First Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 26th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 days, 7 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
18:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
interest intervention notice under the Enterprise Act 2002. This begins a process where the Competition and Markets Authority investigates the sale, and reports back to me on the effect of that sale on competition. I can then weigh up those considerations against other considerations specified in the Public Interest Intervention notice, before deciding whether the merger must be considered further or whether it can proceed. The considerations that I specified in the Public Interest Intervention Notice of the 5th of October were, firstly, the need to maintain in the UK the capability to combat and to mitigate the effects of public health emergencies and secondly, the need to maintain.
In the United Kingdom the continuity of the supply of telecommunication services for the purposes of preventing disruption to the economy and society of the United Kingdom, including in particular, disruption to public services, critical national infrastructure and the supply to customers who are or may be vulnerable. The first of these relating to public health emergencies is already specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002, while the second relating to the need to maintain the continuity of the supply of telecommunications services is a new consideration, which I believe ought to be specified in the act. If Parliament agrees, this will allow me to consider the impact on society and the economy of widespread or significant prolonged disruption to connectivity, alongside the effect on competition.
I believe it is right to consider the potential for disruption that would affect businesses, work and government services and result in significant difficulties across the country. I also believe that government must be able to fully consider the impact on vulnerable people, such as those that rely on telecare services, people with disabilities and health conditions, older people and people dependent on communication services to access emergency assistance. I believe that our legislative framework should reflect the importance of telecommunications in society, and allow us to guard against the serious consequences that widespread disruption of this kind could have in this age.
Above all, the resilience of the public services we all rely on, on which lives and livelihoods and critical national infrastructure depend must be taken seriously by governments across the world, and we intend to live up to that responsibility. The Competition and Markets Authority has now reported to me, with an assessment of competition considerations and a summary of representations received on public interest considerations in the coming days. I will consider their report alongside wider evidence on the public interest considerations and on the basis of that evidence. I will then decide whether to refer the case for a more detailed investigation on competition or public interest grounds, or both, or to clear the transaction without further investigation.
The government is committed to promoting competition in the broadband market as a route to protecting customers and driving investment. However, we also believe it is right to ensure we have the ability to protect the public by stepping in in circumstances we believe to be necessary to prevent disruption to vital public services. By taking seriously our responsibility to safeguard the infrastructure that we depend on to keep us connected, we are enabling people to live their lives, to keep working and to protect our families, our communities, and our country. And I commend this order to the committee.
In the United Kingdom the continuity of the supply of telecommunication services for the purposes of preventing disruption to the economy and society of the United Kingdom, including in particular, disruption to public services, critical national infrastructure and the supply to customers who are or may be vulnerable. The first of these relating to public health emergencies is already specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002, while the second relating to the need to maintain the continuity of the supply of telecommunications services is a new consideration, which I believe ought to be specified in the act. If Parliament agrees, this will allow me to consider the impact on society and the economy of widespread or significant prolonged disruption to connectivity, alongside the effect on competition.
I believe it is right to consider the potential for disruption that would affect businesses, work and government services and result in significant difficulties across the country. I also believe that government must be able to fully consider the impact on vulnerable people, such as those that rely on telecare services, people with disabilities and health conditions, older people and people dependent on communication services to access emergency assistance. I believe that our legislative framework should reflect the importance of telecommunications in society, and allow us to guard against the serious consequences that widespread disruption of this kind could have in this age.
Above all, the resilience of the public services we all rely on, on which lives and livelihoods and critical national infrastructure depend must be taken seriously by governments across the world, and we intend to live up to that responsibility. The Competition and Markets Authority has now reported to me, with an assessment of competition considerations and a summary of representations received on public interest considerations in the coming days. I will consider their report alongside wider evidence on the public interest considerations and on the basis of that evidence. I will then decide whether to refer the case for a more detailed investigation on competition or public interest grounds, or both, or to clear the transaction without further investigation.
The government is committed to promoting competition in the broadband market as a route to protecting customers and driving investment. However, we also believe it is right to ensure we have the ability to protect the public by stepping in in circumstances we believe to be necessary to prevent disruption to vital public services. By taking seriously our responsibility to safeguard the infrastructure that we depend on to keep us connected, we are enabling people to live their lives, to keep working and to protect our families, our communities, and our country. And I commend this order to the committee.
