Select committee: Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee

Post-pandemic economic growth: State Aid and Post Brexit Competition Policy

Closed Opened 23 Sep 2021 Closed 3 May 2023 17 recommendations 13 conclusions
Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee would like to hear the views of UK businesses on the future role that government will play in investing in industry and shaping competition policy. The views and ideas that business leaders provide will help inform the Committee as it starts work on its inquiry, on State Aid and Post-Brexit Competition Policy , which was launched on 23rd September. The closing date for submitting your views and ideas (in the form of written evidence submissions) is Monday 1 November. In this inquiry the Committee are examining three main themes: Whether the Government’s newly proposed State Aid and the Subsidy Control Bill will provide a strong and fair framework for enabling public bodies to subsidise businesses How the Government could reform the country’s competition regulations with regards to mergers and acquisitions, and the role played by the UK’s independent Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) The CMA’s role in ensuring fair, healthy competition between global tech companies in the UK’s digital markets. The Committee also wants to probe how the CMA’s new, internal Digital Markets Unit could reform regulation so that its sits cohesively with those of other countries, while promoting competition and protecting customer data. As well gauging the views of the UK’s business community and legal experts, the cross-party Committee will host in-person evidence sessions where MPs will quiz a range of witnesses, including ministers, leading civil servants, experts in competition law and industry representatives. The Committee’s State Aid and Post-Brexit Competition Policy inquiry will also form the final part of its long-term, overarching inquiry on Post-Pandemic Economic Growth , launched in June 2020. As part of this broader inquiry, the Committee has already undertaken work on Levelling Up and on the UK’s Industrial Strategy . Read the call for evidence for more information about this inquiry.

Where it stands

The inquiry is closed, opened 23 September 2021.

The committee has published 1 report, most recently Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy on 25 October 2022.

The government's response

Fifth Special Report - State aid and post-Brexit competition policy: Office for the Internal Market response to the Committee’s Fourth Report

Published 28 April 2023. The deadline was 25 December 2022.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Third Special Report - Post pandemic economic growth: State aid and post-Brexit competition policy: Responses to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2022–23

Published 10 February 2023.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The Government welcomes the Committee's report, says it agrees that competition, consumer protection and an effective subsidy regime support growth, and refers the recommendations addressed to the CMA to the CMA for a separate response.

  • On the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill, it states the Bill "will be introduced in the current session", and says it will strengthen consumer protection law through the Bill.
  • It does not commit to updating the Committee within one year on the subsidy regime, saying it is "unlikely that key lessons will be learned within a single year" but it will update the Committee "as appropriate".
  • The CMA is to review and report on the subsidy regime's effectiveness, with the first monitoring report "due three years after commencement of the regime, in 2026".
  • On subsidy control guidance, it says BEIS published statutory guidance, a 'quick guide' and a principles assessment template on 11 November, ahead of commencement in January 2023.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Recommendations and conclusions 30 shown

Recommendation 1

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
The CMA is highly regarded by many practitioners and stakeholders, including internationally. In particular, the calibre and expertise of staff has been commended throughout this inquiry. However, we recognise the concerns raised in our inquiry about the level of involvement of the CMA Board and the transparency of its decision making. We therefore call on the CMA to engage its Board more proactively in senior decision-making and to publish more detail about its priority areas of work.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 2

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
In the context of the Government’s stated aim to drive higher economic growth, we believe the CMA could be doing more to help stimulate economic growth in the UK by conducting more market studies in key sectors of the economy and thinking more about the role of competition in driving productivity. We therefore encourage the CMA to consider this part of its remit in deciding on its work priorities and resource allocations going forward.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 3

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
The CMA is generally well regarded domestically. However, awareness of its work appears to be low in the UK, both amongst the public and amongst businesses. We agree that awareness of the CMA’s work and the value which it adds is necessary if it is to have credibility. We encourage the CMA to be more proactive in explaining to the public how its work has delivered for consumers, both in its annual reporting and its press notices.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 4

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
The increase in the CMA’s responsibilities and powers is likely to lead to a corresponding increase in its public profile, as businesses and public authorities start to engage with it, or engage more frequently. We believe that would be beneficial and should be embraced by the CMA. We will play a part in increasing accountability of the CMA through enhanced, more regular scrutiny, challenging it when we think necessary.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 5

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
Whilst we support the increase in powers for the CMA, we also share the concern that there is insufficient oversight of the CMA and its performance. Additional powers must therefore come with additional accountability. This Committee will be undertaking more work on parliamentary oversight of the CMA, and other regulators, in 2023. In the interim, we require the CMA to proactively report to this Committee on an ongoing basis.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 6

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
We are encouraged to learn that the CMA is satisfied that it has received adequate resources to deliver its post-Brexit responsibilities, and that it appears to have made a good start in achieving its aims. However, the incoming Chair and Chief Executive will face major challenges in managing its expansion and in the recruitment of staff in specialist fields, on which the CMA depends heavily. We look to support the CMA in its efforts to carry out its new responsibilities.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 7

