The right hon. Gentleman knows more about bobbing between the Back Benches and the Front Bench than most Members of Parliament in history, I think. It is obviously a problem; I do believe in shared responsibility of Government—we want Governments to act as a single body, and not irresponsibly—so I understand, but none the less, it is perfectly appropriate to tease the Minister when he has such a wry smile on his lips.
This Bill is a classic instance of how the Tory chaos of the past few years has been bad for Britain. It is long overdue, as the Minister said: it started in the Commons more than a year ago, on 25 April 2023, and it is so delayed that the carry-over motion had to be carried over. I cannot remember that happening for many years, but the Government had to do it last week. The Bill used to strike the right balance between the needs of different parts of the market, but the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) was absolutely right to say that many stakeholders are certainly not happy with where the Government have landed. Intense lobbying of Downing Street from some parts of the market has led to the Government tabling amendments that would fatally undermine the Bill’s purpose and make it impossible for the CMA to do the job that we want it to do, namely, ensure fair competition in digital markets in the interests of consumers, investors and wider society.
2.15 pm
I remind Members of what the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) has said—it is good to see him in his place. He said that this is
“a market that is vulnerable—and, some would say, prone—to monopolistic abuse of market power.”
—[Official Report, 20 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 58.]
During the first Second Reading debate on 17 May last year, the Minister said that
“competition must work hand in hand with consumer protections.”
—[Official Report, 17 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 880.]
That is spot on, so why ruin the Bill? This is the nub of the matter. The hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) said on Report that
“a small number of firms exert immense control across strategically critical services online because the unique characteristics of digital markets, such as network effects and data consolidation, make them prone to tip in favour of a few firms.”
—[Official Report, 20 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 51.]
Again, he was absolutely right, but what the Government are doing today helps to tip the legislation back in favour of those few firms. It is a mistake. They pretend otherwise—the Minister has said that the amendments will not make any difference. In that case, why table them?
In an attempt to save the Government from themselves, the Lords have tried to return the Bill to its original shape with four sets of amendments, which I will now go through. The first set, Lords amendments 9 and 19, deals with proportionality. The original Government
version of the Bill said that the CMA’s conduct in regulating digital markets had to be “appropriate”. The Government then changed that to “proportionate”. Lords amendment 9 would change it back to “appropriate”. I believe that the Government version would, in effect, render any challenge to the CMA’s conduct a test of the merits, rather than a judicial review, and provide big tech firms with limitless legal budgets with even more scope to tie the CMA up in lengthy legal wrangling. Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the Court of Chancery would have nothing on the CMA in the High Court. The Government seem to be deliberately clipping the wings of the CMA, and Labour agrees with their lordships that in this area, the Bill should be returned to its original form.