18:05
18:05
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, Mrs. Barker. And as the Secretary of State has set out, this regulation introduces a new public interest test for mergers enabling government intervention where a transaction could threaten continuity of telecom services and the objective to protect critical infrastructure, safeguard public services and ensure vulnerable customers are not left with connectivity, are ones I think will be common and supported across the committee. However, the context for these regulations is a specific case concerning BT and TalkTalk and the 2.5 million customers involved, including 5000 in my own North West Norfolk constituency. BT informs me.
But it does also highlight regulatory gaps. When a company may simply fold in this sector and the need to protect customers . So we won't be opposing the regulations. But the Sea does raise important questions about the speed of the process, the potential impact on competition and importantly, investor sentiment. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State thought it appropriate for her to come to the committee, which underlines those concerns that are shared across parts of the sector. First, in terms of the speed at which this intervention notice and statutory instrument have come forward, it was, as a Secretary of State said, the 5th of October when she issued a notice.
The Competition and Markets Authority was then only given ten working days to consider the transaction. Interested parties in a dynamic sector had only a few days to make representations on a detailed transaction. There is a concern that this transaction will further entrench BT's significant role in both the retail and wholesale markets, and the Competition and Markets Authority has completed the phase one report, but clearly we don't know what's in it and whether the Secretary of State will judge a phase two is appropriate. Can the Secretary of State confirm adding this intervention power under the Enterprise Act through these regulations would provide a basis enabling the government to override any competition concerns that are raised by the CMA or by other parties.
Of course, vulnerable consumers need to be protected and public services need to be protected. Having worked in the telecoms sector a little while ago, when T-Mobile was still a retail brand in the UK, I'm a little bit surprised that existing legislation, general conditions and other Ofcom powers could not have been used in this scenario. Can the Secretary of State assure the committee that all alternatives were looked at, and is the Secretary of State looking out with these regulations further at this point, and how a supplier of last resort regime could possibly be introduced. Looking at models from other essential services.
Clearly, the transaction does raise competition issues, given the comments that were made when the intervention notice was issued and the approach taken with these regulations. The government does risk creating the impression that the outcome has effectively been decided in advance, limiting the ability of the competition authority to discharge its role in full. We should be very careful before setting aside competition implications for wider public interest considerations, particularly where the goal that the Secretary of State has set of avoiding the loss of service has now been achieved. Clearly, we want to avoid any precedent where financial distress enables further market consolidation without appropriate scrutiny.
So how does the government intend to reassure inward investors that the principle of encouraging competitive markets and investment remains to the fore? Can she assure other players in the sector that the repetitive impacts that may have been raised by the CMA have certainly been raised by a number of companies that have spoken to me? Will be considered seriously by her in taking a decision on what the next steps are. Is the Secretary State confident that the CMA had sufficient opportunity, only ten working days to fully assess the implications of this transaction? And does she have an indication of when she might respond to the referral?
We support the objective of the sea in protecting consumers and maintaining vital telecom services. However, we also support effective competition, proper scrutiny and confidence in the independence of the process. Therefore, I look forward to the Secretary of State's response to the concerns and questions I raised.
But it does also highlight regulatory gaps. When a company may simply fold in this sector and the need to protect customers . So we won't be opposing the regulations. But the Sea does raise important questions about the speed of the process, the potential impact on competition and importantly, investor sentiment. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State thought it appropriate for her to come to the committee, which underlines those concerns that are shared across parts of the sector. First, in terms of the speed at which this intervention notice and statutory instrument have come forward, it was, as a Secretary of State said, the 5th of October when she issued a notice.
The Competition and Markets Authority was then only given ten working days to consider the transaction. Interested parties in a dynamic sector had only a few days to make representations on a detailed transaction. There is a concern that this transaction will further entrench BT's significant role in both the retail and wholesale markets, and the Competition and Markets Authority has completed the phase one report, but clearly we don't know what's in it and whether the Secretary of State will judge a phase two is appropriate. Can the Secretary of State confirm adding this intervention power under the Enterprise Act through these regulations would provide a basis enabling the government to override any competition concerns that are raised by the CMA or by other parties.
Of course, vulnerable consumers need to be protected and public services need to be protected. Having worked in the telecoms sector a little while ago, when T-Mobile was still a retail brand in the UK, I'm a little bit surprised that existing legislation, general conditions and other Ofcom powers could not have been used in this scenario. Can the Secretary of State assure the committee that all alternatives were looked at, and is the Secretary of State looking out with these regulations further at this point, and how a supplier of last resort regime could possibly be introduced. Looking at models from other essential services.
