Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey]

I have stated where it says “suppress” and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown mentioned “suppress” in his contribution.

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

It is not in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should carry on.

International Women’s Day: Language in Politics

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I place it on the record how disappointed I am that not a single man is speaking in the debate today. We all have a role to play to empower, inspire and enthuse the next generation of women, and to face down, and ultimately defeat and silence, toxic misogyny and abuse. That should not be the responsibility of only the women in this place.

Specific moments deserve attention. We must celebrate when important glass ceilings are smashed. I stand here as a very proud first female MP elected to represent the people of Pontypridd. My party has driven a coach and horses through the idea that to be a parliamentarian means one has to be a white, privately educated, independently wealthy man. Young women can look to our parliamentary party and see people that look and sound just like them.

Yet there is still not enough progress. Just being here in Parliament is not enough. Equality is not about being 50% of everything; it is about winning hearts and minds. It is the drip, drip of education and the embedding of a culture in which women are genuinely valued, respected and championed. I am talking about a world in which online and real-world misogynists are rejected outright because young people and others see them for what they are. That culture, education and example is often set by influencers and in society by the words used in this House and beyond by Members of Parliament, and others elected or appointed to public service. Those words matter.

Sometimes those words are subtly, even unconsciously, biased. They seem harmless and no doubt the intention is not always sinister. However, those words feed a narrative that has played out for many years across society. Today, it is playing out daily in both broadcast media and in fringe spaces online. People are rapidly being radicalised thanks to self-affirming filter bubbles amid a culture that is openly targeting women. As Hope Not Hate has pointed out, feminists, left-wing women and women of colour are a common focus.

Ironically, it might be easy for some to roll their eyes at my words. When a woman uses the word “radicalisation” in the context of feminism that is often dismissed and ignored, and at worse she is labelled “a mad feminist”. But what starts in fringe spaces does not end there. It leeches on to larger social platforms and then moves into everyday discourse, as radicalised individuals feel more comfortable expressing their hatred in real terms.

What starts with throwing a drink over a woman can become, and has become, a murderous attack. Such attacks can be, have been and are the consequences of language, which is why we need to tackle the widespread harm. That is important and, as shadow tech Minister, I fought hard to ensure Ofcom will have a code of practice for tech companies focused on violence against women and girls. In addition, those calling us “love” need to think more carefully about their contribution to the problem.

To take this idea further, we have what the global pop sensation Taylor Swift called “a different vocabulary” for men and women. She said:

“A man does something, it’s strategic. A woman does the same thing, it’s calculated.”

We do not have to look far for other ways in which that coded differentiation plays out. How many times in this place have hon. Members spoken passionately, only to have been characterised as “emotional” or even “hysterical”? How many times have we been patronised or told to “watch our tone”? The deputy leader of our party, the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), has been repeatedly objectified and targeted in mainstream media for her appearance or conduct, described by what she is wearing rather than what she is saying, faced with failed attempts to undermine her authority. Sadly, she is not alone. How often was that the case for Lord Prescott, for example? Why have Ministers, Back-Bench Members and others in this place have felt perfectly comfortable personally disrespecting me in text messages, conversations or speeches, reducing my value to that of my appearance, effectively devaluing important conversations on policy?

Particular words can cause particular harm to particular groups. When a former Member of this House—a former Prime Minister, no less—compared Muslim women wearing the burqa with letterboxes, not only was it mocking, cruel and Islamophobic, it led to a rise in attacks on Muslim women, according to Tell Mama. Jewish Women’s Aid told me, as shadow Minister for Domestic Violence, that the omission of words, the failure to believe, and the accusations levelled at Israeli women that they were lying about the brutal rapes and sexual violence which took place on 7 October have served to undermine confidence in the services offered by Jewish Women’s Aid to women in this country. Once again, words had an impact.

