Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee
Oral evidence: Pre-appointment hearing with the Government’s preferred candidate for the chair of the CMA, HC 523
Tuesday 28 June 2022
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 28 June 2022.
Members present: Darren Jones (Chair); Tonia Antoniazzi; Alan Brown; Richard Fuller; Ms Nusrat Ghani; Charlotte Nichols; Mark Pawsey.
Questions 1 - 19
Witness
I: Marcus Bokkerink, Former Senior Partner and Managing Director, Boston Consulting Group.
Examination of witness
Witness: Marcus Bokkerink.
Q1 Chair: Welcome to this morning’s session of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. We have two panels this morning. The first is the pre-appointment hearing for the Government’s preferred candidate for the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, Mr Bokkerink. Then we will have the Secretary of State session from 11 am.
Firstly, good morning, Mr Bokkerink. Thank you for joining us this morning. You know, given your application to chair the CMA, that the CMA is a growing organisation since the UK left the European Union. It has been asked to do a significant amount of additional work compared with what it used to do, whether it is the internal market, the Subsidy Advice Unit or the Digital Markets Unit. How do you intend, as chair, to create some stability at the organisation and to make sure that it is able to perform all of these new functions well, as well as performing the functions it had previously?
Marcus Bokkerink: I am delighted to be here to help to answer your questions. The first point to note is that the CMA has, looking from the outside, been relatively stable through the changes it has effected so far. In fact, it has achieved quite a lot in the last two years, in part because it has had a stable CEO in place, and the same interim chair for a while. Now clearly it is facing a major transition point, and there are three or four things that need to be done quite quickly, which I hope to be able to help with.
Just to acknowledge what it has achieved, through all the changes that you have described, it has taken on bigger and more complex EU cases, and seems to have been doing that quite well. Looking at the outside, it has taken on more consumer protection work than in the past, which is a good thing. It has really stepped on with the digital agenda, even without having the powers that the new or the proposed Bill is going to give it. It is to its credit that it has built up that expertise and started to take some action to make those markets work better. It has, as you say, at least set up the organisations and the infrastructure for those units, all during a pandemic.
I should acknowledge that it is starting, therefore, from a position of relative strength versus the past. It is important to understand the starting position of an organisation before you change it. The changes that are coming are a major transition, probably the biggest since it has been formed, because those new units have been set up and need to be operational. I expect that the complex EU cases will get bigger and more complex rather than less. There is a lot of change in the organisation that is going to take place, not least the leadership. There are four things that I can do to stabilise the organisation relatively quickly.
First, I am going to spend a lot of intense time with the organisation to get to know the people, how they work and how they make decisions. I really want to spend a lot of time with some of the external stakeholders—in fact, all the external stakeholders—because ultimately the CMA serves the people who live and work in the UK. It is essential to listen to all of them and learn from them. Through my experience, I have worked 30 years with consumer companies; I have worked 30 years in a people business. What I have learned is that, if you give people the right information, you can trust the staff and you can trust the consumers to make the right decisions. The ideas and innovation come from them. I need to learn what they are thinking and what they are hoping to do.
Secondly, really quickly, we need to get the new stable leadership team in place. These are in parallel, not sequential. Clearly, if appointed, I would be the new chair. I would really like to get the new permanent CEO in place as quickly as possible, onboard and mentor them, and establish what will be a partly new board, a more diverse board, which we can talk about, with more diversity of thought, using the opportunity of the new external hires to establish that. That needs to be put in place very quickly.
Thirdly, it is really important to get rid of what is the most destabilising factor that I can see right now for the organisation: the uncertainty around what is going to happen with the CS 2025 cuts. I hope that we get to talk about that, too. It is important to turn that uncertainty into certainty about what the future looks like, because it impacts its remit and what it can do.
Fourthly, this is the right time for a new CEO, with a new chair and a partly new board, to really mobilise and engage the organisation in a more outward-looking, forward-looking, lasting set of ambitions and strategies for the next three years. The CMA, understandably, has gone year to year from annual plan to annual plan, but now is the time to bring a bit of cohesion to the outward-looking, forward-looking durable strategy and ambition. That needs to be done with the organisation.
