## Front Cover Artwork Competition Commission Annual Report And Accounts 2010/11

Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 186 of the Enterprise Act 2002 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 7 July 2011

## © Competition Commission 2011 The Text Of This Document (This Excludes, Where Present, The Royal Arms And All Departmental And Agency Logos) May Be Reproduced Free Of Charge In Any Format Or Medium Providing That It Is Reproduced Accurately And Not In A Misleading Context.

The material must be acknowledged as Competition Commission copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at info@cc.gsi.gov.uk. This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk. This document is also available from our website at www.competition-commission.org.uk. ISBN: 9780102970876 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office ID 2410955 07/11

## Contents

| The work and the role of the Competition Commission     |   5 |
|---------------------------------------------------------|-----|
| Foreword by the new Chairman                            |   6 |
| Chairman's statement                                    |   7 |
| The Council                                             |   8 |
| Chief Executive's report                                |  10 |
| Casework in the review period April 2010 to March 2011  |  12 |
| Inquiry reports published 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 |  13 |
| The Competition Commission's post-inquiry activities    |  24 |
| Reviews of undertakings and orders                      |  26 |
| Work streams                                            |  29 |
| Accounts                                                |  40 |
| Members' biographies                                    |  76 |
| Academic panellists                                     |  81 |
| Senior staff biographies                                |  82 |

The Competition Commission (CC) is an independent In market investigations the CC has to decide whether any public body which conducts in-depth inquiries into mergers, feature or combination of features in a market prevents, markets and the regulation of the major regulated industries. 

restricts or distorts competition, thus constituting an adverse effect on competition. If the CC concludes that this is the All the CC's inquiries are undertaken following a reference case, it must seek to remedy the problems that it identifies made by another authority, most often the Office of Fair either by taking action itself or by recommending action by Trading (OFT) (which refers merger and market inquiries), or others. 

one of the sector regulators (which can refer markets within their sectoral jurisdictions or make regulatory references in Reviews of undertakings or orders relation to price controls and other licence modifications) 
Undertakings or orders are the primary means by which or as a result of an appeal relating to a decision of one of the remedies are given effect under the Enterprise Act (and its sector regulators. Further information about each of these predecessor, the Fair Trading Act 1973). The OFT has to keep areas of work is given below.

these undertakings or orders under review. If it considers that, due to a change of circumstances, they should be varied Mergers or terminated, the OFT refers them for the CC to consider Under the Enterprise Act 2002 (Enterprise Act), the OFT can and decide whether to vary or terminate them.

investigate whether there is a realistic prospect that a merger will lead to a substantial lessening of competition (SLC) in Regulatory references a UK market. If it finds that there is such a prospect it will The CC's role on regulatory references is dictated by the refer the merger to the CC, unless it obtains undertakings relevant sector-specific legislation. Companies regulated from the merging parties to address its concerns, the market under the gas, electricity, water and sewerage, postal is of insufficient importance or it considers that one of a services, railways or airports legislation generally have a number of other limited exceptions applies. In exceptional licence setting out how they should operate which commonly cases where a merger raises certain public interest issues, the includes controls on the prices they can charge for providing Secretary of State may also refer mergers to the CC.

these services. Certain disputes about the terms of these licences and such price controls, and proposals to change Where a merger is referred to the CC, the CC carries them, can be referred to the CC for determination.

out an investigation and decides whether it has resulted or may be expected to result in an SLC. If so, the CC has The CC also has roles under the Competition Act 1980, wide-ranging powers to remedy any competition concerns Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Legal resulting from the merger, including preventing a merger from Services Act 2007.

going ahead. It can also require a company to sell off part of its business or take other steps to improve competition.

Energy code modifications and Communications Act appeals Market investigations The CC has an appeal function following decisions by the Gas The Enterprise Act enables the OFT (and the sector and Electricity Markets Authority to modify certain energy regulators) to investigate markets and, if they are concerned codes under the Energy Act 2004 and in relation to price that there may be competition problems, to refer those control decisions by Ofcom, following a reference by the markets to the CC for in-depth investigation. 

Competition Appeal Tribunal under the Communications Act 2003.

Competition in uncertain times I must first pay tribute to Peter Freeman, whose tenure as Chairman came to an end in May 2011. Under his leadership the CC has established itself as one of the world's foremost competition authorities. In my two years as a member I have come to understand how it reached that position. It is an organization of huge professional competence, which operates with a culture of openness and mutual trust. And I have also seen at first hand, in my work on the remedies review, how we both embrace external challenge, and challenge ourselves to maintain and improve the high standards we work to. Peter's calmness, integrity and intellectual rigour have been key to our success in all these areas. The CC's activities in 2011 will be dominated by the Government's proposals for the reform of the UK competition regime. It is encouraging that the Government's consultation paper recognizes the CC's merits. I am confident that the new regime will preserve the acknowledged strengths of the CC and the OFT and create a single institution which is even more effective at delivering highquality competition decisions fairly and efficiently. The prospect of change is of course unsettling, particularly for the CC's staff, but a new, larger organization with a greater range of activities would offer real opportunities for everyone.

But change is also some way away—well into 2012 at the earliest. It is vitally important that we do not allow ourselves to be distracted by uncertainty about our future from our business of carrying out rigorous, high-quality analysis of competition issues and putting in place effective remedies. I am confident that we can and will do that, with expertise, objectivity, fairness and good humour, the qualities which are our hallmark. And I am looking forward to playing my part in that and to leading the CC through what will undoubtedly be a challenging, but also an exciting, period.

In a busy and successful year the most significant event for the CC has been the Government's proposal to merge the CC with the OFT.

The Government has, helpfully, reaffirmed its commitment to a strong competition policy as a key factor underpinning improved economic performance. It is also no bad thing for public bodies to be required to operate within reduced means, providing their ability to carry out their essential functions is not threatened. As the Chief Executive's report makes clear, the CC has already delivered substantial efficiency savings and there is little, if any, scope left for further reductions, if it is to continue to play its part in effective competition enforcement. But beyond that limited scope for cost saving, the Government's review of competition institutions provides a chance to create a first class competition and markets authority, by combining the best features of the CC and the OFT. The CC shares the view of many observers that the resulting institution should be built round a twophase approach covering the greater part of its work, with independent commissioners similar to those presently at the CC providing the necessary objectivity and substance in the phase two assessment at relatively modest cost.

the case as a whole caused the CC to take a long hard look The review is an opportunity to deal more effectively than at at its conflict of interest procedures.

present with the issues of which cases should be subject to intensive scrutiny at phase two, and to get right the balance We said goodbye this year to Christopher Clarke and Diana between the core competition casework that is the hallmark Guy, two distinguished Deputy Chairmen. In their place one of an effective authority and softer advocacy-type activities.

of the existing members, Roger Witcomb, was appointed Deputy Chairman and was then appointed Chairman in The Government's good intentions are clear but it is also succession to me. 

important to translate these into practice and not to damage what is widely recognized as already a top-quality system.

I have spent five years as Chairman of the CC. There is no better position to occupy in the UK competition field and In the meantime, it is business as usual. The CC's work the CC staff and members will, I am sure, contribute fully is described in this report. Particularly welcome was the to any new institution and in the meantime give their full success in the Court of Appeal in the BAA case—although support to my successor, as do I.

## The Council

The Council is the CC's strategic management board; it is led by the Chairman and currently consists of the Deputy Chairmen, the Chief Executive, and non-executive Council members. The Council meets at least six times a year to consider the plans and strategic direction of the CC and to develop policy. The Council reviews the proposed annual budget for the CC and monitors its financial performance. The Council is also responsible for ensuring that there is a proper framework for the corporate governance of the CC and it reviews the CC's performance, monitors its highlevel risks and determines best practice across Inquiry Groups. Additionally the Council has a statutory duty to publish general advice and information about the consideration by the CC of merger inquiries and market investigations and in relation to any matter connected with the exercise of its functions, including and publishing a statement of policy on penalties for non-provision of information.Christopher Clarke picture Roger Witcomb was appointed CC Chairman in May 2011 having been a CC member since 2009. Roger is Chair of Governors of the University of Winchester, a non-executive director of Infraco (a developer of infrastructure projects in developing countries) 
and a trustee of the microfinance charity Opportunity International. He was a non-executive director of Anglian Water from 2002 to 2010 and Finance Director of National Power from 1996 to 2000, having previously been at BP and Cambridge University, where he taught economics. Recent cases include the Centrica Review of Undertakings and the Ratcliff Palfinger/Ross & Bonnyman merger inquiry.

Laura Carstensen was appointed Deputy Chairman in February 2009, having been a member since 2005. She is a senior lawyer with extensive experience of EU and UK competition law practice including as a partner in the City law firm Slaughter and May (1994–2004). She is co-founder and director of two online mail order businesses, Blue Banyan Ltd and Hortica. She is a non-executive board member of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (Cabinet Office), and a member of the Cooperation & Competition Panel for NHS Funded Services. She is a Governor of London Metropolitan University and Chairman of the Council of The Women's Library. Recent or current cases include the Bristol Water price limits appeal, the Thomas Cook/Co-operative Group/Midlands Co-operative merger inquiry and the Movies on Pay TV market investigation.

Peter Freeman cbe qc has been a CC member since May 2003 and served as its Chairman from 2006 until May 2011 and Deputy Chairman between 2003 and 2006. Prior to joining the CC, he was head of the EC and Competition Law Group of the international law firm Simmons & 
Simmons. He was co-founder of and, until 2007, Chairman of the Regulatory Policy Institute, is a Consulting Editor of Butterworths' Competition Law, and is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Competition Law Journal, the International Competition Law Forum and the ESRC Research Centre for Competition Policy. In March 2010 he was appointed honorary Queen's Counsel and in June 2010 was awarded a CBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours. Recent cases include reviews of the Northern Ireland Banks, Home Credit and Store Cards market investigations; the appeals by Carphone Warehouse against the price control decision by Ofcom; and the BAA Airports market investigation.

Christopher Clarke served as Deputy Chairman between 2004 and September 2010, having been a member since 2001. From 2004 to 2010, he was a non-executive director of Omega Insurance Holdings Limited, and from 1999 to 2008 a non-executive director of The Weir Group PLC. Formerly an investment banker, he was a director of HSBC Investment Banking from 1996 to 1998, and of Samuel Montagu from 1982 to 1996.

Dr Peter Davis was appointed Deputy Chairman in 2006 and was previously on the CC's academic November 2010, having been in 2009. He is a qualified barrister panel of expert economists from a member since 2001. She is and has spent most of his career 
2004. He received his PhD from a qualified solicitor and was a in global manufacturing businesses. 

Yale and served on the faculties of partner, and later a consultant, He specialized in international MIT Sloan and then LSE Economics at Theodore Goddard (now mergers and acquisitions and before joining the CC. In addition, part of Addleshaw Goddard). 

in governance and compliance. 

he currently serves as President During her career she specialized Before retirement from GKN plc of the Association of Competition in EU and competition law and in 2009, after 28 years, he was its Economics. His academic work has was involved in some significant Company Secretary and Group appeared in a number of leading cases before the MMC and the Director Legal and Compliance. 

journals and most recently his European Commission. She is a He is currently Senior Independent book Quantitative Techniques for non-executive director of Catlin Director of Charter International Competition and Antitrust Analysis Underwriting Agencies Limited and plc and a director and trustee 
(co-authored with Eliana Garces-
Catlin Insurance Company (UK) 
of the charity Young Enterprise. 

Tolon) was published by Princeton Limited.

He is a former Chairman of the University Press. Recent cases Primary Markets Group of the include the Payment Protection London Stock Exchange and of Insurance market investigation and the CBI in the West Midlands and the Zipcar/Streetcar and Stena/
Oxfordshire.

DFDS merger inquiries.Diana Guy picture
2009. She was formerly a Managing 
2009. He joined the Department Principal of Newnham College, Director in the corporate for Industry in 1978 and has Cambridge, a non-executive finance divisions of UBS and then undertaken a wide variety of director of Ofcom and will be Deutsche Bank. She is a Chartered civil service roles, including four its Deputy Chair designate from Accountant (having qualified with years as Regional Director of January 2012. She is also a member Price Waterhouse, now PwC) 
the Government Office for the of the Higher Education Funding and since 2002 has been Finance South East. He was Director Council for England. She was Director of Calculus Capital of Consumer and Competition formerly a member of the BBC 
Limited (a private equity firm). 

Policy in the DTI and subsequently Trust, Governor of the Wellcome She is also Company Secretary BERR from October 2004 
Trust and member of the of Neptune-Calculus Income and until September 2008, with Committee for Standards in Public Growth VCT Plc.

responsibility for the UK com-
Life. She has worked previously petition regime, state aid, UK 
as both a producer and journalist. 

consumer law and its enforcement, Past work includes: BBC main consumer safety, consumer credit board Director, Policy & Planning, and indebtedness. He moved Chief Executive of the Independent in October 2008 to the new Television Commission, Chair of Department of Energy and Climate the Higher Education Regulation Change to carry out a project Review Group and non-executive looking at how best to get regional director of GCap Media plc.

and local engagement and delivery of the UK's ambitious renewable energy target.Grey Denham picture OFT have estimated direct financial benefits to consumers of £465 million for the market investigation regime1 and 
£127 million for mergers in 2010/11 (these are annual estimates averaged over the three-year period 2008/09 to 2010/11 and include the work done by both the OFT and the CC). In making these estimates, we recognize that our approach is partial in its scope and subject to considerable uncertainties in its application. At present we have no agreed methodology for estimating the benefits of our regulatory work.

Workload Figure 1 provides a picture of how our workload has varied over the year. Inquiries vary considerably in their complexity and resource requirements, and this is not reflected in the chart. But it does incorporate our work both on reviews of undertakings and on post-inquiry remedies. 

Efficiency, effectiveness and governance We have delivered further efficiency savings during the year, reducing staff costs by 15 per cent and overhead and other non-staff costs by 14 per cent. At the year-end we have tenants installed in all the space for which we are responsible in Victoria House, although it is likely that we will again need to seek new tenants for some space during 2011/12. The Corporate Services team earns an income of about £300,000 annually from the provision of shared services to our tenants. 

The CC's work this year has focused on completing a Our budget for 2011/12 is 3.5 per cent less than for 2010/11, number of major regulatory appeals, and taking forward following decreases of 11.5 and 3.5 per cent respectively for two market investigations (Local Bus Services and Movies the previous two years. On current plans, we expect to be on Pay TV). We also completed work on the Payment able to manage within that total. Because, however, we have Protection Insurance market investigation remittal, publishing no control over our workload, and have to deal with much an order to implement our remedies, and progressed of our work within statutory deadlines and to a quality that with work on the remedies arising from the BAA market is good enough to withstand rigorous scrutiny and challenge, investigation, following the Court of Appeal's judgment there must always be a risk that we will be forced due to reinstating our findings. Unusually, we had received very few workload to seek additional resource during the year. That merger references until the last two months of the year, and risk is exacerbated by the Government's decision to split our in marked contrast to last year, we have faced no new legal budget (in common with that of other similar government challenges to our procedures or decisions. In addition to organizations) into programme and administration, and not our casework, as the Chairman explains in his statement, we to allow transfers between the two pots, and the likelihood have been closely involved during the second half of the year of our having some tenants vacate during the year.

in discussions with the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the OFT about the Government's plans The Statement on Internal Control demonstrates the for possible institutional reform and other changes to the improvements that the CC has implemented in terms of its competition regime, that were published for consultation in corporate governance arrangements, information assurance March. 

and risk management processes during the year. We have reviewed and updated all our main corporate governance Value of the competition regime documents. The CC continues to work to achieve BS 25999 
As the Government's consultation document makes and ISO 9001 accreditation for its business continuity and clear, the aim of the competition authorities is to secure management services and to gain the Customer Services vibrant, competitive markets, in the interests of consumers, Excellence standard for the Corporate Services team.

and to promote productivity, innovation and economic growth. Although some of the benefits flowing from our Process improvements work are hard to quantify and attribute accurately, the In December 2009, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) 
CC aims to quantify where possible the direct financial upheld an appeal against the CC's final report into BAA's benefits to consumers that we achieve. The CC and the supply of airport services on the grounds of 'apparent bias' due to what was viewed as a potential conflict of vital that we nevertheless continue to deliver high-quality interest involving one of the Inquiry Group members. (We competition casework. We are aiming to complete both our subsequently appealed against this judgment, and the Court current market investigations during 2011/12, and expect our of Appeal overturned the CAT judgment and reinstated the workload to include further regulatory appeals. As usual, it is findings in our report.) In response to the CAT's judgment, impossible to be certain what will arrive at our doors, but we we asked an independent panel to examine the CC's rules will focus on providing a world class response to everything and practices in relation to possible conflicts of interest of that comes our way, to ensure that we continue to make our its members and staff. The panel's report was published in full contribution to economic growth and prosperity.

December 2010, and the CC's Council accepted the report's recommendations including the appointment of a compliance officer with responsibility for applying our conflict of interest 
1. Note that the figure for the direct financial benefits to consumers policies. We will implement the remaining recommendations from the market investigation regime is different from those presented during 2011/12. 

as direct benefits for consumers from market studies and reviews in the OFT's *Positive Impact 2010/2011* publication. This is for two reasons. 

Later sections of this report summarize the activities and First, the OFT's *Positive Impact 2010/2011* takes into account all of the outcomes of the work streams set out in our business plan. 

OFT's market studies, including those where referral to the CC is not We have made particularly good progress on preparing and considered a possible option. Secondly, the CC's estimates also include publishing a number of pieces of guidance jointly with the references made not by the OFT but by sectoral regulators. 

OFT, including the joint merger assessment guidelines, a short guide to merger assessment, a commentary on retail mergers and guidance on merger surveys. Looking ahead, we will inevitably be heavily engaged in discussions about possible changes to the competition regime and institutional reform, and in responding to whatever decisions Ministers announce in the autumn. It is 

## Casework In The Review Period April 2010 To March 2011

Overall workload In 2010/11, the CC has progressed two complex market investigations using streamlined processes. For the first half of the financial year, regulatory appeals constituted a considerable proportion of the CC's workload, especially with only one live merger case. This trend was reversed in latter months of the year with several merger referrals being made by the OFT in quick succession. Notably the CC has been engaged in more reviews of undertakings and orders than ever before and this work is summarized on pages 26 and 27. The cases are categorized by type then listed chronologically by date of referral.

