to see the Minister remain in post, and I thank him for his collaboration during the passage of the Bill; it has been appreciated by those on the Labour Front Bench.

I am keen to highlight a number of amendments tabled in my name that, sadly, have been significant Government omissions. New clauses 29 and 30 relate to subscription traps, which frustratingly still remain in the Bill. I have heard from the Minister and I am grateful for his approach, but Labour has pledged to end subscription traps, which see consumers get stuck in auto-renewing contracts that they did not explicitly ask for following free trials, by making companies end automatic renewal as a default option. The plans would change the current system of “opt out” to ensure that customers actively “opt in”, saving people money during this Tory Government’s cost of living crisis.

In the last year alone, people in the UK spent half a billion pounds on subscriptions that auto-renewed without them realising, and unused subscriptions are costing people more than £306 million per year. That is impacting marginalised groups and those on low incomes considerably more than others. It could mean that those least able to absorb the cost of being in a subscription trap are more likely to be in one, and the impact on those people will be more acute. Although the Government have recently made changes so that companies will be mandated to provide a reminder to consumers before renewing their subscription, sadly that change does not go far enough. I urge colleagues to support these new clauses, because this issue is impacting people in each of our constituencies the length and breadth of our islands.

In addition, amendment 225 would address the common issue of drip pricing, which impacts people across the UK. As colleagues will be aware, drip pricing is the practice of businesses advertising only part of the product’s price, and then later revealing other obligatory charges as the customer goes through the buying process. The Government promised to tackle that issue in the King’s Speech, but they have not tabled their own amendments on it. Indeed, the King’s Speech was the fourth time that this Government have promised to act since 2016, and enough is enough. Can the Minister clarify exactly why the Government have chosen to ignore the opportunity to right this wrong in the legislation?

Broadly, the Bill is welcomed by the Opposition, but it is well overdue. It is a positive step forward in creating new competition in digital markets that will enable the competition authorities to work closely and fairly with businesses to ensure fair competition and to promote growth and innovation. Labour in particular welcomes competition and consumer choice and protection as signs of a healthy, functioning market economy. It is vital, if we are to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business, that digital opportunities are open for all. We are committed to ensuring that a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-society agenda is built for Britain, and we see consumer protections and competition law as playing an integral part in that. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I look forward to seeing this Bill finally progress to becoming an Act.

[John Penrose]

May I start where I left off when the Bill hit Second Reading by saying that it is extremely welcome and creates an enormous amount of important and much-needed change? I continue to support it in principle.

My purpose in rising today is to speak to new clause 31, which I have tabled and 29 parliamentary colleagues have supported. Those who are familiar with the Kremlinology of the Conservative parliamentary party will understand that the new clause does something wondrous to behold, which is that it unites the breadth and every single part of the party behind one central idea: better regulation. I should pause briefly just to say that better regulation is distinct from deregulation. Better regulation is not saying that we want to trash standards; it is saying that standards of everything from environmental standards to workers’ rights all matter, but it does also matter that Governments of any type and stripe make sure they try to deliver those standards in the cheapest and most efficient and economically logical way possible. That is the difference between deregulation and better regulation. It is about delivering high standards, but in the most economically sensible way. That is what new clause 31 attempts to do.

It is worth pointing out that we had a regime that worked pretty well for about five or six years between 2010 and 2016, and it did something along those lines. It was called “one in, one out,” and then it was upgraded to “one in, two out.” It basically said that any new piece of legislation or regulation had to be costed for the extra cost it was adding on to the British economy, and before it could be introduced the Minister concerned had to find an equally large amount of cost to remove from other regulations elsewhere to begin with. Later, it was twice as much cost to remove from other regulations elsewhere. That worked reasonably well, except that it had some loopholes deliberately left, partly because it could not affect anything created in Brussels when we were members of the EU, and also because it did not cover things such as the economic regulators, Ofgem and Ofwat and so on.

That system changed to what everyone hoped would be a better one in 2016, but it turned out to be an absolute disaster. Instead of gently but steadily bearing down on the costs of regulation, we saw a huge ballooning in costs in the first year of the new system, and there was a target of reducing the costs of regulation across the economy by £8 billion or £9 billion. Instead of that, they increased by that amount. One would have thought that would have meant that the sky fell in, everyone would have been horrified by that notion and this place would have been up in arms, but not a bit of it. There was zero reaction from any party across the House, because the system was lacking some crucial points. The crucial thing it was missing was a proper accountability mechanism for when Governments of any kind fail to deliver on better regulation principles and on reducing the cost to wealth creation in this country, and inherently therefore reducing the rate of growth in the country and the improvements in productivity that we all want to see. It meant nothing happened within Parliament.

