Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. I think it is the first time I have ever had to do so; it is quite a daunting prospect having heard such an important speech. We on these Benches welcome the belated realisation by this Government that the City of London and other parts of the economy in this country need to be cleaned up. Just as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked, we certainly aim to support this Bill practically.

This has been a strong debate. Some of your Lordships—the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Rooker, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, to name but three—have, with justification, been able to say that this issue has been on their agendas for some time. Others, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, have highlighted the purpose of and focus on ethics that we should also dwell on. There was a sense of frustration in all the speeches that it has taken the terrible events in Ukraine—the onslaught on civilians—to cause this Government finally to act. They are acting, and we should take advantage of that, but it is awful that it has taken that to get to this point.

In welcoming this Bill, we are not blind to its shortcomings. Your Lordships have been wise to set out whole areas of action that need to be resolved before we can start the process of cleaning out the dirty money in the United Kingdom’s economy. I will not seek to paraphrase everything that was said but we heard about SLAPPs and the use of lawfare from the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. We heard about company shells from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and about trusts, freeports and whistleblowers from my noble friend Lady Kramer. The need to be more deeply retrospective was introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as well as the issue of speeding up disclosure from Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Those are just some of the issues put by your Lordships before this House.

Virtually none of those substantive issues appear in Part 1 of this Bill. It seems that most of them might turn up in Part 2 but we heard the curriculum that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is putting forward for that part: limited partnerships, crypto assets, money laundering and Companies House. To digress on Companies House, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, very much paraphrased the issue: this is not just about resources. The cultural change required to make that organisation in any sense capable of doing any of the things that this legislation asks of it is huge. By the way, it is not just Russians; if Companies House had been doing what it should have, literally billions of pounds would not have been defrauded from taxpayers during the Covid crisis. A small fraction of that money could have been used as seed to produce a Companies House that is fit for purpose. Now we have lost that money but we still need to do the job.

Coming back to the Bill, all the issues that have been set out need to be tackled in its second part. I am looking for the Minister to acknowledge that, although the four issues set out by his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are important, a number of really important issues need to be added to that list. If it becomes an even bigger and more complicated Bill, I guarantee that those on these Benches will work hard to make sure that we can get that legislation through as quickly as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, we also need a process that reviews how Part 1 is getting along because it is clear that the speed with which this legislation is being implemented—and, indeed, the fact that it was written for one purpose and is being delivered for another—will inevitably mean that there are things not right with it.

We will work to help ensure that when the final Act—this part of the process—emerges, the Government will get the tools they say they need. When they get those tools, there will be no excuses for not following up on the people we have heard described to your Lordships this afternoon. As we have also heard, to do that will take well-resourced, highly qualified and motivated people to investigate and prosecute. The noble Lords, Lord Macdonald, Lord Carlile and Lord Empey, to name but three, set out the issue here. Unless the agencies tasked with cleaning up the kleptocrats have the resources and the support, the Bill does not amount to a hill of beans.

To date, this is an area the Government have been defunding. For example, the National Crime Agency—the principal body leading this fight, as we have heard—has seen its overall budget fall in real terms. The last inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services in July 2021 pulled no punches and highlighted how resource limited the NCA is. Further, the inspection also noted the difficulty in recruiting staff for investigating roles. There are remuneration and status issues around why that is not happening. It gets worse: within the NCA, the body specially configured to investigate kleptocrats is the international corruption unit. As we know, the ICU’s role is to investigate money laundering resulting from corruption by high-ranking overseas officials, bribery involving UK-based companies or nationals that has an international element, and cross-border bribery where there is a link to the UK. I am afraid the ICU seems to have fared even worse. Can the Minister confirm that it has had its budget slashed by 13.5% this year?

Meanwhile, over the past couple of weeks the Government have said they will set up a new kleptocracy cell within the NCA to target sanctions evasion and corrupt Russian assets hidden in the UK. The press release said that oligarchs in London will have “nowhere to hide”—there is a joke in there, but I decided not to use it. How exactly will the new NCA kleptocracy unit mesh with the existing ICU? For that matter, how will the kleptocracy unit relate to the complex web of underfunded joint committees and task forces that litter this area of investigation? The agencies we have are underfunded and there is a confusing web of different organisations and crossing accountabilities. Together, this adds up to the enforcement agencies being massively outgunned by the oligarchs, as we see and have heard from your Lordships. Is it any wonder that so few unexplained wealth orders have been issued?

The Government do not have to wait for the passage of the Bill. They could say now that they are going to reverse their defunding of the international corruption unit and announce now a funding boost for the NCA. We do not need a new unit or a new invention. We need the organisations that we have to be properly funded, targeted and supported to deliver the outcomes that I think your Lordships all hope for.

Next Monday we will have the opportunity to address the Bill before us in some detail. One thing is clear: the Government should embrace the issue of enablers more firmly. As we have heard, these are the lawyers, estate agents and accountants helping the kleptocrats. This theme, among others, was picked up in the Chatham House paper entitled The UK’s Kleptocracy Problem. It noted:

“Financial and professional services firms have long made the UK a comfortable home for dirty money.”


That is Chatham House, not some campaigning organisation that people might feel free to dismiss.

This Bill needs to explicitly target those professional services that knowingly create the comfort that has been enjoyed by Russian kleptocrats, and indeed by other thieves from around the world. They need to feel the heat. This is an issue that we will come back to on Monday, following up the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the amendment that I know he has tabled.

Then there is the self-created loophole that was referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds: Clause 18. This allows all aspects of the register to be ignored if the Secretary of State decides that it is in the interests of national wealth to hide an oligarch’s assets. How big does the factory have to be for the theft to be ignored? How many jobs can a kleptocrat wash their soul with in this country? That is the nature of that clause—it hits right at the heart of what the right reverend Prelate had to say. It is, frankly, a continuation of what happens now; in other words, “The money is all right, so we won’t look at where it has come from.” My noble friend Lady Kramer was very strong on that issue. If we are to allow this line to continue in the Bill, it would essentially mean selling our moral soul in a different way—and it would put it into statute. We will have to address this issue when we get there.

There are issues that, following the debate in the Commons, we are looking forward to seeing how the Government will address. One is whistleblowers and another is freezing assets. We are looking forward to the Minister responding on that today or tabling some amendments before close of play tomorrow so that we can see where the Government are headed.

Finally, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is an experienced Minister who knows how to read a room. If he is reading this Room, he knows that six months will not wash with your Lordships; that is very clear from almost every speaker, for lots of practical reasons. Money is already moving; the kleptocrats are cutting and running. To give them another six months’ head start essentially makes most of this pointless. I am sure that noble Lords on the adjacent Bench will be bringing forward an amendment, which we will certainly support when it comes before your Lordships’ House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, put it, in participating on this Bill in the way that we are—speeding it through Parliament—we are putting a lot of trust in the Government. We hope that trust is justified. We look forward to further constructive discussions on this Bill on Monday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Let me come back to the noble Lord on that. I certainly commit to full scrutiny of the Bill when it is ready, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, also asked me about. It will not be emergency legislation; we expect it to have the full scrutiny of this House. I think that pre-legislative scrutiny would probably be a bit time-consuming; it is probably better just to bring the legislation forward, then it will get its full scrutiny. However, as I say, we are getting it drafted as quickly as possible. It is something like 150 pages of legislation so it will be substantial.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

About that: with many other Bills, the Government go out for consultation for six or eight months, redraft the Bill, then have two more White Papers. Then, sometime after three Christmases, we get the Bill. So, does “as quickly as possible” mean a few months or weeks? Are we looking at the latter half of the next Session, or are we looking at it being one of the first Bills to come out in the next Session?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I cannot win on this one: if I give too much time to pre-legislative scrutiny, for consultation et cetera, I will be criticised. I cannot give the noble Lord, a definitive time because, of course, it is not purely in my hands; it depends on parliamentary time, on the Whips, on the usual channels and on the availability of the House of Commons. It is certainly my intention to get it in front of noble Lords in a matter of months but I cannot be more specific than that. It will depend on when it gets drafted and when we can get parliamentary time. It is a firm commitment that we will bring it forward in the next Session—ideally towards the start of the next Session, if that helps the noble Lord.

I welcome the support from across the House, particularly from the Opposition Front-Benchers—I thank them very much. As I just said, I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the economic crime Bill will progress under normal procedures. I am sure there will be a full and detailed discussion about it. I will speak later to some of the points of the noble Baroness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also raised the subject of the Crown dependencies. I can tell her that I spoke to the Crown dependency Ministers earlier today, just before I came in for this debate, and they are also fully on board with these measures, looking to help wherever they can and to progress similar measures in their own jurisdictions.

Moving on, many noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Faulks, raised the legitimate question of why it has taken the Government so long to introduce the legislation. I can assure them it is not for the want of trying on my part; it is purely about the pressure on the legislative programme. They, as well as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, stressed the importance, and I totally agree, of stopping dirty money flowing from Russia and, indeed, other countries. This is not just about Russia. It benefits us in terms of Russia but, frankly, this reform is long overdue and it will also help us in the fight against money laundering from other jurisdictions. What matters is that, despite the long delay, we are now urgently bringing this legislation forward. We were planning to put this in the wider economic crime Bill but we decided to introduce these measures earlier, to put them into effect shortly. I am grateful for the support of the Opposition in doing that, and the wider economic crime Bill measures will follow in due course.

