Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the Minister for his intervention. Indeed, I would be quite happy to see what comes back from that consultation, because there are areas of real concern. If we can find consensus on how those matters can best be tackled—we might not be able to please everybody, but we can address them as best we can—that would be a welcome step forward.

In closing, the Bill is important for growth and competition, but also for consumer protection. The exchange that we collectively had just now on those matters was encouraging, and I would certainly like that spirit to continue in Committee. I do not think I have ever managed to successfully get something passed in Committee; I look forward to that changing.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Good luck!

[Richard Thomson]

I hear the hon. Member for Pontypridd say “Good luck”, but we will see how it goes. The Bill certainly does much that it needs to, but there are quite a few things that it misses; let us see what we can make it hit over the period ahead. As the Bill progresses, I look forward to working with others where it is possible to do so, in order to do precisely that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

As ever, it is an honour to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank colleagues from all parts of the House for their contributions in what has been a genuinely interesting and insightful debate. I thank in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but also the hon. Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for their contributions. The strength of cross-party feeling in the House today shows that there is a lot we can do together to enhance the Bill, to make it work and to make it effective, and I look forward to pressing further in Committee many of the issues that have been raised this afternoon, with cross-party support from all Members.

We all know that there is a need for change and that regulation of the digital market is vitally needed. That is why Labour supports and welcomes this Bill in principle, delayed though it may be. Since the intentions of this Bill were first mooted in the Queen’s Speech back in May 2022, we have seen the digital world continue to change, to grow and to expand at an incredible rate. We have seen sustained growth in AI technology hitting the mainstream, and tech continues to be a central feature of our homes, workplaces and social lives. At the same time, stories depicting the dominance of social media and online platforms continue to hit headlines on what feels like a daily, if not weekly basis. This Government have failed to keep up, let alone rise and face the challenges of competition in digital markets, and consumers and businesses are left in a state of flux.

Just last year, Google was hit by the largest-ever fine by a European court for thwarting competition and pre-installing its Chrome search engine and apps on handsets as a condition for carrying its Google Play app store. The penalty was colossal, amounting to over €4 billion—the largest ever fine for an antitrust violation.

This failure to encourage more competition in our online space is having a significant impact on both businesses and in terms of stifled opportunities for innovation and consumers, who are now paying the price of online scams and fraud becoming a persistent risk. The cost of this Government’s inaction is significant. That is why Labour broadly welcomes this Bill and will support its progression. If pro-competition legislation is done correctly, the Bill could change the online space for the better, but it is crucial that we first dismantle our understanding of exactly what the digital market even is.

As we have heard this afternoon, businesses operating in digital markets range from social media platforms, such as Meta and Twitter; marketplaces, such as eBay, Tripadvisor and Amazon; and tech-driven companies, such as Google and Apple. We can all agree that we are living through a digital and tech revolution, and the digital economy is transforming how we live our lives. In fact, I am confident in saying that all of us in this place regularly interact with these companies on a daily, if not hourly, basis—it is almost impossible not to. While their business models and innovations change at pace, it is vital that our legislation keeps up too.

Make no mistake: Labour recognises that our lives are clearly enhanced in many ways through digital developments. For one, consumers can seemingly make more informed decisions with greater access to information, and businesses can easily reach mass markets at lower cost. But we are also clear that competition is vital to ensuring that companies continue to innovate, and that markets do not become saturated by monopolies. Ultimately, we all want to ensure that consumers can access legitimate information about, and fair prices for, the goods they buy online.

Businesses operating in digital markets contribute a significant amount to the UK economy each year. They are market leaders, and have more often than not been at the heart of historic innovation and modernisation. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment suggested that the UK’s digital sector accounted for more than 1.8 million jobs in 2021 and contributed over £150 billion to the UK economy in 2019. We also know that online platforms typically seek to attract consumers by offering their core services—whether a Google search or a profile on a social media platform—for free. Once they have attracted a significant number of users, or consumers, these businesses then seek to make money from users on another side of the platform, commonly through advertising revenues. It is here that the significant dominance and subsequent need to regulate these digital markets is most obvious.

The CMA’s own research into online platforms and digital advertising from 2020 found that around £14 billion is spent on digital advertising each year in the UK. In the search advertising market, which encompasses search services such as Google and Microsoft’s Bing, Google enjoys more than 90% of the £7.3 billion UK market. It is a similar picture across the display advertising market, where Facebook has more than 50% of the £5.5 billion market. Those incredibly high figures present a clear picture when it comes to the significant market dominance that a few companies have and maintain in the digital space, yet these are relatively unsurprising truths.

I see from my own behaviour, and from talking with colleagues and constituents, that all of us are spending more and more time online and that includes our shopping habits, such as buying tickets. I pay tribute here to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West for all the work on fair ticketing that her all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse has done. I look forward to pressing the Government further on some of her points, because there is a definite need to act in this space.

The Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), will know that I have a lot to say when it comes to the Government’s failures to keep us all safe online, but perhaps I will keep those comments for another day when the Online Safety Bill finally returns to this House. Unfortunately for him, much of Labour’s frustration with this digital markets Bill are similar to those that we have with this Government’s approach to regulating the online space more widely. Change and regulation of digital markets is much needed, because the current model, which sees tech giants able to dominate across multiple fields, is entirely unsustainable. I urge the Minister to consider what message this Government are sending to start-ups that are struggling to break through in the market. In fact, I do not need him to consider it, because I can tell him directly now.

As I have grappled with this overly complex Bill over the past few weeks and months, I have, like the Minister, met with a huge range of stakeholders. A common theme is that many of the small and medium-sized enterprises that currently have no option other than to rely on the market opportunities afforded to them by the likes of Amazon and Google fear negative consequences if they are seen to be speaking out against them. That is an incredibly unique situation, but ultimately it points to the real dominance that certain companies have over a huge range of sectors. From Amazon’s power in the book, e-book and audiobook market, to Apple’s stronghold on gaming and app development, we certainly do not have to look far to see examples of exactly how dominant a few of the big giants truly are.

In 2021, the CMA found that Apple and Google were able to earn more than £4 billion of profits that year from their mobile businesses in the UK over and above what was required to sufficiently reward investors with a fair return. That is an incredible figure and—make no mistake—it is only going to get worse as these companies seek to dominate new industries well into the future. That is why Labour welcomes this Bill, and it is good and right that it is making progress today.

However, we do have significant concerns that the legislation could be watered down later on, as has been expressed by hon. Members on all sides of this House. First, we know the dominance that big companies have in our markets and economy, but their dominance absolutely should not extend to writing our legislation. As with so many other policies announced by this Government in recent years, I have genuine concerns that this Bill will be watered down during its passage, and that small businesses and consumers will continue to pay the price because the Government are simply too scared to do the right thing.

I share the concerns of Members on both sides of the House—namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West and the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden—about parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the regulatory body. It is absolutely vital that the CMA has a direction from this Parliament of what policies should be in its primary focus, and I am keen to explore that further in Committee. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurance on this particular point, because I know it is a concern that, as I have said, is shared by many Members.

Secondly, I am also keen to seek some reassurance from the Minister that the Digital Markets Unit will be empowered to draw on the work that has been done in the past few years, so that once this Bill is finally on the statute book, it can hit the ground running. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), stated, the Government first established a digital competition expert panel tasked with examining competition in digital markets way back in 2018, which is over five years ago. None of us wants to see any more time wasted, so I hope the Minister can assure us all that he will work hard to enable this regime to get going from day one.

Thirdly, there is some ambiguity in this Bill about how effective the appeals process is in its current form and whether it will actually force change at the heart of big tech companies. I am keen to hear why he has chosen not to place a statutory time limit on the appeals process. We know that the big tech companies are often able to buy time for themselves, so I am interested to hear why the Bill has failed to introduce a formal time constraint to ensure total compliance by those at the heart of Silicon valley.

Lastly, thanks to the Government’s delay in bringing forward this Bill, the sector is unlikely to see any real change for some time to come. Even once this is over the line having reached Royal Assent, the regime will likely take another 12 months, as a minimum, to truly start having an impact. This cannot be news to the Minister. Given how much time has passed and how much this Government have previously pandered to top bosses in Silicon valley, he must do more research and do more to reassure us that this Bill really will have the teeth to change and dismantle the digital monopolies. We recognise that this is difficult—it is a difficult balance—but a pro-competition regime is urgently needed, and that need not be mutually exclusive of an appreciation and understanding of the huge contributions that platforms such as Google and Amazon have had in our daily lives.

To conclude, as with issues related to online harm and data regulation, it is a shame it has taken so long for the Government to act on yet another issue that we all knew of many years ago. This Bill is needed, but we need to make sure that it looks to the future and is sufficiently well future-proofed and flexible to deal with the incredibly fast-paced industry that it seeks to look at. I look forward to working with colleagues to address some of these serious shortcomings in Committee, and I look forward to working with Ministers as the Bill progresses.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (First sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Scully]

Q So you believe this is the right balance between being robust enough for those with strategic market status and being speedy enough for remediation for challenger tech.

Sarah Cardell: Absolutely.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. We have talked a lot this morning about accountability to Parliament. That was highlighted quite heavily on Second Reading by Members from across the House. One of the other things that we have already discussed is the need for the CMA’s strategic priorities to be directed and advised by Parliament. Could you expand on your thoughts on that point? Also, where do you see the priorities for the Digital Markets Bill? That is not intended to be a loaded question.

Sarah Cardell: I will give a high-level response, and Will might come in on some of the specific priorities for the DMU. It is really important to highlight the difference between accountability and independence. The CMA is independent when we take our individual decisions, but, as you say, it is absolutely accountable for those decisions, both to Parliament and to the courts. That is accountability for the choices that we make about where we set our priorities, accountability for the decisions that we take when we are exercising our functions, and accountability for the way that we go about doing that work. I think it is important to have accountability across all three areas.

On the strategic priorities, since I came into the role as chief executive and our new chair, Marcus Bokkerink, came into post, we have put a lot of focus on really setting out very clearly what our strategic priorities are, looking at impact and beneficial outcomes for people, businesses and the economy as a whole. We see those as a trio of objectives that are fundamentally reinforcing, rather than in tension with one another.

We also take account of the Government’s strategic steer. That is in draft at the moment. You can see that there is a lot of commonality between our own strategic priorities that we set out in our annual plan and in the Government’s strategic steer. That sets a very clear framework for our prioritisation.

Will might want to come in on how we will set the priorities for the DMU.

Will Hayter: We are obviously thinking very carefully about where to prioritise action under the strategic market status regime. We cannot jump too far ahead with that, because Parliament is going through this process now and we have to see where the Bill comes out, but, as Sarah says, we will be targeting our effort very firmly at those areas where the biggest problems and the biggest current harmful impacts on people, businesses and the economy are likely to be.

You can get a bit of a sense of what those areas might be from the areas we have looked at already, particularly the digital advertising market, search, social media, interactions between the platforms and news publishers, and also mobile ecosystems. We did a big study there, where we see a range of problems stemming from the market power of the two big operating systems.

We will continue to update our thinking as we go through the next year-plus, building on our horizon-scanning work and understanding of how developments in the markets are shaping up and what that might mean for where the problems are.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Q First, thank you for the work that you do. You are obviously an independent body and you make difficult decisions. You receive more scrutiny than we have ever seen before, with the CMA’s higher profile, and at times that must put you under quite a lot of strain. I appreciate the work that you do. You make the decisions as you see fit, of course, but those often come with criticisms, so thank you.

My question is about innovation. If you speak to some of those who are likely to be designated SMS—strategic market status—businesses, many of them might say, “Well, this will inhibit innovation from our businesses.” I think part of that is about the power to look ahead at where this may take us. What do you say to that? If one of those platforms was opening a new type of supermarket, for example, it might be claimed that this would limit innovation. How would you respond to that?

Sarah Cardell: I have a couple of points, and Will might come in. The general point is that this regime is very much pro-competition and pro-innovation, both from the major platforms, which are likely to be designated in relation to some of their activities, and across the economy. It is important that we encourage innovation that supports competing businesses, large and small. You can have innovation that supports an incumbent by allowing that incumbent to offer additional services, but sometimes at the cost of entrenching their market position. We want to ensure that we have an environment that enables those major players to continue to innovate, sparked and incentivised by the competitive pressure that they are facing, but equally allows smaller competitors to thrive and innovate too. That is the broad point.

As we have said, it is a very targeted and bespoke regime. We will be focusing only on areas where there is substantial and entrenched market power already. Therefore, the principal point is that businesses, large and small, will continue to be free to innovate and to develop their products and services. Of course we want to ensure that that happens in a way that does not reinforce positions of market power. Will, you might want to come in on that.

Will Hayter: As Sarah says, this is all about creating a fertile environment for innovation, and you can think about that at at least three levels. First, it might be that those companies are innovating on top of the platforms that we are talking about here—in mobile ecosystems, through app stores, mobile browsers, and so on. Secondly, there are companies that are seeking to compete directly against some of the big platforms, and we want to ensure that there is a possibility that the current incumbents will be knocked off their perch by tomorrow’s innovators. Finally, increasing competition should increase the pressure on the incumbents—the most powerful firms—to innovate further themselves, in a way that delivers the greatest benefits for people, businesses and the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Is the intervention not actually the exact opposite of what you are suggesting, in that, if you have a stricter requirement within the regulations, people find ways to get round that strict interpretation, but if you have an outcomes-focused statement as is currently in the Bill, the onus is on the companies to demonstrate compliance, and the CMA, with the fining power of 10% of global turnover, has the stick with which to enforce it?

Matthew Upton: I disagree, because I think the simplicity of simply saying, “You opt out at the end of a period” gives clarity. I think it is easier for firms to interpret. In reality, under the current set-up, I do not think you will see a lot of firms thinking in a positive way about how to interpret it. I think they will think about how they can push as far as possible.

Customer journey design is so complex—this is the challenge of emerging digital markets. It is not a case of being able to say, “You have two click-through screens versus three,” so that constitutes easy or hard. There are incredibly subtle ways to make it difficult. I think a lot of firms would continue to put their efforts into thinking about how they can stay as close as possible to the law to avoid CMA sanctions, while effectively still making it psychologically and in reality difficult for consumers. An opt-out would just simplify it, and would take that thought process off the table for firms.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q You mentioned schedule 18 already and some of the missed opportunities that you see there. Some things that have been highlighted are drip pricing and misleading green advertising. Can I push you a bit further on the missed opportunities in schedule 18?

Rocio Concha: In what respect? On why we want them there?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Yes. What you would like to be in there.

Rocio Concha: As I said, we would like to see fake reviews and drip pricing included, because there is clear evidence on them. There is also this issue of greenwashing. That should also be considered to be put in schedule 18 —we feel that we know enough to include it there. We have not done as much work in that area as we have on drip pricing and fake reviews, but we would be very supportive of including it in schedule 18.

Why do we want these areas in the Bill, versus them being included later under the Secretary of State’s powers? If they are not in the Bill, they will not be criminal offences, and they should be, because that will be a more credible deterrent for stopping these practices.

[Vicky Ford]

Q When the CMA was answering Dean Russell’s question about how consumers will feel the benefits, one of the things it pointed to was its greater powers to fine companies that are misbehaving. Do you not think that the threat of fines on companies will have a trickle-down benefit to the consumers, and that it will mean that companies will think harder about not acting in ways that are to the detriment of consumers?

Rocio Concha: Absolutely. That is one of the powers of that power. Basically, companies will know that they will not be able to drag the system for years, as happened with Viagogo and some anti-virus subscriptions. They will know that the CMA will be able to act directly. Hopefully, that will make businesses that do not want to comply with the law think twice.

Matthew Upton: I really agree. I cannot share a specific example, but we have had a lot of conversations with regulators and competition authorities after we have uncovered bad practice. We have said, “Listen—go after them.” We were met with a frustrated shrug of the shoulders—“There’s no point because they will run rings around us for a huge amount of time and we will end up with nothing. We have to use our powers where we can more clearly have impact.” As you say, that should now end. In a sense, we are more positive about the disincentive for poor behaviour than the fines themselves.

Rocio Concha: There is an opportunity in the Bill to make that deterrent even stronger. At the moment, in part 1 of the Bill there is the opportunity for private redress, which will allow businesses or consumers to apply to the court for compensation from companies that have breached the conduct requirements in part 1. It is very unlikely that consumers like each of us or a small business will use that power in the courts. But if we allowed collective redress—the co-ordination of consumers and businesses to get redress—that would be for those companies a credible additional deterrent against breaking the law. That is in part 1, in relation to competition.

There is also the opportunity to include a provision within the breaches of consumer law. At the moment, collective redress is allowed for breaches of competition law, but not for breaches of consumer law.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Second sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Q30 Good afternoon professors and thank you for joining us today. We have had a lot of chatter about whether the Bill will help or hinder the growth of innovation in the UK’s digital market. What are your opinions about that and do you feel that the Bill goes far enough?

Professor Marsden: In the branch of legislation being considered internationally in this area, this is the only Bill with a pro-innovation approach written into it. That was our original intention in the Furman review—not to sacrifice any innovation by large tech platforms, but simply to unlock the opportunities for innovation from smaller, more diverse firms so that there were more ideas and more flow. I do not see any correct arguments at all that this will hinder innovation; if anything, it will do the opposite.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Professor Fletcher?

Professor Fletcher: I fully endorse that. When we did the review, we spoke to a lot of firms that were seeking to innovate in the digital space but were struggling. We heard that they really needed access to a whole number of things such as data. They needed access to customers and to be interoperable with systems out there. They needed access to finance. They found, essentially—some of them, at least—that the way in which the biggest platforms were working was making all that very difficult. They were concerned that although there had been a huge amount of innovation, at that point—and still, I think—firms’ ability to innovate was being gradually increasingly stymied by the conduct of the biggest tech platforms. We very much saw the Bill as a pro-innovation piece of regulation.

Professor Furman: This question is so fundamental. This legislation would have benefits for consumers in terms of price and choice, but far and away the most important benefit would be innovation. It was designed with that in mind; our recommendations, which the legislation took on, established firms with strategic market status. They would fall under these rules, which would give a lot of leeway to small and medium-sized UK businesses to really innovate and come up with their own models rather than being constrained. More competition would help innovation by the large platforms as well.

The other thing that is so important is that the speed in the digital sector is just so much faster than in other parts of the economy, so traditional anti-trust rules just take too long: by the time a case is settled or decided, everyone has moved on. Getting there at the front end and having something that is much more flexible and faster is critical in this sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Q Thank you very much for your answers. Amazon has recently said the complete opposite of what you are saying. It has said that the Bill will stop it from innovating. It has started these new stores where you can go and shop and there are no staff—people just go in, take the stuff off the shelf and walk out. Amazon says that this Bill would have stopped it from taking forward that kind of innovation. What particular areas in the Bill is Amazon referring to? Do you recognise those as valid concerns?

Professor Fletcher: Amazon would have to be more precise about what it thought in the Bill would stop that. I think the Bill has trod a very careful, innovation- focused line between stopping the biggest tech platforms from inhibiting innovation by third parties and facilitating them to innovate themselves. The Bill is designed to only address the very biggest platforms in the first place, but also only to address the elements of their business where they have very strong market positions and entrenched market power. I think that way is the right way. As far as I know, Amazon would not be inhibited by the Bill from setting up those stores.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Geoffrey Myers, visiting professor in practice at the London School of Economics and Political Science. For the record, Professor, could you introduce yourself?

Professor Myers: In addition to my role at the London School of Economics, I had a prior 30-year career working for public authorities, competition authorities and regulators, particularly Ofcom, so I have hands-on experience of being a regulator. For full disclosure, I should say that I am one of the independent digital experts whom the CMA has appointed to assist it in preparing to take on the duties should this Bill become law. But I am representing my own point of view, not the CMA’s.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q This is a question that we have been asking a lot of the witnesses today, but it is important to get your views on the record. Could you please outline whether you think the Bill will help or hinder innovation growth in the UK digital sector? Do you think the Bill goes far enough, or are there any omissions from the Bill that you would like to see included?

Professor Myers: I think on balance it will help improve innovation, and I largely agree with the comments made by the witnesses in the first session this afternoon, Professors Fletcher, Marsden and Furman. We need to think about innovation by big tech companies, which are the targets of the regulation here. They are likely to become the firms with strategic market status and to become regulated companies, but there is also innovation by their customers, by their competitors and by new starters.

On the innovation incentives and the ease of innovation, I think the playing field has been tilted a bit too far towards big tech and against the other set of players, so making it easier for that other set of players to innovate is very valuable. One of the tasks in implementing this regime, which I think is about the CMA doing its job well, is taking seriously potential concerns about deterring innovation from the SMS firms and making sure that the potential risks are minimised. I think that goes beyond what is on the face of the Bill and is really a task for implementation by the CMA.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q On omissions, do you think the Bill could go further?

Professor Myers: I think it strikes a sensible balance. As you have already heard, there are great advantages in having flexibility and future-proofing because of that flexibility. That implies a structure—a framework—that is laid out in this legislation, which will put quite a bit of onus on regulatory discretion to implement it, and then there are sets of regulatory capabilities and accountability that are needed to make that all work. But I think the Bill is a very good attempt at striking a good balance there.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Comparing this Bill with other legislation that we are seeing—in the EU, for example—do you see it as positioning the UK as a world leader, which is the phrase the Government like to use, in this area?

Professor Myers: I think it does, because it heightens those points about flexibility and future-proofing. There is always a trade-off, so it is not that one system is uniquely better than another in every respect. The Digital Markets Act is more prescriptive and lays down specific dos and don’ts, whereas this approach—the UK approach, which I very much favour—does not. It sets the framework and objectives, and then it is for the CMA to develop specific regulations, both on conduct requirements and on pro-competitor interventions, in a way that is more tailored to the individual circumstances. I think that aspect is highly valuable.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Finally, the other thing we have heard a lot around this Bill is the length of time it has taken us to get to this place. We had the digital competition expert panel set up in 2018, and the Bill’s impact assessment now suggests that the provisions in the Bill will not be fully operational until 2025 at the earliest. Can our digital economy wait that long?

Professor Myers: I do not think I have seen that full timeline to 2025, but I guess what I would say in that respect is that, yes, this legislation has taken a while to come to fruition. At one point the UK looked like it was going to legislate before the European Union, but the CMA has done a lot of preparatory work, and I am sure that it recognises that it needs to hit the ground running as soon as this legislation is passed. It is doing market studies and other work now. It is a well-resourced regulator in this area. The digital markets unit is up and running and doing active work, and obviously my digital expert role is trying to assist them in that work. There will undoubtedly be a time for implementation, but the CMA is well aware of the need to get on with it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q You may have heard my question earlier. Some of the firms that are likely to be designated as SMS might argue that this Bill will prevent them from innovating. Do you see any chance of that? Are there any areas within the Bill that make it likely that innovation will be inhibited?

Professor Myers: I do not think it is that likely. It would be interesting to hear specific examples. As for the one that was commented on earlier, I did not quite see why this Bill would prevent that, as Professor Fletcher outlined. It may be that I have not heard the full set of reasons as to why it might prevent Amazon’s innovation in the very different area of retail outlets. The reason, which again goes back to the targeted and tailored approach in the UK, is that when the CMA designates specific digital activities where there is substantial entrenched market power and indeed a position of strategic significance, that is not going to include peripheral areas. It is going to be focused on what some people call the core areas of market power of the large tech companies, because that is where the market power concerns are largest. There is significant freedom outside that.

There are concerns about leveraging market power in the core markets into other markets, and it is appropriate for there to be an ability to address that through things like conduct requirements. However, you cannot introduce a new regulatory regime without some risk around how the incumbents—the regulated companies—are going to respond. Obviously you are looking for good responses, but it is almost impossible to avoid some undesirable effects. The way this Bill is set up, however, looks to minimise those adverse effects.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will hear now from Max von Thun, Europe director of Open Markets. Max, would you introduce yourself for the record?

Max von Thun: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence on this important piece of legislation. I am Max von Thun, the Europe director at the Open Markets Institute, which is a competition policy think- tank. We focus on the risks that arise from corporate concentration, and advocate for policies to tackle that. Prior to working at the Open Markets Institute, I spent several years in the private sector advising on competition and tech policy, and also here in Parliament advising MPs on economic policy. I have been following the UK digital competition debate for quite some time now.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q How important is it that this legislation is not watered down, as the Government’s approach to the Online Safety Bill has been as that passes through the House?

Max von Thun: That is very important. We think the legislation as it currently stands is very strong. It very much represents the approach that has been recommended initially by the Furman review and then by the Digital Markets Taskforce, and will go a long way towards promoting competition in digital markets. There are a couple of areas where we have seen some campaigning—particularly from some of the larger platforms—including on the review standard, which a lot of people have talked about today.

There are a couple of other areas of the legislation that, although not necessarily designed to be loopholes, could have that effect. Other speakers have talked about the countervailing benefits exemption. You might want to see some changes to prevent that from being abused or from stymieing the enforcement of the new system. Similarly, I point to the five-year criteria that the CMA will need to use to establish whether a platform has entrenched market power. Although it makes sense to base market power not just on a platform’s dominance in any one year, at the same time making it forward-looking with such a long timeframe will give platforms opportunities to put forward arguments as to why they should not be designated as SMS. For example, they might point to new technologies like generative AI and say, “We look dominant now, but there’s all this disruption coming down the future, so you shouldn’t designate us.” That is another area you will want to make sure is fit for purpose. Overall, it is a strong Bill and the priority should be getting it through as quickly as possible.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q On the matter of getting it through as quickly as possible, we spoke to previous witnesses regarding the time that this will take to implement—2025 was mooted. It would be helpful to the Committee if you could outline some specific cases and instances of competition in digital markets that have been threatened up to this point, and any specific cases of detriment to the smaller market actors or to consumers.

Max von Thun: Sure. I mainly refer to some examples given by previous witnesses. I am thinking, for example, about issues we have seen with data in the digital economy, where dominant platforms such as marketplaces collect data on the sellers using their platforms and use that to compete against them or produce products that compete against them. The flipside of the coin is restricting data—sometimes generated by the users of the platform —by not allowing those users to use it to improve their business operations. Self-preferencing is another problem. That can be everything from a large dominant firm pre-installing its own app on its operating system and making it hard for competing providers to get their app on to the system. You see interoperability restrictions—for example, where it can be hard for a third party or a competing platform to have access to the fundamental software or hardware it needs to produce a good product.

With those sorts of practices, which we have seen over the past decade or so, there have been lots of competition investigations, particularly in Brussels, to try to solve them, but we have not really seen much success or the introduction of much competition in the market. With the conduct requirements and especially the pro-competition interventions, hopefully the Bill will be able to address that and help smaller players to really compete in the market.