Clearly, we cannot leave things as they stand, and new clause 31 is an attempt to try to put that right. It would do something very simple, and it comes back to what I have called net zero red tape, which is effectively one in, one out, with the cost of any new pieces of legislation or regulation needing to be matched by finding countervailing savings elsewhere, but it would also do something else. The new clause says, “We need to make sure that there is not just a commitment from Ministers, but a legal duty on Governments—not just this Government, but all future Governments—to make sure that everyone who is a Minister, when they get out of bed on a Monday morning, knows they have a legal duty to deliver on this.” That would mean that if Ministers did not deliver on it, they will have broken the law. Breaking the law means they are in breach of the ministerial code, which this Parliament and all Parliaments take seriously. It would be a far more effective trigger mechanism for ensuring proper accountability and that this measure is delivered.

I would be the first to admit that this new clause is not perfect. That is because the parliamentary Clerks have rightly said, “Hang on a second; this Bill has a scope, and you cannot exceed it.” Therefore the new clause cannot, even though I devoutly wish that it could, apply the basic principles that I have just been explaining to the House across the entire economy—would that it could. As it is, it can only apply those principles to the economic regulators and anything to do with competition and consumer law. That is a huge step forward, because, as I mentioned, the previous regimes all excluded the activities of economic regulators, and we will now enfranchise them, if we agree this new clause. That is worth doing, but the new clause is far from perfect, because it cannot cover the rest of the economy.

Incidentally, the relevant bits of accountancy—the reporting on whether costs have been added or subtracted —has to devolve to the Competition and Markets Authority under the scope of the Bill, when in fact a perfectly respectable initial grouping, the Regulatory Policy Committee, already does it. It is full of clever and well-intentioned people, and I think the CMA would rather it did not have to do this work if it could avoid it; it would rather that others did it.

It is not a perfect amendment, but it none the less would take us a big step in a much-needed direction and establish an important principle. I am grateful to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who mentioned that we have been having extensive discussions over the weekend in an attempt to lock in these fundamental underlying principles and to find ways to perhaps broaden them beyond just the scope of this Bill. I hope that in his closing remarks he will be able to come up with some comments that may allow me not to press this amendment to a vote.

Fundamentally, the crucial things we have to ensure are: proper independent measurement, reporting and accountability on the costs of new regulations, rather than anything that can be lent on by Government; proper consequences for Ministers in any Government who fail to deliver on trying to reduce those costs; and that no Government feel like they have a blank cheque on spending other people’s money. It is stark to examine the differences in how we approach taxpayer-funded spending versus regulation cost-funded spending. At the moment, a Minister or official who wants to spend taxpayers’ money has a squillion different hoops that they have to jump through, and rightly so. There are lots of controls on that spending undertaken by the Treasury and followed up by the Public Accounts Committee, and I can see one of the senior members of that Committee here today, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). It is highly regulated and controlled, and great attention is paid to it in this Chamber.

However, if one wants to spend five, 10 or 100 times that amount of money by increasing the cost to business through regulation, there is not a peep. Much less attention is paid to those ways of spending cash, and that cannot be right. As everybody here will understand, a pound taken in tax has the same underlying economic impact on the country’s rate of growth as a pound taken in extra cost to business. We should treat both things with equal seriousness, rather than paying huge attention to one and largely blithely ignoring the other, while writing blank cheques. Any regime has to fix that problem as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend is right: I may have been guilty of being too glass half empty, rather than glass half full. The new clause goes a very long way and enfranchises large chunks of the economy that perhaps have not been dealt with properly up until now; I just wanted to go even further and cover the entire economy. He is right to point out that the new clause does quite a lot, but it is half a loaf rather than the whole loaf, if I can put it that way.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that the accountancy —the measurement of the costs—is crucial. If we are trying to do one in, one out, we have to know the cost of the things coming in so that we can know what savings we have to find elsewhere. As I mentioned, the crucial thing is that we need to have an independent accounting body—an independent measurement body. That will require the Regulatory Policy Committee to be made a little more independent and to be given more arm’s length ability to set those accounting and measurement standards in a way that cannot be leant on by senior Ministers, senior mandarins or senior regulators. The committee needs to be able to look those people in the eye and say, “No, this is the way it’s got to be.” Like any good external auditor, it needs to be sufficiently at arm’s length to deal with that. If it does so properly, it will mean that any set of measurements can be relied on, both by my hon. Friend’s Committee and the rest of this Chamber. That is essential.