I take the opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Faulks again, for all his work to develop the legislation and for some of the powerful points he made today. I reassure him that since we took the measure thorough pre-legislative scrutiny, we have been able to improve the legislation to reflect some of the pre-legislative scrutiny committees’ recommendations and to align it with the broader reform of Companies House, which I completely agree we need to do, to make the measure effective. I think the legislation as a whole will be more effective as a result of the scrutiny that has taken place. This has been central to ensuring the new requirements are workable and proportionate and that the register strikes the right balance between improving transparency and minimising burdens on legitimate economic and commercial activity.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Vaux, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for their points on the transition period. I think the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, made similar points. Let me explain our logic on this. We have already reduced the transition period from 18 months to six months. I understand the importance that noble Lords attach to this, but it is important to remember that the majority of properties held via overseas entities will be owned by entirely law-abiding businesses and people. To give noble Lords an idea of the scale, we are talking about roughly 95,000 properties in England and Wales owned by some 32,000 overseas entities. It is a fact that only a tiny fraction of these are likely to be held by criminal or corrupt interests.

The transition period is an important protection for the rights of those legitimate owners of property and we have to be careful about interfering with individuals’ property rights, interference that could not reasonably have been expected when those rights over the properties within scope of the register were originally acquired. This legislation has considerable retrospective effects. We have to ensure that we are respecting those rights in a way that cannot be challenged—not least under human rights legislation. No doubt, those who wish to avoid these requirements and are able to afford expensive legal teams will take advantage of any opportunity to do so.

Many of the ultimate owners will be law-abiding British companies that have adopted these structures for legitimate commercial reasons. They could include real estate investment trusts, which are public companies whose core business is to manage and own properties that generate income, or particular pension schemes that hold land and properties. Others will be British nationals who have adopted the arrangements for legitimate reasons of privacy—a point made from the Cross Benches but I forget who made it. That may involve, for instance, celebrities who do not want their address to be known publicly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, observed, I am aware of the strength of feeling expressed that corrupt people must not be allowed to sell up and escape the transparency that the register will bring. The Government see merit in requiring all those selling property to submit a declaration of their details at the point of transfer of land title during the transition period. This would mean that a zero-day transition period to provide certain information immediately would be given to anyone selling. They would have to register ownership if selling, and that way we either get their ownership details immediately or, if they do not sell, we get it at the end of the transition period but in a way that still protects legitimate owners. We are urgently looking at this idea and giving it some serious consideration, but we need to get the drafting right and legally watertight, so that it is workable, effective and achieves what we want to achieve. Officials are working on this at the moment and I hope to get the proposal to noble Lords for consideration before we reach Committee.

Although the register will not be operational immediately, we expect the measures to have an immediate dissuasive effect on those who are intending to buy UK property with illicit funds. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that work on implementing the new register will begin as soon as we have achieved Royal Assent, and we will look to have the new register in place as soon as practicably possible—as soon as this House is able to consider and pass the relevant statutory instruments, and when some of the other measures are put in place. I should also add in response to many of the comments that all conveyancers and estate agents are already required to assess transactions for money-laundering risks and to alert authorities about suspicious activity.

I turn to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the retrospective application of the register. It will apply retrospectively, thereby compelling overseas entities to register if they have property bought since January 1999 in England and Wales and December 2014 in Scotland. Those dates have been selected because they relate to when jurisdiction of incorporation was originally required by Her Majesty’s Land Registry and the Registers of Scotland when registering title documents for land. This information has never been recorded by the Northern Ireland land registry, so we are unable to make any retrospection apply there.

As set out in the Bill, if a foreign company does not comply with the new obligations, every officer in default can face criminal sanctions, including fines of up to £2,500 per day or a prison sentence of up to five years. We have also included a power to make secondary legislation that can allow the registrar to impose financial penalties for non-compliance without the need for criminal prosecution. Critically, non-compliant overseas entities will face significant restrictions over dealing with their land. That is important because by their very nature, it might be difficult to impose criminal penalties on people who are overseas. But a restriction on them being able to deal with and dispose of their land will be particularly important because that will in effect prevent sales and render the property worthless.

I thank noble Lords and others who have made insightful and important points on the importance of robust supervision and the need to tackle the so-called professional enablers. Those noble Lords include the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Cromwell, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Carlile, Lord Thomas and Lord Rooker, and others.

The UK supervisory regime is comprehensive. The UK regulates and supervises all businesses most at risk of facilitating money laundering, including accountants, estate and letting agents, high-value dealers, trust or company service providers, the art market and so on. We strengthened the money laundering regulations in June 2017, thereby bringing UK legislation in line with the latest international standards. This includes requiring estate agents to carry out due diligence on both buyers and sellers of property.



To be very clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, any money obtained through corruption or criminality is not welcome in the United Kingdom, including that linked to Russia or other countries. That is why we are at the forefront of global action, spanning the operational, policy and diplomatic communities to target the money launderers and enablers who underpin corrupt elites and serious and organised crime.

Horizon Europe

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree with the noble Viscount; it is indeed very disappointing that the EU is refusing to abide by the agreement we made with it. I am sure that some of the EU’s supporters in this House will want to urge it to press ahead with this agreement. The UK stands willing and able to associate. We have an agreement to that effect, and we hope the EU will also abide by its commitments. The noble Viscount will be aware that the spending review allocated funding for full association to EU programmes. In the event that the UK is unable to associate, the full funding allocated will go to UK programmes; £5.6 billion was set aside over the spending review period.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the head of policy at the Wellcome Trust is quoted as saying:

“There is a real prospect that bright young scientists will decide it will be best … if they leave the UK.”


Meanwhile, recruitment of postgraduates in some of our elite universities is reported to be seeing a huge drop in candidates. This is because young researchers fear for the future progression of their careers. The Minister said we were seeking to resolve this at the earliest possible opportunity, and I take him at his word. However, these people are making decisions now—the brain drain is already happening. In the meantime, what is the plan to attract and retain the talent we need in this country?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I reiterate the point: we want to associate with Horizon Europe. It is not the UK that is holding up association but the EU. We want to do that at the earliest possible opportunity. If the funding we have set aside is not used for Horizon Europe, we intend to spend equivalent sums on a UK programme, co-operating with other third countries if necessary. Hopefully that will attract the talent the noble Lord refers to.

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments proposed to Clauses 2, 9, 23 and, to some extent, 27 are the result of extensive discussions with Welsh Ministers, who expressed their wish that the delegated powers in the Bill be redrafted to clarify areas of Welsh competence in recognition of the importance of the Bill’s policy to Welsh businesses.

The amendments to Clause 9, regarding extending the period for making a reference to arbitration, clarify that the power to extend the arbitration reference period can be exercised for English business tenancies or for Welsh business tenancies, as well as for both. The amendments to Clause 23 decouple the moratorium period and the period for making a reference to arbitration. The moratorium period will end six months from Royal Assent, unless extended.

New Clause 23A provides that the UK must seek the consent of Welsh Ministers to extend the Bill’s moratorium period for Welsh business tenancies in respect of devolved matters. In relation to Clause 27, which is the power to reapply the Bill to a future period of coronavirus, I have tabled an amendment to enable regulations under this clause to be made just for English business tenancies, or just for Welsh business tenancies, or for both. The amendments to this clause also provide that the UK Government will seek the consent of Welsh Ministers on the use of powers to reapply the Act for Welsh tenancies in response to future periods of coronavirus-related business closures, where the provisions are devolved. In addition, in the event of new coronavirus restrictions in Wales, new Clause 27A has been included to enable Welsh Ministers, concurrently with the Secretary of State, to use the power to reapply the relevant moratorium provisions to Welsh business tenancies. I am pleased to confirm that the Senedd has now voted to support the legislative consent Motion in relation to this.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published its report on 3 February. Following careful consideration of this report, I have now made several amendments to Clause 27 in order to address issues raised by the committee. I thank the committee for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Primarily, the amendments limit the breadth of the Secretary of State’s powers to reapply the provisions of the Bill in the future. The amended power would allow for targeted modifications to accommodate new dates and to make adjustments to moratorium provisions to take account of new timeframes. However, it would not permit changes to the operation of the arbitration process or policy. The Secretary of State would retain the ability to make different provision for England and Wales, and to make incidental, supplemental, consequential, saving or transitional provisions. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is pleasing to see so many more noble Lords attending this debate than there were in Committee, when there were just four of us—two of whom have subsequently come down with coronavirus. So your Lordships have been warned.

This group of amendments is testimony to the fact that the Minister listened in Committee, and has attended many meetings and taken note. For that, the Minister and the Government should be congratulated and thanked in broad measure. I highlight in particular Amendment 21, which, as the Minister set out, addresses the issues highlighted by the DPRRC. This was a serious issue, and the Minister has effectively addressed it. It is a welcome change and something these Benches were particularly concerned about it, and it was good of the Minister to have taken it on. Also, conversation with the Welsh Government has been extremely successful, and that is borne out by the legislative consent that the Minister and Government have received. Overall, we welcome this group of amendments and think them a very good improvement to the Bill as we now see it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 2 builds on the debate in Committee. The House will be pleased that I will not repeat all the arguments put forward then, but it is worth saying at the outset that this amendment is in response to severe pressures that businesses, tenants and landlords are under following an extremely difficult trading winter, plus the economic pressures of national insurance increases, energy price rises and escalated inflation. The clock is ticking loudly.

Arbitrators will be dealing with the cases that could not be resolved through voluntary measures between the parties. These will include in the main the most complex, as well as those where a failure to act was in the hope that debt would just disappear. As a point of interest, it would be beneficial to know from which sectors these outstanding cases come—not geographically, but from which sectors of economic activity. Perhaps the Minister could respond.