[Vicky Ford]

Q I did some market research with my 23-year-old son, who is much more of a digital consumer than I am, especially when it comes to online games. I want to ask you about where the dividing line is with in-game purchases. I, being very pro-market, would say that anybody should be able to sell these products once you are in the game, but my son was saying, “But wouldn’t that put off the person who invested all the money in inventing that game in the first place and is getting some of his money back because of my in-game purchase? It’s up to me whether or not I make that purchase.” Where is the line, Max?

Max von Thun: Obviously if someone has produced a particular product or service that you can buy in a game, they should be entitled to profit from it. The main issue that we have seen with purchases from app stores, which are increasingly what people use to access these games through their phone, is that a small number of companies—basically Apple and Google—are using their control of the app stores to take a very big cut. They take up to 30%, which is not what you would be seeing in a competitive market. Sure, it is fair that they get a share of the proceeds, because they are putting in the time to maintain these app stores, but 30% seems quite steep.

Another issue is that it is hard for alternative payment providers to offer their services on these systems, because you will be forced to use Apple or Google’s payment solution, for example. That also makes it easier to charge high commission rates. I think it is about allowing the large platforms to play their role, but making sure that they are not using that power to exclude people.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q Thank you all. Before we suspend the sitting for a vote, it is important to get you to introduce yourselves. We will start and see how much progress we make. Next we have Owen Meredith, the CEO of the News Media Association; Peter Wright, the editor emeritus of DMG Media; and Dan Conway, CEO of the Publishers Association. Will you introduce yourselves for the record?

Owen Meredith: Hi. I am Owen Meredith, chief executive of the News Media Association. We represent companies across local, regional and national news media in about 900 brands across the UK.

Peter Wright: I am Peter Wright. I am editor emeritus of DMG Media. We are a major British and international news publisher.

Dan Conway: Hello, everyone. I am Dan Conway. I am chief executive of the Publishers Association. We represent publishers of books, journals and educational materials of all shapes and sizes in the UK.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you all for being here this afternoon. My question is probably aimed at Owen and Peter. In your view, does the Bill go far enough in enabling journalists and media outlets to be empowered to negotiate fair deals with the tech platforms? Can you spell out why that is not the case at the moment?

Owen Meredith: First, it is important to welcome the Bill. As many people around the room know, alongside many other organisations across the economy we have been pushing for this Bill for some time, so it is pleasing to see it. It is in very good shape, albeit we will want some parliamentary scrutiny no doubt and the opportunity to tighten up some of the policy intent to ensure that it is fully reflected in the language on the face of the Bill.

Clearly, the imbalance of power that exists between news publishers and platforms is self-evident. It has been documented extensively from the Cairncross and Furman reviews through to various CMA reviews. At the moment, a handful of tech platforms are an essential gateway and a key discovery route for consumers to find news online. As consumers increasingly shift their consumption of news online, rather than from print—in the local market, north of 70%, and in the national market, north of 80% of consumers read news online—that is not fairly renumerated and rewarded back to the original investors and content creators of that journalism.

For society, we all understand the importance of that journalism, particularly in the online world combating mis and disinformation, but we just do not have a balance of power between those two players. On the one side, we have in particular smaller, local, independent news publishers, even up to large multinationals, but on the other, we do not have access to the right information or data about how our news is being surfaced and used on the platforms, including search and across social. We do not have an asymmetry of information to be able to negotiate fairly, so it is a take-it-or-leave-it approach by the tech platforms to how our content is used by them.

Peter Wright: You asked where the Bill possibly does not do the job. I would agree with Owen: it is a very good Bill and long overdue. I was on the Cairncross review five years ago, and it is great to see some of the things we were talking about bearing fruit.

One area you might want to look at is the final offer mechanism; there is a helpful table on page 38 of the explanatory notes. You can see it is a 13-stage process, and I think what to us might be the most important bit is information sharing, which comes at stage 8. If that process can be speeded up in any way, that would be immensely helpful.

The other thing that I would like to flag up and the thing that concerns most of us in the industry most of all is that you are likely to face concerted lobbying from the online platforms over the review process. From our point of view, that will not truthfully be about the justice of decisions made by the CMA; it is a delaying tactic. We hear that the platforms and the big City law firms will get together and to ask for a merits-based process, which would mean that every decision by the DMU is subject to appeals that are likely to involve weeks in court, with months or even years before decisions are taken.

If that happens, the whole purpose of the Bill—this whole structure, which we believe to be very good, and a great deal of work has gone into it; it is legislation that is likely to be copied around the world—will simply be nullified. It is vital that we stick with the judicial review process that is in the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q You answered my question, but are you concerned that by that point the tech companies will use this as a delaying mechanism, which will help proliferate disinformation and misinformation online by people who claim to be journalists? Provisions in the Online Safety Bill enable anybody to be a journalist, and will prevent that information or fake news—for want of a better phrase—from being taken down.

Peter Wright: The crossover between the two Bills is not that great. The real risk regarding fake news is that the most expensive news to produce is the high-quality public interest journalism that I am sure everybody in this room wants to encourage. If you cannot fund it, and at the moment it is a great struggle to fund it, the space will be taken by people who are not proper journalists and are not working for responsible news organisations with complaints procedures and people you can sue if you get it wrong.

The really serious danger is that because the online platforms have over the last 20 years sucked billions of pounds out of the news production in this country, the internet will be filled with conspiracy theorists and people producing cheap, easy-to-manufacture news, largely copied from other outlets.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q In your organisation’s written evidence, you took a different view from some of our earlier witnesses, who think we are not going far enough in terms of making it easy for people to exit a subscription only to opt back in. Yours said that actually we should make it slightly more difficult, for example, by taking away the cooling off periods and making the exit subscription slightly different in terms of allowing people to take advantage of other offers, which might confuse the process of unsubscribing. I am interested to hear your views on that.

Owen Meredith: We broadly support the Government’s policy and intent as I understand it in terms of helping consumers to manage subscriptions, particularly subscriptions that they are not aware they are in or for services they are not using. My concern and our organisational concern is that currently it is set out in the Bill too prescriptively, and there is a real danger that you end up in a situation where consumers are being bombarded by subscription notices and they become blind to them.

I would put the analogy out there of the cookie banner, which I think they are hoping to get rid of through different legislation before the House at the moment. There is a danger that consumers are just blinded by the amount of information they are being presented with as stand-alone notices, with the frequency and nature in which they have been spelt out in legislation. While I do not fundamentally disagree with the Government’s policy intent, I do not think how it has been crafted in the Bill at the moment necessarily achieves that in the way we would need it to.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Third sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome. I call Alex Davies-Jones.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Q 108 Good morning. Thank you, Neil, for being here this morning. You at techUK are in a unique position, representing everyone who should be impacted by this legislation. Will you outline exactly what impact the Bill will have on the breadth of the tech industry from smaller firms to the big challenger firms?

Neil Ross: As you rightly said, techUK represents the wide breadth of the tech sector. Our members fall broadly into three categories: the likely strategic market status or SMS firms, which will be regulated; their immediate challengers, which stand to benefit the most from the Bill and which I think you will hear from later; and a third group, the wider tech sector, which sees the benefits of the Bill but is perhaps not engaging as deeply as others.

The Bill sets up a structure and confers on the digital markets unit powers to boost competition in digital markets. The way those powers are set out is sound, but how they are exercised is something that happens after the legislation has passed. Ultimately, whether the Bill results in a positive regime depends on a number of things: how the regime has its priorities set; how it is held accountable by this House and by Government; how proportionate the regime is, in terms of when guidance is consulted on and who is engaged with after the scheme is up and running; and how we ensure that the checks and balances in the regime—such as the appeal standard—work for the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q How will the Bill ensure that the smaller businesses and start-ups are not unfairly disadvantaged by the existing, big, dominant market players?

Neil Ross: The key thing that the digital markets unit will have to do is to ensure that it is actually consulting those companies and engaging with them throughout the process. At the moment, the rules for how the digital markets unit will consult are not set out in legislation—the Bill just gives a duty to consult, and subsequently the digital markets unit will issue guidance on how it will do that—but, ultimately, we want to ensure that those companies are involved at pretty much every single stage of the discussion and that they are able to submit evidence privately to engage with the DMU informally. Competition regulation often uses requests for information, which can be quite heavy-handed tools to extract information from firms, but we think that the DMU will have to come up with a much more sophisticated way of doing its stakeholder engagement, which is likely to involve a blend of panels, stakeholder engagement and those RFIs, to make sure that it does not overburden smaller and challenger firms, which will want to feed in but will be cautious about going through the legal mechanisms.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you—you actually outlined my final question, which was on that point. One of the things we have heard as legislators looking at the Bill is about those risks around confidentiality and how some of the smaller firms have wanted to submit evidence, but have felt unable to do so, due to commercial sensitivities, for example. Will you outline that a bit further? How does the Bill need to ensure that safeguarding is in place to protect those smaller firms with commercial sensitivities so that they are not disproportionately disadvantaged?

Neil Ross: We have seen this throughout the process of consultation on the Bill and in submitting evidence to the Committee. We have found that smaller and challenger firms, which often have very tight commercial relationships with the larger companies and often rely on and benefit from them for scale and various things, are very sensitive about what they can and cannot submit. The Bill says very little about confidentiality requirements, so the DMU will have to set out in a lot of detail how that is going to work. We really encourage it to ensure that it consults those firms closely, to make sure that there are clear guardrails around what confidentiality marks are put on evidence that is submitted, what could be shared in summaries, and so on. That is going to be absolutely critical to make sure that the DMU can actually gather the information it needs to do its job.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Q I think I am right in saying that you said in your opening remarks that you may have concerns about the appeal standard. If we move to a full merits system, what is to stop huge tech giants, with almost endless resources, being able to tie up any actions that the DMU takes in the courts for a long time and, in doing so, providing a big deterrent to the DMU taking action in the first place?

Neil Ross: There is a risk of that, so we have put forward a position that aligns with what the Government want, which is an appeal standard that is principally based on judicial review principles, but has the flexibility to consider the different requirements of the case. Both techUK and the Government have pointed to the standard used by Ofcom as one that would be suitable in this case. The issue is that we are not sure that with the way the Government are applying the standard in the Bill, it will actually meet that test. As far as I understand it, the Government have set out a legal position that the appeal standard will be flexible because the Competition Appeal Tribunal will be able to look at human rights law, as well as private property rights, to consider how that standard will flex. We have tested that legal argument very widely with members—in-house legal counsel as well as other lawyers—and, to be blunt, a very limited number of people share that view.

Ultimately, what we want to do is work with the Government to see where we can go further to provide additional clarity on how that appeal standard would work—what the flex would look like. Ultimately, the standard will have to principally sit in JR principles, but have that flex higher up.

The point you made about speed is also hugely important. We set out a position saying we would like to see a standard that makes sure that any appeals are limited to about six months in length, because these are very fast-moving markets. If the standard means that things are bogged down, you know that the market might move on and the benefits might not be conferred across. We understand why hard limits might not be possible as part of the regime, but you could take steps in the Bill to try to encourage the courts to move a bit quicker, especially in more dynamic or high-impact cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you, gentlemen. Welcome to the Committee. I call Alex Davies-Jones.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you, Mr Hollobone, and thank you to both our witnesses. Mr Burrus, can I come to you first, please? We have heard a lot in the evidence already submitted to the Committee about the 30% effective stealth tax that is put on apps that would like to use certain designated platforms. How will this Bill ensure that fairer digital markets, especially for smaller tech firms and apps, and innovation are enabled?

Gene Burrus: If properly enforced, I think this Bill will break the distribution monopoly that currently exists with respect to mobile devices. Currently, app developers have no choice but to use the existing app stores of the dominant firms, Apple and Google, if they want to get their products to consumers. This Bill holds the promise that that monopoly will be broken, so that if the fees are too high in any given instance or for a particular developer, they will have other options and other ways to get their products to consumers. We think it is a great step forward. It is a problem that has been recognised around the world and various approaches have been tried to get at that problem. This gives the DMU the flexibility to both develop bespoke solutions to this problem, as well as the ability to future-proof what is going on, which will take us a great deal forward on avoiding that specific problem and, I think, the broader problems that come with the distribution monopoly that exists.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q You mentioned, Mr Burrus, the need for the provisions to be properly enforced. I would like to bring you in here, Mr Smith. Can you outline how exactly you would like to see that happening? Does the Bill get that right?

Tom Smith: From my point of view, the Bill is very well drafted indeed. It gets it exactly right; I think a lot of careful thought has gone into it. It is really a very modest approach. The CMA cannot do anything at all unless it can prove its case to a high standard, which can withstand the appeals in court, but the Bill gives the CMA the right amount of discretion. There is a list of categories, for example, in clause 20, which gives it enough discretion without giving it unbounded discretion to roam over the strategic market status firms’ wider groups, for example.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q One of the points of concern that has been raised with the Committee is that the bigger, dominant firms have the ability to tie up firms in legal wranglings for a considerable amount of time, leading to a significant cost to smaller firms, some of whom are unable to meet them; it ties them up so long that they are unable to carry on. Do you see that as a concern with the current drafting of the Bill?

Tom Smith: It is a concern with existing competition law, and that is why this Bill is needed. The Bill as currently drafted is exactly right. For example, the judicial review standard is the right one. It is the well-established standard for UK regulators. It is the standard used for the CMA’s market investigations, for example, which has the exact same legal test as the pro-competitive interventions under this Bill. It would be quite strange to have a different standard. By definition, one party may not like the outcome of a given decision, but everyone benefits if there is a prompt outcome, because everyone can get on with running their businesses rather than fighting in court.

The best example of fighting in court forever is the Google Shopping case in Brussels. That was started by a complaint from a UK company, Foundem, back in 2009. Unbelievably, it is still going through the courts now. Foundem has long since stopped operating, so whatever the outcome in the courts, it is not really going to benefit them. This Bill will enable the DMU to intervene before harm materialises, so that businesses do not go out of business so quickly.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Mr Burrus, one final question for you. One of the arguments that has been put to us is that costs to consumers might increase, as a result of the costs for apps on platforms having to be reduced. Do you see that argument? What do you have to say to that?

Gene Burrus: I think the opposite is actually true. We will see immediate benefits in terms of costs to consumers, when the taxes that the dominant players are able to extract are eliminated. We will see immediate benefits in terms of innovations and features that can appear in apps that right now are being prohibited by the dominant platforms. Those things can appear immediately.

Longer term, too, the opportunity to truly unleash innovation on mobile devices is key. We are in a place in history much like we were in the late 1990s when one company owned access to the internet. As mobile devices have taken over as the way consumers access the internet, we are now in a similar position where two firms manage access to the internet. Just as intervention with Microsoft 25 years ago led to the explosion of firms just like Apple and Google that could reliably build their businesses on PC computers, we will see firms able to reliably build their businesses on mobile devices. The long-term unleashing of innovation will be key here.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Brilliant, thank you.

[Rushanara Ali in the Chair]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q Mr Burrus, some concerns have been raised with us that the subscription traps requirements in the Bill might be too onerous for some people who work on a subscription basis to comply with. Do you think those are valid concerns?

Gene Burrus: I am not sure that those concerns are really valid. There is a consultation process in place. I agree with the prior witness that it is important for third-party input to be part of that process with the DMU, so it can fully understand what it is implementing and the ways in which it is doing that. We have seen problems emerge in the past in competition law cases with respect to trying to craft orders without sufficient input from industry, and those have fallen on the rocks as being ineffective or unwise. We saw that, for instance, when the European Commission attempted to settle cases with Google long ago. They would reach a settlement, then finally market test that settlement that they thought was great, and industry would pan it. I think that is why, with sufficient third-party input into the process with the DMU, those concerns can be addressed

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. We have until 1 pm for this session. I call Alex Davies-Jones.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us this morning. Are you able to explain to us exactly how consumers are harmed by the behaviour of big tech in your industry and how that has hindered and harmed you?

Richard Stables: I can jump in. Just to give you a little bit of background, Kelkoo was a shopping price comparison site—an internet darling. It started in ’99 and grew to be probably the most popular shopping comparison site in Europe, especially in the UK. Our industry and our company was decimated by the actions of Google, who decided to put themselves at the top of Google and remove the likes of us from the listings and put us on page 10 or page 20, which is pretty much in the wilderness. Why do you care? There are two big reasons. If you are a consumer, you want to see prices, and you want to see prices of lots of goods from lots of merchants.

I am a tennis player, and I want to buy a tennis racket. I am interested in what the cheapest tennis racket is, because I know that I am going to buy a Babolat or a HEAD racket. I want to see 30 to 40 merchants side-by-side, and I want to look at availability, brand and price. If I cannot see that, I am being hurt. I am not seeing the best price. With Google at the moment, you see 10 or 12 merchants. You do not see the entire industry. You can scroll to the right and see more, but what you see are the merchants that can afford to be on Google and pay the most to be in there at the top left. That is reason No. 1: you are seeing less prices.

As for the second, Google has created a complete monopoly on traffic. If I am a merchant or retailer, the only place I am going to get traffic from digitally is through Google. If I am only getting it from one place, I am basically in a monopoly. As we know, with a monopoly you are paying probably 25% to 30% more for the prices. What if I am a retailer in a cut-throat situation? What am I going to do with that price? I am going to pass it on to the likes of you and I. We are all paying a much higher mark-up to pay Google’s execs and Google for the massive amounts of money they extract from the UK economy. That is how consumers are hurt by not having proper competition in digital markets.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you, Richard. As someone representing your company, which has been directly impacted by the practices that the Bill is seeking to protect against, do you see any omissions from the Bill? Had the Bill been around when you were going through your legal processes, would it have been able to save you from this heartache and pain?

Richard Stables: I think the Bill is well written, well founded and I would not change it. The abuse started way back—according to the Commission’s shopping decision, in 2008. The first complaint came in 2009. It came from a company that we now own, Ciao, which has now disappeared, along with LeGuide, which is now part of our company. We basically have been in a fight with Google since 2010, when the investigation started with the Commission. In 2017, it made a decision and fined Google £2.4 billion. We are still in legal uncertainty, because Google has gone to a court of first instance and lost and has now gone to the European Court of Justice. That is why a merits appeal is absolutely loved by big tech. They want to delay, delay, delay—to kick the can down the road.

If there is one thing I would say to you guys today, it would be: do not move from JR. If you move from JR, you might as well go home. For businesses like mine, if we had had the Bill 10 or 12 years ago, the CMA could have looked at what happened and said, “You know what, we will do this in an ex ante fashion. We think there is a problem here. We will go and investigate. We know there is an issue, so let’s change it.” We have been going for 13 and a half years and we still do not have legal certainty because of the problem with ex post. That is the problem with antitrust regulation in digital, where markets move so quickly, so you are absolutely right. There will be a really vibrant market for price comparison today, but it would have been great for consumers if we had this legislation 10 or 15 years ago.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Just to push you on omissions, do you think there is anything missing from the Bill that would have helped you, or is it great and perfect?

Richard Stables: I think it is long overdue. Governments in America, Europe and the UK have, frankly, been asleep at the wheel for the last 20 years in terms of big tech. There is a worldwide movement, and everybody recognises that there is a huge problem. They realise that you need ex ante regulation in digital. You have the Digital Markets Act in Europe, and this Bill is well founded, well thought through. From discussions I have had, it seems to be really well supported from both sides of the House. I implore you guys to pass it quickly.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q I have a question to you, Mark, from Match Group. A lot of your products and offerings were traditionally on desktop providers, rather than apps. How can we ensure that the Bill is adequately future-proofed to ensure that that does not happen and it will not hinder businesses like yours?

Mark Buse: We believe the Bill has the flexibility to be future-proofed. When we look at how our users access our services, it is almost exclusively via an app. Desktop has no role. You can use our products, such as Tinder, cheaper if you go to the website and download it, but nobody does. The user behaviour is that they all use apps. Our fastest growing brand in the UK is called Hinge; Hinge does not even have a website. It was not worth the time or money to build one, because nobody uses it.

When I say nobody, I mean that less than 1% of Tinder’s users go to the website. That is also partially because Apple and Google have restrictions that they impose on us contractually. They do not allow us to tell our users that they can subscribe cheaper if they go to the website. In an ideal world—we think the Bill will go a long way in creating an open market—somebody who wants to subscribe to our product will have those options right there in front of them. They will be able to subscribe using our service, PayPal, or whatever else is available, and get it cheaper.

Apple, Google or big tech say, “This is all a myth. You are not going to have cheaper products”. Match has stated emphatically and publicly that we will drop our prices if we do not have to pay an artificially imposed 30%, which is what occurs today. We will drop our prices. We have also pledged that we will put more money into research and development, the hiring of employees and online safety, which we believe is crucial. By the way, the monopoly power that both Apple and Google exert over the store hinders online safety. That also has a negative pejorative impact on consumers today.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

Q Thank you for those really powerful testimonies. Before I come to Tom, could I ask you, Mark, to elaborate on the online safety that you just talked about?

Mark Buse: Sure. There are a couple of issues when we look at safety. One is keeping bad actors off our platforms—for example, entities or individuals who intend to do harm. Another is under-age users; they do not intend any harm, but our platform is limited to 18 and over only. We do not allow people under the age of 18. We do not want them there and our users do not want them there. In both cases, we have a limited pot of data to try to assess whether somebody is a bad actor or under age. There is a lot of data that exists that could inform us about that. I am going to use this little device—my phone—when I fly home on Saturday as my boarding pass. I am going to pay my bills on it. I am incentivised to put truthful information into my phone, which is the most powerful computer that most people own. I use it for a multitude of services.

For us, 98% of our revenue is from subscriptions; ads have virtually no impact. When you look at our companies, when somebody subscribes to Tinder, we do not know who they are, because they do not actually have a subscription with us. That also has a pejorative consumer impact. Consumers cancel their subscriptions for perfectly good reasons, such as, “I have a three-month Tinder subscription and I met the love of my life. Neither of us want me on Tinder any more, so I am cancelling my subscription”.

As the consumer, I go to Tinder and say, “I have a Tinder subscription that I want to cancel. Tinder, cancel it”. We have to inform them, “You don’t actually have a subscription with us. You have a subscription with Apple or Google”, who artificially put themselves in the middle of this situation because they can—because they have a monopoly and they can demand and force it. As a result, they know who I am. They have my credit card and real address—all those identifiers that we could use at Match to keep a bad actor off our platform.

This Bill would change all that dynamic. The positive impacts, as I say, go much further than just increased competition; they go directly to lower prices and increased online safety.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria, and to address the Committee today. I thank all its members for volunteering to serve on this Committee, and I look forward to our discussions over the coming days and weeks.

Part 1 of the Bill provides for the pro-competition regime for digital markets. This is a targeted regime that will establish new, more effective tools for the Competition and Markets Authority and, in turn, the digital markets unit. That will allow them to proactively drive more dynamic digital markets and prevent harmful practices.

Clause 1 is purely introductory and provides an overview of part 1. I hope that hon. Members agree that this clause will therefore assist readers to navigate this part. I will briefly explain some of the language I will use in this series of debates. First, the Committee will hear me referring to the digital markets unit, or the DMU, which is a new administrative unit of the Competition and Markets Authority—the CMA. While the legal functions of the regulator under part 1 of this Bill remain those of the CMA, in practice it is likely that most of the responsibilities under part 1 will be carried out by staff within the DMU. Therefore, for consistency and ease, I will be referring to the DMU throughout the debates. The exception to that is the merger functions in chapter 5 of part 1, which will generally be carried out by those staff who deal with mergers more broadly.

Secondly, I will use the words “firm” and “undertaking” interchangeably. “Undertaking” is the word used in this part of the Bill and is an economic concept that is already used in the Competition Act 1998. The concept of an undertaking covers any person engaged in economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed. “Persons” may be corporate bodies, and an undertaking may encompass multiple corporate bodies when they form a single economic unit under competition law. The Government’s view is that an undertaking will often encompass the entirety of the relevant corporate group, but it may sometimes be a smaller subset of the corporate group.

I hope that that helps to clarify the language that the Committee will hear over the coming days.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a genuine privilege to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I look forward to the weeks ahead. I imagine that the debates will be healthy but, in a real rarity for this place, relatively collegiate too. With that in mind, I will keep my comments on this clause brief. We all agree that this is an important that we will not seek to delay. Competition is vital to encourage innovation, and consumers deserve the best possible protections and value. We all want to get this right, and the Minister knows that. I want to say clearly that the Opposition welcome the Bill in principle. However, it will come as no surprise that we have some concerns that the Bill is lacking in some areas and could go further. We will explore those concerns in the hours and weeks ahead, and I look forward to debating the Bill further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Designation of undertaking

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(5) An SMS investigation in subsection (4) may take account of analysis undertaken by the CMA, on similar issues, that has been the subject of public consultation, within the five years prior to Royal Assent of this Act.”

This amendment and Amendments 56 and 57 ensure that the CMA is able to draw upon analysis and consultations that took place before the passing of this Act.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 56, in clause 13, page 7, line 18, at end insert—

“(3) Consultation on matters relevant to a decision under section 14(1) undertaken before this Act is passed is as effective for the purposes of subsection (1) as consultation undertaken after it is passed, unless the CMA considers that there has been a material change of circumstances.”

See statement for Amendment 55.

Amendment 57, in clause 47, page 26, line 10, at end insert—

“(3) Consultation on matters relevant to a decision under section 14(1) undertaken before this Act is passed is as effective for the purposes of subsection (1) as consultation undertaken after it is passed, unless the CMA considers that there has been a material change of circumstances.”

See statement for Amendment 55.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

With your permission, Dame Maria, I will make some general points about clause 2 before turning to the amendments. Clause 2 gives the CMA the power to designate undertakings, as defined in clause 115, as having strategic market status in respect of a digital activity. Of course, only those undertakings designated with SMS will be subject to the digital markets regime.

The clause is vital in establishing the CMA’s new functions that will allow it to regulate digital markets. We welcome efforts to put the previously established digital markets unit on a statutory footing, and we see it as a key step in establishing the CMA’s responsibility for overseeing digital businesses of a certain size and status operating in the UK. As colleagues will note, this part of the Bill is seen by many as the UK’s version of the EU Digital Markets Act as it has many similarities to it. For an undertaking to be designated as having SMS, the following conditions need to be met: the undertaking carries out a digital activity, which means either providing an internet service or digital content; that digital activity is linked to the UK; and the undertaking must have substantial and entrenched market power. The latter condition requires the CMA to look five years ahead and imagine future developments. The undertaking must also have a position of strategic significance in that it generates £25 billion in global turnover or £1 billion turnover in the UK.

