Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Well, I think the proposals for the White Paper are cheaper, because there is no money attached to them at all.

The Government’s position is that, to maintain the level of EU structural support, £1.5 billion a year must be distributed. I will not quibble about some of the details, but let us take it as read that £1.5 billion a year must be distributed. The Government promised that there would be no shortfall. There were two references in the manifesto that stated so:

“a UK Shared Prosperity Fund to ensure that the people of the UK do not lose out from the withdrawal of EU funding”.

The Minister stated so when he led on the repeal of the structural fund SI, and he stated so again on Monday in Committee.

We, national devolved Governments and local authorities thought that this was a straightforward commitment to replace the previous funds without there being a loss of funds, but no. On page 74 of the spending review, the weasel words “rise to” were inserted. The Government stated that, to ensure that the people of the UK did not lose out from the withdrawal of EU funding, the investment would need to be £4.5 billion in this spending review period, but, as they stated on page 74 of the spending review, it is £2.6 billion over the next three years—a cut of £1.9 billion, cutting support in areas most in need. The cuts in the coming years are a staggering £1.1 billion.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, nor has there been any commitment to replicating per-person investment support. Under the previous schemes, investment was £130 per person in England, £180 per person in Scotland, £280 per person in Northern Ireland and £780 per person in Wales, reflecting the areas identified for particular need. I would like the Minister to write to me about what the proposed per-person investment will be for 2022. That is when we will know whether indeed we are losing out from the withdrawal of EU funding.

I was genuinely interested in what the Minister said on Monday about the geographical delineations referenced in Amendment 14 with regard to areas of need. He said, and he was specific in his language, that there was a differing approach from that used by the levelling-up fund. I then looked at the levelling-up fund methodology, which states that the methodology used is

“to develop an index of priority places for the Levelling Up Fund.”

Furthermore,

“any comparison of need between places in different nations should be made using a consistent set of GB-wide metrics only.”

The levelling-up fund is using an index of priority places based on need. To be consistent, that is GB-wide, and all authorities, when they are putting forward their bids for the levelling-up fund, will be clear as to what status they are in with regard to the index of priority.

So far, that is clear. However, the Government have said that there is no link between the two. The conclusion might be that this Bill is not linked with the levelling-up approach, but that is not what the Minister said at Second Reading. He said:

“Under this regime, public authorities at all levels of government will be empowered to give subsidies to help address regional disadvantages, supporting our levelling-up aims.”—[Official Report, 19/1/22; col. 1712.]


So the aims are the same, but if there is no methodology to support a scheme’s aims of addressing regional disadvantage under this Bill—in other words, inequalities —how will levelling up actually be achieved? The CMA will only have the ability to review a scheme’s legality under this Bill; it will have no scope to help to address and support our levelling-up aims. Who will do that? Which body will consider whether this Bill is “supporting our levelling-up aims”, as the Minister said at Second Reading?

The Minister might say that they are completely distinct and that the fund will operate completely distinctly from the subsidy regime. I looked at the levelling up-fund prospectus, which states categorically at paragraph 6.9 that all applicants to the levelling-up fund

“must also consider how they will deliver in line with subsidy control (or State Aid in Northern Ireland) as per Government guidance … This will be tested as part of the appraisal process and monitored thereafter.”

How, and by whom? If every application to the levelling-up fund is to be considered in the context of this Bill, they are linked. If the Government are making the case for having a regional index for that fund, for which all applications have to satisfy this Bill, but this Bill says that there will be no index or any regional aspect, how on earth will this be monitored with regard to meeting the levelling-up aims?

My final point refers to further amendments to Clause 18 on markets. The Minister has been at pains to say that there will be no definition of “local market”. I question how all the Government’s different considerations will be satisfied if there is to be a review of the impact on local markets without there being an index such as the levelling-up fund. I simply do not know why the Government have made the clear distinction between this Bill and the levelling-up approach, which they say has to be consistent with the Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify those points.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I sat here on Monday on the first day of Committee and I wondered how much of the replying Minister’s speech was written already—that is, Ministers were not responding to any of the good sense or good words that they heard from this side of the Room. It struck me that that should be seen as a little more important than it was on Monday.