To bring my remarks to a close, if we do not adopt the system proposed in the new clause, we need a system that provides proper accountability for anybody who fails to hit these targets; proper measurement and independent accounting standards to make sure that Government and regulators cannot mark their own homework; and proper targets of some kind to make sure there is a standard to which Ministers must be held. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me, and I look forward to his remarks.

[Richard Thomson]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who made some very interesting arguments. In some of them, I heard echoes of the arguments that have been made by the Opposition during my few years in this place about trying to measure the effect that legislation has when it is passed. Amendments that seek to measure that effect routinely get knocked down, but there is a fundamentally useful point in what he says about the need to make sure that we are not suffering from unintended consequences and that the goals we are seeking are the ones that result, so that corrective measures can be taken if they are not.

Hansard records that on Second Reading, I was wished “Good luck!” by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) when—perhaps intoxicated by an overly friendly and useful exchange across the Floor about the scourge of fake reviews—I thought we might get to a consensus that would allow something to appear in the Bill. Sadly, the hon. Member’s cynicism appears to have been well founded: there is certainly nothing about fake reviews in the Bill that I can see. I accept that the Government might amend that in future through secondary legislation—they are certainly able to do so—but as I said earlier this afternoon, that inevitably restricts the scope of the sanctions that can be levied for that behaviour.

I appear to have had a little more success in another area. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that when it came to additional gold-plating of the rules and regulations affecting charity lotteries and gambling for that purpose, there was a risk of charitable organisations being caught up as an unintended consequence of the legislation. I am absolutely delighted that the Government appear to have listened, and have tabled Government amendment 170, which

“excludes contracts for gambling (that are regulated by other legislation) from the new regime for subscription contracts”.

I very much welcome that amendment. On that basis, I will not seek to move amendment 228, which stands in my name and which I pressed to a Division in Committee.

A rather gruesome spectre was raised in the debate earlier—phantasms and fears that will not arise, apparently. That brings me neatly to new clauses 1, 2 and 3, which were tabled by the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg)—a series of amendments that appear to be aimed squarely at a somewhat contested narrative surrounding the personal financial arrangements of somebody currently residing in a very small part of a jungle somewhere in Australia. Their appearance there is set to land them a fee that—if the scale of that bounty is as reported—would surely have every private banking manager the length and breadth of London fighting for their custom. When most of us speak in this Chamber about financial exclusion, usually we are talking about a lack of access to cash or about the ability to access one’s cash without a service charge at an ATM. We are talking about a lack of access to credit or to any kind of bank account, and very much not about those suffering the privations and indignity of having to deal with a bog-standard current account rather than being courted by Coutts.

--- Later in debate ---

Bodies such as the CMA need to be empowered to address this abuse. However, some Tory Back Benchers are today seeking to tie the hands of the CMA by forcing through new clause 31, which would require the CMA to spend more time on compiling economic impact reports than on protecting businesses and consumers. New clause 31 would reduce the CMA from being our strongest statutory enforcement agency to a toothless information-collation and report-writing quango. Surely these reports should be compiled by a body such as the Regulatory Policy Committee, not by the statutory enforcement agency.

[John Penrose]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard my earlier remarks, but let me reassure her that new clause 31 would not reduce the CMA just to that; it would still have all its other powers. In fact, the total number of staff employed by the RPC to do this at the moment is relatively small. I also mentioned that if the Minister were able to come up with alternative ways of delivering a fully independent and therefore much more objective way of doing the RPC’s job—perhaps by strengthening the RPC—I would be delighted to accept that instead.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree. I am sure that would be a much better way. I definitely do not think that the CMA should have to do what the new clause is seeking to do.

I have it on good authority that professional touts now number anywhere from 3,000 and 3,500. In all the time I have been campaigning and speaking on this issue, which is getting on for 15 years, those numbers were in the tens, the fifties and the hundreds. It shocks me to know that we are now trying to deal with this level of professional touts. They are attacking everywhere, from stadium gigs to local venues and, increasingly, football games. They should not be able to tout tickets for football games, but they do. Yet according to Home Office figures, the yearly arrests of football ticket touts have been decreasing, dropping from 107 in 2011-12 to only 28 in the 2019-20 season.