Clearly, the transaction does raise competition issues, given the comments that were made when the intervention notice was issued and the approach taken with these regulations. The government does risk creating the impression that the outcome has effectively been decided in advance, limiting the ability of the competition authority to discharge its role in full. We should be very careful before setting aside competition implications for wider public interest considerations, particularly where the goal that the Secretary of State has set of avoiding the loss of service has now been achieved. Clearly, we want to avoid any precedent where financial distress enables further market consolidation without appropriate scrutiny.
So how does the government intend to reassure inward investors that the principle of encouraging competitive markets and investment remains to the fore? Can she assure other players in the sector that the repetitive impacts that may have been raised by the CMA have certainly been raised by a number of companies that have spoken to me? Will be considered seriously by her in taking a decision on what the next steps are. Is the Secretary State confident that the CMA had sufficient opportunity, only ten working days to fully assess the implications of this transaction? And does she have an indication of when she might respond to the referral?
We support the objective of the sea in protecting consumers and maintaining vital telecom services. However, we also support effective competition, proper scrutiny and confidence in the independence of the process. Therefore, I look forward to the Secretary of State's response to the concerns and questions I raised.
18:09
18:09
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, Mrs. Barker. It's a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I'm just going to speak very briefly in my role, as you said, the chair of the digital, culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Telecoms is very new to our committee's remit and of course, indeed to that of the Secretary of State as well. I'm very pleased to see her in her place today. We look forward to scrutinising the government's work in this really important area. With that in mind, I've just got a few very broad questions for the Secretary of State about the instrument before us today.
First of all, there are protections for vulnerable people and national infrastructure under previous legislation. I just wondered if the Secretary of State could expand a little bit further on why she felt that they are insufficient in what she's seeking to achieve, and in particular, the protection of vulnerable customers. Secondly, what assessment has she made of how frequently this provision is likely to be used beyond the particular circumstances of TalkTalk? Does she assess that there's any other issues with the overall financial resilience of broadband providers and the potential future use for this legislation? Next, and further to that, will the Secretary of State consider publishing guidance, setting out the circumstances in which this new provision might be applied, and what evidence of a risk to continuity of service would she expect to see before she was to intervene?
Next, while the continuity of telecom services is obviously vitally important for consumers, so is effective competition and opportunities to attract investment. Consumers rely on healthy competition to keep the costs down, to keep bills down, to improve the quality of their broadband services. So how will excuse me, how will the Secretary of State balance these objectives when assessing a merger in particular? How does she assess the implications for competition of the BT TalkTalk deal, given that BT has a share of almost 40% of the broadband market alongside its ownership of Openreach , and without prejudicing the outcome of the investigation, does she think the next fibre Netanya deal raises similar questions about the continuity of service and financial resilience?
Or does she see that there are important differences between the two cases? Sorry, I've got a few more questions. Next, can the Secretary of State tell us what mechanisms exist to protect consumers in cases where a provider fails and no buyer can be found? She mentioned that that might have been a issue in this case. So I wonder if the government has the powers and tools needed to maintain continuity of service in those circumstances, and whether this this legislation would actually help offer that. And finally, this has been very fast. I understand the CMA has now reported to the Secretary of State on BT and TalkTalk.
The pace of this has been really unusual, a very short window in particular for comments. Does she know on what basis the CMA decided on such a short window, and could she indicate when she expects to announce whether or not the matter will be referred for a more detailed investigation? I really look forward to the Secretary of State's answers today, and to her ongoing engagement with the Committee on the resilience and the competitiveness of telecom sector.
First of all, there are protections for vulnerable people and national infrastructure under previous legislation. I just wondered if the Secretary of State could expand a little bit further on why she felt that they are insufficient in what she's seeking to achieve, and in particular, the protection of vulnerable customers. Secondly, what assessment has she made of how frequently this provision is likely to be used beyond the particular circumstances of TalkTalk? Does she assess that there's any other issues with the overall financial resilience of broadband providers and the potential future use for this legislation? Next, and further to that, will the Secretary of State consider publishing guidance, setting out the circumstances in which this new provision might be applied, and what evidence of a risk to continuity of service would she expect to see before she was to intervene?
Next, while the continuity of telecom services is obviously vitally important for consumers, so is effective competition and opportunities to attract investment. Consumers rely on healthy competition to keep the costs down, to keep bills down, to improve the quality of their broadband services. So how will excuse me, how will the Secretary of State balance these objectives when assessing a merger in particular? How does she assess the implications for competition of the BT TalkTalk deal, given that BT has a share of almost 40% of the broadband market alongside its ownership of Openreach , and without prejudicing the outcome of the investigation, does she think the next fibre Netanya deal raises similar questions about the continuity of service and financial resilience?
