 Os ydych yn ddod i chi am gydag i fyfododwch y llys full ac mae'r gwnaeth yn enwyr gyda'u cyflwytoeth i ffyrdd gwestiynau lleiol arall. A'i meddwl i am gandd soilionon ar y cyfrin sydd yn y gwybodol â'r cyfrin sydd yna'n gweld bod ychydig i gydag amser aol fan hynny'n ymgylcheddau ar gyfer lleiadoedd, ond nid i ddim yn ei gydag i gydag i gyfrin symr yn y gyrhaf apadol i'r hawlau. As I done so well with recruiting as seen a staff of the Irish Regime. Its a and its particularly a time to meet here in Dublin today with you in the process I've been hearing or moving towards a plan of investing your own importance to the competition regime bringing together consumer and competition expertise and the same organisation. And that I emphasize is the key feature of the UK regime both before and after our reforms. ac mae'r cyfnodau yn ddwy i fod yn ffordd i'r cyfnod ymweld, yw'r cyfnod bwysig, i ddefnyddio'r bwysigrwyddol iawn yn gallu bwysig ar gyfer eich cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfrifiadau. Rydyn ni'n fydden nhw'n gweithio'r ffordd i'r cyfrifiadau yma. Yng Nghymru o'r lleon i'r cyfrifiadau i'r gwaith, ac yn fwy o'r llwyddiadau eich cyfrifiadau, yn y bwrth â'r ysafwng ymddangosion i'r gwasanaethol, y dyfodol a hwnnw, a sy'n gweithio i'r colleg sy'n dechrau ar gyfer Euromaidd. A gall gwysig yma i'r ddull chi'n gwirioneddau yn gweithio lleolion mewn cymryd a'u cyffredig o'r rhan cofwyr a'u gwirioneddau, ond grwyaf wedi nyaud i'r gynhymhau i oeswn i'n cymryd i'n gyffredig fel rhan o'r niw bul am y ddweud ac yn y Gweithgfin gyffredig a'u siaradau ar gyfer 31 march. I'w ddatblygu o'r ysgol fydd ymddangos ar gyfer y ratchenol i'w ddweud, a dwi'n dechrau ddweud i llwythau eich proses. Rwy'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, oherwydd o'r ddweud o'r ysgol fan hynny. Rwy'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r cyffredinol, oherwydd o'r ddweud o'r wneud y gweld yn ei ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r holl. 40% increase in our budget for the 15-16, and in the autumn statement we've got a large increase to help us where for next year. So this is not about saving the money, it's about putting more into the competition and the consumer. So why did government make the decision to merge the OECD and CEC? The answer, I think, is simple. Competition is a key driver for delivering greater productivity and growth in the UK economy, particularly in the context of the financial crisis and recession and the challenges that are ahead in sustaining competitiveness, and the government believes, for reasons I'll explain, that actually this combination will deliver a more effective regime than I've firmly thought that view. There is, of course, abundant and growing evidence of the economic benefits that an effective competition regime can agree with, not least in the fact that most countries have introduced their own region in more than 100% of even hot countries in that direction. A World Bank investment climate compilation of research by ambions found a sway of important results, the price drops of 20-40% of the international cartels programme, employment rates boosted by somewhere between 2.5 and 5 percentage points by reforms to state controls and barriers to competition, GDP gains of 2.5% from competition reforms in Australia, net benefits of 100 million a year from larger controls in the Netherlands, consumer savings of cartel important in the US over 80 years of some 1.85 billion US dollars. So, robust competition policy is vital for ensuring economic growth, rewarding businesses that innovate to satisfy consumers and encouraging new entry and new investment in the market. Research for the European Commission found a robust positive effect of competition policy on total factor productivity, growth for some 22 industries in 12 various city countries over a decade, and the LSE Growth Commission report simply pointed to increased and more effective competition and a strengthening of competition policy in the UK as a key contributor to economic gains in the period up to the recent financial crisis. And I think more broadly, there are gains to civil sort of society in having firms confident that they're competing on a level playing field, consumers confidently can exercise meaningful choice, and citizens confident that the law is being unheld effectively by impartial public institutions. So, a powerful competition region is a major prize, and the UK government took the view that despite a well-performing regime, there was scope for even better performance of its competition and consumer authorities, and the potential benefits from that were the key driver of the government's decisions to reform the law and institutions in this area. And not for nothing was the government's consultation document on its proposed reforms entitled a competition regime for growth. There was a widespread consultation and deliberation that lasted a couple of years, as we went from proposals to policy to legislation and finally to the establishment of the CMA in last October. We've continued that open consultation, and all those who have an interest have had an opportunity to inform everything from the government's initial proposal through its organisational values and its objectives in its first year of operation to our business plan, which we published yesterday or the day before. Since our work affects almost everyone in the UK because of our economy-wide remit, this consultation seems to us to be entirely appropriate. We have an ongoing mission to explain and inform consumers, businesses and government about our role and our work. A very wide range of options for change were considered. In the