As I have said, I have had words used to try and intimidate or threaten me. I know colleagues have had similar experiences. These words undermine and threaten our democracy. When women in Parliament are under threat, our democracy suffers. When young women see these threats, it deters them from standing. So let the call go from this Chamber today that we will not be silenced—we will not shut up.

Thankfully, words can also be used for good. Above the entrance to St Stephen’s is an installation that includes a representation of the various Acts of Parliament that have paved the way for women. History shows that words have the potential to change the world for good, and if we want an example, we do not have far to look. Inside the cupboard at the back of the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft, on this very parliamentary estate, words mark the efforts of Emily Wilding Davison to ensure women had the right to vote. They serve as a true reminder of the potential for good and for change.

I am heartened by the fact that in the face of all the hatred and disgusting words I have had sent to me over the last four years, I have been lucky to have constituents, colleagues and members of the public share words of kindness. Supportive words have flooded in from allies, friends and family. I am sure we all can agree that those are the only words that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend mentions some of the issues being tackled by Mr Speaker, but they are also being tackled by you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are also standing down at the next election. We should also pay tribute to you for leading the way for women in our own party, and across the House.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that positive and opportune intervention. I did not want to embarrass you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thank you for your calm nature last week when you took on the issues that arose. The calm and peaceful way in which you dealt with it all was an inspiration to us all.

Online abuse affects when women in public office speak and what they speak about. Online abuse, particularly abuse that is misogynistic and racist, has a detrimental impact on the mental health and wellbeing of women in public life, particularly ethnic women MPs, reflecting on the emotional toll that it takes on them, their families and their staff. It is deeply unfortunate that online abuse spills out into reality, causing real concerns about physical safety, with such abuse often including threats of violence. Even though women make up over half of the United Kingdom’s population, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke said, we make up only 35% of the House of Commons. There is so much more to do.

Measles

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Lady is quite right that there is vaccine hesitancy, and that is a key reason why uptake has dropped so significantly across all groups, but more in some groups than in others. That is why NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency have written to more than 1 million parents in the west midlands and London to highlight the benefits of having the MMR vaccine. As more cases of measles break out, we are seeing more people come forward to take up the vaccine, because they are balancing for themselves the risk of having the vaccine, which is very minimal, against the risk of having measles. Any help that hon. Members can give is welcome and we are very willing to hear any suggestions they have for helpful messages in their own particular communities.

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

The Minister is right to point out that one reason for the decline in people coming forward to take up the MMR vaccine is the rise of dis- and misinformation about the vaccine—not just online, but, sadly, perpetrated in this House. The Online Safety Act 2023 does very little to tackle online dis- and misinformation and to keep people safe. What is the purpose of the Government’s counter disinformation unit? Why is there no transparency on what that unit is supposedly doing, and when will the Government stand up to the social media platforms and stop them proliferating this dis- and misinformation and profiting from something that is causing real-world harm?

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Lady has a point that part of the vaccine hesitancy is due to misinformation about vaccines more generally. That is why we are trying to use the message of immunisation rather than vaccination, because it is a much more positive message. We are also providing positive messages and social media graphics for communities and Members of this House to roll out to counter some of that misinformation. It is really important that we get that message out. There is a problem with misinformation, and I want to reiterate that measles is a highly infectious disease that can be eliminated by vaccination alone.

IVF Provision

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of IVF provision.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Robertson. I start by thanking everyone who came along to the briefing on this matter yesterday, and in particular, Megan and Whitney, Laura-Rose Thorogood from LGBT Mummies, and Michael Johnson-Ellis from TwoDads UK for sharing their deeply personal stories and for the time they spent talking to MPs about this important issue.

As a mum of two wonderful boys, one of whom was conceived through IVF—in vitro fertilisation—this subject is close to my heart. Everyone deserves a chance to start a family, no matter their sexuality or gender identity. It was around 14 or 15 years ago that I started the IVF process as part of a same-sex couple. At the time, we went through unnecessary procedures, a long waiting list and significant costs, but despite the hurdles, it was achievable and my wonderful youngest son is now 13.