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
Additional compliance costs will be incurred by businesses that trade in both the EU and the UK, assuming some degree of regulatory divergence over time. We therefore call on the CMA to conduct a short economic analysis, to be sent to this Committee no later than September 2024, assessing the cost to business of trading in both the EU and the UK and its impact on competition.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 8

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
We believe that the non-binding nature of the CMA’s role when advising on subsidies which are referred to its Subsidy Advice Unit will be sufficient in the majority of cases. The Government should ensure that the CMA has the resources necessary for the Subsidy Advice Unit to advise public authorities effectively, in a timely fashion and so as to avoid any misuse of subsidy funding.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 9

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
Public authorities will need to update their understanding of the rules of the new subsidy control regime when it comes into force in late 2022. This includes delivery of subsidies from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, where public authorities will need to consider the new subsidy control regime rules.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 10

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
Although the UK Government has published further guidance on the implementation of subsides, there is still a lack of detailed information in several areas of subsidy control guidance, which may cause uncertainty for public authorities who will need to seek advice on the new subsidy control regime after implementing the interim regime.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 11

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
The UK Shared Prosperity Fund is designed differently to its predecessor EU schemes. How subsidies are allocated, therefore, is crucial to ensuring the most effective use of public funds.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 12

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
However, public authorities are in limbo until the Government publishes final guidance on the subsidy control regime. The UK Government needs to end this uncertainty by following the Scottish Government, which published guidance in September 2022, and publishing final guidance without delay. Only then will public authorities be in a position to make awarding decisions on subsidies with confidence and to prepare bids for funding from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 13

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should update the Committee within one year of implementation on the performance of the new subsidy control regime.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 14

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
We therefore request that the Government gives an early indication of the extent to which it expects to use its power under Clause 17 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill as introduced, and of the likely volume and rate of flow of draft legislative reform orders, so that the Committee can assess whether its working practices will need to change substantially. At the very least, the Committee would need early warning from the Government of each impending draft legislative reform order, in order to ensure effective and prompt scrutiny.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 15

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
Weak competition and consumer policy will lead to detriment for consumers and worse economic outcomes, particularly for the most vulnerable in society. We 50 Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy encourage Ministers to build upon existing UK consumer law and to refrain from fundamental changes to it. Whilst UK consumer law is comprehensive, consumers still have low levels of understanding of their rights and enforcement is weak. We therefore call on Ministers to give consumer enforcement agencies additional powers and resources to improve their enforcement of consumer rights, in the interests of consumers and competition in markets. We also encourage the CMA to formally collaborate with consumer and competition law agencies in regulated sectors to reduce consumer detriment.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 16

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the negative effects of weak competition in some industries for consumers. Consumers have increasingly experienced rip- offs and asymmetry of information.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 17

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
We commend the CMA for its COVID-19 Taskforce which was effective in improving consumer rights in several industries. However, we believe that this taskforce was disbanded prematurely. We ask the CMA to establish an horizon scanning unit that pro-actively engages on consumer law enforcement, as the COVID-19 Taskforce did following an assessment of the effectiveness of the COVID-19 Taskforce.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 18

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the Government’s recent proposals to increase the CMA’s ability to fine businesses that abuse their market position, by reducing the minimum turnover threshold for immunity from financial penalties from £50 million to £20 million and imposing penalties of up to 10% of global annual turnover in instances where consumer protection laws are broken.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 19

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
We believe that lower thresholds and higher penalties are necessary so that bigger businesses which break the rules do not see financial penalties as a small business cost.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 20

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
We are concerned that the Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill is yet to be published, not least because a period of pre-legislative scrutiny is envisaged, and we therefore call on Ministers to publish the draft bill as soon as possible.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 21

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
We support the idea that there should be more accessible support for consumers across the UK. We encourage the development of ombudsman services, including in sectors not currently covered by an ombudsman, as an independent and trusted arbiter that consumers understand and can engage with.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 22

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
Regulators and other relevant stakeholders should invest in better online arbitration systems that are quicker and cheaper, to speed up enforcement of minor consumer rights breaches. These investments should include better internal digital case management systems and other options for consumers who are unable to access online services.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 23

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
We believe that UK consumers are experiencing significant consumer detriment as a result of the behaviour of a number of airlines. We agree with the Transport Committee that the CAA’s current powers are not adequate to protect consumers’ rights in the airline sector.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 24

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
We support the Transport Committee’s recommendations in its UK aviation: reform for take-off Report of the 2021–22 Session, on the need for the Civil Aviation Authority to have the power to impose financial penalties on airlines which fail to refund customers when required to do so by law. We recommend that the BEIS Department considers the enforcement powers of sectoral regulators more widely, as part of our recommendations in this report on its future work with the CMA, as the primary enforcer of consumer law in the UK.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 25

