Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

I, too, welcome the new Minister to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. We all recognise that this is important, long-overdue legislation, so I wish him well in piloting it through the House. I also declare an interest: I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the National Union of Journalists. I receive no pecuniary advantage, directly or indirectly, and the NUJ is not affiliated to the Labour party or any other party, but it none the less makes some valid points, which I wish to raise today.

We face immense challenges and significant technological changes in the UK, and indeed globally, given the development of social media and the increasing use of artificial intelligence. In an era of fake news, there are few sources of news trusted more than our national, regional and much-loved local titles, which have stood the test of time and have deep roots in our communities. I have participated in a number of debates on the subject in Westminster Hall, and debates on the decline of our local newspapers and the need to support them are always over-subscribed.

It is important to be aware that professional journalism in the UK is in crisis. Reach PLC, the publisher of titles including The Mirror, the Daily Star and the Manchester Evening News, has announced a third round of redundancies, putting at risk as many as 800 journalist jobs. If we do not find means of fairly compensating established publishers and trusted sources of journalism, we will suffer from a less diverse media landscape, job losses, and the promotion of voices delivering fake news guided by hidden agendas.

Big tech continues to exploit its market dominance in digital advertising; it uses news content from professional journalists without giving any payment or compensation to the publishers who produce the content. This Bill is a positive step, which I welcome. It is welcomed by the NUJ, journalists and publishers. A functioning media market requires regulators to address the power imbalances that have emerged between major tech companies and the journalism industry in recent years.

Our established news titles and publishers are essential to democracy; they scrutinise Government and contribute to an informed society. Their content is being used to generate revenues for tech giants. They—the creators—must be guaranteed a fair share of revenues. Without quality news content on online platforms, the overall standard of information that we all consume will decline. It is in the collective interest of our Government, of all citizens of the country, and even of major tech companies to ensure the continued presence of quality journalism. That is relevant to the part of the Bill that allows the Competition and Markets Authority to initiate a final offer mechanism, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—I support Opposition amendments 187 and 188 for the reasons she gave. The final offer mechanism must be used only as a last resort, and not by big tech companies to bypass meaningful negotiations.

I also wish to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey): meaningful and fair negotiations are vital if big tech companies are not to continue to exploit the current power dynamic, and place undue influence on smaller publishers in a way that does not recognise the true value of the original content that they produce. British journalism is valuable, and its value is quantifiable. News content used by tech giants is estimated to be worth around £1 billion a year in the UK. That revenue is essential to the health and wellbeing of professional journalism in the UK.

I welcome the stance of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee on the timely implementation of the Bill, and its recommendation that the Government

“resist pressure to weaken some of the Bill’s measures”.

I also echo what the NUJ and the News Media Association say about maintaining the option of judicial review for appeals against regulatory decisions.

Government amendments must be clarified—a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, have asked for this—to ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority can retain the flexibility to construct remedies for problems that arise, and to keep up with rapidly changing digital markets, especially when big tech has such a monopolistic position.

I urge the Minister to uphold a high threshold for exemption from penalties when tech firms breach the rules, so as to prevent misuse of exemption provisions by well-funded companies that employ expensive legal teams. The example of Everton Football Club comes to mind. It seems to me—not that I am an expert in these matters—that it is being heavily penalised. Other football clubs in the premier league that seem, on the face of it, to be guilty of far greater abuses have managed to avoid the penalties. It is crucial that we eliminate loopholes that could be exploited by big tech.

Whether we like it or not, people consume a lot of their news from the big tech giants. Research conducted by Ofcom found that Facebook is the third most popular place to consume news; a higher proportion of people go there than to the BBC or Sky News channels. Meta recently discontinued Facebook News in Europe, and that has a potential impact on news consumption. With almost half of news consumers relying on social media, it is imperative to ensure fair compensation for quality content on social media platforms.

Looking ahead, the NUJ seeks extensive engagement with the Government—I hope that the Minister will respond to this—on safeguarding the future of journalism, and on recognising the multi-faceted threats that it faces, including from emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. It is imperative that this legislation quickly progress through Parliament, so that we can safeguard the integrity of UK news titles and publishers, and protect them from undue influence from big tech lobbyists who wish to water down much-needed reforms.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted to support the amendments in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). It is important to get the balance right, and not to worry too much about phantasms and fears that will not arise. It is worth recalling that, in the 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission was on the cusp of opening an investigation into IBM for its monopoly in typewriters. Technology is changing so rapidly, and an over-zealous regulatory mechanism is more likely to damage and hold back innovation than advance it.