In the 13 years that my son has been alive, life for LGBTQ+ people in the UK has got progressively worse, and not just in terms of IVF. In many ways, life for LGBTQ+ people has gone backwards over the past decade. Homophobic and transphobic bullying is on the rise, trans hate crime has risen, waiting lists for LGBTQ+ physical and mental healthcare are through the roof, and virtually every day we see an attack on our community from this Government. From attacks on LGBTQ+ refugees to attacks on inclusive education in schools, to language outright denying trans rights, the Government have ramped up their war on woke using divisive and inflammatory rhetoric that is designed to stoke hate and distract from the mess they have made of this country, ahead of the next general election.

Ministers have failed to keep their promise to ban so-called conversion therapy in full, allowing the barbaric practice to continue. As for IVF for same-sex couples, we are still waiting for the Government to keep their promise to remove the discriminatory practical and financial barriers that LQBTQ+ couples face.

Since the IVF journey that I was part of, NHS waiting lists have become longer and the hurdles that LQBTQ+ couples have to jump through have increased. A fragmented NHS means that there is a postcode lottery for provision, and the financial cost is significantly higher. If I were starting my journey to become a parent now, even on an MP’s salary, I doubt I would be able to afford to complete the process. It is a disgrace that 14 or 15 years later, couples like Megan and Whitney still have to go through the same unnecessary fertility tests that we had to go through.

When speaking to people ahead of this debate, it has been depressing to repeatedly hear from women who have given up on their dream to become a parent because they have run out of money. LGBTQ+ people are being priced out of having a family. Lesbian, bisexual, non-binary and trans women couples are expected to demonstrate their infertility before the NHS will fund IVF. To do so, they must pay privately for up to 12 rounds of artificial insemination.

Yesterday, MPs heard at first hand from people this is having a huge impact on, including Megan and Whitney, who are here again today to listen to this debate. Megan and Whitney spoke about their integrated care board requiring them to pay for 12 rounds of artificial insemination before they would be eligible for any treatment on the NHS, which led to their decision to take their ICB to a judicial review. I have spoken to many couples who have spent £30,000, £50,000, or £60,000 on treatment, and many more have given up because they cannot afford to start the process. They have been priced out of having children. Last week, the BBC referred to the situation as a

“‘gay tax’ facing same-sex couples starting a family”.

Megan and Whitney’s legal case more than a year ago helped to prove that NHS England’s IVF policy discriminated against same-sex couples. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends that couples who have been unsuccessful in conceiving after two years should be offered three full cycles of in vitro fertilisation for women under 40 and one cycle for women aged between 40 and 42. The current requirement is that same-sex couples are expected to self-fund up to 12 intrauterine insemination cycles before they are eligible for NHS IVF treatment.

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

One thing that is becoming more dangerous as a result of same-sex couples having to pay for artificial insemination is the rise in people on Facebook offering their services at a low-cost price. This means that unofficial sperm donors are selling their sperm on social media sites, and that is not covered by the Online Safety Bill. It is really dangerous and exploits same-sex couples, and there are all the health ramifications to which this could lead.

[Kate Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will touch on that later. The guidelines are due to be updated next year. The Government have accepted that the situation is unfair and discriminatory. Last year’s women’s health strategy promised to remove the additional financial barriers to IVF for female same-sex couples in England, including removing the requirement to privately fund artificial insemination to prove fertility status before accessing NHS IVF services.

I am pleased that the Minister with responsibility for mental health and women’s health strategy is responding to this debate. In May she said:

“We expect the removal of the additional financial burden faced by female same-sex couples when accessing IVF treatment to take effect during 2023.”

On 11 September 2023, in response to a parliamentary question, she told the House:

“We remain committed to remove the requirement for female same-sex couples to self-fund six rounds of artificial insemination before being able to access National Health Service-funded treatment. NHS England are intending to issue commissioning guidance to integrated care boards to support implementation, which is expected shortly.”

