Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, “Take back control” was a tempting offer. EU processes are often slow and frustrating; Brexiteers call them undemocratic but, if anything, they suffer from democracy overload—layers of decision-making subject to repeated democratic checks and balances. On the plus side, so many cooks stirring the broth rarely get the recipe wrong. However, with this Bill, all pretence has been dropped. The DPRRC calls it a “hyper-skeletal” Bill giving “extraordinary powers” to Ministers and, importantly, says:

“Ministers, not Parliament, will be responsible for determining what stays, what goes and what, if anything, is to replace what goes.”


I wish to touch on two issues, the first of which is devolution. The Bill does not just take powers from Parliament; it also takes powers from the devolved Administrations. It un-devolves powers. Clause 2 allows UK Ministers to defer the guillotine until 2026, but Ministers in the DAs, which have previously held powers over many of these areas, are not able to defer the guillotine. I realise it will not worry the Government, but it is almost certain that the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament will not grant legislative consent.

On transport, this massive clearance sale of EU laws creates uncertainty. We do not know which will go and which will stay. The dashboard currently has 424 transport laws. When will the full list be published? Businesses must know where they stand: lack of democracy is compounded by a lack of transparency. How can we be debating a Bill which gives Ministers powers to change or repeal thousands of pieces of legislation, but we do not know how many and we do not know which ones. Clearly, the Department for Transport does not have the capacity to deal with this avalanche. This is the department that got 20 years behind in updating maritime legislation in line with our international treaty commitments. Rail cancellations and delays are at an all-time high, but the department does not have the time to introduce the Williams-Shapps reforms. It cannot find the time for long overdue legislation to regulate e-scooters. Our vehicle manufacturing industry risks terminal decline, but the Government cannot find time to update our vehicle standards legislation to bring it into line with the suite of EU vehicle safety regulations introduced last year. Those regulations save lives, and they help our manufacturers who need our standards to mirror those in the EU, which is their main export market. Over 4,000 pages of this legislation relate to aircraft safety, and I have yet to find anyone in the aviation sector who wants a comma of it changed. But the Government did find time last year to consult on their proposal to reduce our right to claim compensation for cancelled internal flights—an example, I think, of one of our Brexit freedoms.

Three years ago, the Government embarked on creating 32 common frameworks to regulate the way this legislation is dealt with alongside devolved Administrations. It was supposed to take a year; it has taken more three years. Finally, transposing EU law into UK law over a period of years is a reasonable aim; dealing with 4,000 pieces of legislation in 10 months by ministerial diktat is not. Either this Bill is a result of massive incompetence, or this is what totalitarianism looks like.

Electric Vehicle Battery Production

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The Government stand willing to talk to any manufacturers that want to establish such facilities. There have already been a number of excellent investments in the UK, supported by the automotive transformation fund. The site in Cambois that was going to be developed by Britishvolt remains available. Subject to the decisions of the administrators and the local authority, we very much hope that a project can be taken forward there.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the collapse of Britishvolt is a symbol of the Government’s failure to create an industrial strategy to fill the void left by Brexit. It is about much more than the loss of one potential factory, because it threatens the future of the UK car-manufacturing industry as a whole. The SMMT and the Advanced Propulsion Centre estimate that we need 90 to 100 gigawatt capacity by 2030 to supply the electric vehicle industry. Current capacity is 2 to 2.5 gigawatts, so rapid expansion is urgently needed. There is a forest of gigafactory projects throughout Europe. Why does the Minister think those Governments have succeeded, while our Government have failed to create the industry needed? What discussions have the Government had in recent weeks with UK-based vehicle manufacturers, which are seriously concerned about the current void?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We have constant discussions with UK motor manufacturers and of course, we are always available for further discussions with companies that want to bring forward projects. The noble Baroness, as usual, is completely wrong. Already there have been substantial investments in this country. On 1 July 2021, Nissan and Envision announced a £1 billion investment to create a north-east EV hub. The site will produce a projected 100,000 battery-electric cars each year. Ford has committed a total of £380 million to make Halewood its first EV component site in Europe. Pensana received an in-principle offer of government support for its £145 million factory near Hull to make metal for magnets. So, this investment is coming. Of course, it was disappointing that the Britishvolt project was not successful, but the site remains an excellent one for this investment. Subject to discussions with the local authority and the administrators, we hope it can be taken forward.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 173, I will also speak to Amendments 174 to 176, 178 to 180 and 182 in the name of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Callanan.

Amendments 173 to 176 provide clarification and consistency to the definitions of the appliances to which the energy smart regulations will apply. These definitions focus on the purpose of an appliance. Amendments 173 and 174 ensure that energy smart regulations can be made only for cleaning appliances that are most appropriate for demand-side flexibility. This includes, for example, a dishwasher or a washing machine. Amendment 175 allows battery storage to be captured in a manner consistent with the definition of electricity storage in Clause 162. Amendments 176 and 182 clarify that the regulations capture heat pumps, which are essential to the Government’s policy objectives for decarbonising heat.

Next, Amendments 178 and 179 indicate that the Secretary of State may make provision about the recall of non-compliant appliances and may issue guidance about the prohibitions and requirements imposed by these regulations. These amendments therefore provide further safeguards to address serious cases of non-compliance and will support industry to comply with its obligations, aided by guidance.

Lastly, Amendment 180 makes a minor amendment to ensure that the regulations cover additional methods other than ordinary selling for making energy smart appliances available to consumers, such as hire purchase agreements.

Energy smart appliances will play an essential part in the transition to a smarter energy system, enabling consumers to save money on bills and contributing to cost-effective decarbonisation. These amendments provide important clarifications on the scope of these regulations and make certain that they can be implemented effectively in a way that maximises the benefits of smart functionality for consumers and the electricity group.

I will respond to the non-government amendments in this group when we have heard noble Lords’ contributions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My little Amendment 177 seems to have intruded on this group of government amendments. I tabled it because I was concerned about the practical implications of the Government’s reliance on smart regulations and smart appliances. I am certainly not arguing with the technology but I am seeking to tease out exactly how this will impact on us and the people of Britain as ordinary consumers.

If you read Clause 187, you will see that it is very dictatorial and centralised in its approach. Yet if you look at paragraph 438 of the Explanatory Notes you will see that, in practice, the Government’s intentions are going to be carried out by retailers and manufacturers, and they will face penalties if they do not get it right. My concern is that one size does not fit all. For example, the noble Baroness just mentioned washing machines and so on, but my example would be electric vehicles. We are told to charge electric vehicles at times when electricity usage is low, and we are promised that this will become an automatic default position. The Government are relying on smart usage, in effect, to expand limited national grid capacity. At the weekend, when I was reading some background material, I noticed that there are only two regions where there is currently said to be any level of surplus national grid capacity. The rest of the country is in a very stretched position.

