← Back to House of Commons Debates
Not specified in this excerpt - Clause to be read a Second time
20 November 2023
Lead MP
Saqib Bhatti
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 47
At a Glance
Saqib Bhatti raised concerns about not specified in this excerpt - clause to be read a second time in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Mr. Bhatti moved that the clause be read a second time, proposing an amendment related to consequential amendments etc in Chapter 4 of Part 4. He emphasised the importance of these changes for organisational efficiency and streamlined processes.
Saqib Bhatti
Con
Meriden and Solihull East
Mr. Bhatti argued that the proposed amendment is crucial for ensuring organisational efficiency and streamlined processes in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Mr. Jeremy Wright congratulated the Minister on his appointment and emphasised the importance of balancing the interests of current consumers with those of future consumers in regulatory decisions.
Damian Collins
Con
Broadstairs
Mr. Damian Collins welcomed the Minister's role and questioned the necessity for additional proportionality tests by the Government, seeking clarity on whether there was a concern that the CMA might use its power disproportionately.
Salford
Ms Rebecca Long-Bailey called for mechanisms to prevent big tech firms from unnecessarily delaying negotiations before resorting to the final offer mechanism, ensuring that such delays do not unfairly benefit large tech companies.
John Penrose
Con
Brighton Kemptown
Mr. John Penrose questioned why there was a different appeal process for tech platforms compared to other economic regulators like Ofwat and Ofgem, seeking clarity on the Government's rationale behind this decision.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Con
North East Somerset
Mr. Jacob Rees-Mogg congratulated the Minister for his new role and emphasised that large fines should have a proper form of appeal to uphold the rule of law, questioning the trust in unelected regulators.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Mr. Jeremy Wright sought further clarification on whether proportionality applies at an earlier stage when the CMA makes its decision, rather than during the appeal process under judicial review principles.
Pontypridd
Expresses concerns about the countervailing benefits exemption, suggesting it could allow big tech firms to evade compliance and harm UK businesses. Highlights Labour's amendments aiming to protect consumers from anti-competitive practices and urges support for amendments 187 and 188.
Coatbridge and Chryston
Raises concerns about difficulties faced by people trying to cancel internet provider contracts, suggesting a simple 'cancel my contract' button on providers' websites as an easy solution.
Robert Buckland
Ind
South Swindon
Proposes amendments that impose an overarching duty on regulators to serve consumer interests. Argues for clarity in legal processes and against unbridled merits-based appeals, emphasising the need for judicial review principles. Suggests regular reporting to Parliament and Ministerial appointment of senior DMU director.
Bob Neill
Con
Brighton Kemptown
Emphasises the importance of certainty in regulatory standards, highlighting the need for clarity on proportionality tests and judicial review principles at different stages.
Grahame Morris
Lab
Easington
Argues for basic fairness, noting the disappearance of established media titles and job losses in journalism. Urges proper compensation for content creators as a matter of fairness.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Suggests that the proposed wording allows challenges to the CMA's application of proportionality but limits such challenges under judicial review principles, not merits-based appeals.
Damian Collins
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
Highlights that large tech firms often use litigation to challenge regulatory decisions, noting the costs involved can deter proper enforcement. Emphasises Theodore Roosevelt’s approach to monopolistic markets.
Richard Thomson
SNP
Dunbartonshire East
Raises concerns over Government amendments weakening CMA decisions, potentially allowing tech companies to challenge these decisions based on proportionality. Argues that this could lead to legal battles and undermine regulatory intervention. Also notes lack of clarity in tackling fake reviews and greenwashing.
Damian Collins
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
The amendment addresses critical issues such as market domination, lack of competition, and consumer detriment. It argues that the current digital landscape is dominated by a few large companies who control key aspects like cloud storage, mobile phone operating systems, and app stores, which can lead to monopolistic conditions. He raises concerns over potential legal challenges from these companies if stringent regulatory measures are imposed.