We are still waiting for that guidance. The response also failed to acknowledge that, even now, some ICBs are still requiring self-funding for up to 12 rounds. With just 10 weeks left of 2023, the promise to remove the additional financial burden in 2023 will obviously not be met.

Of the 42 integrated care boards in England, only four offer fertility treatment to same-sex couples without the requirement to pay privately for artificial insemination. Ten more have said that they are reviewing their policies, but without the guidance from the Government or NHS England, there is not even a timeline for ICBs to make the changes needed. The Minister must ensure the full implementation of the recommendation from the women’s health strategy and work with NHS England to set out a clear timeline to bring an end to the inequalities experienced by LGBTQ+ couples when accessing fertility services.

In England, the NHS will fund in vitro fertilisation for heterosexual couples who have been trying for a baby unsuccessfully for at least two years and who also meet certain other criteria such as age and weight, yet even here, there is a postcode lottery for IVF. Some ICBs use the outdated tool of body mass index as a way of measuring health and refuse women IVF on the basis of their or their partner’s BMI. Some ICBs set their own criteria—that happened to one of my constituents—and refuse to offer IVF if either person in the couple already has a child with a previous partner. I hope that the Minister’s guidance deals with all those inequalities in provision.

Stonewall and DIVA’s 2021 LGBTQI+ Insight survey found that 36% of LGBTQI+ women and non-binary respondents who had children experienced barriers or challenges when starting their family. One in five of those stated that the greatest barrier or challenge was the high cost of private fertility treatment.

Stonewall’s latest research shows that 93% of ICBs are still falling short of the women’s health strategy’s target. The Government and NHS England have said that they have a 10-year strategy to tackle that. Most women cannot wait 10 years for the rules to change. For the majority of people, raising tens of thousands of pounds is impossible. The policy is making them financially infertile.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

Absolutely, and I will come on to that point. It is always about infertility, is it not? It should be about fertility and fertility treatment.

According to the UK fertility regulator—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—it takes, on average, three cycles of IVF to achieve success. I would like to praise the regulator for its recent announcement— I think from last week—regarding its grading of supplementary fertility treatment to help individuals and couples to determine what is a proven treatment and what is safe and cost-effective. That is most welcome, and I have had so many people come to me over the past year or so saying that the cost of IVF can be added on to all the time. In particular, people in clinics say, “Oh, you should have this scan” or “You might need to have this blood test—it might prove more successful.” When a person is in that situation, they will do anything they can to get pregnant. The costs do add up, so I am really pleased that the HFEA has released that guidance. I hope clinics across this country will take note.

Nevertheless, fertility treatment is still an emotionally draining, costly, risky and very long process. Undergoing treatment while juggling a job is particularly tough, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Unlike employment legislation on pregnancy, maternity and paternity, there is no enshrined legislation that compels employers to give time off work for fertility treatment or any initial consultation. The Equality Act 2010 was well intentioned and removed some forms of discrimination in the workplace, but unfortunately it does not help to prevent discrimination against those who are pursuing fertility treatment, as it does not class infertility as a disability. For example, most workplace protection policies exclude elective medical procedures, putting fertility treatment on a par with cosmetic surgery.