We see those as sensible barometers for SMS status, but I want to take this brief opportunity to press the Minister further on the CMA’s ability to look to the future. He will know—and, I am sure, agree—that the sectors we seek to regulate are often incredibly fast moving. We will debate this further shortly in clause 5, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on this particular point, especially around his assessment of the CMA’s capacity and ability to essentially predict how changes across industries will emerge.

Amendments 55 to 57 would ensure that the CMA would be able to draw on analysis and consultations that took place before the passing of this Act. The amendments are critical to ensuring that the CMA is able to draw on the work that it did in shadow form once the Bill lands on the statute books. We cannot risk further delay to implementing this regime when we already know that the lack of competition regulation is having a significant impact on both consumers and businesses.

Last week we heard evidence from Professor Myers, who is a visiting professor in practice at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He had some interesting comments to make on the timeline for the Bill so far which I feel are worth reiterating here. Professor Myers said that

“this legislation has taken a while to come to fruition. At one point the UK looked like it was going to legislate before the European Union, but the CMA has done a lot of preparatory work, and I am sure that it recognises that it needs to hit the ground running as soon as this legislation is passed.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 46, Q72.]

That is why the amendments are so important, because they would allow the CMA to reflect on the lessons learned in the various consultations and analysis that it has already undertaken. I hope the Minister can see that these simple amendments would make sense for all involved.

[The Chair]

Before we proceed, I note that the shadow Minister has efficiently covered clause 2 stand part, so perhaps the Minister could also do so in his response, in the interests of time.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I will deal first with whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. It is of course axiomatic. Right at the heart of the purpose of the Bill is the designation of undertaking. Importantly, it references clause 7, which deals with the turnover of an undertaking. I am looking forward to what the Minister has to say about clause 7, particularly with reference to the levels of revenue or turnover for an undertaking. The Minister has given definitions for “undertaking” and “firm”. I look forward to his further comments about those definitions, particularly when it comes to the classification of worldwide turnover and the revenue being undertaken within the United Kingdom. I am straying slightly into clause 7, but because there is reference to it in clause 2, I hope that is acceptable.

I am just flagging that there may be consideration under clause 7 as to the possibility of the manipulation of turnover where there is a global undertaking with global turnover of less than £25 billion, but where the turnover associated with the United Kingdom is approaching the £1 billion mark. It is foreseeable that we could start to have economically significant manipulation associated with the definition of turnover—I flag that because it is referred to in clause 2. Of course, the main body of clause 2 is right at the heart of the Bill. I welcome the constructive opening comments from the hon. Member for Pontypridd, and I look forward to engaging with her and the other Members of the Committee on that basis over the coming days and, I am afraid to say, probably weeks. [Laughter.]

I turn to amendment 55. This Bill is already hundreds of pages long, and it was often noted in my former career at the Bar that legislation gets longer and longer as it seeks to become more and more specific. However, there is a risk with seeking to list all the elements that we wish to cover. By having a list, we encourage exemptions and the seeking out of elements that are not quite on the list. Through that mechanism, undertakings can avoid the intention while complying with the letter. In my submission, the approach taken by the Government in the current drafting of clause 2 is the right one, because, as the Minister has already mentioned, it gives the DMU the wide scope it needs to take account of work that has already been done without constraining it by having a specific list, as amendment 55 would require. Proposed subsection (5), which the amendment would insert, says that an SMS investigation

“may take account of analysis undertaken by the CMA, on similar issues, that has been the subject of public consultation, within the five years prior to Royal Assent of this Act.”

Who could object to that? However, the Minister made the point that it is already encompassed within the powers of the DMU under the current drafting of the Bill. If we say that this is specifically included in the body of text, it prompts the question: what if someone is just outside that but would otherwise properly be within the consideration of the DMU? It raises arguments that will be explored via litigation, particularly by organisations that have substantial turnover and considerable economic interests to defend, as we heard in oral evidence over the past week.

The last thing we want is to have legislation that invites clarification by the courts. Although I and the Minister are very sympathetic to the intentions behind amendment 55, I fear that it might have the unintended consequence of increasing the chances of prolonged litigation as we seek to explore what exactly is and is not within scope of the DMU. For that reason, I do not support the amendment.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the comments from the hon. Gentleman and the Minister, but we would like to press the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 4 to 8 stand part.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We do not oppose clauses 3 to 8, on the basis that they set out what constitutes a digital activity for the purpose of part 1 of the Bill. Clause 3 is an important clause with a number of subsections that clarify the exact definitions of digital activities and provision of services. These are all critical to empowering the DMU, which, if properly supported, has the potential to be a world-leading regulator and is ultimately the critical first step in modernising our competition policy.

We can all agree that the UK has the potential to be recognised as a global leader in technology and innovation, and capitalising on that is vital to our economic growth, yet the current situation, which sees a small number of firms dominate digital markets, is reducing competition for other businesses. Ultimately, it is consumers who are paying the price in the products and services we all receive.

This clause is crucial to defining exactly which digital activity will fall under the regulation, and it is welcome. After all, Labour has been clear and has long called for measures to regulate the digital space more widely. We specifically support the clause, as it gives us all clarity on how we can define digital activity.

Subsection (3), which outlines how the regime will give the CMA the power to treat multiple digital activities carried out by a single undertaking as a single digital activity, is particularly welcome. For different activities to be grouped together, they must either have substantially the same or similar purposes—for example, a social media provider offering a number of internet services under different brands with a common function, allowing users, such as advertisers and publishers, to interact and communicate with each other; or can be carried out together to fulfil a specific purpose—for example, services and products that are part of the same supply chain, such as services selling advertisements and the provision of an advertising platform. We all know the rapid rate at which companies can develop and expand, so it is particularly welcome to see this subsection.

Subsection (4), which sets out that where the CMA is required to give or publish a notice or other document under part 1 of the Bill, it may describe the digital activity by reference to the nature of that activity, brand names, or a combination of these, is also vital to the success of the regime. We clearly support the clause, which we regard as crucial to establishing the barometers of the CMA’s regulatory powers, and we have therefore not sought to amend it at this stage.

Clause 4 sets out the ways in which a digital activity could be linked to the UK for the purposes of designation. We are pleased to see that the clause considers the number of UK users in its criteria, as we have all read the reports of tech firms threatening to leave the UK if other legislation places requirements on them in future. That is why, with regard to pro-competition law, the UK user base must be considered when it comes to implementing this regime.

Once on the statute book, the DMU will be empowered to oversee a new regulatory regime for the most powerful digital firms, promoting greater competition and innovation in these markets and protecting consumers and businesses from unfair practices. It is vital that UK-specific connections are established in the Bill. The clause is also an important opportunity to highlight the significant impact that inaction is having on our digital markets in the UK. As we know, these markets are characterised by having just a few big tech firms with entrenched market power and the ability to shape the market to the detriment of consumers and smaller businesses. The 2020 CMA market study said:

“Both Google and Facebook grew by offering better products than their rivals. However, they are now protected by such strong incumbency advantages—including network effects, economies of scale and unmatchable access to user data—that potential rivals can no longer compete on equal terms.”

The current balance of power means the big tech companies often have an unfair advantage over their competitors and dominate key markets. For example, virtually all UK smartphones run either Apple or Google operating systems. In 2018, Google had a more than 90% share of the UK search advertising market, and Meta owns 50% of the UK’s digital display advertising space. Thanks to their dominance, Apple and Google made in excess of £4 billion of profits from their mobile businesses in 2021. The CMA estimates that Facebook and Google made profits of £2.4 billion above what would be considered a fair return in the digital advertising market in 2018. On Meta’s market dominance, the CMA noted:

“Facebook’s average revenue per user in the UK has increased from less than £5 in 2011 to over £50 in 2019.”

The consequence is worse outcomes for smaller businesses and consumers. That is why we welcome the clarity in the clause and support its inclusion.

Clause 5 requires the CMA to look at the next five years when assessing whether an undertaking has substantial and entrenched market power in respect of a digital activity. Specifically, it must be satisfied that the undertaking’s market power and influence in the digital activity is neither small nor transient. Although we welcome that requirement—ultimately, none of us wants companies to be stifled to their detriment—I hope the Minister will flesh out exactly how he thinks the clause will work in practice. The CMA is clearly well placed to assess digital firms’ plans for progression and development over the next five years, but we are concerned that the clause is broadly asking the impossible, given the rate at which technological developments and expansion can occur in this space. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s assessment.

The clause further outlines that the CMA must take into account expected or foreseeable developments if it does not designate the undertaking as having strategic market status in respect of the digital activity to which the investigation relates. Again, that is the kind of welcome and balanced approach to designation that we would expect of a new regulatory regime, but will the Minister confirm how the Bill will ensure that such decisions and designations are made public so that the transparency of the regime as a whole is enhanced? It would be helpful for all of us—parliamentarians, firms, civil society bodies and stakeholders in the sector—to understand how designations are made, and transparency is central to that. I hope the Minister will address those points. We seek some assurances, but I am sure we will be happy to support the clause as it stands.

Clause 6 sets out the terms by which an undertaking has a position of strategic significance. It sets out a number of conditions, including size, scale and the role the firm plays in terms of digital activity more widely. We support the need for flexibility in the regime, so paragraphs (c) and (d) are particularly welcome. Paragraph (c) is intended to cover circumstances in which the undertaking can use its position in the digital activity to leverage or expand into a range of other activities. That is vital, because companies have to be agile to dominate a variety of markets, and they can abuse that. Paragraph (d), which is intended to cover scenarios where an undertaking’s position enables it to determine or substantially influence how other undertakings operate—in other words, to set the rules of the game—is equally important.

It would, however, be remiss of me not to highlight our slight concerns about subsection (2), which gives the Secretary of State the power to vary the conditions set out in the Bill. The success of the regime relies on scrutiny and direction from the Government, but will the Minister clarify exactly what type of scenario would require the Secretary of State of the day to vary the conditions?

As I have said, we support an agile approach to regulation. After all, even across other jurisdictions, the idea of regulation and encouraging pro-competition across our digital markets is a complex process for legislation. We wholeheartedly support the need to get this Bill on the statute book—it is something Labour has long called for—but none of us wants the regulator to be undermined or constrained by the opinions of the Secretary of State of the day, so I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister on that point before proceeding.

Clause 7 outlines the turnover conditions that must be met for the CMA to designate an undertaking as having strategic market status in respect of a digital activity. Subsection (2) sets out that the turnover condition is met if the CMA reasonably estimates that the undertaking’s UK turnover in the relevant period exceeds £1 billion or that its global turnover in the relevant period exceeds £25 billion. We welcome the clarity that only one of these thresholds needs to be met for the turnover condition to be met and, if the undertaking is part of a group, the turnover of that pooled group should be considered, which is a matter we will come to when we debate clause 114.

I will take this opportunity to highlight the fact that while the £1 billion and £25 billion turnover figures may seem high, they show the sheer market dominance that certain firms have over our digital markets. Setting the conditions at the current rate will not act as a deterrent for growth, which, of course, none of us want to see. We particularly welcome subsection (5), which requires the CMA to keep the thresholds under review and, from time to time, to advise the Secretary of State as to whether they are still appropriate and proportionate.

It would be helpful for all of us in the room and those listening elsewhere to understand how the Minister envisions that this will work in practice. Will it be on an annual review basis, and when will we have clarity on that? Will the reviews be made public to ensure proper and appropriate scrutiny? These are small points, but given the lack of transparency around the regime as it stands, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurances. Despite that, again, we support the clause as it stands and do not seek to amend it at this stage.

Finally—thank you for your indulgence, Dame Maria—clause 8 makes provision about the value of an undertaking’s or a group’s UK or global turnover in the relevant period for the purposes of the turnover condition. We see this as a fairly procedural clause, which outlines the definition of global turnover by which the CMA will make its decisions on designation. We note that subsection (4) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations providing further detail about how the total value of an undertaking’s or a group’s UK turnover or global turnover is to be estimated for the purposes of the turnover condition. Again, we feel that this could be problematic, and I would welcome the Minister’s reasoning as to why and in what instance the Secretary of State would need to make regulations to provide that further detail.

If the CMA is to be trusted to make reasonable decisions on a group’s turnover for the purposes of the turnover condition, it seems odd to give the Secretary of State the power to provide further detail when the merits or even the content of such further detail is so ambiguous. I hope the Minister can provide clarity and expand on that point. That aside, we support the clause because the turnover point is crucial for designation. The clause should remain and it should stand part of the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I briefly made mention of clause 7 in my earlier remarks. I am interested in the Minister’s view, particularly on clause 7(2)(b) and the definition of UK-related turnover being £1 billion or more. There is a legitimate question to be asked, because while that is a substantial amount of money, it is not that great in terms of global business. As I mentioned, I could foresee a situation whereby when a global undertaking’s global turnover is substantially less than £25 billion and its UK-related turnover is approaching the billion-pound mark, there might be a perverse incentive to direct investment and activity away from the United Kingdom because of that cliff-edge definition. I would love to propose a better alternative—it is above my pay grade—but I highlight that as being an issue we might need to take into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Clause 9 relates to initial SMS investigations. It sets out the circumstances under which the DMU can start an initial SMS investigation. An initial SMS investigation is for circumstances in which a firm either is not designated at all or is designated but in a different digital activity. The DMU can open an investigation only if it has reasonable grounds for considering that the tests for designation may be met—that is to say, most importantly, the tests of substantial and entrenched market power and a position of strategic significance in respect of a digital activity. Clause 9 does not require the DMU to open an investigation as it should be able to prioritise investigations to ensure its resources are targeted at the most pressing competition issues.

Clause 10 relates to further SMS investigations—the other type of SMS investigation. A further investigation is an investigation into whether to revoke an existing designation or designate a firm again in respect of the same digital activity. A further SMS investigation may also look at whether to designate a firm in respect of a similar or connected digital activity. The investigation will consider whether to make provision about existing obligations, which I will say more about on clause 17.

It is important that a designation should not continue indefinitely. That is why the DMU must review any designation before the end of the five-year designation period. The DMU will need to open a further SMS investigation at least nine months before the end of the five-year designation period if it has not already done so. It will either revoke a designation, if the firm no longer meets the criteria, or decide to designate the firm again for another five-year period. The DMU will be able to open a further investigation at any point during an existing designation. For instance, if the DMU considers that a firm no longer has substantial and entrenched market power in the digital activity, then it is important that the designation can be reviewed and, if necessary, revoked early.

Clause 11 sets out the procedure that the DMU must follow for either an initial or a further SMS investigation. To ensure that the regime is fair and transparent, the DMU will be required to give the firm a notice when it starts an investigation, stating the purpose and scope of the investigation as well as its length. For initial SMS investigations, the notice must set out the DMU’s reasonable grounds for considering that the designation tests may be met. The DMU must also publish a statement summarising the notice in order to make the wider public aware that it is opening an investigation. That notice will trigger the start of the investigation period.

Clause 12 sets out that the DMU may close an initial SMS investigation at any point before reaching a final decision on designation. It is important that that option is available to the DMU for initial investigations as there may be situations where flexibility is needed. For instance, unexpected circumstances may arise while an investigation is ongoing. The Government believe that in order to reprioritise resources if needed, the DMU should have the discretion to close an initial SMS investigation before reaching a final decision.

Clause 13 sets out that the DMU must consult on its proposed decisions as part of an SMS investigation. It is important that the firm under investigation, as well as all relevant parties, has an opportunity to feed in views and perspectives to the DMU’s investigation process. That consultation is also important in providing for a transparent regime that builds on the best evidence available.

Clause 14 sets out what the DMU must do at the end of an SMS investigation. For a further SMS investigation, the DMU must decide whether the existing designation should be revoked or whether the firm should continue to be designated in the same activity. The DMU must also decide whether to make provision in relation to existing obligations. If relevant, the DMU must decide whether the firm should be designated in a similar or connected activity.

For an initial investigation, the DMU should also reach a decision when it has not closed the investigation early under clause 12. The DMU will need to give the firm a notice of its decision on or before the last day of the investigation period, which lasts up to nine months. It must also publish a summary statement. If for some reason the DMU does not give the decision notice to the firm by the deadline, by default the firm is not designated, or is no longer designated, in the relevant digital activity.

Clause 15 sets out the requirements for decision notices when the DMU decides to designate a firm as having SMS in respect of a digital activity. The decision notice needs to be given to the firm. Among other things, the notice should include a description of the firm, a description of the digital activity, any provision made regarding existing obligations, per clause 17, and the DMU’s reasons for its decisions.

Clause 16 sets out the requirements for decision notices when the DMU decides to revoke an existing designation following a further investigation. A designation will no longer be appropriate once a competitive environment has developed. The decision notice needs to be given to the firm, as set out in clause 14(2).

Clause 17 gives the DMU the power to apply transitional arrangements to obligations revoked as a result of the DMU’s ending an SMS firm’s designation in relation to a digital activity, but only for the purpose of managing impacts of the revocation on persons who benefited from those obligations, and only in a way that appears to the DMU to be fair and reasonable. That will help ensure a smooth transition for wider market participants.

Clause 17 also allows the DMU to continue to apply existing obligations, such as conduct requirements or pro-competition orders. That is for cases where the new designation is in respect of the same digital activity, or an activity that is similar or connected to the previous designated digital activity. The clause will ensure that existing obligations do not automatically end where they still remain appropriate following a further SMS designation. The power to continue to apply obligations will be subject to the DMU’s ongoing duty to monitor and review obligations, which means that the DMU cannot continue to apply obligations that are no longer appropriate.

Finally, clause 18 sets out that a firm will be designated as having SMS in respect of a digital activity for five years, beginning with the day after the day on which the SMS decision notice is given. We believe that five years strikes the right balance between giving enough time for the regulatory interventions to have an impact on the one hand, and making sure the obligations on the firm do not last longer than necessary on the other.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Labour broadly welcomes this grouping. I will make some brief comments about clauses 9, 10 and 11 before addressing my amendments, and will then come on to clauses 12 to 18.

As we know, and as the Minister has outlined, clause 9 concerns initial SMS investigations. We see the clause as an important start point that will allow the CMA to have clarity over exactly how it will begin the designation process for the regulatory regime. Subsection (1) sets out that the CMA may begin an initial SMS investigation where it has reasonable grounds to consider that it may be able to designate an undertaking in accordance with clause 2. We believe that that is vital and that the CMA is given the statutory powers to investigate fully. We agree that “reasonable grounds” are an important way to capture the beginnings of the process.

It is clear that the regime will apply only to firms with significant market dominance, as we have already discussed, but it is right that the CMA should use a logical approach to establish SMS firms from the outset. We also agree that it is right that where the CMA considers that the digital activity is similar or connected to a digital activity in respect of which the undertaking is already designated, it may instead begin a further SMS investigation.

Similarly, we agree with the wording of subsection (3), which clarifies that the CMA has the power to open a designation investigation in respect of a digital activity even if it has previously decided not to designate the undertaking as having SMS in respect of that digital activity. That would include circumstances where a previous designation had ended or where a previous decision had been taken not to designate the undertaking in respect of that digital activity. It is incredibly important that the CMA should not be restricted in terms of its designations, so this clarity is welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I ask the hon. Lady to restrict her comments to the stand part debate on clauses 10 to 18. We debate the amendments a little later.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Yes, Dame Maria.

I turn to clause 11. We see the clause as important in establishing exactly how the CMA should carry out an SMS investigation. It is important for all involved—from the CMA to regulated firms—that there should be some transparency over exactly how the CMA will begin an SMS investigation, and under what circumstances. We particularly welcome provisions for investigation notices; it is important that all parties are given adequate time and notice in order for this regime to fully succeed.

As I have already noted, we particularly welcome subsection (5), which sets out that as soon as reasonably practicable after giving an SMS investigation notice, or a revised version of the notice, the CMA must publish a statement summarising the contents of the notice and give a copy of the statement to the Financial Conduct Authority, the Office of Communications, the Information Commissioner, the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority. That is an important point for transparency—a common theme, I am afraid, to which I will continue to return as the Bill progresses through Committee.

As we all know, there are certain aspects of digital markets that make them prone to creating tipping points, where very large online platforms have huge and entrenched market power. The lack of transparency is a particularly problematic issue, and one that the Bill must seek to address. For example, in online advertising a complicated bidding process may take place very quickly—advertisers may not able to scrutinise decisions about where their ads are placed and how much they cost. That has a knock-on impact by exacerbating other competition problems, as people and businesses are unable to make informed choices.

We see the transparency and publication of these investigation notices as an important part of the package around getting the regime right. We welcome the fact that the Financial Conduct Authority, Ofcom, the Information Commissioner, the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority will all have sight of such notices, but what assessment has the Minister made of making these notices public? Of course, Labour recognises that there is a difficult line to toe here in terms of publishing information that could impact markets and potentially cause detriment to companies’ market share or worth. However, could a sensible middle ground be reached?

I move on to clause 12. Labour welcomes clause 12, which outlines the circumstances in which an initial SMS investigation may be closed without a decision. We recognise that giving the CMA that flexibility is important. None of us wants undue time limits to be placed on its decision-making and designation process. Central to the success of the regime is that the CMA should be empowered to take decisions within its remit. We all recognise that the CMA is a proactive regulator that currently seeks to use its soft power alongside its formal powers, but it is currently being hampered by its existing legal powers. That is causing a disparity between its ability to enforce competition and consumer law—a significant issue that stakeholders, including Which?, Citizens Advice and others, have repeatedly raised, including during our evidence sessions.

We see clause 12 as an important clause that gives the CMA the ability to work in an agile manner, according to workload and priorities. As with previous clauses, we particularly welcome subsections (2) to (4), which set out that if the CMA decides to close an initial SMS investigation, it must give the undertaking under investigation notice of the closure, including the reasons, and publish a statement summarising the contents of the notice. Labour supports the clause, and we have not sought to amend it at this stage.

Clause 13 requires the CMA to consult on any decision that it is considering making as a result of an SMS investigation. Subsection (1) requires the CMA to carry out a public consultation and bring it to the attention of such persons as it considers appropriate. Of course, there is a balance to strike here: public consultation is an important part of any regulatory regime, but none of us wants to see the CMA bound by delays and, as a consequence, unable to regulate effectively. I would be grateful for some clarity from the Minister on his understanding of the “appropriate” person, as outlined in subsection (1), which reads:

“The CMA must—

(a) carry out a public consultation on any decision that it is considering making as a result of an SMS investigation (see section 14(1)), and

(b) bring the public consultation to the attention of such persons as it considers appropriate.”

I imagine the Secretary of State will be one such person, but will the Minister clarify who else he envisions will be privy to the public consultations? In addition, I would be grateful if the Minister again confirmed whether the public consultations will be published. Consultation is an important part of any regulatory regime, particularly this one, which aims to do a colossal thing in regulating our digital markets and, ultimately, to encourage competition. Labour recognises the extent of the challenge, and there is a fine balance to be struck between consultation and stifling action. We do not want to see consultations get in the way of the regime more widely. We have had enough delay as it is, and I am sure the Minister will not mind my highlighting just how many consultations the Bill has endured on its journey so far.

In 2018, the Government established a digital competition expert panel to examine competition in digital markets. In 2021, the DMU was set up within the CMA to oversee competition in the digital markets sector. Between July and October of that year, the Government ran a consultation on plans for a new regime. Almost a year on, in May 2022, the Government responded to the consultation, setting out the final position on a new regime. There has already been significant delay to getting the Bill to this stage, and we already know from its impact assessment that the regime is unlikely to be fully operational until 2025, so I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure us all that the CMA will not be delayed by consultations, as the Government seemingly have been. That point aside, we understand the value of the clause and will support it.

Clause 14 sets out what the CMA must do at the end of an SMS investigation. It broadly clarifies the actions and decisions that the CMA must take in deciding whether an undertaking will be designated as SMS in respect of its digital activity. Again, we welcome subsection (2). We also support subsection (5), which sets out that the CMA must publish a statement summarising its contents as soon as reasonably practicable after giving an SMS decision notice. This is an important clause, which we see as a practical outline of how the CMA will be empowered to act on concluding its initial SMS investigations.

Clause 15 sets out a requirement for SMS decision notices where the CMA decides to designate an undertaking as having SMS in respect of a digital activity. We welcome the clarity afforded in subsection (2), which outlines on the face of the Bill the exact contents that the SMS decision notice must include. This ranges from a description of the designated undertaking to a statement outlining the designation period and the circumstances in which the designation could be extended.

It is also worth referring specifically to subsection (4), which clarifies that giving a revised SMS decision notice to provide for the designation of an undertaking does not change the day on which the designation period in relation to that designation begins. That is a welcome clarification, which I know will be useful for undertakings and civil society to understand as we seek to establish the regime in full.

Although Labour supports the clause, I am interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on subsection (5), which states:

“As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a revised SMS decision notice, the CMA must publish a statement summarising the contents of the revised notice.”

Again, that is rather vague, so will the Minister clarify what he considers to be “reasonably practicable”? Ultimately, companies and consumers alike would benefit from a timely and transparent approach to the regulation. Although I am reassured by the CMA’s ability, we and many others have slight concerns about its capacity and resource, as I have previously outlined, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurances on that issue.

Clause 16 sets out the requirements for SMS decision notices where the CMA decides to revoke an existing designation as a result of a further SMS investigation. There is no need for me to repeat myself. We support the clause, and it is important for the CMA to be empowered to act flexibly, particularly given the ever-changing nature of digital markets. Again, we welcome clarification that the CMA will provide for the revocation to have effect from an earlier date—for example, where the undertaking has already ceased to engage in the relevant digital activity. None of us wants to see overregulation, so we support the clause and have not sought to amend it. While I am all for a collegiate approach to legislating, I assure the Minister and my Whip that we do not agree with the Bill in full, as can be seen from the amendment paper. However, on the points covering designation, we welcome the progress and clarity of the clauses, which we see as fundamental to the regime’s wider success.

Labour supports clause 17, which aims to define the nature of an existing obligation, which is any conduct requirement, enforcement order, final offer order or pro-competition order applying when a designation is revoked or another one is made after a further SMS investigation. We particularly welcome subsections (3) and (4), which set out that the CMA may apply any existing obligation in respect of a new designation, may modify that obligation in respect of a new designated activity, and may make transitional, transitory or saving provision in respect of that obligation. Again, we see that as standard procedure to allow the regime to operate in full and have not sought to amend the clause.