I have been asking these questions for some years. I have been asking how a reliance on telling people when they can wash their clothes or charge their cars will impact on consumers and the way we use our gadgets and run our daily lives. There is a current experiment, not using smart technology but with a voluntary agreement, to get people to opt in to using their washing machines, dishwashers and so on at low-demand periods, with a financial incentive to do that. That is great if it is convenient for these people and they are opting in to do it. I am pleased that the experiment is taking place, as I am sure it will produce some useful information, but I want to float past everyone a couple of potential issues.

First, I do not want to bore noble Lords for long with the details of my domestic life but I have solar panels and an electric car. I want to use my washing machine and dishwasher and charge my electric vehicle when the sun is out; sometimes, that is at a time of peak demand. I am saving myself money, which I regard as a good thing, but, more importantly, I am limiting the amount I draw down from the grid because my solar panels provide my electricity. I am minimising my call on the grid. There are lots of people like me with solar panels; let us hope that there are heaps more in the coming months and years. This issue needs to be taken into account.

Secondly, more importantly, there is a host of people whose working patterns require them to charge their cars and do their washing at peak times. A care worker working nights has to fit their domestic life around those daily patterns, which might be peak demand times. This is not just about just care workers; it is about health workers, district nurses or anyone working on shifts—the police, firefighters and taxi drivers. We want taxi drivers to drive electric vehicles but they are going to run out of electricity half way through the day; they must be enabled to carry on their work.

We have all, I am sure, experienced a situation where we have had to take our phone or laptop to the technical experts because it is doing something strange, behaving in a way that is beyond our understanding. We are normally told that it is the factory settings or an automatic download. I am now aware that, because they are so automated, electric vehicles adopt patterns that one might not necessarily understand fully because they have downloaded a new program and so on. As the technology becomes more sophisticated, in reality, consumers will find it more difficult to understand what it is doing, why and to override it when they need to.

My big question is that any reliance on smart charging and smart usage must be able to be adapted for that large body of people for whom it is not convenient. In days of high energy prices, most of us can probably be relied on to know what is best for us financially and, therefore, what draws least from the grid. I am concerned that the way in which this is expressed allows no latitude, judgment or option for consumers to make that decision for themselves.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 181 in my name, which follows on from what my noble friend Lady Randerson was talking about.

The whole area of smart appliances is really important. It is in fact where demand management starts to creep into this Bill; it is about the only place that it does. The popularity of their potential has, I think, been shown by National Grid’s call for people to offer to manage their energy usage over particular times in the winter; the Minister may give us the figures but I think that more than a million people have shown an interest in it. I would be interested to know where we are with that.

There is a risk here, however. We have seen it with smart meters. I will not go back to the smart meters argument but one barrier to rollout has been the fear of people sharing information. Clearly, data is core to smart technology; data is personal so there is the question of how that data will be used.

My Amendment 181 is really a probing amendment; it is not in the form that would finally go into a Bill. It seeks to understand how the Government are going to communicate what is a really important thrust in terms of demand management and the way we use dispersed energy systems in a smart grid. How are they going to explain and deliver the strategy outlined so that we do not have the consumer reaction that we have had in other areas, including smart meters—very much media-driven, I should add? I want to avoid that.

The other area on which I want to tackle the Minister is concerns Clause 187(3)(d). It is one sub-paragraph of just three lines about security of information—indeed, the whole area of security. This is a core, important area: we know that, wherever smart systems or information technology are involved, there are all sorts of threats regarding the use of personal information. There is also the threat of external hacking, with state actors or others going into these systems and making them unusable.

It is easy and right to say that personal and other data used with smart technologies are secure or otherwise protected, but who is actually going to do that? I am talking about security or communication software systems. I would like to know from the Minister who will be responsible for the protection and security of these systems. I believe that it is important from the bottom up in terms of personal information but also in terms of smart grids and external, less favourable people towards the United Kingdom intervening here. I am sure that the Government have this under control and consideration but it is a really important area. We need to understand that it is being taken seriously and that, whoever the person or authority, they are going to make sure that these particular three lines in Clause 187(3)(d) are delivered.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

124A: After Clause 107, insert the following new Clause—
“Low-carbon transport schemes(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment and operation of one or more low-carbon transport schemes.(2) A low-carbon transport scheme for the purposes of subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to, the use of hydrogen as fuel to power vehicles.(3) Regulations may include—(a) the setting of low-carbon transport targets,(b) encouraging and incentivising the provision of networks of refuelling stations supplying hydrogen for vehicles, and(c) encouraging and incentivising businesses which run fleets of vehicles to convert to hydrogen fuel.(4) Regulations must specify that, where low-carbon transport schemes include the use of hydrogen, the hydrogen must meet the UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard. (5) Vehicles covered by low-carbon transport schemes may include e-bicycles and e-motorbicycles.(6) Hydrogen to power vehicles may be used in a fuel cell or burned in a combustion engine.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to encourage and incentivise the use of low-carbon transport schemes, similar to the low-carbon heat schemes in the Bill, particularly the use of hydrogen to power vehicles.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I decided to table this amendment, because I felt that it was important to draw attention to what I and many in the transport sector see as the lack of leadership from the Government on this issue. It is important to bear in mind that the Government have seemingly very good targets on decarbonising the transport sector, but there is no detail on how we are going to get there. The path ahead is very vague.

Transport is the largest carbon-emitting sector in the UK. It is responsible for a quarter of CO₂ emissions globally. In the UK, the sector has reduced its emissions by only 3% since 1990. That stands in contrast with other sectors. There is a desperate need for leadership, because we are falling behind. The evidence is that we have to be halfway there by 2030 to reach the goals for 2050, but we do not have the plans, the policy or the path set out for us, and it is now a matter of great urgency.

One reason why emissions have not reduced is that although the technology has improved, the number of vehicles on the road has increased, as has the size of cars. Although they are more efficient kilo for kilo, if I can put it that way, they weigh more now and have a greater impact and emit greater amounts of carbon. I want to say briefly that we are talking about this in relation to carbon emissions, but it is, of course, a matter of health. It has a huge impact on our breathing and things like heart attacks, and so on. It is a matter of considerable importance in health.

