Outcome of Questionnaire

January 13th, 2006

This paper sets out the comments made in the questionnaires which were issued at the inaugural meeting and outlines how these are proposed to be taken forward.

The Forum, which is run in Scotland on a non profit-making basis, has been set up as a means of bringing together those with a Scottish perspective on competition law and policy for topical discussion and debate.

The aims of the Forum are:

  • To encourage and contribute to debate about the development and application in Scotland of competition law and policy;
  • To foster closer working links in the field of competition law between solicitors, advocates, academic lawyers, accountants, economists, regulators and any others that are interested in competition law in Scotland; and
  • To promote wider understanding of competition law and its practical application across the Scottish legal profession and allied professions.

1. Statement and aim

The aim of the Forum is to provide a means by which we can to bring together those in Scotland with an interest in competition law, to improve the quality of debate and to help create links between various groups, such as academics and practitioners. The Forum should provide an opportunity for discussion and debate and enable a small jurisdiction like Scotland to pull together resources and enable us to attract high quality external speakers.

Following comments in the questionnaire the wording of the statement on the website has been amended slightly to clarify that the forum is intended for everyone with an interest in competition law, not just lawyers.

2. Name and how inclusive?

Some respondents suggested in the feedback that there might be merit in reconsidering the name of the forum. On the issue of whether the name should be changed (perhaps to be less exclusive, less legally focused and a bit snappier) it was, however, generally felt that the current name should be retained.

Retaining the term “Law” in the name clarifies that the Forum is concerned with competition law and not competitiveness in the broader sense. “Forum” was preferred to something snappier, as alternatives may result in loss of credibility.

3. Should the website direct itself more directly to law students?

It was emphasised that the Forum should be opened to anyone with an interest in competition law, regardless of whether they are students or professionals.

Following on from comments in the questionnaire it has been suggested that the Forum should not aim to focus itself directly on students, as this might cast the net too wide and it might overlap to a large extent with initiatives on the academic level. A close working link between the Forum and Scottish students is, however, seen as essential and students visiting the site should feel welcome to come along to SCLF meetings where they can decide for themselves if this is where their interest lies.

It was decided that a specific section should be added to the website which is aimed directly at students with information, such as web links to competition law contacts, universities and law firms.

4. The running of the forum

To ensure fair distribution of the workload and share involvement of the running of the Forum between members, the views expressed in the questionnaires concur that the administration of the Forum should be kept as flexible as possible at the moment. However, as suggested by respondents to the survey, it is recognised that there is a need for an organising committee to take things forward.

For the first year Kyla Brand, Barry Rodger and Gordon Downie have volunteered to do this. This should be reviewed in a year’s time and responsibilities can be re-allocated.

The committee will aim to meet four times a year, immediately following each SCLF event.

5. Interaction

There is consensus at this early stage that the forum should primarily provide for an opportunity for its members to interact on a face-to-face basis, meeting up for seminars and discussions, to be able to share ideas and build up a network of contacts.

The use of the website for web forum discussions might be something to consider in the future. The meetings should hopefully encourage an on-going debate in-between events and the hope is that people will start making use of the website, as a means to do so.

5.1 Events

The suggested frequency of meetings will be quarterly for the first year. The place of meetings is to be alternated between Edinburgh and Glasgow and the format should allow for a mix of speeches, debate and social events.

An Events Calendar for 2006 will be posted on the website in due course. It is envisaged that the events for 2006 will be as follows:

Winter meeting

20 January, 08.30-10.30 – Breakfast meeting at Strathclyde University Law School in Glasgow, with guest speaker John Fingleton, Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Fair Trading.

Spring meeting

April (location and time/date to be confirmed) - Private enforcement. Drinks reception with a follow-up from the January meeting and discussion on private enforcement. Aim is to invite speakers from DG Comp and perhaps to get the viewpoint of a Scottish business.

Summer meeting

July (location and date/time to be confirmed) – State Aid. State aid reform and its implications for Scotland. Aim is to invite someone from the European Commission and the OFT to come and speak.

Autumn meeting

October (location and date/time to be confirmed) - AGM with keynote address by guest speaker followed by dinner. For the 2006 AGM we intend to invite Christopher Bellamy as keynote speaker.

5.2 Website

As suggested by respondents to the questionnaire, we will aim to add a function to the website which means that members will be alerted by an e-mail to any changes on the website. This function will be voluntary and members who do not wish to receive an e-mail alert will not do so.