Finally—colleagues will be pleased to hear that—clause 18 establishes that where the CMA decides to designate an undertaking as having SMS in a digital activity, the designation period is five years, beginning the day after the day on which the SMS decision notice is given. We welcome other provisions later in the Bill on the circumstances in which the designation period may be extended or revoked. Labour recognises that assessing the regulatory regime in digital markets will take some time, so we believe a designation period of five years is a sensible approach. Given certain undertakings’ market dominance, we think five years is a reasonable timeframe to allow pro-competition mechanisms to take effect and consumers to see that reflected in the options and prices afforded to them. We therefore support the clause and have not sought to amend it.

[Paul Scully]

On the two questions of what is reasonably practical and practicable in terms of time, we do not want to set an artificial deadline but want to make sure that the DMU can act as quickly as possible. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd rightly says, and we have said all the way through, technology and digital markets move really quickly. That is why we want to make sure that decisions are out of the door as quickly as possible, so that people can see what is happening as soon as possible. The decisions will go to the appropriate persons as described, which are relevant third parties and the SMS firms themselves. It is for the CMA to determine who is a relevant third party, but that will clearly include any challenger tech companies that may be affected by the initial SMS designation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 11, page 6, line 36, at end insert—

‘(6) The CMA must provide a copy of the SMS investigation notice to any person who requests a copy.’

This amendment and Amendments 47 to 52 aim to ensure access to information relevant to the regime is available publicly.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 7, line 9, at end insert—

‘(5) The CMA must provide a copy of the notice under subsection (2) to any person who requests a copy.’

See the statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 48, in clause 14, page 7, line 36, at end insert—

‘(5A) The CMA must provide a copy of the SMS decision notice to any person who requests a copy.’

See the statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 49 in clause 26, page 14, line 19, at end insert—

‘(3A) The CMA must provide a copy of the SMS decision notice to any person who requests a copy.’

See the statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 50 in clause 28, page 15, line 20, at end insert—

‘(5) The CMA must provide a copy of the notice to any person who requests a copy.’

See the statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 51 in clause 30, page 16, line 13, at end insert—

‘(4A) The CMA must provide a copy of the notice to any person who requests a copy.’

See the statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 52 in clause 46, page 25, line 38, at end insert—

‘(5) The CMA must provide a copy of the PCI investigation notice to any person who requests a copy.’

See the statement for Amendment 46.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

These important amendments to clause 11 that we have tabled are designed to encourage a more transparent approach to SMS investigations. As repeatedly stated, transparency, openness and accountability have to be central to the Bill working in practice and in reality. The Minister will note that this is a simple set of amendments, which will broaden the regime’s openness. Labour firmly believes that a transparent approach where possible and where the impact on markets is limited will be vital to its success. Will the Minister share his thoughts on our amendments? They seek to make the Bill more transparent for everyone and I look forward to some clarity.

[Paul Scully]

Amendments 46 to 52 would require that the notices the DMU must provide to an SMS firm in respect of an SMS designation, conduct requirements and PCIs should be made available on request to third parties. We agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd that transparency and accountability are essential to the new regime, and we will always look for ways to make sure that it is open and at the core of what we do.

The Bill already provides that the DMU will be required to publish online a statement summarising the contents of those notices whenever they are provided to a firm. That is, it will need to set out required elements of the notice, such as describing its decisions and the reasoning behind them, in a shortened form. In the statements, the DMU will provide the key information from the notice about its decisions to other businesses, consumers and the wider public, in line with public law principles. The DMU may redact commercially sensitive information.

For example, the summary notice for a conduct investigation must give details about the conduct requirement and the behaviour suspected of breaching that requirement, and it must provide information about the investigation period and the timeframe for making representations for third parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Third parties can clearly get involved and approach the DMU, which I will cover in a minute, so we do not necessarily need to get to court stage. I have talked about some of the specifics that will be in the summary notices, which will have quite a considerable amount of detail anyway. We do not want to add extra resource requirements that take away from the core tasks of the DMU.

The summary statements are just one of the ways in which the DMU will inform and involve stakeholders in its decision making. The DMU will be required to publicly consult before making major decisions, which include designating a firm with strategic market status in a digital activity, making pro-competition orders, and imposing conduct requirements. It will also be required to publish guidance on how it will take those decisions.

Should a third party be unsatisfied with the DMU’s summary statement, they can request the full notice through a freedom of information request. As a public authority, the CMA is required under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to provide the public with information it holds when requested to do so, subject to the relevant exemptions, which include a requirement to protect commercially sensitive information. We agree that public transparency for the new digital markets regime is vital. The drafting ensures that the right information will be made publicly available. I hope I have set out our position to hon. Members and that they feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I have listened to the Minister carefully outline the Government’s position. I do recognise that a balance needs to be struck, yet we feel that our amendments would seek to increase transparency, openness and accountability. For that reason, we will press them to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Power to impose conduct requirements

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 19, page 11, line 17, after “CMA,” insert—

“(ab) where the designated undertaking has been given an SMS decision notice under section 14(2), must come into force no later than three months of the SMS decision notice being given”.

This amendment introduces a timeline for the enforcement of conduct requirements set out on the face of the Bill and in CMA Guidance.

With your permission, Dame Maria, I will also speak to clause 19, in the interests of efficiency.

[The Chair]

indicated assent.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 19, which outlines the CMA’s power to impose conduct requirements on a designated firm, is very welcome indeed. It is an important clause that aims to prevent harm that may result from the market position of undertakings with strategic market status.

In practice, these conduct requirements are essentially instructions given to a designated undertaking to conduct digital activities in a manner that promotes competition. The requirements can be prescriptive or prohibitive in nature; they are essentially the dos and don’ts, except that the requirements do not apply automatically to every undertaking having SMS and instead apply on a case-by-case basis. The DMU therefore has wide discretion to impose conduct requirements on specific SMS firms, as long as they fit within a list of purposes that are listed in clause 20.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I am very fond of the hon. Member and she has a beautiful voice, but she did complain earlier about how long it had taken this Bill to get to market. I urge her to remember that we want to get through the Bill as quickly as possible, for consumers. Repeating every single thing that we can already read in the explanatory notes and in the Bill does not seem to me to be the most efficient use of all of our time.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Member will know I am also fond of her and her voice. I think it is important to clarify exactly what we are debating, and why we are reasoning as we are. I will happily refer to certain clauses if that would please the hon. Member, but it is important that we outline exactly why we have come to the rationale that we have on the Bill as it stands before us.

Potential examples of prescriptive conduct requirements include having effective processes for handling complaints, trading on fair and reasonable terms, or giving users options or default settings. Conversely, some examples of prohibitive conduct requirements may be preventing abuse of dominance practices, such as treating its own products more favourably, using data unfairly, tying practices, restricting interoperability, refusal to grant access and so on.

We particularly welcome subsection (5), which provides that the CMA may impose conduct requirements only for certain objectives. However, we have concerns about subsection (10), which says that a conduct requirement

“(a) comes into force at a time determined by the CMA, and

(b) ceases to have effect—

(i) in accordance with a decision of the CMA”—

as Members can read in the Bill.

For swift implementation, it is right that the Bill’s approach allows for conduct requirements to be written alongside an SMS designation investigation, but we need a statutory time limit for the initial set of conduct requirements to be implemented. As it is likely that the DMU will have considered the three conduct objectives before the SMS designation decision is made, the DMU should be required to impose the initial set of conduct requirements either at the same time as the SMS designation or within three months of its date.

A central feature of the new regime is to enable the DMU to revise its rules as time goes on, so the deadline should apply only to the initial set of conduct requirements, so as not to hinder the DMU in revising or adding to them subsequently. Amendment 54 would introduce a timeline for the enforcement of conduct requirements set out in the Bill and in CMA guidance.

[Peter Dowd]

Given that subscription traps cost between £28 billion and £34 billion a year, my constituents in Bootle are perfectly entitled to listen to my hon. Friend ram home this point time after time, because £28 billion out of their pockets in someone else’s pocket is not appropriate, not reasonable and not fair, given the current cost of living crisis. My hon. Friend should speak as much and as long as she wants.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is important that we get the Bill right. It is a very technical Bill. It is incredibly wordy—Members will have heard me trip over my words a number of times. It is important that we are able to portray the nature and benefits of the Bill to those listening at home or elsewhere, for the future and for the CMA, so that they understand what we as legislators mean when we speak in this place. That could influence decisions later. It is important for our constituents, who will be positively—we hope—impacted by the Bill. It will enable to have them more choice to hear exactly what we as legislators in this place mean.

The amendment introduces a timeline. It is important and we have given it some serious thought. I hope that the Minister has given it serious thought, too, because it would be helpful to ensure that the CMA is forced to act swiftly, as we have all discussed. I look forward to hearing his comments. I hope that he sees how beneficial this simple amendment could be. It is not meant to trick him; it is meant to make the legislation as positive and as beneficial as it can be.

[The Chair]

I remind the Minister that he may speak to clause stand part as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I totally agree. That is exactly the point. Let us make it quickly, but we do not want an arbitrary timescale so that we rush and get the decision wrong. It is more important to get the answer right. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypridd will withdraw her amendment.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I have listened to the robust debate we have had. I still feel that having a timeline on the face of the Bill would provide transparency, clarity and certainty. Therefore, we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Permitted types of conduct requirement

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 20, page 12, line 11, at end insert—

“(ca) carrying on activities in an area of its business other than the relevant digital activity, which if they were done in relation to the relevant digital activity would be prevented under the provisions of this section.”

This amendment prevents a designated undertaking from carrying on activities that would be prevented by the provisions of section 20 from being done in a different area of its business.

Amendment 53 aims to prevent a designated undertaking from carrying on activities that would be prevented by the provisions of section 20 from being done in a different area of its business. We feel that the amendment gets to the heart of the issues at hand, and we urge the Minister to consider it carefully. It will prevent a Whac-A-Mole situation in which the regulator is always having to define new activities to catch up, and we see it as an essential part of the Bill.

[Paul Scully]

I am trying to work out the intention of the amendment. It seems that it would add a permitted type of conduct requirement in order to expand the ability of the DMU to intervene outside the designated digital activity; I am not sure that I understand whether my understanding of that is clear.

The regime is explicitly designed to address competition issues in activities when a firm has strategic market status—that is, when it holds substantial and entrenched market power and a position of strategic significance. In some circumstances, SMS firms may use other, non-designated activities to further entrench their market power in the designated activity. Clause 20(3)(c) allows the DMU to create conduct requirements to address that; however, it is important that the DMU does not intervene in non-designated activities beyond that.

SMS firms are likely to be active in a large range of activities, and in many of them will face healthy competition from other firms. The amendment would allow the DMU to intervene outside the designated digital activity, without any requirement to show that there is a link to the firm’s market power in any given activity. That could be harmful to competition, consumers and innovation.

We are worried about whether the regime can tackle retaliatory conduct. It is important that that ability is built in, because a retaliatory action is likely to be captured under conduct requirement categories to ensure fair dealing, such as those that prevent discriminatory treatment or unfair terms and conditions. We want the DMU to be able to take firm action against retaliatory conduct, whether or not that is within the scope of designation, but only if it can prove the link between the two. It is really important that that step happens first.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments, although I disagree with him on the reasoning. We see the leveraging principle as critical to the success of the pro-competition regime. It is important to clause 20, which is a mammoth clause. Our amendment would prevent a designated undertaking from carrying on activities that would be prevented by the provisions in the clause. It is really important that the amendment is included so we will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 4

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I beg to move amendment 58, Clause 20, page 12, line 22, at end insert—

“(i) discriminating against a recognised news publisher by withholding from an internet service material produced by the recognised news publisher.”

This amendment would allow a conduct requirement to be used to stop a designated undertaking withholding news from a recognised news publisher from its platform.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Recognised news publisher: definition—

“(1) In section 20, ‘recognised news publisher’ means any of the following entities—

(a) the British Broadcasting Corporation,

(b) Sianel Pedwar Cymru,

(c) the holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996 who publishes news-related material in connection with the broadcasting activities authorised under the licence, and

(d) any other entity which—

(i) meets all of the conditions in subsection (2), and

(ii) is not an excluded entity (see subsection (3)).

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(d)(i) are that the entity—

(a) has as its principal purpose the publication of news-related material, and such material—

(i) is created by different persons, and

(ii) is subject to editorial control,

(b) publishes such material in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit),

(c) is subject to a standards code,

(d) has policies and procedures for handling and resolving complaints,

(e) has a registered office or other business address in the United Kingdom,

(f) is the person with legal responsibility for material published by it in the United Kingdom, and

(g) publishes—

(i) the entity’s name, the address mentioned in paragraph (e) and the entity’s registered number (if any), and

(ii) the name and address of any person who controls the entity (including, where such a person is an entity, the address of that person’s registered or principal office and that person’s registered number (if any)).

(3) An ‘excluded entity’ is an entity—

(a) which is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000 (see section 3 of that Act), or

(b) the purpose of which is to support a proscribed organisation under that Act.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) news-related material is “subject to editorial control” if there is a person (whether or not the publisher of the material) who has editorial or equivalent responsibility for the material, including responsibility for how it is presented and the decision to publish it;

(b) ‘control’ has the same meaning as it has in the Broadcasting Act 1990 by virtue of section 202 of that Act.

(5) In this section—

‘news-related material’ means material consisting of—

(a) news or information about current affairs,

(b) opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs, or

(c) gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news;

‘publish’ means publish by any means (including by broadcasting), and references to a publisher and publication are to be construed accordingly;

‘standards code’ means—

(a) a code of standards that regulates the conduct of publishers, that is published by an independent regulator, or

(b) a code of standards that regulates the conduct of the entity in question, that is published by the entity itself.”

This new clause is linked to Amendment 58.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The amendment would allow a conduct requirement to be used to stop a designated undertaking withholding news from a recognised news publisher from its platform. None of us want to see in the UK situations like those occurring elsewhere across the globe. Colleagues will be aware that Google and Meta have attempted to ward off fair negotiations in Australia and Canada by restricting or threatening to restrict access to domestic trusted news that is the antidote to online disinformation. Denying citizens access to reliable information to avoid payment serves only to emphasise the primacy that such firms place on profits, rather than citizens’ interests. The Government must absolutely not give in to similar threats in the UK.

As the EU and other jurisdictions have forged ahead with similar but ultimately less agile and effective digital competition regulation, there is a danger that the UK will become a rule taker and not a rule maker. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the principles of the amendment and new clause 2, which further outlines a favourable definition of a recognised publisher that Labour supports. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, but if we are not reassured, we will press the amendment to a vote.

[Paul Scully]

As we have heard, amendment 58 and new clause 2 are intended to strengthen the regime’s protections for news publishers by defining “recognised news publisher” and introducing a specific power to protect them from discrimination. I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment and what the hon. Member for Pontypridd is striving to do. It is important that news publishers can benefit from the robust protections offered by the new regime. I am confident that the Bill, as drafted, will make an important contribution to the sustainability of the press. I hope the hon. Lady will understand when I expand on that, because the DMU’s tools, including all permitted types of conduct requirement, are designed to rebalance the relationship between SMS firms and those who rely on them, including firms and sectors across the economy. They are drafted in a sector-neutral way for that reason.

--- Later in debate ---

That could apply to a wide range of businesses, very much including news publishers. Adding a sector-specific type of conduct requirement on discrimination is therefore redundant. It would also create the risk of DMU interventions being unfairly skewed towards one sector at the expense of others. Right the way through, we have tried to ensure that the regime is not only technology-agnostic, but sector-agnostic.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Is the Minister reassured that the Bill will not allow the emergence of a situation like those in Australia and Canada, where online disinformation is pumped around constantly because of the lack of clarity on platforms highlighting recognised news publishers?

[Paul Scully]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

At the end of the day, this is an interpretation of the Bill. The amendment names a number of specific news publishers; our approach is sector-unspecific. All those will come within the regime of the Bill, but specifying just one sector would risk skewing the conduct of the regime and the way it works towards that sector. I think the question that was asked was whether those news publishers and the kind of behaviour that has been described come under the regime of the Bill, as drafted. We believe they absolutely do.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I appreciate the Minister’s rationale, but leaving the interpretation of the Bill so ambiguous could mean certain platforms allowing news publishers that are not relevant news publishers to cause harm and damage to society and the public, as we have seen elsewhere in the world. It is imperative on us as legislators to get it right, and we have that opportunity in the Bill.

We have always said that we want this law to be world-leading. We wanted to be able to do things differently from the EU. This amendment gives us the flexibility to make that change and do things differently, which is why we will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The DMU will be able to use conduct requirements to address and prevent practices that exploit consumers and businesses or exclude innovative competitors. Clause 20 sets out an exhaustive list of permitted types of conduct requirement that the DMU can impose in order to address and prevent harm to businesses and consumers in digital markets. It ensures that the regime can adapt to future challenges by empowering the Secretary of State to amend this list, subject to parliamentary approval.

The list reflects insights drawn from the CMA’s market studies and regulatory expertise. It captures 13 well-evidenced types of anti-competitive behaviours including self-preferencing, tying and bundling, and the unfair use of data. Conduct requirements could be used to ensure that SMS firms interact with users of all kinds on fair and reasonable terms; that consumers are not discriminated against; or that competitors do not lose out because an SMS firm has used data unfairly. The list of permitted types of requirement reflects the competition issues we see in digital markets today, but these markets are fast-moving.

It is vital that the Secretary of State is able to amend the list in future, with Parliament’s approval, to ensure that consumers are protected from whatever new challenges arise. Setting out the types of permitted requirement in the legislation, rather than specifying the requirements themselves, means that the regime will be flexible and responsive. It will make it possible to impose targeted and tailored interventions that address harms to consumers, while avoiding unnecessary burdens and unintended consequences for SMS firms.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 20 is a mammoth clause that sets out an exhaustive list of permitted types of conduct requirement. Labour welcomes the clarity in the clause—as, I am sure, will the CMA and firms likely to be designated. Ultimately, pro-competitive interventions will tackle the causes of market power and are a necessary step to addressing the characteristics of these markets, such as network effects and economies of scale that tip some digital markets towards a single firm. Those interventions could also include mandating that consumers have greater choice over the collection and use of their personal data. They could even look at ownership separation. However, some digital markets cannot be made competitive, and in such cases the effects of market power must be managed. To do this, the DMU needs sufficient powers. We see the clause as central to getting that balance right.

Clause 20 states that conduct requirements may prevent the SMS firm from

“carrying on activities other than the relevant digital activity in a way that is likely to increase the undertaking’s market power materially, or bolster the strategic significance of its position, in relation to the relevant digital activity”.

The leveraging principle is critical to the success of the pro-competition regime. Without it, the DMU will find itself unable to address harmful conduct and will meet arguments about where—meaning in which activity—a piece of conduct occurs, because the DMU will be unable to touch conduct that occurs outside the SMS activity even if it is closely related to the SMS activity.

A stronger leveraging principle would prevent designated firms from simply moving their service fees from one location in the ecosystem to another, such as from app store service fees to an operating system licence—the stealth tax that we heard about during our evidence sessions. It would prevent a whack-a-mole situation in which the regulator always has to define new activities to catch up.

We have already debated our amendment, with which we were seeking a stronger principle. Sadly, it was not accepted by the Government, but we will push this further as the Bill progresses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Content of notice imposing a conduct requirement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 22 to 25 stand part.

[Paul Scully]

Clauses 21 to 25 set out the procedural aspects in relation to conduct requirements, because it is really important that SMS firms, and the people and businesses who rely on them, understand what obligations are being imposed and why. The DMU is required to give notice to the SMS firm and then publish the notice online as soon as is reasonably practicable. Clause 21 sets out the information that must appear in the notice.

Given the rapid pace of change across businesses and digital markets, it is important that the DMU can adapt conduct requirements to ensure that they remain targeted and proportionate, so clause 22 will establish the DMU’s power to revoke a conduct requirement, helping to ensure that conduct requirements remain targeted and proportionate as markets and firms change.

Clause 23 will allow the DMU to facilitate the smooth transition into or out of a conduct requirement. Without the clause, there is a risk of disruption or harm to businesses and consumers where a conduct requirement comes into force or ceases to have effect without a sufficient transition period.

The conduct requirements in clause 24 will impose tailored, enforceable obligations on SMS firms. It is only right that consumers and businesses, including the SMS firms themselves, have a chance to share their perspective on those obligations, so clause 24 requires the DMU to carry out a public consultation on its proposed decision before it can impose, vary or revoke a conduct requirement.

Clause 25 requires the DMU to keep conduct requirements under review, ensuring that requirements remain effective, targeted and proportionate. It also ensures that the DMU monitors where breaches may have taken place.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 21 sets out the information that the CMA is required to publish as part of the notice imposing or varying a conduct requirement. Labour supports the clause, which we feel is important for clarifying the details around the content of potential conduct requirements. Again, I am keen to understand exactly who will have access to such information. As ever, I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on that point. That aside, we see the clause as integral to the Bill, so we have not sought to amend it at this stage.

As with clause 21, we support clause 22 and its intentions in full. The only point that I feel is worth raising with the Minister is the slight ambiguity around the timeframes. It will be helpful for all involved if the regime is not only flexible, but rapid and able to evolve for changing markets. Can the Minister assure us that the clause will support this in practice?

Clause 23 is important and serves a vital function in establishing the transitional provisions related to conduct requirements. An example would be if a conduct requirement were imposed from a particular date, but some allowances were made in relation to certain aspects of that conduct requirement so that they had effect from a later date to smooth the transition for the benefit of a designated undertaking. That speaks to the nature of the regime: we all want to see it as flexible and fair, but it is therefore only right that the CMA be given appropriate statutory powers to vary its conduct requirements where required. We also welcome subsection (2), the details of which will enable and empower the CMA to investigate and enforce against historical breaches. That is vital, as we seek to establish a regime that will be sufficiently agile for breaches both past and present.

Clause 24 is also incredibly welcome. It imposes a duty on the CMA to consult publicly before imposing, varying or revoking a conduct requirement. The consultation must be brought to the attention of such persons as the CMA considers appropriate. We have already discussed who is an appropriate person, but sadly the transparency and commitment to consultation is not mirrored elsewhere in the Bill, which is frustrating. Given the broadly collegiate nature of our debate thus far, I hope that the Minister can consider some adjustments, and I look forward to hearing from him shortly. By and large, though, Labour welcomes the provisions in subsection (3), which provide that the CMA will be allowed to carry out a consultation on proposed conduct requirements before making a decision on designation. As we know, that makes it possible for the CMA to impose conduct requirements at the same time as issuing a decision on designation, or very shortly afterwards. We consider that to be a sensible approach, and we therefore support the clause.

Again, there is no need to repeat myself. Labour supports clause 25, which places a duty on the CMA to consider, on an ongoing basis, the effectiveness of any conduct requirements in place and how far the designated undertaking is complying with them. The CMA will also need to consider, on an ongoing basis, whether to impose, vary or revoke a conduct requirement, and whether it would be appropriate to take action against a breach of any conduct requirement. It would be helpful for us all to have an idea of how regularly the reviews will happen. It cannot and should not be the case that one SMS firm has its conduct requirements reviewed more regularly than any other, so I am keen to hear the Minister’s assessment of how that will work fairly and equitably in practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Sixth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Clauses 26 to 35 are about the enforcement of conduct requirements. The participative approach within the pro-competition regime means that the digital markets unit will aim to resolve issues with firms with strategic market status without the need for formal enforcement action. Where that is not possible, clause 26 will empower the DMU to investigate suspected breaches of conduct requirements by SMS firms and, where it finds a breach, consider what action can be taken. That is necessary to ensure that SMS firms comply with requirements.

Opening an investigation allows the DMU to make use of the full range of information-gathering powers set out in chapter 6. Where the DMU begins an investigation, certain information must be given via a notice to the SMS firm, and a summary of that notice must be published. Clause 27 will require that before the DMU can make a finding of the breach, it must consider any representations that an SMS firm makes in relation to the conduct investigation.

Clause 28 will allow the DMU to close a conduct investigation at any time without making a finding as to whether a breach has occurred. The DMU will need to explain why it is closing the investigation and account for its decision. That power is needed as it allows the DMU to react to changes during the investigation process. That could be, for example, needing to divert resources to an emerging high-priority competition issue elsewhere.

Clause 29 sets out the countervailing benefits exemption. The DMU’s objective is to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, and that will shape the design of its regulatory interventions, meaning that the DMU will take consumer benefits into account when designing conduct requirements in the first place. However, the inclusion of the countervailing benefits exemption provides a backstop to ensure that, if needed, consumer benefits can be explicitly considered at the enforcement stage, too.

During a conduct investigation, an SMS firm will be able to put forward evidence that its action brings about benefits for consumers that outweigh the potential harm to competition. That will reinforce that consumers are at the heart of the regime. The clause is not about pursuing textbook-perfect economic outcomes; it is about real-world outcomes for consumers.

Clause 30 will place the DMU under a duty to notify an SMS firm of the outcome of a conduct investigation within a six-month investigation period. That will ensure that investigations are executed within reasonable timeframes. That does not apply if the DMU has accepted a voluntary binding commitment from the firm relating to the conduct under investigation, or if the investigation is closed with no findings made. The duty to give a notice to an SMS firm and subsequently publish a summary online is vital to inform the firm under investigation of the outcome and keep relevant parties informed of DMU action.

Clause 31 will give power to the DMU to impose an enforcement order on an SMS firm where it has found a breach of a conduct requirement. Those orders will most often be cease-and-desist orders requiring bad behaviour to stop, but they can also require more complex behavioural changes where that is a more appropriate way to remedy a breach. When imposing or varying an enforcement order, the DMU has a power, rather than a duty, to consult those persons it considers appropriate. That will allow the DMU to consider relevant third-party and SMS representations on proposed enforcement action, while ensuring that enforcement orders requiring the SMS firm to simply stop bad behaviour are not delayed by a requirement to consult.

Clause 32 will grant a power to the DMU to introduce enforcement orders on an interim basis. The DMU needs to be able quickly to address immediate harms that may occur from suspected conduct breaches in order to prevent significant damage, prevent action that would make subsequent remedies ineffective, or protect the public interest. The clause will enable intervention before irreversible change occurs and will ensure that options to restore competition are maintained.

Clause 33 makes provision for the duration of enforcement orders and interim enforcement orders, and for the circumstances in which they cease to have effect. Clause 34 will establish the DMU’s power to revoke an enforcement order, ensuring that the enforcement orders in place remain targeted and proportionate. The DMU needs the flexibility to remove enforcement orders where they are no longer appropriate, so that SMS firms are not subject to unnecessary or inappropriate rules.

Finally, to ensure that enforcement orders are effective, targeted and proportionate, it is important that the DMU considers how they function and whether changes are necessary. Clause 35 will require that the DMU monitors the effectiveness of the enforcement orders in place. That includes assessing whether SMS firms are complying with existing enforcement orders, whether variation of an order is required and whether further enforcement action is needed.