The hallmark of all organisations that can withstand change, from my experience, is that they are really clear across the board about what they are there for and why their purpose matters; they are really clear on what they are trying to achieve, not just this year but for the next three years; they are really clear on how they are going to do that; and they are really clear on the operating model they are working with, etc. The CMA does not have that today. This is not a criticism, but it is because of the way it has had to operate from year to year.
If we can get the organisation to co-create its future, in a way, I have seen that that makes a massive difference to the resilience of people to make day-to-day decisions and take day-to-day actions without being micromanaged. That is going to help to go through the next challenge, too. Addressing the uncertainty around what actually the resourcing will be in the first place is going to be important.
Q2 Chair: On that, the CMA has been struggling for a little while to recruit all of the talent it would like to recruit. There is a lot of competition in terms of pay, especially compared with private sector-equivalent work, for example, especially in the area of digital markets where they are hiring maybe types of people they have not hired in the past. You have mentioned the Government’s intention to cut the size of the civil service, which will apply to the CMA as well as the rest of Government. What is your ask of Government going to be when you are trying to recruit people while the Government are trying to cut the headcount?
Marcus Bokkerink: The ask or the discussion with Government is a very clear one on three levels. First, the CMA is part of the solution to the cost of living crisis, which I will go into. Secondly, there are some really important new responsibilities that the organisation has been mandated to do, which they need the resource to do. Thirdly, at different levels of resourcing, everybody is going to have to make some really brutal choices and it is important that the Government understand what those are.
On the first, clearly this current cost of living crisis has a massive impact on everybody living and working in the UK. That is without a doubt. It is only right that the Government should look for ways to alleviate that as much as possible. That is why the CMA has such an important role to play. From what I have seen throughout my 30 years, effective, dynamic competition is one of the best levers available to make sure that whatever you pay in the shops or online is not more than it needs to be, that you get better choice rather than fewer choices, and that those companies that do innovate can bring their innovations to market. It is a really important lever to address the problem.
Studies have been done every year. In fact, a rolling study of the impact of the CMA shows that every pound invested, as this Committee knows, brings £20 or more in direct benefits to consumers that can be measured. It is part of the solution.
The second point is that it needs to be able, therefore, to do the job that it is being asked to do by Parliament. Over the last two years, interestingly, the CMA has not grown resources due to having to respond to the pandemic. To its credit, it has gone online, it has gone remote, and it has actually been more productive. It has taken on more work as a result of Britain leaving the EU. The cases that it is now taking on are big pan-European or global cases, but it is doing that because it is asked to do so, and also, as importantly, because it is the only agency that is going to look after the interests of the UK consumers in evaluating those cases. The European Commission is not going to do that.
As you say, it has been asked by Parliament, by Government, to set up the SAU, the Office for the Internal Market and the DMU in order to make sure that it can stay toe to toe with the large digital companies it is trying to oversee and regulate. Those functions are important and it needs the resources to do the job. They have been planned, so let us stick to that. I hope those are taken into account, at least in terms of the resource discussions.
The last point is that, if the resources do need to be cut from today, it is important to just be very clear what that means. The CMA carries out non-discretionary work, which it has a statutory duty to conduct, with statuary timetables, which is mostly merger control. That has to continue at all events. What that means is that, if the current resources are less than they are now, some very hard choices are going to have to be made in all the other work. That means the work to help to protect consumers from anti-competitive behaviour.
You have seen the recent cartel injunction announcements, where various companies have been discovered making prices too high by operating a cartel in construction. That is important work for the consumer. You have seen the work done to reduce the drug prices that the NHS pays and that, therefore, all of us pay. You have seen the work to inform how PCR testing could be done better when that was going on. You have seen the work to bring refunds for consumers in package holidays. I see day to day how all this work is really impactful for consumers. If there are fewer resources, the CMA will have to be more selective about which of those it takes on.
I am going to be making the case for the Government to look at all the pluses and minuses in the balance, and where they can get the best benefits for the money they are investing.
Q3 Chair: Thank you. The CMA is accountable to Parliament. Do you propose to change in any way how the CMA reports to this Committee or Parliament more generally to enhance accountability?
Marcus Bokkerink: I very much welcome any suggestions from this Committee and other Committees on being more accountable and transparent, because I welcome that. I value it. The CMA should and probably does welcome it. There are at least five ways that you can make sure you are very accountable and transparent. I will explore, if I get appointed, how well it is doing those and will happily add to those and reinforce those.