## Inquiry Reports Published 1 April 2010 To 31 March 2011

Market investigation into payment protection insurance: remittal of the point-of-sale prohibition remedy by the Competition Appeal Tribunal 
14
Merger inquiry into the anticipated merger of Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc and Live Nation Inc 
 16
Merger inquiry into the completed acquisition by Zipcar, Inc of Streetcar Limited 
17
Bristol Water plc price determination 
18
Cable & Wireless UK v Office of Communications appeal (Case No 1112/3/3/09) 
20
The Carphone Warehouse Group plc v Office of Communications (Case No 1111/3/3/09) 
22
The Carphone Warehouse Group plc v Office of Communications (Case No 1149/3/3/09) 
23

# Market Investigation Into Payment Protection Insurance: Remittal Of The Point-Of-Sale Prohibition Remedy By The Competition Appeal Tribunal

The point-of-sale prohibition is likely to benefit consumers by ensuring greater Inquiry Group:
competition and lower prices.

Dr Peter Davis (Chairman) Professor John Baillie The benefits of greater competition would substantially outweigh the Professor John Cubbin disadvantages, including the potential inconvenience to some customers. 

Malcolm Nicholson Outcome: The CC confirmed the prohibition on selling PPI during credit sales, with the exception of retail PPI.

Inquiry background experiments, looking at the possible impact of splitting the On 7 February 2007, the OFT referred to the CC for invesprocesses of credit and PPI, and conducted its own customer tigation the supply of payment protection insurance (PPI) 
survey.

services in the UK. In its final report (the report), published on 29 January 2009, the CC found that the vast majority of Evidence from the CC's, and others', customer research the UK's more than 12 million PPI policies were sold at the indicated that some consumers would experience a loss same time as a consumer takes out a loan, credit card or of convenience; others preferred the idea of having a gap other type of credit. The CC found that many consumers between purchases of credit and PPI and would experience were unaware that they could buy PPI policies from other a positive benefit from the introduction of a POSP
. The CC 
providers, rarely shopped around to compare prices and survey was used to derive the cost of the loss of convenience terms and conditions of PPI policies, and rarely switched for customers who preferred to buy credit and PPI at the providers. The resulting 'point-of-sale' advantage made it same time, and for those who preferred a gap between the difficult for other PPI providers to reach credit providers' 
two sales.

customers and in the absence of such competitive pressure, consumers were charged high prices. The CC proposed The CC looked at parties' plans in light of its investigation to a package of remedies, which included the point-of-sale reach a view on whether parties would continue to sell PPI 
prohibition (POSP) which would stop the completion of sales with a POSP in place, and concluded that it expected nearly of PPI during the sale of the associated credit product.

all main parties to stay in the market. Moreover, it expected that large PPI providers would enter the stand-alone market. 

The remittal This gave the CC added confidence that, with the remedy The remittal followed a legal challenge by Barclays Bank package in place, there would be competition between PPI 
PLC to aspects of the report, including the inclusion of the providers.

POSP in the package of remedies. Lloyds Banking Group PLC and Shop Direct Group Financial Services Ltd intervened The CC found that the parties had overstated the loss of in support of Barclays; the Financial Services Authority convenience that would result from the introduction of a intervened in support of the CC. Whilst upholding the CC's POSP even before taking into account the benefits of the conclusions as to the competition problems in the market, remedy package. It reassessed the proportionality of the the CAT ruled that the CC had failed to take into account the remedy package, taking account of the loss of convenience, loss of convenience customers would experience from the and found that the benefits of putting the remedy package in imposition of a POSP in its assessment of the proportionality place easily outweighed the costs.

of imposing the remedy. The decision to impose the POSP as part of the remedy package was quashed and remitted to the The CC concluded that the introduction of the remedy CC for reconsideration.

package, including the POSP
, would be an effective and proportionate remedy to the competition problems identified Findings for all PPI products, with the exception of retail PPI—where The CC looked at whether there would be a loss of conresearch suggested that customers would not use the time to venience for consumers if the CC introduced a POSP
, and its consider alternative insurance options because the monthly magnitude. It assessed parties' internal documents and various premiums were regarded as being small.

## Conclusions Outcome

The CC came to a clear view that, overall, customers would The CC confirmed its decision to include the POSP in a benefit significantly from the market reforms that it was remedies package for all types of PPI except retail PPI. 

introducing. The benefits of a package of remedies including the POSP
, by introducing greater competition and choice and Remedies were implemented by means of an Order which lower prices to the market, will outweigh the disadvantages, in commenced on 6 April 2011. Obligations to comply with the particular the potential inconvenience to some customers.

Order came into force on that date and the requirements to provide information to third parties and the provision of Remedies information in marketing material will come into force on Our final package of remedies consists of the following key 
1 October 2011. All elements of the remedy package will be in elements:
force by 6 April 2012.

- a prohibition of the sale of PPI during the sale of the credit 
product, and for seven days afterwards, although the customer can ask for cover 24 hours after being sold the 
loan;
- a prohibition of the sale of policies that charge a single 
insurance premium for the term of the credit being sold; and
- requirements for PPI providers to include 'key messages' 
in PPI advertising; provide information to the Consumer Financial Education Body and the OFT; and provide a standardized quote and annual statement to customers.
The remedy package for retail PPI includes clearer information to be provided to customers on the cost of retail PPI and their rights; a requirement to offer retail PPI separately from merchandise insurance cover; and a requirement for providers to supply information to the Consumer Financial Education Body for its price comparison table.

Full details about how the CC reached its findings and the final determination can be found on the CC website: www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2010/ppi_remittal/index.htm.Pen in hand, turning page picture

## Merger Inquiry Into The Anticipated Merger Of Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc And Live Nation Inc

The merger involved the primary retailing of live music tickets, live music promotion and live music venues in the UK. The merger would not significantly affect the likelihood and effects of foreclosure John Longworth to other ticketing agents or promoters. 

Outcome: The merger was cleared. 

Inquiry background be affected significantly if the merged company were to deny The inquiry concerned the anticipated merger of Ticketmaster access to Live Nation's tickets. Further, the merged company Entertainment Inc (Ticketmaster), a ticket agent selling tickets would incur costs as a promoter/venue operator if it tried to for a range of live events, and Live Nation Inc (Live Nation), limit further its use of other ticket agents.

a live music promoter and venue operator. Both companies operate worldwide but have a significant presence in the UK. The merger was originally referred to the CC on 10 June 2009, and the CC published its final decision clearing the acquisition on 22 December 2009. This decision was appealed by CTS Eventim AG (Eventim) and on 11 February 2010 the CAT ordered that the CC decision be quashed and reconsidered. In the meantime, in January 2010, the parties completed the merger. The CC published its revised final report on 7 May 2010.

Findings Ticketing The CC considered the effect of the merger on the possible entry by Eventim, Ticketmaster's largest global competitor, and on existing UK ticket agents. The CC found that there was a separate market, no wider than the UK, for the primary retailing of live music tickets, directly to consumers by promoters/venues and via ticketing agents but excluding sales made in person at the box office. The CC found that, without the merger, an agreement Promotions and venues between Live Nation and Eventim would have seen the latter The CC found that there was a separate market for the enter on a small scale. However, Eventim would have needed promotion of live music events in the UK. 

a large-scale operation to affect materially the extent of competition in the UK, and its ability to enter in this way was The CC found that the merged company was unlikely to have not affected significantly by the merger. The main barriers to the incentive significantly to change its use of other live music large-scale entry were the significant investments in marketing promoters and venue operators. For example, the CC found and brand development, which were required to sell large that, if the merged company sold fewer tickets for other volumes of tickets, and the presence of long-term preferred promoters and venue operators, it would suffer reduced relationships between existing ticket agents and promoters/
revenues from forgone ticket sales, with only uncertain venues.

prospects for any benefits from increased business as a promoter or venue operator. 

The CC found that, due to its contract with Ticketmaster, Live Nation had sold few tickets through other agents and, Conclusion under its proposed contract with Eventim, there was little The CC concluded that the merger of Ticketmaster and prospect of Live Nation increasing this number. Therefore, the Live Nation was unlikely to result in a substantial lessening of CC found that competition between ticket agents would not competition in any UK market. 

Full details about how the CC reached its findings and the final report can be found on the CC website: www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2009/ticketmaster/index.htm.Crowd cheering picture

## Merger Inquiry Into The Completed Acquisition By Zipcar, Inc Of Streetcar Limited

The merger involved the two leading operators of car clubs in London.

Dr Peter Davis (Chairman)
Other companies were likely to enter and expand into the rapidly growing Roger Finbow

market, which would counter any danger of the merged company being able to 
                                                                                John Longworth
                                                                                Anthony Stern
raise prices or worsen the services it provides to its customers.

Outcome: The merger was cleared.Car red 'Mini' picture

The market However, this loss of competition would be replaced in the The inquiry concerned the completed acquisition by Zipcar, medium term by a combination of new entry and expansion Inc (Zipcar) of Streetcar Limited (Streetcar), the largest car as the rapid growth of the market outweighed barriers to clubs in London.

entry such as access to on-street parking. The CC found evidence of two entrants with well-developed entry plans, Car clubs provide, for hourly or daily rental, vehicles located consideration of entry by large companies in adjacent markets, in on-street parking bays allocated by local authorities and and expansion plans by other car clubs.

off-street bays purchased or rented from private individuals or developers. Customers pay membership and usage fees, Conclusion book vehicles online, by telephone or mobile app and access The CC found that the merger may not be expected to result vehicles through keyless technology.

in a substantial lessening of competition in the car club market in London.

The CC used a product market of car club services as the framework for analysis, but took into account potential substitution to alternative options (such as taxis, public transport and traditional car hire) in assessing the effect of the merger on competition. 

Findings Loss of competition during the tendering by local authorities of on-street parking The CC found this unlikely as car clubs constituted a small proportion of demand for on-street parking. London boroughs expressed little concern about the loss of a potential bidder, and six boroughs had only ever had one car club interested in their spaces before the merger.

Increased barriers to entry through the merged company obtaining a larger share of on-street parking than before the merger The CC also found this unlikely. London boroughs used many criteria when allocating on-street spaces. Criteria which might favour larger or more established car clubs were unlikely alone to determine bids and could be changed by boroughs if Remarks: access to on-street parking they led to undesirable outcomes. 

The CC noted that about half of the London boroughs allocating on-street parking to car club operators did so to a Loss of competition for members single operator, creating an artificial competitive distinction The CC found that there would be a loss of competition for between clubs with on-street parking and those without. Such members as constraints on the parties from other car clubs policies may slow the growth of the market. The CC's report and other transport options would be insufficient to prevent highlighted that development of the market would be assisted short-term price rises by the merged company for hire by local authorities avoiding any such exclusivity, or limiting it periods greater than a few hours but less than 8 to 10 hours.

to a year or less for initial piloting of car club schemes. 

Full details about how the CC reached its findings and the final report can be found on the CC website: www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2010/zipcar_streetcar/index.htm.

## Bristol Water Plc Price Determination

Ofwat was required by Bristol Water under the Water Industry Act 1991 to refer Inquiry Group:
to the Competition Commission its determination of Bristol Water's price limits Laura Carstensen (Chairman) Roger Davis for 2010–15.

Richard Farrant Professor Robin Mason Outcome: The CC increased Bristol Water's price limits by a small amount above Edward Smith the limits set by Ofwat.

The reference With regard to enhancement capex, the CC:
Bristol Water disputed the price determination made by Ofwat in November 2009. The CC had to determine the 
- approved Bristol Water's plans to reduce leakage;
adjustment factor 'K', which limits the price that Bristol Water may charge for supplying water for the period 2010–15. 

- approved plans for preparatory work at Cheddar The CC based Bristol Water's price cap on the revenue Reservoir;
it considered that Bristol Water required to cover its efficiently-incurred capital expenditure (capex) and operating 
- did not approve a scheme to return the Honeyhurst expenditure (opex), as well as a return on its regulatory source to use;
capital value (RCV) equal to its expected cost of capital.

- approved an increase in expenditure to allow an increased 
Findings rate of selective meter optants;
Capex Capex is divided into (a) capital maintenance (ie investment 
- did not approve proposals for a smart meter trial; and to maintain stable serviceability) and (b) enhancement capex (which improves supply demand balance, resilience, or water 
- made some minor adjustments regarding new connections.

quality). Bristol Water wanted to increase investment greatly but Ofwat believed that was not necessary because Bristol With regard to Bristol Water's proposed investment to Water had achieved stable serviceability.  Regarding specific enhance resilience, the CC doubted the data and methodology capital maintenance proposals, the CC:
used in Bristol Water's cost benefit analysis. The CC took into account how long water supplies could reasonably be expected 

- agreed with Ofwat's decisions to refurbish the Line of 
to last should particular assets fail, how many people might 
Works Aqueduct and to increase Bristol Water's meter 
be affected and the cost of implementing mitigation systems. 
replacement rate;
The CC approved Bristol Water's plans for Victoria Pumping Station and Durdham Down, but not its Oldford, Tetbury or 
- allowed funding for a mains relining scheme because the 
Southern resilience schemes.
Drinking Water Inspectorate required Bristol Water to give a legally binding undertaking on this;
The CC agreed with the principle of Ofwat's capex incentive scheme intended to encourage realistic and well-evidenced 
- decided that an increased rate of mains replacement of 
capex planning, considered it was sufficiently transparent, and 
47.5 km per year was appropriate, as advised by Halcrow, 
saw no need to adjust Ofwat's determination in this regard.
the CC's consulting engineers on the reference; and

## Opex

- allowed funding for work at two reservoirs due to issues The CC adjusted Bristol Water's opex allowance over the that had arisen since Ofwat's determination.

review period when satisfied that costs would increase and that reasonable management action could not mitigate the The CC considered Ofwat's asset management assessment increase. The CC recommended that Ofwat put in place a 
(AMA) (intended to ensure efficient capital maintenance) and notified item (NI) where costs might increase but the amount found that this might have produced an excessive challenge. 

and timing were uncertain and mitigation could not be The CC allowed as exceptional several schemes outside achieved effectively by management action. This would allow the AMA. 

the company or Ofwat to seek a price adjustment between periodic reviews. The CC recommends NIs sparingly because The CC found the opex efficiency target that Ofwat had set they undermine the RPI + K formula, since they are more akin for Bristol Water reasonable, namely continuing efficiency to a 'cost plus' method of regulation.

improvements of 0.25 per cent a year and relative efficiency improvement of 0.92 per cent a year. 

With regard to specific opex items, the CC decided:
The CC did not recommend an NI for possible tax changes 

- for pension-related items, Bristol Water should be funded 
but adjusted the treatment of depreciation.
to recover 90 per cent of the deficit in its defined benefit 
schemes as at 31 December 2009 over a 15-year period;
Cost of capital
The CC considered that Bristol Water's return on its RCV 
- to adjust Bristol Water's bad debt allowance and 
should be equal to its expected cost of capital. A return 
recommend that Ofwat should put in place an NI that 
below the cost of capital would not be consistent with the 
Ofwat or Bristol Water could trigger;
CC's duty to secure that Bristol Water can finance the proper carrying out of its functions, and a return above the cost of 
- an NI was not appropriate for energy costs;
capital would not be consistent with the consumer objective.
- no opex adjustment was needed for training costs;
The CC considered Bristol Water as a stand-alone company as required in its licence and over the five-year review period.
- to make an opex allowance for abstraction charges, in 
the light of additional information obtained from the 
The CC estimated the cost of capital to be 5 per cent.
Environment Agency confirming its forecast increases in charges;
Before determining the price control, the CC also assessed whether its findings on capex, opex and cost of capital would 
- no allowance was needed for Highways Agency inspection 
prevent Bristol Water's retaining investment grade issuer 
costs; and
status (which is a condition of its licence). 
- no changes were needed to the water efficiency targets.
Conclusions
The CC determined that K should be: - 0.6 in 2010/11 (the amount set by Ofwat); - 3.9 in 2011/12; 
- 3.9 in 2012/13; - 3.9 in 2013/14; and - 3.8 in 2014/15. 
For comparison, Ofwat had determined that K should be:

- 4.2 in 2011/12; - 4.0 in 2012/13; - 0.3 in 2013/14; and - –0.2 in 2014/15.  
The effect of this would be that the average customer bill would rise from £157 in 2009/10 to £180 by 2014/15.

## Cable & Wireless Uk V Office Of Communications Appeal (Case No 1112/3/3/09)

Appeal under the Communications Act 2003 made by Cable & Wireless UK 
Appeal Group:
(C&W) against the 2009 leased lines charge control (LLCC) decision of the Christopher Clarke (Chairman) Stephen Oram Office of Communications (Ofcom). 

Jonathan Whiticar Roger Witcomb Outcome: C&W's appeal was upheld in part. Price cap of regulated products Fiona Woolf CBE
reduced.

The appeal
- in its use of BT's estimates of the costs for 'point of The appeal concerned the price control decided by Ofcom in handover' charges;
its LLCC Statement (statement entitled Leased Lines Charge Control—a new charge control framework for wholesale traditional 
- in its assessment of the appropriate basis for setting point interface and alternative interface products and services dated of handover charges, taking into account their potential 
2 July 2009) which provided a set of price control mechanisms competitive effects; and for wholesale leased line products. 

- in the level of discretion that it gave to BT in setting the The appeal to the CAT was made in September 2009. 

initial point of handover charges.

The specified price control matters arising in the appeal were referred to the CC in December 2009. British The CC did not uphold C&W's appeal in relation to its other Telecommunications plc (BT) intervened in support of Ofcom; 
claims. These included claims that Ofcom:
Verizon UK Limited (Verizon) intervened in support of C&W.

- had not taken appropriate account of the EC Leased Lines 
Leased lines are products purchased by business customers 
Recommendation;
to connect their various business premises together. The case related to wholesale leased line services that are provided 
- had erred in permitting certain price increases because 
by BT Wholesale to other communication providers who 
the resulting structure of charges was inefficient, disare in competition with BT (and to the retail divisions of 
criminatory and anti-competitive;
BT) that can be used to offer leased lines or other business 
connectivity services to business users.
- should have made certain adjustments to the figures used 
in its charge control cost model;
The pricing of these services is complex and the regulatory regime focuses on baskets of services, allowing BT a degree 
- had erred in the calculation of the relevant cost of capital; 
of pricing discretion subject to certain rules. The claims made 
and
were highly technical and the appeal was amended during the case as certain information became available to the appellant.
- had erred in not treating promotion of competition as its 
primary objective or had erred in its assessment of what 
Findings the promotion of competition would require. 