6. Topics

Several topics were suggested by respondents for the Forum to focus on over the coming year. The topics should be tailored to address Scottish issues.

The main topics put forward were:

  • state aid reform;
  • merger control; and
  • private enforcement.

7. Association with other bodies and publicity

It has been suggested that there are bodies which SCLF should usefully establish contact with, if this has not already been done.

A letter of introduction will be sent out to these groups and in certain cases it might also be appropriate to set up a link-up, such as reciprocal links on website, advertising events, exchanging guest speakers etc.

Suggested bodies to liase with are:

  • The Law Society’s European Group;
  • The David Hume Institute;
  • The Competition Law Scholars Forum (CLASF);
  • The Competition Law Association (CLA);
  • The Law Society of Scotland’s Competition Law Committee;
  • The In-house Lawyer’s Group;
  • The European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA);
  • OFT;
  • Ofgem;
  • Ofcom;
  • Postcomm;
  • Ofwat;
  • ORR;
  • ACC;
  • The European Commission - DG Competition;
  • The Scottish Executive (The State Aid Unit and the Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive);
  • Scotland Europa;
  • Scottish Enterprise;
  • Highlands and Islands Enterprise;
  • The Confederation of British Industry (CBI);
  • University of Edinburgh;
  • University of Glasgow;
  • University of Strathclyde;
  • University of Stirling
  • Glasgow Caledonian University;
  • University of Abertay Dundee;
  • Napier University;
  • University of Aberdeen;
  • The Robert Gordon University;
  • University of Dundee;
  • RBB Economics;
  • NERA Economic Consulting;
  • Oxera;
  • Frontier Economics;
  • London Economics,
  • Case Associates;
  • Institute of Directors (IOD);
  • The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS)

The general question of marketing and publicising the forum, the need for a point of contact for external queries etc, has been discussed by the organisation committee. The necessity for establishing a policy regarding this might have to be considered in the future.

8. Permanent rules or constitution

Given the nature of the answers to the questionnaire on this issue and the discussion at the first organising committee meeting, the consensus is that permanent rules or a constitution is not needed at this stage.

9. Patron or president

One question asked in the questionnaire was whether the Forum should have an honorary patron or president? Opinions have been expressed that it might be appropriate for the Forum to have an honorary patron. It is suggested by the organising committee that this should be discussed further and that a patron might be appointed at the AGM. As on all other points, your further views would be appreciated on this.

10. Membership restriction and fee

The consensus is that membership of the Forum should not be restricted at the moment and there should be no membership fee. Annual dinners and similar larger events will, however, need to be charged for.

11. General feedback

The feedback in the survey has been generally very positive with plenty of enthusiasm. Respondents noted that it is hoped that the Forum might fill the “Scottish competition law gap” and provide for a vehicle by which to bounce ideas and develop a network of contacts.

For example, Domhnall Dods commented that:

“The SCLF is a very welcome development and particularly so for the in house lawyer. For all Scots lawyers, the level of competition law experience in Scotland is not as good as it could be partly due to the simple fact that we don’t get as much direct, personal exposure to the subject as those, for example, in London.”

“The Forum can help develop the knowledge base and raise awareness not only of the law itself but also of who has what knowledge and expertise. As with so many things, sometimes the networking aspect is the most valuable part of an event or body such as the forum.”

In addition, Bob Lane, referring to his experiences when he was a member of an organisation which can be described as a Dutch equivalent to the SCLF, based in Leiden:

“First, the Forum is an excellent idea, and should be encouraged with enthusiasm. Scotland needs something like this, in order that it is not (or not too much) simply a satrap of England.”…

“[The Dutch organisation] was a high powered gathering, ‘though informal, and people would make time in their diaries to attend, so useful did they find it…”

“It was mutually advantageous: the practitioners and the academics gleaned from the fonctionnaires what was going on in Bxl, the practitioners were good on the views of the courts and problems of enforcement, and the academics (hopefully on both plus more thoughtful analysis. The mix worked quite well…”

“And it required commitment from all involved: without effort across the board it would cease to have its utility, and it would wither and die. Sometimes of course absence cannot be avoided, but I was always impressed at the loyalty of participants to attend…”

Entry Filed under: News

Most Recent Posts