One is to be very transparent about consulting on and publishing what your medium‑term ambition and plan is, what your annual plan is, and how you are doing against that, multiple times a year, to make that very public and to ask for the public’s input. It is doing that. If there are ways that can be improved, I would welcome it.
It is really important to then be challenged, probed and questioned by this Committee. I am very happy to come to this Committee as often as you like, together, I would argue, with the CEO. If I am not mistaken, during the last two years, the interim chair was not probed by this Committee once. We would understand, if I were in the CMA, that we are accountable to Parliament and the people it represents, who you also represent.
The third is to be very clear about how the CMA makes decisions. There are quite extensive documents, which I have read, that explain its decision making, both in prioritisation of cases and in how it makes specific case decisions to do with mergers. The latter is very long and you cannot expect everybody to read it, but the information is there. Being open to discussion on that is important and I would encourage that. Similarly, it is very important to be very open and transparent, once a decision is made, about why it was made and what benefits or the outcomes are expected.
I can see a potential for improvement there, because every case results in a final report, which is very detailed and articulate in exactly what was done, how it was done and why it was decided. I can imagine that, if you want to talk to a person in the street about why this is beneficial to you, it is not immediately obvious. To the extent that we can have more visible explanation of what was done, the benefits and the outcomes, in the simple language of day-to-day users, that would probably be helpful.
The last thing points to what I plan to do quite early on, if I am appointed, which is just more and more external engagement. The more you talk to people about what it is you are doing, what you are trying to do and how it is working, the more understanding there is and the more transparency is generated. I do not know if that answers your question sufficiently.
Chair: It does, thank you.
Q4 Mark Pawsey: Thank you, Mr Bokkerink. You told us about the four objectives that you have immediately on starting, but I just want to talk to you about the five functions of the CMA. We heard from Lord Tyrie, who gave evidence to us. He said that the CMA was doing too well in competition enforcement, and mergers and acquisitions, but there was a need for improvement in consumer protection, advocacy and markets. Do you agree with Lord Tyrie, in the first instance? If you do, how are you going to address those areas that need attention?
Marcus Bokkerink: Thank you for that question. Lord Tyrie’s observations probably stem from when he was on board as the chair of the CMA, which was a couple of years ago. I should say I very much look forward to meeting Lord Tyrie, and learning from his experience and from him, but I will form my own view about where there are gaps and where there are strengths. I will form my own view based on what I directly observe myself, which is why it is important that I spend time with the organisation, in the organisation, early on.
I do have a perspective on your question, which I will share, based on what I have learned and seen so far. Since the time that Lord Tyrie stepped down, if I look at the last two years, as I said before, in my view of what has been happening on the consumer side, the CMA has clearly made some positive steps to try to understand consumers better, because during that time it has started to develop relationships with Which? and Citizens Advice. There is more that can be done in that, now that the pandemic is not restricting people from talking face to face. There are various groups you can talk to, to make sure you get input from the consumer. I also see, just from looking at the cases that I read about, there are more and more cases that have to do with consumer enforcement.
On advocacy, during this time, one of the biggest pieces of advocacy, which I applaud, is the work done to put a light on the digital markets that have emerged as large digital platforms have grown, and how some of those markets may have very few competitors or few choices and, therefore, warrant potential investigation and the advocacy to set up a regime in order to help regulate that, ex ante rather than post hoc. The digital markets work is a good piece of advocacy and we should do more of that, but it is already a good start.
Q5 Mark Pawsey: In terms of the changes that you at this stage think are necessary and that you will find after your first few months in the role, do you think that the position and the role of chair has sufficient power, time and authority to effect the changes that are necessary?
Marcus Bokkerink: Yes, I understand the question, because clearly the role of chair in the CMA and other such departments is maybe a less directly mandated power than you would see in the private sector. You can achieve a lot through influence in various ways—through giving examples, through setting the agenda at the board meeting and what is discussed, and through what you tend to spend more time talking about with the organisation as being important versus less.
For example, as a chair, I could give a really strong steer, with the CEO, because it is important that the chair and the CEO speak as one voice. We could give a really strong steer on saying, “This original vision and ambition that you have as a CMA, which is to become one of the leading competition and consumer authorities in the world, may have been good, but let’s make it more outcome-oriented for the people we serve. Let’s make it anchored around consumers.”