In Committee, the Minister—whom I paraphrase—told us not to worry about the arbitration service and that all would be well and sorted out in due course. Can he tell us what his optimism is based on? Have the Government made an assessment about the demands that will be made on the service, beyond simply the number of outstanding cases? If so, can we see the evidence of that assessment? Also in Committee, the Minister said that the Government supported the market-based approach in which arbitration firms would move things around to get over the expected spike in demand. The Minister said that he had been reassured by the arbitration firms of their ability to cope. But, without a detailed assessment or understanding of both the volume and complexity of cases, coupled with a change in the nature of the work that arbitrators will be asked to carry out—which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will introduce in a later amendment, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—this would appear to be wishful thinking.

If in reality there is either an insufficient number of arbitrators, or too many complex cases, or both, this reliance of the market-based approach may be something the Government come to regret. So will they keep the progress in clearing the backlog of cases under review and report back to Parliament from time to time? I have no doubt about the quality and excellence of the arbitration service itself across the whole of the UK, but we are concerned that the Government have not undertaken an assessment of the numbers and the resources available in order to be fully satisfied that all arbitrations can be conducted in good time.

Amendment 15 proposes that, when the Government issue guidance to arbitrators aimed at enabling better outcomes, Parliament should be informed. Some concern has been expressed, in particular by small businesses, that the draft guidance produced may not be fully appropriate to the arbitration process. This is turn raises the prospect that arbitrators’ decisions are likely to be distorted. So Amendment 15 adds a layer to safeguard against such an occurrence by asking the Government to bring statutory guidance to Parliament before it is issued. In both the Commons and in Committee we raised the need for a review of the Bill’s provisions to ensure that the process is being applied transparently, fairly and consistently. While we may not have convinced the Government to include a specific review mechanism, can the Minister assure the House that the operation of the Bill will be carefully monitored?

Finally, on the many thorny questions of viability, can the Minister tell us what engagement is being undertaken with stakeholders to stress test the Government’s draft guidance on this to make sure that it is fit for purpose? I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2 and 15 in my name. Amendment 2 is important because it is important to have the arbitrators in place to deliver this service. The purpose of Amendment 15 is to probe the guidance notes, because in Committee that guidance was out for consultation. It is important to get a chance to air some of the issues thrown up from it and to get a sense from the Minister of where we are and when your Lordships’ House will see the final draft—I hesitate to use the phrase “final draft”, because I hope he can confirm that it is a live document and will develop over time alongside experience of this process.

The noble Lord talked about stress testing. It would be helpful if the Minister, during the process of monitoring the guidelines, talked to those who have been involved in arbitration about their experience so that they can be improved over time. Can he confirm that he will?

The Government’s instinct to try to keep this simple is correct, but sometimes simplicity can leave ambiguity. I think some of that has come through in the responses they may well have received. One way of removing that ambiguity is better use of templates, which is one of the responses I have received from people on this. Can the guidelines be better used to genuinely short-circuit the process and therefore reduce costs for the proponents’ way?

A second real issue is the definition of “viability”. We had a debate on that at Second Reading and in Committee; I do not propose to return to it, but there are issues around viability that concern businesses, particularly seasonal ones. There is scope within the guidelines—I have been given this advice by some seasonal businesses—to better define the role of seasonality when looking at the viability of these businesses. I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on those issues.

Finally, there is an underlying suspicion from some tenants that large-scale landlords, some of whom have experience in previous types of dispute, will game the system and use their financial muscle to take advantage. They fear that these well-resourced landlords will go for the most expensive options, bid up the costs and put the process beyond the means of small independent traders. Will the Minister ensure that the arbitrators are vigilant in this regard? I would be a bit hesitant here, because there is a potential conflict of interest for those arbitrators—the bigger the job, the larger the potential fee. We then come to important issues around fees. The Minister needs to set very clear guidelines to the arbitrators on that issue, such that they are not bidding up the process or creating the opportunity for big companies to flex their financial muscle.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds—originally—and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for raising their concerns about ensuring that arbitration bodies have adequate arbitrator capacity and administrative capability. I am sorry that the noble Baroness cannot join us today and wish her a speedy recovery, although of course I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, who is participating in her place. I agree that a number of crucial points have been made in this short debate. The need for arbitrator capacity has been a key consideration in designing the scheme.

The Bill adopts a market-based approach. This means that several arbitration bodies will be approved and deemed suitable to administer the scheme, a point which I will return to in a moment. I believe this is the best way to ensure that we maximise capacity, because arbitration bodies will be able to use their intimate knowledge of matching arbitrator skills and experience to cases. This Bill also helps maximise capacity by empowering approved arbitration bodies to design and optimise their internal workflows to make best use of their own and their arbitrators’ capacity.

The Government designed an approvals process which specifically asked arbitration bodies to evidence their capacity. The deadline for applying has now passed and an internal sifting process is under way. As the sift is ongoing, I cannot comment on the details yet, but I can state that 12 arbitration bodies have applied. This is a very pleasing indicator of the interest being shown in the scheme. To an extent, it shows that the market mechanism looks to be working. Given the breadth and content of the applications, I am confident that the approach we have taken quite rightly empowers arbitration bodies to apply their experience and expertise.

The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked about the number of cases. In light of recent intelligence from the mediation policy in New South Wales, Australia, we have adjusted our current estimate of the expected number of arbitration cases. It is important to note that there is still some uncertainty around these estimates, but in the central case we now estimate 2,500 arbitration cases in England and Wales. This is a significant reduction from the previous estimate of 7,500 cases in the central case. On that basis, if we were to discuss this Bill for the next few months, we might have no cases left at all. The noble Lord also asked about the sectors involved. I can confirm that closed sectors included retail, hospitality, personal care, leisure and the arts, and some others, but our evidence suggests that most outstanding rent debt falls within these sectors.

The reduction in estimated cases is a positive sign for both the scheme and the capacity of the arbitration market. As I have stated, I hope this number will reduce further as landlords and tenants continue negotiations. My officials are engaging extensively with arbitration bodies to ensure that we offer as much support as possible in helping them deliver this scheme. I hope that reassures noble Lords that we are engaging with the arbitration bodies on capacity and therefore request that this amendment be withdrawn.

Turning to Amendment 15, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for raising the matter of laying statutory guidance before Parliament. There is no doubt that the statutory guidance will be very important to arbitrators’ performance of their role. The Government take this very seriously. We want to ensure that the guidance is genuinely useful to and used by arbitrators. That is why we have already published a draft of the guidance to allow for stakeholder input. This draft has been very well received by stakeholders—in particular the guidance on the assessment of the tenant’s viability, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. My officials are having ongoing discussions with stakeholders which will inform the final version. This will take into account the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We expect the final guidance to be published as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

We are committed to ensuring that the guidance is accessible to all. That is why the final version will also be published on GOV.UK. I am pleased to confirm that we will also write to all Peers to share a copy of the guidance when published and place a copy of it in the Libraries of both Houses. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that if experience shows that the guidance needs to be updated in any respect as the scheme unfolds, we will do so and make sure that any such changes are publicised.

I hope that noble Lords are reassured by this. We plan to make the guidance widely available and share it with your Lordships. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

3: Clause 8, page 6, line 14, leave out paragraph (e)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the others in the name of the Earl of Lytton to Clause 8 are to avoid any ambiguity as to the role of the appointing body and independence of the arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1996, to prevent unilateral objections that might delay or frustrate the process and to rely instead on the parties’ existing rights under the Arbitration Act 1996 jointly to remove an arbitrator.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of the noble Earl, Earl Lytton, who, as previously advertised, is the second member of the “Covid 2” in this team. His absence is disappointing for two reasons. First, he is not here to make these speeches and I have to do so on his behalf, and secondly, his wisdom on the issue of property is second to few in your Lordships’ House. The nature of these amendments points to the direction of the advice that he would have given your Lordships’ House had he been here, and I will do my best to represent that. I am given to understand that the amendments that the noble Earl tabled are supported by the RICS, which focuses their purpose.

I will speak to them in groups. In the Clause 8 amendments, the noble Earl’s point is that the appointing body that oversees the function should not carry out more than a general monitoring of the administrative good order of the process. The reason behind the noble Earl’s point is that he is anxious to ensure that the terms of Arbitration Act 1996 are not circumvented, so perhaps the Minister can set the Bill in this context with respect to the Act.

At the heart of the Clause 10 amendments is the expectation that the appointing bodies do not materially alter their screening and selection processes. The noble Earl’s point is that on potential conflicts of interest, they are almost wholly reliant on self-disclosure by potential appointees, so they would frequently have no means of checking the responses for accuracy. I would welcome the Minister’s view on this.

The purpose of the Clause 19 and Clause 20 amendments is to make it permissible in a complex case, or cases, for the appointing body to demand from the parties that a clear statement of the issues and scope of evidence be placed before the arbitrator. Any fee specified in advance should be able to rely on the statement, but also on providing a broad estimate of the applicable arbitrator time and rate, where a fixed fee is impractical. I think what the noble Earl is driving at is that the arbitrators should not be signing a blank cheque for the work they are going to do; they deserve to have a scope to understand what it is they will be arbitrating.

Those are the groupings as the noble Earl set out. For my part, I hope to hear how the Minister and his department will balance these important points from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the RICS, with the need to keep things as simple and cost-effective as possible. I think this is possible but I want to hear how the Government will absorb these two issues. I beg to move Amendment 3.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raises the central concerns of the struck-ill noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the expectations of arbitrators. I would add that he seemed to suggest in Committee that the role of arbitrators in this legislation is inconsistent with the expectation of arbitrators in the Arbitration Act—that is, they decide either one way or the other between two competing cases, rather than trying to filter between the cases to find some remedy between the two.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise—I was caught short by the speed with which we are moving through these amendments. Before I respond to these points, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for the amendments he tabled. I think everybody who heard him in Committee was impressed by his erudition. I am sorry he is not able to join us to debate these points, but on behalf of the House I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for stepping into the breach and for his impressive grasp of the technical matters underlying these amendments.