This is an important group, because it is asking what we want to use the subsidies for, rather than just saying, “How do we want to control subsidies?” Supporting areas of deprivation has to be a core principle in our subsidy schemes and everything the Government do. We are very lucky now; we have a department for levelling up and we have a White Paper. Apparently, the White Paper points out how unequal the UK is. If you measure it on any economic or social metric, it is incredibly unequal. We have to ask: what have the Government been doing for the past 12 years? Of course, they are a Conservative Government, so clearly the levelling-up agenda is to mop up all the damage they have done in the past 12 years. Tackling deprivation and inequality will take a lot more than fine words, and streamlining subsidy schemes that are tailored to overcoming deprivation would be a good start.

Similarly, we should be making it easy for public authorities to support cultural and environmental objectives. I support noble Lords who have spoken so far, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on this point, because it would be a great shame if the Bill were to interfere with achieving cultural and environmental objectives. We should concentrate on calculating social value as articulated in Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, as this is still a fledgling area of procurement practice and was one of the features of David Cameron’s early years as Prime Minister when he was still trying to do some good. The Government seem to have stalled on social value since then. If we can improve the methodology for calculating social value and properly embed it in procurement and subsidy schemes, every pound spent by the public sector will have a much greater benefit for our communities. It will help to tackle deprivation, benefit the environment and create flourishing local authorities. I hope the Minister can explain what the Government are doing to advance the social value agenda.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, one of the things that has often been frustrating in your Lordships’ House in the seven years that I have been here is that we talk about incredibly important things, yet often our language is so obtuse and complex that, although we understand what we are talking about, other people outside do not. Therefore, a lot of these important issues do not get the sort of publicity that they ought to.

Following the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is a mixed blessing. He gave a devastating outline of exactly why ISDS should not be any part of trade negotiations. At the same time, he has reduced my speech to ashes because that was exactly what I was going to argue. I honestly do not understand how any member of the Conservative Party can support the concept of not just countries but other corporations having any rights over our country. The mechanisms of ISDS are far worse than any charge that could be brought against the EU courts system. I do not understand how the Government think that it ISDS is reasonable.

The rule of law and the right to legal remedy are both important and are best served not by shady arbitration but openness and transparency and our legal court proceedings. The Minister should argue to everyone in his department that ISDS should not be any part of our trade negotiations. Your Lordships should now make it clear that we will reject any treaty that contains ISDS. The Government have made all sorts of promises about reclaiming sovereignty, but how on earth can they claim with straight faces that ISDS is an appropriate mechanism to put in any trade Bill.

While I have the Floor, I should like to say that the Minister in the previous group said something about the Bill being a useful mechanism for fighting climate change. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned lifting other countries out of poverty through trade. Perhaps he could do something about that in Britain and start lifting out of poverty the millions of people who are on, below or close to the poverty line. There must be some mechanism that this Government could use. In any case, the whole concept of ISDS should be thrown out as fast as possible.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kramer moved this amendment very ably and indicated that, because of the cross-party support and the degree of consistency with Amendment 19, she would be minded to test the opinion of the House. So I will be brief, because I suspect that the only service I could bring would be to undermine her arguments if I speak at length.

I want to pick up on one point. I agree with others that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, provides us with a service to make sure that we are as on the ball as we can be with regard to making our case. My noble friend’s point about Canada is illustrative in trying to find out what the Government’s intention is for the long term for the replacement of ISDS.

We already know two things. The Minister said at Second Reading:

“ISDS is a subject which often causes excitement … I confirm that ISDS tribunals can never overrule the sovereignty of Parliament … There has never been a successful ISDS claim against the United Kingdom, but our investors operating overseas have often benefited from these agreements”.—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. 749.]


He gave the impression that the Government’s position is that they are, at the very least, relaxed about ISDS being in agreements, and that they would not seek to move to a multilateral system as a replacement for ISDS.