A great deal is made about the move to electric vehicles, but only 2% of the vehicles on the roads so far are EVs. We are a very long way behind the leaders—countries such as Norway, where up to half of vehicles sold are EVs. My amendment refers specifically to hydrogen, and hydrogen is controversial. Of course, it must be green hydrogen. Even then, green hydrogen has disadvantages, but the advantage of hydrogen is that it provides an early answer to the difficult-to-decarbonise sectors of the transport world—that is, heavy goods vehicles, heavy vehicles generally and, of course, shipping, which is particularly difficult to decarbonise. That is one reason why there is the reference to hydrogen.

The other reason why there is a reference to hydrogen is that, unlike with electricity for vehicles, hydrogen cannot really be installed on a commercial basis unless the Government put in place a set of carrots and sticks to encourage it commercially to be installed. It costs over £1 million to install a hydrogen-fuelling point. It is not the answer for ordinary domestic cars. It could be the answer for fleets of vehicles such as vans, but it is not going to be, unless the Government provide leadership.

I have been raising this issue for the past six years at least, and the Government have said that the market will solve the problem of electric vehicle charging points. To a certain extent, the market has stepped in. Of course, there are huge gaps, but the market has stepped in. The reason it has been able to is that all around us there is electricity—but we do not have hydrogen all around us. I deliberately mention hydrogen in the amendment because the Government need to consider how they are going to lead on this issue.

I finish by saying that the point of the amendment is to open up the matter for discussion and to give the Government the opportunity to consider—and, I hope, to think again about—the urgent need for leadership in setting out a set of steps, a policy or plan. These exist in other countries without Governments taking a huge commercial risk, but simply by providing the incentives to encourage people to choose more environmentally friendly ways of fuelling their vehicles and ensuring that, having chosen a more environmentally friendly vehicle, they can run it efficiently and effectively.

Noble Lords will be well aware that every time we talk about electric vehicles, there is immediately a discussion of the latest crisis that someone has faced in being unable to charge their EV—despite the fact that they are probably running short of electricity outside a house or fuel station that is blazing in electricity. Let us just think about how much more complex the matter is if we are talking about hydrogen.

This is about discussing the difficult issues and encouraging the Government to look ahead and plan—urgently—for what must be achieved. The average life of vehicles on the roads now is 16 years, I believe, and that will probably get longer because we are facing a period of difficulty, austerity and rising prices. This is therefore important, because those decisions made this year about what vehicle to buy—whether you are an individual or as a company—will be with us for decades to come. The Government must lead in the way only Governments can. I beg to move.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 124A, as presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I must say that it is seldom that we disagree, because we both share the objectives of a rapid response to the growing climate risk, rapid decarbonisation and increasing the efficiency of our energy systems. I welcome this chance to have a debate about the intersectionality between transport and energy. In fact, and not to pre-empt it, I have an Oral Question later this week about how departments connect on these issues. It is hugely important that the DfT, in particular, teams up with BEIS on planning for our future decarbonised energy systems.

That said, I do not think it will come as any surprise that I am absolutely opposed to the idea of bringing in this set of amendments as currently drafted. My belief is that hydrogen will have a very limited role, for three reasons. First, it is itself a climate change gas and it is very slippery; it is the smallest molecule on the periodic table and it escapes everywhere. I do not wish to have hydrogen all around me—quite the opposite. I want hydrogen in very controlled places, being looked after by industrial chemists; I do not want it in my home or in my vehicle. We just have to look at the explosion of the hydrogen fuelling station in Norway. It is often forgotten but this is a hugely explosive gas. Norway managed to blow one of its fuelling stations and, if Norway can blow things up, anyone can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Could I just point out that it is easier not to send loads of CO₂ out into the atmosphere in the first place? It is great to hear about all the millions that the Government are spending on these measures, but it would be cheaper not to pollute in the first place. Things such as carbon capture and storage are all incredibly theoretical ideas, so you cannot actually say that it is going to happen, because it may not.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. I knew that I would provoke a debate by specifically mentioning hydrogen—and that was my intention. I wanted to tease out the Government’s views. I thank the Minister for her response, but it was light on detail as, I fear, the whole of the Government’s policy is.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on her view of the Government. I fear that the Government have been so self-obsessed for the past two or three years that there is a policy vacuum in all sorts of places, and transport is one of them. I also agree with her that we need to rely very much more on public transport but, of course, the vast majority of public transport is provided by buses, which are heavy vehicles. Electricity is fine in towns and cities but it is not yet the answer for long distances in rural areas or for long-distance buses. Of course, not enough of our electricity is green and comes from renewable resources. Despite the ingenious plans for the national grid, we have a crisis of capacity, which will face us very soon if we all rely on electric vehicles.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to aviation. I remind noble Lords about the Government’s jet zero strategy, which is a triumph of optimism over reality.

My noble friend Lady Sheehan made a very important point about batteries. It is important to emphasise that we are well behind in the international race for developing gigafactory capacity. Very soon, rules of origin will be a problem for those wishing to export.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not know what the noble Baroness is doing; she is supposed to be deciding whether she will withdraw her amendment, not responding to a debate. This is not a debate on general activity relating to hydrogen. She should say whether she wants to withdraw her amendment—that is the question.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, in Grand Committee it is normal to allow people the courtesy to respond to well-made points from noble Lords. I want to make it absolutely clear that the intention of my amendment was to provoke debate. I am disappointed that the Government’s response has been so limited. The amounts of money announced by the Minister are attractive and worth while, but they need to be multiplied by at least 10 to have any impact at all.

I will withdraw the amendment, of course, but I remind noble Lords of the words of the United Nations Secretary-General:

“We are in the fight of our lives, and we are losing”—


we need a sense of urgency. I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 124A withdrawn.

Battery Strategy (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the committee on its report, which is brutally clear in its conclusions. I have been fascinated by this debate. I have sat in many Grand Committee debates here but I have never come across one that has aroused such strong views across the Room.

The first sentence of this report says it all:

“The UK’s current trajectory of battery manufacture is insufficient to support the automotive industry’s transition to electric vehicles or to meet our net-zero commitment.”


The committee goes on to say—the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has already quoted this—that it was astonished at the stark contrast between the optimism of Ministers and the concerns of the experts who came to give evidence.

These conclusions stand even more clearly a year on from the writing of the report. This Government—we are of course three Prime Ministers on from when it was produced, but they are still the same Government—never cease to disappoint. Their ambitions sound good, if rather vague, their rhetoric is florid and fanciful and their practical support for business and industry fails at every step. Only last week, the Chancellor’s answer to perceived misuse of some R&D tax credits was to cut them in half, rather than deal with the problem of fraud and tighten up procedures.