The CC upheld C&W's appeal in part, finding that Ofcom had erred:
(A full list of the claims not upheld by the CC can be found in the full report.)

- in permitting price increases for certain services (2 Mbit/s 
Local Ends);
- in the allocation of costs in that an incorrect adjustment 
for '21CN' and 'SiteConnect' costs had been made;

## Remedies Having Found That Ofcom Had Erred In Relation To Part Of Its Outcome

LLCC decision, the CC considered what adjustment should The CC reported to the CAT.

be made to the price control. 

The CAT made an order directing Ofcom to implement the The CC determined that:
adjustments to the price control, as specified in the CC's determination, excepting the elapsed period adjustment 

- the price increases for 2 Mbit/s Local Ends be reversed 
which was no longer sought by C&W. Since then Ofcom has 
without remittal to Ofcom;
consulted on certain of the matters remitted to it.
Full details about how the CC reached its findings and the final determination can be found on the CC website: www.competition-commission.org.uk/appeals/communications_act/completed_cases.htm.Fiber optic cable picture

- the erroneous 21CN and SiteConnect adjustments should 
be corrected to figures specified by the CC; 
- Ofcom should assess the reasonableness of revised point 
of handover costs submitted by BT and determine the appropriate charge;
- Ofcom should reassess the appropriate basis for setting 
point of handover charges, taking account of the CC's findings relating to the assessment of potential competitive effects; and
- Ofcom should reconsider how to recover point of 
handover costs, taking account of the CC's findings as to the degree of discretion that was appropriate to grant to BT.
The CC put forward a method whereby prices following the CAT's decision could be set in such a way as to recoup any overcharge (resulting from the errors the CC found) in the elapsed period of the price control during the remaining period of the price control. (This is described as the 'elapsed period adjustment'.)

## The Carphone Warehouse Group Plc V Office Of Communications (Case No 1111/3/3/09)

Appeal under the Communications Act 2003 made by the Carphone Warehouse Appeal Group:
Group plc (CPW) against a local loop unbundling (LLU) price control decision of Peter Freeman cbe qc (Chairman) Professor John Cubbin Ofcom. 

Tony Morris Professor Sudi Sudarsanam Outcome: CPW's appeal was upheld in part. Price cap of regulated products reduced.

The appeal
- in relation to the path of prices over the period of the The appeal concerned the prices decided by Ofcom in its price control (the glide path).

LLU Statement (statement entitled A new pricing framework for Openreach dated 22 May 2009) which determined the maximum Remedies prices Openreach could charge communications providers Having found that Ofcom had erred in relation to part of its for certain wholesale telecommunication services; specifically, LLU decision, the CC considered what adjustment should be services used to deliver home broadband services via the local made to the price control. 

copper loop. The local copper loop is the copper line from a customer's premises to the local telephone exchange. 

For the *unelapsed* period of the price control it was determined that:
The appeal to the CAT was made in July 2009. The specified price control matters arising in the appeal were referred 
- the maximum price Openreach could charge communito the CC in November 2009. British Telecommunications cations providers for metallic path facility (MPF) and shared plc (BT) intervened in support of Ofcom; BSkyB plc (Sky) 
metallic path facility (SMPF) rentals should be reduced;
intervened in support of CPW.

- one ancillary services product (MPF New Provide) should 
Findings
be moved into a separate basket with its own individual 
The CC upheld CPW's appeal in part, finding that Ofcom had 
price cap; and
erred:
- no further price increases should be applied to the co-
- in its assessment of the rate of efficiency savings that 
mingling basket.
Openreach could be expected to achieve over the period of the price control;
For remedying detrimental effects in the *elapsed* period of the price control (the elapsed period adjustment), the CC:
- in its assessment of the appropriate level of inflation to 
apply to Openreach's wage and energy costs; 
- set out a methodology for the price cap adjustment 
to MPF and SMPF rentals, under the assumption that 
- in not setting individual price caps on the ancillary services 
it was legal and appropriate to make an elapsed period 
baskets; and 
adjustment; 
- by not safeguarding against price manipulation within one 
- did not provide an adjustment for the ancillary services as 
of the ancillary services baskets (the co-mingling basket).
it did not consider it reasonably practicable to so; and
The CC did not uphold CPW's appeal in relation to the other 
- did not provide an adjustment for the co-mingling basket as 
parts of its appeal, finding that Ofcom had not erred:
it did not consider there to have been an overpayment in the elapsed period of the charge control.
- in its allocation of BT's and Openreach's costs to the 
regulated products; 
Outcome
Subsequent to the CC delivering the determination to the 
- in its assessment of the cost of capital of Openreach;
CAT, CPW made an application for relief in the form of an elapsed period adjustment. This application was later 
- in its allocation of costs between the regulated products; 
withdrawn. The CAT made an order directing Ofcom to 
or
implement the adjustments to the price control, as specified in the CC's determination.
www.competition-commission.org.uk/appeals/communications_act/completed_cases.htm.

## The Carphone Warehouse Group Plc V Office Of Communications (Case No 1149/3/3/09)

Appeal under the Communications Act 2003 made by the Carphone Warehouse Appeal Group:
Group plc (CPW) against a wholesale line rental (WLR) price control decision of Peter Freeman cbe qc (Chairman) Professor John Cubbin Ofcom. 

Tony Morris Professor Sudi Sudarsanam Outcome: Ofcom's WLR decision was upheld. No change to the price cap of regulated products.

The appeal
- the price for WLR and the price for MPF; and The appeal concerned the prices decided by Ofcom in its WLR Statement (statement entitled Charge controls for 
- the combined price for WLR and SMPF, and the price for Wholesale Line Rental and related services dated 26 October MPF,
2009) which determined the maximum prices Openreach could charge communications providers for certain wholesale would be greater than the differences between the LRICs of voice services.

those services.

The appeal to the CAT was made in December 2009. The specified price control matters arising in the appeal were referred to the CC in February 2010. British Telecommunications plc (BT) intervened in support of Ofcom; BSkyB plc (Sky) intervened in support of CPW.

Findings CPW argued that Ofcom had erred in relation to the price differential between, on the one hand, the allowable prices for WLR and/or WLR and SMPF (WLR is a voice service; WLR with SMPF enables the provision of voice and broadband services) purchased by communications providers from Openreach) and, on the other hand, MPF (a dual voice and broadband product, also purchased from Openreach). The first of the reference questions concerned Ofcom's approach of setting the price differentials on the basis of a current cost accounting and fully allocated costs (CCA FAC) basis rather than on a long-run incremental cost (LRIC) basis. The reference question also asked us to consider whether Ofcom erred in its calculation of LRIC as a means of crosschecking its CCA FAC approach. CPW argued that Ofcom had erred in its approach by failing to set a differential on a LRIC *plus a mark-up* basis.

rejected all the challenges made by CPW and found that The second of the reference questions concerned the Ofcom had not erred.

appropriate approach to evaluating the differentials between the WLR and LLU price controls. The main issues the CC had Outcome to consider were whether Ofcom should have set the WLR 
In light of the CC's determination, the CAT upheld Ofcom's price controls at a level such that the differentials between:
decision and the WLR price controls remained unchanged.

Full details about how the CC reached its findings and the final determination can be found on the CC website: www.competition-commission.org.uk/appeals/communications_act/completed_cases.htm.Network connections

## The Competition Commission'S Post-Inquiry Activities

For those investigations requiring remedies, the publication of the final report does not mark the end of the CC's involvement or workload. The Enterprise Act 2002 made the CC responsible for implementing remedies following its investigations. The CC does this by accepting undertakings from parties, by making an Order or by making recommendations to others. In some cases, the CC's work continues after these actions. For example, where the CC has required a structural remedy, it will oversee the divestiture process to ensure that this remedy is successfully implemented. The CC may also consider representations from parties, as in the BAA case, regarding possible changes of circumstances which may affect remedies. A summary of the CCs post-inquiry activities for the financial year 2010/11 is shown in the table below.

CC activity after publication of final report 2010/11

## Market Investigation Into Baa Airports

The CC conducted an investigation into the supply by BAA 
In November 2010, the CC invited views on whether there of airport services in the UK between 2007 and 2009. The had been any material changes in circumstances since the CC's findings, set out in the report published in March 2009, report's publication such that divestments of Stansted were appealed to the CAT by BAA; in December 2009 the Airport and either Glasgow or Edinburgh Airport should not CAT found in BAA's favour on one ground. The CC appealed proceed as set out in the report.

this decision to the Court of Appeal, and in October 2010 the Court of Appeal found in the CC's favour and restored the The CC then conducted an assessment of whether there decision made in our 2009 report.

had been any material changes in circumstances which should lead to a change in remedies, publishing its provisional BAA sought permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's consideration of this in March 2011.

decision to the Supreme Court, but in February 2011, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal.

The CC is currently considering comments upon its provisional findings.

Certain remedies set out in the report were unaffected by the challenge, and during the appeals the CC worked with BAA and others on their implementation. As soon as the Court of Appeal restored the CC's original decision, work restarted on implementing those aspects of the report which had been the focus of the appeals—the requirement to divest airports.Air terminal picture

## Reviews Of Undertakings And Orders

Summary of reviews As a result of its review, the CC found that there had been The OFT has a statutory duty to keep under review undersome significant changes in the television industry since 2003 
takings and orders under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the and that ITV1's market position was not as strong as in 2003. 

Enterprise Act 2002. From time to time, the OFT must Nevertheless ITV1 retained an enhanced market position consider whether, by reason of any change of circumstances, as a result of the merger between Carlton and Granada, the set of undertakings or an order should be varied or primarily due to its unique ability to deliver large audiences terminated. If so, the OFT refers the matter to the CC for to advertisers. The CC concluded that these changes of consideration. Responsibility for deciding on variation or circumstances since 2003 did not warrant ITV's release termination of undertakings or orders lies with the CC in from the CRR Undertakings and that a remedy was still nearly all cases.

required to address the likelihood that adverse effects would otherwise arise. In particular, the CC was concerned that, Between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011, the CC completed absent an effective remedy, ITV would be able to worsen five reviews of undertakings and orders: ITV's Contracts terms to advertisers overall through seeking a higher share Rights Renewal undertakings; FirstGroup's Scottish Passenger of broadcast commitments, reducing discounts or worsening Rail (ScotRail) franchise undertakings; the Northern Ireland terms and conditions. If ITV used its enhanced market PCA Banking Market Investigation Order 2008 (the NI 
position to increase share of broadcast commitments from Banks Order); the Home Credit Market Investigation media buyers, this would reduce the amount advertisers Order 2007 (the Home Credit Order); and the Store Cards would spend on other commercial broadcasters. 

Market Investigation Order (the Store Cards Order). Two further reviews of undertakings were ongoing as of 31 March The CC also found that CRR had created some costs, 
2011: Kemira/Terra undertakings and Centrica/Dynegy primarily in deterring ITV from providing a time-delayed undertakings. The review of the Kemira/Terra undertakings 
(ITV1+1) service or a high-definition (ITV1 HD) service. 

was completed on 18 May 2011 when the CC released the parties from certain undertakings. The final report of the The CC considered a number of alternatives to CRR, review of the Centrica/Dynegy undertakings was published including a proposal from ITV, and found that these on 20 April 2011 and implementation of the variations to the alternatives would not be able to remedy effectively the undertakings are in hand.

adverse effects of the merger. However, the CC concluded that changing the definition of ITV1 in the CRR Undertakings ITV's Contracts Rights Renewal undertakings to include ITV1+1 and ITV1 HD services would address the In 2003, the CC investigated the merger between Carlton change of circumstances. 

and Granada to form ITV. The CC concluded that the merger should only be allowed to proceed subject to certain Revised undertakings were accepted by the CC in September conditions, including that a remedy be put in place to protect 
2010 to allow ITV to include impacts from ITV1 HD and advertisers in the sale of commercial advertising airtime on ITV1+1 in the CRR calculation. ITV launched ITV1 HD on its main ITV1 channel. The remedy would also protect other 
2 April 2010 and ITV1+1 on 11 January 2011.

commercial broadcasters. This remedy was described as the contracts rights renewal (CRR) remedy.

FirstGroup's ScotRail undertakings In 2004, the CC published its report into the proposed The CRR remedy gave all existing customers of ITV1 the acquisition by FirstGroup of the ScotRail franchise. The option of renewing the terms of their pre-merger contracts CC found that the proposed acquisition would lead to and set out a mechanism by which any share of broadcast a substantial lessening of competition on certain routes. 

commitment to ITV1 would vary in direct proportion to By way of remedy, the CC accepted Undertakings from ITV1's share of commercial impacts. An independent Office of FirstGroup which placed restrictions on FirstGroup for the Adjudicator was also established at ITV's expense to rule the duration of the franchise. The Undertakings included a on contractual disputes.

restriction on FirstGroup from altering the service level and fares on a number of local bus services which it operates in Following a request from ITV that it conduct a review of and around Edinburgh and Glasgow. 

the CRR remedy, in May 2009 the OFT published advice which stated that there had been a change of circumstances In December 2009, FirstGroup submitted an application to since 2003 which meant that the CC should review the CRR 
the OFT for the Undertakings to be varied to allow it to make Undertakings and consider variations to them. 

changes to certain routes (the Relevant Controlled Routes).

In April 2010, the OFT advised the CC that there had been a change of circumstances in that the costs of operating the Relevant Controlled Routes had increased and/or passenger numbers had decreased such that the Relevant Controlled Routes had failed to cover variable costs on a persistent basis and there was no further remedial action that FirstGroup could reasonably take. Following its review, the CC found that there was no reasonable prospect of the Relevant Controlled Routes becoming profitable. The CC found that FirstGroup's request for variation had not been made for the purpose of switching passengers from bus to rail services, which was the concern identified in the CC's 2004 inquiry. The changes did not therefore undermine the purpose of the original Undertakings. The CC found that alternative bus services were available on the parts of routes concerned—many of these services were operated by FirstGroup and would remain controlled by the Undertakings. The CC varied the Undertakings to allow FirstGroup to withdraw seven loss-making bus routes and modify a further eight in Glasgow and Edinburgh. The CC refused permission to modify one other route in Glasgow.

Reviews of three market investigation orders The OFT sent advice to the CC that there was a change of circumstances in relation to the Orders made following the CC's market investigations into each of personal current accounts in Northern Ireland, home credit and store cards. The change of circumstances arose as a result of the introduction of two maximum harmonization European Directives: the Payment Services Directive (PSD) and the Consumer Credit Directive (CCD). The PSD was transposed into national legislation by the Payment Services Regulations 2009 and came into force for most purposes on 1 November 2009. The CCD was transposed into UK law via a group of six Consumer Credit Act 1974 Regulations which came into force on 30 April 2010 and 26 August 2010 and were required to be complied with in full from 1 February 2011. The CC assessed whether there were aspects of each of the three Orders which duplicated or were incompatible with the PSD or the CCD, and found that each of the three Orders needed to be varied. The Store Cards and Home Credit Orders required only minimal changes. However, the changes required to the NI Banks Order were substantial, and as a result the CC considered it necessary to revoke the 2008 NI Banks Order and make a new Order to reflect the changes, which were primarily concerned with the provision of information to customers.

## Work Streams

The delivery of the CC's core work is supported and developed by five work streams which have a key role in ensuring that appropriate guidance, policies, procedures and processes are in place to support the Inquiry Groups in their decisionmaking and ensuring that the CC is effectively managed. Progresses against the objectives of the five key work streams are detailed in the following pages. 

## Work Stream 1: Make The Cc'S Investigations More Efficient And Effective And Manage Inquiries Well Persons Responsible: Senior Director, Inquiries (Rachel Merelie), And Chief Legal Adviser (Roland Green)

This work stream seeks to ensure that the CC achieves its objectives of delivering value for money by using cost-effective processes and conducting rigorous inquiries in a manner which is fair and transparent and which minimizes the burden on businesses affected by them. 

Make the CC's investigations more efficient and effective Communications Act, we decided to carry out a review of our Market investigations procedures, involving both internal and external stakeholders, in In 2010/11 the CC made particular progress in its conduct order to identify how we could make the process more efficient of market investigations. The Local Bus Services market and effective in anticipation of further likely appeals in 2011/12. 

investigation was referred from the OFT in January 2010 
We published the outcome of our review, together with draft and Movies on Pay TV from Ofcom in August 2010. In both procedural guidance for consultation, in February 2011; our final cases, the CC sought as much information as possible from guidance was published in April 2011. 

the referring body ahead of reference so that it could start to develop its theories of harm, ensure the best possible use Conflicts of interest of information collected by the referring body, and target its The CC commissioned an independent review of its conflicts information gathering appropriately. The CC published an early procedures for members and has accepted and put in place issues statement, setting out a first view of the theories of procedures to implement its recommendations. 

harm and providing a framework for the analysis, ahead of initial submissions by the parties.

Share best practice internally and improve the clarity of CC documents No emerging thinking document has been published in either During the early part of 2010/11 we looked again at our quality case. Instead, working papers have been published, together with assurance processes. This focused in particular on possible an overview document (an updated issues statement in the case improvements to:
of Buses, and an updated theories of harm paper in the case of Movies on Pay TV). One round of formal hearings has been held 
- internal progress meetings on individual inquiries, including prior to the publication of provisional findings.

those outside the core inquiry team, to discuss analytical and procedural risks and identify next steps;
The CC expects to publish its provisional findings on Pay TV within a year of reference. This has been achieved by conducting 
- ongoing review by senior professional advisers of the a focused investigation and building on the extensive work direction of travel on an inquiry (which should ensure that carried out by Ofcom. The timetable has been more challenging theories of harm are embedded throughout the inquiry);
on the Local Bus Services market investigation which involves multiple parties and particularly complex issues, but nevertheless 
- internal peer review of draft provisional findings and, on we published our provisional findings within 16 months of market investigations, on the draft provisional decision on reference and have carried out a relatively robust and resourceremedies; and efficient process.

Merger inquiries cases by Counsel.

The CC completed only one merger reference in 2010/11 (Zipcar/Streetcar). Provisional findings were published in 14 
These improvements are now being rolled out on current cases. 

weeks from the date of reference and the final report in 19 
We expect this, together with existing processes (for example, weeks. There were also three mergers referred to the CC which the end-of-inquiry evaluations) and improved internal processes were subsequently cancelled. Four mergers were referred in the for capturing lessons learned that have cross-cutting relevance to last two months of 2010/11 which are continuing in 2011/12.

our different regulatory jurisdictions, to lead to better sharing of best practice, more robust decision-making and improved clarity The CC made good progress during 2010/11 in drafting its of CC documents.

merger procedural guidance; this was published for consultation in April 2011.