The second thing we know is that, since 2008, after the European Council made the decision for the EU policy to move beyond ISDS, it has systematically sought to include provisions in agreements going forward; those can include changes to the ISDS mechanism and having a different form of tribunal process. Further, as the EU-Canada joint statement with the signing of CETA said:

“The EU and Canada commit to join efforts with other trading partners to set up a permanent multilateral investment court with a standing appellate mechanism.”


The issue then is: what was in CETA? We know that the changes to CETA included a right to regulate by both parties—the European Union and Canada—across all levels of government, regardless of investment protection; that there would be a clear break from an ad hoc arbitration system and a move to a permanent and institutionalised dispute settlement tribunal; and that members of the tribunal would no longer be appointed by the investor or the state but would instead be appointed in advance in a neutral manner.

My noble friend asked what the Government’s position is regarding the UK replacement for CETA; this is illustrative of where the Government are, going forward. Inevitably, the Minister was not able to share that information in Committee but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated, we have now seen the text of the agreement. It is very interesting. As has been referred to, page 103 of 109 lifted our hopes against the noble Lord’s fear that we would not be in a position to move to a multilateral system. It states:

“Therefore, the TCA represents an important and radical change in investment rules and dispute resolution. It lays the basis for a multilateral effort to develop further this new approach to investment dispute resolution into a Multilateral Investment Court. The United Kingdom and Canada will work expeditiously towards the creation of the Multilateral Investment Court. It should be set up once a minimum critical mass of participants is established, and immediately replace bilateral systems such as the one in TCA, and be fully open to accession by any country that subscribes to the principles underlying the Court.”


That was reassuring from our point of view and it gave a signal, but there is a sting in the tail: this is subject to a comprehensive review within three months. If the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is correct—he often is—the Government will have acceded to what Canada wanted but are holding their position. They are holding their position for this review so that they are not in a position where, effectively, they will have their sovereignty restricted because they know that, in entering into the CPTPP or any agreement with America, their partners will not be in favour of moving to a multilateral system.

Perhaps this is just like some of the other discussions taking place now. There is what the Northern Ireland announcement called a grace period. There is a grace period for the agreement for moving to a multilateral system, as in our amendment, but the Government are trying to triangulate. The Government need to be clear, because this cannot go on for much longer. The amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lady Kramer is an opportunity for the Government to be clear. This is such an important issue, which is why we want to press the amendment: to get clarity from the Government.

At this stage, if the Minister can respond clearly on Canada, that would be a reassurance, but it does not negate the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made the point that this amendment is perhaps unnecessary; the text of the UK-Canada agreement and the review means that this amendment is even more necessary to replicate in this Bill what the Government indicated in the UK-Japan agreement.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I may be able to help the noble Baroness. I am grateful for the response from the Government Whips’ Office and its suggestion of tabling time for these to be debated. I will not pre-empt these exciting debates on Faroe Islands fisheries, but they look likely to happen next week.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and her promise to bring this back at Third Reading, so I will not go through any of the arguments again. The sunset clause, however, is not secure, simply because Clause 2(5)(b) allows Ministers to scrap it by statutory instrument. It is not, therefore, secure, and that is a matter of concern to me.

However, in the interests of even more co-operative working—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who has worked very hard, along with the Minister—I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, on the assumption that we will return to it at Third Reading.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 16, which is a crucial amendment to debate within the Trade Bill. The general principle of state aid rules, which is that the Government do not go around doling out money to big business in ways that are unfair or anti-competitive, is a good one. At the same time, there are concerns about state aid rules being used as a vehicle for predatory capitalism to dismantle the state and override democratic control of quite important parts of our economy. This is particularly important for Greens, because Greens are not as concerned with the electoral cycle as with the future of humanity and this planet. If we are going to listen to the IPCC report, which says we have 12 years before we have to face dramatic climate emergencies, then we need to transform our economy and make it fit for the future.