I start by saying that I am fully aware of the concerns of arbitration bodies seeking approval under the Bill and my officials have been in continual contact with them to ensure that their views are registered and dealt with appropriately.

The Bill differs in some aspects from the Arbitration Act 1996, and provides that approved arbitration bodies have oversight over arbitrators where they have appointed them. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, this was deliberate, and it gives certainty to landlords and tenants that arbitration will be managed efficiently and any issues with the process dealt with expeditiously. I can assure noble Lords that the oversight function is not intended to be onerous and is primarily administrative to ensure that the process runs smoothly. We do not expect bodies to continually monitor proceedings, but only step in where a party has a legitimate complaint or new information comes to light, raising a concern. I hope this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

Under the Bill, arbitration bodies can decide on unilateral removal requests, and this was also deliberate to avoid adding to pressure on the court system. The bodies should apply the same principles in case law as the court, including that there is a high bar to removing an arbitrator, and the parties should raise any concerns promptly. Frivolous, vexatious or unsubstantiated complaints should be quickly dismissed. Complaints of any substance should be rare, given the rigorous pre-appointment checks that bodies will doubtless carry out. I am pleased to clarify the point raised by the noble Earl in Committee: it is open to the approved arbitration bodies to charge a fee for dealing with a removal application. The intention is that this may disincentivise frivolous or vexatious complaints. In addition, the arbitrator can require an obstructive party to pay a greater share of the arbitration fees. We will include this clarification in the guidance to which I referred earlier.

I appreciate that there is concern about the extent to which arbitration bodies have immunity in respect of their functions. This is an important point that has been raised; I am considering it and will return to this issue at Third Reading.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I appreciate that latter point, and the conflict of interest is a concerning issue, particularly around how arbitrators are able either to sign off on that or not be required to do so.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point on that, and I hope that all this provides reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his proxy role regarding Amendments 3, 4 and 5 and that he will now not press them.

Turning to Amendments 8 and 9, the Bill’s arbitration scheme is for parties that cannot reach agreement. It should not apply if the protected rent debt is covered by a company or individual voluntary arrangement, or by certain restructuring plans and schemes under the Companies Act 2006. The Bill therefore does not allow a reference to arbitration where such an arrangement has been approved. If, when the Bill scheme is open, such an arrangement has been proposed but not decided, the Bill seeks to preserve the parties’ positions. This is why a party may apply for arbitration but an arbitrator may not be appointed while the decision on the arrangement is pending. If the proposed arrangement is then approved, arbitration should not be available, so, in that instance, the Bill prevents an arbitrator being appointed.

This is important, but it should not be burdensome for approved arbitration bodies. We will set out in guidance a clear and quick process based on tenant disclosure to check whether there is an approved or proposed arrangement to limit administrative burden on the bodies. However, we should not use limited arbitral capacity to determine this. I hope that I have explained convincingly why Amendments 8 and 9 are not necessary or appropriate.

Finally, I thank the noble Lord for raising the important issue of arbitration fees. I turn first to Amendment 10. A cap on fees differing with the complexity of the dispute may seem helpful; however, complexity is subjective and difficult to define and measure. It would therefore be hard to monitor adherence to such a cap. Landlords and tenants may worry that their case would be considered complex, resulting in higher fees, which may discourage SMEs from applying. Of course, a key tenet of this Bill is that this should be an inclusive process and open to all. I hope that explains, for reasons of practicality, why I cannot accept the amendment from the noble Earl and noble Lord on the fee cap.

Amendments 11, 13 and 14 in effect remove the requirements for advance payments of arbitrators’ fees and expenses and oral hearing fees. However, it is fundamental that the parties know in advance how much arbitration will cost to avoid deterring them from using the scheme. A key gain—another key tenet—is that this scheme is intended to be fast and low cost. The arbitration mechanism is focused and based on the parties’ formal proposals and supporting evidence. Oral hearings should concern those proposals and evidence and should not require lengthy cross-examination or experts. Consequently, costs should be predictable.

Requiring fees to be paid in advance prevents a party frustrating the process by refusing to pay. It also avoids arbitration bodies having to take action to recover unpaid fees. Arbitration bodies should be reassured that it is perfectly acceptable under the Bill for them to set a higher fee for large-scale disputes, and vice versa. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I must stick to the position that fees should be paid in advance.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 12. The scheme must of course be accessible to SMEs, as I have previously said, but the general rule of splitting approved arbitration body fees and expenses 50:50 is important. That even split means that neither side is incentivised to make the process more complex or lengthier than it needs to be. I believe that we should be wary of interfering with this. Of course, the exception is where a party has behaved obstructively, in which case the arbitrator can require them to pay more than 50% because of their conduct. As I have mentioned, it is perfectly acceptable for approved arbitration bodies to set fees payable in advance that differ depending on the size of the parties involved. I hope that all provides a satisfactory explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank him and of course the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for their close attention to these matters, and I hope that he will not press these amendments.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer on these amendments. I am not sure how much cheer the noble Earl will be getting from the answer, but he will I hope be able to respond on his own account at Third Reading.

For my own part, I think the Minister’s response that neither side is incentivised to increase the costs is a bit—if he does not mind me saying so—naïve, because that is exactly what has been happening where the big operators have flexed their muscle to, in a sense, push the smaller operators into a corner. So I do not agree with that point, and it is perhaps something that the Minister could reconsider. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Russian Oil and Gas Imports

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are looking at this seriously and decisions will be announced shortly but it is important to bear in mind that, while we would all love there to be quick and easy solutions, the building, construction and implementation of energy infrastructure takes many years, sometimes even decades. I am afraid there are no quick solutions to any of this.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the remarkable spike in gas prices today indicates a real challenge ahead for gas distribution in this country. To date, the big companies have absorbed the customers of the smaller companies that have gone bankrupt. As things stand, those big companies will themselves come under huge pressure with forward contracts that they cannot cover. What is the department doing, in consultation with the gas companies in this country, to maintain security of supply for the consumers of Great Britain?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

A number of companies are indeed under pressure and, unfortunately, we have seen a number exiting the market. I assure the noble Lord that we are in regular contact with all the gas and electricity supply companies; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State meets them regularly. This is indeed an unprecedented crisis but we are closely following events and I can say that, while there is obviously a problem with the price, there is no problem with security of supply.

Post Office: Horizon

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his excellent questions. On this, I agree with many of the points he made. Regarding the 555, who he rightly highlighted, as I said, they have been pioneers in this area. My honourable friend the Minister for Small Business is working at speed on this issue. They exposed the scandal by taking the Post Office to the High Court. They performed a huge public service by doing so, and I know that many noble Lords will support the Select Committee’s view that it is unfair that they have received less compensation than those who were not part of the case. I know that my honourable friend shares that view, and he has said that resolving that is the most important issue he currently faces. It is important to recognise that this is a legally complex issue because the case was settled in the High Court, but I know that officials and my honourable friend are working at pace to try to resolve it.

With regard to the historical shortfall scheme, things are slightly better than the noble Lord suggested; we are now up to 38% of the cases having been resolved. The Post Office’s best current estimate is that the scheme will cost £153 million across about 2,300 claims. It is important that we work through them as quickly as possible. Some of them are complex but they need to be worked through and resolved.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I know the Minister has been working hard on this issue and he should be commended by all sides of the House on the effort that he is putting into it. The Statement says the Government are stepping in and that that is unwelcome. We should remember that the genesis of this problem came with faulty software and a system that did not work; it was made worse by the events that followed. We should also remember that Fujitsu, the company that provided that software, had revenues last year of over £20 billion, and we calculate that since 2013 the Government have awarded it a further £3 billion in contracts. Does the Minister share my surprise and indeed incredulity that Fujitsu has not been asked to provide some of the money that the Government are now unfortunately having to step up and pay?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his praise for me, but it is slightly unjust; it is the Minister for Small Business who is responsible for the Post Office and is putting in the hard yards on this issue, and I will certainly pass on the noble Lord’s commendations.

I have considerable sympathy for the view that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, outlines. A public inquiry is taking place and that is the proper place for blame to be apportioned. We all have our suspicions and views, but let us wait for the outcome of the inquiry to see exactly where fault lies—whether with Ministers, officials, Post Office executives, Fujitsu or whoever—and then we can take the appropriate action.

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, far be it from me to delay any part of this important Bill, but I would like to be clear about the Minister’s insertion of “businesses or premises”. There does not necessarily seem to be a direct alignment between the two terms. For instance, is the closure of the business inescapably the product of a prohibition, as opposed to something that is advisory? I refer back to the great debate over whether something was guidance or mandatory. It seems to me that we could be looking at businesses with subsidiary operations and so on. If we are not careful, something that affects one part of a business but not the particular part we are talking about, namely the rent on particular premises, would not necessarily align. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is intended there.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, fools rush in where angels fear to tread—I shall try to speak briefly. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been flexible and responded to points raised in the other House. Government Amendment 4 is a really good thing, but I have the same question: is this guidance or a mandatory process for the arbitrators? My understanding is that, if a tenant is able to reach a settlement through this process, that tenant no longer carries the stain of the unpaid element of the arbitration process. That therefore means that this would not stand against their credit rating and I wonder whether the Government have considered how this might not filter through into the credit rating system. As I am sure the Minister knows, the credit rating system tends to make life very difficult if you get on the wrong side of it. Some clarity on that would be really helpful.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I also extend our thanks to the Minister for his courtesy, as always, and for picking up these—as he made clear—technical issues. We have received numerous representations on the Bill from stakeholders. I was pleased to hear the Government picking up some of the very detailed concerns about liabilities. We recognise Amendments 11 and 12 as positive, reflecting the concerns raised by stakeholders. I shall be interested in hearing the clarifications from the Minister on the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, particularly on definitions. The complexity of these areas makes us all try to look at the unintended consequences that could flow from making one change. Sadly, we know the pressures that so many of these businesses and tenants are under and the potential risk to their future liability.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

With apologies to the Minister, I forgot to complete what I was going to ask with respect to government Amendments 11 and 12. Would they in any way change the relationship with former tenants who have unpaid rent when it comes to the process of recovering that rent? That was not clear to me from what the Minister said, probably because it was not the intention of what he was describing. Can he clarify that they would not in any way downgrade the landlord’s ability to pursue unpaid debt from a former tenant?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those points. I will answer them as best as I can because there are some technical issues underlying this. I hope noble Lords will not mind if I have to write in amplification of the answers I give.