Instead of doing that, we could say, “Let’s really look at the operating model and organisation, and how we can make that more effective,” because they will have various ideas on that, or we could not.
For all these things, you can have quite a lot of influence in making them happen if you put it on the agenda, and give examples from outside about why that works and seek alternatives.
Q6 Mark Pawsey: In your answer to the chair about transparency, on letting people know about the work of the CMA, and perhaps coming and reporting to Parliament more, you referred to the person in the street. Do you think that the person in the street has any idea that the Competition and Markets Authority exists?
Marcus Bokkerink: They probably have less idea than when one part of it was called the Office of Fair Trading, because that is something you can understand, which is exactly why it is important to increase the external engagement with consumers and consumer groups, as well as businesses and stakeholders. There are three reasons for that.
First, precisely as you say, it is useful for people in the UK to know that there is an agency looking out for their interests. Secondly, you get better input and more input that helps you to determine what kind of work to do if more people in the country are engaged and giving you the input. Thirdly, it improves your deterrence power as an agency. The more people know what you are doing, how it has had an impact, how you intervene and how that helps, the more people who are engaged in similar activities start to think and know that there is an active agency, as opposed to one that they do not even know exists. I definitely welcome it.
Q7 Charlotte Nichols: The CMA has not had a permanent chair since 2020 and the CMA chief executive, Andrea Coscelli, will shortly be stepping down. What challenges do you think the CMA may face as a result of a lack of stability in its senior management?
Marcus Bokkerink: As I hinted at before, I do not quite agree that there was a lack of stability up to now. While the fact that there was an interim chair for two years is not as ideal as having the chair in place, during those two years the interim chair, the board and the CEO were a relatively stable top team, as was the senior executive team. In terms of how to deal with the potential instability going forward, it is clearly unfortunate that an incumbent CEO is coming to the end of their term before a new CEO has been appointed, but an interim CEO has been appointed. The interim CEO knows the organisation very well. I am very confident that things will stay stable as a result of that.
The recruiting process for the new CEO, which, while I am not appointed, I am aware of and have given input into, to the extent that I can, is happening quite quickly and will be resolved well before the end of the year, I would argue. At the same time, the new board positions are going to be made public. I would like to see that process of completing the board done as quickly as possible. All of that can be done soon. In the meantime, we have an interim CEO.
If I am appointed myself, I will spend time with the organisation to make sure that people realise that they are being listened to and that we are not going to do anything drastic on day one until we have the CEO and the board in place, and we have a clear view, as a leadership team, of what the organisation needs.
Q8 Charlotte Nichols: How will your success as chair be measured?
Marcus Bokkerink: You can probably measure that both in the short term and in the medium term through the tenure. In the short term, it is linked to what I just said. First, are the leadership team and the governance team—the whole leadership structure—stable, fixed and in place? Secondly, is there clarity on the resources we are going to be working with for the next three years, which I again stress is essential, and therefore the remit? That really influences what we relatively focus on. You can ask of the chair and the CEO, “Has that clarity been given?”
Thirdly, has the organisation been mobilised and engaged? Does it understand what it is aiming to achieve for the next three years? How is it going to get there? What capabilities is it going to build up? Importantly, how does the operating model work?
There is a fourth thing that I would add, which is more long term as well as medium term: can you already see real evidence of more engagement from the chair, from the interim CEO, from the CEO and from the leadership team during the first year, on external engagement as well as internal? That is what you can hold me to account on and come back to me if it is not happening.
Long term through the tenure, I would look for very different criteria. First, at the end of the day, during this time, have the functions been executed reliably? It is an authority. You need to be able to rely on the CMA to deliver on its functions, all of them, reliably and diligently.
Secondly, because these are important, has it had real, measurable, tangible impact on the ground that you can point to, particularly in those areas that are important for the long term, such as enabling a low-carbon economy? That is not top of the agenda right now with the cost of living crisis, but the next cost of living crisis will come if we do not address the low-carbon agenda. The digital market is another big rock that needs to be addressed.
Then I would add a couple of other criteria that you can judge me on. During that time, has the CMA been transparent? Has it been open? Has it encouraged accountability? Lastly, is the organisation that is being left behind resilient? In other words, do they buy into the strategy? Do they have capabilities that are not reliant on one person, but are really established in the organisation? Are succession plans in place so that you do not have to ask that question again? Those are all fairly sensible and clear criteria that you can judge me on and I am happy to be judged on.
