Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Richard Thomson and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this issue has come to people’s attention because of Nigel Farage. I will talk about that case in a moment, but what has emerged is that actually, quite a lot of people—and sometimes charities—who have views that banks do not like find that they are not able to get access to a bank account, which nowadays is a fundamentally important thing for people’s carrying on an ordinary daily life.

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There is already a multiplicity of legislation and entitlements—indeed, he appears to reference them in new clause 1—that can be used to tackle such circumstances when they arise, if indeed they do. I find it very encouraging that in drafting new clause 1, the right hon. Gentleman has alighted on the relevant provisions of the European convention on human rights, which provides a very useful earthing point for many of the fundamental rights that we hold dear and, indeed, are a bulwark of a civilised society. Perhaps we will see a similarly stout defence of them in future debates in this Chamber.

I very much welcome new clause 14, which will require companies to comply with requests for information from the Competition and Markets Authority when it comes to the pricing of motor fuel. On 9 November, the CMA published its first monitoring report on the road fuel market, and while 12 of the largest retailers responded to that request, I am given to understand that two did not. From my perspective and, I am sure, the perspective of many others wherever in this Chamber they sit, that is simply not acceptable. I am sure we can all point to large variations in the cost of petrol, diesel and other forms of motor fuel across our constituencies, sometimes in filling stations that are only a few miles apart or even within relatively close proximity. That is certainly a great source of contention for people right across my constituency, so the Government requiring retailers to provide the CMA with that information is an important strengthening of its powers, and one that we welcome.

New clauses 29 and 30, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Pontypridd, seek to tackle subscription traps. I appreciate that the Government have tabled amendment 93, which seeks to tackle these traps by issuing reminders, and that is a welcome step forward. Nevertheless, I am bound to observe that SNP Members, at least, believe that a better balance could be struck by asking consumers whether they wish to opt in to automatic renewals or to variable rate contracts, rather than simply getting reminders about them, which will inevitably end up in the recycling bin or junk mail folder, even for the most attentive of consumers. Having to opt in would be far better and it would protect the consumer’s interest to a far greater extent than simply having the opt-out option emailed or mailed, or conveyed in some other way, in due course. If those new clauses are put to a vote, the SNP will support them in the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). I am also grateful to the Minister for his thorough engagement on these matters. He has been extremely diligent, helpful and, as always, courteous. Let me begin by declaring a sort of semi-interest. I do not think it is technically one that the Standards Commissioner would worry about, but Mr Farage and I both appear on a television programme under the auspices of GB News at about the same time of day—I follow him. I have no financial relationship with Mr Farage; we merely appear on GB News at a similar time of day.

It was Mr Farage who brought to the attention of the public the issue of de-banking. It is a great problem; if someone’s bank suddenly says to them, “We are not providing you with any facilities”, where do they go? It is very hard to go to a new bank. New banks do not want people who have been de-banked. Nigel Farage became in a way the poster boy for this issue, highlighting something that was affecting people up and down the country, affecting charities, and affecting businesses that have been to see me as a constituency MP in the past—people running certain types of business, who found that their banking facilities were withdrawn without any proper answer or explanation. A pawnbroker who came to see me had had his banking facilities taken away. His is a perfectly honest and reputable business, but inevitably it deals with a lot of cash, which makes banks nervous and, when they are nervous, they need to give that customer a proper explanation as to why they are no longer getting that service.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), in an elegant speech, teased me for standing up for Nigel Farage as if debanking was not a common problem. He mentioned that Mr Farage is off in the jungle eating offal and all sorts of other tasty morsels. Yes, that has had the benefit of bringing people’s attention to something that was affecting our constituents across the country. Therefore, I do indeed draw on definitions, but only definitions, from the European convention on human rights—this is not a sudden Damascene conversion to such a document; it is simply that those definitions are in our law and it is useful to base any amendment to a Bill before the House on existing law. That leads me, as always, to thank the Clerks for their mastery of ensuring that amendments are within scope, because getting the new clause into scope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) found with his excellent new clause, which I will come to, was not particularly easy. That is why, in affecting consumers but not businesses, it does not go as far as I would have liked.