First, on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the coronavirus regulations imposed mandated closure requirements on either businesses or premises. Sometimes the run two together but they do not necessarily do so. The Bill applies to all such cases where there was a requirement in the coronavirus legislation so one has to look back to that legislation to understand the difference between businesses and premises in it. However, I will write to clarify that further for the noble Earl.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the intention is that the arbitral award, which is binding, will substitute itself for the debt that previously existed. On that basis, it should not apply to the credit rating of the person concerned. Having said that, I guess we all have experience, either directly or through colleagues, of where that perhaps has not flowed through to the outcome as it should have done—in which case, the answer, I am sure, is that one must take it up with a credit rating agency. However, if that were to happen, it would be an error that would then have to be corrected.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

In the likely event that the Bill becomes law, might there be some way for the department to inform the credit rating agencies about this process? The last thing a business needs if it is trying to get back up and running is to find that its credit has been shut down. Some pre-emptive action with the key credit rating agencies might help to alleviate the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has made in this grouping and look forward to the discussions that we will have, recognising the additional amendment in this group.

I again thank the Minister for the attention to detail in representing the representations from stakeholders —importantly, from both tenants and landlords. I thank him, too, for his letter responding to the concerns raised by noble Lords at Second Reading. I just want to make the point about understanding the real pressure that businesses, tenants and landlords are under at the moment. It has been an incredibly difficult winter for many businesses, as we know and, of course, we are in a situation where we face ongoing pressures from the national insurance rise, energy costs and inflationary pressures. It is a time of great uncertainty for many people affected by the Bill before us. We welcome the moves forward as outlined in the Bill, recognising the complexity and the absolute need to get the detail right, but also the time pressures and the fact that the clock has been ticking for many businesses for some time now.

Of course, running through all that, it is essential that stakeholders have confidence in the system. The reason for Amendment 2 is the need to ensure absolutely that bodies under subsection (1) have adequate resources and sufficient numbers of arbitrators. Through this amendment, we seek reassurance with regard to immediate capacity, but I would also like to ask about evidence and what understanding there is of how much work has been done on resourcing the needs and future demands on services for all those involved. It is essential that everyone feels that they have proper access to a fair hearing. I should like the assurance that all due consideration has been given to the proposed nature of the hearings.

I understand that the assumption is that the hearings will be in public and that oral hearings may be desired by the parties involved. Could that have an undue impact on costs? Would they add to the capacity requirements of the arbitrators? Am I right to understand that a document-only approach would allow for a more efficient process? Is that the understanding behind the direction of travel, and would this be seen to keep costs and time lower?

We understand from our discussions at Second Reading that many cases have now moved to be settled. Would we be right in assuming that the outstanding ones may well be more complex, which explains why they are moving forward to seeking arbitration, as laid out? My question remains: has a full assessment been undertaken with regard to the demands of the services of arbitrators? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will expand on the issues around accessibility to the services.

Amendment 3 would increase the transparency of the arbitrator’s decision, which we have emphasised in the debates in the other place—and I refer to the discussions that were held there.

I regard Amendment 5 as positive and, again, is one that we tabled in the other place. We are concerned that the arbitration fees could be the final cost to push landlords and businesses over the edge. Therefore, we consider that the Secretary of State should ensure that fees are capped. As I said at the outset, this is a time when costs are escalating in so many different areas; we would like the absolute assurance that this area has been considered and controlled.

Can we also be assured that arbitration fees and expenses will be proportionate to the arrears that have caused the dispute? High arbitration costs will have a huge impact on businesses that are doing everything they can to emerge from the pressures that they have been facing. The fact that they need to go to arbitration highlights those pressures. Will the Minister expand on the powers that the Secretary of State will have to make regulations specifying limits on the fees and expenses of arbitrators? What circumstances would lead to the Secretary of State becoming involved, and how will affordability be judged?

With regard to Amendment 7, also in my name, can the Minister say more about what, in his view, constitute viable and unviable businesses? Further, could he expand on what guidance will be provided to arbitrators? Do we know how much flexibility they will have? We all recognise the difficulty of defining what constitutes viability or affordability, but this is such an important area that we need to push further to make sure that we have a clearer definition. That is why we seek more answers in this area and to add more depth to some of our previous discussions.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has tabled Amendment 7A, and I shall listen with interest—sorry, this is a double use of the word—to the cap on interest. I am interested in the interest on the interest. With those points, I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3, 5 and 7A in my name, and in support of the other amendments in the group, most of which I countersigned and one that I, mysteriously, did not. I am not sure why, because I agree with it completely. It certainly does not have any lower rating because I failed to sign it.

My three amendments are relatively self-explanatory and I shall be brief, but the Minister should not mistake that brevity for the idea that I do not think they are important. I can speak for longer if necessary. Amendment 3 would ensure that arbitration decisions are easily accessible. The basis for that is that, although we do not have long to get through this process, building up a body of case law, or case decision-making, will be important for consistency. What worries me most is complete inconsistency in how these rulings are made. I think we will come to the last point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, made about viability, which is where inconsistency will be most a problem. One starting point is to publish fully and accessibly. It would be better if the Government had their own website which scraped them up and put them all in one place so that people would not have to go to various places but, at the very least, they should be easily available somewhere.

Amendment 5, which has some crossover with parts of Amendment 6, requires the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying limits on arbitration fees. The Minister will see that the word “may” is employed, and I am sure he will tell us that this is a legislative trope and that this is how it is done. That is what I expect. Therefore, it will be sufficient if the Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box and says that such regulation will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity and the word “may” remains in the legislation. That would clearly clarify the Government’s intention as to whether this process will happen.

I apologise for the late arrival of Amendment 7A, and I really appreciate the help of the Public Bill Office and others in drafting it so that it is in scope of the Bill. The aim of this amendment is to put a cap on the level of interest that can be baked into the arbitration. This is important because otherwise it will be a lever used in the negotiation. In other words, the landlord will say, “Yes, I’ll do this deal but I expect interest of X or Y”, and clearly that interest level may not be to the advantage of the tenant. Therefore, putting this in removes that lever from the arbitration process. It knowingly and deliberately moves it so that the negotiation is on different ground. The Minister will have noted that I often speak up against secondary legislation—indeed, we have some coming later—but in this case it seems to me that Amendments 5 and 7A are good examples of what secondary legislation was designed for.

I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Amendment 2 is a sensible measure to ensure that there are sufficient arbitrators. The Minister has said on occasion that there are sufficient, but to some extent he is relying on the word of the organisations concerned. I think it unlikely that they would say, “No, Minister, we can’t do it”. This amendment forces that assurance process a little harder.

Amendment 6 further supports Amendments 5 and 2, in my view. I thank the Minister for his letter. One element of that was to set out the distribution of potential cases. The question I have is whether the availability matches the potential cases. For example, it seems that there is a concentration of potential cases in the south-east, and it seems likely to me that there is probably a concentration of resources for arbitration in the south-east. But what of the towns where the commercial infrastructure has dwindled and where there are not the people who fit the arbitration photofit that the Minister described? How has the Minister ascertained that those towns, cities and villages, which will need arbitration just as much as the bigger places, will have the supply they need? If they do not have the supply locally, on their doorstep, how will that be supplied otherwise? It is not just whether they are sufficient in the country but whether the footprint of those arbitrators matches the expected need.

Then we come to Amendment 7, the one I did not sign, which is strange because I think it is really important. The questions I asked in the debate before Second Reading were, “What is viability?” and “On what forward data is viability assessed?”. One percentage point on expected interest rates, one or two percentage points different on expected inflation and one percentage point up or down on the RPI are the difference between life and death for a business. When the arbitrator sits down at looks at viability, from where is that arbitrator going to get that data and how can we ensure that the data is consistent? The Treasury and the Bank of England often get it wrong when it comes to forecasting data—with all due respect to the Deputy Chairman’s son, who I believe has the job of making some of that data. The point is that we have to use something. Is it up to the arbitrator to decide which projection for RPI, which interest rate data and which inflation data are to be used? This is the difference.

What does viability mean? Is it wiping your face in the colloquial, is it a 5% return on capital employed or what? What do we mean? How do we make sure that businesses are not shut down that in other places are determined viable? This is a difficult question to answer but it is a crucial point, on which the effectiveness of this legislation will turn.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall make a few general comments about this group, which I certainly relate to. The Minister will doubtless have seen the item I sent in the past day or so from the Property Litigation Association, which I copied to a number of other noble Lords, about its concerns over the geometry of the arbitration process. With regard to the number of arbitrations, a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the final quantum of those willing to participate will not be known until the Bill and any regulations have been finalised, so willingness to participate may well depend on what is set out in them, what happens about any caps and proportionality relating to costs in the arbitration.

On the costs in the arbitration, my limited experience suggests that the process is capable of being gamed with bad behaviours referred to in an email I had from the property industry and brinkmanship as a predetermined tactic. Given that arbitration is not an inherently cheap process in such circumstances, I wonder what safeguards there are against, for instance, a bully-boy multiple having a go at a series of small landlords, a not unheard of situation. Unfortunately, the British Property Federation, which represents larger landlords, does not have data on what the impact is. I will be very interested to know whether there is any data.