Last year, I introduced the fertility workplace pledge. While my private Member’s Bill, the Fertility Treatment (Employment Rights) Bill, has faced its difficulties progressing through the House, the fertility workplace pledge that I launched asks businesses to sign up voluntarily to provide employees undergoing IVF treatment with the support and the time off they need. We have consistently seen new businesses signing up over the past year, including the likes of Channel 4, Aldi and NatWest—even the Houses of Parliament have signed up to become a fertility workplace ambassador. More and more businesses are signing up, and there are now several a week. I ask hon. Members to encourage employers in their constituency to look at the fertility workplace pledge and consider signing up. If we can do this voluntarily rather than through employment law, all the better, because it changes the debate, the discussions and the attitude towards fertility treatment.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech; I thank her for all her work in this area. One of the problems is that the societal stigma around fertility treatments persists and is quite vicious and vocal. Infertility is not seen as a disease, and it is not seen as something with equal weight to other conditions. We need to change this in schools. There has been a lot of talk today about the Government’s sex education programme. In school we are taught how not to get pregnant, but we are never told that we might not be able to get pregnant. There are serious conversations to be had about how to change the cultural stigma around fertility treatment. That starts with education in schools.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship this morning, Mr Robertson. I thank all colleagues for their contributions, which really have been excellent. This is the best of Parliament. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on her fantastic speech and on securing this vital debate.

It is fair to say that we are living in difficult times, with a huge range of issues facing us as parliamentarians, from healthcare to education and from energy prices to job insecurity. They all have an impact on our constituents up and down the country, but there is absolutely no reason why fertility and IVF provision—issues that clearly impact so many people—should not take centre stage.

It has been genuinely fascinating to meet and hear from so many families impacted by infertility and access to fertility treatment, including some who are here today. The brilliant Megan and Whitney Bacon-Evans, Michael Johnson-Ellis from TwoDads UK and Laura-Rose of LGBT Mummies are some of the many who have campaigned hard on this issue for many years.

As we have heard, one in six couples suffer issues related to fertility. My IVF journey began in 2018, and I have been open that I knew right from the start that my road to pregnancy would not be easy. I am certainly one of the lucky ones—I was able to take out a loan and borrow from family to pay for my treatment, and after only one round of IVF I was blessed with my beautiful son Sullivan—but I still had many eye-opening experiences during my fertility journey that have led me to this point today. Ask anyone who has experienced IVF, whether personally or from watching loved ones go through the process, and they will say that IVF is one of the most emotionally, mentally and physically challenging and financially demanding processes that anyone can ever undertake.

We must be clear that the current state of the IVF and fertility treatment offering across the UK is far below what would-be parents deserve. It is vital that we right those wrongs that I am many others have experienced at first hand as IVF patients. The main issue, as has been discussed today, is the sheer lack of consistency across the UK in IVF services and provision. I was incredibly fortunate because I was in a position to pay privately for my IVF and because my partner already had two children from a previous relationship, although that meant that we suffered from what we call the step-parent tax. It should not have to be that way.

As we all know, the NICE fertility guidelines are crystal clear; we have heard them this morning. The NHS should offer women under 40 three full cycles of IVF if they have been trying for a child for more than two years. When policies and cycles offered are so different between integrated care boards, and do not take same-sex provision into account, that means that women and would-be parents across the UK are not being offered IVF services in a fair and transparent manner. That is an incredibly important point, made even more complicated by the huge discrepancies between fertility treatment providers in the data they publish.

Colleagues may be aware of my private Member’s Bill, the Fertility Treatment (Transparency) Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading on 24 November. The Bill will

“require providers of in vitro fertilisation to publish information annually about the number of NHS-funded IVF cycles they carry out and about their provision of certain additional treatments in connection with in vitro fertilisation”.

Those add-on treatments, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), have been offered to patients who are at their wits’ end and will do absolutely anything to improve their chances of having a child. I know their pain, because I was one of them. That is why I work closely with the HFEA, the Progress Educational Trust, Fertility Network UK and many others in the fertility sector who are concerned that many patients are frequently being offered and charged for optional extras to their treatment that claim to improve their chances of having a healthy baby, but are really exploiting people at their most vulnerable.

