Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con) My Lords, I have it in command from Her
Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having
been informed of the purport of the Subsidy Control Bill, has
consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the
Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con) For
the benefit of noble...Request free
trial
(Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to
acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the
purport of the Subsidy Control Bill, has consented to place her
interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal
of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
For the benefit of noble Lords, I will first make a statement on
legislative consent. As promised to the noble and learned Lord,
, on Report and as I have sought
to do throughout passage, I would like to update your Lordships’
House on the legislative consent process.
Your Lordships will understand that there remain differences of
opinion between the devolved Administrations and the Government.
This includes the Scottish and Welsh Governments’ retained
in-principle objection to subsidy control being a reserved
matter, and their objection to the inclusion of agriculture in
the scope of the Bill. It is therefore with regret that I inform
your Lordships that we have not been able to convince the
devolved Administrations of the need for the UK Government to act
in this key area. This is, of course, not the end of our
engagement with the devolved Administrations. It is our intention
to continue to work closely with them on the future regime, and
accordingly our next steps will focus on agreements at working
level to support the operation of the Act, including a memorandum
of understanding in two parts.
I want to reassure noble Lords that it has never been our
intention to proceed without consent in place. Our preferred
approach throughout has always been to secure legislative consent
Motions. I want to reassure the House that the Government remain
fully committed to the Sewel convention and the associated
practices for seeking consent. We will of course continue to seek
legislative consent from the devolved legislatures when
applicable.
of Craighead (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for fulfilling his commitment and
producing the report for which I asked. It is disappointing, but
I am reassured by the latter part of his statement—that
engagement with the devolved Administrations will continue. I
very much hope that that will produce a more fruitful result than
has been achieved so far.
(PC)
My Lords, I also express concern that it has not been possible to
get agreement. Quite clearly, it is in everybody’s interest that
the devolved Administrations and the UK Government should be
working in harmony on these matters. There are issues, concerning
agriculture in particular, that are causing concern. Could the
Minister therefore give an assurance that, as his discussions go
on with the Governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, he will keep
the House informed and give us an opportunity to debate, discuss,
or at least put questions forward to him on, the outcome of any
such deliberations?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, could the Minister outline the position as far as the
devolved Administration in Northern Ireland is concerned? He
mentioned Scotland and Wales, but perhaps he could touch on what
the situation is as far as any legislative consent from the
Northern Ireland Assembly—before it was dissolved at the start of
this week for the Assembly elections. He is aware—this was raised
in Committee—of the grave concerns that there is there now a dual
subsidy control system: the EU system in Northern Ireland and the
GB system now applying to England, Scotland and Wales. This
could, as he said in his own letter to the chair of the Protocol
on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee on 22 March, cause real
problems and confusion for Northern Ireland.
(Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. In response to
concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, of course I understand
the points he is making. He will be aware that negotiations
continue on the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The
noble Lord and I have discussed this a number of times. The
Northern Ireland Executive have not been able to respond formally
to our request for a legislative consent Motion, given their
current status. We will, of course, continue to work closely, as
far as possible, with the Executive and with the officials. I
will be certain to update the noble Lord when I am able to do so.
Motion
Moved by
That the Bill do now pass.
(Con)
I am delighted to open the debate. I am grateful to all noble
Lords who have participated in the many debates that we have had
across Your Lordships’ House, to create a new domestic regime
that will deliver on our international obligations but,
crucially, will enable central government, the devolved
Administrations and public authorities the length and breadth of
the United Kingdom to deliver for their people and their
communities.
It is my great pleasure to thank all those who have supported the
progress of this Bill. First, I thank my noble friend Lady
Bloomfield; it is always a great pleasure to work alongside her.
I express my thanks for the considerable contributions that have
been made on the Floor of this House in relation to this Bill. I
thank, particularly, the Opposition—the noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Blake—for their constructive challenge and the discussions we
have had on the Bill, most notably on the issue of transparency,
where we have been able to move a lot in response to the concerns
raised in particular by the Opposition. It is also worth paying
tribute to noble Lord, , for his engagement, and to his
Liberal Democrat colleagues for their role in improving this
legislation, particularly with regard to devolved powers—and for
his personal forbearance with me in my illness during the latter
stages of Report. I thank the noble Lord, in particular, for
bearing with me.