I have concerns about arbitrator discretion. As I understand it, under the provisions of Arbitration Act 1996 the parameters of the arbitrator’s decision-making function are that he has to decide on one or other of the two cases before him. He is not in an inquisitorial position to try to fillet out bits of one and insert them in bits of the other, so when it is a question of what interest rate will be applied, it will be a matter of what is presented to him or her as arbitrator. If there is to be some change in this non-inquisitorial function of arbitrators—I am not suggesting that there could or should be—I can see that, if we are talking about the interests of justice rather than the much vaunted justice of Solomon, we might wish to review what is happening.

On the question of arbitration awards, again, my understanding is that these are normally private, not public, occasions. To the extent that it is proposed that the outcomes of those should be relaxed, I should like to know what revised terms, guidance or direction will follow. That might well have an impact—going back to the first point I made—on those who are already trained arbitrators who might wish to participate in this scheme and may regard the matter as a sufficiently aberrant novelty not to want to participate. I see this matter as a somewhat circular approach and would very much like clarification because I want the Bill to work in practice.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I hope it is order for me to ask if the noble Lord agrees with me that the so-called bully-boy tenants that the Minister described are going about their bullying within the current system? How much more does this system facilitate their ability to bully or otherwise than the current system, given that we have seen high-street multiples hold their landlords to ransom without this legislation? Why would this legislation make it any easier for them to do that?

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked a pertinent question and the short answer goes back to my earlier intervention. The impact on business and on premises are two separate things. Those are being coalesced into what has happened in terms of non-payment of rent and a build-up of arrears. All I would say is that it is just another factor that adds into a range of factors that he rightly points out are already in play. It adds to the complexity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

Again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their attention to the important issues raised through their amendments. I am grateful for the constructive debate we have had on this, complicated though it is. I have to say to start with that I very much agree with the noble Baroness about the extreme pressure that businesses have been under during this very worrying time. I hope that this Bill will be a small contribution, at least for some, to easing that worry.

Turning first to Amendment 2, I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lords for their consideration of the issue of ensuring adequate arbitrator capacity and administrative support by arbitration bodies. These are key to achieving our aim for disputes to be resolved quickly. As I said before, we have thought it right to adopt a market-based policy approach. This means that approved arbitration bodies, which have expertise in running schemes like this and mounting these things—they will not have run an identical scheme to this one but they will have run similar schemes in the past because it is, in a sense, their core business—will manage their internal capacity processes to perform their functions in the Bill to the required standard.

I believe that this approach of empowering arbitration bodies to manage their internal workflows is the optimal way to ensure that there is enough capacity in the system to deal with the caseload. Not only have my officials been in deep contact with the arbitration bodies about this but I myself held a round table with some of them earlier in the week. I probed them very hard on these matters and, I must say, I got replies that satisfied me as to their ability to cope with this and put the systems in place. In a sense, their very reputation as arbitral bodies depends on them being able to do things like this.

Of course, adopting a more market-based approach does not mean that we are not taking action to engage with the issues of arbitrator capacity and arbitration body resource capability. As I said, we have been engaging extensively and on an ongoing basis with arbitration bodies in relation to these issues, and we will continue to do so. If tweaks have to be made, we will certainly make them.

Let me give a bit more colour to that. The application process for bodies to become approved contains a question on the number of arbitrators listed with the body that would be potentially suitable for the scheme. This is designed to ensure that the arbitration bodies that are approved will be able to list, and therefore appoint, a sufficient number of arbitrators. In any event, simply looking at the number of arbitrators that arbitration bodies can list underrepresents the capacity in the system because it disregards the fact that an arbitrator will be able to take on more than one case at a time.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, quite properly, about the geographical dispersion of arbitrators. It is very much our intention in the Bill that this is a documents-based process; to that extent, geographical location is less relevant. Also, our belief is that a lot of this will be conducted online by the arbitrators, so the things in this Bill will not necessarily turn on whether there is a local arbitrator on this.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his answer and accept that position, but I think he would also agree that, in order to assess the viability of a particular business correctly, local knowledge is quite helpful. The idea that, at its extreme, you are sat in a village in Herefordshire conversing with someone in Westminster and doing the process, could create confusion.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. Of course, in the cases put before the arbitrator, one would expect either the tenant or the landlord themselves to refer to those local issues, but it is of course absolutely open to the arbitrator to call for more information or evidence to deal with that local point. Indeed, it may well be sensible in many cases to appoint an arbitrator who has local knowledge, but I think that the system will adjust and do that as necessary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked whether the outstanding cases—we are down to a number in the low thousands now—are, by definition, likely to be the more difficult ones. Some of them are likely to be more difficult but, frankly, quite a proportion of them will involve people who have just been ignoring this topic, hoping that it will go away and something will turn up. Obviously there is something in the noble Baroness’s point, but there is a variety of factors that may be the reason why people have not yet come forward to settle by themselves. Of course, as I have said previously, it is very much our wish that people settle this themselves when they can.

I was asked about viability—and I will come back to it again later. It is difficult to be overly prescriptive about viability. The Bill deliberately does not define viability specifically because—this comes back to the geographical point from the noble Lord, Lord Fox—arbitrators need to make the assessment in the context of each individual business’s circumstances, especially given the variety of businesses that may use the scheme. It is essential that arbitrators do that, and have the flexibility to do that, to achieve a fair outcome. We will produce more statutory guidance for arbitrators on this, but I have confidence because, in a sense, it is their whole business to be able to arbitrate matters—that is, to weigh up the necessary factors and come to a sensible conclusion.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I appreciate that, and I am pleased that there will be more statutory guidance. It seems to me that the sources of data should not be the topic under discussion during the arbitration process. Can the Minister give us some sense of the basis on which people are making decisions, while at the same time accepting my point that there are local variations in markets and that this element would take out some aspects of what could be, in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, gamed?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. From talking to some of the arbitration bodies, I know that the way they operate is that, when a case like this comes to a body for it to decide on the arbitrator, normally a list of arbitrators is put in front of the parties for them to choose. This is a thoughtful process, as it were. The list of names that the arbitral bodies put before the parties to choose an arbitrator is done rationally. Frankly, one would expect that, if there are locally based arbitrators to do this, they will be the people on the list; the parties may then choose them. I cannot give the noble Lord an absolute guarantee in relation to that but it seems to me that, sensibly, this will be how the system should, and will, operate.

Turning to Amendment 3, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his interest in the publication of awards. We absolutely want to ensure that the public can easily access arbitral awards issued under this scheme. That is why Clause 18 already requires arbitrators to publish an award made, together with the reasons for making it. I am sure that, as this scheme rolls out, if we find that this publicity is not reaching the people it needs to, we will take steps to ensure that it does.

We do not believe it is necessary to require approved arbitration bodies to publish decisions as well, although some may well choose to. In addition, we envisage that as part of its function of overseeing an arbitration, an approved arbitration body would ensure that the award is published as required. Frankly, the convenient way to do that would be on the website of the arbitral body. We are in ongoing discussions with arbitration bodies regarding how to ensure that awards are published in an accessible manner for landlords and tenants who are considering making a reference to arbitration.

I think we are in absolutely the same place on the need for this. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that this amendment is not necessary and I request that he does not press it.

Turning to Amendment 5, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and other noble Lords who have spoken for their consideration of the important issue of arbitration fees and the Secretary of State’s power to cap those fees. I assure your Lordships that we also want to ensure that all those who need to access the scheme can do so. That is why, for example, when arbitration bodies seek approval we are specifically asking them what they intend to do to make sure the scheme is affordable for SMEs.

As I have mentioned, the Bill adopts a market-based approach. Approved arbitration bodies, which have expertise in running and costing similar schemes, will have the function of setting fees. It has been made clear that while fees should be set at a level that incentivises arbitrators to act, it is important that the scheme is affordable for all those who need to access it. Capping fees prematurely could reduce the number of arbitrators able to act and in a sense would compound the problem that we are trying to solve. A cap should therefore be imposed only where there is evidence that it is needed. There is presently no such evidence but, if it were to emerge, the Secretary of State is prepared to exercise the power to cap fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 8, I am pleased to speak also to Amendments 9 to Clause 27. Both are in my name. Clause 27 provides a power to apply provisions of the Bill again in order to act swiftly in the event of another wave of coronavirus requiring further mandated closures.

Amendment 9 would ensure that the power can be used for mandated closure after the protected period in the Bill, whether before or after the Bill is passed, and whether or not the closure requirement has ended when regulations are made. Amendments 8 and 9 also clarify the meaning of a closure requirement, and more closely align the drafting with corresponding provisions of Clause 4. We have seen that the Covid landscape can change very quickly; Amendments 8 and 9 are therefore to ensure the power is clear and robust for any new waves. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I shall reserve almost all that I shall say about Clause 27 for the next debate—but it is good, if Clause 27 survives, that its language should be consistent with the other parts of the Bill. However, we shall debate its existence later.

Amendment 8 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 27 should be part of the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 27 would establish the Henry VIII power, which has drawn the ire of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—so this speech will come as no surprise to the Minister or, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, who heard a slightly different version of it earlier this week. Thereby hangs a tale, because this is a consistent practice of the Government in legislating not just for the present but putting in place measures whereby the Bill cannot just be continued or rolled over but rolled over and substantially changed. In this case, Clause 27 gives Ministers very broad discretion to change how the Bill would work in future periods of coronavirus control. It would allow changes of a kind that would give rise to serious policy issues and this ought not to be a matter for secondary legislation.

