My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord and agree with almost all the comments that he made—not entirely, but almost. In particular, I am glad to support Amendments 64 and 65, proposed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and have added my name to both of them.
My feeling—and this is really what the noble Lord was speaking about a moment ago—is that we are building a grit creation machine here. We are creating the grit that will cause difficulties as the wheels of this operation move forward. I do not think that is what the Government really want to do.
I well remember being on a committee chaired by the noble Lord sitting next to me a couple of years ago, when we were questioning the CMA’s role in these
matters. We found that the CMA, quite legitimately, had very little experience of dealing with devolved dimensions. This was not a criticism of it; that was not its role. It still does not. We should therefore ensure that we build the necessary talent and experience into the relevant units or committees of the CMA that can at least advise on these matters, but it seems that we want to tie the hands of the CMA. It does not have that background; it has no obligation to work in close proximity to the devolved regimes under the Bill. It should certainly find a way of doing that if it wants the operation to go smoothly, otherwise problems will arise.
5.30 pm
As the noble Lord mentioned when opening this debate, Clause 68(4) states:
“The Subsidy Advice Unit may consist only of persons who are members of the CMA or its staff.”
At an earlier stage we cut out any requirement for the CMA to have a dimension of experience from the devolved regimes. Therefore, we are tying its hands by not giving it the resources or responsibilities it needs to deal with the devolved dimensions, insisting that this be undertaken by people who themselves are wholly employed by the CMA. I am not quite sure what the logic of all this is. Do we want to create a structure that does not work; do we want to create legislation which we must amend at a later stage; or do we just want to create a tension between London, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast in these matters? The issues with which we are dealing are too important to leave to the open book of how the organisation will carry out this matter.
Between now and Report, the Government should look again at ways in which the Bill can achieve the co-operation with the devolved regimes that will give them the confidence they need, and the CMA the reassurance it needs in undertaking its responsibilities. These are not just debating points. It is not necessarily in my political interest to make these points, but my goodness, I would rather see good government undertaken without problems, and the economies of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and indeed England benefiting from a coherent structure, than the problems that will arise from the current wording of the Bill. Therefore, I am delighted to support both these amendments.