Or does she see that there are important differences between the two cases? Sorry, I've got a few more questions. Next, can the Secretary of State tell us what mechanisms exist to protect consumers in cases where a provider fails and no buyer can be found? She mentioned that that might have been a issue in this case. So I wonder if the government has the powers and tools needed to maintain continuity of service in those circumstances, and whether this this legislation would actually help offer that. And finally, this has been very fast. I understand the CMA has now reported to the Secretary of State on BT and TalkTalk.
The pace of this has been really unusual, a very short window in particular for comments. Does she know on what basis the CMA decided on such a short window, and could she indicate when she expects to announce whether or not the matter will be referred for a more detailed investigation? I really look forward to the Secretary of State's answers today, and to her ongoing engagement with the Committee on the resilience and the competitiveness of telecom sector.
18:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, and Mrs. Barker and I will try, in the short time available, to just give as comprehensive answers as I possibly can to those questions, but I will, of course, make myself available to all members of the House to discuss this in further detail should you wish. Firstly, the honourable gentleman, the Shadow Minister, asked whether this gives me grounds to overrule the Competition and Markets Authority. It gives me additional considerations that I can take into account when I weigh up the competition issues that may be raised by the Competition and Markets Authority against other public interest considerations.
So I already have grounds if should I require to overrule the competition concerns in the public interest? But it's my belief that those those considerations that I'm allowed to look at are too narrow for this case and potentially for many others in the future. But he asked whether this outcome has been predetermined. I do want to say to the House it absolutely has not. Not only does the law preclude me from doing that, but, you know, as set out very well by the chairman of the select committee. And I know it's a view that will be shared by the front bench.
There are there are, of course, risks of this deal unravelling, but there are also risks of harming the competitors of a sector where that competition has helped to drive down bills to protect consumers, to drive investment into the industry and help to protect the resilience of the industry as well. So this is a genuine attempt to make sure that the government can consider all of these considerations in the round and come to a conclusion that is in the interests of the public as a whole. Second of all, he asked. Did have we interrogated to the fullest extent the powers that currently exist and whether they could be used?
We absolutely have. And the minister and myself and a specialist team within the Department have looked at every different power that is available to us. But what we found having, you know, a bit like the honourable lady who chairs the select committee, only having had responsibility for this for for a matter of weeks, what we found was a great big gaping hole in the legislation, which will not be filled in its entirety by the statutory instrument that is before us, but will enable us at least to make to come to a good judgment, whatever that judgment may be, about what is in the public interest when it comes to this particular deal and deals like it.
That he asks about the supplier of last resort and whether we've considered introducing that. It's very similar to the question that the honourable lady asked about. Well, we whether we would consider new legislation where a provider fails and a new buyer can't be found. There is nothing currently that we can find in existing legislation that allows the government to intervene or to facilitate an intervention. In that instance, I do believe that is a problem, and it is something that I'm sure the committee will want to look at. But also, I'd be very happy to discuss with the minister and the shadow Secretary of State as well.
I think telecoms is increasingly important to the way that we live, to our national security, to our energy infrastructure, to people's lives and people's livelihoods. And I think we do need a new approach to regulation in this area, not to be overburdensome, certainly not to harm competitiveness, but to make sure that we have the resilience that we need in a critical industry. He asked whether whether the outcome has been predetermined. I think I've covered that. He also looked at the speed and whether the CMA had sufficient opportunity to consider. I do want to say to the House that I recognise that the speed with which we're doing this is not the way that we would normally seek to legislate.
Those who know me and these benches will and opposite benches will know that I do like to give Parliament the time to fully consider what what it is that we're proposing. And also there have been a number of instances where we've changed our approach as a consequence of the views of members of both houses who've pointed out both technical deficiencies and also policy issues with some of the original proposals that we've made. But we did discuss this with the CMA. And obviously, they they were acutely aware that the timing was very tight, but they felt that the time that we gave them was manageable.
In order to give us a preliminary view that would enable me to then proceed to the next stage and make a decision about whether further investigation was warranted, and I am intending to respond as quickly as possible. I wouldn't have brought this to the House with the urgency that we have if I didn't believe that. We also need to act with urgency. I have to make the right decision, and I have to balance all those considerations. And I do have to fully consider the impact on the competitiveness of a market that for which which is which is underpinned by decent competition.