Think of the names that have come and gone over the past few years. Who now has a BlackBerry? We once again think of blackberries as a fruit, rather than a mechanism for communicating. Or a Nokia telephone? In the 1980s, Nokia made Wellington boots. It is probably now back to making them, as its telephone has come and gone and been overtaken. That is the thing about the sector that we are looking to regulate: there is competition in it. It is not necessarily a competition for market share at any one time; it is a competition of technology that is evolving faster than people are able to deal with it.

There is in the Bill a touching faith in the competence of regulators, which I do not share. The CMA, to which we are about to give significant powers, has made a fool of itself this year—and not just a little. It has been made a global laughing stock by its Microsoft Activision Blizzard ruling, in which it blundered. It got it wrong; all the other regulators in the world did something else, and the CMA had to back down. The story was—this is quite important—that the CMA was doing the work of the FTC, but the FTC had to meet a higher legal standard and therefore encouraged the CMA to make the bid more difficult, because it thought that the UK law would be easier to work around than US law. That is why the amendments on the judicial review standard are so important. I would be in favour of a full merit standard. I think it is very peculiar that the Opposition, who are always happy to go to court to obstruct the Government at any opportunity—to obstruct the Government in carrying out the will of the British people, or to obstruct the Government when decisions are made by accountable Ministers—want unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats to have arbitrary power, which I do not want them to have. I want them to be able to operate according to merits.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

This is a key part of the Procurement Bill. It is simplifying the system so that, instead of 350 pieces of EU law and four different regimes, there will be one UK law and one regime. There will be a pipeline that makes it known to small businesses when contracts are becoming available, giving them a better chance to get involved. Payment terms for small businesses will be improved. Many things in the Bill will be specifically designed to help small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T2. Clearly, this Government cannot organise the processing of passports or driving licences on time. There are repeated errors in issuing visas to the correct location. Ambulances are stacked outside A&E units. NHS dentist appointments are as rare as hen’s teeth, and now the Minister wants to close the Seaham Department for Work and Pensions office in my constituency. Can the Cabinet Ministers join the dots, and recognise that cutting and undermining jobs in the public service is not the answer?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The reason that some DWP offices will not be needed is that unemployment did not rise in the way that was anticipated. We have the lowest level of unemployment in this country since 1974, and the highest number of people in payroll work, and it is only right that the estate of DWP meets the requirements of the DWP. We get huge efficiencies by implementing technology better. That has become clear in many Government activities. Labour party members always want to keep people on the payroll and then they do not want them to go into work: they either want to be on the picket lines helping them to strike, or they want to have them working at home.

Business of the House

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am beginning to think that the hon. Lady has access to my diary, because last week she raised a question relating to the Royal United Hospital, with whom I had a meeting the following day in which I raised some of the points that she made, and tomorrow, I am having a meeting with the chief executive of Curo, which is a social housing company that does a really good job. I have found in my dealings with Curo that it is consistently receptive to issues that their tenants face and quick in response, so I can discuss some of the points that she raised today.

In addition, the Government are committed to increasing house building. The sheer volume of house building is what ensures that there are houses for everybody. Whether it is social or affordable housing—however it is defined—we need to build more, which is why it was announced in the Queen’s Speech that there would be a planning Bill. However, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for helping me with my diary management.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I reinforce the call from my good and hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) in requesting a debate on Storm Arwen, and particularly the need for an independent public inquiry. At no point have the local authority or Ministers shown any self-awareness of their failings over the lack of leadership and delays in getting welfare support to residents affected by the loss of power, some for 10 days. There seems to have been a collective effort by Conservative politicians at both local and national levels to push all the blame on to Northern Powergrid in the storm’s immediate aftermath. I believe that there are some similarities with the failure to accept responsibility for the No. 10 Christmas party debacle.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is quite a leap of imagination to go from a party to power lines being blown down in a storm. The responsibility for power lines inevitably lies with power companies. The hon. Gentleman may never have been the greatest proponent of privatisation, but private companies have a responsibility to deliver service to their customers. The message that we had from his hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) was that, actually, society at large had rallied round. That should always be welcomed and viewed positively. The Government do not do everything; society has its place, as does private business.