Make the best use of resources In the current climate, we are paying particular attention to Regulatory inquiries and appeals our staffing of inquiries. In addition to the streamlined market The CC received four regulatory inquiries or appeals during investigation procedures and our review of appeals under the 
2009/10 which were completed in 2010/11. One of these was an Communications Act, we continue to identify ways in which appeal by Bristol Water against the 2010 price control; the other we can reduce resources as far as possible on merger inquiries, three were appeals under section 193 of the Communications particularly where these are relatively small transactions, whilst Act 2003. Following completion of the three appeals under the continuing to ensure robust decisions. 

- external forensic review on particularly complex or sensitive 

## Work Stream 2: Make The Right Decisions

Persons responsible: Chief Economist (Alison Oldale) and Director of Financial Analysis (Lucy Beverley). The aim of this work stream is to support the CC in meeting its objective of making the right decision by developing the CC's approach to competition analysis in merger inquiries and market investigations, and to the assessment of regulatory appeals, in accordance with world class standards. 

Work stream 2 table

## Revise Published Guidance Improve Debate And Learning About Analysis Of The

2010/11 saw significant progress in updating our published competition questions in inquiries, and of regulatory guidance:
appeals An important focus of debate and learning for the year was on 

- In September 2010 we published revised Merger Assessment 
the analysis of regulatory appeals:
Guidelines. This was a joint publication with the OFT, setting out a common analytical framework for assessing 
- The Finance and Regulation Group brings together staff and 
mergers. The guidelines reflect extensive consultation with 
members with an expertise in regulatory issues in order to 
stakeholders, and with agencies in the USA and the EU 
provide a focus for the development of the CC's approach in 
Directorate General for Competition (DG Comp), and 
this area. (Operational responsibility for the Group lies with 
are recognized as embodying leading thinking on merger 
the Director of Financial Analysis.) During 2010/11 this Group 
assessment. 
debated a number of issues concerning the cost of capital and financeability in regulated industries. 
- In March 2011 the CC published, jointly with the OFT, a quick 
guide to help businesses understand what to expect from 
- An internal database was created that captured lessons from 
the competition authorities when they investigate a merger. 
past regulatory appeals, from research, and from internal 
The publication complements the detailed joint Merger 
analysis about the analytical approach for regulatory appeals.
Assessment Guidelines.
- The CC continued its practice of inviting external speakers to 
- The CC has also initiated a revision of the Market 
give seminars on topics of interest in relation to analysis, with 
Investigation References Guidelines, with an initial 
a greater emphasis this year on regulatory issues. 
consultation on areas for revision. Good progress was made and a draft of significant sections of revised guidance was 
- Members and staff received in-depth training on the 
published for consultation in April 2011.
regulatory framework in telecommunications.
Provide guidance on a wider range of issues Given the ongoing review of the Market Investigation References During 2010/11 the CC published documents providing further Guidelines, another important area of debate was the assessinformation for parties and their advisers about our approach:
ment of market investigation references. We reinstated regular analysis seminars, attended by staff and Deputy Chairmen, at 

- In March 2011, a commentary on the way the CC and the 
which a range of topics about our approach were debated, many 
OFT have assessed retail mergers in past cases was published 
of which related to market investigations.
jointly with the OFT. Both authorities have dealt with a large 
number of significant retail mergers, and the commentary 
The third area of focus was on the analysis of retail mergers. We 
aims to provide useful background information for parties 
held an analysis seminar to debate our approach, which informed 
notifying such a transaction about how a particular case might 
the commentary on retail mergers. The CC also commissioned 
be assessed.
an ex post evaluation of a selection of retail mergers, which will report next year. 
- The CC and the OFT produced a joint best practice guide for 
parties wanting to submit survey evidence to the authorities, issuing a consultation draft during 2010 and publishing the final guide in April 2011. Parties sometimes wish to conduct their own customer surveys prior to a reference to the CC. This guide aims to help them design and conduct the survey in a way that means the CC will be able to put weight on the results. 
Person responsible: Chief Financial & Business Adviser & Head of Remedies (David Roberts) The overall aim of this work stream is to develop the CC's remedies approach and procedures in accordance with world class standards and to ensure effective sharing of remedies expertise and learning points with members, staff and other competition authorities. 

Improve process and guidance Best practice continues to evolve as a result of evaluation, New guidance on remedies in market investigations was current learning and development of guidance and this is shared developed during the year. This was published for consultation through training seminars within the CC and presentations to as part of new market investigation guidance in April 2011. 

external bodies.

New processes for developing possible remedies on new market investigations were also implemented. Together these Implement and review remedies developments seek to implement the recommendations of the The implementation and review of remedies was a major focus review of remedies in market investigations highlighted in last for the CC throughout the year. Implementation of remedies year's report.

continued on one merger inquiry (Preston Bus) and two major market investigations (PPI and BAA). Work proceeded on four Following completion of several reviews of undertakings and reviews of undertakings (ITV Contract Rights Renewal, Kemira/
orders in recent years, the CC's Memorandum of Understanding Terra, FirstGroup/ScotRail, Centrica) and three reviews of with the OFT was revised in order to improve the efficiency and orders (Northern Ireland Banks, Home Credit and Store Cards) 
transparency of these exercises.

following references from the OFT regarding possible changes of circumstances affecting remedies currently in place. (See pages Evaluate and share best practice
24 to 27 for further details of these cases.)
The CC has a rolling programme of evaluating remedies outcomes on past cases. In the past year, evaluations were completed and published of remedies implemented on two merger inquiries (Stericycle and Somerfield) and, for the first time since inception of the Enterprise Act, a market investigation (Store Cards). In addition, learning points on remedies are captured and disseminated on completion of all current cases. 

Work stream 4: Make effective contributions to the development of competition policy and practice in the UK, the EU and internationally Persons responsible: Director of Policy (John Kirkpatrick) with Head of International (Carole Begent) 
Work stream 4 table Contribute effectively to competition policy presentations on remedies design and remedies evaluation. 

During this year, the Government announced its intention to The CC's Chairman has attended (by invitation) meetings of reform the UK competition regime, including a possible merger the European Competition Network (ECN) and the European of the OFT and the CC. The CC has worked closely with BIS, Competition Authorities. Senior staff economists attended the OFT and HM Treasury in helping to develop the consultation the Economists meetings of the ECN. Peter Davis, Deputy proposals and providing the necessary information for the impact Chairman, continued in his role as President of the Association assessment. 

of Chief Economists.

Elsewhere, the CC and OFT continued to work closely The Chairman, Deputy Chairmen and senior staff have on improving processes for merger inquiries and market also participated in international events hosted by overseas investigations, and together issued revised Merger Assessment competition authorities (including the European Commission, Guidelines, a Quick Guide to UK Merger Assessment, joint the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and guidance on using surveys in merger inquiries and a Commentary the Competition Commission of Singapore) and universities and on retail mergers. 

professional associations.

International relations The CC has also responded to many requests for information, The CC has continued to be involved in and benefit from and has successfully hosted numerous visitors, from international involvement in international competition organizations such as government ministries, academic institutions and competition the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development authorities, including DG Comp of the European Commission 
(OECD), the International Competition Network (ICN) and and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 

Commission.

In particular, the CC has contributed to the design and presentations of a number of ICN events, including the ICN 
The CC made extensive use of international contacts and the conference, ICN Merger Workshop and ICN teleseminars on work products of international networks in its casework and remedies and revisions to OFT/CC merger guidelines. The CC 
policy development. In particular, through established relations has also provided speakers for OECD workshops in India and at the CC explored a number of issues while developing the the Hungarian Outreach Centre. 

Merger Assessment Guidelines published jointly with the OFT. 

More generally, the CC has learned from international best The CC has participated actively in the newly-formed EU 
practice through discussions with international contacts and Mergers Working Group initiated by the European Commission, participation at completion network events and these have including contributing to the development of Draft Best helped shaped the CC's practices. 

Practices on Cooperation in Merger Review and making 

## Work Stream 5: Provide Efficient And Effective Corporate Services Support Person Responsible: Director Of Corporate Services (Rebecca Lawrence)

The aim of this work stream is to ensure efficient and effective corporate services and back office support to the rest of the organization. Additionally this objective deals with corporate governance, business continuity, internal audit functions, risk management, security, data handling and information security. The Director of Corporate Services is the CC's Departmental Security Officer and Senior Information Risk Officer. 

## Efficiency, Accommodation And Shared Services Corporate Governance And Transparency

The Corporate Services team has a key role in ensuring that During 2010/11, the CC reviewed its corporate governance the organization works as efficiently and effectively as possible. 

arrangements: it has a new framework document in place, Spending on Corporate Services functions in 2010/11 was revised terms of reference for its core committees, as well as within its budget of £8.3 million. £5.4 million was spent on a new code of conduct for Council members and clarified role accommodation costs, approximately £2 million was spent on profiles for key postholders.

staffing and the remaining £0.9 million was spent on running costs and funding of projects throughout the year. The CC has a The Finance, ICT, Procurement and HR teams have also ensured number of shared service agreements with other organizations that they have met the Government's transparency initiatives. 

to provide a range of services, including Finance, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Facilities and Library Services, ICT, the Internet and accessibility which brings in an additional income of £300,000 per year. 

The ICT team has been working with its delivery partners BIS and eduserve to redesign and improve the CC's website. The During 2010/11 the CC restructured its ICT team to improve its outcome from this project will be launched in October 2011; the business resilience; this has delivered in-year savings of £170,000. 

design and content will reflect internal and external customer This restructuring exercise is expected to deliver further feedback, as well as delivering Chief Information Officer significant savings in 2011 and beyond. 

accessibility requirements.

The CC benchmarks its accommodation data on the electronic The ICT team is also working to improve remote working and Property Information Mapping Service (ePIMS), which produces flexible working for CC members and staff. 

the State of the Estate annual report on the management and use of the Government's civil estate. The CC has also submitted Training and the Management Development Programme benchmarking data in relation to back-office services, as part In 2010/11, the CC ran its second cohort of its well-received of the Operational Efficiency Programme, which compares Management Development Programme and also ran a the key back-office functions HR, Finance, Procurement, ICT, condensed version for the whole senior team. Work will Property, Communications, Legal and Knowledge & Information continue in 2011/12 to take forward the lessons learned from Management. Where benchmark data is available, the CC 
the programme. Inquiry staff received project management compares well against its peers and larger organizations.

training specifically developed for inquiry processes, and general project management training was held for all other staff. The CC 
During the year, the Corporate Services team has worked to has continued to provide funding for staff seeking professional ensure that the Efficiency Reform Group's cost control and qualifications, prioritizing those without a first degree and staff austerity measures are implemented throughout the CC. 

in Corporate Services. Towards the end of the year the CC 
relaunched its Staff Learning Exchange providing a series of Business continuity, data handling and security seminars delivered by staff in their area of expertise. 

The CC continues to ensure that it meets all government security, data handling and information assurance requirements. 

Customer Service Excellence The CC's security and information assurance work is led by the Customer Service Excellence (CSE) is a government standard CC's Senior Information Risk Owner and Departmental Security designed to improve the delivery of services which meet the Officer with support from the CC's Security Working Group. A 
needs of customers. The Corporate Services team has been fundamental review of the CC's security and incident reporting working towards achieving this standard during 2010/11 and will processes and counter-terrorism policies took place this year, be assessed on the CSE award in June 2011. In obtaining the CSE 
desk sweeps have taken place on a regular basis and the CC has award, the Corporate Services team aims to improve the quality run its first security culture survey with an action plan in place to of its services, raise levels of customer satisfaction and make its secure further improvements. 

processes more efficient.

In terms of ICT, the CC has undertaken work to improve its business reliance, business continuity and disaster recovery arrangements.

## Accounts

| Council report                                                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Management commentary                                               |
| 44                                                                  |
| Remuneration report                                                 |
| 46                                                                  |
| Statement of the CC's and the Accounting Officer's responsibilities |
| 48                                                                  |
| Statement on internal control                                       |
| 49                                                                  |
| The Certificate and report of the Comptroller and                   |
| Auditor General to the Houses of Parliament                         |
| 54                                                                  |
| Financial statements                                                |
| 55                                                                  |
| Notes to the financial statements                                   |
| 59                                                                  |

## Council Report

1. Format of accounts These financial statements have been prepared in a form directed Please refer to the earlier section on the CC Council (pages 8 
by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with the and 9) for full membership details.

consent of the Treasury in accordance with paragraph 12 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.

Each inquiry is conducted by a Group, usually consisting of between three and four members, appointed by the Chairman.

2. Brief history of the Competition Commission and principal activities The names, responsibilities, biographical details and changes to The CC is an independent public body established by the CC members are given on pages 76 to 80.

Competition Act 1998. It replaced the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 1 April 1999. 

Remuneration details of the Council members are disclosed in the Remuneration Report on pages 46 and 47.

The CC conducts in-depth inquiries into mergers and markets in accordance with the Enterprise Act 2002, and the regulation of 
4. Outside interests the major regulated industries in accordance with the legislation The CC expects its members and staff to behave in accordance governing those industries. Every inquiry is undertaken in with the Seven Principles of Public Life: selflessness, integrity, response to a reference made to it by another authority: 
objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, and usually by the OFT but in certain circumstances the Secretary its approach to dealing with the outside interests of members of State, or under sector-specific legislative provisions relating and staff is founded on these principles. 

to regulated industries. Since July 2005 the CC has also had jurisdiction to consider appeals against Gas and Electricity A register of the outside interests of the CC's Council, and Markets Authority decisions on modifications of certain energy other CC members, is maintained on the CC's public website: 
industry codes. The CC has no power to conduct inquiries on www.competition-commission.org.uk/our_peop/members/
its own initiative. 

reg_interests/index.htm.

## 3. Council And Membership 5. Financial Results

The CC consists of members, who are supported by staff. The The CC's main source of funding is grant-in-aid received Chairman and Deputy Chairmen are members of the CC. The from BIS. The CC draws down the grant to meet its cash Chairman chairs the Council (the strategic management board). 

requirements. Some other income is generated, primarily from The Council also includes the Deputy Chairmen, the Chief subtenants occupying space at Victoria House.

Executive, and three non-executive CC members. 

Revenue grant-in-aid received was £16,320,000 (2009/10: 
At 31 March 2011 the membership comprised the Chairman, three 
£19,655,000). Capital grant received was £566,000 (2009/10: 
Deputy Chairmen, three non-executives, and 32 members of the 
£345,000).

reporting panel, of whom 12 were also members of the specialist utilities panel, 3 were members of the newspaper panel and 6 
Income and expenditure is accounted for on an accruals basis. 

were members of the Communications Act panel. All members This treatment results in an annual deficit that is taken to the are appointed by the Secretary of State.

Income and Expenditure reserve balance that appears in the Statement of Financial Position. In 2010/11 the overall deficit for the year of expenditure over income after interest and taxation was £17,770,000 (2009/10 deficit £21,765,000). Operating expenditure was £21,740,000 (2009/10: £25,853,000).

6. Financial performance measure The final budget set by BIS for 2010/11 was £18,802,000 (2009/10; 
BIS reviews CC expenditure on the basis of department 
£21,256,000), made up of revenue expenditure of £18,237,000 
expenditure limits (DEL). Revenue DEL is operating expenditure and capital expenditure of £565,000; a decrease of 11.5 per cent plus taxation, less interest receivable and other income from 2009/10. The CC spent £18,336,000 made up of revenue receivable. 

expenditure of £17,770,000 and capital expenditure of £566,000 resulting in an overall underspend of £466,000 (2.5 per cent). 

The table below shows a three-year summary in DEL format The BIS budget allocation for 2011/12 is £18,038,000 made up of including the forecast for 2011/12. 

revenue expenditure of £17,738,000 and capital expenditure of £400,000. 

## 7. Income Arising From Cc Activities Not Reported In The Financial Statements There Is No Further Income Accruing To The Cc From Its Activities That Is Not Reported In The Financial Statements.

Under certain of the Acts under which references can be made by sector regulators, a statement of costs incurred by the CC in its inquiries is provided to the appropriate regulator, which is responsible for collecting these costs from the regulated body. The regulators collect these costs and surrender the proceeds to the Consolidated Fund, not to the CC. The CC also provides a statement of the costs of merger inquiries to the OFT, which is responsible for setting the level of merger clearance fees. The OFT includes the CC's costs of merger inquiries in its memorandum trading account used in accounting for merger fees.

8. Payment of creditors The CC is now committed to pay all supplier invoices by the due date or within five days of receipt if no due date has been agreed. Throughout the year 75 per cent of relevant invoices were settled within five days (2009/10: 96 per cent based on payment within ten days); 100 per cent was not achieved mainly due to the CC being a small organization which has a limited number of people who have authorization to approve invoices for payment. 

## 9. Financial Instruments Please Refer To Note 8 In The Notes To The Financial Statements.

10. Pension liabilities Please refer to accounting policy 1(f) and note 15 in the notes to the financial statements. 

11. Employee involvement The Accounting Officer has taken all necessary steps to make The CC has a Staff Council with staff representation from all himself aware of any relevant audit information and to establish parts of the organization and reserved places for two trade that the CC's auditors are aware of that information.

union members (from the FDA and PCS). This is an important consultative forum for discussing new developments affecting So far as the Accounting Officer is aware, there is no relevant staff. The Chief Executive runs monthly briefings and all staff information of which the CC's auditors are unaware.

are invited to hear presentations on issues of interest, updates on management changes and to raise any questions. This year 
14. Events after the reporting period the CC has run surveys on the quality of corporate services There are no events after the reporting period to report.

and staff attitudes to security to help formulate a security culture statement. 

15. Future developments These are described in the Chairman's statement and the Chief 
12. Employment of disabled people Executive's report.

The CC adheres to BIS's policy statement set out in its code of practice on the employment of disabled people.