Q9 Charlotte Nichols: You have set out an extensive number of ambitious goals in your candidate questionnaire. This links into my previous question. How do you intend to ensure that you achieve these goals during your potential tenure as CMA chair?
Marcus Bokkerink: If I step back, what have I learned from advising companies of all different types over these years and working with their boards and executives? Those that continue to perform versus their ambitious goals ultimately rely on three things. First, they have a very clear ambition and strategy that is understood and embraced by the whole organisation. That is precisely why I am proposing to have this participative exercise early on to achieve that.
Secondly, they have their operating model and organisation in place to deliver the strategy. That is why that is one area I really want to make sure we look at, because there are things we can do to make it really robust.
Thirdly, they have the people in place to work in that model in order to deliver the strategy. It sounds simple, but in essence that is really what it takes. That is precisely why the resourcing discussion is so important, as is having another look at how we can raise the employee value proposition, i.e. the appeal of the CMA, for people who could be paid so much more in the private sector. Having those three things in place is effectively how I will make sure that those goals are met.
Q10 Charlotte Nichols: Are there any other issues or interests that you think are relevant to the Committee’s consideration of your appointment, or any final comments you would like to put on the record?
Marcus Bokkerink: Just to clarify, you mean interests that I have elsewhere.
Charlotte Nichols: Yes.
Marcus Bokkerink: I do not believe there are other interests, the simple reason being that, as I have not said directly, but through my comments I hope you will see, I think the chair will face quite an agenda, as will the new CEO. That requires real focus and it would not be wise for me to take on any other commitments at all when we get going and during this period. I have actually committed to, have already started, and in fact have already completed, ending all my other commitments and interests, etc.
In closing, I would just like to say that I have seen first hand, through my 30 years of work with companies, how foundational effective competition is. I really believe it. I have seen how the absence of it dampens incentives.
I have been very fortunate in being able to build up a lot of experience, which I think is relevant in competition, of how organisations work, through challenging executive teams and mentoring CEOs. I would love to be able to apply that experience to what I think is a foundational task. Thank you for considering me.
Q11 Tonia Antoniazzi: The National Audit Office noted in its recent Regulating after EU Exit report that, while the UK has stated its readiness to progress co‑operation on competition enforcement, as set out in the trade and co‑operation agreement, the discussions have not yet begun with the EU. You have spoken a lot about engagement with different people. How are you going to engage with the EU on discussions about competition enforcement?
Marcus Bokkerink: That is a very good question. The effectiveness of the CMA and any other agency in another jurisdiction is increased if the agencies co-operate and co‑ordinate. That is without question, for two reasons. First, there is a lot of learning that can take place, because the more people experiment, learn and apply the better.
Secondly, more and more of the companies we are dealing with span borders. To give them competing regimes just makes it more difficult for business and less effective for what you are trying to achieve as an agency. It is really important. There have been to date both formal and informal bilateral-type discussions between agencies. That is not at the political level but the people who do the work in the authorities or the agency. That is something that I would highly encourage and promote continuing, and I will do what I can.
Thirdly, there are these global international forums, at least two every year, that bring together the leaders of each of those agencies. Those are fantastic opportunities to sit together, talk about and co‑ordinate what we are respectively working on. It is not easy if there are no discussions allowed. As far as I can see and understand, and this is what I will work to achieve, we will keep the discussions going with the practitioners. It is in everybody’s interest.
Q12 Richard Fuller: Mr Bokkerink, what are your thoughts about ESG? You were head of the BCG practice or chair of the board of governors. ESG priorities have been important. What are your thoughts about those and how they affect your potential new role?
Marcus Bokkerink: As I alluded to in one of my earlier answers, the whole of ESG is important. There is the climate side, there is the governance side, and there is how you treat people and manage diversity, inclusion and equality. These are all essential. They are not in question. I would like to see, certainly on one of those, which is the low-carbon economy part, the CMA step up more than it has been able to do in having a point of view, proactively, on how it can help and how markets can be better prepared for that and compete better in that.
Q13 Richard Fuller: Help me understand a little bit better. The CMA has historically focused on competition. You seem to be putting a public policy goal ahead of that, which is to achieve net zero. Is that correct?