And that is the role of this House. The other place deals very much with the day-to-day—what happens on Monday or Thursday mornings. We here have a responsibility to the future. A green new deal is one of the answers. It would create 1 million well-paying climate jobs and set us on a sustainable footing for future generations. It would require active fiscal and monetary measures that would favour more sustainable production and consumption over more ecologically destructive options. Sometimes the state would have to pick winners and losers—that would be part of it—particularly in relation to natural monopolies such as railways and the energy system. Even the Government are recognising that the market is failing on some of these important issues, and that state intervention is required. Much of this could be called state aid, depending on what definition is used.

For these reasons, it is absolutely essential that our hands are not tied in any way which might interfere with our ability to tackle the climate emergency that we are facing, as well as all the other big issues facing our economy.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I seek some clarifications when the Minister responds, broadly in response to the constructive contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. With the withdrawal Bill, there was much debate in Committee and this House regarding how existing EU law will be migrated into UK law. There were 12 competences the UK Government believed were reserved and would therefore be fully within the competence of the UK Government, but that the devolved Administrations believed were either devolved or had a direct impact on devolved powers.

State aid was one of those areas where there was no agreement. That means that if there continues to be no agreement, then the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is absolutely critical. It means that for regulations brought for the continuity agreements, there needs to be far more enhanced consultation with Administrations that believe this is touching on their direct competences. If there has been agreement, then perhaps the amendment is less necessary for the continuity agreements; but as we come to further amendments, this sets the tone for what will be necessary for future agreements. When the Minister responds to this group, I hope he will be able to provide clarification on where the discussions are, regarding whether there is agreement on where state aid lies within this area of competences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 19 in this group. At Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, said that this process was about transparency. Amendment 18, which is a probing amendment, and Amendment 19 seek some transparency in a rather opaque set of situations—I listened to the Secretary of State for International Trade this morning from Davos adding even more confusion to the current position on the continuity agreement discussions.

On Monday, I referenced the fact that, through our membership of the EU, the UK has a trading relationship in place with 35 countries; 47 are partly in place, and there are 22 pending country agreements. These represent 66% of UK trade. Some are extremely complex. Some have been split into trading arrangements and investor dispute mechanisms, and some are of critical importance to certain sectors of the British economy. It is incredibly important that, between now and 29 March, we have a much greater understanding not only about what they are and how they will be translated into British law but also about the relationships that we have with other countries.

One of the reasons that Dr Fox has given for why we have not been presented with the trade agreements to roll over into our legislation is the reluctance of other countries. He has given a number of reasons why they are reluctant, which I will come to later, but one of the areas that Amendment 18 seeks to clarify is our Government’s understanding of what our partner Governments need to do. On a visit last year to a country in north Africa, I met with its foreign affairs and trade representatives and MPs. A representative of the British Government who was present asked them explicitly whether they needed to change any of their domestic legislation purposes if they were then going to respond to what the EU was going to ask them to do, which was to consider the UK as a member of the EU for the purposes of international agreements during the implementation period—that is, on the basis that we have an agreement—and they were not able to answer. I suspected that this was now a routine set of requests from British government representatives of our partner countries.

My amendment asks for a report on what our understanding is of the domestic processes that those countries need to go through. If we know that, we are able to take Dr Fox’s statement at face value: they are simply not carrying the weight or working hard. Or, if we know that their own domestic processes are more complex than one may have thought, then we may have greater sympathy with the Government that this may be a more complex process than we had been led to believe.

In 2017 and 2018, we seemed to be living in a much easier world, because Dr Fox suggested at the Conservative Party conference, reportedly to cheers from activists, that it would be a breeze to get all the existing trade agreements in place before March. I remind colleagues that he said:

“believe me, we'll have up to 40 ready for one second after midnight in March 2019”.

He added:

“All these faint hearts saying we cannot do it—it’s absolute rubbish”.


That was endorsed on Twitter by the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Price. When challenged on the basis that it might not be as easy as what Dr Fox had said, the noble Lord said on 24 October 2017, in response to someone saying that we would be out only on WTO rules:

“Ed we won’t only have WTO in event of no EU Trade deal. We will roll over the 60 odd other deals we are party to currently”.


