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

At the risk of being technical, I should like to be clear on a point that bears on the clause. My reading is that if the Competition Commission decides that there is no adverse effect on competition, we do not reach the provisions under this clause, and the Competition Commission simply publishes a report. However, if the commission concludes that there is an adverse effect, the report is put in the hands of the Secretary of State, who may take such decisions as flow from it.

It is interesting that the power provided on market investigations in which a public interest intervention notice is served is not simply the power to vary the remedies proposed by the Competition Commission in the relevant public interest. It is a wider power to decide which remedies should be taken, and the Secretary of State need only "have regard to" the commission's report. The only constraint on the Secretary of State is that, if the Competition Commission decides that there is an adverse effect on competition, the Secretary of State cannot decide that there is not. So far as I understand, the Secretary of State is otherwise free to vary any or all the remedies proposed for dealing with the "adverse effect on competition" or the "detrimental effect on customers".

I make that point in a stand part debate because I think that it would be far better if the whole clause were rewritten to make it clear that the Secretary of State should follow the advice of the Competition Commission on the effect on competition and how it is to be remedied. I would make changes to the clause as are required in relation to the public interest raised by the Secretary of State.

There are two dangers, perhaps the most obvious being that the Secretary of State will find it tempting to substitute his or her judgment for that of the Competition Commission on how competition effects should be dealt with. Secondly, I refer to the Secretary of State's temptation to find a relevant public interest consideration at any stage up to four months after a market investigation has been initiated. Having served an intervention notice on any public interest consideration that can be specified, the Secretary of State brings the whole of the subsequent process of determining all the remedies into his or her own hands. That is inherently undesirable because consistency and predictability of independent competition authorities require that the process be conducted

independently. The more that public interest intervention notices are served—especially if they are specified for consideration other than for national security—the more that remedies will be put back into the hands of the Secretary of State and not the competition authorities.

Before I call the Under-Secretary to reply, I emphasise that we are discussing clause 139.

Indeed, Mr. Conway, I am happy for the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire to become technical, and delighted that he is getting stuck into the detail of the Bill. If there were no adverse competition finding, the Secretary of State could only mitigate or eliminate the competition remedy on the relevant public interest grounds. If there were no adverse competition finding, the Competition Commission would simply publish its report. It would not send it to the Secretary of State for a decision. In other words, a report will not reach the Secretary of State if there has been no adverse finding by the Competition Commission.

We seem to be touching on the technical point that arose under clause 133, and it is precisely what I am concerned about. If there were a national security consideration and it had no competition effects, surely the Secretary of State would want to retain a reserve power and take some remedy through a market investigation to deal with the relevant public interest effect. Unlike some of our other arguments, I acknowledge that a public interest may need to be protected. If no competition effect arises, the Secretary of State has no power to determine the public interest consideration.

The hon. Gentleman is encouraging me to write to him further. There will be a hierarchy for taking into account competition, public interest, customer benefits and the regulated statutory functions. If the Secretary of State accepts a Competition Commission analysis of competition, she will choose the remedy in the light of all the relevant considerations. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that, supposing no adverse effects were identified, how would we meet the possible public interest requirement. I undertake to write to him about that.

The matter is becoming confusing and it is right that we should understand it properly. Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State may find other reasons, let us deal specifically with security. Even though no competition issues may flow from what the Secretary of State considers a security issue, would not she decide that the security issue overrides all the other considerations?

No. However, given the interest that has been shown in the matter, I still undertake to write to members of the Committee about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 140 and 141 ordered to stand part of the Bill.