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.