13. Auditor The CC's annual financial statements are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG). For the year ended 31 March 2011 the cost of work performed was £34,000. The audit services provided by the C&AG's staff related only to statutory audit work. David Saunders' signature

## Management Commentary

1. The CC and its external environment CC welcomes this consultation and will continue to participate The CC is the Phase 2 body in the UK's competition framework. 

constructively in these discussions to help create an improved It can conduct inquiries only after it has received a reference, competition framework.

in most cases, from the OFT, or another regulator with powers to refer to the CC. The OFT conducts initial probes into For 2011/12 the CC has six key objectives, which are intended to mergers and markets, and refers cases to the CC where it has a improve the overall quality and coordination of its work. These reasonable belief that there might be problems with competition. 

are to:
The CC also has jurisdiction to consider appeals against Ofgem decisions on modifications of certain energy industry codes and 
- make the right decisions in market investigations, merger to determine price control matters raised in appeals to the CAT. 

inquiries and regulatory appeals;
Other regulators may make licence modification referrals or price control references intermittently.

- take the right remedial action and implement effective and proportionate remedies;
2. The CC's employees The CC had 125 employees at the end of March 2011 (122 at end 
- conduct fair and transparent processes;
of March 20101. Staff turnover for the year was 11.48 per cent excluding retirees and fixed-term appointees. This compares 
- ensure no undue burden on business or taxpayers;
with the CIPD 2010 Resourcing and talent planning survey which reported the overall employee turnover rate for the UK to be 
- ensure positive engagement with CC stakeholders and 
13.5 per cent.

external representation of the CC; and influence the development of international competition policy and imple-
30 per cent of the CC's most senior staff (Band A and above) 
mentation and learn from international best practice; and are women and the overall gender split is 50:50. The CC's average sickness absence is 1.3 days per employee per year; 
- support the organization by ensuring that efficient and this is significantly below the reported level of civil service sick effective services and support mechanisms are in place. 

leave which was at 8.7 days at March 2010. According to the civil service figures 41 per cent of all civil service staff took no sick 
6. Significant features of the development and leave in the same period, whereas 47 per cent of CC staff took performance of the organization in the financial year no sick leave. The CC supports staff working flexibly to help During 2010/11 there were 9 inquiries brought forward from the with their work life balance and caring responsibilities and 11 per previous financial year and 14 new inquiries. Of these, 12 were cent of staff have formal part-time working patterns—half of completed, 3 were cancelled, and 8 carried forward to the next these are men. The CC recruited 20 new staff up to 31 March financial year. Of the 14 new inquiries received in 2010/11, 8 were 
2011—of these, 40 per cent were women.

merger inquiries, 1 was a market investigation and 5 were reviews of undertakings. See Table 4.

3. Environmental matters The CC is committed to minimizing the environmental impact 
7. The main trends and factors that the Council considers of our activities. Up to 96 per cent of all waste materials are likely to impact on future prospects recycled via our nominated supplier Grosvenor Waste. 

The CC is a purely reactive body, conducting inquiries only after it has received a reference from the OFT, another regulator or 
4. Social and community issues other body with powers to refer to the CC. The CC's workload The CC supports its staff in contributing to society and may is therefore unpredictable and future prospects are affected grant special leave with pay to employees who act as magistrates, by conditions in the economy as a whole, changes to the legal elected members of a local authority or members of health framework in which the CC works, and the OFT's and other authorities, tribunals, training in youth leadership or other regulators' practice on referrals.

voluntary activity. 

8. The CC's resources and how they are managed 
5. Objective setting and strategy for achieving them The CC's primary resource is its staff; 59 per cent of CC 
The Business Plan 2011/12 was published on the CC website staff are skilled professionals with competition expertise in 
(www.competition-commission.org.uk/our_role/corporate_plan/
economics, law, accountancy and business analysis. Inquiries are index.htm) on 11 April 2011. The plan sets the objectives and managed by six Inquiry Directors. Inquiry work is supported by strategy for the new financial year and is approved by BIS.

inquiry administration teams and Corporate Services functions. Staff are managed by the Chief Executive, three Heads of The work of the CC contributes to the delivery of BIS's vision Profession, a Senior Inquiry Director, a Director of Policy and a stated in its Business Plan 2011–15, namely to create efficient and Director of Corporate Services. 

dynamic markets which will contribute to economic growth. In March 2011, BIS issued a consultation to seek views on proposals 
9. The principal risks and uncertainties facing the CC and to strengthen the UK competition regime, including bringing the the approach to them CC and the competition functions of the OFT together to form The principal uncertainty facing the CC is the variability of its a single competition and markets authority during 2013. The workload. To mitigate this the CC employs some staff on a short-term basis using fixed-term contracts, fee-paid workers, be closely monitored as possible changes are decided and agency staff, contractors and uses secondments both into and announced. 

out of the CC to give maximum flexibility on staff numbers. Students are also appointed as interns giving them experience The CC has continued to manage its risks through its risk of working in a professional environment for anything from management processes and policies during 2010/11. These are two weeks to three months. The CC also arranges appropriate more fully recorded in the Statement on Internal Control developmental secondments to other agencies when workload 
(pages 49 to 53), specifically under the capacity to handle risk is lower. 

and the risk and control framework. During 2010/11 there were no security or information assurance incidents reported to The other major challenge facing the CC was the actual budget BIS or the Information Commissioner's Office. A minor loss cut of £2.7 million in 2010/11, reducing the CC's budget to of historic (2005) krypto key material was reported to the 
£18.8 million due to public expenditure restraint. To prepare for Communications-Electronics Security Group. 

this, the CC implemented a number of efficiency savings and overhead cost reductions by significantly reducing the amount 
10. Resources and liquidity of office space the CC uses and subletting to other government The accounts show a cumulative deficit on the Income and departments and a small number of non-public-sector bodies. 

Expenditure Reserve of £6,555,000 at 31 March 2011. The Further savings will have to be made in 2011/12 to help to meet CC's sponsoring department, BIS, has confirmed that there government targets for reducing public expenditure.

is no reason to believe that its future sponsorship will not be forthcoming within the capital and resource budgets set by As mentioned above, BIS is consulting on proposals to merge Spending Review Settlements. The statement of financial position the CC and the OFT to form a single competition authority and indicates a negative balance because of timing differences to make other changes to the competition regime. The CC has between consumption and payment. The CC draws grant-in-aid identified two particularly important strategic risks relating to to cover its cash requirements.

the proposals:

- The first risk is that the eventual changes to the regime do 
not preserve the strengths of the current arrangements. In order to mitigate this risk, the CC is regularly in contact with BIS and HM Treasury to help shape the proposals and has 
been actively involved in discussing the options with a wide range of external audiences. 
Accounting Officer 23 June 2011
- The second risk is that the possibility of structural change 
adversely affects the CC's performance. To mitigate this risk, 
1. This employee data is calculated in a different way from the calculations 
the CC will maintain clear lines of communication between 
in the accounts which look at costs. The difference is in part owing to the 
management and staff about the outcome of the consultation 
change in the way the base is calculated to exclude agency staff this year. 
process and any subsequent transition process. This risk will 
For employee figures, the CC excludes agency workers and contractors.David Saunders' signature picture

## Remuneration Report

1. Remuneration policy Benefits in kind were zero. Taxable expenses relate to home to Remuneration of the Chairman, Deputy Chairmen and office travel, which are paid by the CC, including the Income Tax non-executives is set by the Secretary of State for BIS. The and National Insurance thereon. The Chief Executive chose not remuneration of the Chief Executive and all CC staff is to receive a bonus payment for 2010/11.

considered by the CC's Remuneration Committee, which is chaired by a non-executive Council member and normally meets Salary payments shown above for Mr Grey Denham, Dame twice each year. Reference is made to the Senior Salaries Review Patricia Hodgson and Ms Lesley Watkins relate to fees paid.

Body and the CC's Chairman writes to the Secretary of State for final approval of the Chief Executive's pay and bonus proposals.

The salary payments for Mr Roger Witcomb are for the period 4 January to 31 March 2011; his full year salary is £102,640 per year.

2. Appointments Members of the Council are appointed by the Secretary of State As at 31 March 2011, David Saunders had £4,532 of employee for fixed terms in accordance with the Competition Act 1998 as benefits which relates to untaken leave.

amended by the Enterprise Act 2002—see Table 5.

4. Pension details of Council members 
3. Council members' remuneration Mr Peter Freeman, Mr Christopher Clarke, Dr Peter Davis and The following information is subject to audit. 

Mrs Diana Guy are pensioned by analogy to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS), gaining benefits commensurate The remuneration of members of the Council of the CC is given with their salary and service. No contributions are made to this in Table 6.

scheme by the CC but the pensions are paid to retired members when they become due. Mrs Laura Carstensen has a private in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member pension scheme that the CC makes monthly contributions leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the benefits accrued in towards based on a percentage of her annual salary, in line with their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the the percentages paid on behalf of staff to the PCSPS scheme. Mr benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of his Roger Witcomb has currently opted not to be part of the PCSPS 
or her total membership of the pension scheme, not just his scheme and the CC are not paying any contributions to a private or her service in a senior capacity to which disclosure applies. 

scheme. Mr David Saunders is a member of the PCSPS scheme The CETV figures, and the other pension details, include the and the pension benefits quoted below are accrued from his value of any pension benefit in another scheme or arrangement total civil service employment, not just his time with the CC. As which the individual has transferred to the civil service pension non-executives, Mr Grey Denham, Dame Patricia Hodgson and arrangements and for which the CS Vote has received a transfer Ms Lesley Watkins are not part of the pension scheme.

payment commensurate with the additional pension liabilities being assumed. They also include any additional pension benefit The members quoted do not have pension arrangements that accrued to the member as a result of his or her purchasing differ from the standard. The members quoted do not hold additional years of pension service in the scheme at his or membership of the PCSPS (Earnings Cap) Scheme or accelerated her own cost. CETVs are calculated within the guidelines and accrual arrangements. 

framework prescribed by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.

The members quoted are not contributing at a rate other than Real increase in CETV
the standard PCSPS rate.

This reflects the increase in CETV effectively funded by the employer. It takes account of the increase in accrued pension The figures in column 5 at the start of period cash equivalent due to inflation, contributions paid by the employee (including transfer value (CETV) for 2010/11 are slightly different from the the value of any benefits transferred from another pension final period CETV 2009/10 shown in the accounts for 2009/10 due scheme or arrangement) and uses common market valuation to certain factors being incorrect in last year's CETV calculator.

factors for the start and end of the period.

Cash equivalent transfer values A cash equivalent transfer value is the actuarially assessed capitalized value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member's accrued benefits and any contingent spouse's pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits Under paragraph 12 of Schedule 7 of the Competition Act followed, and disclose and explain any material departures in 
1998, the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, the financial statements; and has directed the CC to prepare a financial statement for each financial year in the form and on the basis set out in the 
4. prepare the financial statements on the going concern Accounts Direction. The financial statements are prepared basis, unless it is inappropriate to presume that the CC will on an accruals basis and must give a true and fair view of the continue in operation.

CC's state of affairs at the year end and of its income and expenditure, recognized gains and losses and cash flows for the The Accounting Officer for BIS has designated the Chief financial year.

Executive to the CC as the Accounting Officer for the CC. The responsibilities of an Accounting Officer, including responsibility In preparing financial statements, the CC is required to comply for the propriety and regularity of the public finances for which with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting the Accounting Officer is answerable, for keeping of proper Manual and in particular:
records and for safeguarding the CC's assets, are set out in the Accounting Officer's Memorandum issued by the Treasury and 
1. observe the Accounts Direction issued by the Secretary published in Managing Public Money.

of State, including the relevant accounting and disclosure requirements, and apply suitable accounting policies on a consistent basis;

2. make judgements and estimates on a reasonable basis; 3. state whether applicable accounting standards as set out 
in the Government Financial Reporting Manual have been 
Scope of responsibility decisions, and that appropriate financial appraisal techniques As Accounting Officer, I have responsibility for maintaining a are followed; and sound system of internal control that supports the achievement of the CC's statutory obligations, policies, aims and objectives, 
- taking action as set out in *Managing Public Money* if the whilst safeguarding the public funds and the CC's assets for Council, or its Chairman, is contemplating a course of action which I am personally responsible, in accordance with the involving a transaction which I consider would infringe the responsibilities assigned to me in *Managing Public Money*. 

requirements of propriety or regularity, does not represent prudent or economical administration, is of questionable As Accounting Officer, I have responsibility for ensuring that the feasibility, or is unethical. 

CC meets quarterly with its sponsor department BIS. At these meetings, BIS is informed of all high-level risks, and in particular I am also personally responsible for:
any affecting our financial situation.

- the propriety and regularity of the use of public finances for 
I am also (as the Secretary of the CC) a member of the 
which I am answerable; 
CC's Council.1 The Council is the CC's strategic board and is 
responsible for ensuring the efficient discharge of the CC's 
- the keeping of proper accounts; 
statutory functions and that the CC complies with any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds. 
- prudent and economical administration; 
I am responsible for:
- the avoidance of waste and extravagance; and 
- advising the Council on the discharge of the CC's respon-
- the efficient and effective use of all the resources in my 
sibilities as defined in the CC's Framework Document which, 
charge.
together with the CC's Financial Memorandum, sets out the broad structure within which the CC will operate;
The purpose of the system of internal control
The system of internal control is designed to manage risk to 
- advising the Council on the CC's performance against its aims 
a reasonable level rather than eliminate all risk of failure to 
and objectives;
achieve statutory obligations, policies, aims and objectives; it can therefore only provide reasonable and not absolute assurance 
- ensuring that financial considerations are taken into account 
of effectiveness. The system of internal control is an ongoing 
fully by the Council at all stages in reaching and executing its 
process designed to:
- identify and prioritize the risks to the achievement of the 
and monitored; that appropriate procedures are established 
CC's statutory obligations, policies, aims and objectives; 
to address the risks identified; that staff are aware of risk management practices; and that risk training is undertaken as 
- evaluate the likelihood of those risks being realized and the 
necessary. 
impact should they be realized; and 
2. Additionally the Audit Committee reviews the management 
- manage them efficiently, effectively and economically. 
of Council and SMT risks at each meeting.
The system of internal control has been fully in place in the CC 
3. All managers of risks are given internal training and directed for the year ended 31 March 2011 and up to the date of approval to the Risk and Data Handling Policy published on the of the Annual Report and Accounts, and accords with Treasury Intranet. Further external training is available through the and Cabinet Office guidance. At no time has any part of the Management Development Programme. The CC is also CC's system of control been suspended.

currently developing an online risk management training package for staff. The SMT's commitment to the management As part of the CC's ongoing work to ensure that appropriate of risk is set out in its terms of reference and supported by systems of internal control and governance are in place, the CC, the Risk and Data Handing Policy.

in conjunction with BIS, has agreed a new Framework Document and Financial Memorandum and reviewed the terms of reference 
4. The SMT is responsible for the maintenance of the CC's risk for its key committees. Additionally a new Code of Conduct register in which risks have been ranked in terms of impact for Council members and role profiles for key post holders are and likelihood. This register is updated regularly.

in place. The new documents build upon and strengthen the CC's existing systems of internal control and governance and 
5. The SMT is also responsible for advising the Council about strengthen individual accountability.

key strategic risks.

Capacity to handle risk
6. The SMT is responsible for overall security, data handling and During the year the CC has continued to improve the risk information assurance policies and procedures and overseeing management process that it introduced in 2009/10 to enhance its effective security management.

capacity to handle risk. 

7. The Business Continuity Group (BCG), comprising relevant The CC actively identifies, assesses and manages key risks using Heads of Function, which I chair, is responsible for business the CC's risk register. In order to mitigate its risks, the CC has continuity planning and contingency operations. Also a team a clearly-defined risk management structure. Each member of of Incident Controllers is in place to deal with any immediate the Senior Management Team (SMT) is responsible for managing emergencies that may occur. Off-site HQ facilities and off-site the risks associated with their corporate plan objectives for IT arrangements are in place to ensure that the CC and/or 
2011/12. The risk register records all the CC's core risks by the core IT systems are up and running as soon as possible.

risk owner, the corporate plan objective and area of work directly affected by the risk. The risk register also includes the 
8. Policies are in place in the event of a pandemic or a terrorist CC's most significant or strategic risks which are managed by the attack.

Council.

9. The Security Working Group (SWG) works alongside the The risk management process allows the CC to monitor and BCG and reports to the SMT and the Audit Committee. It is manage effectively any risk that it faces, including new risks that responsible for ensuring that the CC implements guidance on have developed as part of a changing risk environment and panthe protection and security of its IT, physical and data assets. 

directorate risks (ie risks that have an impact across more than They implement guidance from: 
one directorate). 