I was particularly pleased to see last week that the HFEA launched a new rating system to support patients undergoing fertility treatment. Patients are offered add-ons that claim to increase the success of treatment, but for most fertility patients the evidence to support that is missing or not very reliable. The HFEA add-ons rating will help patients to make better informed decisions about their treatment, although it is still only guidance and clinics have the right to ignore it. There is no right to enforce it: as we have heard, the HFEA as a regulator has very few teeth for enforcement. I urge the Minister to look at the issue more carefully and ensure that the regulations are being adhered to and that clinics are adopting the guidance. The new rating system, developed with patients and professionals in the fertility sector, has five categories giving detailed information for patients on whether add-ons increase the chances of success, along with other outcomes that also have an impact on miscarriage rates.

Although I welcome the progress, the wider issues on accessing IVF persist and we clearly have a long way to go in improving the situation. The Government’s women’s health strategy was a good starting point, but sadly we have still not seen any commitment on concrete action to improve access to IVF and fertility treatment. The strategy was published more than a year ago and was an opportunity for the Government to finally take some direct action, but instead it is once again clear that IVF is not an immediate priority.

I know that the Minister is listening. She has made her position very clear in previous debates on this subject, and I thank her for that engagement, but I sincerely hope that her colleagues in the Department and across Government are also listening and are taking the issue seriously. We have heard the strength of feeling this morning. I know that the Government are listening and that the Minister is listening; I just urge some direct action.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench speeches.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Affordability checks and stake limits for online gambling are of course welcome, but given that the Government have already spent three years reviewing and consulting on gambling laws, why do we need further consultation on what levels they should be set at? There should be no more unnecessary delays. I ask the Minister, what exactly have the Government been doing all this time?

[Stuart Andrew]

I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want me to endanger the implementation of the policies in the White Paper if we did not follow due process, which is what we are doing at the moment. We will be starting the consultation very soon, and we are on course to implement everything by the summer of next year, as we promised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Our creative industries are world leading, but they are rightly concerned about the impact of artificial intelligence on their creative endeavours. The Government’s botched AI and intellectual property plans show that our creative industries play second fiddle when we need genuine partnership between the tech sector and those industries. What is the Secretary of State doing to secure, protect and enhance this British success story in the digital age?

[Lucy Frazer]

The shadow Minister is right to highlight AI, which presents potential opportunities as well as challenges, particularly in the domain of copyright and the creative industries. I am actively engaged with this issue and have held a number of meetings with the sector, including with the Creative Industries Council earlier this week, and with music, press and publishing stakeholders over recent weeks. This afternoon I will again meet with the Minister for AI and Intellectual Property, together with the Intellectual Property Office, to discuss this very issue.

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.

Charity Lottery Fundraising Caps

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Westminster Hall

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

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate, and all Members from across the House for their contributions. It is rare that this House speaks with one voice, but on an issue of such importance it is great to see. I do not think that the Minister can have failed to hear the pressure from across the House. In a crowded policy field, charity lotteries often do not get the attention that they deserve; however, they do excellent work in supporting communities, as we have heard, especially where so-called Government investment has failed to appear, let alone deliver.

In my constituency of Pontypridd, many local charities and community groups have received funding by players of the People’s Postcode Lottery, myself included—I should probably declare an interest as a player of it. Already this year, Miss Tilley’s CIC, a social enterprise that works alongside disabled people in Pontypridd and Cardiff to help them access work, learning, volunteering and other opportunities, has received £25,000. That is a lifeline to a small charity. Last year, 13 other organisations based in my constituency received funding, including All Stars Gymnastics club, Llantwit Fardre cricket club, Rhondda Cynon Taf Scouts and Rhydyfelin Community Group. As I said, they are small local organisations delivering vital work in communities that would be unable to operate without that funding.

Those are community charities, but some of the country’s best known and well-loved charities working in my constituency are also in receipt of charity lottery funding. We have heard about some of them today: the Royal Voluntary Service, which has seven local groups; the Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales, which runs Y Gweira nature reserve; and the Ramblers, Breast Cancer Now, and Volunteering Matters, which have a presence in all our constituencies. Charity lotteries are not the only source of funding for those charities, but they are a vital one, especially as they provide unrestricted and ongoing funding, which is essential.