This matter is of such fundamental importance. You may think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not all that much in favour of the modern world and that I think it would be nicer if we could go round with the odd groat or perhaps a sovereign to pay our way, but sadly that age of specie has gone—you might even say that the age of specie had become specious, but it is in the past. Everybody now needs modern banking facilities. Cash is not used anything like as much as it was, and every transaction that people carry out needs a piece of plastic, a bank that it comes from and a telephone or some type of technology. When somebody is debanked, it is like the Outlawries Bill on which we only ever have a First Reading: they are effectively made an outlaw in their own land. They are without the normal law of the land and the ability to do ordinary things. That is why new clauses 1 to 4 are really important, and a protection for people.

To return again to Nigel Farage, the idea that someone should be debanked because of legal political opinions is outrageous. The hon. Member for Gordon teases me for mentioning Nigel Farage, but actually a separatist who wants to break up the nation has a political opinion that in other countries would be considered treason. Those in China who say, “Free Tibet—have an independent Tibet,” do not get a lot of quarter. So once we start saying that someone can be debanked for holding Nigel Farage’s views, what about being in favour of Scottish independence? Would that be a view that one bank might not like and might say that members of the SNP—a perfectly legal party—should not be banking with it? It affects every political opinion, and a political opinion may be fashionable today, but tomorrow it may not be. We always have to consider in legislation the protection of free speech against the interests of passing fashion, because we and Opposition Members may be affected by it in a slightly different or changed environment.

[Richard Thomson]

Are we not talking about slightly different things? There was a highly contested narrative around the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman describes, but my understanding is that the gentleman in question was not so much debanked as offered a lesser account and has subsequently found somewhere he can bank satisfactorily.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. Mr Farage was only offered any new bank account with NatWest rather than Coutts when the story became public. Prior to that, he had not been offered any banking facilities, nor had he been able to find another bank that would take him on. So the facts of the matter are that Coutts/NatWest debanked him because of the extraordinary internal set of communications, which have become public and led to the resignation—effectively the firing—of the chief executive of NatWest, partly for gossiping about his banking circumstances, but also for the behaviour that had led to his banking facilities being taken away for his political opinions. That is quite clear from the information that has emerged.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Thomson and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

16. What discussions the Minister of State for Brexit Opportunities has had with (a) industry bodies and (b) the devolved Administrations on the Government’s assessment of the potential benefits of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

Last week, I met port industry representatives to discuss Brexit opportunities, and I intend to meet a wide range of interested parties across different sectors and industries. Ministers and officials from each Department regularly engage with the devolved Administrations on specific policy areas, and I intend to do so in areas of common interest. I am delighted to have had a letter from Angus Robertson asking to have a meeting, which I look forward to doing. We will include in these meetings reviews of retained EU law.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Actually, the Government have a very good record in clamping down on the tax gap and ensuring that people pay the tax that is owed. Fraud, within the whole system of government, is something that must be borne down on. Every element of fraud is taking money from other taxpayers. Therefore, the Government have a strong drive to bear down on it, and have introduced over the past 12 years a number of measures to reduce the opportunities for any tax fraud. We do not need the European Union to tell us how to do it; I could go through some countries of that organisation that have a pretty poor tax collecting record.

[Richard Thomson]

The Government have touted their so-called Brexit freedoms Bill as a means of cutting up to £1 billion-worth of red tape, yet Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that new customs rules resulting from Brexit could lead to increased costs for businesses of up to £15 billion each year. Is it not the case that the only cuts to red tape that have been made since Brexit have been the repeated cutting of red tape lengthways to create many more miles of the stuff than ever existed when we were part of the EU?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman conjures up images of origami; I am waiting to see what creatures he will create with the papers he cuts up. It is fundamentally important not only that we cut red tape that was imposed by the European Union but that we do not, as a country, impose red tape on ourselves. We now have the freedom not to impose red tape on ourselves, which is something that I, in my new role, am keen to ensure.

Business of the House

Debate between Richard Thomson and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might make a pun about hot air and the ability of this House sometimes to produce it. Obviously, there are mixed ways of waste disposal, and producing energy from waste is not a bad thing to do. We need a mixed and diverse energy strategy. However, I am fascinated about the concern that the socialists always have for north London.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Ploughing matches and tractor runs are really important parts of rural life in the north-east of Scotland and far beyond, bringing the community together and allowing for the transfer of skills in the agricultural community. However, they are being put at risk by a rule change introduced by the Treasury from 1 April that will forbid the use of red diesel in vehicles for such purposes. Could we have a debate in Government time to discuss the deleterious impact of that rule change? Farmers, rather than flushing their tanks, may simply not take part, to the detriment of all. Can we have that debate to discuss how we might perhaps flush this unnecessary rule change instead of asking farmers to do the same with their tanks?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In Somerset, they have ploughing matches, which are, as the hon. Gentleman says, things that people enjoy. Actually, a late cousin of mine was exceptionally good at winning those ploughing competitions, so I have a great deal of sympathy with what he is saying. Of course, taxation is a matter for the Chancellor, but I will ensure that his point is passed on to the Treasury.