end, the overall approach taken could be characterized as one of evolution, not revolution, building on the successes of the existing authorities and introducing new elements where there was a strong case for so doing. Hence the decision to bring together the OST and PC, but other fundamental changes to the regime were considered and not pursued. For example, a move to a prosecutorial rather than an administrative competition enforcement regime was mooted and had its supporters, but it would have meant starting from scratch, as opposed to building on the many lessons learnt by the existing authorities over the preceding decades. Fundamentally, the government came out strongly in favour of retaining the link between competition and consumer protection, and didn't take forward proposals to make the new CMA purely a competition regulator. There are vitally important links and synergents between the two areas of work. Competitive markets provide choice and value for consumers. For competition to work properly, consumers have to be able to confidently shop around. Competition problems often manifest themselves as failures of compliance with consumer protection law, preventing consumers from making informed choices, and thus from thriving competition. Combining the mindset of competition and consumer specialities in a single organisation means that both perspectives can be applied to the same problems, bringing economic discipline to decisions as to how and whether to intervene to protect consumers, but adding a greater understanding of the real world experience and concerns of consumers to the analysis of the functioning of markets. Importantly, the CMA also remains an authority for the whole of the UK, focusing on markets across the country, while taking account of different legal systems of other important contexts in the developed nations, and we thus retain a strong interest in competition and consumer issues in Northern Ireland, and hence in those markets that cross the Irish border. The biggest change to the UK region that was adopted was the shift to a single authority, bringing together most of all of the OFT's consumer role and all of its competition work together with competition commission in the new CMA. There are a number of benefits to this shift. First, we can be more efficient as a single authority. One of the frequent criticisms of the England previous region was that it was slower than it could be, and in particular that businesses under investigation suffered because of duplication of effort between the OFT and the CC. Whilst the CMA will retain the separation between the two stages in terms of decision making, it can reduce duplication in evidence gathering and other key aspects and hence be more timely in its operation. Secondly, we can better manage our resources. The competition commission's workload has been determined largely by referrals from the OFT, which meant that the competition commission has gone from feast to famine and back. Significance edws and flows that are difficult to manage in a small organisation. In a single organisation, we can deploy resources more efficiently across the two phases of our work. Thirdly and importantly, we can be a stronger advocate for competition and consumer protection in the UK and abroad by virtue of having a single voice in this area. In designing the CMA, we've looked at the best way to organise the authority to maximise these benefits, building a new organisation that is more than some of its parts. Whilst there have been some initial savings to be made from combining back-office and support services, it's worth me stating that that was not the objective of the merger, hence the substantial risk for a resource that's been given to us and invested back. It's going to be invested back into the CMA front line delivery. It may well be that that increase in resources is one of the major benefits of this reform process. Delivery will also be enforced by raft of enhancements to competition law and the CMA's powers, which include an enhanced administrative approach to antitrust cases, improving the speed of the process and the robustness of decision making, along with new powers to require individuals to answer questions and to impose civil sanctions for failure to comply with investigations. There's a revised criminal cartel offence, removing the requirement to prove dishonesty in order to make the offence easier to prosecute, and thus maximising its deterrent effect. New powers to gather information in market investigations, along with more demanding time limits for all the stages of these investigations, speeding up the competition process. Stronger powers to met suspend and reverse integration between firms in merger cases, to impose penalties for failure to comply, as well as the introduction of statutory time limits, time scales for merger investigations, and time limited periods in which firms can negotiate undertakings in lieu of a referral that they merger before consideration. These aren't wholesale changes, tweaks and advances, but I think I've taken together that they will represent a significant upgrade of the competition regime, building on improvements that the CMA's predecessors have already put in place. The process of performance also brought an opportunity to review the mission and objectives of competition authorities. The government has introduced a new strategic steer, setting out its expectations for the CMA at a high level. This has led to some raising of eyebrows and questions as to its effect on our independence from ministers. However, I think the steer is better understood as putting communication between government and the competition