For seven years, I have been arguing for a more proactive approach from the Government to battery technology and the availability of EV charging to ensure what this report calls “charging for all”. I have been very frustrated by the lack of progress. We do not even yet have the simplicity of a proper, straightforward payment system. The Government’s response to this report is disturbingly vague and avoids many of the precise questions the report posed. They continue to fall into the trap of being unrealistically upbeat.

The SMMT—the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders—is clear that the UK must expand its domestic battery production to retain domestic auto manufacturing in the long term. It estimates that the UK needs at least eight gigafactories by 2040, with approximately 120-gigawatt capacity. Currently there is a capacity of only 2 to 2.5 gigawatts, and only two companies: Envision and the proposed Britishvolt factory. Together, if they fulfil their ambitions, those two might produce 40 gigawatts by 2030—but 120 are needed.

If that were to be achieved, the prizes would be great. EV transition alone will be worth £12 billion to the economy in terms of batteries for the UK supply chain. The EV market is developing rapidly; there were 53,000 UK-manufactured vehicles this year, almost 80% of which were exported. One-quarter of all our vehicle exports are EVs. However, we face huge challenges. Rules of origin under the TCA will apply from 2027, but some related issues apply from 2024 and will make life very difficult for the industry.

We also need a major reskilling of the workforce and training of new workers. The recent Budget produced nothing for further education. We need a national skills strategy; for example, we need about 10,000 qualified workers to manufacture battery cells, but we have almost no such qualified workers at the moment. The report points out that government support, for example via the Faraday battery challenge, has been lower and of shorter duration than that of our competitors. The Faraday Institution receives £30 million per annum, compared with the European Commission’s €3.2 billion aimed at seven member states up to 2031. That is £270 million per annum for 10 years. In France, there is an investment of €960 million and in Germany an investment of €1.25 billion. They dwarf the UK in their ambition and commitment.

The truth is that, by leaving the EU, we have cut ourselves off from the benefits of scale in research and development. The Government now face a stark choice. They need either to massively up the scale of their commitment to R&D to greatly outspend our competitors or to tone down their rhetoric and modify their ambitions. They might even consider a Swiss-style trade agreement.

Post Office: Horizon Compensation

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his commitment on this issue and for his Statement today. As he knows, when I was first involved in this, as a Member of the Welsh Assembly in the early 2000s, even then it was obvious that there was something very seriously wrong. In a crowded room in a pub, with so many people, and their families, who had been regarded as pillars of the community—the sort of people who went to look for pensioners who had not come to collect their pension to check that they were all right—I was being asked by the Post Office to believe that those people had taken its money. That definitely jarred with me at the time.

The big questions are these. How has this been allowed to take so long? How was it covered up for so long? What will happen to those people within the Post Office and Fujitsu who knew that they were covering up problems? I realise that there will have been people who were doing so without realising that they were involved in a cover-up, but there were many who knew. We must also consider the impact on the Post Office as an institution, which had previously been one of the most trusted British institutions.

The Minister has already addressed some of my questions, but I have a few questions on today’s Statement. First, I welcome the interim payments that are announced, but the amount of money sounds relatively modest given the time it has taken to get to this place. They are interim payments, but can the Minister tell us how many people the £19.5 million will be going to, so that we can get some measure of how much they will receive in the interim? The Statement refers to postmasters being contacted in the coming weeks and so on. Can the Minister give us a target date by which he hopes the interim payments will be made? We have had so much delay here. Finally, because I realise that time is short, 75 convictions have been overturned. Are there more in the process at the moment? Does the Minister expect there to be other overturned convictions?

What will the Government do about payments for those who have already died? As this process has taken more than two decades, many of the people involved in this process are now very elderly, and some of those who have died did so as a result of suicide because of the situation in which they were placed. What plans do the Government have to compensate the families of those who died and the families that stumped up large amounts of money to avoid their relatives going bankrupt as a result of misplaced allegations?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their statements and questions. The noble Lord already knows that I totally share his frustration. His statement about stressful uncertainty for the postmasters sums up the issue very well, and I totally agree with him. I am also very happy to join him in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot and Kevan Jones; I know that a number of other parliamentarians, on all sides of the House, have also been involved in this. They are truly a tribute to parliamentarians, who get criticised for a lot of things, but when there are scandals such as this, it shows the role that Members of both Houses can play in bringing the public’s attention, and indeed the Government’s attention, to them.

On the questions the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the overall timescale, the ambition is that all offers will have been made by the end of the year. The GLO interim payments will be made within weeks. The noble Lord asked for an assurance that the core funding of the Post Office is unaffected, and I can give him that assurance. He also raised the issue of the directors of the Post Office: they can be held to account by the inquiry, as indeed can Ministers and officials involved in this. We are determined that there will be no hiding place for those who contributed to this scandal. He also asked about further private prosecutions. Right at the start of this scandal, when I spoke to the chief executive of the Post Office, he assured me that it had no plans to bring any more private prosecutions. I would be very surprised if it went back on that, given the trouble that this has got it into. The noble Lord also referred to Post Office complacency. That may have been the case in the past, but I think the new leadership under Nick Read is really producing a change in the culture and some real improvements in the service the Post Office is offering.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to cover-ups; there probably were, but that is of course a matter for the inquiry to establish. She asked how many people will receive compensation. The £19.5 million in interim payments goes to all members of the GLO scheme, of whom there are about 500. I can also confirm for the noble Baroness that in cases where some of those members have sadly died, we are engaging with their next of kin and their estates on seeking appropriate levels of compensation.

Lithium Ion Batteries: Fire Safety Standards

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No, I do not. If they are privately owned, there is a prohibition on riding them on public highways, but there is nothing wrong with taking them on trains if permitted by the train operators.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, e-bikes and e-scooters are a great innovation, but it is the wild west out there. A lack of regulation and enforcement is giving them a bad reputation. There have been e-scooter trials and the assessments are now complete for many places, so there is no longer any excuse for government inaction. Will the Minister undertake to work with Department for Transport colleagues to commit to an early date for tighter restrictions on both imports and the way in which these vehicles are used on our roads and pavements?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not share the noble Baroness’s enthusiasm for banning e-scooters. The Department for Transport is considering options for how best to regulate them and to crack down on their illegal use, which we are all concerned about. New measures being considered will be designed to create a much clearer, fit-for-purpose and fully enforceable regime for regulators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord came in today on his e-bike. I am unable to resist the opportunity to say that perhaps he could have a word with his friends in the trade unions, to allow us all to come in on the Tube if we would like to at the moment. As I said earlier, the Department for Transport is considering options for how best to regulate e-scooters and crack down on their illegal use.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, as there is time in the schedule, can I invite the Minister to reconsider his reply to me? He accused me of calling for the banning of these vehicles, when I specifically praised their innovation. I asked for regulation, not annihilation.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

If I heard the noble Baroness wrong, I apologise of course. We support responsible regulation. If that is what she supports us in doing, it is welcome news.