Business of the House

Debate between Richard Thomson and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I think everyone can see the rank hypocrisy in the UK Government, who seek to deny a future referendum on Scottish independence, simultaneously and unlawfully misdirecting money towards carrying out opinion polling on Scottish attitudes to the Union that was intended to go to the public health efforts against covid. Why, if now is not the time, was that polling activity undertaken? Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to prevail upon his colleagues to place the outcomes and findings of that research in the Library, so that the public might better understand exactly what it was that they got for their money?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When important communications have to be sent to the country at large around something such as covid, it is important to understand how people feel and how they will respond to the messages. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of Governments listening. I recall that the Shetland Islands last September asked whether it could look at ways of having more independence, possibly including becoming a Crown dependency. As Lord President of the Council, I am particularly interested in that question of its becoming a Crown dependency, because that activity would then come through the Privy Council. Of course, the Shetland Islands would be one of the richest sets of islands almost anywhere in the world if it were able to have the oil revenues that would accrue to it. I wonder what the Scottish Government are doing in response to the Shetland Islands. They are so keen always to have votes and so on; perhaps they will have a vote on independence for Shetland.

Business of the House

Debate between Richard Thomson and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The planning system has failed people. It has not always given them the houses that they want. Surveys have always indicated that people want houses, ideally with gardens—although that may be difficult in my hon. Friend’s constituency—and then clever people have thought that they should be given tower blocks, which they have never wanted; this is shown in surveys going back to the 1940s. I have always thought that we should look at where and in what sort of houses the architects and the politicians live. By and large, that is what we should then provide for our constituents and we should have a planning system that does that.

I am glad to say that the Government are bringing forward ambitious planning reforms that will deliver for the British people, and reinvigorate the home owning democracy of which we used to be so proud and in which home ownership has declined in recent years. This is a fundamentally Conservative thing to be doing: allowing people to achieve their lifetime’s ambition of owning their own home and doing so earlier in their life, rather than later in life. What we were able to do before we were 35, people are now no longer able to do so easily. We must ensure that that is able to happen again, and that will be done through the planning reform Bill.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House may be aware of a report published today by the Social Mobility Commission into the composition of the civil service. The report found that, among top Whitehall civil servants, some 59% attended private schools, compared with 7% in the general population, and that there is a culture in the civil service that seems to favour polish over performance, creating a class ceiling that prevents people from poorer backgrounds from achieving the top jobs. Would the Leader of the House be good enough to arrange for a debate in Government time to allow Members to discuss the findings of this report, and how we might begin to ensure that ability and potential future contribution—rather than the privileges of background—become the key determinants of success and allow the civil service to become a beacon of inclusivity that sets an example to other employers elsewhere in the country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I actually think that the civil service is a model of good employment practice. Since the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms in the middle of the 19th century, it has been merit based, and that is absolutely how it should be. People get on in the civil service if they are good at their job and perform it well. Our civil service does a remarkable job, and in some cases—looking towards the Box, if I may—an outstanding job, of serving the people of this country. In my own office as Leader of the House—a small office—we have an apprentice, and we had an apprentice before who has been promoted and is succeeding considerably within the civil service. That is a good way of improving accessibility to jobs within the civil service to a broader range. I have not read the report, although I have heard of it and heard some of the headlines about it. It seemed to be concerned that people in the civil service remained calm in a crisis. It seems to me that it is essential to remain calm in a crisis; that is exactly the sort of thing we need from our civil servants.