Turning to the detail, the Bill applies to business closures that took place in two specific periods—11 March 2020 to 18 July 2021, for businesses in England, and 21 March 2020 to 7 August 2021 for businesses in Wales. However, Clause 27 gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations that allow the Bill to apply to future periods of coronavirus control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for notification of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 27 stand part of the Bill, and for highlighting the concerns expressed by the DPRRC. I also listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, of course.

As has been stated in both the other House and this House, we have already seen with the omicron variant that the future of the pandemic is uncertain. I believe that the power in Clause 27 is important because it provides the Government with the ability to take a flexible and targeted approach to reapply any or all of the provisions in the Bill to respond to the specific circumstances of any future periods of coronavirus. None of us can predict what will happen. I assure noble Lords that we will of course always exercise this power in accordance with human rights.

Having said that, we are grateful for the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I acknowledge that it makes some important points, which I will consider carefully as we prepare for Report.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am not sure whether I have to withdraw, but I thank the Minister for his comments. We look forward to consulting between Committee and Report. This is important. I cannot speak for the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, but I suspect that we would both consider it necessary to take this forward in the event that the Minister was unable to meet the DPRRC at least most of the way.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

10: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the impact of this Act
(1) Four months after the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act and whether it has provided tenants and landlords with an effective process of arbitration.(2) The review in subsection (1) must make an assessment as to whether awards issued under this Act have been given in a fair and consistent manner.(3) The review must also include an assessment as to whether further guidance should be issued as a result of its findings.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act four months after the Act has been passed.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we are on the last group— so soon. The amendment

“would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act four months after the Act has been passed.”

That is unusual because, normally, the review process is one year, or five years, or whatever. However, we need to look at Clause 9, which sets a time limit of six months from when the Act is invoked or enacted for people to submit their process. I may have misunderstood —if so, I hope the Minister can put me right—but, if that is the case and that six months is a serious period, we need to assess the progress of this Bill in time for the Minister to roll it forward; the Bill makes provision for that, as I understand it.

We have talked about availability; the Minister has said that he will keep this under review. We have talked about cost; the Minister has said that he will keep this under review. We have talked about regional distribution and how that works; the Minister has said that he will keep this under review. My amendment would create a process that allows this review to happen formally so that your Lordships’ House and the Commons have time to roll this forward if some of the issues that we have discussed are preventing the process going forward.

I want to say one thing on the subject of fees. It comes back to a point that I ask the Minister to continue to review. As the noble Lord—Lord who? Sorry, Lord Thurlow—pointed out, there are a lot of ancillary costs other than the cost of the arbitration process itself; there is the cost of preparing for it, for example. In the end, this can be a loaded gun that the landlord—or the tenant, depending on which way it goes—can use. In other words, “It’s going to cost you this anyway so you might as well give me that”. I do not think that that is the purpose of this Bill. The Bill’s purpose is not to enrich massively dozens of service industries; it is designed to keep commerce rolling. One thing that must be reviewed, and one reason why we are keen to have this four-month review, is the question of whether the cost of fees is causing unfair settlements to occur. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am pleased to put my name to Amendment 10 and stand here to support it.

Constant reference has been made to monitoring the progress of the matters we have discussed, in particular to assessing the impact on all parties in the spirit of fairness and consistency. I believe that such a review would be welcomed by all parties: landlords, tenants and arbitrators. We must ensure that it is fully understood and clear as to whether the system is well understood, is working well and, most of all, is bringing benefit to those areas where it is needed most.

I would not be persuaded if the argument against this was that it would be onerous or too costly. The cost of failure in an area such as this would be far greater than the cost of keeping a close eye on progress and making sure that adjustments can be made if they are deemed appropriate.

With those few comments, I am pleased to support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise with some sadness, given that this is the last group. I thought that we were getting into the swing of it this afternoon. I should have hoped for further groups in which noble Lords could have demonstrated their expertise.

Amendment 10 proposes a new clause after Clause 27. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his contribution and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. I am also particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

The Government recognise the importance of appropriately reviewing legislation. I would like to reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the Bill contains appropriate means of monitoring the arbitration system, which is the essence of the Bill, including the awards made by arbitrators. The period under the Bill for making an application for arbitration is six months, and we anticipate that cases should be resolved as soon as possible thereafter.

The Bill already requires approved arbitration bodies to provide a report to the Secretary of State if requested. This can include details of the progress of arbitrations and the awards made. The Bill also requires arbitrators to publish their awards and reasoning. This will provide transparency and help with consistency of approach. If the need arises, the Secretary of State can also issue updated guidance to arbitrators, for example to clarify or add any points that may arise.

It is neither necessary nor beneficial to require publication of a review within just four months of the Bill being passed. That could slow the arbitration process and the prompt resolution that the whole scheme intends, should parties to arbitration and arbitrators await any findings and any new guidance. I appreciate that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have proposed this with good intentions, but I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Turning the telescope around the other way, the reason for specifying four months was the Government specifying six months in Clause 9(2). It seems perverse to have a review that comes after the process has essentially ended. That is the problem. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow—I shall always remember his name; “That’ll learn you”, as they say where I am from—and I accept his point that three to four months is too short to review this. Therefore, six months is too short for the cut-off point. In a strange way, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, kind of makes my concern clear. If we are to review this, the review needs to come when changes can be made and when significant numbers of potential future cases are better served by the process. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I think I will stick by my previous comments. I believe that not just the interests of landlords and tenants but those of the country are best served by getting on with this. Even though I respect the points that the noble Lord made, I stick with my previous comments.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his comments, which I clearly do not agree with. Everybody’s interests are best served by getting on with something as long as what we are getting on with is a good thing. As someone who climbs and rambles, I know that heading off in the wrong direction and keeping walking for a period before starting to assess the direction in which one is walking is not a good idea. What one does when one sets out on a journey is check and check again, and make changes. This amendment would make sure that any trimming that is required to add direction is done in time for it to have a meaningful effect on the outcome of the largest possible number of cases. Having said that three times in three different ways, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She is right: we intend to introduce a climate-compatibility checkpoint for all new licences, which will be used to assess whether any future licensing rounds remain in keeping with our climate goals.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in Q3 of last year, which is the last time for which data is available, exports from the UK North Sea were double those of the period in the previous year. At the same time, Ministers were reported to be scrabbling to Kuwait to secure extra supplies of LNG to the UK to meet the energy crisis. This is very counterintuitive. Does the Minister agree that shipping expensive—in environmental terms—LNG from the Middle East, rather than using gas that comes from our doorstep, is not sensible or good for the planet? Will he tell your Lordships’ House how the Government will turn that around and make better use of the resources we already have and are already producing?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

First, I agree with the noble Lord that it is much more sensible to use our own domestic resources, rather than LNG. However, the reality is that, throughout this period, the UK remains a net importer of oil and gas. Therefore, it makes no sense to pursue the operations he is proposing. We do not produce enough of our own domestic energy. We are expanding our renewable capacity massively and have the largest developments of offshore wind in the world. We need to go further and faster, but it makes no sense to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and cut off imports and exports.

Subsidy Control Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I think that speaks for itself. I stand by those words.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps that is why we asked him to stop—so that we could start again today. His answer to my noble friend Lord Purvis is intriguing. He seems to be saying that no matter how much a subsidy affects the UK internal market—I will wait for the Minister to finish his conversation—it can never be within the purview of the internal market Act. Is that what he just said?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Yes. Subsidy is not a regulated provision within the scope of the UK provisions. We are debating this in a future grouping, so we will no doubt be able to come back to it, but my advice is that it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s first point, it has been a year since the Bill was introduced and therefore things have moved on since the impact assessment was done. On his second point, we are looking for a broad range of expertise that will enable the CMA and the SAU to fulfil their functions.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Can I ask that in future, all impact assessments be given a time lapse, so we know how many weeks they last for, until such time as they cease to be? Seriously, if one year on the impact assessment for this means that the number of people triples, then it was not necessarily a very accurate impact assessment.

[Lord German (LD)]

I wonder if, in concluding, the Minister could indicate the deadline for when the 50 extra advertised posts have to be filled? She may have to do so in writing, I understand that. Also, what is the difference between those who will be allocated to the traditional work of the CMA—competition, mergers and anti-trust—and those on the subsidy side of this split? They are distinct areas of work and quite distinct skills are needed. At some stage, could the Minister also tell me how many lawyers have been recruited so far, and how many they are short of. That would be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for tabling these amendments. At Second Reading and over the past three and a half days of Committee, we have repeatedly come back to how the new subsidy regime interacts with the broader provisions contained in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act.

As we know, the Government have clearly classified subsidy control as a reserved matter, but there a number of sectors where local or devolved interests may conflict with the wider interests of the internal market Act. The Government repeatedly come back to the notion that the new regime should facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal market. However, if we return to Monday’s discussions about Northern Ireland’s unique position and the inclusion of agriculture, we have to accept that those issues have raised more questions than answers when it comes to how the new regime will balance competing interests.

It is fair to say that some of the responses that we have had thus far have not been entirely convincing, and some of the answers given by the Minister seem to have highlighted the complexity of the issues that we are discussing and, therefore, the need to raise the matters in these amendments.

The wording “even-handedly”, as raised in Amendment 72 and used in other legislation, is particularly interesting. What is the Minister’s personal interpretation of that? How will it be administered and who will make the judgments, if it is deemed that unfairness is built into some of the decisions that are made?

We are repeatedly told when debating this Bill as well as when discussing whole rafts of government policy in other areas that there is a commitment to devolution and that is the most important thing—but, in the same breath, the Government say that subsidies must not undermine the internal market. How can both those statements be true?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting debate. I originally set out, as Committee stages are wont to do, to tease out some minor details and things from this legislation, but it is clear that there is a major philosophical point that needs to be established before the minor details can be filled in.