Subsidy Control Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I am going to be very brief about this. The point emerged in the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and deals with the question of standing. I want to deal only with the technical point. It is obvious that where the Minister, qua his responsibility as the Minister for England, grants a subsidy, the position of the devolved Government should be exactly the same as if the Minister in England were able to challenge a decision of the devolved Government. There should be parity. We have talked a lot about equity, which I shall return to, but it seems that there is no equity.

The short point of this amendment is to try to ensure there is no dispute about standing. Standing sometimes causes very serious difficulties. If, however, the Welsh or Scottish Government felt that the action of the Secretary of State or some authority in England was disadvantaging people or a particular enterprise in Wales or Scotland, they should surely have the standing to bring that to the CAT. If, for the reasons I have already adumbrated, private enforcement is not successful—and the Minister has said nothing to persuade me that it will be—this is even more reason to have more custodians of the public interest looking to ensure that our noble and other Ministers in London actually stick to the principles of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will be equally brief. The omission of Ministers of the devolved Governments at this stage of the Bill is stark and astonishing. It immediately begs the question why, because the devolved Governments are specifically mentioned elsewhere in the Bill, although they are not given equality of treatment. Here, they are simply omitted. As indicated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, we need clarity here.

We particularly need clarity because there is equality of treatment on issues such as common frameworks. There could well be a conflict between what has been agreed by the UK Government in that context and what is in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 79, which neatly follows the questions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, about standing.

On 13 January, the following fanfare was announced from Downing Street:

“Prime Minister to chair new council with devolved governments”.

The No. 10 press release described this as a

“Landmark agreement on how UK government and devolved governments will continue to work together”,

and how an agreement on this “has been reached”. It promised “new ways of working”, “Reaffirmed principles” of

“mutual respect, maintaining trust and positive working”

and formalised a “council”, led by the Prime Minister, “overseeing strengthened working”.

I am going to come to the document that lies behind the press release in a moment. Of the five things the Government say this is going to achieve, they end with the principle about conflict resolution:

“Resolving disputes according to a clear and agreed process”.

I am trying to seek consistency in this Bill, which has been severely criticised for the relationships it is trying to and has to build with the devolved Administrations. At the same time, we have another document, setting up more machinery of government, which will look at resolving disputes. I understand that resolution of disputes is in the common frameworks procedure, but there is very little in the Bill about how the devolved Administrations can resolve disputes. I suspect—I am pretty certain—that there will be a lot of criticism over the coming months and years from the devolved Administrations.

In the document which lies behind the Prime Minister’s announcement, about the review of intergovernmental relations, there is a two-page section in which the first paragraph states:

“No Secretariat”—


it is an independent secretariat managing the council—

“or government”—

and that is all Governments in the United Kingdom—

“can reject the decision of a government”—

again, that is any Government—

“to raise a dispute.”

So this is a dispute mechanism which has clearly been put in place by the Government to provide an opportunity for the Administrations to raise their disputes. I do understand that if it is enshrined in law, if the legislation is there, it makes it trickier, but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, asked, what happens when somebody wants or objects to an interpretation, particularly that of the Secretary of State, and this process escalates?

The Bill contains a lot of procedures which could well lead to a dialogue between the devolved Administrations and the Secretary of State. There is also a huge amount of what is called “guidance”—which we shall come to later—and a number of documents are going to emerge which will perhaps put flesh on the bones of some of the things we have been talking about in the Bill.

My question is this: will this arrangement announced by the council and by the Prime Minister, no matter what this Bill comes to and no matter what the processes described in it are, allow, as the intergovernmental relations document states, any Government to bring a dispute before all the other Governments? There are 30 or 40 lines and another page about how that dispute has to be resolved and the use of an independent secretariat.

If the right relationships as described in the document from the Prime Minister were built into this Bill, I would rather hope that it would minimise the necessity for such a dispute mechanism to arise. My test of this is to ask the Minister the following question. Given the announcement, and given the availability of this procedure, is there anything that he can see apart from the legislation before us that a devolved Administration could not refer to this council? If that is so, there is a strong case for making it easier for the devolved Administrations to engage through the mechanisms of this Bill without having to go through all the processes which would lead to the dispute mechanism outlined by the Prime Minister. I am asking for consistency, and I hope that the Minister can provide it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McNicol, spoken by my noble friend Lady Blake. It is one of the most important amendments that the Committee has considered. In my speech at Second Reading, I made the point that the combination of transparency and comprehensiveness of the data that is provided and the time period allowed to interested parties to appeal it lies at the core of the effectiveness of any new regime. As my noble friend Lady Blake pointed out, there is asymmetry between the length of time given to public authorities to put data into the public domain and the very short time period proposed for interested parties to appeal it. Can the Minister name any instance where the Government are subject to a one-month deadline for a significant decision that they have to make?

I do not even think that the one-month deadline is particularly helpful in reducing the workload that may come to the tribunal because, the shorter the deadline, the more an interested party may feel that it has to submit an appeal without having had the time to do the work fully to assess the position. So I urge even more strongly than my noble friend Lady Blake that the Minister considers the case for a change to three months, and I ask him to say, if he is not willing, why he thinks that the one-month deadline is fair and effective.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of this modest amendment. As the noble Baroness said, the issue has been raised before, and one month is a totally unrealistic timescale. To my mind, it indicates a clear governmental preference to reduce scrutiny of decisions on subsidies that are made in general.

It is especially an issue because this also involves agricultural subsidies and agriculture is, in large part, based on small businesses. I shall give you a picture: farmers in Wales are not commonly monitoring the decisions taken by local authorities in, for instance, eastern England, which might cause them to feel aggrieved. It might take them some time to get up to speed on the implications of those decisions. It might surprise some people, sitting in the centre of London, to know that wi-fi in the centre of Wales is not wonderful. Many communities still rely on the postal service and weekly newsletters, for example from the farming unions. There can be lots of reasons why information that would worry small businesses affected by a subsidy decision would take some time to filter through.