3.45pm
I would also like to thank some of the Back-Bench colleagues who
have contributed. I thank the noble Lord, , for his diligent work on
issues pertaining to areas of local and regional disadvantage;
the Bill is better for that consideration. I thank my noble
friend , who is not in his place, for
his constructive challenge, notably in relation to the role of
the CMA. In that vein, we made improvements to the Bill to ensure
that the CMA reviews the operation of the regime earlier than it
otherwise would have done, ensuring that issues such as upload
thresholds and deadlines, limitation periods and routes to
challenge remain appropriate. I also thank the noble and learned
Lord, Lord Thomas, who made significant contributions to our
debates and proposed well-reasoned amendments on this Bill. His
contributions, made in his calm, deliberate and thoughtful style,
have considerably raised the quality of the debate. Many other
Front-Bench and Back-Bench colleagues contributed; they are too
numerous to mention, but I thank them all.
I shall say a brief word on the excellent team of officials who
have made this Bill possible. Again, there are far too many to
mention today, but I shall single out one or two in particular:
my private secretary, Ruth Kaufmann Wolfe; the Bill manager,
Thomas Bingham, and the wider Bill team; and the policy lead,
Matilda Curtis, and her team of officials. I thank them for their
joint work over a long period of up to 18 months to make this
Bill what it is today. I also pay tribute to some of the legal
colleagues—Michael Brannagan, Giovanna Amodeo, Edd Williams and
Tom Davis—as well as the wider subsidy control team and
colleagues across government, who have been fundamental to making
this Bill work and become a success. Today marks the culmination
of almost two years of work on their part. I also recognise once
again the exemplary work of the Office of the Parliamentary
Counsel in both drafting this Bill and supporting its progress at
so many points during its passage so far. The House authorities,
parliamentary staff, clerks and doorkeepers, as always, did their
work excellently and competently.
We will continue to gather feedback as the regime is developed
ahead of implementation. I am happy to report that our subsidies
of particular interest regulations consultation is now live and
will run until 6 May, for any colleagues who wish to participate.
I am grateful once again for your Lordships’ House’s scrutiny and
the improvements to the Bill that have resulted from it, and I
look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
(Lab)
I will start by sharing our concern at the information the
Minister gave regarding the devolved authorities. We look forward
to being involved in ongoing consultation and discussions as time
goes forward. I echo the comments already made by the noble and
learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lords, and Lord Dodds, on this
issue.
I think it is fair to say that this Bill might not have been
noticed by as many people as the more high-profile Bills that are
going through the House at the moment, but everyone who has been
involved in it recognises the significance of the work undertaken
and just how deep the implications are for how public money will
be spent for years to come. As we made clear from the outset, we
agreed with the Government’s core principles in this area,
including introducing greater flexibility through the removal of
pre-notification requirements. However, as we have stressed
throughout the debates on this Bill, with power comes
responsibility. It is for this reason that we have focused on
increasing the transparency obligations on public authorities, as
the Minister just outlined. We are talking about large sums of
public money, which must be easily accounted for and deliver real
value for money. Unfortunately, we have had too many examples
recently where we cannot claim that that is the case.
However, we are very grateful to the Minister and to the Whip,
the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for their genuine engagement
on these matters. Although we did not achieve everything that we
would have liked, we believe the Bill is much improved as a
result of the substantial package of concessions brought forward
on Report.
I would like to echo our profound thanks to everyone involved
through the Bill team. Our access to officials has been
particularly helpful; they have been very open. It has enabled us
to delve into the detail and discuss potential ways forward,
whether legislative or non-legislative.
Despite good progress being made in most areas, there are
significant concerns in others—particularly, as we have already
highlighted, in relation to the involvement or otherwise of the
devolved Administrations and the substantial financial and
practical barriers imposed on SMEs and others if they wish to
challenge individual subsidies. A particular concern of the
business community is the lack of clarity in the guidance around
the decision-making on when subsidies will be awarded.
We will have a review, as is outlined in the Bill, of some of
these matters in three years’ time, and we hope the Government
will act quickly in response to the findings. Until then, we hope
public authorities will make the most of this new framework. In
particular, I am appreciative that the Government listened to all
the arguments about focusing and directing money towards areas
with economic deprivation. This is a welcome shift from the
Government across this area.
Another regret is failing—just—to pass the amendment to improve
the Bill’s green credentials. We hope all levels of Government
will continue to have regard to the fight against climate change.