In conclusion, clauses 26 to 35 set out robust enforcement provisions to make sure that the impacts of conduct requirements are realised.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. With your permission, I will make some brief comments on the clauses, in response to the Minister.

Clause 26 is very welcome. It is an important clause that outlines the circumstances in which the CMA will be able to begin an investigation into a suspected breach of a conduct requirement, more formally referred to in the Bill as a conduct investigation. It is an important and positive addition. For too long, the CMA has not had the legislative teeth to make positive change in our digital markets. Ensuring that it has reasonable and sufficient powers such as those outlined in the clause is central.

Labour particularly welcomes the provisions and thresholds outlined in subsection (1), which make it clear that the decision to begin a conduct investigation will be grounded in empirical evidence, whether from complaints submitted by third parties or from the CMA’s own market studies. None of us wants to see overregulation or businesses stifled, but it is important that when the CMA has reasonable grounds to carry out a breach of conduct requirement, it has the tools available to act swiftly.

We note that subsections (3) and (4) outline the requirement for the CMA to give a notice to the undertaking about the investigation and set out the content required for that notice. We welcome the provisions entirely, as we do the clarification on the period in which a statutory investigation can take place. We think six months is reasonable, and we are pleased to see clarity on when the timeframe can be extended—a matter we will come to later when we address clause 102.

The current wording of subsection (6) states:

“As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a conduct investigation notice, the CMA must publish a statement summarising the contents of the conduct investigation notice.”

Could the Minister clarify exactly where, and to whom, that notice will be published? As I have previously stated in reference to other parts of the Bill, there are some grounds for making that information public, at least to those who request it. We appreciate the market sensitivities, but ultimately it is businesses that will be facing regulation over their digital practices, broadly for the first time, and they deserve access to that information. It will be a valuable tool for learning and best practice.

I will keep my comments on clause 27 brief because I think, or at least hope, that we all agree that it is an important clause that makes sure that the CMA is required to consider representations from the undertaking being investigated before making a decision on whether the undertaking has breached conduct requirements. I am keen to hear from the Minister exactly what sort of information he believes will be appropriate for the CMA to consider. A balanced approach to the regime is critical, but we do not want the CMA’s investigatory powers delayed by big firms who may choose to delay or overwhelm the process in any way. That aside, we support the clause and have not sought to amend it at this stage. Sincere apologies to Committee members for my repetition, but this is a far more collegiate Committee than others I have sat on.

We support clause 28 and its intentions. As we know, the clause provides that the CMA can choose to close a conduct investigation without making a decision about a breach, and sets out the process and timing for giving a notice to the undertaking about the closure and publishing a summary of the notice. We welcome provisions and clarity over this process. The CMA could summarise the contents of the notice provided to the relevant designated undertaking, while allowing it to redact some information for confidentiality purposes. However, we feel that there is a strong argument, once again, for making that information public to anyone who wishes to request a copy.

Labour welcomes the intentions of clause 29, which outlines the procedure that the CMA must follow where a breach of a firm’s conduct requirement results in net benefits for consumers. This is an important clause, and it is vital that we have such an exemption to ensure that the regime does not inadvertently harmfully impact consumers. However, the countervailing benefits exemption must not be drawn too broadly. If the exemption is too broad, SMS firms will be able regularly to avoid conduct requirement compliance by citing security and privacy claims, as well as spamming the CMA with numerous studies, thus diverting its resources, which, as we have discussed, are very precious. This would undermine the entire regime by severely limiting the efficacy and efficiency of the conduct requirements. I therefore wonder whether the Minister has considered including in the Bill an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list of acceptable grounds for exemption.

Broadly speaking, though, Labour welcomes the Government’s approach, which has similarities with the approach taken in the Competition Act 1998. It would be remiss of me not to remind the Minister that that important Act came into being thanks to a Labour Government. The reality is that Labour has always been committed to getting this balance right. We want to support big businesses, while also protecting consumers and encouraging innovation. These principles do not have to be mutually exclusive. That is why we particularly welcome clause 29(2), which sets out the criteria for the exemption, including that the benefits need to be

“to users or potential users of the digital activity in respect of which the conduct requirement in question applies,”

and must

“outweigh any actual or likely detrimental impact on competition resulting from a breach of the conduct requirement”.

As we know, some examples of benefits may include lower prices, higher-quality goods or services, or greater innovation in relation to goods or services.

Clause 29 also makes it clear that it must not be possible to realise the benefits without the conduct, which means that the CMA must be satisfied that there is no other reasonable or practical way for the designated undertaking to achieve the same benefits with less anti-competitive effect. That is an important clarification, which is once again a sensible approach that we feel is crucial to getting the balance of this regime right.

Although I know that colleagues will be aware of the example highlighted to us all in the Bill’s explanatory notes about a default internet browser receiving security updates possibly being an exemption, I wonder whether the Minister can give us additional examples of situations in which he would see the clause coming into effect. That aside, we support the intentions of clause 29 and see it as a positive step in terms of putting consumers and common sense first.

We see clause 30 as being fairly procedural, in that it outlines the circumstances in which the CMA must give notice about the findings of a conduct investigation. We are pleased to see that a period of six months has been established; none of us wants to see this process going on unnecessarily. We note, however, that in subsection (1), and in the Bill generally, we truly believe that more transparency is required. As it stands, the Bill is missing an opportunity to afford civil society, academics, businesses and consumers alike the opportunity to learn from the regime and ultimately to improve best practice in our digital markets more widely.

We welcome clause 31. However, we note that subsection (4) specifies information that the enforcement must contain, while subsection (5) requires that the CMA

“may consult such persons as the CMA considers appropriate before making an enforcement order”,

or varying one. Again, the wording is very subtle, but I am most interested to hear from the Minister exactly why the consultation process is a “may” rather than a “must”.

Throughout the Bill in its current form, there appears to be a lack of points for stakeholders to engage with the CMA decisions through consultation. Although the CMA being able to design rules and interventions for each firm could result in more effective remedies, it also increases the risk of regulatory capture, whereby SMS firms write their own rules and get them rubber-stamped by the regulator. That makes proper consultation essential. I would appreciate clarification on that point from the Minister.

Clause 32, as its title suggests, gives the CMA the power to make enforcement orders on an interim basis. This is an important tool to allow the CMA to act rapidly where a potential breach is concerned. It is particularly welcome that subsection (1)(b) lists the circumstances under which interim enforcement orders can be made, and that these are broadly around preventing damage to a person or people, preventing conduct that could reduce the effectiveness of the CMA, or protecting the public interest. It is important for all of us with an interest in the Bill that that is clearly outlined in the Bill, so that is very welcome indeed.

Clause 33 makes provision for enforcement orders and interim enforcement orders to come into force, and outlines the circumstances in which they cease to have effect. We see this clause as, again, a fairly procedural one. We welcome the clarity of subsection (4), which will ultimately enable the CMA to take action against historic breaches. That is imperative, given the pace at which our digital markets and regulated firms can shift. We therefore support the clause and believe that it should stand part of the Bill.

On clause 34, as with previous clauses, there is no need for me to elaborate at great length. In essence, we agree with the clause.

As we know, clause 35 outlines that the CMA must keep the enforcement orders and interim enforcement orders that it has made under review, including whether to vary or revoke them, and also the extent to which undertakings are complying with them and whether further enforcement action needs to be taken. This is an incredibly important point. The CMA must review its own homework, as we expect all regulators to do. However, I wonder what assessment the Minister has made of making those reviews public. The CMA must have a degree of accountability, particularly to Parliament. We feel that that is somewhat lacking in the Bill as it stands.

More widely, that points to the lack of opportunities for stakeholders to engage with the CMA and its decisions through consultation, as I have previously said. This is a significant problem, given the nature of the regime. On the one hand, the flexibility and agency that the DMU has to tailor its regulatory approach depending on the nature of the firm should allow it to design more effective remedies. On the other, it increases the danger of regulatory capture by SMS firms. I would appreciate the Minister clarifying that point so that we get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I turn to the clauses on commitments related to conduct requirements. The ability of the DMU to accept commitments, which are voluntary and binding obligations, from SMS firms is important to support the participative approach to regulation that I have spoken about. That approach promotes greater efficiency and the swift resolution of investigations.

Clause 36 will allow the DMU to accept commitments from a firm during a conduct investigation. Firms will be able to offer commitments to the DMU to propose a solution to a suspected breach of conduct requirements. There will be robust safeguards in place to ensure that commitments are used appropriately. The DMU will need to publicly consult on any proposal to accept a commitment. Commitments can be varied to reflect changes in circumstances and will remain in force until either the DMU decides to release the SMS firm from the commitment or the conduct requirement to which the commitment relates comes to an end.

Clause 37 will ensure that the DMU is required to monitor the commitments that are accepted. That includes assessing the appropriateness of the commitments; whether SMS firms are complying with the commitments; and whether further enforcement actions are needed. To ensure that commitments are accepted, varied or revoked in a transparent way, schedule 1 sets out the procedures relating to commitments.

The procedures in schedule 1 also apply in relation to commitments for pro-competition interventions, but I will speak about those at a later stage. Schedule 1 ensures that the DMU publishes a notice detailing the commitment or proposed varying or revocation of the commitment and the reasons for its decision. The DMU must also consider any representations made in accordance with the notice before accepting, varying or revoking commitments. Without the ability to accept commitments, the DMU would have to use greater resources to further investigate breaches, and then develop and impose enforcement orders to fix them. The swift and effective resolution through binding commitments will be beneficial for the DMU, affected firms and ultimately consumers.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Labour supports the intentions of clause 36, which ensures that the CMA can accept binding voluntary commitments from an undertaking during a conduct investigation to bring the investigation to an end. Once again, we feel that that is critical to a flexible and fair regulatory regime. It is only right that the CMA is empowered to continue an investigation into other behaviour and, when it can, investigate the same behaviour again. Therefore, we particularly welcome subsection (4).

That being said, there is no mention of consultation regarding the accepting of commitments from SMS firms, even though that will close a conduct requirement investigation and the commitments accepted will impact stakeholders. There is also no consultation when the CMA chooses to release an SMS firm from the commitments. Again, we feel that those points are worth clarifying. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline exactly why the Bill fails to place a duty on the CMA to consult appropriately on that important point.

Schedule 1 and its provisions relate to the commitments on firms, and it is very welcome. The schedule outlines the duty on the CMA to publish a notice, and consider any representations made in accordance with the notice that are not withdrawn. That is a logical and sensible approach. We also welcome the range of provisions in the schedule that provide extensive clarity on the CMA’s responsibilities in relation to its decision making. We have repeatedly called for more clarity with a number of amendments, so I hope the Minister will carefully consider our reasonable requests. Overall, schedule 1 is an important part of the Bill that further clarifies the CMA’s responsibilities, and we support its inclusion.

Without mirroring the comments that were made when we considered clause 25, Labour supports clause 37. It is vital for the regime to function now and into the future that the CMA has a duty to review those commitments. I am interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on how frequent the reviews should be, but ultimately this is the right approach if we are to ensure and encourage total compliance. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are open to improving the Bill when it comes to transparency, including parliamentary oversight. With that in mind, we do not have any specific amendments to clause 37 at this stage, but that could change.

[Paul Scully]

To answer the hon. Lady’s point about consultation in clause 36, I will point her to schedule 1(2), which requires the DMU to consult on commitments before they are accepted or varied. Although that requirement is not in clause 36, it is in schedule 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Power to adopt final offer mechanism

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Government amendment 4 redefines what transactions can be dealt with under the final offer mechanism. It is accompanied by several consequential amendments to clauses 38 to 41. One of the conditions for the use of the final offer mechanism as currently drafted is that it can be used only in relation to a “proposed” transaction, where an SMS firm provides goods or services to the third party, or uses or acquires goods or services from the third party.

However, for the final offer mechanism to be most effective, it is crucial that the definition of “transaction” includes the future performance of an existing transaction, as well as new transactions that will happen in the future. That will ensure that parties who are already transacting with each other but on unfair and unreasonable payment terms are not excluded by the conditions for using the final offer mechanism. These are consequential, technical amendments that have been produced alongside feedback from the CMA.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We welcome the first group of Government amendments, which we see as important clarifications to ensure that the final offer mechanism can be applied in relation to the future performance of an ongoing transaction. We support their inclusion, as those changes should stand part of the Bill.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause 38, page 21, line 1, leave out “proposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 4.

Amendment 3, in clause 38, page 21, line 7, leave out “proposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 4.

Amendment 4, in clause 38, page 21, line 13, at end insert—

“(4A) In subsection (1), ‘transaction’ means—

(a) a future transaction, or

(b) the future performance of an ongoing transaction,

whether in accordance with a contract or otherwise.”

This amendment, together with Amendments 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 45 means that the final offer mechanism could be applied in relation to the future performance of an ongoing transaction.

Amendment 45, in clause 38, page 21, leave out line 20 and insert—

“‘the transaction’ means the transaction mentioned”—(Paul Scully.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 4.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 39 stand part.

Government amendment 7.

Government amendment 10.

Clauses 40 to 43 stand part.

Government new clause 1—Decision not to make final offer order—

New clause 3—CMA annual report on final offer mechanism—

‘(1) The CMA must, once a year, produce a report about the final offer mechanism.

(2) Each report must include information about—

(a) the number of final offer orders the CMA has made over the previous year;

(b) for each final offer order—

(i) the amount of time taken between final offer initiation notice being given and the final offer order being made.

(ii) whether bids were submitted by both the undertaking and the third party, and

(iii) the outcome of the process; and

(3) The CMA may provide the information in such a way as to withhold any details that the CMA considers to be commercially sensitive.

(4) The first report must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.’

This new clause requires the CMA to publish an annual report on the workings of the final offer mechanism. The report will be made publicly available and will be laid in both Houses of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, on new clause 3 I fully recognise the importance of transparency in a regime in general, and regarding the use of this novel tool in particular. However, the Bill as drafted already contains a robust process for ensuring transparency on the rare occasions that this tool will be needed through the clear public statements published by the DMU at significant points in the process, including about any final offer orders made. Those statements will provide information about the operation of the final offer mechanism in practice, ensuring clarity as to how and when the tool is being used for the sake of stakeholders, as well as interested parliamentarians. That is in addition to the annual report already prepared and delivered to Parliament by the CMA, which will also cover its activities under the regime. As such, an additional annual report would not offer Parliament any greater insight into the use of that tool, and therefore I do not believe that the new clause would provide any additional benefit. I hope that the hon. Lady feels able to withdraw it.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As we know, there are several provisions contained in the Bill that could form the basis of new rules regulating agreements between UK news media and digital platforms, akin to the news media bargaining code in Australia. However, the formulation of those rules will be at the discretion of the DMU, and would apply on a case-by-case basis. As we have debated, the Bill currently enables the DMU to impose conduct requirements that are for the purposes of obliging undertakings to

“trade on fair and reasonable terms”.

Those undertakings could also be obliged by the DMU to not carry on activities other than their digital activities in a way that could be anti-competitive. That could be the case where carrying out that non-digital activity is likely to increase an undertaking’s market power materially or bolster the strategic significance of its position in relation to its digital activity.

The Bill also provides an arbitration process called a final offer mechanism. Under that mechanism, the DMU will invite the SMS firms and third parties to submit a payment terms offer that they regard as fair and reasonable. The DMU is then required to choose one party’s offer only, without any ability to determine alternative offers. That process has been adopted in Australia for the purpose of arbitrating bargains between digital platforms and news media providers, although it has not yet been used. While there is no provision for a media bargaining code in the Bill, the mere existence of this mechanism will hopefully drive tech platforms to negotiate sincerely with media providers in that context to reach an agreement independently, rather than risk the CMA choosing the final offer. We entirely welcome this clause, and the additional relevant ones to follow.

In the digital media sector, Google and Meta’s overwhelming market power means that publishers are not compensated fairly for the significant value that their content creates for platforms, which is estimated at about £1 billion per year here in the UK. Google Search and Meta’s Facebook rely on news publishers to attract and engage users, as professional news content is reliable and regularly updated. It is absolutely right that the CMA will be empowered to make pro-competition interventions. While the conduct reviews will hopefully prevent the worst abuses of market power, PCIs will allow the DMU to implement remedies that address the root cause of that market power. For example, a CR could prevent an SMS firm from self-preferencing its own businesses in the digital advertising market, which has negative impacts including locking businesses into products and taking an unfairly large cut of revenues, whereas a PCI could require a functional separation to remove the incentive for self-preferencing. Labour sees that as a hugely important tool. We want to see and support an empowered DMU, so we are pleased to support the clause and believe it should stand part of the Bill.

Again, we see clause 39 as important: it sets out the process that the CMA must follow if it decides to use a final offer mechanism. In theory, the DMU should support publishers, who will now be able to negotiate fair and reasonable terms for the value that news content brings to platforms. If SMS firms refuse to comply, a final offer mechanism will be available, with each party submitting bids and the fairest offer being selected. The DMU will ensure that publishers receive a fair share of revenues for the advertising that is shown around their content. Publishers will also be able to receive user data when consumers interact with their content on platform services, in a manner compliant with data protection law. In theory, unfair commissions on app store sales will be prevented, ensuring that publishers can build sustainable digital subscription businesses.

These are all very welcome developments indeed. We particularly welcome subsection (3), under which the CMA must specify if it is considering taking any other action to address the underlying cause of the breach that led to the use of the FOM—for example, a pro-competition order instructing a designated undertaking to provide access for third parties to consumer data held by that undertaking, which could rebalance bargaining power within that digital activity. It will come as no surprise that I ask the Minister, once again, to clarify whether such statements will be published in the public domain. This important point is worth clarifying, so I look forward to hearing about the adequacy of the transparency provisions in this part of the Bill.

Government amendments 7 and 10 are linked to Government new clause 1. They clarify that parties can still settle outside formal processes once the FOM stage has begun. Given that the aim of the final offer mechanism is to incentivise parties to come to a deal without direct CMA intervention, it seems right that parties are still able to come to a deal outside this formal process. This may allow for more favourable terms to be reached, as the platforms will be under pressure in the FOM process, and it will mean that publishers can avoid the uncertainty of the CMA picking one of the two offers.

There will always be a concern that the asymmetry of resources might mean that publishers compromise too far when faced with the uncertainty of an FOM decision but, ultimately, Labour supported these provisions when they appeared in clause 40, and moving them to ensure that a deal can be reached outside the FOM at any time after a final offer intention notice has been issued seems to make good sense. We therefore support the Government amendments.

Unsurprisingly, Labour also welcomes clause 40, which establishes the process that the CMA must follow with regard to the outcome of the FOM process. We need not go into much detail on this clause, as we view it as a fairly standard and effective way of ensuring that proposed transactions are fairly processed by the CMA.

At this point, I must press home the wider importance of these final offer mechanisms because, if they are implemented correctly, they could have incredibly positive benefits. Indeed, we know that Google and Meta have attempted to ward off fair negotiations in Australia and Canada by restricting, or threatening to restrict, access to domestic trusted news, which is the antidote to online disinformation. Denying citizens access to reliable information to avoid payment serves only to emphasise the primacy that these firms place on profit, rather than citizens’ interests. The Government should not give in to similar threats here in the UK, and I hope the Minister is listening.

As the EU and other jurisdictions have forged ahead with similar, but less agile and effective, digital competition regulations, there is a danger that the UK will become a rule taker, not a rule maker. Delayed or weakened legislation will leave UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage internationally, and will deny UK consumers lower prices and more innovative products. In contrast, a strong, forward-looking DMU regulation will ensure that digital markets live up to their potential, allowing consumers to enjoy the full benefits that technology can deliver. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government will not bow to pressure and that the CMA will rightly be compelled to intervene where necessary.

Labour supports the intention of clause 41, which we also see as standard practice. Colleagues will note that subsection (1) provides that a final offer order must impose obligations on the designated undertaking that the CMA considers appropriate for giving effect to the final offer payment terms it has decided, and they must be included in the proposed transaction.

Again, subsection (2) sets out exactly what information the CMA must give to the parties, and we welcome the provision. I further note that subsection (3) requires the CMA to publish a statement summarising the final offer order, and this transparency is also welcome. It is unclear who will have access to these statements, so I am keen to hear the Minister’s assessment of the value of making such documents public to anyone who wishes to seek them. This aside, we support clause 41 and believe it should stand part of the Bill.

Labour supports clause 42 and particularly welcomes subsection (3). This is an important clause as it empowers the CMA to take action on both historical and live breaches. Concerns reported to us by tech companies include requiring clarity on the terms of these final offer mechanisms. It is well known that many users sign up to digital platforms, via terms and conditions, to access a service with no monetary exchange as part of the agreement. Does the Minister see this counting as a contract that is challengeable via the final offer mechanism under the DMU regime? Although the regime appears clear, the final offer mechanism relates to pricing disputes and there are concerns that it could be drawn wider. Clarity on this point is vital and is worth establishing on the record, so I am keen for the Minister to address it.

I do not have any specific comments to make on clause 43. As we have previously said, Labour believes it is important that the CMA must be legally obliged to keep these final offer orders under constant review. This is the nature of a workable, agile regime, and we therefore support the clause standing part.

We tabled new clause 3 to require the CMA to publish an annual report on the workings of the final offer mechanism. This report should be made publicly available and should be laid in both Houses so that Parliament has its say.

We recognise that the final offer mechanism is fairly unique, and it is therefore only right that the CMA is required to update the House each year, with findings on the number of SMS firms that are subject to these investigations. The Minister mentioned that the CMA will be obliged to provide an annual report to Parliament; I want it to be clear that what we have set out in new clause 1 on the final offer mechanism would be part of that report so that Parliament could scrutinise how many were made, for example. This would add to and support the other transparency measures we have pursued, so I hope the Minister not dismiss the new clause, but will consider it carefully. We feel that that is an important matter to get on record in any annual review.

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Lady has engaged in our debate on these clauses. I shall try to answer her questions in turn.

Publication will be online, so people will be able to see it. It will be public. The hon. Lady’s second question was: will I listen? Absolutely yes, I will. On her third question—will I not bow? I will bow to her, but not to pressure, because I think we have largely got this right. I cannot remember her last question—

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It was about new clause 3.

[Paul Scully]

Oh yes. It is important that we examine the efficacy of the final offer mechanism, so it is appropriate that that will be covered in the CMA’s review of all its work, and that we will get to see and assess that work as well. I can stand here and tell the Committee that I think we have got it right now, but things change. Yes, it is flexible, and yes, it is proportionate, but we want to make sure that it stays world beating.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Final offer mechanism

Amendment made: 6, in clause 39, page 21, line 32, leave out “proposed”.—(Paul Scully.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 4.

Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Final offers: outcome

Amendments made: 7, in clause 40, page 22, line 25, leave out

“included as terms of”

and insert

“given effect for the purposes of”.

This amendment means that terms as to payment are to be given effect for the purposes of the transaction, or of any substantially similar transaction, rather than having to be “included” as terms of the transaction.

Amendment 8, in clause 40, page 22, line 26, leave out “proposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 4.

Amendment 9, in clause 40, page 22, line 28, leave out “proposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 4.

Amendment 10, in clause 40, page 22, line 36, leave out subsections (6) to (10).—(Paul Scully.)

See the explanatory statement for NC1.

Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Final offer orders: supplementary

Amendment made: 11, in clause 41, page 23, line 19, leave out “proposed”.—(Paul Scully.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 4.

Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 42 and 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Seventh sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

To create self-sustaining and dynamic competition in UK digital markets, we must address the sources of SMS—strategic market status— firms’ substantial and entrenched power in digital markets. Clause 44 gives the digital markets unit the power to address competition problems in digital markets through pro-competition interventions, which the DMU can make where factors relating to a digital activity undertaken by a SMS firm prevent, restrict or distort competition in that digital activity. That is known as an adverse effect on competition. The concept is already used for market investigations under the Competition and Markets Authority’s existing markets regime. Government amendment 12 is a technical amendment relating to PCI investigations.

Turning to clauses 45 to 54, PCIs are fundamental to the new digital markets regime. They will address the root causes of market power that can lead to one or two large firms dominating, to the detriment of consumers and businesses in the UK. Clause 45 empowers the DMU to open a PCI investigation into suspected competition problems related to designated digital activities.

Clause 46 describes the process relating to PCI investigations. Under clause 47, the DMU will be required to carry out a public consultation on a proposed PCI decision before concluding its investigation and giving notice of final PCI decisions. Clause 48 provides the procedure for the DMU to give notice of its decision when concluding a PCI investigation. When the DMU decides to make a PCI, it must do so within four months of the PCI decision.

Pro-competition orders, set out in clause 49, are the means by which the DMU can require a firm to take, or refrain from taking, specific actions. That includes orders on a trial basis. They are vital in converting the DMU’s PCI decision, from clause 48, into an operationable remedy.

To effectively address the sources of competition problems in digital markets, PCIs should be iterative and targeted, so the DMU will be able to replace pro-competition orders. That is provided for in clause 50, which will allow the DMU to initially apply lighter touch remedies and then assess their effectiveness before introducing stronger measures if necessary.

Clause 51 gives the DMU the power to revoke a pro-competition order where it deems it inappropriate to vary the order through replacement, or where the order has addressed the competition problem and is no longer required. That ensures that PCIs remain effective and proportionate and can respond to changes in the market.

Clause 52 provides that before making or revoking a pro-competition order, the DMU must carry out a public consultation. The DMU will be under both a general and specific duty to monitor and review pro-competition orders provided for in clause 53.

Finally, SMS firms should be able to offer commitments to the DMU to propose a solution to a competition problem. That supports a participative approach to regulation, which is set out in clause 54.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

We will of course look properly at the issue of consumer protections later in the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has a number of contributions to add on that topic.

Clause 44 is important in putting consumer rights at the heart of the Bill, as it enables the CMA to remedy competition problems by making direct interventions. In contrast to conduct requirements, PCIs are interventions by the CMA to remedy an adverse effect on competition by addressing the root causes of an undertaking’s entrenched market power. The CMA will need to take into account the benefits that UK users may get from the factors having an adverse effect on competition.

We note that there is no defined list of PCI remedies, but that they may include behavioural and structural remedies. Will the Minister update us on his assessment of the value of adding a list of potential remedies to the Bill? Some companies we have spoken to feel that that would be helpful to understand just how these interventions will work in practice. However, we believe that the PCI is an exceptionally useful tool and a big advantage over the EU Digital Markets Act, as it will be able to go further than the conduct requirements and address the root causes of entrenched market power.