In my opinion, the lone conviction of just two touts nearly four years ago, which we discussed with the Minister in the last debate on this Bill, is not a strong enough deterrent, especially as it relied on outdated legislation such as the Companies Act 2006 and the Fraud Act 2006, rather than the purpose-built Consumer Rights Act 2015, which I was substantially involved in, or the Digital Economy Act 2017.

I appreciate the efforts in the Bill to protect consumers online, and I can see that there are measures in the Bill to be welcomed, but for me, ticket touting and the widespread fraud that comes with it must be properly addressed and regulatory bodies must be fully empowered to tackle these sites. I will leave my remarks there.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

John Penrose Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Well, we have moved on and it is about time the Government moved on—in fact I look forward to the day when the Minister moves on from Government Benches to here on the Opposition Benches. The idea of a review at the dog end of a Parliament and at the end of the regime is absolutely pathetic, and I am glad the Minister is laughing at himself for even presenting the suggestion today.

Let me end with an area of agreement. We were glad that the Government, under pressure, tabled Lords amendment 117 on mergers involving newspaper enterprises and foreign powers along the lines of measures that we and others, including a large number of Conservative MPs and peers, had called for. Of course the UK must remain an open economy; we welcome foreign investment in many sectors in the UK. But we agree that in this limited area, the state ownership of UK newspaper and media companies must be a matter for concern, which is why we support the Lords amendment. We will need to make sure in future years that it is adequate to the situation we find, not least bearing in mind many of the comments made earlier by Members on both sides of the House regarding the rather fluid world we are moving into, where newspapers are a rather outdated concept and social media and other forms of online media are far more significant. We will keep that under review, therefore, but we welcome the amendment the Government have tabled.

This long-delayed Bill could go forward with strong, unanimous support if the Government abandoned their tilt towards the few potentially monopolistic companies and set aside their objections to the Lords amendments. Those objections are either completely otiose or they are dangerous. The Minister says they make no difference, I say they do, but on either grounds they should go, so we support their lordships in their amendments.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

May I start by saying that this was and still is a good Bill? It does an enormous number of very important things and I am glad to see that it has broad acceptance and agreement on both sides of the House, although with some minor points of disagreement. It contains many of the measures that I personally called for in my Government-commissioned review of competition policy called “Power to the people” a little while ago, and it definitely updates and makes some much-needed changes to our competition and consumer laws. However, I share some of the concerns raised today about the Government’s opposition to four of the amendments that have come back from the Lords.

I do not have worries about the Lords amendments themselves because, as we have just heard from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), they mainly seek to restore the effect of clauses that were in the Bill when it originally came to this House. What worries me is that the wrong people are clapping. The changes that the Government have made, in many cases by seeking to resist Lords amendments, seem to many people to be on the side of the big tech firms rather than on the side of consumers, of sharper competition, of more consumer choice and of standing up for the man and woman in the street. I therefore earnestly hope that the Minister will be able to channel his historical zeal for these things in his closing remarks and reassure me, and I am sure others as well, that that is not the Government’s intention and that they remain committed to those things—that the fire still burns brightly in his eyes to make them happen.

I start by saying that the Government have already done some of that work with amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 38—they have replaced the Lansley amendment with a version of their own—dealing with the amount of time that the Secretary of State can take in dealing with guidance put forward by the CMA to make sure it is not unduly delayed. That is extremely welcome and a very good measure, and I enthusiastically support it. However, we have already heard about two other things in particular. One is the role of judicial review in dealing with penalties. I share the concern that in moving away from a judicial review standard for penalties to a full merits review we may get bleed-across—that clever lawyers working for big tech firms may effectively be able to broaden the scope through clever use of legal techniques to prolong their attempts to walk backwards slowly and prevent justice from being done. I therefore devoutly hope that my good friend the Minister will be able to clarify that he expects to be able to show to us—either from the Dispatch Box now, or in guidance or another kind of clarification in due course—that it will not be possible for bleed-across to happen and he will be able to take any steps that may be needed.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to make that commitment. We believe the Bill draws a clear distinction between infringement decisions and penalty decisions. After taking legal advice on this matter and looking at previous competition case law considering similar issues, the Government consider that neither the Competition Appeal Tribunal nor the higher courts will have any trouble making that distinction for digital markets appeals. We have clarified that in the explanatory notes, which I hope provides reassurance that there is little risk of bleed-back from the merits appeal standard for penalty appeals to appeals on other types of decisions.

