V1494 – Cartel Offence (Abolition) Bill 2019 Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye (19)
43.18%
Of the contrary, no (20)
45.45%
Abstain (5)
11.36%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#1

What is this thread about?
This is a vote in the Model House of Commons (MHoC). This item has already been debated in the House, and is now being voted on by MPs. If you're not an MP, please do not vote or comment here, even if you are able to do so!

What is the MHoC?
It's a political role-playing game where we pretend to be the House of Commons, and it's been going since 2005. We have formed parties, we have elections twice a year, and we debate bills and motions just like the real-life parliament. If you want to know more about how the MHoC works, your first port of call is the user manual. If you'd like to get involved and possibly join a party, you want the welcome thread.


V1494 – Cartel Offence (Abolition) Bill 2019, TSR Government, TSR Libertarian Party

Cartel Offence (Abolition) Bill 2019

A Bill to abolish the cartel offence set out in Part 6 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1: Repeal
(1) Part 6 of the Enterprise Act 2002 is hereby repealed.

2: Commencement, Short Title, Extent and Conditions

(1) This bill shall come into force upon Royal Assent.
(2) This bill may be cited as the Cartel Offence (Abolition) Bill 2019.
(3) This bill extends to the United Kingdom.

Notes
A cartel is a grouping of competitors working together to protect their interests. Cartels are created when a few large companies decide to cooperate in the market in a way which restricts competition. This could entail price fixing, restricting output released onto the market, market sharing, etc. Such cooperation is a violation of competition law for which companies are heavily fined. For UK criminal purposes, a cartel is an agreement between two or more people which would lead to at least two competitors fixing prices, limiting supply or production, sharing markets or engaging in bid-rigging.

Part 6 of the Enterprise Act 2002 establishes the cartel offence, for which the punishment is, on indictment, a term of imprisonment of up to five years and/or an unlimited fine. The aim of this offence is to offer a deterrent to companies entering into anticompetitive agreements between competitors. It holds individuals such as senior company executives personally responsible for the actions of the company, which violates the idea of a limited liability company being a separate legal entity to the people involved in its running.

Furthermore, there is the issue public do not view this conduct as truly criminal. A company being fined is just in the eyes of the public, but the actions of the individuals involved is not viewed as a matter for the criminal law to correct on an individual basis. It is seen as a competition issue, and it is perhaps not very fair since there is no requirement of dishonesty following a reform to the offence in 2013.

The criminalisation of individuals participating in cartels also overlooks the fact that often company directors feel under pressure to make as much profit as possible for the sake of the shareholders. It ignores the fact that the choice to engage in such an agreement is one which is influenced by a number of factors and which is essentially down to the company as a whole.

Finally, the efficacy of this offence is questionable. There have so far been only four prosecutions. The first and second cases (brought when there was the dishonesty requirement) resulted in three individuals being imprisoned for between two and a half and three years and four individuals being acquitted when the proceeding were withdrawn. The third case was brought after the removal of the dishonesty requirement and two of the three defendants were acquitted by a jury, with the third pleading guilty and being sentenced to six months’ imprisonment (suspended for a year) and 120 hours of community service. The final case resulted in an individual pleading guilty being given a two-year prison sentence, suspended for two years, and a curfew order imposed for six months. This shows that it is now uncommon for prison sentences to be given, and those pleading not guilty seem likely to be acquitted by a jury.

Even with the repeal of this offence, there remains the deterrent of company director disqualification, which the author of this bill argues is adequate and ensures that directors are punished without risking the loss of their liberty in such a way.

The legislation in question: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/40/contents
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 months ago
#2
Given the government dismissed most criticism and despite being told multiple times the notes compromise of outright falsehoods I see no reason to change my mind.

The argument is intentionally misleading, contradictory, and this does nothing more than crony capitalism, an afront to both left and right
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 months ago
#3
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Given the government dismissed most criticism and despite being told multiple times the notes compromise of outright falsehoods I see no reason to change my mind.