In general, I can think of a host of reasons why one might miss this deadline—for example, summer or Christmas holidays provide an interruption of several weeks to ordinary business. I join the noble Viscount in his point that it could simply be counterproductive. People may think that, if in doubt, they should lob in an appeal to the tribunal because, in reality, they would not be able to find all the information required in the timescale this Bill provides. On a previous group of amendments, the Minister referred to the pre-action information request process. I believe that process will find itself exceptionally heavily used, if the Government do not see that this timescale is far too tight to be practical.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I rise briefly to add my support to the concerns expressed by other noble Lords that a one-month timeframe, especially for smaller companies, is not only challenging but potentially unachievable and could cause significant detriment to our promising smaller companies. They may be harmed by a subsidy, possibly unintentionally, and this could deny them the opportunity to appeal against that which could be harmful to their business. I urge my noble friend to consider the reasonableness of this amendment. If he is not able to accept it now, could he explain to the Committee how, in practice, this one-month timeframe is reasonable and could reasonably be met by those potentially affected?

Subsidy Control Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th February 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

52: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Agriculture
The subsidy control requirements in Part 2 of this Act do not apply to—(a) the giving of an agricultural subsidy, or(b) the making of a subsidy scheme, so far as it relates to the giving of agricultural subsidies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would exempt agricultural subsidies from the subsidy control requirements.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I decided to table Amendment 52 having read the detailed concerns expressed by the Welsh Government and NFU Scotland. In this Bill, the Government propose incorporating agricultural subsidies into the same scheme as subsidies for other businesses. That is not the usual approach to agricultural subsidies. The WTO and, of course, the EU have separate and distinct agricultural subsidy regulation.

My amendment does not refer to them specifically, but there are similar concerns about fisheries subsidies. I read the Minister’s comments at Second Reading with care. He said that the Government believe that having agriculture and fisheries in a single scheme

“will help to protect competition and investment.”—[Official Report, 19/1/22; col. 1748.]

However, he did not mention levels of production or the supply of food. That is an important omission because it is the reason why the WTO and the EU treat agriculture separately. Agriculture is subject to the vagaries of weather and disease and is prone to much greater market volatility than other products. If we do not manufacture our own TV sets in the UK, it does not have the fundamental significance that not growing our own wheat would have. For well over 100 years, regular supplies of domestically produced foods at reasonable prices have been regarded as fundamental to our national security. That applies even in the modern world of global markets.

At Second Reading, the Minister also said that the Government’s decision

“was supported by the majority of the respondents to the UK Government’s consultation who answered the question on agriculture and fisheries.”—[Official Report, 19/1/22; col. 1749.]

I have three things to say about that. First, the pattern of agriculture is different in one part of the UK and another. The devolved nations have a very different view on this, and that needs to be reflected.

Secondly, the Government’s response reveals a worryingly majoritarian approach. England is always the majority in any consultation of this nature by sheer weight of population size. This does not mean that it fully reflects the different requirements of the country.

Thirdly, the Government’s justification is that 81% of people who responded to the question in the consultation were in favour of one or both—agriculture or fish—being included. That is tempered by the fact that only 20% of respondents answered that question, so only 80% of 20% were in agreement. That support does not look so great now, does it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I think a lot of this overlaps with the internal market Act, which we will debate at length on a later group of amendments. All I can say is that the set of principles will cover the position of the Herefordshire farmer.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

This has been an interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will understand my point when I say that, as a former Assembly Member for Cardiff Central, I did not think I would be leading on a debate on agriculture—at one point I still had a farm in my constituency, but they built on it.

I learned a lot about agriculture as a Minister in two Governments. I learned about the concept, which comes up time and again, that farming is a way of life. It is a way of life wherever you are a farmer. I have lived in East Anglia and it even applies there where you have the grain barons, because if your farm fails, you lose your home. That is what makes things different from most other occupations. All speakers, with the exception of the Minister, have echoed my concerns.

I want to pick up a couple of points very briefly. Clause 41 refers to a specific amount of money for subsidy below which you will not have transparency. That amount of money is astronomical in relation to subsidies for farming and totally inappropriate. If those figures are used, there will be no transparency even for subsidies of the largest order for the largest farms. That cannot be right.

This is, of course, a probing amendment and I am specifically seeking information on how the special circumstances of agriculture will be dealt with. I hope the Minister will send us some very long letters to explain the situation because there are so many complexities and contradictions in the Government’s position. The EU treated subsidy as exceptional, in general, and something that must be justified, but it treated agricultural subsidy as normalised within a strict policy structure. The WTO treats agricultural subsidy as normalised, but the Government are now apparently applying the approach where subsidy is exceptional for agriculture. That is the basis of the seven principles. You cannot apply those seven principles in the same way that you do to other industries and businesses. Agriculture is not subsidised because of market failures; it is subsidised to ensure supply of a basic requirement of life at a reasonable price. The complexity of the Government’s situation is made worse because of the uncertainties already being felt within the market from the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand which provide additional hurdles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

There are a couple of points I would like to address now, and obviously I will cover the other points in greater length in writing. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, on the minimum financial assistance in the Bill that she referred to, for most subsidies, including agriculture, it is £315,000 rather than the figures in Clause 41. If the figures are far too high for agriculture, then they will simply be exempt from the requirements and none of those concerns will apply. We are looking at whether the £315,000 is set at the right level, and we have the power to change it for specific sectors.

In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, I am afraid that we did not ask respondents to the consultation where they were based because it is a UK-wide regime, but we will write with more detail if we have it back in the department.

Lastly, as the noble Baroness brought up the difference between the WTO and the EU regimes, I just say that the Agreement on Agriculture within the WTO and the new subsidy control regime fulfil very different purposes. The AoA is an international agreement aimed at reducing distortion of international trade in agriculture; the proposed domestic subsidy control regime facilitates compliance with our international commitments but goes beyond this by protecting UK competition and investment. The WTO provisions are no substitute for a domestic subsidy control regime. The EU is a case in point of a system that has both WTO subsidy commitments and its own internal regime, and this is the approach that we are taking for subsidies in all sectors in the UK.

I will write with any further responses that I need to make, having reviewed Hansard in the morning.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that. I fear that she makes my point for me in terms of Clause 41. My argument is that there needs to be transparency on this, and the amounts of money are set so high that there will not be that transparency. If this scheme is going to work on a farm-by-farm basis, which is what it will have to do, the Government will need to set separate, different and lower figures for agriculture. The Government really need to go away and look at this again.

Please could the Government consider applying some real-life worked examples of how this would apply in different parts of the UK—even within different parts of England? They need to be worked through, and public authorities need to have further information on how this would work. I urge the Government to discuss this issue with local authorities and the devolved Governments before the walls of our systems are bulldozed through in the latter stages of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I was expecting more interventions before my reply—I offer my apologies.