[John Penrose]

I thank the Minister for that intervention and, emboldened by my success so far in getting him to front up, I move on to my second point, which has similar concerns around it: the issue of countervailing benefits. We have heard from the Opposition spokesman about that, so I will not go through it all again, but it would be enormously helpful if, either now in a further intervention or in his closing remarks, the Minister could be clear about the new wording, which we have already heard about in his speech. I hope he will make it clear—again, either through clarifications now or in guidance—that it is not intended to be in any way a lower standard than what we had before when this Bill first came to the House, and that it is either the same or tougher. I am pausing just briefly to see whether he wants to intervene.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[John Penrose]

He does, which is marvellous.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The revised wording did not change the effects of the clause. Strategic market status firms will still have to prove that there is no other reasonable and practicable way to achieve the same benefits for consumers with less competitive effect.

[John Penrose]

We are making marvellous progress and ending up with changes being confirmed on the Floor of the House in a way I do not think I have seen before, so let us keep going.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I am sure this will be an equally constructive intervention, of course.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Would it not be even more helpful if the Minister were to say he would change the explanatory memorandums as well?

[John Penrose]

I am sure the Minister will grab that opportunity in his closing remarks, if he so wishes. At least he has taken the opportunity to stand up and give us public reassurances on the record about the standard that is intended. It is clear that it is no lower than it originally was, which is an important change.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[John Penrose]

And again.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The shadow Minister and I are having this debate vicariously, but I just note that the wording in the explanatory notes has not changed.

[John Penrose]

I am on a roll here.

The final of the four issues in question is proportionality. We have had the debate already, so I do not propose to repeat the concerns, but it would be helpful if the Minister, either now or in his closing remarks, clarified that the new and amended standard that is to be applied is no lower. I think he said something to that effect earlier to the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), but it would be helpful just to nail that one down and drive the nail home, if the Minister can. It is important for everybody to understand whether that new standard is any lower at all; it should be the same or higher.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated assent.

[John Penrose]

The Minister is nodding, but I do not know whether he intends to intervene again.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated dissent.

[John Penrose]

We will have to preserve our souls in patience for the Minister’s closing remarks. I will declare victory very shortly. It has been a helpful set of interventions, and I thank him for that.

My final point is not related to these Lords amendments, but to a commitment that the Minister made at the Dispatch Box on Report in response to an amendment on better regulation that I had tabled with the support of a great number of parliamentary colleagues. He made a commitment that a set of conclusions, matching a set of standards whose wording he and I had agreed in advance, would be in place before the Bill receives Royal Assent. Clearly we are getting close to that date—I hope very close—and I understand that a Government White Paper may be in the offing, but I am not sure whether that will arrive before Royal Assent. My point is intended not to delay Royal Assent, but to bring forward the White Paper or whatever document the Government may be thinking of.

Based on conversations I have had so far, I am also concerned that not all the commitments the Minister made from the Dispatch Box may be in that White Paper. I therefore urge him to make sure that between now and Royal Assent, he works assiduously with his fellow Ministers to make sure they have got the memo that should gone round after he made those commitments.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Scottish National party Members continue to support this Bill, and we support each of the Lords amendments. Notwithstanding the rather dizzying pinball rattle of interventions that went on between the Minister, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), I will be a bit of a traditionalist stick-in-the-mud and stick to the wording in the amendments and the Bill, no matter what references might be made subsequently to the ghosts of debates past in Hansard.

On Lords amendment 9 and “proportionate” versus “appropriate”, it might seem to people outside this Chamber that we are dancing on a pinhead, but such distinctions matter. It is important that decisions of the Competition and Markets Authority should be allowed to stand wherever they deserve to, but that means not allowing unnecessary wriggle room to creep in for entities with deep pockets to challenge decisions not on the basis of principle, but on the grounds of what those entities consider proportionate. We consider that replacing the word “proportionate” is appropriate in this case, and we support the Lords amendment on that basis.

Lords amendment 13 reinserts the word “indispensable”. As the shadow Minister said, that term is well understood in competition law, but it also happens to be proportionate and appropriate in this case. It is entirely possible to envisage anti-competitive behaviour that can bring about consumer benefit either as a direct or indirect consequence, but we are clear that any benefits that arise should be such that they cannot be done without or forgone and that the test should be set accordingly.

With Lords amendments 26, 28, 31 and 32, we have believed throughout the Bill’s passage that the judicial review level is the appropriate appeals standard, rather than a full merits review. That is why we support those Lords amendments.