- the Communications-Electronics Security Group, which is 
The SMT reviewed and approved its revised Risk and Data 
the national technical authority for information assurance;
Handling Policy in February 2011 and this was formally endorsed by the Audit Committee in May 2011. 
- the Cabinet Office; and 
The following risk management processes are in place:
- the Centre for the Protection of the National 
Infrastructure.
1. At each Audit Committee meeting a member of the SMT 
attends to discuss with the Audit Committee2 the risks that 
The Director of Corporate Services, who is the Chair of the 
they manage. Discussions provide assurance to the Audit 
Committee, is also the CC's Departmental Security Officer 
Committee that risks have been properly identified, evaluated 
and Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO). During 2010/11 
there were no security data incidents that needed to be 
1. The SMT includes the SIRO and senior representatives from 
reported to the Information Commissioner or the Cabinet 
across the CC. The SMT usually meets twice a month with 
Office.
a standard agenda item covering any exceptional issues that need to be reported, and any risk and data handling issues 
10. The SWG is supported by a Security Incident Team that deals 
of concern can be addressed at this time; ad-hoc meetings 
with data losses and information breaches.
can be arranged if there is an urgent issue that needs to be discussed. In addition, the SMT specifically meets quarterly 
11. The SIRO, with the help of the SWG, completed the 
to discuss risk and information risk management. In terms 
Cabinet Office Security Risk Management Overview (SRMO) 
of risk management, the SMT has the following overarching 
for 2010/11. This information assurance return has been 
objectives and is assisted by the Planning department in 
independently validated and audited by the CC's internal 
ensuring that:
auditors (BIS Internal Audit Service).
- the operational and other risks faced by the CC in 
12. Additionally the CC has used the Cabinet Office Information 
carrying out its functions have been properly identified and 
Assurance Maturity Model (IAMM) to review its Information 
are evaluated regularly and monitored by management at 
and Communication Technology (ICT) systems and 
appropriate levels;
processes. The review identified that the CC is currently fully compliant with the 2010 IAMM requirements and will now 
- appropriate and effective procedures have been estabwork towards achieving the 2015 standards.
lished and are maintained by management to address the identified risks;
Following a final review by the Audit Committee, and approval by me, the returns were submitted to BIS and the Cabinet Office 
- risk owners and those responsible for taking forward 
in May 2011.
individual risks ensure that:
The CC also completes quarterly risk assessment and data 
' identified controls are effectively managed and regularly 
handling returns to BIS. These returns have provided a high 
reviewed; 
degree of assurance that appropriate processes and systems are in place to ensure that the CC is able to handle security and 
' additional actions highlighted in the plan are carried 
information assurance risks effectively.
forward; and
The risk and control framework
' contingency plans are workable and robust; and
The CC's Risk and Data Handling Policy sets out responsibilities for the identification, evaluation and control of risks including 
- the existing management structures enable risk to be 
data handling, information and IT risks recorded in the CC's risk 
managed appropriately.
register. 
2. The following positions are responsible for managing specific 
The nature and impact of the CC's work leads the CC to be 
parts of the CC's risk register:
necessarily risk averse in its policies and procedures. The CC therefore has a low appetite for risk in its operations (while 
- Those risks that are identified as strategic are managed 
being fully prepared to reach potentially contentious conclusions 
by the Council. However, the SMT has a key role in 
in its inquiries, on the basis of the evidence, and therefore to 
ensuring that relevant risks are put up to the Council for 
face the risk of challenge in the courts). 
consideration, review and potential reclassification or inclusion as a strategic risk. The Council will also identify 
The CC's Risk and Data Handling Policy defines the importance 
risks.
of managing the CC's risks and is in line with HMG's risk appetite as identified by HMG Chief Information Officer. The CC's risk 
- Objective 1 risks (make the right decisions in market 
register reflects the CC's risk tolerance. Where residual risks 
investigations, merger inquiries and regulatory appeals) are 
are classified as low, the CC will accept the risk. Where risks are 
managed by the Chief Economist (in consultation when 
ranked as medium or high, the CC will endeavour to mitigate 
necessary with the Analysis Group or the Economist 
the risk. The CC will, however, always monitor any residual risks 
team).
classified as low to ensure that the risk is correctly assessed and does not change materially.
- Objective 2 risks (take the right remedial action and 
implement effective and proportionate remedies) are 
The following processes are in place as part of the CC's over 
all 
managed by the Chief Business Adviser (in consultation 
risk and control framework and demonstrate how risk managewhen necessary with the Remedies Standing Group or the 
ment is embedded into the work and decision-making of the CC: 
Remedies team).
- Objective 3 risks (conduct fair and transparent processes) 
' Head of Planning—considers risks in relation to 
are managed by the Chief Legal Adviser (in consultation 
business planning, freedom of information, data 
when necessary with the Practices and Procedures Group 
protection and the Members Support Unit. 
or the Legal team).
Any key risks are fed back by the Director of Corporate 
- Objective 4 risks (ensure no undue burden on business or 
Services.
taxpayers) are managed by the Senior Director, Inquiries (in consultation when necessary with the Practices and 
5. Every manager within the CC is responsible for identifying 
Procedures Group or the inquiry team).
the types of risks that fall within their own remit.
- Objective 5(a) risks (ensure positive engagement with CC 
6. An annually updated Corporate and Business Plan is agreed 
stakeholders and external representation of the CC) are 
with BIS. It contains the CC's priority objectives from which 
managed by the Director of Policy.
the objectives of all functions, teams and managers are 
derived.
- Objective 5(b) risks (influence the development of international competition policy and implementation and learn 
7. Project plans are drawn up for all inquiries and Inquiry 
from international best practice) are managed by the Head 
Directors report progress to me on a weekly basis. A formal 
of International.
progress report on the status of each inquiry is issued at key stages of the inquiry and the progress report identifies 
- Objective 6 risks (support the organization by ensuring 
key risks facing the inquiry, which are discussed in a progress 
that efficient and effective services and support mechmeeting. Upon completion of the inquiry, formal reports are 
anisms are in place) are managed by the Director of 
issued commenting on key aspects of the inquiry plan and 
Corporate Services (in consultation with the Corporate 
process.
Services Management Team, and the Corporate Services Review Group). Objective 6 risks also include risks 
8. Financial control and value-for-money considerations are 
associated with information assurance and personal data.
overseen by the Head of Finance and the Procurement Officer through the financial and procurement policy and 
3. A key purpose of the groups and staff teams identified above 
procedures, a strict delegated financial authority structure, 
is to provide a review group for the SMT leader to consult, 
control of purchases through a purchase order system and by 
to consider whether there are suitable mitigating actions or 
a monthly financial reporting system to all senior managers 
contingency plans in place. They may also suggest new risks 
and monthly reporting to BIS.
or challenge the current risks as well as the rating given to individual risks. 
9. Additionally the Efficiency Reform Group has put in place a 
number of financial controls with which the CC complies.
4. Below the SMT, a number of individuals are also responsible 
for managing specific risks. These are set out below. Any 
10. A CC Programme Board meets to review the progress on all 
significant risks identified by them are included on the CC 
CC projects, sets long-term CC strategy goals and reviews 
risk register:
benefits of completed projects.
- Individual Inquiry Directors are responsible for risks 
11. Project Boards are established for all major projects (such 
associated with each inquiry and report on the progress 
as the Internet Project Group) in accordance with Prince 
and risks associated with each inquiry through the Inquiry 
2 project management guidelines to ensure that projects 
Progress report. Any key risks are fed back by the Senior 
are managed under generally accepted project management 
Director, Inquiries.
techniques, including identification and assessment of project risks.
- Corporate Services managers are responsible for managing 
and recording risks within their area of responsibility:
12. A Staff Council, with representatives from staff at all levels, 
meets at least three times a year to advise staff of changes 
' Head of HR—considers risks related to HR and 
affecting the organization and to take account of their views 
Internal Communications;
and concerns.
' Head of Finance and Facilities—considers risks related 
13. Responsibility for the CC's health and safety procedures 
to finance, procurement and facilities;
(including the maintenance of annual external audits) is delegated to an officer. Health and Safety is a standard agenda 
' Head of IT—considers risks in relation to Information 
item at Staff Council. Additionally the SWG is responsible for 
Services, and the Information and Administrative 
ensuring that the CC complies fully with Health and Safety 
Services Unit; and
legislation.
Public stakeholders are not involved in the management of risk The internal auditors report regularly to standards defined in the because of the nature of the CC's work.

Government Internal Audit Standard and the Head of Internal Audit reports on the adequacy and effectiveness of the CC's The CC's risk and control framework, combined with the system of internal control and provides recommendations for changes made to the CC's risk-handling processes, ensures improvement. The Audit Committee reviews the progress on that changes in the day-to-day working practices of the CC can implementing any recommendations.

be made quickly and embedded into the CC's practices and procedures.

Significant control issues As part of the review of effectiveness, I am required to disclose Review of effectiveness any actions taken or proposed to deal with significant control As Accounting Officer, I have responsibility for reviewing the issues. Taking into account the tests in *Managing Public Money*, effectiveness of the system of internal control. My review of I can confirm that the CC has not had any significant control the effectiveness of the system is informed by the work of the issues during 2010/11 and currently has no significant weaknesses internal auditors, the executive managers within the CC who to address. 

have responsibility for the development and maintenance of the internal control framework, and by comments made by the external auditors in their management letter and other reports. The CC has strong risk management processes in place, and seeks to ensure that these processes help the CC to mitigate any risk effectively. My review of the effectiveness of the system of internal control as part of the Statement of Internal Control process has been considered by the Council and the Audit 
23 June 2011
Committee. I am content that plans are in place to identify and address weaknesses, and to ensure continuous improvement— for example, completing the SRMO return, conducting the ICT 
1. As provided by Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998, the Council IAMM review, considering the Information Assurance Strategy is composed of the Chairman and the Secretary of the CC, appointed and taking any mitigating action required as part of the CC's persons and such other members as the Secretary of State may appoint. 

overall risk management process. 

The Council as of 31 March 2011 comprises the Chairman, the Secretary, three Deputy Chairmen and three non-executive directors. 

The following processes were in place to maintain and review 
2. The Audit Committee comprises two non-executive members of the the effectiveness of the system of internal control:
Council, one of whom is an accountant, and three members of the CC.

1. A Council that meets at least six times a year to consider the 
plans and strategic direction of the CC and to review recent inquiries, high-level risks and discuss best practice across inquiry groups.
2. An Audit Committee chaired by a non-executive member of 
the Council which meets at least four times a year to advise me in my role as Accounting Officer on the adequacy of audit arrangements (internal and external) and on the implications of assurances provided in respect of risk and control in the CC. If appropriate, I will raise any concerns that I may have with the Council. The Audit Committee provides regular updates on its activities to the Council.
3. An internal audit service. This has been provided by BIS 
Internal Audit Service from April 2010 to date; during the year they gave the CC's Audit Committee an opinion of the CC's internal controls as being adequate and effective.
4. The work of the SIRO supported by the SWG, specifically in 
relation to the Security Policy Framework (the CC's security manual for staff, members and contractors) and in meeting Cabinet Office Information Assurance requirements. David Saunders' signature picture
I certify that I have audited the financial statements of Opinion on financial statements Competition Commission for the year ended 31 March 2011 
In my opinion: 
under the Competition Act 1998. These comprise the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, the Statement of Financial 
- the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state Position, the Statement of Cash Flows, the Statement of of the Competition Commission's affairs as at 31 March 2011 
Changes in Taxpayers' Equity and the related notes. These and of its net expenditure for the year then ended; and financial statements have been prepared under the accounting policies set out within them. I have also audited the information 
- the financial statements have been properly prepared in in the Remuneration Report that is described in that report as accordance with the Competition Act 1998 and Secretary of having been audited.

State directions issued thereunder.

Respective responsibilities of the Commission, Opinion on other matters Accounting Officer and auditor In my opinion:
As explained more fully in the Statement of Accounting Officer Responsibilities, the Commission and Chief Executive, as 
- the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited has been Accounting Officer, are responsible for the preparation of the properly prepared in accordance with Secretary of State financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true directions issued under the Competition Act 1998; and and fair view. My responsibility is to audit, certify and report on the financial statements in accordance with the Competition 
- the information given in the sections entitled Council's Act 1998. I conducted my audit in accordance with International Report and the Management Commentary for the financial Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards require year for which the financial statements are prepared is me and my staff to comply with the Auditing Practices Board's consistent with the financial statements.

Ethical Standards for Auditors.

Matters on which I report by exception Scope of the Audit of the Financial Statements I have nothing to report in respect of the following matters An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts which I report to you if, in my opinion:
and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from 
- adequate accounting records have not been kept; or material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are 
- the financial statements and the part of the Remuneration appropriate to the Competition Commission's circumstances Report to be audited are not in agreement with the and have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the accounting records or returns; or reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by the Competition Commission; and the overall presentation of the 
- I have not received all of the information and explanations I 
financial statements. In addition I read all the financial and nonrequire for my audit; or financial information in the Annual Report to identify material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements. If I become 
- the Statement on Internal Control does not reflect aware of any apparent material misstatements or inconsistencies compliance with HM Treasury's guidance.

I consider the implications for my certificate.

In addition, I am required to obtain evidence sufficient to give I have no observations to make on these financial statements. 

reasonable assurance that the expenditure and income reported in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes Amyas C E Morse intended by Parliament and the financial transactions conform to Comptroller and Auditor General the authorities which govern them. 

National Audit Office 157–197 Buckingham Palace Road Opinion on Regularity Victoria In my opinion, in all material respects the expenditure and London income have been applied to the purposes intended by SW1W 9SP
Parliament and the financial transactions conform to the 
27 June 2011
authorities which govern them. 

Report

## Statement Of Comprehensive Net Expenditure For The Year

Tabl
e State
ment 
of Comp
rehen
sive Net
 Expenditure
Tabl
e Statement o
f fin
ancial positi
on

The notes on pages 59 to 75 are part of these financial statements.

David Saunders Chief Executive and Secretary Accounting Officer 23 June 2011David Saunders' signature picture

Tabl
e State
ment 
of cash
 flow
s
Table State
ment 
of changes i
n Taxpa
yers'
 Equity

## Notes To The Financial Statements

1. Accounting policies 


Assets in the course of construction are capitalized at purchase These financial statements have been prepared in accordance cost and then depreciated from the date that they become with the 2010/11 Government Financial Reporting Manual operational.

(FReM). The accounting policies contained in the FReM apply International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adapted Depreciated historical cost is used as a proxy for fair value as or interpreted for the public sector context. Where the FReM 
this realistically reflects consumption of the assets. This is used permits a choice of accounting policy, the accounting policy for non-property assets that have a short useful economic which is judged to be the most appropriate to the particular life and/or have a low value (ie IT, fixtures and fittings and circumstances of the CC for the purposes of giving a true and intangibles). Revaluations would not cause a material difference. 

fair view has been selected. The particular policies adopted by the CC for the purpose of financial reporting are described The leasehold asset is revalued each year using private combelow. They have been applied consistently in dealing with items mercial output price indices supplied by the Office for National that are considered material to the accounts. 

Statistics. These indices can either go up, increasing the value of the asset, or fall, which causes a devaluation of the asset.

## 1.1 Accounting Convention These Accounts Have Been Prepared Under The Historical Cost (C) Depreciation

convention modified to account for the revaluation of property Depreciation is charged in respect of all capitalized non-current assets.

assets and charged to the Comprehensive Net Expenditure Account at rates calculated (less any estimated residual value) 

(a) Income
for each asset evenly over its expected useful life as follows: 
The net cash needs of the CC are financed by grant-in-aid from 
Intangible non-current assets
BIS.
Software licences
2 to 4 years
Income relates mainly to charges to tenants for occupancy and 
Tangible non-current assets
service charges for Finance, IT and Facilities along with charges 
IT
3 to 5 years
to other government bodies for secondees. Income is recognized when the service is provided.
Fixtures & furniture
5 to 10 years
Leasehold dilapidations
20 years
(b) Non-current assets

Leasehold improvements
20 years, ie over lease term Expenditure on non-current assets is capitalized. Intangible non-current assets comprise software licences. Tangible noncurrent assets comprise IT equipment such as servers, PCs 
(d) Notional Cost of Capital and printers as well as office fixtures and fittings and office Following the confirmation from HM Treasury on Cost of leasehold improvements. The capitalization threshold limits and Capital, the CC no longer accounts for the charge and therefore depreciation policy are explained below and at note (c). Tangible has removed the figure from this year's account. The Statement assets are carried at fair value.

of changes in Taxpayers' Equity details the restated balances for 2009/10 following the change in accounting policy. 

Expenditure on major IT projects is capitalized. This includes expenditure directly incurred on hardware, software and 
(e) Taxation

appropriate consultants' costs. 
 
(i) The CC is liable for Corporation Tax on interest earned on 
bank deposits.
Non-current assets are capitalized where the cost is £1,000 or over. However, for grouped purchases of IT equipment, IT 
(ii)  
Costs shown for capitalized non-current assets include 
software or fixtures and furniture, individual items with a cost 
related Value Added Tax (VAT). Expenditure in the 
of £200 or greater are capitalized where the total grouped 
Comprehensive Net Expenditure Account is also shown 
purchase is £1,000 or more.
inclusive of VAT, with the exception of costs relating to property subletting and some miscellaneous trading 
Consultants' expenditure is generally charged to the 
activities. The CC charges VAT to its tenants on property 
Comprehensive Net Expenditure Account when incurred. 
transactions and reclaims VAT on its related expenditure. 
However, where the level of expenditure is over £100,000 and 
Expenditure on property that is sublet and expenditure on 
creates a distinct asset for the CC which has a life of more than 
miscellaneous trading activities is shown exclusive of VAT in 
one year, consultants' costs that are directly attributable to the 
the Comprehensive Net Expenditure Account.
asset are capitalized.
(f) Pensions Where provisions for leasehold dilapidations are required, the Full staff and members pension details are given in note 15.

CC creates a dilapidations asset, using indexation to revalue the asset annually, and depreciates the asset over the remaining term Provision is made for the actuarially assessed liability of the of the leasehold. Further information on the dilapidations asset CC's 'PCSPS by analogy' pension scheme for members who are is detailed in note 7.

or were Chairmen or Deputy Chairmen. In accordance with HM Treasury guidelines, the full calculated pension liability is Details of the pension provision are provided in note 15.

accrued and recognized in the Comprehensive Net Expenditure Account.

(j) Financial instruments Financial instruments are initially measured at fair value plus No recognition of the staff PCSPS scheme is made in the CC's transaction costs unless they are carried at fair value through accounts as this is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefits profit and loss in which case transaction costs are charged to scheme and the CC is unable to identify its share of the underoperating costs.

lying assets and liabilities. Liability for payment of future benefits is a charge on the PCSPS. In respect of the defined contribution The categorization of financial assets and liabilities depends on elements of the schemes, the CC recognizes the contributions the purpose for which the asset or liability is held or acquired.  
payable for the year.

Management determines the categorization of assets and liabilities at initial recognition and re-evaluates this designation at 
(g) Operating leases each reporting date.

Rentals are charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure Account in equal amounts over the lease term. 

Financial assets The CC holds financial assets, which comprise cash at bank and 
(h) Going concern in hand and receivables, classified as loans and receivables. These BIS has confirmed that there is no reason to believe that its are non-derivative financial assets with fixed or determinable future sponsorship will not be forthcoming within the capital payments that are not traded in an active market. Since these and resource budgets set by Spending Review Settlements. It balances are expected to be realized within 12 months of the has accordingly been considered appropriate to adopt a going reporting date, there is no material difference between fair value, concern basis for the preparation of these financial statements.

amortized cost and historical cost.

The CC recognizes liabilities that will be funded by grant-in-aid Financial liabilities in future years, some of which the CC is not able to recognize The CC holds financial liabilities, which comprise payables. Since in these financial statements. For example, the net liability of these balances are expected to be settled within 12 months of the PCSPS by analogy pension scheme for members which is the reporting date, there is no material difference between fair unfunded will be met by payments from the CC's grant-in-aid.

value, amortized cost and historical cost.

## (I) Provisions (K) Reserves

The CC provides for legal or constructive obligations which are Income and expenditure reserve of uncertain timing and/or amount at the balance sheet date The CC accounts for its accumulated deficit in the Income and on the basis of the best estimate of the expenditure required Expenditure reserve. 

to settle the obligation. Where the effect of the time value of money is significant, the estimated risk-adjusted cash flows are discounted using the HM Treasury discount rate of 2.2 per cent a year in real terms (2009/10: 2.2 per cent a year).