authorities, which inevitably happens, on a more transparent basis, and reflecting the importance of the competition regime as part of the government's economic tool here. This steer doesn't bind the CMA, and our independent board will make up its own independent mind on issues. But we have to have regard for it, and we rather acknowledge the reality that independent regulators have to be sensitive to commercial and political developments, and need therefore to maintain dialogue with government. A key element of the government's first strategic steer to the CMA is the need for a more proactive use of competition law in regulated sectors such as energy and water. The CMA has been given a stronger remit to work with regulators in those sectors. We have already established a UK competition network with the concurrent regulators to help to ensure the consistent and effective use of competition powers across the economy. Those of you who follow political politics will know that there is much physical pressure for action to improve competition in banking, as well as energy, and other similar market sectors present. This will be an important area of work for us. Another change to our mission is our role on the international stage. Both the government and the CMA touch much significantly to this work. There is no coincidence that the CMA's new primary duty legislation is specifically to seek to promote competition both within and outside of the UK for the benefit of consumers. This might be misinterpreted as a somewhat imperialist junction. I interpret it as a stepping out of our international role working with competition regulators internationally to a good advantage. We are committed to having a real influence on the international stage as the OFT and the CC have in the past, and to co-operating with the competition and consumer authorities in different countries. The OFT and CC already have a pick-up-the-phone relationship with OFT and the CC regulators, including Isolda, Gargan and her colleagues at the TCA here in Dublin, and there's always more that we can do. So while improved international cooperation will help us with our own cases, we'll also work with partners overseas to share our experience, to disseminate best practice, and to drive the convergence of standards and rules. The CMA will look to take forward the cooperation on specific cases and projects, and just to give you an example, the OFT has recently been co-operating with a range of overseas partners as part of its focus on online sales channels and digital markets. Cases involving e-books, Amazon, and hotels, online booking, have all involved a significant degree of cross-border cooperation and have been delivering real benefits to consumers. In the last year, the OFT and the CC online and app-based games have identified market-wide practices that are considered to be non-compliant with relevant legislation. I might add a bit of colour to that perhaps in discussions. The OFT produced a set of draft principles that clarified its views and has since promoted those principles with international counterparts through the International Consumer Protection Enforcement Network. It has been agreed that the principles strike suitable balance to indicate how businesses should treat its consumers and they're likely to influence other ICPEN member agencies' input into their own consumers or exactly the sort of success we'll be looking to replicate and build on. Of course, the context in which we and other regulators work is changing at a furious pace and we need to remain flexible to a range of changing circumstances. Mae OFT will be launching into a continuing stream of regulatory reform. While we are taking on the OFT's consumer protection role, that role significantly changed last year as part of the government's drive to reform the consumer protection regime with local authorities, trading standards, picking on a more national role and the OFT focusing on cases with market-wide implications. Those changes and the institutional reforms around them are still bidding in and absolutely turned to play its full part in that and making it work. Other regulators in health and financial services have recently gained or are gaining new competition powers and responsibilities. Legislation on consumer rights is going through Parliament and the government is currently reviewing the balance of competences between the UK and the EU in competition and consumer policy. As I said, we'll be working closely with the sector regulators to ensure more effective use of competition policy in regulated sectors. Of course, we're recording that in the UK, the regulated sectors account for more than 25% of the economy and is therefore very critical. So our UK competition network deliberately modelled on the European competition network which coordinates competition enforcement across EU member states. That, the ECM, is 10 years old and is widely regarded in the competition world as a great success. We hope the same will be said of the UK's here in a decade to come. So, how will we look to achieve the mission that we've been tasked at the end of what's been quite a long process of form and renewal? Our broad objective is to be, our ambition is to be a world-leading competition and consumer agency at the forefront of delivering important results and innovation on a consistent basis and across our portfolio a balanced wide portfolio. So we set ourselves five strategic objectives to sit below that which we'll need to achieve. The first is effective enforcement of the law protecting consumers and deterring anti-competitive behaviour. That is the bedrock of our credibility as an organisation and the