Shortly after the election, Chancellor Gordon Brown announced a string of changes to the competition laws including -- most controversially -- the threat of jail for business executives who take part in price-fixing cartels.

These criminal sanctions contrast sharply with the current regime, which merely proscribes fines for companies found engaging in such activities.The head of Norton Rose's competition department, Martin Coleman, fears the new provisions -- rather than act as a deterrent as planned -- will actually make it more difficult for the authorities to weed out the culprits.He says: 'It is clear that the government is trying to achieve a greater level of deterrence but because these involve criminal sanctions they will have to introduce higher procedural protection, making it more difficult for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to investigate and this will have the reverse effect.'Mr Coleman explains that 'deterrence depends on the level of detection' and since suspects will have to be given the same rights as anyone being questioned by the police -- hence more rights than would be enjoyed under a civil regime -- detection will be more difficult.He adds: 'Under the current regime, companies can be fined 10% of their turnover for the last three years if found to be operating these sorts of practices.

This is already a major deterrent.'John Wotton, competition partner at Allen & Overy, comments: 'I think it will be difficult for the UK to go out on its own in Europe in that way.

Almost no other countries in the EU do this -- it is based on the US model -- and it runs counter to the movement of creating a more level playing field regarding the application of competition law by national courts and authorities.'Lawyers generally welcome plans to remove ministers from the decision-making process in merger and complex monopoly cases, though Mr Coleman points out that an appeal procedure would have to be introduced if ministers were taken out of the loop.Mr Wotton says: 'Giving the competition authorities more independence in merger cases is a positive step.

It is going to strengthen them and make for more transparency because it is them and only them who you have to convince and reach a settlement with, rather than under the current situation where you deal with the [Competition] Commission and the decision is taken by someone you never see -- the Secretary of State.'Laura Carstensen, competition partner at Slaughter and May, says: 'Although statistics show that it is rare for ministers to divert from the advice of the competition authorities, taking them out of the loop should add certainty.'However, she is sceptical that political influence will be completely removed since no plans have been announced to abolish the mergers' panel -- a collection of senior civil servants who meet to discuss merger control cases before the OFT reaches a decision.'The relevant ministerial departments will still be represented on the mergers' panel and they will be able to feed their views -- in a non-transparent way -- through to the OFT process.'Ms Carstensen is also critical of the plan to introduce a system of 'super complaints', which would allow consumer groups to make complaints about anti-competitive practices, and would require the OFT to give a 'reasoned answer' within 90 days.'It could create a time-wasting, costly system.

People complain all the time, often unmeritoriously.

I should think the OFT is dreading it.

They will have to put more resources in.

It will make an increasingly litigious environment even more litigious.'She points out that after the Competition Act was implemented last year, the OFT received thousands of complaints, of which, she maintains, only around 300 warranted further investigation, and only about 70 were proceeded with.Mr Coleman says plans to include more members with experience of competition law or an economics background on the Competition Commission 'are very sensible'.Ms Carstensen says: 'The Competition Commission has become increasingly anachronistic.

It is now mostly made up of part-time members -- businessmen, trade unionists, and the occasional lawyer, who often don't have the relevant experience.'Its procedures were found wanting in the Interbrew/Bass case [a High Court judge ruled that the Commission had acted unfairly in reaching its recommendation to block Interbrew's takeover of Bass Brewers] -- the first successful judicial review of the Competition Commission.

Its procedures are arcane.'Lesley Ainsworth, competition partner with Lovells, says: 'The government is now proposing formally to make the effect on competition the criteria for deciding whether to allow a merger, rather than whether it is in the public interest.'The Competition Commission had to apply the public interest test and with the cross-section of the great and good you had as members, you got a rather patchy quality and some strange thinking on issues.

If they are going to have the effect on competition as the criteria, you will want more economists and less gifted individuals.'Mr Wotton says the implementation of the Competition Act has led to more OFT investigations and litigation, while Ms Ainsworth says it has given the OFT 'more teeth' and allowed more digressors to be caught, who could slip through the loop under old legislation.Ms Ainsworth says: 'Like the European Commission, the OFT can now enter premises and ask for documents.

There are criminal sanctions available for those who fail to comply and that's made a dramatic difference.'The old regime wasn't very effective before.

The Restrictive Trade Practices Act was ludicrous in that it caught innocuous agreements but failed to catch more anti-competitive ones.'The new regime is more like the EC regime.

The only problem, is that it presumes that there is a clear body of EC case law to be applied, which is actually less than clear in key areas.'She says that the European Commission's plan to decentralise some areas of competition law and force member states to apply articles 81 (prohibition of anti-competitive practices) and 82 (prohibition on abuse of dominance) of the Treaty of Rome, will cause lawyers problems.

Ms Ainsworth adds: 'It will involve identifying whether the arrangement will affect trade between member states or just on a domestic level in deciding which rules to apply.

There is not a clear bright light in this area -- it's a major problem.

It's going to make advising clients difficult.

The regulators are going to have to draw up distinctions.'Mr Wotton s ays he would like to see more flexibility in merger control procedures -- both domestically and at European level -- which would allow companies to 'stop the clock running' and allow them to take time to negotiate a settlement with the regulatory authorities.'With the EU regime, once the process has started it runs on an inflexible legal timetable.

In the UK, there is more flexibility when one is in discussions with the OFT, but it is not flexible after the matter is referred to the Competition Commission.'Ms Carstensen says that as regulators worldwide become more sophisticated and more adept at sharing information, it is becoming increasingly difficult to push mergers through.'You need to do a lot more preparatory work before you go before the regulators.

You have to spend months fine-sifting the market and identifying what divestments you will have to make before a merger is allowed.

If it's a difficult case, there is usually going to be a price.

You will have to divest yourself of part of your business.'Mr Coleman says the European regime is increasingly tough compared to the US system, as illustrated by the General Electric-Honeywell case, a merger between two US companies which the US anti-trust authorities approved, but which seems likely to be blocked by the European Commission.'This has caused a huge amount of discussion, not just in the competition world but also in business and at government level.'The US is not happy about it.

Europe is increasingly becoming the centre people focus on in these matters, rather than the US.'