Marcus Bokkerink: If you want competitive markets that are also as conducive as possible to achieving low and zero-carbon goals, there are two things that are valuable for a competition authority to do. First, there will be specific areas, such as electric vehicle charging, where, rather than waiting for something to happen in terms of a competitive problem, you develop a set of recommendations. The electric vehicle charging study was quite an early example of pre-emptive, proactive advice and guidance, rather than waiting for there to be a competitive or concentration problem and saying, “We need to fix this,” which is historically how merger control works.
Secondly, because of the capabilities in the CMA—the economics, data science, econometrics and legal capabilities—where there are mechanisms such as the role of carbon pricing in giving incentives, the CMA owes the people and the Government its opinion on those questions. That does not mean it sets policy, but it understands how businesses compete, and, in my view, the people who understand how businesses compete should inform the debate about how you leverage that competition between businesses to achieve the policy goals that you just described.
Q14 Richard Fuller: If I can just press a bit more, one line that you were saying was the role of competition in achieving net zero as an environmental goal.
Marcus Bokkerink: The role of competitive markets, yes.
Richard Fuller: The other seemed to be the thought about competition having to work within a presumption that the goal is to achieve net zero.
Marcus Bokkerink: The presumption is that you achieve a productive, growing economy that is fair for all consumers and that delivers better choice and lower prices.
Q15 Richard Fuller: That is even if it is contrary to net zero
Marcus Bokkerink: Personally, I do not believe that. I believe there are ways to make net-zero goals—
Q16 Richard Fuller: When you say you do not believe it, what do you not believe?
Marcus Bokkerink: I do not believe that there has to be a conflict between the two.
Q17 Richard Fuller: There might be. What would you decide in that case?
Marcus Bokkerink: I would have to consider that. I do not have a fully formed answer to that. I would be very happy to get back to you.
Richard Fuller: Write back to us, yes.
Marcus Bokkerink: I am very happy to. My instinct, given what I have seen companies do and the ambition they have to contribute to the solution rather than be part of the problem, is that there are ways for free competitive markets to operate and achieve a lower-carbon outcome, precisely through mechanisms such as pricing the cost of carbon into goods and services. That should not be my opinion only. It should be a thought-out observation based on facts and evidence. All I am trying to communicate is that the CMA has the people and capabilities that can help that debate, rather than stay away from it.
Q18 Richard Fuller: It would be helpful if Mr Bokkerink could write to clarify, in his new role, whether he believes that the role of CMA is to promote competition within the framework of achieving net zero as a primary goal or to promote competitive markets, part of which may be to help achieve net-zero goals.
Marcus Bokkerink: Just to clarify, so that I come back and answer in the right way, it is also a point of view on whether there is an inherent conflict, which the question assumes. That is the bit I need to reflect on, because I am not sure there is an inherent conflict between a low-carbon productive economy and a competitive economy.
Q19 Alan Brown: Post-Brexit legislation from the UK Government included the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the Subsidy Control Bill. Both pieces of legislation were opposed by the Welsh Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. The CMA now has the Office for the Internal Market, but its advice is non-binding. What risks do you see in the politics and the tensions between the devolved Administrations and Westminster? How do you manage that, if there are disputes in policy?
Marcus Bokkerink: That is a very good question and thank you for asking it. As you say, the role of the CMA in these matters is to give impartial, technical advice on the implications and consequences of decisions by nations, whichever nation decides. It is not the CMA’s role, or my personal role, to become drawn into the politics of it. What we can and should do, and if I am appointed what I should do, is to continue to do what the CMA is there to do, which is to give a very impartial viewpoint that takes into account all the different inputs received, is very fact and evidence-based, and does very rigorous analysis in terms of supporting, and to make sure that is clear to everybody. Part of that requires being very engaging and open to all the devolved nations, which is why part of the external engagement I would promote is making sure that we do spend time in each of those. It is good to see that some of the people working in the CMA have now been spread more around the country, where people live and work.
If I were chair, I do not believe we should comment on the politics of it but simply on the consequences. If you make that transparent, the people with the power to make the decisions will make them. The CMA cannot make decisions, but we can be very transparent about the consequences of a decision, the options and the alternatives. Just be very clear and transparent on it.
Chair: That brings the pre-appointment hearing to an end. Thank you for your time and answers this morning. We note the commitment to a follow-up letter. We will consider and report in due course.