My Lords, Amendment 24BA adds a requirement to appoint at least one person with consumer representative expertise to the CMA board. A similar amendment was proposed by the Opposition in Committee in another place. We share the concern of noble Lords opposite that the reforms promote consumer interests, as mentioned in an earlier debate today. Consumer interests will be at the heart of the CMA. Given this, the amendment is not necessary. It could also undermine the perceived fairness of the CMA. We agree with the point made in the previous Government’s 2001 White Paper on a world-class competition regime that decisions should be made independently on the basis of sound economic analysis of the effects on competition. Independence of government and between the phases enables better decisions, greater certainty for business and more clarity in the regime.
6.30 pm
However, independence also applies to particular sectoral interests. The CMA will have a quasi-judicial role. Where it is deciding in a case originally raised by
a consumer body through a super-complaint, it must be absolutely free from any perception of bias. Therefore, while I would expect the board to have great expertise in consumer issues, it would be inappropriate to establish any criteria for appointments to the board that require an appointee to have expertise in representing any particular sectoral interest, including consumers. The sort of consumer expertise that the CMA needs can be gained in any number of ways—certainly through being a consumer representative but also through a background in enforcement, policy development, law or academia. We should not impose unnecessary constraints on the sort of people who can be appointed to the CMA board.
In any event, we will transfer the OFT’s super-complaint function to the CMA, whereby consumer bodies such as Consumer Focus, Which? and Citizens Advice can make a fast-track complaint to the CMA on issues that significantly harm the interests of consumers. There could easily be a conflict of interest where a person was appointed to the board on the basis of their experience as a representative of an organisation with super-complainant status.
Turning to Amendment 24BK, it is worth reiterating that the CMA will have a number of tools, such as the markets regime and consumer enforcement powers, to ensure that it can deliver on its objective of promoting competition for the benefit of consumers across the economy, including in financial services. The CMA will possess many of the features of the panel structure that currently makes the Competition Commission so effective, including the requirement to appoint sector specialists who are available to sit on groups that carry out the CMA’s functions on appeals and references in the regulated sectors. The CMA will also retain generalist panellists, who may sit on any type of inquiry group.
There are currently more than 30 Competition Commission panellists, including lawyers, economists, accountants and businesspeople. Between them, they have the range and depth of expertise to deliver on the Competition Commission inquiries across the economy, including on financial services and consumer issues. We expect that a sufficient number and range of panellists will also be appointed to the CMA for it to be able to cover consumer welfare and financial services-related functions. In fact, many of these will transfer from the Competition Commission. This means that the specific appointments called for by this amendment are unnecessary. I trust, therefore, that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.