Schedule 10 - The Competition Service

Enterprise Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 6:00 pm ar 7 Mai 2002.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Amendment made: No. 345, in page 228, line 27, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—

'1 (1) The Service shall consist of—

(a) the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal;

(b) the Registrar of the Competition Appeal Tribunal; and

(c) one or more appointed members.

(2) An appointed member shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consulting the President.'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

Photo of Nigel Waterson Nigel Waterson Ceidwadwyr, Eastbourne

I beg to move amendment No. 329, in page 228, line 34, at end insert—

'(3) The appointed members must include members who have business as well as competition expertise.'.

I am slightly lost, Mr. Beard. Did schedule 10 whiz past me? I gather that it may now be called something else.

The amendment is designed to amend schedule 10—I think. It is a CBI concern—we thoroughly support it—to stipulate that the Competition Service must comprise members with business as well as

competition experience. The Under-Secretary suggested, although I may be misquoting her, that they were looking for people with competition experience to staff the service. We can agree with that, up to a point. However, at least some of them should also have wider experience of the business world. We do not want people who have simply been civil servants engaged in competition matters, looking at things from their end of the telescope. We want people who have experience of businesses that deal with competition law, particularly with the sorts of inquiries and investigations that are under debate. In a nutshell, that is the purport of the amendment, which I commend to the Committee.

Photo of Jonathan Djanogly Jonathan Djanogly Ceidwadwyr, Huntingdon

I have a general question about the sort of person who is to be employed by the Competition Service. Is it the intention that they will be civil servants or secondees from the private sector, as they are on the Takeover Panel?

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

The Government do not support amendment No. 329 because it focuses exclusively on business. I am conscious of the fact that the amendment was tabled before Committee Members had a chance to see our changes, for which I apologise. I hope that, because the Competition Service's role has been significantly reduced solely to that of supporting the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his amendment.

In respect of appointed members, there is a wide range of individuals who could usefully contribute something to the running of the service. As the amendment suggests, a business person might be able to add value, which I do not dispute. Equally, a member of the legal profession could contribute, given that the body is quasi-judicial. We may even consider appointing an existing member of the tribunal if one had an interest in playing a managerial role. In answer to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, people could come from a variety of backgrounds. Given the range of good candidates, we are reluctant to limit in statute the sorts of people eligible to apply.

As a result of amendments, the Competition Service will consist only of a president, a registrar and one or more appointed members, as I mentioned in earlier discussions. I hope that Opposition Members recognise the value of what could be contributed by a member of the legal profession to the body.

Photo of Nigel Waterson Nigel Waterson Ceidwadwyr, Eastbourne

The Under-Secretary makes the valid point that the significance of the body, with all due respect to its likely members, has been downgraded; that may be the wrong word, but hon. Members know what I mean. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 346, in page 229, line 5, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—

'3 An appointed member shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (and is eligible for re-appointment).'

No. 347, in page 229, line 10, leave out 'the appointed members' and insert 'any appointed member'.

No. 348, in page 229, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 32 and insert—

'Staff

6 (1) The Service may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as it may determine

(2) The persons to whom section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (c.11) (persons to or in respect of whom benefits may be provided by schemes under that section) applies shall include the staff of the Service.

(3) The Service shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to sub-paragraph (2) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972 (c.11).'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

Photo of Nigel Waterson Nigel Waterson Ceidwadwyr, Eastbourne

I beg to move to amendment No. 330, in page 229, line 34, at end insert—

'subject to the principles of transparency, accountability, consistency and proportionality.'.

Photo of Mr Nigel Beard Mr Nigel Beard Llafur, Bexleyheath and Crayford

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 331, in page 230, line 5, after 'anything', insert 'reasonably necessary'.

No. 332, in page 230, line 6, at end insert—

'subject to the principles of transparency, accountability, consistency and proportionality.'.

Photo of Nigel Waterson Nigel Waterson Ceidwadwyr, Eastbourne

The basic thrust of the amendments raises an important point. The CBI, which suggested them, wants to ensure that procedures followed by the Competition Service complied with the five principles set out by the Better Regulation Task Force; namely, transparency, accountability, targeting, consistency and proportionality. To anticipate something that the Under-Secretary may say, we were not particularly excited by the amendments to begin with, and are even less so now—I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire—because of the way in which the role of the Competition Service has been changed. However, it is important that the amendments are raised and that we hear the Under-Secretary's comments.

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

The hon. Gentleman recognises that changes may have made this point less significant than it might have been before. The provision that the Competition Service may regulate its own procedure is required to provide the service with the power that it needs to organise its own affairs. In fact, it is an entirely standard provision. The Competition Commission has the same power under paragraph 5 of schedule 7 of the Competition Act 1998. The service also needs the power to do anything that is calculated to facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the performance of its functions. That is not a carte blanche for the service to interfere in the affairs of others but is another standard provision. Again, the Competition Commission has the same power under paragraph 8 of schedule 7 of the Competition Act 1998.

Obviously, I agree that the principles suggested by amendments Nos. 330 and 332—transparency, accountability, consistency and proportionality—are all worthy. However, they cannot be delivered simply by writing down the words. In any case, there is a general requirement on the part of all public bodies to behave fairly. Equally, were the service ever to be the subject of judicial review, the court could consider whether it had acted proportionately. Therefore, we do not need to make specific provision for that. We are confident that we have put in place the necessary arrangements to ensure the accountability of the Competition Service. It will have an obligation to keep proper accounts and to comply with Cabinet Office guidelines as an executive NDPB. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Nigel Waterson Nigel Waterson Ceidwadwyr, Eastbourne

In view of the time, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 349, in page 230, line 11, leave out ''the Commission or''.

No. 350, in page 230, line 13, leave out ''the Commission and''.

No. 351, in page 230, line 17, leave out from first ''the'' to ''financial'' in line 18 and insert ''Tribunal for each of its''.

No. 352, in page 230, line 39, leave out from ''employment)'' to end of line 41.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,

That schedule 10 be transferred to end of line 14 on page 186.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]