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
We acknowledge that the UK approach to digital markets regulation will be different to that of the EU. However, we welcome EU efforts to increase competition and ensure a level playing field for all digital companies. We support updates to EU law that include designating gatekeepers, setting rules for firms, and sanctioning those companies which abuse their dominant position.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 26

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
We agree with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Online Safety Bill and the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, that the Digital Regulation Co-operation Forum (DRCF) should have a more formal status and clearer lines of accountability, given the increasingly important role it plays in decision making between regulators. However, as the DRCF does not require formal powers, and funding is allocated by the member regulators, we do not believe that a statutory underpinning is required.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 27

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
However, we do believe that the Digital Regulation Co-operation Forum’s accountability arrangements need to be updated. Until such time as these arrangements are formally agreed, the DRCF should proactively report to this Committee about the delivery of its objectives and any key decisions that it takes.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 28

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
There are clear examples of market dominance in digital markets globally which have been well documented. We heard from witnesses, and during our visit to the US, strong evidence of abuses of market dominance which warrant intervention. We encourage the CMA to investigate these instances closely and collaborate internationally to promote further competition between digital firms. We also call on the CMA to continue with its market studies and for the Government to continue to ensure that the CMA is funded to carry out this work.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 29

Conclusion · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Concluded (the committee's words)
Digital markets are global in nature. Therefore, many countries are required to work together to assess the risks and form an approach to tackle anti-competitive behaviour. We congratulate the CMA for its work on the Digital Markets Unit so far and its international leadership on this issue.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 30

Recommendation · Fourth Report - Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit competition policy · Addressed to Department for Business and Trade

Recommended (the committee's words)
Legislation is required if the Digital Markets Unit is to have the enforcement and other powers it needs to fulfil its role. We welcome the announcement in the Queen’s Speech that a Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill will be introduced, which will allow opportunities for scrutiny and improvement before a full bill is introduced. However, no Draft Bill has yet been published, and the prospects of legislation reaching the statute book during this Session now look very remote. We draw the Government’s attention to the risks of delay in legislating, and we urge it to publish the Draft Bill before the end of November 2022.

Link to this item · Read this item

Oral evidence sessions

6 sessions

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

Date Session and witnesses Source
26 Apr 2022
Oral evidence session
Alesha de Freitas · Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Niall Mackenzie · Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Paul Scully MP · Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Rt Hon Lord Andrew Tyrie
View ↗
1 Mar 2022
Oral evidence session
Matthew Upton · Citizens Advice, Matthew Vickers · Ombudsman Services, Rocio Concha · Which?, Steve Ruddy · Chartered Trading Standards Institute
View ↗
1 Feb 2022
Oral evidence session
Andrea Coscelli · Competition and Markets Authority, Camilla de Coverly Veale · The Coalition for a Digital Economy, Dame Melanie Dawes DCB · Ofcom, Neil Ross · techUK, Sunil Patel · PwC
View ↗
30 Nov 2021
State Aid and Post-Brexit Competition Policy
Isabel Taylor · Slaughter and May, James Webber · Shearman & Sterling LLP, Nicole Robins · Oxera, Professor Sir John Vickers · Oxford University
View ↗
2 Nov 2021
Oral evidence session
George Peretz QC · Joint Working Party of UK Bars and Law Societies on Competition Law, John Penrose · Home Office
View ↗
26 Oct 2021
Oral evidence session
George Peretz · Joint Working Party of UK Bars and Law Societies on Competition Law, John Penrose · Home Office, Professor Sir John Vickers · Oxford University
View ↗

Who gave evidence

20 witnesses

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

WitnessOrganisationSessions
John Penrose · Prime Minister's Anti-Corruption Champion Home Office 2
Professor Sir John Vickers · Professor of Economics Oxford University 2
Alesha de Freitas · Deputy Director, Competition Policy Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 1
Andrea Coscelli · Chief Executive Competition and Markets Authority 1
Camilla de Coverly Veale · Head of Regulation The Coalition for a Digital Economy 1
Dame Melanie Dawes DCB · Chief Executive Ofcom 1
George Peretz · Joint Chair Joint Working Party of UK Bars and Law Societies on Competition Law 1
George Peretz QC · Joint Chair Joint Working Party of UK Bars and Law Societies on Competition Law 1
Isabel Taylor · Partner Slaughter and May 1
James Webber · Partner, Antitrust Shearman & Sterling LLP 1
Matthew Upton · Director of Policy Citizens Advice 1
Matthew Vickers · CEO and Chief Ombudsman Ombudsman Services 1
Neil Ross · Associate Director for Policy techUK 1
Niall Mackenzie · Director, Consumers and Competition Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 1
Nicole Robins · Partner Oxera 1
Paul Scully MP · Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 1
Rocio Concha · Director of Policy and Advocacy Which? 1
Rt Hon Lord Andrew Tyrie Not recorded 1
Steve Ruddy · Chair of the Board Chartered Trading Standards Institute 1
Sunil Patel · Chief Data Officer PwC 1

Correspondence

2 letters

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.