So I can't I can't act with haste, but I can act with with as much speed as possible. The chairwoman of the select committee asked why the existing legislation is deficient. Put simply because there was only one grounds in this case on which we could intervene, and that is the public health emergency provisions , which may cover the the existing Telecare customers, but we don't believe would cover customers who are vulnerable and who rely on being connected in order to access emergency services outside of that system. And in any case, do not cover the 1.5 million customers who many of whom whose livelihoods depend on this, as well as the critical national infrastructure that I talked about, the the she she asked about the overall financial resilience of the sector.
I am concerned about the fragility of that sector. And although we have a telecoms industry in this country to be proud of and have over successive governments managed to drive investment into that industry, to retain competitiveness, to keep bills lower than they are in many comparable countries. For consumers. I do think that it warrants us all collectively as a House, taking a fresh look at whether we've got the resilience in the sector that we need Will, we can consider setting out a framework for how this is used. I think that framework already exists. I would be happy to to discuss that with the Honourable Lady further, but I think that framework is already actually quite tightly defined by the process under which I am required to operate under the Enterprise Act.
What what is too tightly defined, in my view, of the considerations that a government can take into account, which would have precluded me from taking into account a number of key, key, key areas of public interest and public benefit. In this case, she asked what evidence I would need to see in order to intervene further. I mean, there are certainly circumstances in which the the dominance of one, one player in a market could have major implications for the viability of that market. And in those circumstances, I would need to be satisfied that the that if a deal was detrimental to competition, that that wouldn't in itself lead to the outcomes that have driven me to bring these additional public interest considerations before the House.
So I do want to be clear, you know, as as I gave the commitment to the honourable gentleman, the Shadow Minister, that this this is not by any sense a done deal or a predetermined outcome. But I do think we owe it to the public to ensure that we take into account things that are of great interest and great importance to them in coming to that decision. How will I assess competition issues? Well, I will take account of the the, the the report that has just been handed to me last week by the Competition and Markets Authority, I should say to the House, I haven't yet had an opportunity to digest that report because officials are reading through it with a level of technical detail and providing some advice to me on that.
But I will look at the report in full later this week and the advice that I've been given and do my best to come to a decision quickly. She asked about other current cases. I can't comment on those at the current time, but I'd be very happy to to discuss with her the framework as a whole and how we how we make sure that it is as robust as possible. And finally, just to reiterate that this is an unusual level of pace, and I don't believe that it is an ideal way to legislate in ideal circumstances, but these are not ideal circumstances.
I think we haven't got the resilience in the legislation that we need enable, in order to enable us to live up to our responsibilities as a government and to as a parliament, to protecting people and acting in the public interest. I think with this expanded scope, it will give me the opportunity to look at all of these issues in the round and come to the right determination. And I do want to thank the House sincerely for the willingness to engage with us over the last couple of weeks since we laid this statutory instrument to make sure that we have the powers that we need now to act in the public interest, but also to welcome the opportunity to have a much more thorough debate and discussion about how we collectively shape the future of the legislation surrounding this critical industry in the future.
So I already have grounds if should I require to overrule the competition concerns in the public interest? But it's my belief that those those considerations that I'm allowed to look at are too narrow for this case and potentially for many others in the future. But he asked whether this outcome has been predetermined. I do want to say to the House it absolutely has not. Not only does the law preclude me from doing that, but, you know, as set out very well by the chairman of the select committee. And I know it's a view that will be shared by the front bench.
There are there are, of course, risks of this deal unravelling, but there are also risks of harming the competitors of a sector where that competition has helped to drive down bills to protect consumers, to drive investment into the industry and help to protect the resilience of the industry as well. So this is a genuine attempt to make sure that the government can consider all of these considerations in the round and come to a conclusion that is in the interests of the public as a whole. Second of all, he asked. Did have we interrogated to the fullest extent the powers that currently exist and whether they could be used?
We absolutely have. And the minister and myself and a specialist team within the Department have looked at every different power that is available to us. But what we found having, you know, a bit like the honourable lady who chairs the select committee, only having had responsibility for this for for a matter of weeks, what we found was a great big gaping hole in the legislation, which will not be filled in its entirety by the statutory instrument that is before us, but will enable us at least to make to come to a good judgment, whatever that judgment may be, about what is in the public interest when it comes to this particular deal and deals like it.
That he asks about the supplier of last resort and whether we've considered introducing that. It's very similar to the question that the honourable lady asked about. Well, we whether we would consider new legislation where a provider fails and a new buyer can't be found. There is nothing currently that we can find in existing legislation that allows the government to intervene or to facilitate an intervention. In that instance, I do believe that is a problem, and it is something that I'm sure the committee will want to look at. But also, I'd be very happy to discuss with the minister and the shadow Secretary of State as well.