## 2. Staff Numbers And Related Costs

(a)  
The Chairman and Deputy Chairmen's pension costs relate to payments made to the pension scheme. See note 
15 for information. The figure is a negative as the pension scheme reduced in value following the Government Actuary's Department valuation of the scheme. 
(b)  
Members of the CC during the year are listed on pages 76 to 80. Terms and conditions of appointment for members are determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, new appointments will normally be for eight years. Members appointed prior to the Enterprise Act 2002 are normally on four-year terms with an option to extend for a further four years.
(c)  
Members, including non-executive Council members, are paid a 'per diem' rate of £350 per day, which is equivalent to £50 per hour, and are reimbursed for their travel expenses.
(i)  The remuneration of the Chief Executive is included in staff remuneration. (ii) Salaries include redundancy payments of £57,500 (2009/10: £414,380). (iii) £271,000 was recovered in respect of the outward secondment of permanent staff (see note 4).

## Notes To The Financial Statements (Continued) 2. Staff Numbers And Related Costs (Continued)

Average number of staff employed The average monthly number of full-time-equivalent staff (FTE), including secondees from government departments, other organizations, staff employed on short-term contract and temporary staff, was:

Table A
ver
age num
ber

 of staff employed Following a review of support staff, posts originally filled by agency staff have now become permanent positions. All the posts were approved by the Secretary of State for BIS, following guidance from the Cabinet Office.

## 3. Other Expenditure

Table O
ther 
expendi
ture

The CC occupies 41 per cent of its office space at Victoria House with the remainder sublet. The accommodation costs shown above are the full costs before sublet income of £3,497,000 (2009/10: £3,340,000) which is included as income (see note 4). Operating lease rental costs included above were £6,174,000 for the year (2009/10: £5,575,000). The figure reflects the adjustment to the operating lease liability rental costs following the increase in VAT to 20 per cent. The figure under rentals under operating leases includes an amount of £124,000 which relates to the CC's rent-free period which has been calculated over the lifetime of the lease. Legal costs—appeals relate to the legal costs incurred by the CC on the inquiries that were appealed against in the CAT or Court of Appeal. In 2010/11 the CC received a reimbursement of legal costs from BAA following the Court of Appeal decision. Other administration charges include office supplies, postage, courier charges and other accountancy fees. The devaluation charge is the amount charged to expenditure because of the downwards revaluation of the leasehold asset. *See note 5.

## Notes To The Financial Statements (Continued)

4. Income

Table I
ncome

## 5. Property, Plant And Equipment

Table P
roper
ty, pla
nt an
d equip
ment

Assets in the course of construction carried forward are in respect of software licences for the Autonomy search tool (£107,000). This asset is now in use and has been transferred to intangible assets. The revaluation relates to a decrease in the value of leasehold assets based on the relevant Office for National Statistics and BIS price indices. 

## Notes To The Financial Statements (Continued) 5. Property, Plant And Equipment (Continued)

Table Pr
opert
y, plan
t and
 equipm
ent (
continu
ed)

In accordance with IAS 16 the residual value of the leasehold asset was reviewed and expectations differ from estimates in previous years. The change has been accounted for as a change in accounting estimate. See note 3. The credit to the Comprehensive Net Expenditure Account affects expenses for 2009/10; it does not affect any future periods.

## 6. Intangible Assets Notes To The Financial Statements (Continued)

7. Dilapidations asset
Table D
ilapi
datio n
s asset

The estimated cost of restoring Victoria House to its original state at the end of the CC's lease in 2023 has been capitalized. It is revalued on a quinquennial basis by surveyors, supplemented by annual indexation. The last review was undertaken by Drivers Jonas in March 2009 and an estimated settlement figure was given, which incorporated the floor space and current market factors. This has been revalued using appropriate indices for construction repair and maintenance as supplied by the Office for National Statistics.

Table D
ilapi
datio n
s asset 2

## 8. Financial Instruments

As the cash requirements of the CC are met through grant-in-aid paid by BIS, the CC has limited exposure to financial instruments. The majority of financial instruments relate to contracts to buy non-financial items in line with the CC's expected purchases and usage requirements and the CC is therefore exposed to little credit, liquidity or market risk.

## 9. Trade Receivables And Other Assets

Table T
rade 
receiva
bles 

## And Other Assets

Tenants' rent-free period represents a rent-free period granted to tenants. This amount is being amortized over the periods of the respective leases. The total rent-free period debtor at 31 March 2011, including those amounts shown at note 9 above falling due within one year, was £260,000 (2009/10: £274,000). The Competition Service rent represents the remaining amount receivable over the lifetime of the lease for the rent calculated on a straight-line basis.

## Notes To The Financial Statements (Continued) 10. Cash And Cash Equivalents

Table C
ash a
nd cash
 equi

## Valents

The CC's bank account is an interest-bearing current account with the Government Banking Service.

## 11. Trade Payables And Other Current Liabilities

Amounts falling due within one year:

Table T
rade 
payable
s and
 other current l
iabiliti
es

The Victoria House rent—deferred income relates to the amortization of a rent-free period. Under the rules of UITF Abstract 28: Operating Leases, the value of the rent-free period is being amortized on a straight-line basis over the 20-year term of the lease. The Victoria House rent—operating lease charge is the remaining liability for the rental charge over the lifetime of the lease which has been calculated on a straight-line basis.

## 12. Provisions For Liabilities And Charges

(a) Provisions for the year ended 31 March 2011 are:

abilities and charg
es 1
Table Pr
ovisions f
or li

The office relocation provision relates to the CC's former offices at New Court, London WC2, which were vacated in February 2004. Provision is made to cover contracted office rental liabilities at New Court. The provision was reversed in 2010/11 as the CC no longer has any further liabilities. The capitalized office dilapidations provision relates to the CC's offices at Victoria House. The provision is made to cover the CC's estimated liability to restore Victoria House to its original state at the end of the lease in 2023. This cost has been capitalized. See note 7.

## 12. Provisions For Liabilities And Charges (Continued)

Table Provisions for liabilities and charges 3
In accordance with the requirements of FRS 17, the CC has provided for the actuarially assessed liability of the CC's PCSPS by analogy pension scheme. See note 15. Table Provisions for liabilities and charges 4

## 13. Capital Commitments

The CC has no capital commitments.  
 

## 14. Commitments Under Leases Operating Leases

Commitments under operating leases to pay rentals for the remaining life of the lease following the year of these accounts are given in the table below, analysed according to the period in which the lease expires. 

Table C
ommit
ments u
nder 

## Leases

The CC has a 20-year lease for office space in Victoria House, Southampton Row, London WC2. The lease start date was September 2003. The total space is 8,260 square metres, of which 4,910 square metres (59 per cent) has been sublet at the 31 March 2011 and 3,350 square metres (41 per cent) is the CC's net space. The CC's net operating lease commitment is £60,583,000 (2009/10: £67,426,000). The terms of the Victoria House lease include a compounded annual rent increase of 2.5 per cent that is applied every five years. The operating lease commitments shown above include the compounded annual rent increase. The first increase was in September 2008 and was 13.14 per cent.

15.  Staff and members' pension costs be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a 'final salary' 
Ordinary and panel members of the CC are not pensioned.

scheme (classic, premium, or classic plus); or a 'whole career' scheme (nuvos). These statutory arrangements are unfunded Members who are or were Chairmen or Deputy Chairmen are with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament members of the CC's PCSPS by analogy scheme, gaining benefits each year. Pensions payable under classic, premium, classic plus commensurate with their salary and service. This is a defined and nuvos are increased annually in line with changes in the benefit scheme and is unfunded and non-contributory except Retail Prices Index (RPI). Members joining from October 2002 
in respect of dependants' benefits and additional employee may opt for either the appropriate defined benefit arrangement contributions to the classic and premium schemes. At 31 March or a good-quality 'money purchase' stakeholder pension with a 
2011 there were two active members and twelve current pensignificant employer contribution (partnership pension account).

sioners. The CC makes no contributions to the scheme. Instead it pays pensions to retired members as they become due. The Employee contributions are set at the rate of 1.5 per cent of actuarial liability at 31 March 2011 was £2,136,000 (31 March 2010: 
pensionable earnings for classic and 3.5 per cent for premium and 
£2,485,000). Pensions in payment of retirees (and deferred classic plus and nuvos. Benefits in classic accrue at the rate of pensions) increased by 3.1 per cent from 11 April 2011. The CC is 
1/80th of pensionable salary for each year of service. In addition, satisfied that any obligation it is unable to meet in the normal a lump sum equivalent to three years' pension is payable on course of its activities in respect of members' pensions would be retirement. For premium, benefits accrue at the rate of 1/60th met by the Secretary of State.

of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. Unlike classic, there is no automatic lump sum (but members may give The valuation was carried out by the Government Actuary's up (commute) some of their pension to provide a lump sum). 

Department from membership information supplied to it. The Classic plus is essentially a hybrid with benefits in respect of financial and demographic assumptions used in the assessment service before 1 October 2002 calculated broadly as per classic are consistent with those used elsewhere in central government and benefits for service from October 2002 calculated as in for resource accounting. The key financial assumption, that premium. In nuvos a member builds up a pension based on his rates of return net of price increases are 1.8 per cent a year, is pensionable earnings during his period of scheme membership. 

specified for resource accounting purposes by HM Treasury. The At the end of the scheme year (31 March) the member's earned following allowances are assumed: increase in salaries 4.9 per pension account is credited with 2.3 per cent of his pensionable cent a year, price inflation 2.65 per cent a year, increase for earnings in that scheme year and the accrued pension is uprated pensions in payment and deferred pensions 2.65 per cent a year.

in line with RPI.

During the period ended 31 March 2011 pension payments of In all cases members may opt to give up (commute) pension for 
£116,000 (2009/10: £105,000) were made to retired Chairmen and lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004.

Deputy Chairmen.

The partnership pension account is a stakeholder pension Mrs Laura Carstensen, Deputy Chairman, is not part of the arrangement. The employer makes a basic contribution of CC's PCSPS by analogy scheme. The CC makes contributions to between 3 and 12.5 per cent (depending on the age of the Mrs Carstensen's private pension scheme in line with civil service member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the pension arrangements.

employee from a panel of three providers. The employee does not have to contribute but where they do make contributions, Staff pension benefits are provided through the civil service the employer will match these up to a limit of 3 per cent pension arrangements. From 30 July 2007, civil servants may of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer's basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.8 per cent with BIS officials and ministers the various issues set out in the of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk consultation. Ministers are expected to publish their decision in benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement).

the autumn.

Further details about this and other civil service pension The Accounting Officer authorized these financial statements for arrangements can be found at www.civilservice-pensions.gov.uk.

issue on the date of certification.

For the year ended 31 March 2011, employer's contributions of £1,165,000 were payable to the PCSPS (2009/10: £1,222,000).

## 16.  Contingent Liabilities There Are No Contingent Liabilities To Report.

17.  Related party transactions The CC is a non-departmental public body (NDPB) sponsored by BIS and funded by a grant-in-aid from that department. BIS is regarded as a related party. During the year, the CC had various material transactions with BIS, all of which were conducted at arm's length prices. In addition, the CC had a small number of material transactions with other government departments and other central government bodies, all conducted at arm's length prices. None of the CC members or key managerial staff undertook any material transactions with the CC during the year, except for remuneration paid for their services and, in the case of members, reimbursement of home to office travel expenses.

The CC has sublet part of its office premises at Victoria House to the Competition Service (sponsored by BIS), under the same terms as its own lease. It has also sublet office space on shorter terms to the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, Legal Services Board, Office of Manpower Economics, Low Pay Commission, National Heart Forum and to a private company Sinclair Knight Merz.

## 18. Events After The Reporting Period There Are No Post Balance Sheet Events To Report.

The Government's consultation on possible changes to the UK competition regime closed on 13 June. The CC is discussing 

## Members' Biographiesrobin Aaronson Pictureprofessor John Cubbin Pictureroger Davis Picturecarolan Dobson Picturebarbara Donoghue Picturephil Evans Picture

Robin Aaronson (appointed in 2009) is an economist specializing in competition policy. In the 1980s he was senior economic adviser to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC). Subsequently, he worked as a consultant in the field, as a partner at Coopers and Lybrand and later at LECG. From 2000 to 2006 he was a member of the Postal Services Commission and he has previously worked at HM Treasury and in the Ministry of Defence.

Jayne Almond (appointed in 2005) is currently Chief Executive Officer of Stonehaven, a specialist mortgage lender, and has recently been appointed as an external member of Council of the University of Oxford. Jayne was previously Managing Director of Barclays mortgage business, Group Marketing Director at Lloyds TSB and Managing Director of its European Internet banking business. In her earlier career Jayne worked for Shell and was a senior partner at LEK Consulting.

Professor John Cubbin (appointed in 2005) is Emeritus Professor of Economics at City University in London. He was Director of the Centre for Competition and Regulatory Policy at City, where he founded one of the first Masters degrees in Regulation and Competition. He was previously an Associate Director with National Economic Research Associates (NERA); Professor of Economics at UMIST; Reader in Economics at Queen Mary College, University of London; and a Lecturer in Economics at the University of Warwick. He is widely published on the economics of markets, competition and regulation and has carried out an extensive range of consultancy studies in the regulated sector.

Roger Davis (appointed in 2005) is a Chartered Accountant. Until 2003 he was a partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers. For several years he was the Senior Audit Partner and then Global Head of Professional Affairs. He also spent two years with HM Treasury. He was until recently a board member of the Professional Oversight Board, the UK's independent regulator for the accountancy and actuarial professions.

Carolan Dobson (appointed in 2005) is the Chairman of Qinetiq's Pension Fund, a trustee of the Avon Pension Fund and an expert adviser to a number of other corporate and Local Government Pension Funds. She was Head of the Investment Floor at Abbey Asset Managers and a Director of Murray Johnstone and the fund manager of two award-winning investment trusts. She is also a non-executive director of Shires Smaller Companies plc and of JP Morgan European Smaller Companies Plc, Chairman of Lomond School and a council member of Sport Scotland.

Barbara Donoghue (appointed in 2005) is a banker with experience in raising capital, both debt and equity, in domestic and international markets. She is a non-executive director and Chairman of the Audit Committee of Eniro AB, and a director of Manzanita Capital. She is a former Teaching Fellow in Strategic and International Management at the London Business School and member of the Independent Television Commission and a Trustee of Refuge. She holds a Bachelors degree in Economics and a Masters degree in Business Administration, both from McGill University, Canada.

Phil Evans (appointed in 2009) is an independent consultant on consumer, competition and trade issues and a senior consultant to Fipra International. He spent a decade at Which?, has taught at a number of universities and authored numerous books and articles on trade, competition, intellectual property and shopping. He has provided technical assistance to the World Trade Organization, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and UNICEF and is on the advisory boards of the American Antitrust Institute and the Loyola University Consumer Antitrust Institute. He is a visiting fellow at Oxford University's Saïd Business School Centre for Corporate Reputation.Jayne Almond picture Professor Simon Evenett (appointed in 2009) is Professor of International Trade & Economic Development, University of St Gallen, Switzerland. He is also Programme Director of the International Trade and Regional Economics Programme of the Centre of Economic Policy Research. His research interests include national and international cartels, cross-border mergers and acquisitions, and the pros and cons of international norms on competition law and policy.

Richard Farrant (appointed in 2005) is a non-executive director of Daiwa Capital Markets Europe and of Daiwa Fund Assets Services, a member of the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and a Council member and trustee of the National Trust. Former positions include Chairman of Sustrans, Vice Chairman of United Financial Japan International Limited, Chief Executive of the Securities and Futures Authority, Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Financial Services Authority, and board member of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority.

Roger Finbow (appointed in 2009) was a partner of international solicitors Ashurst LLP from 1984 to April 
2009 where he spent the final five years as Managing Partner of the Corporate Department. He is the joint author of *UK Merger Control: Law and Practice*. He is now a consultant at Ashurst and has a number of board and advisory roles in the education, sport and career development sectors.

Ivar Grey (appointed in 2005) is a self-employed financial adviser. He also works as a non-executive director of Finance Wales PLC, non-executive director of the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Chairman of Kids in the Middle, and as Governor of Port Regis School. He acts as a Forensic Accountant and works with various charitable and business organizations. He is also a Chartered Accountant. In 2002 he retired as a partner with KPMG, having worked with them in the UK, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands.

Jill Hill (appointed in 2005) was a director of Remploy for seven years, after many years with Rolls-Royce plc. She is currently a member of the General Teaching Council for England, and a trustee of Guide Dogs for the Blind. She is a Chartered Engineer and a Fellow of the British Computer Society. She has previously been a non-executive director of NDI Ltd, a member of several trade organizations, including a Regional Council Member and an Education and Training Committee member of the Confederation of British Industry, and a director of the Employment Related Services association. She was an advisory member to the Foster Review on Further Education.

Thomas Hoehn (appointed in 2009) was previously an Economics Partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers. 

He specializes in the application of economic analysis to competition law, intellectual property and sport. Thomas is the founding director of the Intellectual Property Research Centre at the Imperial College Business School London where he teaches courses on IP Valuation and Strategy on the MBA and MSc programmes. He regularly acts as a Monitoring Trustee for the European Commission and is a director of CompetitionRX, a company providing remedy compliance and monitoring services in EU antitrust, merger control and state aid proceedings.

Katherine Holmes (appointed in 2009) has been a partner and head of the competition department at the London office of Reed Smith which merged in 2007 with Richards Butler, her former firm. Before joining Richards Butler in 1989, Katherine was an in-house competition lawyer for more than eight years, latterly as senior competition counsel at Guinness PLC; before that, she was at the Confederation of British Industry. She is the immediate past Chairman of the Joint Working Party of the Bars and Law Societies of the UK on Competition Law.Professor Simon Evenett pictureRichard Farrant pictureIvar Grey pictureThomas Hoehn pictureKatherine Holmes picture Alexander Johnston (appointed in 2005) is an external member of the Finance Committee and Chairman of the North West Cambridge Project Board of Cambridge University, senior adviser to a corporate advisory firm Lilja & Co AG and a member of the Thames Estuary Steering Group. He was until 2003 a Managing Director at Lazard, London, where he worked in corporate and project finance, mainly in electricity, rail and utility industries, in the UK and in Europe. He has also been Chairman of BMS Associates Limited, a reinsurance broker.

