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

I tabled amendments Nos. 308 and 309 to clause 133 because it seemed to us as though a draftsman's error had been made in two respects. I hope that they are reasonably clear. Amendment No. 308 would have inserted a reference to the definition in clause 126(2) after the words "adverse effect on competition", while amendment No. 309 would have inserted a reference to a different subsection of clause 126 after the phrase "customer benefits". The clause appears to contain no definition of "adverse effect on competition" or "customer benefits".

My initial instinct was that there had been a draftsman's error or oversight, but it is conceivable that there is a more sinister reason. This part of the Bill deals with public interest cases, and the draftsman may have thought that, if the definitions were left up in the air, then so be it. The Under-Secretary is shaking her head, so clearly the interpretation of something more sinister is not

right. In that case, she is welcome to leap to her feet and accept my amendments with alacrity and joy.

Perhaps I should intervene on the hon. Gentleman if he intends to continue at length, because the conspiracy view of history is seldom right. I hope that I can delight him by saying that the amendments make similar points to that made in amendment No. 304, which was accepted last week by my hon. Friend the Minister. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the issue. We want to ensure that the Bill is improved where necessary, and I will give further consideration to their suggestions with a view to tabling drafting amendments on Report. I support the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman for proposing the amendments but, none the less, I ask him to withdraw them.

I am almost overwhelmed. The Under-Secretary has been good enough to confirm that the conspiracy theory is wrong, so the reason must be the alternative, which I would not dream of mentioning in mixed company. I am delighted that we have found some gaps in drafting, and equally delighted that she is prepared to take them on board. It would be utterly churlish of me not to withdraw the amendments immediately.

Order, as the lead amendment has not been moved, it is not necessary to withdraw it.

In order to understand clause 133 better , I want ask some questions of the Under-Secretary. I confess that I am non-plussed. One does one's best to follow the drafting, but on this occasion I have lost it.

The explanatory notes make it clear that clause 133 is intended to enable the commission to decide the issues in a market investigation case. We are dealing with such a case, where a public interest intervention notice has been served. The explanatory notes suggest that the Competition Commission should have to consider not only the same questions as it would have considered under clause 126, where there was no public interest element, but—in addition to issues about a competition-only market investigation—what course of action would be appropriate in the light of any relevant public interest considerations. That is fine. I understand that we are dealing with a public interest element, but the structure of the clause suggests that the question to be decided by the commission is simply whether there is an adverse effect on competition. There is no other reference.

Clause 141 deals with when the Secretary of State has had the matter referred with an adverse effect on competition, but has not taken a decision and it reverts to the commission. However, no particular considerations that should be decided by the commission are specified. It seems to me, on the face of it, that the only issue is whether there is an adverse effect on competition—in which case, under this group of clauses, the matter is referred to the Secretary of State for a decision.

It is also unclear to me whether the Competition Commission is required to decide whether there is an adverse effect on competition, bearing in mind the public interest considerations, and if there is such an adverse effect, which questions have to be decided by the Competition Commission on referral to the Secretary of State. That seems to be entirely a matter, subsequently, for the Secretary of State.

I conclude with a question, on which the matter rests. If the Competition Commission decides that there is no adverse effect on competition but—for the sake of argument—the Secretary of State has issued an intervention notice on a national security consideration, where is it reflected in the clause that the Competition Commission must look to that national security consideration, and if it believes that there is a relevant public interest that should be subject to a decision by the Secretary of State, will so refer the matter rather than simply saying, "There is no adverse effect on competition," and publish a report? No question in relation to public interest is specified in the clause.

The hon. Gentleman raises a question about how the clause works, and how it relates to other clauses. The clause states that the Competition Commission must consider the case, in the light of the issue, in the intervention notice. The clause simply refers to the action by the Secretary of State under clause 139, thereby taking account of the public interest issue. Those are the terms in which the Bill is drafted.

I am unsure which bits of the clause the hon. Gentleman is especially confused about, but I draw his attention to the fact that subsection (4) requires the Competition Commission to decide the same questions with regard to action to be taken where a report delivered to the Secretary of State under the public interest provisions reverts to the Competition Commission—that is, where the Secretary of State has failed to take a decision within 90 days of the receipt of a report from the commission—or where the Secretary of State decides that there is no public interest consideration that should be weighed against the competition issues identified by the commission.

I hope that that explains the nature of the clause, and what it does.

I confess that it does not. Let me try to be a bit clearer: I understand that if the commission finds that there is an adverse effect on competition, it refers the matter to the Secretary of State. However, if it finds that there is no adverse effect on competition, but an intervention notice with a national security consideration may be relevant, does that mean that the Competition Commission simply says that there is no adverse effect on competition—that the national security consideration is not a competition effect—and then publishes its report? Subsequent clauses would suggest that, under those circumstances, no remedy is available to the Secretary of State.

The hon. Gentleman is getting quite technical. I have listened carefully to the points and questions that he has raised, and I think that it would be most helpful for me to offer to write to him with regard to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 134 and 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.