I think telecoms is increasingly important to the way that we live, to our national security, to our energy infrastructure, to people's lives and people's livelihoods. And I think we do need a new approach to regulation in this area, not to be overburdensome, certainly not to harm competitiveness, but to make sure that we have the resilience that we need in a critical industry. He asked whether whether the outcome has been predetermined. I think I've covered that. He also looked at the speed and whether the CMA had sufficient opportunity to consider. I do want to say to the House that I recognise that the speed with which we're doing this is not the way that we would normally seek to legislate.
Those who know me and these benches will and opposite benches will know that I do like to give Parliament the time to fully consider what what it is that we're proposing. And also there have been a number of instances where we've changed our approach as a consequence of the views of members of both houses who've pointed out both technical deficiencies and also policy issues with some of the original proposals that we've made. But we did discuss this with the CMA. And obviously, they they were acutely aware that the timing was very tight, but they felt that the time that we gave them was manageable.
In order to give us a preliminary view that would enable me to then proceed to the next stage and make a decision about whether further investigation was warranted, and I am intending to respond as quickly as possible. I wouldn't have brought this to the House with the urgency that we have if I didn't believe that. We also need to act with urgency. I have to make the right decision, and I have to balance all those considerations. And I do have to fully consider the impact on the competitiveness of a market that for which which is which is underpinned by decent competition.
So I can't I can't act with haste, but I can act with with as much speed as possible. The chairwoman of the select committee asked why the existing legislation is deficient. Put simply because there was only one grounds in this case on which we could intervene, and that is the public health emergency provisions , which may cover the the existing Telecare customers, but we don't believe would cover customers who are vulnerable and who rely on being connected in order to access emergency services outside of that system. And in any case, do not cover the 1.5 million customers who many of whom whose livelihoods depend on this, as well as the critical national infrastructure that I talked about, the the she she asked about the overall financial resilience of the sector.
I am concerned about the fragility of that sector. And although we have a telecoms industry in this country to be proud of and have over successive governments managed to drive investment into that industry, to retain competitiveness, to keep bills lower than they are in many comparable countries. For consumers. I do think that it warrants us all collectively as a House, taking a fresh look at whether we've got the resilience in the sector that we need Will, we can consider setting out a framework for how this is used. I think that framework already exists. I would be happy to to discuss that with the Honourable Lady further, but I think that framework is already actually quite tightly defined by the process under which I am required to operate under the Enterprise Act.
What what is too tightly defined, in my view, of the considerations that a government can take into account, which would have precluded me from taking into account a number of key, key, key areas of public interest and public benefit. In this case, she asked what evidence I would need to see in order to intervene further. I mean, there are certainly circumstances in which the the dominance of one, one player in a market could have major implications for the viability of that market. And in those circumstances, I would need to be satisfied that the that if a deal was detrimental to competition, that that wouldn't in itself lead to the outcomes that have driven me to bring these additional public interest considerations before the House.
So I do want to be clear, you know, as as I gave the commitment to the honourable gentleman, the Shadow Minister, that this this is not by any sense a done deal or a predetermined outcome. But I do think we owe it to the public to ensure that we take into account things that are of great interest and great importance to them in coming to that decision. How will I assess competition issues? Well, I will take account of the the, the the report that has just been handed to me last week by the Competition and Markets Authority, I should say to the House, I haven't yet had an opportunity to digest that report because officials are reading through it with a level of technical detail and providing some advice to me on that.
But I will look at the report in full later this week and the advice that I've been given and do my best to come to a decision quickly. She asked about other current cases. I can't comment on those at the current time, but I'd be very happy to to discuss with her the framework as a whole and how we how we make sure that it is as robust as possible. And finally, just to reiterate that this is an unusual level of pace, and I don't believe that it is an ideal way to legislate in ideal circumstances, but these are not ideal circumstances.
I think we haven't got the resilience in the legislation that we need enable, in order to enable us to live up to our responsibilities as a government and to as a parliament, to protecting people and acting in the public interest. I think with this expanded scope, it will give me the opportunity to look at all of these issues in the round and come to the right determination. And I do want to thank the House sincerely for the willingness to engage with us over the last couple of weeks since we laid this statutory instrument to make sure that we have the powers that we need now to act in the public interest, but also to welcome the opportunity to have a much more thorough debate and discussion about how we collectively shape the future of the legislation surrounding this critical industry in the future.