Grahame Morris
Lab
Easington
Welcomes the new Minister and supports the Bill as important legislation. Emphasises the crisis in professional journalism due to technological changes, fake news proliferation, and job losses from companies like Reach PLC. Criticises big tech for exploiting market dominance without compensating publishers. Supports the Competition and Markets Authority's role in addressing power imbalances and initiating a final offer mechanism only as a last resort. Reinforces the need for meaningful negotiations to prevent exploitation of smaller publishers. Cites an estimate that news content used by tech giants is worth around £1 billion annually. Urges maintaining judicial review options, flexible regulatory measures, high exemption thresholds from penalties, and fair compensation for quality content on social media platforms.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Con
North East Somerset
Supports amendments to ensure accountability of regulators and proper judicial review standards. Argues that technology is changing too rapidly for over-zealous regulation, which could harm innovation. Criticises the CMA's recent rulings as indicative of regulatory incompetence. Advocates for a full merit standard judicial review instead of arbitrary power granted to unelected officials.
Sarah Olney
Lib Dem
Richmond Park
She supports the amendment to tighten the definition of countervailing benefits and prevent big tech from exploiting loopholes in the Bill. She is concerned about the weakening of CMA's tools due to Government amendments, which could leave smaller competitors at a disadvantage.
Robert Buckland
Con
South Swindon
Mr Buckland sought clarification on whether proportionality would be built into judicial review standards beyond vanilla principles. He also questioned the assessment of removing the indispensability test, worrying about a sufficiently high threshold for countervailing benefits.
Damian Collins
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
Mr Collins appreciated the minister's statements but requested detailed grounds for challenge based on proportionality, cautioning that routine challenges could delay processes. He also highlighted the importance of ongoing scrutiny by a committee focused on regulatory work.
Grahame Morris
Lab
Easington
Mr Morris requested clarification on fair reimbursement to journalists and publishing houses, seeking assurance that the Minister is open to meetings with the National Union of Journalists.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Con
North East Somerset
Mr Rees-Mogg expressed confusion over why the Government does not accept his right hon. and learned Friend's amendment, which he believes would safeguard the legislation clearly.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
I propose this amendment to address the NHS staffing crisis by ensuring better resource allocation. It aims to improve patient care by eliminating shortages in key areas such as nursing and physician support staff.
Welcomed the introduction of consumer rights on subscriptions but questioned why these provisions were necessary in primary legislation instead of secondary legislation, suggesting greater flexibility with changing circumstances.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Committed to the Minister's ideas regarding consumer rights and asked about ensuring public access points for inquiries on consumer issues, suggesting a need for clear contact methods.
Pontypridd
Proposes new clauses to address subscription traps and amendment 225 for drip pricing. Argues that auto-renewing subscriptions cost people more than £306 million per year, impacting marginalised groups and those on low incomes the most. Emphasises the need for a change from 'opt out' to 'opt in' default settings to protect consumers. Also points out that businesses have advertised only part of product prices before revealing additional charges as a common practice.
North Cotswolds
Supports the new clause, highlighting its significance in reducing regulatory burdens and emphasising that it focuses on the economic value of regulations rather than merely their quantity. He also asks how a proper baseline will be established to measure the impact effectively.
Richard Thomson
SNP
Dunbartonshire East
Expresses support for the Government's amendment 170 which excludes contracts for gambling from the new regime for subscription contracts. Critiques absence of provisions addressing fake reviews in the Bill, despite previous hope for such inclusion based on friendly discussions with the Opposition. Welcomes new clause 14 requiring companies to comply with requests for information from the Competition and Markets Authority regarding motor fuel pricing. Supports SNP's new clauses 29 and 30 aimed at tackling subscription traps but advocates for a consumer opt-in approach rather than simply reminders.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Con
North East Somerset
Interjected during Richard Thomson's speech, bringing attention to the broader issue of financial exclusion faced by individuals and charities whose views banks do not approve of. Emphasised that access to bank accounts is crucial for daily life.
Robert Buckland
Con
South Swindon
Mr Robert Buckland emphasised the importance of accountability and effectiveness of CAT, proposing a review through new clause 24. He highlighted the need for a consumer interests duty as outlined in new clause 25, suggesting it would be more effective than current provisions on subscriptions. Mr Buckland also proposed amendment 210 to change the requirement on reminders from every six months to every twelve months, arguing that many consumers are well-informed about their subscriptions and do not require frequent reminders.
