Clause 142 - Power of veto of Secretary of State

Enterprise Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 11:45 am ar 7 Mai 2002.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

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

Photo of Nigel Waterson Nigel Waterson Ceidwadwyr, Eastbourne

My comments echo the type of nasty technical point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire is prone to make about such matters, and it may be that we need a detailed letter from the Under-Secretary setting out how all the clauses hang together. When we debate clause 145, we shall return to the separate issue of the definition of public interest and so forth; we need to debate that topic more than once.

I am concerned about the bald title of the clause. Given the complexity and technicalities of the Bill, there must be provision for an interface between what the Secretary of State and the OFT are doing. However, I am alarmed that the Secretary of State will have very wide powers. The OFT may have good reasons for wanting to proceed with particular undertakings that it considers sufficient to sort out problems in particular cases. Why should the OFT be subject to a sweeping power of veto by the Secretary of State?

As a general theme in the Bill, we are concerned about the Government's purported aim of taking politicians out of decision-making in this subject area. We broadly support that aim, which should be made abundantly clear, although we believe that it probably already happens in practice. However, on more than one occasion, the Secretary of State has seemed doggedly to want to hang on to some of the powers currently held by politicians. Although I accept the need for a defined interface between the Secretary of State and the OFT, is it necessary for the Secretary of State to retain the wide power of veto?

Photo of Jonathan Djanogly Jonathan Djanogly Ceidwadwyr, Huntingdon

Is there a deadline for the Secretary of State to give consent under the provisions and, if not, why not?

Photo of Miss Melanie Johnson Miss Melanie Johnson Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry

I reassure the hon. Member for Eastbourne that the reason for the provision is that there may be proposed undertakings in lieu of a reference that operate against the public interest. The clause would give the Secretary of State the power to block acceptance of any such undertakings. The hon. Gentleman was right to ask whether such powers were absolutely necessary, but I am sure that he and I could readily agree that there are circumstances in which the Secretary of State would need such powers.

Photo of Nigel Waterson Nigel Waterson Ceidwadwyr, Eastbourne

Again, in wrestling with concepts of public interest, it would be useful to us both if the Under-Secretary provided concrete examples of the type of undertaking that would be damaging to the public interest. Why on earth would the OFT

consider accepting such undertakings in the first place?

Photo of Miss Melanie Johnson Miss Melanie Johnson Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry

It is quite difficult to give examples, because we envisage the powers being used only in rare circumstances; when the OFT seeks undertakings in lieu of reference in a public interest case. We must ensure that the undertakings are not inappropriate in light of a legitimate public interest issue. The nature of undertakings can be tremendously varied, and it would be difficult to give specific examples to illustrate the point. It is likely to be a rare recourse, but it is important to have the provision to ensure that the Bill can do what may sometimes be necessary.

Photo of Jonathan Djanogly Jonathan Djanogly Ceidwadwyr, Huntingdon

Did the Under-Secretary consider my short point about whether there should be a deadline for the Secretary of State to give her consent?

Photo of Miss Melanie Johnson Miss Melanie Johnson Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having responded. There is no deadline or specific time frame but there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to respond as soon as practicable. The Secretary of State also has a duty to act reasonably. Safeguards are, therefore, built in.

Photo of Jonathan Djanogly Jonathan Djanogly Ceidwadwyr, Huntingdon

In such circumstances, would it not be normal to have a time limit?

Photo of Miss Melanie Johnson Miss Melanie Johnson Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry

In many cases in the Bill an assumption is made and, sometimes, spelled out, that the time frame will be as soon as is practicable. That is, apparently, normal provision under administrative law. In this case, that is the right time frame in which to demand a response, as it may be difficult to know which issues might arise. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not an attempt to elongate the process. I share his concern that the process should be transparent and timely throughout.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.