As it stands, the Bill outlines that the CMA may make a PCI where it considers that a factor or combination of factors relating to a relevant digital activity is having an adverse effect on competition, also known as the AEC test. The AEC test is in line with the legal test in the existing market investigation regime; by contrast, the digital markets taskforce recommended an AECC test—an adverse effect on competition or consumers test—enabling the CMA to address consumer harm without always needing to show that competition has been undermined. Similar to a supplementary duty to have regard for the interests of citizens, that would give the DMU broader scope to intervene beyond its traditional focus on competition. Can the Minister outline exactly why the AEC test was chosen over the AECC test?

Labour supports the intention behind Government amendment 12, which confirms that the CMA will be able to begin a PCI investigation into a designated firm, even when it has previously made a decision not to do so. We see that as integral to the CMA’s powers, and we will support the amendment.

We see clause 45 as fleshing out the legal powers that the CMA will need to draw on in the event of a formal investigation. We welcome clarification that the CMA will form its initial view of the competition problem on the basis of available evidence, such as that arising from complaints submitted by third parties, from the CMA’s market studies or from referrals of information from other regulators. Labour has heard from some tech companies that although pro-competition interventions are viewed as a major advantage of the UK’s regime, companies are concerned about the broader effects they could have on markets, and urge for thorough consultation and for a graduated approach to the potential severity of the intervention. I am therefore keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts about this issue, as it is important for all concerned that we get some clarity.

Clause 46 is an important clause for designated undertakings that may find themselves subject to a PCI investigation. We welcome provisions that ensure the CMA will be under a duty to publish a summary of the PCI notice as soon as it is able to do so. The Minister will not be surprised that we are keen to understand more about that and what it will look like in practice. Where exactly will the summary be published? Will it be made available to others who wish to view it? We welcome subsection (2), because it is important that the CMA has the power to update a PCI investigation notice when it needs to do so. That is outlined in subsection (3), which is an important point to note.

Lastly, clause 46(4) places a duty on the CMA to publish a notice of investigation as soon as practicable. Again, can the Minister confirm whether that will be public? There is a theme in my questions to the Minister about the public transparency of such documents. Naturally, we understand that some information will obviously need to be redacted, but there is plenty of value in improving transparency.

We welcome the principles in clause 47, which we have long called for, because the regime will be effective only if consultation is truly at its heart. However, we have concerns about how the conduct requirements and PCIs will run alongside one another. In the Bill’s current drafting, it is unclear by what metrics the CMA will determine whether a CR or PCI is appropriate, and it will have discretion to choose. We could very well find ourselves in a position whereby the CMA will generally implement a CR first and see whether it is having an impact, before beginning a PCI investigation. If the CMA chooses to focus on CRs initially, it could allow SMS firms to maintain much of their entrenched market power before taking action. To improve the effectiveness of the regime, one potential option that has been raised with us is for the CMA to be required to consider whether a PCI investigation and PCI remedy may be more effective early on, or complementary to a CR, when constructing a CR. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some thoughts on that and explain whether he will be able to instruct the CMA on which one would be best to carry out first.

Other issues that have been raised with us relate to clarity on a number of points, and I hope the Minister can provide that clarity. First, can PCIs be introduced only after conduct requirements have been imposed, rather than the alternative that is alongside them? Secondly, what is the exact purpose of the revocation process? Does it mean that PCIs cannot be adapted while they are in effect, as indicated in the Government’s consultation process, and that the CMA would have to restart the process—meaning there would be an investigation, a consultation, a decision and then an order—before introducing a new PCI? It feels like that could cause delay and uncertainty in the regime, which could ultimately impact its effectiveness. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on those specific points.

Labour sees clause 48 as fairly standard in outlining the procedure for concluding a PCI investigation. It is important that the process is outlined on the face of the Bill, and we welcome confirmation of the length and period of investigation, and of the period in which the CMA has to consult and issue a pro-competition order where required. Those are important timeframes, which Labour supports.

We note clause 48(7), which states:

“As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a notice under subsection (1) or (6), the CMA must publish a copy of the notice.”

Again, that is a key point that I want to prod the Minister on. What is his assessment of

“as soon as reasonably practicable”?

What will that be and who will the CMA be publishing the statement for?

We welcome clause 49, which outlines the way in which pro-competition orders will work in practice. In relation to clause 50, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the replacement of a PCI as outlined in the clause will require revocation, as set out in clause 51, and a fresh process involving an investigation, consultation, decision and order? Alternatively, will the process be to revise an existing PCI and will that be sped up? We do not want any delay in that happening. That is the point I am trying to make, so will the Minister elaborate on what evidence is needed to justify a revocation of that kind?

I hope the Minister will respond to my points. We support the broad intentions of the remaining clauses in this group and are therefore happy to support their full inclusion in the Bill.

[Paul Scully]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

These clauses comprise chapter 5, “Mergers”, and schedule 2 provides further detail needed for chapter 5 to function smoothly.

Clause 55 establishes a requirement for SMS firms to report possible mergers involving them that have the potential to harm competition in the UK to the CMA before they can be completed. Unlike most merger regimes, at the moment there is no obligation in the UK to notify mergers to the CMA, but firms may choose to voluntarily notify the CMA of a merger in order to receive a binding decision from the CMA on it. In digital markets, this is a very different thing, because of the speed with which it can happen and the entrenchment of power, which we have discussed at length. That is why it is important that the CMA has the opportunity to review potentially harmful mergers involving SMS firms before it is too late. This light-touch reporting requirement is designed to focus on only those possible SMS firm mergers with the potential to give rise to competition concerns.

The mergers will need to be reported only if three conditions are met, such as when the SMS firms will obtain qualifying status through holding shares or voting rights in a target firm that is a UK-connected body corporate. I will set out further detail on the former when I explain clause 56. The latter means any body corporate that carries on activities in the UK or supplies goods or services to the UK, or which has a subsidiary that does so. The consideration provided by the SMS firm for the holding of shares or voting rights must also be at least £25 million. Similar conditions will also apply for the reporting of possible mergers involving an SMS firm participating in a joint venture. When an SMS firm is part of a larger corporate group, the requirement to report will instead apply to all the bodies corporate that make up the group. In those situations, the question will generally be whether the group as a whole will meet the conditions I have set out. When I say “an SMS firm” in debates on this chapter in part 1 of the Bill, it means an SMS firm or any larger corporate group it is part of.

The reporting process should take a maximum of 10 working days. Once a report has been submitted, the CMA will have up to five working days to determine whether the report is sufficient and must therefore be accepted. Following acceptance, the CMA will have a further five working days to review the information in the report before the possible merger can be completed. If the CMA identifies a reported merger as potentially problematic, it can use its powers under the general merger regime to investigate the merger as it would any other type of merger.

Clause 56 defines qualifying status. Under the merger regime, control over a target firm or joint venture vehicle must be acquired or increased for a merger to take place. That is for the CMA to determine on a case-by-case basis. One of the ways control can be exercised is through a shareholding or through voting rights. In order to capture acquisitions of control over target firms based on shares or voting rights, clause 56 provides that SMS firms will acquire qualifying status in a target firm when the percentage of the shares or voting rights they hold in the firm crosses any of the thresholds in subsection (1)—that is, when the percentage moves from less than 15% to 15% or more; from 25% or less to more than 25%; or from 50% or less to more than 50%. These thresholds have been chosen specifically to capture circumstances in which different levels of control recognised under the merger regime are likely to be acquired by an SMS firm.

Clause 57 sets out what is meant by the “value of consideration”, which is necessary to determine whether a possible merger meets the £25 million threshold for reporting set out in clause 55. Clause 58 places several requirements on the CMA with regard to the notice it is required to make, setting out the parameters of the report that SMS firms will be required to provide to the CMA about a possible merger. The clause requires the CMA—to pre-empt a possible question—to publish online a notice setting out what information must be included in a report and what form a report must take. We decided, in subsection (2), to limit what the CMA may require in the report to only that information considered necessary to decide whether to initiate a merger investigation or make a hold separate order under the general merger regime while an investigation is ongoing.

Clause 59 sets out further detail of when and how reporting requirements will apply. Schedule 2 provides further detail as to when interests like shareholdings and rights, such as voting rights, are treated as held in a target firm or joint venture vehicle for the purposes of the duty to report a possible merger in clause 55. Clause 60 places time limits and procedural requirements on the CMA once it has received a report. Clause 61 makes it clear that a reportable event must not take place until the reporting requirements set out in the chapter are met. Clause 62 clarifies when a possible merger is considered as taking place for the purposes of the reporting requirements. Clause 63 permits SMS firms to authorise third parties to act on their behalf—specifically, to give a report to the CMA about a possible merger and to receive the notice of acceptance or rejection from the CMA. In general, those third parties are likely to be legal representatives.

Clause 64 sets out the review process for non-penalty decisions made by the CMA in connection with the chapter. We will talk about appeals and the wider area later on, but if a person is aggrieved by the decision made by the CMA in connection with a reporting requirement that is not a penalty decision, they can apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for a review of that decision. The Competition Appeal Tribunal will apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review. A full merits appeal process will apply to penalty decisions made by the CMA in connection with this chapter, as it does to penalty decisions under the wider merger regime.

Clause 65 provides the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations in relation to the duty to report. It also sets out which procedure-specific regulations are subject to that. It is appropriate that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations on the duty to report. Operational experience may reveal that the criteria needs to be changed for the reporting process to continue to function effectively. Clause 66 places a duty on the CMA to monitor and enforce the merger reporting requirements. It goes no further than requiring the CMA to consider exercising its investigative and enforcement powers where it is aware of a basis for doing so.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining chapter 5 and we welcome the provisions. None of us want to see potential loopholes or designated undertakings being able to avoid their responsibilities thanks to a merger, so we see clause 55 and many of the clauses that follow in this chapter as being eminently important. More specifically, the clause sets out the circumstances in which designated undertakings or, where designated undertakings are part of a group, group members—see clause 114—will have a duty to report a possible merger involving a reportable event to the CMA before it takes place.

We welcome the clarification that there will be two categories. The first is concerned with designated undertakings or groups reaching certain percentage thresholds of the shares or voting rights held in certain bodies corporate with links to the United Kingdom. The second is concerned with designated undertakings or group members forming certain joint venture vehicles that are intended or expected to have links to the United Kingdom. We recognise the role of a minimum value requirement, which will also apply in relation to the consideration provided for the relevant shares or voting rights, or in relation to the formation of the joint venture vehicle.

We see the clause as important in clarifying where the line will be drawn for possible mergers in relation to this regime, and agree with the drafting, which sets the value of the merger as being at least £25 million. We feel that is a fair value, so we support the clause and have not sought to amend it at this stage. The same can be said for clauses 56 to 59. As we know, one of the strategic recommendations of the Digital Competition Expert Panel’s Furman report suggested that legislation adapting the merger control rules—so that the CMA could more effectively challenge mergers that could be detrimental to consumer welfare—was required. So we see clause 56, which sets out the circumstances in which a designated undertaking or group will have qualifying status in relation to a UK-connected body corporate or joint venture vehicle, as being vital to ensuring that mergers are covered by this legislation more widely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Clearly the DMU needs to have access to the correct information to ensure its work is evidence-based. Clause 67 allows the DMU to request information it needs to either exercise, or decide whether to exercise, any of its digital markets functions. That includes information in any form, such as data, internal documents and forecasts. The clause also includes new powers to investigate the outputs of algorithms by requiring SMS firms to generate information and to carry out tests and demonstrations of technical processes.

Clause 68 allows the DMU to require that an SMS firm names a senior manager to be responsible for ensuring that the firm complies with a specific information request. The DMU will be able to impose a penalty on the named senior manager where they have failed, without reasonable excuse, to prevent the SMS firm from failing to comply with the request for information. Personal liability will help to embed a culture of compliance within strategic market status firms.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 67 is an important starting point as it gives the CMA powers to require the provision of information from designated undertakings and any other person believed to hold material needed for it to operate the regime. That includes any information in any form, which might include data, correspondence, forecasts and estimates.

We welcome the clarity that the CMA will be able to specify the format in which the information must be provided. That is a very important point that we feel will be critical to ensuring timely responses from designated undertakings. We have seen the dangers of what can happen when we allow these big firms to overwhelm with the provision of data in complex formats and in incredible quantities in legal proceedings around online safety, and we do not want to see the same negative consequences here.

We welcome subsection (4), which, importantly, includes provisions that will enable the CMA to compel evidence collection by requiring a person to collect and retain information that it may not otherwise collect and retain. In addition, subsection (7) specifies that the CMA can require the recipient of an information notice to give the CMA information, either in physical or electronic form, which is located outside the UK. That is an important point worth touching on.

We know that these SMS firms have a global reach. We do not want to be in a position whereby the CMA cannot access information just because it is held overseas. This is a sensible and crucial clause to ensure the CMA has the appropriate teeth and power to act when it needs to.

We are also pleased to see clause 68 included in the Bill, which references a point that Labour have repeatedly called for in other legislation. Without these provisions and the ability to name an individual, big companies will typically not take their responsibilities seriously. We therefore welcome confirmation that a penalty may be imposed on a named senior manager of a designated undertaking that fails to comply with an information notice—a point we will address later, when we discuss clause 85.

Ultimately, we feel that the provisions are in line with other regulated sectors, principally financial services, where regulation imposes specific duties on directors and senior management of financial institutions, and those responsible individuals face repercussions if they do not comply.

I feel we have lots to learn here from looking to other regulated industries. For example, in financial services regulation, the Financial Conduct Authority uses a range of personal accountability regimes, including the senior managers and certification regime, which is an overarching framework for all staff in financial services industries. The regime aims to

“encourage a culture of staff at all levels taking personal responsibility for their actions and make sure firms and staff clearly understand and can demonstrate where responsibility lies”.

If only we could have that approach to other legislation on online safety. We therefore support clause 68—we see it as standard—and have not sought to amend it at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Power of access

[Paul Scully]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 69, page 39, line 18, after “access” insert “business”.

This amendment limits the power of the CMA to require access to premises so that it may be used only in relation to business premises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The Opposition believe that clause 69 is crucial to the Government’s policy objective of empowering the Competition and Markets Authority, and ensuring that it can enforce its regime and proactively address the root causes of competition issues in digital markets.

The clause builds on clause 68 and gives the CMA the power to require a designated undertaking to obtain, generate, collect or retain specified information or to conduct a specified demonstration or test of a business system or process under the supervision of the CMA. Specifically, the power can be exercised when the designated undertaking has failed to comply with a previous request for information under an information notice or to provide sufficient assistance to a skilled person. We welcome those provisions. We also welcome the clarity provided by the clause about when the CMA can use the powers, which is when companies have failed to comply with other requirements. None of us wants the CMA to take an overly heavy-handed approach, but it must be compelled and empowered to act where necessary.

We understand that the powers in subsections (2) and (3) will be used rarely, but it is important that they be in the Bill. They are also an important step in ensuring that big strategic market status firms, which for too long have gone unregulated, cannot bypass the regime by concealing information or operating systems. It is vital that the Government do not give in here, so I urge the Minister to ensure that they do not. I imagine that there is heavy pressure from firms that will be captured by the provisions, but the Government must not cave in or weaken this regime; I hope the Minister can reassure us that they will not. That being said, we welcome the clause and have not sought to amend it at this stage.

Government amendments 13 and 14 clarify that the CMA’s access rights will be used only in relation to business premises. We see that as appropriate. Government amendments 15 to 23 are technical changes that we are happy to support. Government amendment 24 is an important clarification that limits duties to inside the UK, which again is a sensible inclusion that Labour supports.

Mr Hollobone, would you like me to discuss clause 70, or finish there?

[The Chair]

We will wait for that treat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Clause 69 is a backstop power enabling the Digital Markets Unit to supervise firm-led tests and demonstrations, either at a firm’s premises or remotely. It will be available only in limited cases in which an SMS firm has not complied with an information notice or a duty to assist a skilled person. It provides an efficient way for the DMU to get the information that it needs without placing an undue burden on firms.

Clause 70 allows the DMU to require an interview with any individual in the UK with information relevant to a digital markets investigation. That will enable the DMU to gather vital evidence that is held by individuals with relevant knowledge, rather than in digital or physical forms. Clause 71 protects individuals who are compelled to give testimony under clause 70 from self-incrimination. It limits the circumstances in which the DMU can use an individual’s interview statement as evidence against them in a criminal prosecution. Clause 72 allows the DMU to enter business premises without a warrant for the purposes of a breach investigation. It ensures that the DMU can collect information that is being withheld by an SMS firm that is accessible only on the premises. Without that power, there would be greater risk that a firm could destroy or interfere with material relevant to an investigation.

Clause 73 allows the DMU to enter business and domestic premises for the purposes of a breach investigation, after obtaining a warrant from the High Court, Court of Session or Competition Appeal Tribunal. The DMU must also establish that a firm has failed to comply with previous information requests, or that no other powers would secure the necessary evidence, and establish reasonable suspicion that the information is relevant to the investigation. Clause 74 contains supplementary requirements for how the DMU must exercise its power to enter premises under a warrant. It also clarifies the extraterritorial scope of that power. The DMU will not be able to enter premises outside the United Kingdom under clause 73, but it can access information regardless of where it is physically stored.

Clause 75 allows the DMU to take copies of, or extracts from, information and sift it off site when exercising its power to enter either business or domestic premises under a warrant, if it is unsure whether the information falls within the scope of the investigation. Clause 76 ensures that the DMU follows established judicial procedures when applying for a warrant to enter premises. It requires the DMU to follow the rules of the High Court, Court of Session or Competition Appeal Tribunal; that provides vital checks and balances.

These clauses are largely modelled on the CMA’s existing information-gathering powers, and they will be subject to the same robust safeguards. They also give the DMU new powers to scrutinise the output of algorithms in clause 69, and enhanced powers in clause 73 to access information that is stored on remote servers but accessible over the internet. It is important to recognise that without those powers, the DMU’s interventions would not be well evidenced or enforceable.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I was champing at the bit to talk about these clauses. However, I will keep my comments brief because much of Labour’s thoughts align with our thoughts on previous clauses.

Clause 70 gives the CMA the power to require any individual to attend an interview and answer questions for the purposes of a digital markets investigation. That is consistent with the amendments to section 26A of the Competition Act 1998. We welcome those, so it is only right that the powers appear in this legislation, too. These are basic powers and the clause is fairly procedural. The CMA must have the power to give notice to any individual with information relevant to a digital markets investigation, requiring them to answer relevant questions at a place or in a manner specified in the notice. That is fundamental for an empowered regulator. We support the approach, so we have not sought to amend the clause at this stage. We also support the intentions of clause 71, and we believe that the approach is fair and reasonable. The clause is important for clarity. We welcome its inclusion in the Bill and we have not sought to amend it at this stage.

Turning to clause 72, it is right and proper that the CMA must have reasonable grounds to suspect that information relevant to the breach investigation can be accessed from or on the premises. We support that common- sense approach. The provisions are in line with those for other regimes, and will be important in ensuring that if the CMA is required take action for the purposes of a breach investigation, it can do so in a timely and effective manner. We support the clause and have not sought to amend it.

We also support the intentions of clause 73, which gives the CMA the power to enter business and domestic premises under a warrant, without notice and using reasonable force, for the purposes of a breach investigation. Again, the CMA has powers of entry under a warrant through sections 28 and 28A of the Competition Act 1998. It will come as no surprise, given that we support provisions for the CMA to act without a warrant, that we agree that it should be able to act with one. We value the clarification that the CMA must prove that there are reasonable grounds to act. If it has to, it can call on individuals who have expertise that is not available in the CMA but is required if the terms of the warrant are to be fully carried out. That will allow the CMA to act rapidly, which, given the level of these breaches, is vital. We therefore support this clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 74 sets out the supplementary requirements to the CMA’s power to enter premises under a warrant. We welcome the transparency afforded by subsection (1), and the clarification that although the CMA cannot enter premises outside the United Kingdom, as outlined in subsection (6), it can access information regardless of where it is physically stored. That is an important point, given the nature of SMS firms and their global holdings. For those reasons, Labour is happy to support the clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 75 makes necessary amendments to a range of sections of the Criminal and Justice and Police Act 2001 to enable the CMA to seize information and take copies of, or extracts from, information when exercising its power under clause 73 to enter business and domestic premises with a warrant. It is a practical clause that aligns with the CMA’s power to seize documents from business premises under section 28 of the Competition Act 1998. We therefore believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 requires the CMA to follow the rules of the High Court, the Court of Session or the CAT when making an application. We see it as a natural consequential clause and will therefore support it.

[Seema Malhotra]

May I make one additional comment? We received evidence from trading standards about their access to information that could be stored online in order for them to undertake some of their responsibilities. Has any consideration been given to whether the search powers that the CMA will be given could be extended to trading standards, which sometimes undertake very similar areas of work?

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

Let me cover the criminal offences in the regime, which largely mirror existing powers that the Competition and Markets Authority has in the Competition Act 1998. Criminal liability is important for deterring serious acts of misconduct in the context of information gathering and compliance monitoring, and will help to ensure that the digital markets unit can access relevant information.

Clause 91 makes it a criminal offence for an individual or firm to intentionally or recklessly destroy information, conceal information, provide false information, or cause or permit any of those actions. Those offences apply in relation to any of the powers provided for in chapter 6, which concerns information gathering and compliance reports.

Clause 92 makes it a criminal offence for a person to knowingly or recklessly give false or misleading information to the DMU in connection with any of its digital markets functions. It is also an offence for a person to knowingly or recklessly give false or misleading information to another person, knowing that it will be used by the DMU.

Clause 93 makes it a criminal offence for an individual to intentionally obstruct an officer of the DMU when lawfully entering a premises with or without a warrant.

Government amendment 34 seeks to clarify that named senior managers for information requests and nominated officers cannot be held criminally liable for not fulfilling their duties in those roles. As drafted, clause 94(2) broadens the definition of an officer of a body corporate. That would mean that individuals assigned to those roles could risk facing criminal proceedings on the basis of their assignment to the role. It has always been the policy intention that a named senior manager or nominated officer should face a civil penalty only where a firm with strategic market status has failed to comply with a relevant information request or compliance report and where the named individual failed, without reasonable excuse, to prevent that failure from occurring. The amendment would not prevent a senior manager or a nominated officer from facing criminal proceedings if they happen to also qualify as an officer of a body corporate under clause 94. I therefore hope that the Committee will support the amendment.

Clause 94 sets out that, in certain circumstances, where a body corporate commits a criminal offence, an officer of the body corporate can also be held criminally responsible. An officer of a body corporate can be, but is not limited to, a director, manager or secretary. An officer can be held criminally liable where the body corporate commits a criminal offence and the offence is attributable to that officer’s consent, connivance or neglect on their part. That will help to encourage officers in firms to take personal responsibility for their actions and will ensure that they are held accountable for any serious information offences.

Clause 95 limits the extraterritorial application of certain offences in the Bill, and I will set out our wider approach to extraterritoriality when we debate clause 110. Specifically, clause 95 states that a person cannot commit any of the part 1 criminal offences unless they have a UK connection, which is established when the person is a UK national, is habitually resident in the UK, or is a body incorporated under UK law. We have carefully considered the options and implications of restricting the extraterritorial application of criminal offences in this way. Although it is crucial that the CMA may apply its powers extraterritorially, they must be used only when strictly necessary and when a sufficient connection exists with the UK. In circumstances in which the person does not have a sufficient connection with the UK for the purpose of committing an offence, the CMA will still be able to enforce breaches of information requirements using civil penalties. That approach will ensure that, in exercising its powers, the CMA is respectful of the territorial jurisdiction of other nations.

Finally, clause 96 sets out the punishments that can be imposed by the relevant courts on conviction of a criminal offence under clauses 91 to 93. Any person found guilty of one of those offences is liable on summary conviction to a fine. In England and Wales, that will be of an unlimited amount, and in Scotland or Northern Ireland it will be up to the statutory maximum. On conviction on indictment, a person is liable to imprisonment for up to two years, a fine or both.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I welcome the clauses in this grouping that outline the criminal offences, as the Minister has explained. We welcome their inclusion for clarity, and we are also grateful that they broaden the scope of the Bill to include specific provisions, particularly in clause 94.

We support the clarity and intention of Government amendment 34. It is important that the term “officer” has its usual meaning in relation to offences committed by officers as well as bodies corporate. This is an important clarification and we are grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 91 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 92 and 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94

Offences by officers of a body corporate etc

Amendment made: 34, in clause 94, page 56, line 14, leave out subsection (2).—(Paul Scully.)

This amendment removes a gloss on the definition of “officer” of a body corporate so that the term has its usual meaning in relation to offences committed by officers as well as bodies corporate.

Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 95 and 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97

Director disqualification

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 35 and 36.

Clauses 98 to 101 stand part.

[Paul Scully]

I will now cover the remaining enforcement measures in the regime, and the appeals process. Clause 97 gives power to the DMU to apply to the court to disqualify a director of a UK-registered company that forms part of a firm with strategic market status, where that firm has breached the digital markets regime. That will allow the DMU to use the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, as the CMA does currently under the Competition Act 1998, when an SMS firm infringes the regime and the director’s conduct makes them unfit to be involved in the management of a company. That helps to protect UK businesses and the public from individuals who abuse their role and status as directors.

Government amendment 35 clarifies that costs relating to a court order under clause 98 can be made against any person that has breached the relevant requirement, whether or not they are an undertaking. The amendment changes the wording in subsection (3) to reflect the rest of the clause, which applies to persons—in practice, meaning a legal entity forming part of an SMS firm. I hope the Committee supports the amendment.

Government amendment 36 seeks to clarify in clause 98 that where a firm is responsible for the failure to comply with a relevant requirement, a costs order can be made against any officer of the relevant firm.

Clause 98 allows the DMU to apply for a court order where an SMS firm fails to comply with a regulatory requirement and, where relevant, a subsequent order or commitment intended to bring them back into compliance. A breach of a court order is a serious offence that can eventually lead to an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment for officers of the undertaking in question if it is not complied with. The threat of a court order is a key backstop for ensuring SMS firms comply with the regime.

Clause 99 makes explicit provision to allow parties to seek redress privately if they suffer harm or loss when an SMS firm breaches a requirement imposed by the DMU. Redress will be available when an SMS firm breaches a conduct requirement, pro-competition intervention or commitment to the DMU.

Clause 100 sets out that the CMA’s final breach decisions are binding on the courts and the Competition Appeal Tribunal to which redress claims can be made. The court or tribunal will only consider what a suitable remedy would be. That will encourage harmed parties to assist the DMU during investigations into suspected breaches of the regime.