Neil Coyle
Lab
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Neil Coyle argues for his amendments, highlighting the dangers of unsafe products sold online. He cites a coroner’s report stating that at least 12 people have died and over 190 have been injured due to faulty e-bike and e-scooter blazes since 2020. He also mentions a toy crocodile example where, despite multiple interventions by trading standards, the product is still available online five years later. Neil Coyle emphasises that his amendments are not about new regulations but enforcing existing rules for all sellers, both online and offline.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Con
North East Somerset
Rees-Mogg supports the amendments, highlighting that debanking individuals based on political views is unacceptable. He argues for robust protection of free speech and criticises the politicisation of banking as seen in ESG policies. He also discusses other amendments related to consumer rights and cost audits within legislation.
Richard Thomson
SNP
Gordon
Thomson questions Rees-Mogg's focus on the Farage case, suggesting it was more about being offered a lesser account rather than full debanking. He highlights that other issues related to ESG goals and diversity objectives also raise similar concerns.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
Fuller supports Rees-Mogg's view, noting the broader issue of corporations pursuing values like diversity, equity, and inclusion, which can affect banking facilities similarly. He asks what the Government should do about this.
Neil Coyle
Lab
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Coyle clarifies that when discussing high street banks, it is important to distinguish from alternative banking options like Arron Banks, implying a different context for the debate.
Sharon Hodgson
Lab
Washington and Gateshead South
Supports the amendment to address drip pricing and protect consumers from online touts. Criticises the Government for failing to act on CMA recommendations to tackle illegal ticket resale practices, despite a growing number of professional touts exploiting the market.
Intervened briefly to clarify that new clause 31 would not reduce the CMA's powers and suggested alternative ways to deliver a fully independent RPC if proposed by the Minister.
Caroline Lucas
Green
Brighton, Pavilion
Ms Caroline Lucas highlights the inadequacy of current regulatory mechanisms in addressing greenwashing. She introduces amendments that aim to establish an independent regulator for advertising and integrate net zero emissions targets into consumer protection laws. She provides statistics such as Shell’s £220 million spending on advertisements, which are targeted at younger generations vulnerable to misleading claims. Lucas also notes the UK's carbon footprint associated with the advertising industry and emphasises the need for immediate regulatory action.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Jim Shannon supports new clauses that aim to protect consumer rights. He highlights issues related to fuel prices, subscription services, and automatic renewals which cost consumers £1.6 billion annually. He notes problems with cancelling subscriptions over the phone during limited business hours, impacting those who work full-time. Shannon calls for regional engagement between UK Departments and Northern Ireland to ensure uniform application of consumer rights laws.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Mr. Hollinrake argued that new clauses would impose undue costs on businesses while not effectively protecting consumers from unwanted subscriptions. He also emphasised the need for careful regulation to minimize burdens on small businesses while promoting competition and consumer protection.
Pontypridd
The hon. Member proposed new clauses aimed at protecting consumers from unwanted subscription renewals, emphasising the need for clearer communication about auto-renewal options to prevent consumer traps.
John Penrose
Con
Weston-super-Mare
My hon. Friend proposed measures to control red tape costs, recommending a 'one in, two out' solution for regulations and stronger accountability for future Governments who fail to control regulatory burdens properly.
Richard Thomson
SNP
Gordon
The hon. Member proposed excluding lottery tickets purchased from non-commercial society lotteries from the scope of provisions on subscription contracts, a proposal that was supported by the Government.
Robert Buckland
Con
South Swindon
My right hon. and learned Friend proposed reviewing the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s processes independently of the CMA, but was told this would unnecessarily duplicate work already being done.
Pontypridd
Labour welcomes the Digital Markets Bill, which is essential for regulating large tech companies to ensure competition in digital markets. The party has long advocated for measures to protect consumers and enhance innovation while promoting competition. Labour supports the passage of this Bill but emphasises the need to prevent watering down of new CMA powers as it progresses.
The speaker thanks all contributors for their work on the Digital Markets Bill and acknowledges that the amendments sought were to fill potholes in the legislation, such as addressing greenwashing and drip pricing. Concerns remain about the impact of the Bill on big tech and market freedom. Success will be measured by its long-term effects on consumers and small businesses.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.