Business of the House

Debate between Richard Thomson and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday? I hope that once he has finished Zooming, he will have an appropriate celebration, possibly leading the way as the public houses reopen outside. I agree with his point: Parliament needs to lead the way, and we need to get back to normal as soon as it is prudent and sensible to do so. I congratulate him on his efforts to hold the Government to account and to carry out scrutiny, and I am glad that he has been doing it, even if Her Majesty’s Opposition feel that they have not been able to scrutinise the Government, but we want to get back to a proper Chamber as soon as possible.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I have noticed that whenever my colleagues from the SNP have a question for the Prime Minister, regardless of the subject matter, the response always seems to revert at some stage to a tedious and tendentious diatribe against the supposed shortcomings of the Scottish Government. It is quite clear that the Government are keen to unburden themselves in some regards with respect to the Scottish Government’s record. Would the Leader of the House be good enough to make time next week for a general debate in the House on Scottish affairs, in order that Members can explore some of the reasons why voters in Scotland seem to be on course to re-elect the SNP Government and sack the Conservative Opposition?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As it seems that the SNP has been doing its best to make the Borgias look respectable in recent weeks, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would wish to have such a debate, but it would be an opportunity to point out how the SNP Government are failing Scotland in terms of its education and its policing. The SNP Government recently stated that they would have done just as well with the vaccine roll-out by themselves, when under a year ago, the SNP spokesman was asking why they had not joined the European scheme and whether it was a great failure not to have joined it. So a debate on the failings of the SNP, its lack of success and its lack of drive in its position in charge of the Government of Scotland would be one that would have many speakers and there would be a great deal to say. However, over the next few days we have to deal with ping-pong with the House of Lords, so I regret to say that there will not be time for that pleasurable discussion.

Business of the House

Debate between Richard Thomson and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Online harms continue to be a priority of the Government, and we are firmly committed to making the UK the safest place to be online. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office are working to introduce legislation next year. We will also be publishing our full response to the online harms White Paper consultation. My hon. Friend will have further opportunity to raise this issue again during the Backbench Business debate on the regulation and prevention of online harms, and I am sure there will be other opportunities in due course.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the National Audit Office report on government procurement during the pandemic, which, although acknowledging the exceptional circumstances that did apply, identified many problems with the processes that had been undertaken and highlighted the need to maintain public trust in the process. I accept that there are regular general debates on covid-19 in the Chamber, but this report surely merits a more detailed exploration by Members. Will he therefore make time, in early course, to allow a full debate in this Chamber on that report and its content?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I refer to what I said earlier: there has been an extraordinary success in procurement, which had to be done quickly and everybody wanted it done quickly. For example, the vaccine taskforce has secured agreements for 350 million doses of seven leading vaccines; 300,000 people have signed up to the vaccine registry to accelerate this development; and, through Test and Trace, nearly 36 million tests have been completed and we have the capacity to test half a million a day. I believe that 80% of contracts over £120,000 have been published so far, so that there is transparency. There is always a choice; everyone knows that if they have a leak at 2 o’clock in the morning and call the plumber out, it costs more than if they book the plumber to come in three months’ time. We were in the situation of having a leak at 2 in the morning, so it was inevitably expensive.

Business of the House

Debate between Richard Thomson and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We will inevitably discuss these issues. My hon. Friend is championing his constituency interest in the way he always does—in a noble way—for which he deserves great credit. Obviously, businesses are opening up at a different pace and it is a question about spreading the risk to ensure that more and more businesses can open safely, but Her Majesty’s Government are keen that all businesses should be able to open safely.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Does the Leader of the House share my disappointment that, nearly 24 hours on from yesterday’s summer economic update, the Scottish Government have yet to have the full extent of the Barnett consequentials of that announcement confirmed? It is not an uncommon situation for the Scottish Government to have to wait several days for that detail to feed through, which makes the UK Government look rather incompetent and discourteous. As somebody who clearly takes great care to be neither of those things, will the Leader of the House be good enough to arrange for a relevant Minister to come to the House to make a statement on behalf of the Treasury to explain why these problems appear to be a built-in feature of the Treasury’s approach to such matters, rather than just an occasional glitch in the system?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad to say that the Barnett consequentials so far are £4.6 billion, so there is a substantial amount of money, thanks to the strength of the United Kingdom, going to the Scottish Government. The Barnett consequentials relate to a well-established formula. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Joel Barnett, a very distinguished Labour figure, established the formula, I think in the prime ministership of Harold Wilson—it was either Harold Wilson or Jim Callaghan—and it has been the way in which money has been distributed ever since. That money flows, and that is the important thing.