I am sure that the Minister has a number of projects and groups in his constituency that have benefited from such funding. It is therefore even more shocking that during a cost of living crisis that is affecting communities the length and breadth of the country, and which is largely of the Government’s own making, Ministers have failed to properly support charity lotteries, despite their incredible work. I have no doubt that the procrastination that has been exacerbated by the revolving ministerial door at DCMS means that such important issues have not been given the focus that they deserve. I have a lot of respect for the Minister, and I hope that this will be at the top of his policy agenda. I hope to hear more about that today.

Charities are facing a triple threat because of the current economic situation: their own costs have gone up, they face an increasingly difficult fundraising environment, and many are having to respond to increased needs in the communities that they serve. Against that backdrop, it is frustrating that a valuable source of charity funding is being stifled by a policy of this Government. We have heard today how easily a different policy could be implemented. There is widespread support for the removal of the cap on charity lottery fundraising. Indeed, my colleague Jane Hutt, the Minister for Social Justice in the Welsh Government, has written to DCMS to ask why the Conservative Government have not taken action.

Charity lotteries do a great deal of good across Britain. They support charities in every single constituency in Britain and provide millions of pounds of funding that otherwise would not be available. Earlier this year, 100 of the best-known charities in the country wrote to the Culture Secretary on this specific issue, so the Minister knows just how significant a feeling there is about it in the sector as well. Many charities are aware of the negative impact of the annual sales limit on their work; indeed, many of them are losing out because of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) referred to Magic Breakfast, which is a brilliant organisation. The recent comments of its chief executive, Lindsey MacDonald, highlighted the fact that unless the limits are removed Magic Breakfast expects to lose out to the tune of £1 million, which equates to more than 3.5 million breakfasts. That would be a colossal impact on just one charity out of the many affected. The issue also affects homelessness charities, environmental charities, international development charities, youth groups such as the Girl Guides, cultural organisations such as the National Trust and vital cancer charities such as Maggie’s, as we heard.

Of course, a crucial point is that it would not cost the Treasury a single penny to resolve this issue. I hope the Minister has heard that message loud and clear. Why has he or a succession of previous Ministers not taken action? What is preventing the policy from being implemented? It should not be the case that it is about any perceived impact on the national lottery, because the Gambling Commission’s own statistics show that lottery fundraising across Britain is at an all-time high.

It should also not be because of a lack of awareness of the problem, as both the charity sector and the charity lottery sector have made a strong case for change for many years, and they are to be commended for their perseverance on this issue. Nor should it be because removing the limits could impact on player behaviour in some way. As we have heard today, this is about a behind-the-scenes bureaucratic measure that most of the population will never even have heard of. Unless we see some action soon, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government do not care about the negative impact of the current policy.

Impactful organisations such as the People’s Postcode Lottery do some excellent work on the ground. The organisation’s staff and players should be proud that they have raised more than £1 billion for charities and good causes in every corner of Great Britain, although sadly not in Northern Ireland, as we have heard. We often hear much from the Government about the strain on public finances; perhaps responsibility for the current state of the economy is a debate for another day, but I encourage the Minister to consider the important role that charity lotteries play in plugging vital funding gaps.

We can all agree that many of our constituents are struggling and that times are tough. However, the cost of living crisis is not only impacting households: many charities and businesses have seen their costs shoot up at the same time as fundraising has become more difficult and the services they provide have increased, so they are impacted by a triple whammy. Indeed, I am really concerned that some charities will not survive this crisis, and I am sure the Minister has heard similar concerns. With that in mind, I urge him to give serious thought to the merits of lifting the cap. I am sure he has heard the arguments for doing so. Lifting the cap is a simple process that would have huge benefits for all our constituencies. So come on, Minister—do the right thing.

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 (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.