These amendments relate to Clause 55, which provides, as has been stated, that the Secretary of State can direct a public authority to request a report from the subsidy advice unit for a proposed subsidy or subsidy scheme. This so-called call-in power will be used as a safety net where the Secretary of State considers that a subsidy or scheme is at risk of not complying with the subsidy control requirements or that it poses a risk of negative effects on competition or investment in the UK and therefore warrants further scrutiny.

In the majority of cases, the most potentially harmful subsidies will be those that meet the criteria for subsidies of particular interest. The Government’s proposal for how these criteria should be defined has been set out in illustrative regulations that have been made available to this Committee. However, it is inevitable that there will be some subsidies or schemes that fall outside those boundaries but would still benefit from the additional scrutiny offered by the SAU. The call-in power is a safety net. It provides a mechanism to catch potentially concerning subsidies that are not caught within the “subsidies of particular interest” definition and have not otherwise been voluntarily referred to the subsidy advice unit. It is expected that such subsidies will be few and will reduce further as the regime settles in.

When the Secretary of State decides to exercise this call-in power, the direction must be published. In addition, the subsidy advice unit must provide annual reports on its caseload, including any subsidies or schemes called in by the Secretary of State. These annual reports will be laid before Parliament. This transparency will help to ensure that the power is being used appropriately and that Parliament has oversight of how and when the power is being used.

Amendments 54, 56, 58 and 60 would allow the devolved Administrations to refer a subsidy or subsidy scheme to the subsidy advice unit under the terms of Clause 55. Similarly, Amendments 55, 57 and 59 would extend the power to call in subsidies for review by the subsidy advice unit to all local authorities in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State’s responsibilities and interests in the subsidy control regime are UK-wide. The subsidy control regime is a reserved matter. The UK Government are responsible for the compliance of the UK subsidy control regime in all parts of the United Kingdom with our international obligations, including the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. It is therefore right that the UK Government have responsibility for the referral mechanism that deals with any subsidies that fall outside of the established criteria for further mandatory scrutiny. It is also right that the UK Government oversee the functioning of the regime as a whole, including the caseload of the subsidy advice unit.

In response to the specific concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Purvis, I believe it is important that the positions of the devolved Administrations and other public authorities are taken into account in the exercise of this function. I assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State would take it extremely seriously if he received a request from another public authority to call in a particular subsidy or scheme. Of course, he would engage with the substance of that request and consider it on its merits, but I hope it goes without saying that officials and Ministers in my department would discuss the matter appropriately with the public authority that raised the concern; this would apply even if it were a subsidy given by the UK Government.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

If the Secretary of State has acted as Minister for England and a devolved Government want to get the Secretary of State to call something in on the grounds that they are not happy with it perhaps being uneven or giving an unfair advantage to a company operating in England, what Chinese walls—that is, what process—will the UK Government put in place to ensure that the Secretary of State, who has just made a decision on England’s behalf, will not then judge himself or herself when the issue is called into question by a devolved Government?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Baroness is approaching this issue in completely the wrong way. First, this is a UK-wide regime, so the Secretary of State is acting in his capacity as UK-wide Minister responsible for it. We have said that we will take it extremely seriously if a devolved Administration request a referral to the subsidy advice unit. We are currently in discussions with the devolved Administrations on how such a system could be codified. However, the key point is that this is just a referral to the subsidy advice unit. It is not rendering a subsidy illegal; it is not challenging it.

Directly relating to the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, a devolved Administration have exactly the same rights as the Secretary of State or a local authority or anybody else to challenge the decision. The right for the Secretary of State to call in a proposal is just to refer it for advice from the subsidy advice unit; it is not to challenge the decision. The challenging of a decision takes place in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

Subsidy Control Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak specifically to Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, to which I have added my name. Before I do, I want to place on record my concern that our debates on the Bill are being held only in Grand Committee. This Bill is of equal significance to the internal market Bill, and it has both economic and constitutional significance way above the status it is apparently being given by being located here.

Amendment 20 closely reflects the concerns of the Welsh Government, and there are of course similar concerns among the Scottish Government. In comparison with the other amendments in this group, Amendment 20 is a modest request for the Secretary of State to seek consent from the devolved Governments. However, if consent is not given the Secretary of State can go ahead anyway. This reflects a formula accepted by the Government in other pieces of legislation, which I assume is why it was written in this way—because it is the least controversial option of those put forward. It implicitly allows for a situation in which a devolved Government might seek simply to frustrate the UK Government’s efforts without full discussion and, therefore, does not reflect that in the vast majority of situations devolved Governments seek to negotiate in good faith with the UK Government. That is what the Welsh Government have certainly done this time, but they are not prepared to issue an LCM.

I signed the amendment despite my reservations that a Secretary of State’s Statement is to go to the House of Commons and that this place is not referred to. Given our attention to detail, I would hope that both Houses would be kept informed.

The amendments in this group all seek to restore an appropriate counterbalance to the sweeping powers the Bill allocates to the Secretary of State. Despite the Government’s chastening experience during debates on the internal market Bill, they seem heedlessly determined to continue their smash and grab on the powers of the devolved Parliaments. I am pleased to hear that at least one department of the UK Government has seen the light on this, but that does not alter the fact that the Bill is unreconstructed in its approach.

The Government talk about strengthening the union but are seizing every opportunity to undermine devolution. Powers over economic development and its funding have been devolved, in effect, since the Welsh Development Agency was established in 1975. Long prior to devolution, it was an example of excellence in pursuing successful economic development opportunities, mostly using funding.

The Minister will undoubtedly protest that nothing here removes powers over economic development or agriculture, for example, but power without funding power is a meaningless shell. This system allows the Secretary of State to halt schemes devised by devolved Governments because they are deemed unfair, but it does not in turn allow the devolved Governments to complain about the Secretary of State’s schemes devised for England.

It is not surprising that this is a sensitive issue in Wales. Under the EU system, two-thirds of Wales benefited from regional funding. In the Brexit debate prior to the referendum, people in Wales were promised specifically that they would not lose a single pound or euro, and voted accordingly. That promise proved very wide of the mark, and people in Wales feel betrayed.

It is worth noting that devolution in Wales is much less controversial than in Scotland. It enjoys very broad support across the political spectrum, and chipping away at the Welsh Government’s power to deliver on economic development or agriculture, for instance, is a dangerous path for the UK Government to take. I hope Ministers will see the light.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Humphreys and Lady Randerson, for putting their names to a number of my amendments in this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as well. His opening remarks summed up the thrust of group one, which is to ensure that the devolved Administrations are fully involved and engaged, and that there is parity of esteem for all the relevant legislatures. It set up the framework for this group of amendments rather well.