most obvious measure by which we'll be judged. But simply, we can't be an effective agency if we fail in our core business. Extending the frontiers of competition into new areas, whether that's new or rapidly changing markets, new ways of looking at consumer behaviour, or areas where competition and markets have not previously been used, including public services. Refocusing consumer protection following the reforms that I mentioned a moment ago, using our enforcement powers appropriately and leading on policy developments in some areas. Achieving professional excellence across all our work, whether in legal and economic analysis, case management or any other area, and ensuring we don't impose unnecessary burdens on business. And integrating our performance internally to combining different professional approaches and backgrounds into a careful selection and accommodation of our tools for intervening markets and externally working with a full range of bodies that I've mentioned in a lot of them in my work so far. Looking effectively at the full range of bodies with whom we share powers and interests. Now, we've got most of the CMA in place. We'll come in and move into our new home together in March. And the infrastructure that we need will be in place until we're ready to be affected. But by far the most important aspect of the CMA is its people. I'm delighted to be the board of the chairman of the board that includes former heads of the European Commission competition agency and the US competition agencies, as well as members with vast business and academic experience. We've also got a great leadership team headed up by Alex Gism, who many of you all know from his time here, and made up of both recruits from outside and from the existing authorities. And we have a very good group of people in the two existing agencies that will be carrying on in the new organisation. That gives us organisational memory. It gives us a talented and committed body of people a chance to build on their own legacy of important achievement for consumers. I'd like to close with some thoughts on what success might look like over the course of the next two to three years. Not in terms of the CMA's performance per se, but in terms of the outcomes of the programme of the form overall. In addition to delivering authority that achieves its ambitions and its strategic goals, we also need to look to some distinctive features of the new regime and how well they've succeeded in order properly to judge the extent to which the forms have worked. One of the most valued aspects of the existing regime is the clear separation of the two phases of decision-making for mergers and market investigations, with the second phase bringing in a fresh pair of harness. The challenge of building the CMA has been to make that work within one organisation, under one roof, ensuring we don't allow the risk of confirmation bias while still allowing the new organisation to be more efficient in its handling of cases. Another key challenge has been to ensure that the decision not to move to a prosecutorial model of antitrust enforcement is not regretted by building on the current and much improved administrative approach. That includes enhancements such as case decision groups which are intended to improve decision-making in antitrust cases and watching carefully to see that they work well. Politicians have set a high bar for the CMA to bring in enhanced competition in regulated market sectors and the ever-increasing focus on competition in areas like energy and financial services will mean that this is a high-profile area of our work. Through the UKCM and bilateral work with our partners, we'll need to deliver measurable improvements in this area. In consumer protection, we'll have important precedent-centring cases to deliver as well as working with our partners to ensure that the new system adds up to more than the sum of its parts. More broadly, we'll also need to make the maximum use of the synergies between competition and consumer work using both an appropriate measure and an integrated way. It's worth noting that there is what might be termed a lab experiment in different approaches to competition and consumer regulation going on across the EU right now. In the UK and France, for example, there will be only one competition body where other countries such as Portugal have two. Ireland will join the UK and others in combining competition and consumer work in one agency while others keep competition separate. In the Netherlands and Spain, competition and sector regulation are tackled by unitary bodies as opposed to having separate bodies with varying degrees of coordination. Time will tell which approaches are the most successful and we hope to learn much from the comparisons and contrasts around quite the confident that we will be amongst the successful. In the end, though, the biggest question for the CMA will be whether the organisation that it becomes and the outputs it produces can justify the efforts of all who have been involved in creating a new or powerful unitary competition and consumer authority. This has been no mean task. It will be for the CMA to demonstrate that all that work has been worthwhile helping competition to play its full role in driving economic growth and delivering important individual outcomes for consumers and businesses. It's not a simple task, but we relish the challenge to deliver those benefits to consumers, businesses and the economy. We look forward to refining an improving approach through learning and sharing our experience with our fellow members of the European Competition Network and other international colleagues. Thank you very much.