Business of the House

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will confirm the precise opposite. The House agreed to a six-month suspension for Mr Vaz on 31 October 2019, but Parliament was then dissolved on 6 November for a general election. A suspension cannot carry across into a new Parliament, so that ended Mr Vaz’s suspension. The recall petition process was also terminated by the election, as provided for under section 13 of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. But this is right, because we are here by virtue of our electorate, and the electorate is free to send here whomsoever they choose. I know my hon. Friend will not be happy with that answer, but I remind him about John Wilkes and the Middlesex election. It has not always been the case that this House has acted wisely in whom it has sought to expel, but the electors have had a right to send that person back. Although this may be a difficult case and although this may be disagreeable to my hon. Friend, these constitutional principles are fundamentally important and should not be changed for individual cases.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the reference to a debate on 4 November about Afghanistan, but is he aware of reports that journalists in Afghanistan who have previously worked for the BBC are now subject to grave risks? A number of examples have been highlighted by the National Union of Journalists. One such example, Abdul Malik Asem, survived an attack after armed men opened fire on him at his sister’s home just a few days ago, injuring his 20-year-old nephew, who is seriously ill in hospital. Can we therefore have a debate in Government time to discuss what actions can be taken urgently to ensure that such journalists can be safely evacuated?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are doing what we can to help refugees from Afghanistan. I recently visited the RAF base at Brize Norton, whose staff have worked incredibly hard around the clock to evacuate people. People who are now able to get out of Afghanistan into other countries do have a route through. In the first year, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme will welcome to the UK up to 5,000 vulnerable Afghans who have been forced to flee their country, with up to a total of 20,000 over a five-year period. The scheme will provide protection for vulnerable people and those identified as at risk, including women and girls and members of minority groups. The Government are doing what we can; there is a programme, and there is funding behind it.

Business of the House

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend knows that locally elected police and crime commissioners are responsible for their allocated budget. I am afraid that I am rather austere when it comes to public spending, and I think it is a good thing if people underspend rather than overspend, so I might not give him the most helpful answer. I would encourage him to campaign locally with the police and crime commissioner on the important issue of keeping police stations open.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, would support upholding the law, as I hope the Leader of the House does, particularly section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I remind the House that, at the height of the pandemic, 560 employees of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency centre in Swansea contracted covid and one sadly died because they were working on site, at management’s request, despite Government advice that people should work from home. Can we have a statement on the background to the dispute at the DVLA in Swansea, not just the backlog but the robust allegations that political interference by Transport Ministers led to the industrial dispute with members of the Public and Commercial Services Union being prolonged?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is important to recognise that some people had to go into work to do their job properly, for security reasons or to ensure the integrity of systems, and the DVLA was one of those organisations. We are now getting back to work and people are going back to their offices, which is a thoroughly good thing.

Business of the House

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the power rests with this place and it is up to us to exercise it. The only constraints on this House and what it does have been placed on it by this House and, if this House wishes to review those constraints, it is entitled to do so. But the democratic will is exercised through Parliament and that is a fundamental constitutional principle.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I was very interested in the Leader of the House’s response to the questions about compensation for the Equitable Life pensioners. It may be opportune to have a general debate in Government time on justice for pensioners. That would allow us to discuss the WASPI women—the 1950s women—and, just as importantly for my constituents, when the mineworkers and their widows can expect pensions justice. That would not cost the Government a penny; it is the miners’ own money.

Lobbying

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I learned that the Morning Star still exists. I confess that I was unaware of that. I thought that it had gone with the Berlin wall and all that.

As so often in this Chamber, we are not discussing a new problem. The issue of lobbying and undue influence goes back into the mists of time. Delving back not too far, who can forget Sir John Trevor, a former Speaker of the House who was expelled both from the speakership and from Parliament for accepting a 1,000 guinea bribe from the City of London to promote a Bill on orphanages? Interestingly, the Chairman of the Bill Committee, Mr Hungerford, received only 20 guineas for his service. He, too, was expelled from the House. I reflect that the Speaker was worth almost 40 times as much as the Chairman of a Committee. I wonder whether the relativities have changed in this more modern age.