Someone then responded that it would be difficult to do that. He then replied,

“All have agreed roll over”.


I just do not think that is correct. We now need absolute clarity because the clock is ticking.

When we debated this four months ago at Second Reading, I specifically asked the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, if the position of Dr Fox and the Government—that at the second after midnight next March they will all be ready—still stood. He replied:

“The Government’s position is exactly what the Secretary of State for International Trade said”.—[Official Report, 11/9/18; col. 2201.]


We need to know what the domestic processes are in those other countries and we need to know now very clearly, through a report, where we currently stand. That report should give the number, type, scope and extent of those agreements.

The agreements that we currently have in place are a mixture: free trade agreements; deep and comprehensive free trade agreements; economic partnership agreements; association agreements; stabilisation and association agreements; customs union arrangements—with Turkey and Andorra, which we will be discussing later on; interim economic partnerships; stepping-stone agreements; and modernisation agreements. We are also in the process, although they are not yet inked, of investor dispute mechanism agreements.

We have heard nothing at all from the Government about how we intend to roll over these different—in some respects, significantly different—types of agreements, and the consequences that that could potentially have on UK law. Dr Fox, in a slight moment of reality, said to the Commons committee that a simple rollover may not be as easy as previously stated. That is the only time—that I could find—where there was a degree of reality from the Government.

As I have said previously, the clock is now ticking. The Government still hold the position—if the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is to be believed—that we are to transfer all of these agreements into UK law. They have not deviated from that position; indeed, Dr Fox did not even deviate from it this morning when he was asked, which is the latest information. So this report under Amendment 19 is necessary.

Because of the complexity of these arrangements and because some of them are very large—the totality represents 66% of UK trade—it is necessary, in subsection (2)(d) of the proposed new clause, for us to specify the consequences for the United Kingdom. In failing to replicate the terms of the existing agreements, it is necessary that we have a report which indicates the impact on the UK economy. Subsection (2)(a)(i) to (iii) in Amendment 19 means that there will be a much greater degree of clarity on what our partners need to do.

Finally, why is this even more important? At a lunchtime meeting that I had with colleagues in the House with a delegation from the Canadian Parliament, the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Canada had a very interesting row with another Conservative MP. As a Liberal Democrat, the only good thing I could do was be an observer. The trade envoy said that one of the opportunities of rolling over the CETA agreement was to change it. That was immediately slapped down by the other Conservative MP who said, “No, we just need to get this through”. Our very close Canadian colleagues were bamboozled by this. They were also bamboozled when I asked them the same question that I am asking the Minister: what is necessary for Canada to implement this into their domestic legislation? So far, the Canadian Government have not indicated to their parliament that this is in the pipeline or that this is to be ready. Therefore, all I am asking is for the Government to tell us.

Now is the time for clarity—absolute clarity—not only for Parliament but also for businesses that rely on this trading relationship. I remind the Minister of the resolution of this House on Monday: that if this clarity is not provided then this Bill will not proceed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, when I first came to your Lordships’ House just over five years ago, I found some of the procedures absolutely incomprehensible. It has taken me a little time to find my feet. Quite honestly, a lot of those procedures lack common sense.

I do not understand why it was ever necessary to draft Amendment 19, let alone for it to be moved. It is common sense: of course we need this sort of information. It is asking for such basic information which, in any sensible universe, would be published as a matter of course. This is transparency which helps all of our businesses and our economy. We are now only weeks away from Brexit day, and we are still completely in the dark about all these things. There are many supply chains which depend on this sort of information. They depend on our existing trade arrangements. Businesses do not have the slightest clue whether they will be able to continue on existing terms in just two months’ time.

I would have thought that, if the Government had everything lined up ready to roll over these trade deals—which I very much doubt—then Ministers would be telling us about it and about what a great job they have done. The Minister would do a great service to the Committee, and to the country, by giving us a full account of where the Government are in these negotiations. It should not have to be an amendment to the Bill—it is so basic—but if the Government will not tell us then we have to compel them.