The argument is intentionally misleading, contradictory, and this does nothing more than crony capitalism, an afront to both left and right
This is sponsored by your party and I believe was written also by your party member. I'm not sure why you think Her Majesty's government is solely responsible for answering your questions, given that most of us are simply agreeing with it.
1
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 months ago
#4
Nay. The basic principle I am against and the justifications are even wrose.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 months ago
#5
(Original post by The Champion.m4a)
This is sponsored by your party and I believe was written also by your party member. I'm not sure why you think Her Majesty's government is solely responsible for answering your questions, given that most of us are simply agreeing with it.
With that member being a representative of HMG, even if we apply your argument the basic point still holds, the notes are intentionally misleading, the few arguments presented contradict the notes, and from the perspective of everybody consumer protections are weakened and from the perspective of the right so too ate protections of the free market
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 months ago
#6
The joys of having to study an amount of company law for my accounting qualifications is that it's highlighted that even the limited liability of the *owners* (still separate to the director issue which has caused the intentional attempt to mislead) due to the business being a separate legal entity isn't absolute meaning there are circumstances in which the limited liability can become unlimited.

Again, this is separate to the fact that limited liability is about ownership and not management, despite what the minister might want you to believe.
0
meenu89
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 months ago
#7
Saracen's Fez Please could I change my vote to 'Aye'? I clicked on the wrong option. Thanks!
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 months ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
With that member being a representative of HMG, even if we apply your argument the basic point still holds, the notes are intentionally misleading, the few arguments presented contradict the notes, and from the perspective of everybody consumer protections are weakened and from the perspective of the right so too ate protections of the free market
I don't mind you pointing your finger at us, I'm just saying you should be fair and point one at your own party too. Naturally if I didn't write it and was not in involved in any part of it, it'd be very unlikely for me to have a response for you. The same applies to many others in the government. But if you want to lint finger, point at everyone, not just us.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 months ago
#9
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
I don't mind you pointing your finger at us, I'm just saying you should be fair and point one at your own party too. Naturally if I didn't write it and was not in involved in any part of it, it'd be very unlikely for me to have a response for you. The same applies to many others in the government. But if you want to lint finger, point at everyone, not just us.
Of course instead of addressing concerns you sit here justifying silence and relying on raw numbers to force it through while contributing nothing to the continuity of the house that, due to a lack of activity, is on it's last legs utterly incapable of attracting new active membership
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 months ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Of course instead of addressing concerns you sit here justifying silence and relying on raw numbers to force it through while contributing nothing to the continuity of the house that, due to a lack of activity, is on it's last legs utterly incapable of attracting new active membership
Naturally if I didn't write it and was not in involved in any part of it, it'd be very unlikely for me to have a response for you.

Of course instead of acknowledging the fact that it's your party who proposed and sponsored it first, you had to make it about the government.
0
Miriam29
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 months ago
#11
Seems like I’ve accidentally clicked on nay for this. Can my vote be changed to aye? Saracen's Fez
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 months ago
#12
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Naturally if I didn't write it and was not in involved in any part of it, it'd be very unlikely for me to have a response for you.

Of course instead of acknowledging the fact that it's your party who proposed and sponsored it first, you had to make it about the government.
Because, perhaps, it is a government bill written by a government minster in their capacity as such and co-sponsored by ourselves. Of course the strategy of yourself and the rest of the government is to stay silent until you get desperate due to impending failure in division because you lack the basic mental function to defend your own spurious arguments. It shouldn't be too controversial a statement that the government should defend their own items rather that just sit there and make excuses for not doing so.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#13
(Original post by meenu89)
Saracen's Fez Please could I change my vote to 'Aye'? I clicked on the wrong option. Thanks!
(Original post by MiriamButcher)
Seems like I’ve accidentally clicked on nay for this. Can my vote be changed to aye? Saracen's Fez
Two Noes have been changed to Ayes for seats 8 and 9.

One No has been removed due to an ineligible vote by SankaraInBloom.


One Abstain has been removed due to an ineligible vote by username1751857.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#14
The Ayes to the right: 19
The Noes to the left: 20
Abstentions: 5

The Noes have it! The Noes have it! Unlock!

Turnout: 97.78%
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (63)
23.6%
No (204)
76.4%

Watched Threads

View All