Pursuing a net-zero strategy is not just a statutory duty but a
moral one. I firmly believe we have missed a trick by not more
firmly linking net-zero obligations to the awarding of
subsidies.
All that remains is to thank all colleagues who took part during
the Bill’s various stages—particularly, as has been highlighted,
the noble Lords, , , and , the noble and learned Lord,
Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I would like
to pay tribute to my noble friend . Unfortunately, he cannot be
with us today, but I think we all recognise the amount of work he
put in. I would like also to add my thanks to all the staff,
clerks and doorkeepers in the normal manner. I end by thanking
sincerely Dan Stevens, the officer in our office, for his
unfailing patience, support, and clarity of thought and purpose,
and for helping us to put down the improvements sought.
(LD)
My Lords, it is genuinely pleasing to see the Minister looking in
a substantially better state than he did at the end of Report. I
am pleased that he is back up and at the Dispatch Box.
As the Minister has repeatedly told us throughout the process,
this Subsidy Control Bill is a consequence of the TCA. The
Minister also claimed that it was rare for such controls to exist
in other countries around the world, and said it would be a
permissive regime, the antithesis of the regime it is replacing.
So it is something of a legislative experiment as it goes
forward.
Since its introduction, as has been stated, improvements have
been made, and the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House much
improved. My noble friends, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and
some important voices from the Cross Benches and Conservative
Benches have helped to make these improvements, along with the
work of the Minister and his colleagues.
But noble Lords would expect me to say that it remains a flawed
Bill. As was highlighted, it is more transparent—but a £99,999
subsidy need not be reported, and that remains a very large sum
of money that can be passed from government to business without a
report. It invests some powers to the CMA, but insufficient
authority. I align myself with the comments of the noble
Baroness, Lady Blake, on the subject of the burden on SMEs and
the absence of any net-zero quantity.
The biggest uncertainty hanging over the Bill, as far as we can
see, is this: if it is permissive, what will it permit? True to
the nature of this Government, they have delivered a Bill that is
not designed to deliver a strategy—almost the opposite. By
permitting authorities to deliver subsidies or subsidy schemes in
their area of control, essentially independent of schemes in
adjacent areas, they are creating the potential for huge
confusion and conflict, with money flowing from the richest areas
back into their own communities to ensure that they remain the
richest areas. The failure to grasp the need to map deprivation
systematically could well render this system very divisive.
My noble friend used the Welsh example, but I
will use an English one, because the Minister is the English
Minister. As we know, EU funding in Cornwall over the seven years
from 2014 to 2020 was nearly €600 million. This was based on a
realistic assessment of the relative poverty of that county. The
proof of this Government’s subsidy scheme, system or control, and
of their promises, will be how much UK money flows into
Cornwall.
As the Minister mentioned, there was the whole devolution issue.
I will not repeat all the arguments, but the Government’s mantra
of repeating over and again “It is a reserved issue” does not
represent negotiation, nor is it designed to win the hearts and
minds of those who sit on the edge of the unionist/separatist
divide—quite the opposite; to then include agriculture, which is
a devolved issue, in the Bill made matters substantially worse.
We heard from the Minister that these were the issues driving the
absence of legislative consent. Despite the many improvements we
have seen, we on these Benches remain very concerned about the
effect this Act will have on the union, but I will pass from this
critique and move on to the Oscars ceremony part—the Minister can
be assured that I do not mean that part of it.
I again thank the Minister. He showed remarkable fortitude during
the Bill’s passage, along with his Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady
Bloomfield, who showed the customary availability and relatively
good humour. Those in Bill team itself were, as usual,
authoritative and helpful. I thank them, as set out by the
Minister.
During the debates, the noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Blake, the noble Lord, , the noble and learned
Lords, Lord Thomas and , as well as the noble Lord,
, made significant contributions
that helped to shape the Bill. On these Benches, my noble friends
Lady Sheehan, Lady Randerson, Lady Humphreys, , Lord Bruce and Lord Purvis
offered wisdom and experience. In the office, making sure that
the whole thing held together, we must once again thank Sarah
Pughe, along with Dan in the Labour office, who helped to drive
us along.
So the Minister will have his Act. Whether it is indeed a subsidy
control regime remains to be seen. I think many of us still
suspect that it is actually a mechanism for central government to
parachute schemes into areas of its choice, unchallengeable by
devolved authorities, local authorities or indeed the CMA.
3.59pm
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
|