Sir John Trevor and Mr Hungerford were expelled by this House for being unduly lobbied. Interestingly, they were unduly lobbied by another arm of the state: the corporation of London. It is worth bearing it in mind that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Easington said, it is not only wicked businesses that are involved in lobbying; it is something that happens across society. Everyone has an axe to grind regarding the issues that face this House. They therefore come to us to lobby. In and of itself, that is a perfectly legitimate activity.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) so rightly said, it is an historic right of every one of our constituents to come to Central Lobby, demand our presence and tell us their views on whatever subject is important to them. That is a wonderful historic right. It is a pity that people do not know about it and do not use it more. We ought to encourage our constituents to come and lobby us in that way. There is a nobility in lobbying that must not be lost in the midst of the discussion about what is, in effect, corruption. Let us try to use the terms differently and not allow lobbying to become a polite term for criminality, dishonesty and corruption.

Within British politics, there are essentially two types of lobbying. There is the lobbying of Members of Parliament, which is perhaps the triumph of hope over experience, whereby people come to see somebody such as myself, a junior Back-Bench MP, and say that they want me to do this, that and the next thing and to change legislation, thinking that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House hang on my every word. Sadly, I have to tell such people that that is not quite how it works. MPs have the ability to debate and argue, but not necessarily to change the course of the world. Then there is the lobbying of Ministers, who have a much greater and more direct Executive power—a decision-making power, rather than merely an influencing power. The two types of lobbying need to be regulated differently and separately.

There is a difference between those on the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench. Opposition Front Benchers have the hope and possibly the expectation of power. Those on the Treasury Bench have the reality of power and lobbying them can have a direct influence on what is happening. They should therefore be subject to a higher standard of openness and transparency than Opposition Front Benchers, who ought to be entitled to their smoke-filled rooms, although as they are socialists, the rooms will have no smoke in them, because they do not approve of that sort of thing. You know what I mean, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Given the difference between Government and Parliament, we need to legislate only for Government. Parliament has all the powers that it needs to regulate its own affairs, if only we had the courage to use them. We have a Committee of Privileges and a Committee on Standards. We are entitled to expel Members who misbehave. We may do so not according to a detailed set of rules, but according to whether we believe, as a House, that they have undermined the reputation of the House and have not behaved like honourable Members. Such a decision is not justiciable in any court in the land because we are the High Court of Parliament. The regulation of our own affairs is not challengeable in the other House, as was established by the Bradlaugh case, when an atheist was refused the right to sit in Parliament.

We have the right as a Chamber to admit and expel Members. When Members abuse the rules, we ought to exercise that power and clear up politics directly ourselves. That does not require legislation to come through before the summer recess; it simply requires us to have the willpower and the backbone to do what we are able to do already.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow. I compliment him on his speech. Will he clarify what the consequence is in the other place when peers commit a similar offence?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The House of Lords, when considering what it could do about the expenses scandal, discovered that it had the right to imprison a peer for a Session. It decided that it must therefore also have the power to suspend a peer for a Session. However, it may only do that Session by Session. It cannot expel a peer because a peerage comes from the sovereign, whereas our position in this House comes from the people to whom we can be sent back. To get rid of a peerage requires primary legislation. That was done in 1917 to remove a group of peers who were fighting for the Germans and the Austrians during the first world war. It is open to this House to do that with the other place. We may pass an Act of Parliament to remove a category of peers who have committed offences. The House of Lords itself can suspend peers Session by Session. It can repeat such a suspension if it believes that the offence is egregious enough.

This House also has the power to punish individuals outside the House. If people are in contempt of Parliament, we have the ultimate power to imprison them. I am not proposing that we should use that power extensively, but if lobbyists try to bribe or corrupt Members of Parliament, it is not unreasonable that Parliament herself should impose the punishment on those lobbyists. That would be a matter of us regulating ourselves, using the power given to us by the British people, rather than farming it out, through legislation, to the courts to decide whether parliamentary privilege has been breached.

Finance Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

If that is the case, why did the Conservatives support the Labour Government’s spending plans until 2008? In fact, my recollection is that there were demands for more spending—more police numbers, more support for carers, and so on.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There were political reasons, I think it might be said, for supporting those spending plans. I was not a Member of the House at that time, and it is a bit harsh for me to be expected to take responsibility. I think a lot of people, not only in this House, held to the mistaken idea that the economy was going to carry on growing for ever. I have always thought that boom and bust is a fact of life. We always have booms and we always have busts, and we will have them again. One can look at studies of financial cycles going back to biblical times, so the thought that there would always be growth was simply wrong, and to try to match Labour’s spending programme was a mistake. However, even Homer nods. The point is that spending was out of control and had to be cut, and taxation is at its limit.