Clauses 99 and 100 strike the right balance of ensuring there is a clear and effective route to redress, while ensuring that the regime’s focus is on public enforcement.

Clause 101 provides that decisions of the DMU, made in connection with its digital markets functions, can be appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. When deciding these challenges, the CAT will apply judicial review principles. Valid grounds for appealing decisions of the DMU could include challenging whether it acted lawfully and within its powers, applied proper reasoning or followed due process, as well as, in some circumstances, whether the DMU’s decision was proportionate. That is with the exception of decisions relating to mergers, which will be brought under the existing process for merger appeals set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. That will ensure that there is a consistent appeals regime for all merger decisions.

Judicial review will allow for appropriate scrutiny of the DMU’s decisions in the digital markets regime, ensuring that the DMU is accountable for those decisions, that they are fairly and lawfully taken, and that the rights of businesses are protected. I am sure we all remember the oral evidence: the majority of people in front of us were clear that this was the right approach, and was proportionate.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 97 is important in that, as the Minister said, it enables the disqualification of a person from being a director as a consequence of their involvement in an infringement of a requirement relating to conduct requirements or pro-competition interventions. Labour sees that as an important step in ensuring that individuals who have not abided by the terms of this regime are not able to continue in their role. The clause specifically inserts new text into the Company Directors Disqualification Act which allows for these provisions. We welcome that this disqualification can be for up to 15 years—a significant yet fair period—and support the Government’s approach. We therefore support clause 97 in its entirety and think that it should stand part of the Bill. I am pleased to confirm that we also support Government amendments 35 and 36.

I will now move on to clauses 98 to 101. On clause 98, we particularly agree with the logical step set out in subsection (1). Its clarification means that, in the event of any initial breach of a conduct requirement that occurs before an enforcement order has been put in place or a commitment has been accepted, it cannot be enforced with a court order. We also agree with the intentions of subsection (3). Again, these are sensible approaches which we support. On the whole, we believe clause 98 to be an important step in establishing and rooting the CMA’s powers on a statutory footing. For that reason, we are happy to support it standing part of the Bill.

A fair regulatory regime must include provisions around seeking compensation, so we welcome clause 99. We particularly welcome subsection (2). We further welcome the clarity that subsection (4) affords. Again, these are simple clauses that we see as logical and sensible. We are happy to see their inclusion.

I now come to the most important clause in the Bill: clause 101. The Minister will be pleased to know that I have plenty to say on it. Subsections (8) to (10) provide that decisions of the CAT may be appealed to the appellate court for that jurisdiction. That is an incredibly important point and one which the Government must maintain. The DMU will ultimately have the power to make pro-competitive interventions to reduce SMS firms’ market power and to review more of their mergers. That means that they will be able to make significant changes to SMS firms’ business models with the objective of opening up their ecosystems and levelling the playing field for other businesses. The benefits of doing so are significant, and I am sure we will touch on them in sessions to come.

In the current version of this Bill, the standard of review that applies to DMU decisions is the judicial review standard generally used for authorities that make forward-looking assessments, rather than the “merits” standard used for certain competition law enforcement decisions by the CMA. That means that parties will be able to apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal to review the legality of the DMU’s decisions, focusing on the principles of irrationality, illegality and procedural impropriety. That is an extremely important point and is consistent with other regimes, so the Government must not bow down to pressure here and adopt a “merits” appeals approach. As the Minister quite rightly said, we heard from countless witnesses during our oral evidence sessions who said the same.

We know that judicial review appeals are more streamlined than merits appeals and they can last a matter of days, rather than weeks, years or even decades. Under this Government, our courts are already facing significant backlogs—perhaps the less said about that the better—but there is no reason why we should subject this regime and the appeals principle to even further delay. We recognise the pressure that the Government are under here; clearly, potential SMS firms and their advocates oppose the adoption of the JR standard. It is obvious that a company that may be negatively impacted by this new regime would seek to obstruct or delay it by arguing for an appeals process that incorporates a consideration of the merits of the case.

However, Labour strongly believes that the current drafting is fair and well aligned with other regulatory regimes. For far too long, big tech has had the ear of this Government and has been able to force the hand of many of the Minister’s colleagues when it comes to online safety provisions. The Minister must reassure us that that will not be the case. I look forward to his confirmation.

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s approach to the appeals standard, which she has taken in regard to the measures throughout the Bill. The Government speak to larger companies and smaller challenger companies, because it is really important that we get this right. I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no way we are going to weaken the appeals structure. We will always make sure that we listen and do things fairly. In no way will the structure be watered down such that challenger tech cannot come through. It is important we ensure that the Bill in its final form is the best it can be and is fair and proportionate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98

Enforcement of requirements

Amendments made: 35, in clause 98, page 58, line 23, leave out “undertaking” and insert “person”.

The requirements to which clause 98 relates can apply to persons other than undertakings. This amendment clarifies that a costs order under this clause can be made against any person, whether or not they are an undertaking, who fails to comply with a requirement.

Amendment 36, in clause 98, page 58, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) where the person responsible for the failure is an undertaking, any officer of a body corporate that is or is comprised in that undertaking.”—(Paul Scully.)

This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which a costs order under this clause can be made against an officer of a body corporate.

Clause 98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 99 to 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102

Extension etc of periods

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 102 is incredibly important if the CMA and, subsequently, the DMU are to be able to be an accountable body that consumers and businesses—and parliamentarians—have confidence in. This clause allows the CMA to extend various deadlines in part 1 of the Bill by up to three months where there are “special reasons” to do so. Those may include, for example, illness in the CMA investigation team. These are important provisions to ensure that the CMA is able to extend relevant investigations by up to three months.

We think it reasonable that the clause does not define the exact parameters of “special reasons”. We support a common-sense approach and therefore anticipate that those would include matters such as the illness or incapacity of members of an investigation team that has seriously impeded their work, and an unexpected event such as a merger of competitors. We further support the need for the CMA to publish a notice to trigger an extension under this clause. However, the Minister knows how important it is that these notices are made public, so I hope that he can clarify that that will be the case here.

It is right and proper that subsection (7) outlines the interaction between SMS investigations and active SMS designations. If the CMA is carrying out a further SMS investigation for a designated undertaking and needs to extend it, that investigation may not conclude until the original designation has expired, meaning the undertaking would fall outside the regime before the need for continued SMS designation is confirmed. The clause enables the SMS designation to be extended to match the length of the SMS investigation period and is a sensible approach that Labour supports.

We also welcome the provisions around clause 103, allowing the CMA to extend an SMS designation by up to three months. That speaks to the nature of an agile and flexible regime, which we ultimately all want and support. Government amendment 37 prevents decisions about whether and how to exercise the power in clause 17 being delegated to a member of the CMA’s board or a member of staff of the CMA. We consider that to be an appropriate response.

Clause 104 is crucial all round because it explains how decisions will be made under the digital markets regime and has practical applications in establishing exactly how the functions within the CMA will be able to operate when implementing the legislation. Notably, subsections (1) to (5) provide the CMA with the ability to create groups. The CMA must state the function for which such a group is established and the group will be required to fulfil that function. Can the Minister confirm where that information will be reported? Again, it will be helpful for us all to understand how that will work in practice.

We also value the clarifications outlined in the clause, which establish that to be eligible to carry out the functions under subsection (2A), a committee must include at least two CMA board members, which can include the chair. Furthermore, a majority of the committee’s membership must be non-staff or CMA panel members. We welcome the clarification that any changes of this nature would need to be laid before and approved by each House of Parliament before being enacted. Can the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State will be required to be consulted under the provisions? That aside, we support the clause and believe it should stand part of the Bill.

We support clause 105 and welcome the clarification that a notice may be given to the particular individuals specified in subsections (3) to (5). This is an important clause that will allow the CMA to fulfil its obligations as the regulator. We also welcome clause 106, which outlines the requirements that will ensure the CMA has to consult specific named regulators, and welcome the clarity that those five regulators are the Bank of England, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Information Commissioner, the Prudential Regulation Authority and Ofcom. It is positive that they are outlined in the Bill. They are all established and relevant regulators that are subject to their own vast regulatory regimes, so Labour supports their involvement in assisting the CMA to regulate the regime proposed in the Bill. Again, we feel that subsection (6) is fair and reasonable. We particularly approve the fact that it is proportionate and we are happy to support it.

If clause 106 forces the CMA to consult the specific named regulators, it is only right that clause 107 sets out the formal mechanisms to be exercised under their regulatory digital markets function and that they are in the Bill too. We welcome the clarification on the timeframes, particularly around the fact that the CMA must respond to each relevant regulator within 90 days, setting out what action, if any, it has taken or will take and the reasons for that decision. It is important that those time periods are established in the Bill so as not to delay the CMA in taking action on a firm that is not operating in alignment with the regime.

For transparency purposes, we are also pleased to see the summaries of the CMA’s responses and that they must be published online. I am sure the Minister is pleased that that is included. We will come on to that matter as we address further clauses, particularly clause 112.

We welcome clause 108, which we see as a procedural clause that additionally extends current provisions to enable information sharing between the CMA and the Information Commissioner’s Office where that facilitates the exercising of one of their respective statutory functions, and we support the clause’s intentions. Information sharing must be encouraged between the agencies to allow for a regulatory regime to work in practice and be robust. It is right that the clause makes amendments to the Communications Act 2003 and the Enterprise Act 2002, which we see as vital for the regime to work in practice. We therefore support the clauses and believe they should stand part of the Bill as fully drafted.

Labour fully supports the provisions in the Bill to ensure the CMA has sufficient power to collect a levy from designated undertakings to recoup the costs associated with delivering the digital markets regime. We see that as a positive and effective way of encouraging compliance, but also an important way of generating funds to ensure the sustainability of the digital markets regime more widely. The polluter pays model is commonplace in a wide range of policy areas and it can be immensely effective. We therefore welcome the provisions in full. I do not need to address each subsection individually because the overall message is the same. SMS firms should absolutely pay a levy. For far too long they have got away with having considerable power and profit, and the time for them to have a statutory obligation to support measures such as those outlined in the Bill is well overdue.

We support the provisions in Government amendment 38, which we hope will go some way to assist should penalties have to be invoked by the CMA. The amendment permits notices to be served on people outside the UK if the CMA is considering imposing a penalty. Again, that is appropriate, and the Minister can be assured of our support. We feel that the provisions in clause 110 are fair and in alignment with similar regimes already in place, so we are happy to support it too. This is all becoming very collegiate.

Clause 111 protects the CMA against legal action for defamation as a result of its exercise of functions under the digital markets provisions in this part, and we support it entirely.

We welcome the provisions outlined in clause 112, which confirms the CMA’s duties to consult and publish statements online. As the Minister will be aware, any measures around transparency must factor in an element of consultation and transparency, so we welcome the clarifications that clause 112 affords. Colleagues will note that subsection (1) makes provision for when the CMA consults and publishes a statement. We think that it makes perfect sense. We are happy to support it, and wish to see that transparency echoed throughout the Bill.

Clause 113 is again welcome because it sets out the CMA’s obligation to publish guidance. It is important to have confirmation that the CMA will be able to revise or replace any guidance that it publishes, but must publish the revised or replacement guidance. While we recognise that that could include industry associations with a particular interest in the specific guidance in question, I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether others may be consulted in the instance of revised guidance being published? That aside, we support the intention behind clause 113 and believe that it should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114 is particularly important. In the case of a large corporate group whereby a designated undertaking may be part of a wider body, it is important that that is defined within the Bill and interpreted when used throughout the Bill. Turning to Government amendment 39, we of course support the need to ensure that the definition of

“relevant service or digital content”

is consistent with the definition of “digital activity”, so we will support the amendment. We welcome clause 115 and do not disagree with any of the definitions outlined therein. We see them as fairly standard, as long as they are applied with common sense. We therefore fully support the clause.

Lastly, turning to new clause 4, we have already touched on this to some extent in previous debates. The aim of the new clause is clear: we want there to be more transparency over the function of the CMA’s regime. Particularly when it is in its infancy, the information will be extremely useful to businesses, civil society, academics and parliamentarians alike. It will also be important for other jurisdictions to have a meaningful way of understanding the regime, particularly if we want it to be world leading, when considering options for their own legislation.

I hear the Minister’s comments regarding replication of work and the need for the independence of the CMA, but it is right that Parliament has that scrutiny and overview. I would welcome his commitment to ensure that Parliament will have a mechanism by which to review the activity of the CMA via a regular report. If he could commit to me that that will be the case, we will not need to press the new clause to a vote.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for her approach. Let me answer some of her questions. Notices will be made public, and information about the groups will be reported online. Under clause 104, the Secretary of State would not need to be consulted because, again, it is an independent regulator, so mandatory consultation with the Secretary of State is not necessarily appropriate. On clause 113 and who will be consulted on the revised guidance beyond industry, it will be relevant stakeholders, such as SMS firms themselves, other regulators such as Ofcom and the ICO, businesses likely to be affected by the decisions, and consumer groups. A wide-ranging consultation will be required to ensure that the regime works properly.

I think I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she is looking for on new clause 4. It is really important that Parliament continues to be able to scrutinise the regime effectively. I do not think that it is appropriate to take the approach that the Secretary of State needs to do another form. It is less to do with duplication; it is more to do with the fact that if the Secretary of State is putting forward his or her own report, that might undermine the report that the CMA is doing. The CMA has an annual report, which it will publish at the end of each financial year. It will include a survey of developments relating to its functions, assessments of its performance against its objectives and enforcement activity, and a summary of key decisions and financial expenditure. That should be enough for Parliament to scrutinise that report and the work of the CMA and the DMU. I am happy to give that assurance that Parliament has that scrutiny and oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I hope my voice will stand up to this level of scrutiny. Part 2 of the Bill focuses on the UK’s existing competition regime. First, I will explain that while the CMA is the principal regulator responsible for the public enforcement of the prohibitions in part 1 of the Competition Act 1998, its functions are also exercisable concurrently by sector regulators, such as Ofgem and Ofcom, among others. The measures in clauses 116 to 120 and clause 135, and when we reach them clauses 136 and 137 and schedules 8, 9 and 11, affect the CMA and sector regulators. For the sake of brevity, I will just refer to the CMA.

Clause 116 extends the territorial reach of the chapter 1 prohibition in the Competition Act 1998. The prohibition relates to anti-competitive agreements, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices, hereafter simply referred to as agreements. The chapter 1 prohibition captures agreements that have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the UK, and which may affect trade within the UK. Currently, it is limited to agreements that are, or are intended to be, implemented within the UK. The extension in reach of the chapter 1 prohibition means that agreements implemented, or intended to be implemented, outside the UK are also captured, but only where they would be likely to have immediate, substantial and foreseeable effects on trade within the UK.

Clause 117 introduces a new duty to preserve documents on persons who know or suspect that an investigation is being, or is likely to be, carried out under the Competition Act 1998. The duty will apply from when a person knows or suspects that an investigation by the CMA is under way or likely to occur. Where a person has a reasonable excuse for not complying with the duty, no liability for a penalty will arise. A reasonable excuse could include something out of an individual’s control, such as an IT failure.

Clause 118 strengthens the CMA’s powers to require the production of electronic information stored remotely—for example, in the cloud—when executing warrants to enter business or domestic premises. Under this reform, the CMA will be able to require the production of information for the purposes of its investigation without needing to demonstrate when making the request the specific relevance of the particular dataset to be produced. It will then be able to take copies or extracts only of information that is relevant to the investigation. The CMA will also be able to operate equipment to produce remotely stored information itself. Clause 134 makes similar amendments to the CMA’s power to require the production of electronic information when executing a warrant during an investigation into a suspected criminal cartel offence under part 6 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

Clause 119 amends part 1 of schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, to include the power of the CMA to undertake an inspection of domestic premises, under section 28A of the Competition Act 1998. That means that when the CMA undertakes an inspection of domestic premises, it will have access to the same seize and sift powers as are already available to it when it inspects business premises under a warrant.

Clause 135 also concerns the CMA’s investigative powers. First, it expands the CMA’s power to require persons to answer questions for the purposes of a Competition Act 1998 investigation, so that it applies regardless of whether the person has a connection to a business under investigation. The CMA will be able to require individuals to answer questions only where they have information that is relevant to an investigation. Secondly, the clause amends the CMA’s powers to require individuals to answer questions across its Enterprise Act 2002 markets and mergers and Competition Act 1998 functions, so that it can specify that interviews for those purposes should take place remotely.

Clause 120 amends the standard of review applied by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in appeals against interim measure decisions from full merits to judicial review. Interim measures are temporary directions that the CMA has the power to give during an investigation under the Competition Act 1998. To be an effective tool in fast-moving modern markets, it is essential that interim measures can be implemented efficiently. Judicial review will provide a flexible and proportionate standard of review, ensuring the CMA is held accountable appropriately for its decisions.

Clause 121 introduces schedule 3 to the Bill, which amends the Competition Act 1998 to empower the Competition Appeal Tribunal to grant declaratory relief in private actions claims under the Competition Act 1998. Declaratory relief is a remedy that involves a court making a legally binding statement on the application of the law to a set of facts.

Clause 122 gives the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the High Court of England and Wales, the Court of Session and sheriff courts in Scotland and the High Court in Northern Ireland the ability to award exemplary damages in private competition claims. This will help deter and punish particularly egregious conduct and ensure that those impacted by the most reckless breaches of competition law can be awarded additional damages.

Clause 123 amends section 71 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to designate the CMA as a specified prosecutor. This designation will allow the CMA to enter into formal agreements with an offender who has assisted or offered to assist its criminal cartel offence investigations. For example, if it considered it appropriate, the CMA could agree not to use specified information against them in any criminal proceedings. Agreements to provide assistance can also be taken into account by the courts when sentencing an offender, or their sentence could be referred back to the court for review. These measures do not enable the CMA to offer immunity from prosecution.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Part 2 focuses on the competition elements of the Bill. I am pleased to see clause 116, which expands the territorial reach of parts of the Competition Act 1998. Labour recognises the importance of ensuring that legislation already on the statute book is aligned with the intentions behind the Bill, because we understand that regulation of our digital markets will draw on existing competition law. We therefore welcome the clause, which will expand chapter 1 of the 1998 Act. The chapter 1 of the 1998 Act considers only undertakings and decisions that might affect trade within the UK, and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. At the moment, those behaviours are prohibited only where they are, or are intended to be, implemented in the United Kingdom, but we need to consider the impact of agreements, decisions and practices that might affect trade within the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) of the clause will replace the existing section of the 1998 Act to ensure that a consideration of the effect on trade will be considered. That is particularly important in the context of digital markets because they operate on a global level.

The clause goes some way to address the lack of futureproofing in the Bill more widely. The Minister knows my thoughts on that, and knows the Bill should go further in that regard. That aside, we welcome subsection (3), which will repeal the existing equivalent in the 1998 Act. The introduction of the qualified test will ensure that UK trade and businesses and consumers based in the United Kingdom, are protected from any detrimental effects of anti-competitive conduct, regardless of where that conduct takes place. That is welcome, and we consider the measure to strike a positive balance.

We welcome the clarity and the changes to the 1998 Act that will bring important provisions of the Bill into line with existing legislation. We have therefore not sought to amend the Bill, and we support those measures being part of it.

Clause 117 is important in that, once again, it will amend part 1 of the 1998 Act. We know that big companies can often be smart in concealing, or even overloading, information relevant to regulatory regimes, and we have seen that happen time and again when it comes to online safety. Labour does not want the same detrimental behaviours to be allowed to continue within this regime. We therefore welcome the provisions in the clause, particularly proposed new section 25B, which sets it out that the duty applies where

“a person knows or suspects that an investigation by the CMA… is… or is likely to be carried out.”

The inclusion of a person “suspecting” is important, and, in theory, it will push companies to abide by their duties. Recently, we have seen those at the heart of Government in the news owing to their failure to produce vital documents in investigations of the covid-19 pandemic, so it is very welcome indeed that the Government appear to have learned their lessons and worked to ensure that designated companies will not be able to circumvent the regime, as a former Prime Minister has attempted to do.

Let me get back to the Bill and the matters at hand. In practice, those duties will arise where a business receives a case initiation letter from the CMA, so it will be perfectly aware that its conduct is under investigation. Such duties might further arise when, for example, an individual working for a business is aware that a customer has reported their suspicions of price fixing, and that the customer has been interviewed by the CMA, or members of an anti-competitive agreement have been “tipped off” that a member of the agreement has blown the whistle to the CMA. Those are important clarifications, which we welcome. We therefore support their inclusion in the Bill.

We support clause 118, which specifically amends sections 28 and 28A of the 1998 Act, and we support the clarity with respect to the execution of such warrants—for example, a named CMA officer has the power to require the production of information that is held electronically and is accessible from the premises. It is a positive step to have these amendments to the 1998 Act, which will expand the powers of the court or the CAT to grant a warrant to the CMA based on the fact that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there are documents relating to an investigation that are accessible from the premises, when the other criteria set out in the section are met. Those powers will apply to any information stored electronically, and we hope and expect that the provisions of the clause will rarely be used. Despite that, we fully support their inclusion. It is right and appropriate that businesses and other jurisdictions looking closely at the Bill have a sense of the process that will result in the event of the CMA being forced to act on a warrant. The clause and others in this part of the Bill are an important part of ensuring compliance, and we therefore welcome the provisions in full.

Clause 119 is, once again, an important clause that will amend existing legislation. The powers of seizure conferred by section 28 of the 1998 Act are already specified for the purposes of section 50 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, so the amendment will align the powers available to the CMA whether it is inspecting business or domestic premises under a warrant, and it will make consequential changes in the light of those made by clause 118. These practical clauses will make important changes to legislation to bring other provisions in line with the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Labour welcomes the provisions in the clause which establish that transactions within jurisdiction can be reviewed by the CMA, although no obligations or requirements are imposed on businesses by being in scope. Schedule 4 introduces the new acquirer-focused threshold, as well as introducing a small merger safe harbour that is primarily targeted at reducing the regulatory burden faced by small and micro businesses—the burden that we heard about in our evidence sessions. We support the clause standing part.

Schedule 4 makes several changes to the thresholds, which determine what transactions are within the jurisdiction of UK merger control. As I have noted already, the UK’s merger control regime is voluntary, meaning that there is never on obligation to notify a transaction to the CMA. However, when the existing jurisdictional thresholds in the Enterprise Act 2002 are met, the CMA may review a transaction even if it is not notified. The CMA has such jurisdiction if: the target’s UK turnover in its most recently completed financial year exceeded £70 million; or the parties have a combined share of supply of 25% or more in relation to any product or service in the UK or a substantial part of the UK. This schedule will clarify some significant changes to those thresholds, which Labour welcomes.

Schedule 4 introduces a new threshold that will grant the CMA jurisdiction to review transactions where one party has a UK share supply of at least 33% and UK turnover exceeding £350 million. We see the new threshold as largely capturing killer acquisitions, in which a larger firm acquires a smaller and possibly innovative firm, potentially with a view to eliminating the threat of future competition. The CMA’s existing 25% share-of-supply threshold has already shown itself to be flexible in capturing many such transactions, but it is estimated that the new threshold will lead to an increase of between two and five phase 1 cases per year. That is to be applauded.

The new £350 million threshold is aimed at expanding the CMA’s jurisdiction, but other sections of schedule 4 seek to reduce the burden on merging companies by removing certain transactions from the CMA’s jurisdiction. By increasing the target turnover threshold from £70 million to £100 million, it is estimated that the changes to the turnover test will lead to a reduction of two or three phase 1 cases per year. In addition, the Government have proposed an interesting solution with the introduction of a safe harbour threshold to the existing share-of-supply test where, even if the 25% share of supply threshold is met, the CMA would not have jurisdiction if no party to the transaction had more than £10 million of UK turnover.

Labour recognises that it would be inappropriate to burden the CMA unnecessarily, but we are keen to have an understanding of how schedule 4 will operate in practice. Has the Minister considered introducing an annual reporting mechanism that would allow for more transparency on whether the approach is working? That aside, we certainly and carefully support the intentions of this schedule.

We welcome the provisions of clause 125 and are pleased to see that particular attention has been given to merger situations. Labour recognises that designated companies often buy other companies or merge with them, so it is only right that the CMA is empowered with the appropriate tools to investigate in such circumstances, where necessary. As we know, at present the UK’s merger control regime is voluntary, meaning that there is never an obligation to notify the CMA of a transaction. However, as I have said, when the thresholds in the Enterprise Act are met, the CMA may review a transaction despite not having being notified of it.

Clause 125 is relevant because it amends part 3 of the Enterprise Act to enable the CMA to fast-track a merger to an in-depth phase 2 investigation if it receives a request from the parties involved to do so. That is an important step in streamlining merger review procedures and timelines by removing certain statutory duties on the CMA that currently limit the benefits and use of the existing, non-statutory fast-track procedures. This fast-track process gives the CMA more flexibility to deliver quicker and more efficient merger investigations without prejudicing the quality of the review. We welcome the clarifications in clause 125 and support its standing part of the Bill.

We welcome schedule 5, which amends the Enterprise Act to enable the CMA to fast-track these mergers. In particular, we support the clarification that the CMA may launch a phase 2 investigation only if it believes that a completed or anticipated merger has resulted, or may be expected to result, in a substantial lessening of competition within any market or markets in the United Kingdom. We also support the clarification of the circumstances in which the CMA can accept a fast-track reference request.

When making these decisions, the CMA must have regard to whether the merger could raise public interest issues or whether a special public interest intervention has been launched under provisions in the Enterprise Act, to ensure that no case is unduly fast-tracked. Schedule 5 is important and will be central to ensuring the CMA can work at pace in the case of any merger requiring investigation. We welcome and support it.

Labour fully supports the intentions of clause 126. The timetable for phase 2 investigations is important for the timely resolution of merger investigations, and we believe the approach outlined to be sensible. As it stands, section 39 of the Enterprise Act, which outlines time limits, requires the CMA to publish its report on a merger reference within 24 weeks of the date of the reference. Clause 126(2) amends that provision to give the CMA the power to extend the period if necessary. We welcome the clarity that the length of an extension has to be agreed between the CMA and parties involved in the potential merger.

We also acknowledge that, while the Bill does not specify circumstances in which the CMA and the parties involved in a merger can agree an extension, an extension is most likely to be helpful in support of early consideration of remedies or in multi-jurisdictional mergers that are being reviewed in other countries in parallel to the UK. We welcome that distinction. Labour has consistently said that for the regime to work in practice it must be flexible. We see clause 126 as an important step towards that aim and are therefore happy to support its inclusion in the Bill.

