Asked by: Lord Tyrie (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government in each of the past three years how many times (1) OFCOM, (2) OFGEM, (3) the Competition and Markets Authority, and (4) the Financial Reporting Council, have exercised the power to disclose the identity of persons under investigation.
Answered by Lord Johnson of Lainston
The subject of OFCOM’s investigations are services rather than individual persons. The details of these investigations are published on OFCOM’s website.
OFGEM also publishes details of its investigations on its website.
The Competition and Markets Authority exercised the power to identify persons under investigation in seven cases in 2021; ten cases in 2022; and in five cases in 2023. In some of these cases multiple parties have been identified.
The Financial Reporting Council has not exercised the power in any of the past three years.
Asked by: Lord Tyrie (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government what evidence they have of the power to disclose the identity of persons under investigation being exercised by UK regulators where the disclosure has not been in the public interest.
Answered by Lord Johnson of Lainston
The Department for Business and Trade does not hold centrally evidence on whether regulators have disclosed identities of a person under investigation when it has not been in the public interest.
Asked by: Lord Tyrie (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government, since its creation, how many whistleblowers the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has compensated; how much in aggregate has been paid in compensation; and what reimbursement has the CMA received from the Treasury for compensation payments made.
Answered by Lord Offord of Garvel
The CMA’s informant reward programme is an important tool in uncovering cartel activity. Payments have been made under the informant rewards programme.
The CMA does not provide figures about the levels or numbers of such payments. Given the number of CMA cases, divulging even aggregated payment figures could over time risk allowing the identification of cases having a whistleblower. This could put whistleblowers at risk and undermine the programme as a whole.
Informant reward payments are directly covered by the CMA’s budget.