📈 Competition and Markets Authority Chairman

• Resignation and Appointment: Marcus Bokkerink resigned as the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), and Doug Gurr was appointed as the interim chair for up to 18 months while a permanent chair is sought.

• Government Focus on Growth: The Government emphasized that promoting economic growth is a key mission, with the interim chair’s background in business and technology expected to support this aim. A new growth-focused strategic steer for the CMA is being developed.

• Opposition Concerns: The opposition criticized the government’s economic policies, suggesting they hinder growth and that asking regulators to boost growth is unrealistic.

• Role of Competition in Growth: There was a consensus on the importance of competition for driving innovation and growth, with assurances that the CMA would remain operationally independent.

• Tech Industry Oversight: There were questions about the CMA’s role in regulating large tech companies, with the new interim chair’s experience seen as beneficial in this area.

• Criticism and Defense: The government defended its economic strategy, citing recent positive economic reports and plans for growth, while the opposition raised concerns about the economic impact of their policies and the CMA’s independence.

• Regulatory Decisions and Speed: Discussions highlighted the need for quicker regulatory decisions to ensure business investment and growth, particularly referencing the CMA’s handling of the Vodafone and Three merger.

• Transport and Energy Prices: Issues unrelated to the CMA such as transport funding in Wales and high energy prices were raised, indicating broader economic concerns among MPs.

• Public and Small Business Interests: The importance of protecting consumers and small businesses while promoting growth was acknowledged, with calls for transparency in pricing, particularly in the petrol market.

• International Business: There was an emphasis on ensuring the UK remains attractive to international investors and businesses, with the interim appointment seen as part of this effort.

The session shows a moderate level of disagreement, mostly between the Government and opposition members, but it does not escalate to high levels of conflict. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the disagreements observed and the reasoning behind the rating:

1. Disagreement over the Role and Expectations of the CMA: There is a notable disagreement between the Government and opposition on the role of the CMA and its focus on growth. For example, Andrew Griffith criticizes the Government for involving the CMA in growth strategy, likening it to an inappropriate task (‘like asking the village speed watch to organize the next British grand prix’). On the other hand, Justin Madders justifies the Government’s approach, emphasizing the importance of a growth-focused CMA without compromising its independence (e.g., ‘We absolutely agree that competition is vital for driving investment and growth. The CMA will remain operationally independent, as it always has been.’). This shows a fundamental disagreement on the approach to regulation and economic growth, but it is more of a policy debate rather than a heated conflict.

2. Criticism of Past Policies and Economic Management: There are instances where the opposition criticizes the Government’s economic policies and management. For instance, Andrew Griffith mentions several past Government policies he believes are detrimental to growth (‘the Business Secretary’s 150-page, job-destroying and trade union-inspired Employment Rights Bill’). Justin Madders counters by highlighting recent positive investment announcements and economic predictions (‘PwC announced only this week that we were the second most attractive country in the world to invest in’). These exchanges represent disagreement but are framed within the context of political debate rather than personal attacks.

3. Questions on Specific CMA Decisions and Their Impact: Some MPs question specific decisions by the CMA that they believe have been detrimental to growth. For example, Luke Charters mentions the delay in the Vodafone and Three merger, which he believes had slowed down 5G rollout and was a drag on growth. Justin Madders acknowledges the need for quicker decisions to provide certainty to businesses. While these exchanges indicate disagreement on the efficacy and speed of CMA decisions, they are more about policy critique than explicit conflict.

4. Disagreement on the Appointment of the Interim Chair: There is some disagreement regarding the resignation of the previous chair and the appointment of Doug Gurr. Bob Blackman seeks more details on why the previous chair resigned and the new chair’s remit (‘We need to know what the CMA will be doing now to regulate the market.’). Justin Madders responds by clarifying the operational independence of the CMA and the strategic focus on boosting growth. This indicates a disagreement on transparency and the specific goals of the new chair, but the discussion remains within the bounds of parliamentary etiquette.

Overall, while the session does show disagreements, particularly on economic policy and the role of the CMA, the level of conflict remains moderate. The disagreements are centered on substantive policy issues and future directions rather than being overly contentious or personal. This results in a rating of 2, indicating that the disagreements are present and significant enough to impact the session but not severe enough to dominate or derail the proceedings.