As I said with respect to clause 126, Labour supports flexibility to extend time limits, and we feel that is particularly important where there is a public interest to do so. That is why we support clause 127. The clause amends chapter 2 of part 3 of the Enterprise Act, which sets out that the Secretary of State may intervene in the consideration of a merger where the Secretary of State believes it raises a public interest consideration that needs to be taken into account. We feel that this is an appropriate and proportionate way of ensuring accountability for public interest interventions, and that the Secretary of State should be empowered to do so. We therefore support the intentions of clause 127 and, again, believe that it should stand part of the Bill.

Finally, clause 128 replaces the obligation on the CMA in section 96(5) of the Enterprise Act to publish the latest form of the merger notice

“in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes”

with an obligation to publish it online. We welcome that transparency. The Minister knows my views on transparency with respect to the Bill more widely. I wish that provision about online publication was replicated elsewhere in the Bill, so that information is available to anyone who wishes to see it. We welcome clause 128 and hope to see it replicated.

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, a lot of the publication is done online, as we have discussed, even if that is not stated specifically in the Bill. I hope the hon. Lady takes heart in that.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about schedule 4 and safe harbours. Clearly, we would expect the CMA and the Government to review the merger review thresholds regularly, and there are powers to amend the thresholds if and when it is considered appropriate to reflect economic developments or, indeed, because of the experience of enforcing the thresholds, as she rightly said. The CMA board is accountable to Parliament, as we have described. We expect that, through its annual plan and performance reports, Parliament will be able to scrutinise the decisions that have been taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 126 to 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129

Market studies: removal of time-limit on pre-reference consultation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The UK’s markets regime is the CMA’s most powerful tool for promoting competition in UK markets. Clauses 129 to 133 reform the markets regime, ensuring that it is effective, focused and proportionate.

Clause 129 reforms the market study process. Currently, the CMA or sector regulator must start a consultation on making a market investigation reference, or decide not to make a reference, within six months of the start of a market study. That timeframe is unduly restrictive. The clause removes the six-month time limit, giving flexibility for the consultation to start at the most appropriate point. It allows extra time to gather evidence, ensuring that information that comes to light later on can be considered.

Clause 130 makes amendments so that references can be targeted appropriately, to better define the scope of the investigation required. It further narrows the questions that the CMA group must consider, reflecting the scope set out in the reference. This will allow the CMA to ensure that its work is targeted effectively, which will benefit businesses and investors.

Clause 131 introduces schedule 6, which expands the use of voluntary undertakings that remedy competition harms. The clause allows the CMA to accept such undertakings at any stage in the market inquiries process. This includes the acceptance of partial undertakings that address some features causing concerns in a market, but not all. The flexibility to take issues “off the table” by accepting such undertakings, alongside the amendments made by clause 132 regarding narrowing the scope of investigations, will help to provide greater flexibility in the regime. We recognise that voluntary undertakings will not be appropriate in every case. Where they are appropriate, they will drive efficiencies and enable faster results. They will also help to tackle competition problems and any resulting consumer harm as quickly as possible.

Clause 132 introduces schedule 7, which gives new powers to the CMA to conduct trials of certain types of remedies at the conclusion of a market investigation where an adverse effect on competition has been identified. That will help to ensure that any final remedy is suitable and effective. For now, the power to trial remedies will be limited to solutions that relate to the provision or publication of information to consumers. That is the area where trials are most likely to be useful and enables a proportionate approach to introducing this new power. The Secretary of State will be able to expand the scope of remedies to trial in future, subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

Clause 133 gives the CMA new powers to amend ineffective remedies where less than 10 years has passed since the original market investigation. Where the CMA decides that remedies have been ineffective and should be varied, it will be required to consult with affected businesses before reaching a final decision on whether to vary a remedy, and to conclude the variation within six months. In cases where the Secretary of State has accepted or imposed remedies, the CMA will provide advice to the Secretary of State. This new power will be constrained by a mandatory two-year cooling-off period, beginning at the end of a remedy review.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will speak briefly to clause 129 before addressing our thoughts on the rest of the group. Labour supports the intentions of the measures in the group, and we have not sought to amend them at this stage.

The removal of the time restriction outlined in clause 129 gives the CMA flexibility and more time to gather evidence to determine when the consultation process should commence. That is something I think we can all get behind and fully support.

Schedule 6 outlines the process by which the CMA will be able to accept voluntary commitments during all stages of a market study and a market investigation. It allows the CMA to accept partial undertakings, to narrow the issues that require further investigation. We see these features as central to a flexible regime that firms want to easily engage with. That must be at the heart of any fully functioning and appropriate regime.

Clause 132 and schedule 7, which are incredibly welcome, provide that the CMA may be required by the Secretary of State to conduct trials of remedies before setting a final remedy package. We recognise that since this is a new regime, the regulator may benefit from such trial remedies, and it is important that the CMA has the legislative teeth and support to do so.

We therefore support the measures in the group. We have not sought to amend them, and we believe that they should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 129 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 130 and 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clauses 133 to 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Tenth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

The final clauses in part 2 concern measures that cut across the Competition and Markets Authority’s competition tools. Clause 136 introduces schedules 8 to 10 to the Bill. The Competition Act 1998 and parts 3 and 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002 already allow the CMA to impose civil penalties for non-compliance with information requirements. The destruction of documents that have been required to be produced, and the provision of false or misleading information, are criminal offences, but schedule 8 introduces powers for that conduct to be subject to civil penalties. It also reforms existing civil penalties to ensure that the maximum penalties are set at an appropriate level.

Schedule 9 introduces powers enabling civil penalties to be imposed for breaches of competition remedies. Competition remedies are interim measures, commitments and directions under the Competition Act 1998 and interim measures, undertakings or orders under parts 3 and 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Schedules 8 and 9 also enable the Secretary of State and Ofcom to impose penalties if they are given false or misleading information in relation to their functions under the relevant regimes. They also give the Secretary of State the power to impose penalties to enforce compliance with remedies accepted or imposed in relation to mergers and markets with public interest considerations. Civil penalties will be applicable unless the party has a reasonable excuse, and that will be assessed case by case.

The maximum penalty for an undertaking or person who owns or controls an enterprise that is not complying with information requirements is 1% of the business’s worldwide turnover. Daily penalties of up to 5% of worldwide daily turnover will also be available in some cases while the non-compliance continues. For breach of remedies, the maximum penalty is set at 5% of worldwide turnover and daily penalties of up to 5% of worldwide daily turnover while the breach continues. The penalties imposed on other persons, who will generally be individuals, are capped at £30,000, or up to £15,000 daily while the breach continues. The CMA is required to produce statements of policy regarding the operation of its penalty powers. In doing so, it must consult the sector regulators and receive approval from the Secretary of State. Schedule 10 amends the legislation that gives the sector regulators their concurrent competition powers, so that they need not unnecessarily duplicate the work that they need to do to prepare statements of policy.

Clause 137 introduces schedule 11, which amends the Competition Act 1998 and parts 3 and 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to make express provision regarding the giving of information notices outside the United Kingdom. The schedule enables the CMA to give an information notice to a person who is the subject of a Competition Act 1998 investigation, or a person who is or has been a party to a merger review. The schedule also enables the CMA to give information notices to third parties with a defined UK connection. Compliance will be enforceable through the civil penalty regime. The schedule also amends provisions on methods of serving documents to reflect modern business practices; for example, it allows service of documents via email.

Government amendments 40 to 44 are technical drafting amendments to schedule 12. The schedule, which is introduced by clause 138, applies appropriate parliamentary procedures to new regulation-making powers created by the Bill, and makes other consequential and technical amendments. I commend the amendments to the Committee and hope that the clauses will stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Labour supports the intention behind the provisions in this grouping. Of course there should be provisions about the attendance of witnesses, as outlined in clause 135. The same can be said about ensuring that the Bill has sufficient legal powers on civil penalties, should the need for them arise in the regime. The provisions in clause 136 and schedules 8 to 10 are adequate, and we support them. The same can be said for clause 137 and schedule 11, which make provisions regarding the service of documents and the extraterrestrial—sorry, extraterritorial; I know we are talking about digital markets, but we have not reached that far yet—application of notices under part 1 of the Competition Act 1998 and parts 3 and 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Of course those laws must work in alignment with the intentions of the Bill. Clause 138, Government amendments 40 to 44 and schedule 12 are all sensible, and part of a rigorous procedure, so we do not oppose them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 136 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 8 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12

Orders and regulations under CA 1998 and EA 2002

Amendments made: 40, in schedule 12, page 284, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) In subsection (4) omit ‘, 94A(6)’.”

This amendment removes a reference in section 124(4) of the Enterprise Act 2002 to section 94A(6) of that Act, which is being repealed by paragraph 11 of Schedule 9 to the Bill.

Amendment 41, in schedule 12, page 284, line 7, at end insert—

“(aa) omit ‘, 94A(3) or (6)’;”.

This amendment removes a reference in section 124(5) of the Enterprise Act 2002 to section 94A(3) and (6) of that Act, which are being repealed by paragraph 11 of Schedule 9 to the Bill.

Amendment 42, in schedule 12, page 284, line 12, after “section” insert “94AB(9) or”.

This amendment corrects a drafting omission by providing that regulations under section 94AB(9) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (inserted by paragraph 11 of Schedule 9 to the Bill) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Amendment 43, in schedule 12, page 285, line 10, after “section” insert “167B(9) or”.

This amendment corrects a drafting omission by providing that regulations under section 167B(9) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (inserted by paragraph 17 of Schedule 9 to the Bill) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Amendment 44, in schedule 12, page 285, line 23, at end insert—

“(8A) In subsection (10), for ‘174D’ substitute ‘174A(10)’.”—(Paul Scully.)

Paragraph 26 of Schedule 8 to the Bill inserts a new subsection (10) into section 174A of the Enterprise Act 2002 which replaces the existing provision made by section 174D(10) of that Act (which is being repealed by paragraph 28(12) of that Schedule). This amendment amends the Enterprise Act 2002 to replace a reference in section 181(10) of that Act to the latter provision with a reference to the former.

Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 139

Overview

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 59.

Clauses 140 to 142 stand part.

That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 201 stand part.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clause 311 defines various terms used throughout the Bill, such as “digital content” and “firm”.

Clause 312 provides that expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or CMA as a result of the Bill is to be met from funds provided by Parliament.

Clause 313 gives the Secretary of State a power by regulations to make any provision that is consequential on the Bill or any provision made under it. The power can be used to amend any legislation, but it is limited to primary legislation passed or made before the end of the parliamentary Session in which this Bill is passed. This limitation also applies to any secondary legislation made under the primary legislation.

Clause 314 makes further provision in relation to powers to make regulations under the Bill, including interpretative provisions about the relevant parliamentary procedures. This clause does not apply to commencement regulations.

Clause 315 sets out that the Bill will apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

As we know and as the Minister said, the clause sets out the meanings of various terms used in the Bill. Throughout the debates in Committee, we have raised fundamental questions on several points where we feel that the interpretation of the Bill requires further confirmation. I welcome the Minister’s clarity on a number of those issues. In the rest of the clauses in the group, we see clarity around financial provisions, regulation, extent and the short title—all as is fairly standard.

We all understand the need for this Bill and welcome many of the provisions. That is why Labour has been generally supportive as we have proceeded through Committee. I hope we can also agree that the measures in the Bill must come into force as soon as is reasonably possible. That is particularly important when we know that the digital markets unit has essentially been operating in shadow form for a number of years. It must be compelled to draw on the lessons learned and able to act meaningfully from day one. All things said, we obviously support this grouping, and we look forward to the Third Reading of the Bill before supporting its progression to the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 311 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 312 to 315 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 316

Commencement

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 316, page 221, line 25, at end insert—

“(3) Sections 245 to 273 come into force from April 2026.”

This amendment provides an explicit implementation period for the subscription contract provisions.

The amendment suggests the need for an explicit implementation period for the subscription contract provisions debated earlier in clauses 245 to 273. That comes about for several reasons. The Government say and Ministers tell us that they have consulted businesses, but I note that the Federation of Small Businesses has raised concerns about the provisions in the Bill, including timing and coverage, as have Sky and other larger organisations. There seems to be a concern that there is no specific time or date. In an earlier sitting, we heard the Minister tell us that some provisions would be immediate and some provisions would be for new contracts, not for existing contracts, but business organisations and representative organisations were unaware of the Government’s plans, despite the need to prepare to implement provisions and allow for the costs of new regulations to take effect on businesses.

Businesses have said that the Bill goes further than the Government’s initial consultation expected, including on things such as clauses 245 to 273 and reminders. I think that this correspondence went to all members of the Committee, but Sky suggests that

“measures have shifted away from a high level, principles-based approach”—

which was in the consultation initially—

“with government opting instead for highly prescriptive requirements on the face of the Bill itself. This change was made without any substantive consultation with businesses, despite the material difference such an approach makes to compliance and implementation costs.”

That is from Sky, which has 12,000 jobs focused on this issue, so it is in a better position than smaller companies to get on with that work. Its concern is that the Bill does not do what the Government said it would do, and that new costs will be imposed.

It is not just the FSB that has raised concerns about the costs. Sky said that the Government’s impact assessment suggests that the new requirements

“will cost UK business £400 million to set up and £1.2 billion in the first year alone.”

This is not a benign set of requirements in legislation; it is a costly endeavour. The amendment seeks to give UK businesses space to prepare to implement the provisions and absorb some of the costs, which would not have been in their business plans if they were set some time ago.

In an earlier sitting, I asked the Minister about the timeframe, and the amendment attempts to achieve some clarity about that. It would be good to hear how the Government will address the concerns of the business community, which has been surprised—let me put it that way—by what the Government have come forward with, in terms of the level of the measures, the fact that the requirements are on the face of the Bill, and the lack of a timeframe to prepare to deliver them.

I politely suggest that Ministers take a bit more time to work with the business community before the Bill goes any further to ensure UK businesses are ready, are not hit with further costs, and are prepared to implement the provisions of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clause 316 makes provision regarding commencement of the Bill. Part 6 and powers to make regulations will commence at Royal Assent, and all other parts will commence by way of regulations made by the Secretary of State. Clause 317 establishes the short title.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We have no further comments, Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 316 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 317 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Decision not to make final offer order

“(1) The CMA may decide not to make a final offer order in relation to the transaction where it has reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a material change of circumstances since the final offer initiation notice was given.

(2) For the purposes of this section and section 42(3) a material change of circumstances includes an agreement between the designated undertaking and the third party with respect to terms as to payment in relation to the transaction.

(3) Where the CMA decides not to make a final offer order, it must give a notice to that effect to the designated undertaking and the third party.

(4) The notice must include the reasonable grounds referred to in subsection (1).

(5) As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a notice under subsection (3), the CMA must publish a statement summarising the contents of the notice.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This new clause, together with Amendment 10, ensures that the CMA can end the final offer mechanism without making a final offer order at any time after giving a final offer initiation notice. It would appear after clause 41.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Limit on secondary ticketing

“(1) The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 91 (prohibition on cancellation or blacklisting) insert—

‘91A Limit on secondary ticketing

(1) This section applies where a person (‘the seller’) re-sells a ticket for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in the United Kingdom through a secondary ticketing facility.

(2) The operator of the facility must—

(a) identify the maximum number of tickets available for a consumer to buy from the primary market for any event for which tickets are being re-sold through their facility; and

(b) check that the seller has not bought more tickets than they are permitted to buy as set out in subsection (2)(a) with the intention to re-sell, unless the seller provides proof that they have bought more tickets than they are permitted to buy from the primary market with the consent of the event organiser.

(3) The operator of the facility must not allow the seller or any associate of the seller to list more tickets for an event than can be bought by a consumer through the primary market.

(4) If the operator breaches its duties in subsections (2) and (3), they are jointly liable with the seller for enforcement action against them as set out in section 93’”.—(Seema Malhotra.)

This new clause would amend the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to introduce provisions banning sellers on secondary ticketing sites from selling more tickets than can be bought by consumers on the primary market.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Seema Malhotra]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a true privilege to be back in the Chamber once again, on behalf of the Opposition, to open the third debate in recent months on Report stage of this incredibly important Bill. I welcome the Minister to his place: he is joining this brief at a very exciting time, and I look forward to working with him in the months ahead to get the Bill finally over the line. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). We may not always have agreed on the detail, but I was always grateful for his collegiate and open-minded approach to getting the Bill to a good place, where it needed to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

People often find it difficult to get out of internet provider contracts. They may spend hours on the phone, or communicating via a bot, and when they do get through to someone, that person tries to talk them out of what they are trying to do. It seems to me that it would be very straightforward to require providers to have on their websites a simple and prominent “cancel my contract” button, easily visible to anyone who is logged in. That, surely, would save people acres of time and a huge amount of frustration.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend has made an important point about an issue faced by all our constituents who are struggling to get out of contracts that do not give value for money, and subscription traps, which we will discuss later this evening. These are issues that should have been dealt with in the Bill, and could have been had it been afforded parliamentary priority. Sadly, many opportunities have been missed and will need to be returned to, and we will be urging the Government to do that in due course.

The Conservatives have needlessly delayed the introduction of the Bill. Their focus on infighting and general chaos has prevented them from presenting suitable legislation. The Bill was first promised in Parliament more than a year ago, and since then, owing to Tory delay, we have fallen behind our European neighbours in this vital policy area. Failure to act against gatekeepers to access points in the digital economy—from web browsers to search engines, and from mobile operating systems to app stores and broadband contracts—is having a huge impact on business growth and consumer prices. Let us be clear: a failure to regulate and level the playing field is having a huge impact on consumers, who ultimately pay the price.

This is a complicated Bill, which has rightly received substantial coverage in the media since it was first published. It is only appropriate for me to begin my consideration of the first group of amendments by raising particular concerns about the Government amendments relating to the countervailing benefits exemption—notably, amendments 13 and 14. As we all know, the countervailing benefits exemption allows the Competition and Markets Authority to close an investigation of a breach of a conduct requirement if a big tech firm can demonstrate that its anti-competitive conduct produces benefits that outweigh the harm. These amendments change the test for the exemption from indispensability—a recognised competition law standard that ensures that a big tech firm cannot proceed with anti-competitive conduct without good reason—to an untested, potentially ambiguous standard. There is a danger that this new, untested standard could allow big tech firms to evade compliance and continue with conduct that harms UK businesses and consumers. They might also inundate the CMA with an excessive number of claims of consumer benefit, diverting its limited resources away from other essential tasks.

The Minister must be realistic. It is highly unlikely that anti-competitive conduct on the part of regulated firms will ever have a consumer benefit. The amendment creates an unnecessary loophole that Labour colleagues and I find very concerning. I would also be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether these amendments create a new legal standard that could allow regulated companies to evade compliance. There is also the question of how the amendments will protect the CMA from being inundated with claims of countervailing benefits from regulated companies. Labour is concerned by these amendments, and I therefore urge Members across the House to support amendments 187 and 188, tabled in my name, which seek to undo the Government’s mismanagement.

I will turn now to the changes in the appeals mechanism. The Minister knows about, and will have heard, the concerns of colleagues on the Conservative side—on all sides, actually—about the changes in the appeals process, as outlined in Government amendment 51 to 56. We have all heard the passionate calls from businesses that have risked their reputations and market share by sticking their heads above the parapet to warn of the risks of watering down the appeals process. It is testament to their hard work that we are at this point today.

As colleagues will be aware, the Government amendments would change the appeals process and standard for penalty decisions to full merits only. As we know, penalties such as fines are the most significant deterrent to prevent short message service firms from breaking the conduct requirements established by the CMA. Although timing—a key concern when considering the impact of full merits on other parts of the Bill—is not of paramount importance when it comes to fines, it is foreseeable that full merits appeals could allow SMS firms to reduce significantly the size of penalties, thus reducing their incentive to comply.

The Minister will come to learn that collegiate, sensible agreement has been a common theme as the Bill has progressed, particularly in line-by-line scrutiny in Committee. Indeed, we broadly welcome the Government’s decision to maintain the judicial review standard for appeals on regulatory decisions. Labour feels that will ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority has the tools to act and is not bogged down in complex, lengthy and costly legal wrangling, which would render the new regime completely ineffective.

However, the Minister must clarify how the amendments will not impede the CMA’s ability to keep pace with rapidly moving digital markets. The regulator must retain the flexibility to construct remedies that target the harms to UK businesses and consumers stemming from big tech’s dominant position in digital markets. Looking back on the contributions of the Minister’s predecessor in Committee, we were all assured with a level of certainty that there would be no changes to weaken the appeals process, so it is a frustrating reality to see yet another U-turn from this Government—sadly, we have all become more than used to their slapdash way of governing and making law.

As we know, introducing full merits appeals for all regulatory decisions would have allowed complex, lengthy and costly legal wrangling, which would render the new regime ineffective. It must therefore be clarified that the Government’s amendment allows full merits appeals only for the level of the fine and for the decision to issue a fine. It must not permit a review of the CMA’s decision to create a conduct requirement or implement pro-competitive intervention, or of the CMA’s decision on whether a conduct requirement has been breached and how to remedy that breach. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister clarified exactly whether that will be the case.

I am conscious of time so I will push the Minister to clarify a number of important points. Government amendment 64 gives the Secretary of State the power to approve CMA guidance, which will be critical to regulated firms, particularly on how they should comply with the conduct requirements placed upon them. What is unclear is when and how, and in what timeframe, guidance must be submitted to the Secretary of State. I know that many of us would be grateful for some straightforward clarity from the Minister on that issue.

Lastly, I am keen to highlight Labour amendments 194 to 196, tabled in my name, which aim to improve the consultation rights of challenger firms. Under the current drafting, firms with strategic market status will have far greater consultation rights than those that are detrimentally affected by their anti-competitive behaviour. The amendments would give third parties the ability to provide critical information for the CMA’s consideration, and feedback on its work. That is vital, particularly for challenger companies whose growth may see them captured by the regime at a future point. I hope that the Minister will consider the merits of introducing similar amendments in the other place. He would have widespread support from colleagues across the House if he were to go ahead and do so.

We have heard the concerns of Members across the House about how the changes have been implemented, so I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the debate as it progresses and to do the right thing by working collegiately for the benefit of good legislation.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

In rising to address the House, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an independent adviser in a collective action being brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal for alleged anti-competitive behaviour relating to cryptocurrency. Although I will not address my remarks to any part of the Bill that might be perceived as relevant to the funding of litigation relating to such actions, I thought it right to be comprehensive in my declaration.

I wish to couch my remarks in this way: I am a firm supporter of the need to provide effective regulation in a market that is vulnerable—and, some would say, prone—to monopolistic abuse of market power. It is clear that regulation is not only desirable but essential when it comes to representing the interests of the consumer, and that is the place from which we all need to start.

In the sturm und drang that has accompanied some of the coverage of the Bill, it is perhaps inevitable that focus has been placed on the interests of one sector, as opposed to those of another—the large-scale enterprise against the small start-up. In all that, we risk forgetting the essential truth of why we are legislating in this way, which is first and foremost to ensure that any regulator is working in the interests of the consumer. My amendment deals precisely with that issue, by imposing an overarching and paramount duty on the regulator, and indeed the courts, to serve the interests of the consumer. Accompanied with a duty of expedition, that underlines the thrust of why I have decided to speak in this debate and to table amendments. Much needs to be done in the process of dealing with competition issues, which of course means the operation of the CMA and the Competition Appeal Tribunal. This debate—indeed, this whole process—can be a moment for us to reflect, and to take action and ensure that the way such disputes are dealt with in future will be more efficient, more speedy and in the interests of the consumer.

Ex-ante regulation is very difficult; it is all about predicting the future. Indeed, I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) in the Chamber. He followed that market very carefully and knows its ever-changing nature. It is difficult to predict what the world will look like in six months, let alone in five years. It is right to remember that the basis of the Bill, and of today’s debate, goes back four years to the Furman review, which rightly set out the parameters that have led to the development of this much-needed legislation.

In one respect, the review has been somewhat prayed in aid in a way that is potentially misleading. Recommended action 12 of the Furman review speaks about the ability of an affected company to appeal a decision—this is relevant to amendment 185 to clause 102. The review states:

“To facilitate greater and quicker use of interim measures to protect rivals against significant harm, the CMA’s processes should be streamlined.

The ability for an affected company to appeal a decision or an interim measure is a vital safeguard of their rights, and a check on the quality of CMA decision-making. Appeals processes need to strike a balance between protecting those affected by any unjustified decision and ensuring that CMA powers can be exercised effectively to protect those who would be left exposed by underenforcement or undue delay.”

It goes on:

“The competition framework would be improved for digital markets by focusing appeals on testing the reasonableness of CMA judgement, that procedure has been appropriately followed, and that decisions are not based on material errors of fact or law—a standard more closely relating to that of judicial review.”

As I read it, that is an invitation to ensure that there is not a completely unbridled merits-based approach. It is a world away from suggesting that somehow, in this world of ex-ante regulation, we should be immediately narrowing down the options of any court or applicant relating to potential claims on merit.

Ex-ante review work is not easy, but it is not unprecedented in United Kingdom regulation. We have had telecoms regulations for a long time, with the work of Ofcom in policing that. In that area, for a long time the decision making and the appeals process were allowed to be based on merit, before a reversion or a narrowing down to judicial review principles. Indeed, that was laid out for a long time—much longer than the period I envisage in my amendment—in order to reflect the importance of achieving maximum clarity as early as possible. I do not want to see anything that creates uncertainty in this market, because that will lead to a lack of investment, and perhaps a reduction of the sorts of investments that we want to see domestically and internationally in this important and vital market for the future of our British digital services industry.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, some technical amendments to the general provisions apply across the Bill, dealing with matters such as commencement. I want to ensure that there is plenty of time for Members to debate the Bill at this important stage, and I appreciate the constructive and collaborative approach that colleagues have so far taken during the passage of the Bill.

[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 ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

May I briefly join the Minister in thanking all the members of the Public Bill Committee and the Clerks of the House? I give personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for working with me so collaboratively on getting the Bill to a good place. Let me also place on the record my thanks to Freddie Cook, in my team, for all her work on the Bill.

Labour welcomes this Bill, having led the way in calling for large tech companies to be properly regulated to ensure competition in digital markets. We are pleased to see the Bill in a good place as it goes to the other place for further consideration. We have long called for measures to protect consumers, enhance innovation and promote competition in digital markets to unlock growth and level the playing field for smaller businesses. That could not be more important in the midst of a cost of living crisis. We have supported the passage of this Bill and it is now important that these new powers that are given to the CMA to ensure competition in digital markets are not watered down as the Bill progresses. We will be following closely, as will colleagues from across the House, and we look forward to the Bill finally coming into action.