As we have heard, this is the first of several important debates on devolution, one of the major concerns about the Bill. As has been noted, at Second Reading the Minister outlined the number of meetings he had had with devolved officials—45, I think, 13 of them to talk about the regime itself. It is concerning that those meetings have taken place but we still find ourselves in a situation where there are unresolved issues with the Scottish Government and the Senedd.

My take on this is that it will not take a lot to move this on. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, Amendment 20 is a very modest amendment, which would give the Secretary of State the power still to press ahead after a month if an agreement has not been reached. These are not tough amendments, especially following some of the debates in the Commons.

On that subject, I thank the department for releasing the guidance, but it is a bit bizarre that the Bill passed through the Commons stages without any of the guidance being published or being able to be read. There are still a lot of square brackets in the guidance and bits that needs to be filled in. As we will touch on later, the concerns that the DPRRC raised will, I hope, lead to some positive changes to the Bill.

A number of noble Lords spoke at Second Reading of their concerns and those of the devolved Administrations, many of which we shared and echoed. Amendments 13, 16 and 17 are intended to make it clear that the devolved authorities can make and modify streamlined subsidy schemes. As we are aware, at present the Bill reserves that power for the Secretary of State, although comments were made in the debates in the other place by the Commons Minister that this could be broadened out. It would be good to hear from the noble Baroness, when she responds on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, whether we have seen any movement or development in broadening it out.

We also saw, throughout the Brexit process, which was touched on by a number of noble Lords, that when we got down to the detail in your Lordships’ House we were able to make changes and amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about some of those regarding the internal market Bill. It would be good if we did not have to take this as far or go through the same pain and difficulties that we did on that Bill, especially when the amendments we are looking to make fit into and sit alongside the same changes made there. With that, I will conclude. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak specifically to Amendment 6, to which I have added my name. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, explicitly outlined its importance.

This very important group of amendments seeks to get to the core of what this is all about: why are subsidies required? As it stands, the Bill sets out seven subsidy control principles, which you could actually call rules and which on their own can easily be interpreted in a mutually contradictory way. They are further complicated by additional “energy and environmental principles”, by “subsidy schemes” versus “streamlined subsidy schemes”, and by “schemes of interest” versus schemes of “particular interest”.

This web of rules is combined with a complete lack of context. I take to heart the points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. As a councillor in south Wales, I was on the receiving end of changing maps. There is great significance in maps as an instrument to encourage investment in certain areas. If you are not going to have a deprived areas map for places to be assisted, you can have a carefully written industrial strategy that sets out terms on which assistance would be given to help the less prosperous areas. There is also a clear potential for overlap with other government schemes. It seems that levelling-up funding could well be seen to be in direct contravention of several of the principles set out in the Bill.

All this is further complicated by the unbalanced power structure at the top. I will not go through it again, but we will undoubtedly do so at different points on our amendments over the next few meetings. Briefly, the crux of the problem is that the Secretary of State is the Minister for England at one moment and the UK’s referee at another. In addition, there is a weak regulator with ill-defined powers and a lack of transparency, with high financial limits at which subsidies have to be registered. All this together strikes me as a chaotic system that is cooking up a bureaucratic nightmare because it does not have the clarity of the map or of the industrial strategy. It is a lawyer’s dream come true and invites litigation.

My noble friend Lord Fox gave us some excellent examples, and we could add to them the overt conflict between the principles of this Bill and those of the ARIA Bill. I was one of the Peers sitting here prior to Christmas discussing the Government’s desire to have the freedom to invest without particular principles that they would have to obey. I cannot see how that does not conflict with this Bill.

The amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, tries to start to sort this out. So far the Government clearly do not know what they want, or they would have set it out in much greater detail and with much more clarity. Another way of looking at this is that the Government have been given all the cards in terms of power and can brush aside competition. They can hide significant subsidies that fall below the very generous thresholds that they have set out. It leaves the Government free to pick winners on the flimsiest of evidence—almost as was done over PPE at the start of the Covid pandemic, and we know what grief that has caused to both the Government and taxpayers.

Crucially, Amendment 6 sets out a process of agreement between the four Governments on what constitutes “disadvantaged areas” that are hence in need of levelling-up subsidies. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, this must be a decision taken at a political level. It is not suitable for the CMA or the Competition Appeal Tribunal; their job is to judge individual cases against the rules established as a result of political decision-making.

Amendment 6 would once again establish in legislation the existing concept of common frameworks in relation to this topic. There are of course dozens of common frameworks on everything, from nutritional labelling to rail technical standards, from blood safety to motor insurance. Each has a set of rules on how the four Governments of the UK will co-operate to ensure that individual internal markets work properly. If any mechanism is likely to disrupt relationships within the internal market then subsidies are the one, so a formal common framework with evenly balanced dispute mechanisms is required. That way, the Governments of the four nations can establish their own priorities for subsidies and ultimately subject them to a formal dispute procedure if needed.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and I am going to do so not from a particularly Welsh angle but from a general one. I identify with Amendment 6 and the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, with regard to the practicality of any Act like this being interpreted by the courts. We are going to create a monster if we are not careful, and it may well fall down because of its own inertia.

Three areas of experience spring to mind for me in addressing this question. The first is the old—am I allowed to say it?—Chinese saying that if you give a man or woman a fish then you feed them for a day, but if you teach them to fish then you feed them for a lifetime. Therefore, any long-term economic strategy must be geared towards enabling that to fulfil itself, so that we are not just providing subsidies for the day but providing a basis on which to build.

The second experience that comes to mind is writing an economic plan back in 1970 with the late, great Phil Williams, whom some colleagues here will remember from the National Assembly. We did an analysis to find winners in terms of industry and in terms of geographic location. Most of them worked out. In fact, they were fairly common-sense things—electronics, chemistry and so on—and I suspect that they would have fulfilled themselves had there been no grant mechanism, because they were doing what there was a momentum towards.

My third and final point concerns our experience in Wales with regard to European funding; I have no doubt that similar experience will have been obtained in Cornwall, South Yorkshire, Merseyside, parts of Scotland and wherever such funding was available. The funding went not just to narrow projects but to areas of investment with a long-term payback, such as work, even blue-sky projects, in our universities. These would not create immediate jobs but provided a basis on which industry and commerce, and those who were going to invest in them, could look to the future. The scheme of grants that was available then through the European Union was very broad; we should not ignore that dimension. We need mechanisms that enable that to happen. If we can get this right, it could be very valuable. It may well be that this Bill has that potential in it, but there is a lot that needs to be clarified at the moment. Some of these amendments may help tease that out.