---

Lord Kingsland: I do not know whether it will help the Minister if I respond for a second time to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Brennan Lord Borrie, that this non-legal expertise is crucial to the success of the tribunal. My concern is about the way in which those other experts—economists and in certain circumstances others with professional skills—are appointed. My submission is that it would be far better to have one Minister appointing all members of the tribunal, but in circumstances in which non-lawyers form part of the tribunal, on the advice of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There should be a joint approach to the selection of the whole tribunal, rather than the

16 Jul 2002 : Column 1213

Lord Chancellor choosing the chairman and the Secretary of State choosing the other members in apparent total isolation.

Lord Borrie: Does the noble Lord agree that the Lord Chancellor's Department has tremendous knowledge of lawyers up and down the country and that details on all lawyers are kept on files there? Nowadays, those details are no doubt kept electronically for possible judicial or tribunal appointments. When it comes to economists, businessmen and the like, the Lord Chancellor does not have that available resource, whereas the Department of Trade and Industry may be expected to have it.

Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord is quite right; I entirely accept that. The Lord Chancellor could make his selection on the advice of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That is my proposal.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that the lawyers need me. This debate has been carried virtually to its conclusion without ministerial intervention. We have come to the position that we all agree that we want lawyers to be the president and chairman and that we want people with relevant business experience—we will debate this in relation to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57—to form the ordinary members. The only issue left is whether the Lord Chancellor should appoint ordinary members on the advice of the Secretary of State. All that I can say is that that seems to be a quite unnecessary complication. I see no advantage in doing that the roundabout way when one can do it the direct way.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. I shall reflect on this debate and consider whether to return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Clause 12 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [The Competition Appeal Tribunal]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 193, line 30, leave out "any other relevant law and practice" and insert "commercial competition economics or business experience"

The noble Lord said: I believe that the Minister got so carried away with enthusiasm in his previous speech that he sought to reply to amendments which I had not yet moved; namely, Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.

I simply want to reinforce the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—I am anxious to cling on to his expertise—when he said that there should be a broad spread of expertise and that it was essential to have people,

"who know what they are talking about".

16 Jul 2002 : Column 1214

Therefore, I hope very much that he will support Amendment No. 56, to which I am now speaking and which seeks to delete the rather superfluous words,

"any other relevant law and practice",

and make clear that we are talking about commercial competition economics or business experience.

I am not sure whether the words,

"any other relevant law and practice",

add very much. I hope that the Minister will accept that the words that I suggest, coming from a very inspired source, provide a far better description of the type of situation which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, sought to bring about.

Perhaps I may also mention Amendment No. 57, to which Amendment No. 56 is linked. It concerns the importance of having business as well as competition expertise. It is possible that a great deal of thought has already been given by Ministers to the composition of the tribunal. However, I hope that the Minister will make some reassuring noises as to the calibre, expertise and experience of the people whom he and his colleagues have in mind. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: I do not consider the amendment to be at all appropriate because I believe that chairmen should be lawyers. The other members should not be lawyers. This is an amendment to a schedule which deals with eligibility for appointment as a chairman. I believe that it should remain as it is—that is, having experience or knowledge,

"either of competition law and practice or any other relevant law and practice".

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said that the last final words seem to be redundant. However, I suggest that a requirement for expertise in competition law would be too narrow in that not many solicitors or barristers would claim to be experts in competition law and practice. However, if they are experienced in commercial law generally or something a little wider than that, then the pool from which to draw becomes a little wider, and no doubt they will develop their expertise in competition law as time goes by. I believe that it would be far too narrow if the requirement was only for experience in competition law and practice.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: It seems to me that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, may or may not apply to Amendment No. 56. It does not apply to Amendment No. 57, which deals with membership of the service. Therefore, the amendment moved by my noble friend would ensure that the,

"appointed members must include members who have business as well as competition expertise".

We have dealt with this issue several times today. I believe that it is important that there is practical experience within the competition service. If there is not, there is always a danger that this will become a theoretical as opposed to a practical exercise.

16 Jul 2002 : Column 1215

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said it for me. So far as concerns Amendment No. 56, it is clear that the chairman of a tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor should be a lawyer. It is also clear—to me, at any rate—that the tribunal is acquiring new responsibilities, for example, for claims for damages and judicial review of decisions, and that requires the possibility of wider expertise than simply that in competition law.

So far as concerns Amendment No. 57, I am not against widening the range of skills of the appointed members, but I do not believe that it attacks the right target. A wide range of individuals could usefully contribute to the running of the service. A business person may be able to add value, as suggested by the amendment, but, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, a lawyer could be an ordinary member. It is a quasi-judicial body and we would not rule that out.

I believe that the answer to Amendment No. 57 is that we are very reluctant to limit in statute the scope of people who might be eligible to apply in response to an advertisement.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: The Minister has had an opportunity to clarify his vision of what the tribunal will be. That has been useful. The only issue to which I take exception is the seemingly rather inconsequential theme that lawyers cannot have business experience, or that business and lawyers do not seem to go together. I would hope that the Minister would know that there are some 55,000 lawyers involved in the business world, some of whom are exceedingly distinguished. We should not allow the myth that lawyers are isolated from business to run any further.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is why I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. The thought terrifies me, but I do not think that they should be excluded.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I should point out that I did not say that it should be

"either of competition law and practice"

and then immediately to insert "commercial competition". I wanted the disjunctive "or" to remain. However, this has been an interesting opportunity to clarify the position, which the Minister has done. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Schedule 3 [The Competition Service]:

[Amendment Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]

16 Jul 2002 : Column 1216

Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 59:

Page 197, line 2, after "anything" insert "reasonably necessary"

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 59 refers to the procedure to be laid down for the running of the competition service. It addresses paragraph 10, which states:

"The Service has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the performance of its functions".

We seek merely to add after "anything" the expression "reasonably necessary". I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Am I right in assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not move Amendment No. 60 concerning transparency, accountability and proportionality?

Lord Kingsland: Indeed, the noble Lord is right.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That will save time. I was about to say and cannot resist saying that all of the criteria are worthy but they do not happen simply because we put the words in the Bill.

---