Ian Jones (appointed in 2005) is Director of Croft Consulting Services, an economics consultancy. He is a member of the South West Strategic Health Authority Panel on Co-operation and Competition. He was a director of Economic Consulting and Head of European Transport Practice at NERA, where he was involved in the privatization of UK airports and railways, and directed major studies for the European Commission on the use of market mechanisms to allocate scarce airport capacity; on rail infrastructure charging and regulation; and on competition in European aviation markets. He has worked with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the MMC, London Business School and the Government Economic Service.

Peter Jones (appointed in 2005) is a non-executive director of the National Nuclear Laboratory Limited, a Fellow of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants and a non-executive member of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. From 2003 to 2010 he was a director of Rhydfach Consulting Limited, a private consultancy company. Prior to forming his consultancy company, he was a Managing Director in corporate finance at HSBC Bank plc, working latterly in the energy and utilities sectors and previously on a number of major UK privatizations. He has subsequently undertaken consultancy work for clients including the Government's Shareholder Executive, British Nuclear Fuels plc and Royal Mail Group Limited.

John Longworth (appointed in 2009) was originally a scientist. He was an Executive Main Board Director of Asda Group Ltd and Asda Financial Services Ltd and held senior director positions at Tesco Stores Ltd and CWS Ltd. His public roles have included the board of a Healthcare Trust and the British Retail Consortium. He was economic spokesman for the CBI and Chairman of the Brussels-based CIES International Product Standards and Trade Body. Until recently a Health and Safety Commissioner and Chairman of the HSE Audit Committee, John also sat on the original Deregulation Task Force. He is Chairman and founder of SVA Ltd, a non-executive director at the Co-operative Group and a non-executive director of Nichols PLC. 

Professor Robin Mason (appointed in 2009) is Professor of Economics and Associate Dean of the Business School at the University of Exeter. Previously he was Eric Rill Professor of Economics and Head of Economics at the University of Southampton. He is a fellow of the CEPR and associate editor of the Journal of Industrial Economics. He has acted as adviser to Ofcom and the Prime Minister of Mauritius on competition policy.

Tony Morris (appointed in 2009) is a solicitor with over 30 years' experience of UK and EU competition law. Before retiring in May 2009, he spent 24 years as a partner in the city firm of Linklaters specializing in the control of cartels and mergers and the conduct of industry competition inquiries.

Malcolm Nicholson (appointed in 2009) was a partner at Slaughter and May specializing in competition matters for over 25 years until his retirement in 2009. He is currently a director of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and a non-executive director of the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where he chairs the Business Development Committee.John Longworth pictureTony Morris pictureAlexander Johnston pictureProfessor Robin Mason pictureMalcolm Nicholson picture Stephen Oram (appointed in 2009) worked for 28 years at director level in the regional and national newspaper industry and as a Chief Executive of daily, weekly and free regional newspapers. He was Director of the Newspaper Publishers Association for ten years. Currently he is Executive Chairman of the London Press Club, non-executive Chairman of a national newspaper advertising consumer protection scheme and National Secretary of the Western Front Association.

Jeremy Peat (appointed in 2005) is Director of the Edinburgh-based David Hume Institute and Chair of the BBC Pension Trust. Previously he was Group Chief Economist at The Royal Bank of Scotland from 1993 
to 2005, a member of the BBC Board of Governors and then Trustees from 2005 to 2010 and an economic adviser to the Scottish Office, HM Treasury and other government departments. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, an Honorary Professor at Heriot Watt University and a board member of both the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and the Signet Accreditation Company.

Ed Smith (appointed in 2009) is a former senior partner and Global Assurance Chief Operating Officer and Strategy Chairman of PwC. He now enjoys a portfolio of board roles in education, transport, sport, thought leadership and the environment and sustainable development. He is Chairman of WWF-UK, Deputy Chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and a member of Council and Treasurer of Chatham House. He is also a board member of the Department for Transport and Chairman of the Student Loans Company.

John Smith (appointed in 2005) has had a career which spans central government and regulated industries. 

He was Director of Regulation with Anglian Water (1990 to 1997) and with Railtrack plc (1997 to 2002). Previously, he was a member of the Government Economic Service, working mainly in the Department of the Environment, in the areas of transport, local government finance, environmental protection and water privatization. Currently, he works as an independent consultant, and is an associate of Indepen Consulting Ltd. He is also a trustee of Groundwork North London, an environmental regeneration charity, and a member of the Groundwork London Board.

Anthony Stern (appointed in 2005) is a director of InterContinental Hotels UK pension trust. He was Director of Treasury for Bass and InterContinental hotels from 1988 to 2003, where he participated in financing mergers and acquisitions, a number of which involved competition investigations. Prior to this, he worked for Dixons, Marks & Spencer and Chase Manhattan Bank. From 2001 to 2002 he was President of the Association of Corporate Treasurers. He has written for the Economist Intelligence Unit on aspects of financial markets.

Tony Stoller cbe (appointed in 2009) was Chief Executive of the Radio Authority until it was subsumed into Ofcom in 2003. He then helped set up the new regulator. He is currently Deputy Chair of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Chair of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust Board, Editor of *The Friends Quarterly*, a member of the Information Rights Tribunal, a trustee of the Ofcom Pension Scheme and a trustee of the Sandford St Martin Trust.

Professor Sudi Sudarsanam (appointed in 2005) is Emeritus Professor of Finance & Corporate Control at Cranfield School of Management. He is the author of Creating Value from Mergers and Acquisitions: The Challenges and co-editor of *Corporate Governance and Corporate Finance in Europe*. He has been associate editor of the *Journal of Business Finance & Accounting* and *Review of Behavioural Finance*. He is Honorary Senior Visiting Fellow at the Mergers and Acquisitions Research Centre, Cass Business School, London, and an affiliate of the Centre for Management Buyout Research at Nottingham University. He is a visiting professor at Imperial College, London. He is an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Bankers, London.Stephen Oram pictureJeremy Peat pictureEd Smith pictureAnthony Stern pictureProfessor Sudi Sudarsanam picture

## Members' Biographies (Continued)Professor Michael Waterson Picturejonathan Whiticar Picture

Richard Taylor (appointed in 2005) was a partner at CMS Cameron McKenna, where he worked for 30 
years and specialized in competition law. During this time, he also both founded and chaired CMS, an alliance of European law firms. He is a member of the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and is co-chair of the Corporate Social Responsibility committee of the International Bar Association. He is also a trustee of the charities Beating Bowel Cancer and beat (the Eating Disorders Association).

Professor Michael Waterson (appointed in 2005) is Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick. He held previous academic posts at the Universities of Reading and Newcastle and was President of the European Association for Research in Industrial Economics. He was also General Editor of the Journal of Industrial Economics. Currently, he is Chair of the (UK) Network of Industrial Economists. He has published widely in a variety of areas of industrial economics. He has served as Specialist Adviser to Subcommittee B of the European Union Committee of the House of Lords.

Jonathan Whiticar (appointed in 2005) is non-executive director of Countrywide Principal Services Limited and a Chartered Accountant in England & Wales and in Ontario, Canada. Until 2005, he was a Managing Director of The Royal Bank of Scotland, with over 20 years' experience in mergers and acquisitions, banking and capital markets. He is a consultant to professional regulatory bodies and has been a consultant to BIS.

Fiona Woolf cbe (appointed in 2005) is a consultant with CMS Cameron McKenna where she built an international energy and infrastructure practice as a partner. She has worked on energy, water and infrastructure reforms, projects and regulation in over 38 jurisdictions. She is a senior adviser with London Economics International LLC, a non-executive director of Three Valleys Water plc, a trustee of Raleigh International and a director of The Lord Mayor's Show Ltd. Fiona is an Alderman of the City of London and took office as Sheriff in September 2010 to September 2011. She was previously President of The Law Society of England and Wales.Fiona Woolf pictureRichard Taylor picture

## Academic Panellists

The CC has an academic panel of economists to act in an advisory capacity to staff. These individuals have been invited to sit on the panel because of their background and experience. Their biographies can be found on the CC website: www.competition-commission.org.uk/our_peop/members/index.htm. 

Dr Walter Beckert, Lecturer in Economics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and research associate at the Institute of Fiscal Studies and the Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice.

Dr Pierre Dubois, Research Director of INRA at the Toulouse School of Economics at the University of Toulouse, visiting scholar Department of Economics, Northwestern University, and a research fellow of the Institute of Industrial Economics.

Professor Richard Green, Director of the Institute for Energy Research and Policy, and Professor of Energy Economics and Director of MSc Economic Policy in the Department of Economics at the University of Birmingham.

Professor Paul Klemperer fba, Edgeworth Professor of Economics at Oxford University.

Dr Lars Nesheim, Lecturer in the Department of Economics at University College London, and Co-Director of the Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice.

Professor Volker Nocke, Professor of Industrial Economics at University of Oxford (on special leave) and a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Professor of Economics, University of Mannheim.

Dr Philipp Schmidt-Dengler, Professor of Economics at the University of Mannheim and Reader in Economics at the London School of Economics.

Dr Howard Smith, Lecturer in Economics, University of Oxford. Dr Andrew Sweeting, Assistant Professor in the Economics Department at Duke University, North Carolina, and Faculty Research Fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Professor Tommaso Valletti, Professor of Economics at Imperial College Business School, London, Professor of Economics at the University of Rome 'Tor Vergata', Italy, and Fellow of Centre for Economic Policy Research.

Rachel Merelie, Senior Director, Inquiries. Rachel Merelie joined the CC as an Inquiry Director from Cap Gemini Ernst & Y
oung in 2003. She previously managed business planning for Ernst & Y
oung, worked as a management consultant, and held a variety of posts in the electricity industry. She has an MBA from HEC in France. At the CC she led the market investigation into personal current accounts in Northern Ireland and has worked on a variety of merger inquiries including several in the media sector. She became Senior Director, Inquiries, at the end of 2007 with oversight across the inquiry teams.

Mark Bethell, Inquiry Director. Mark Bethell joined the CC in 2008. He previously practised competition law in private practice in Brussels, and was a case handler at the OFT. He has also acted as one of the UK's agents in litigation before the EC courts, and as an advisory lawyer at Defra. Since joining the CC, he has led several merger inquiries, as well as the CC's consideration of Bristol Water's price determination.

Douglas Cooper, Inquiry Director. Douglas Cooper joined the CC in 1999 as an Economic Adviser. 

He acted as lead economist on many merger and market inquiries. Before joining the CC, he worked at BIS dealing with various industry sectoral issues, and at MAFF
, working in the area of international agricultural policy reform. He holds a PhD in economics from Nottingham University. He became an Inquiry Director in 2007, and has led several merger inquiries, and the market investigations into railway rolling stock leasing and the current investigation into the Local Bus Services market.

John Pigott, Inquiry Director. John Pigott joined the CC in 2003 from consultants Stern Stewart. He had previously held various positions at Tate & Lyle including senior treasury, planning and IT roles. Since joining the CC, he has worked on a wide variety of merger inquiries, market investigations and appeals. His most recent work includes directing the CC's consideration of price control appeals by Cable & Wireless and by TalkTalk Group and the Thomas Cook/Co-operative travel agency merger inquiry.

Anthony Pygram, Inquiry Director. Anthony Pygram joined the CC in 2005 from the then Department of Trade and Industry, where he worked on, among other things, mergers, nuclear non-proliferation and state aid. He has also worked as a postdoctoral researcher in ceramics, in product development of microporous materials, and in the nuclear industry. Since joining the CC, he has directed several merger inquiries and market investigations, and spent a year acting as Director of Policy. Most recently he directed the consideration of possible material changes in circumstances that have occurred since the publication of the BAA Airports market investigation report, and the Ratcliff Palfinger/Ross & Bonnyman merger inquiry.

Caroline Wallace, Inquiry Director. Caroline Wallace joined the CC in 2005. She spent the previous five years at Oftel and then Ofcom, where she was a Director of Competition Policy. She is a chartered engineer and, prior to joining Oftel, had worked in the telecommunications, water and manufacturing industries. Since joining the CC, she has worked on merger inquiries in the transport, chemicals, food, entertainment and software sectors.

Andrew Wright, Inquiry Director. Andrew Wright joined the CC in 2005. Previously, he was a manager at Deloitte Corporate Finance where he advised on transactions in the technology and telecommunications sectors. He is a Chartered Accountant, having initially trained with Arthur Andersen. Since joining the CC, he has led inquiries in various sectors, including live music event promotion and ticketing, health food retailing, the transmission of television and radio, Stilton cheese production and mass spectrometry. He is currently leading the market investigation into Movies on Pay TV.Rachel Merelie pictureMark Bethell pictureDouglas Cooper pictureJohn Pigott pictureAnthony Pygram pictureCaroline Wallace pictureAndrew Wright picture David Roberts, Chief Financial and Business Adviser and Head of Remedies. David Roberts joined the CC in 2002 from Sainsbury's where his roles included Director of Corporate Finance and Group Treasurer. He previously worked for BP and Deloitte Haskins & Sells Management Consultants. He is a Chartered Accountant and has an MA in economics from Cambridge University. Since joining the CC, he has led advice on remedies and business analysis for a wide variety of mergers and several market investigations.

Lucy Beverley, Director of Financial and Business Analysis. Lucy Beverley joined the CC in 2002. 

She qualified as a Chartered Accountant with Coopers & Lybrand in 1997 and then moved to the firm's management consulting division specializing in telecommunications strategy and policy. Prior to joining the CC, she was Finance Director of an AIM listed company. Since joining the CC she has completed an MA in Competition and Regulation Policy from the University of East Anglia, and has led the financial analysis in a number of market and merger references and regulatory appeals.

Adam Land, Director of Remedies and Business Analysis. Adam Land joined the CC in 2004 from HM Treasury where, among other responsibilities, he worked on the Cruickshank Review of banking service and the Barker Review of housing supply. Before that, he worked as an economist at the OFT for five years, specializing in mergers and financial services. Since joining the CC, he has worked on a number of significant cases, including the Payment Protection Insurance and Home Credit market investigations and the BSkyB/ITV merger inquiry.

Graeme Reynolds, Director of Remedies and Business Analysis. Graeme Reynolds joined the CC 
in 2005. Before becoming Director of Remedies and Business Analysis in 2008, he worked in the economics team, acting as lead economist on the rolling stock market investigation and a number of merger inquiries. He has also spent a period on secondment to the OFT's mergers branch. Prior to joining the CC, he worked as an economic consultant for Andersen and, later, Deloitte, with particular experience in regulated utilities, notably energy and telecommunications. He is also a qualified Chartered Accountant.

Alison Oldale, Chief Economist. Alison Oldale joined the CC in 2009 from consultancy LECG, where she was Director. She has over ten years of consulting experience, including three years based in Brussels, and has provided economic advice on a wide range of competition and regulatory issues. She holds a BA in economics from Cambridge University, and MSc and PhD from the London School of Economics.

Robin Finer, Director of Economic Analysis. Robin Finer joined the CC in 2007. Previously, he was a director in the Markets and Projects area of the OFT, where he led market studies and Competition Act 1998 investigations. Prior to this, he worked as an economist on a wide range of OFT merger and antitrust investigations across many sectors, particularly transport and financial services. He has also worked in the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission in Brussels where he dealt with antitrust matters in the food, drink, agricultural and pharmaceutical sectors.

Tom Kitchen, Director of Economic Analysis. Tom Kitchen joined the CC in the late 1990s for his second stint at the CC and became a director in the economics team in 2003. He has worked on many inquiries. Before joining the CC, his competition and regulatory work focused mainly on the transport and energy industries.David Roberts pictureLucy Beverley pictureAdam Land pictureAlison Oldale pictureGraeme Reynolds pictureRobin Finer pictureTom Kitchen picture Roland Green, Chief Legal Adviser. Roland Green joined the CC in 2010. He previously advised a series of government departments on areas of commercial law and regulation, including energy, competition, communications and trade law. This included the reform of EU and UK competition and communications law from 2000 to 2006. He has advised on a variety of public inquiries, public law and human rights issues. He joined the Government Legal Service from Linklaters in 1986.  
Carole Begent, Deputy Chief Legal Adviser and Head of International. Carole Begent joined the CC in 2000. She has specialized in competition and regulation, previously holding legal and policy posts at the Office of Rail Regulation and Ofwat. Before joining Ofwat she was a solicitor in private practice specializing in corporate, commercial and regulatory law. In addition to her involvement with investigations, Carole has helped revise the CC's working practices and prepare guidance, most recently participating in the review of the merger guidance. She is responsible for the CC's participation and contribution to international discussion of competition policy at the OECD and ICN.

Morven Hadden, Legal Director. Morven Hadden joined the CC in 2007. She was previously a senior associate in the EU, Competition & Regulatory department of City law firm Simmons & Simmons where she specialized in EU and competition law. She was seconded to BIS in 2003 where she worked as a competition policy adviser on the media merger provisions of the Communications Act 2003. Since joining the CC, she has advised the CC on merger, market and regulatory inquiries as well as acting for the CC in litigation. She has also been involved in revising the CC's merger guidance and merger remedies guidance and in developing procedural guidance.

Simon Jones, Legal Director. Simon Jones joined the CC from the Treasury Solicitor's Department in 
2001. Since then, he has advised the CC in numerous merger, market, complex monopoly and regulatory cases. He has also acted for the CC in litigation and advised on code modification appeals and governance.

Rebecca Lawrence, Director of Corporate Services. Rebecca Lawrence joined the CC in 2005. She was formerly the Operations Director at the Rent Service (a Department of Work and Pensions agency). She has a background in policy development and implementation, change management and frontline service delivery. She holds a degree in housing administration, is a qualified Chartered Accountant (CPFA) and holds a postgraduate diploma in Public Finance and Leadership from Warwick Business School.

John Kirkpatrick, Director of Policy. John Kirkpatrick rejoined the CC in 2011 from the Audit Commission, where he was Director of Studies, responsible for the Audit Commission's programme of studies of value for money in local public services. He was an Inquiry Director at the CC from 2003 to 2006, leading merger and market inquiries. Prior to that, he held several posts in the Departments of Education and Employment and as a management consultant with McKinsey & Company, advising commercial and nonprofit clients. He has an MBA from Cranfield School of Management.Roland Green pictureCarole Begent pictureMorven Hadden pictureSimon Jones pictureRebecca Lawrence pictureJohn Kirkpatrick picture