Perhaps the Minister can cast himself back to when he was at school. I am sure that he popped into the odd mathematics lesson. He may well have come across a thing called a Venn diagram. For those who missed that particular week, a Venn diagram is made up of a number of circles. The degree to which they intersect indicates the amount of common area that they have—and perhaps the Minister is beginning to understand the direction of travel.

The issue here is that the Minister is asserting that, when it comes to subsidies, essentially, the internal market Act and this Subsidy Control Bill are discrete circles—that is circles that barely intersect or do not do so at all. We have ministerial assertion, and then we have the words as written in Bills and Acts. My noble friend Lord Purvis carefully and usefully filleted the words from the internal market Act, which seem to indicate that there is a large element of common ground with respect to subsidies between these two circles—these two pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is not possible to unpick the words and aims of the internal market Act when talking about subsidies.

My noble friend set out some of the potential contradictions. I will be simpler, because I am a simpler person. Reading those two pieces of legislation, and looking at words rather than hearing the Minister’s assertions, it seems to me that the Scottish Government could design a subsidies scheme. The CMA and the SAU within it, using this Subsidy Control Bill as their guide, as my noble friend set out, would indicate that this scheme is allowable and that market distortions are only minimal, as the Bill allows. The scheme could therefore be launched. However, the OIM—the Office for the Internal Market—would then analyse that subsidies scheme and detect that there are indeed distortions, albeit minimal ones, in that market. This information would be passed to the Secretary of State, who could, quite properly, then withdraw that scheme or cause it to be withdrawn; that is what the words in that Act and this Bill say. So I am interested to understand from the Minister why this might not be the case.

A separate and slightly smaller issue is that, within the CMA, we have the OIM and the SAU. Will these two organisations be operated discretely? Will there be Chinese walls between them in that they will operate under different Acts? Will they operate off the same data, or will they have to get their data separately? Indeed, coming back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, will they share the same lawyers when push comes to shove?

We seem to have here two things that the Minister is trying to push apart but which the words bring closely together. The purpose of these amendments is to understand how the Minister can assert that these two worlds are separate when the words indicate quite the opposite.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, for their amendments. They seek to probe the interactions between the OIM and the Bill, as well as the functions of the CMA more generally; I will take them together. Seeing as we were all involved in the debate on the then internal market Bill, I am getting flashes of déjà vu with all the different acronyms, such as the OIM and the SAU. Perhaps it is a Venn diagram, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, indicated, but I will set out the position and, hopefully, resolve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which was so powerfully and eloquently moved. Its purpose is to give the CMA standing to exercise enforcement powers through the CAT.

To some extent, this amendment overlaps with the amendment I moved earlier. I strongly agree with what was said about the limitations of relying on people who are affected by subsidy decisions to challenge them within the tight time limits that we have debated. I have already said, probably at too great length, that there needs to be much more independent enforcement.

I do not want to go over all the points I made earlier but, just in case some of the Committee thought I was overegging or inventing it, I want to refer to what the Financial Times said about this Bill. It carried an article on 2 July headed:

“The UK carves a risky new path on state aid.”


It went on to acknowledge what the Government have claimed as the great advantage of the new system—that it is speedier and more flexible—but commented:

“On the altar of speed, it”—


the Government—

“has sacrificed scrutiny. This is worrying from a government that has shied away from accountability and spent lavishly on contracts.”

It went on:

“The government envisages public bodies largely having a free hand in deciding whether subsidies comply with broad principles.”


I mentioned this point earlier: really, the regime seemed to amount to allowing public authorities to do whatever they wanted, and the assumption was that public authorities knew the law and would therefore observe it.

Finally, the FT said:

“The combination of a light-touch system and an interventionist government willing to spend lavishly on special projects creates dangers of a distortive spending spree—and of ministers becoming vulnerable to lobbying by vested interests.”


That is one of the problems. I am not in any way questioning the integrity or motives of the Government, but it is so easy for vested interests to have an undue influence on these decisions and it is a slippery road down to the politicisation of subsidies. I very much think that we need to move one way or another, whether it is by the route that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, so eloquently laid down or the one that I referred to earlier. We need to move to more arm’s-length, independent and effective enforcement.

When he spoke in reply to my earlier amendment, the Minister said the Government will not refer themselves to the CMA, as though that were perfectly obvious. It may be perfectly obvious that no one would do that, but in a sense they ought to. There ought to be a mechanism by which a Government are referred to the CMA.

When I first got into the House of Commons, I used to come and listen to debates here. People always gave Latin tags. I am sure that if Lord Boyd-Carpenter or Derek Walker-Smith, Lord Broxbourne, were examining this Bill today, their Latin tag would be “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—who will guard the guards? I am sure everybody knew that already. That is the principle. Who is going to contain and limit the Government?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 71 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for their support. I acknowledge that anything I say is unlikely to carry the weight of those two authoritative Peers, so your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I will be brief.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, raised the issue of private enforcement. It is intriguing to me that the Government should choose private enforcement to police something as important as a subsidy regime. They do not use private enforcement to police their income tax regime or all manner of important economic activity, yet they have chosen this route. They have explicitly decided to eliminate the devolved authorities, councils and LEPs from the process of enforcement and have added a 28-day deadline to that private enforcement process, which makes it almost impossible for private individuals to enforce in a timely manner. One would think that enforcement was perhaps not at the forefront of the Government’s objectives when looking at the Bill, and nothing so far has convinced me that the Government are interested in enforcing.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, let out the cri de cœur: who will enforce the Bill? The answer is clear: no one. There is an informal system of bringing to book that will ensure that very little enforcement goes on. Yet if we look somewhere else in the CMA, the Digital Markets Unit is pre-emptively calling the big techs in and dealing with issues under its orbit. It is not that the CMA cannot do it; it is that the Government have decided not to let it do it.

Both these amendments—the one in my name and the other—seek to give a role for the Competition Appeal Tribunal to pre-emptively deal with transgressions. What are the Government frightened of in this? I do not think that the Minister has so far articulated a valid reason as to what is wrong with enforcing the Bill. If the Government think it is important to have the Bill, why not enforce it?

I used one example: the CMA’s own digital markets unit. It is clear that regulators all over are acting pre-emptively. Look at the Pensions Regulator. It can proactively go in and do things, so it is not as if we do not do it in this country. Generally, the regulator can act pre-emptively, except in this case. It is not clear to me what is behind the Government’s decision to do that. My key objective for Amendment 71 is for the Minister to very clearly articulate to the Committee why this subsidy regime should not be policed.

--- Later in debate ---

While I continue to believe that the time limits provided for in this clause strike an appropriate balance between offering an opportunity for challenge and providing legal certainty for beneficiaries, I have heard the strong feelings expressed by all parts of the Committee and will have a look at it before Report. I hope the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am interested in this concept of a chilling effect. What evidence is there for that, and what consultation has there been? There may or may not be a chilling effect. It seems like more of an idea than a practical reality. I have a suggestion that might help. The Bill could start out with a longer reporting time—perhaps 60 days, or something along those lines—and the evidence, or otherwise, of a chilling effect could be gathered. If necessary, and if the reality of a chilling effect actually emerges, the Government could come back and reduce that period by statutory instrument.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I think that is the first time the Liberal Democrats have proposed giving the Government more secondary legislation powers, but I understand the noble Lord’s point. As I said, I have heard the strength of opinion on both sides of the Committee and will reflect further on this matter.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it came as no surprise that the Government used their majority to negate the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. The noble Lord has, in his tenacious way, set out why he regrets that, and I agree with him. It is not to be—it will not go to a vote—but I hope that the ARIA leadership will be more careful when they write the contracts for the money that they will give than perhaps the Government seem to be with enshrining this in law.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that the Science Minister’s comments were very helpful. They were more than we would usually get in these games of ping-pong, and that is to his credit.

As the Minister set out, since we sent this Bill to the other place, the name of the ARIA CEO has been announced. It is nice to see the Minister looking so pleased about things. He often looks quite downcast, so it is quite good for him to arrive with something that he can be pleased about. We wish Dr Highnam all speed and wish him well in what is a very important task.

Others have suggested that we look forward to the framework document emerging. In answer to the previous speaker, I do not think that the Minister has not shared with us something that he is sitting on; the Minister has not seen the framework agreement yet either, because it has not been written. However, we look forward to seeing it as soon as it has.

The Government have also had some important things to say about their focus for future research funding—I am talking here about the UKRI numbers. In their levelling-up White Paper, they announced the intention to increase the percentage of funding from what is rather dismissively called the golden triangle to other institutions, often but not exclusively further north. I should remind your Lordships that I am an alumnus of Imperial College.

Very briefly, I wanted to relate this to ARIA and, more importantly, to the commercialisation of innovation. There is a disparity between universities that are better at commercialising their innovation and thereby having another income stream, and those that are less good at that. I hope that ARIA is able to lead some excellence in that and spread the effective commercialisation of knowledge and innovation better. That would contribute to the Government’s levelling-up agenda at the same time.

I also recently met with the UK Innovation & Science Seed Fund—known as UKI2S—which, as the Minister will know, acts as a bridge between public sector research and private capital. I would be interested to know from the Minister how this organisation can fit with ARIA and improve our overall commercialisation. I am sure the Minister will admit that the UK’s record on commercialisation has been patchy in the past and could definitely improve. I would suggest that UKI2S is one of the models that ought to be taken into account. I hope that the Minister might meet with me and that organisation to discuss this and how it might play into this space with its track record in order to deliver on the promise of ARIA. I think we all share the Government’s desire to—in the Minister’s words—drive the agenda for strategic, industrial advantage. With that, we hope that in 10 years’ time, ARIA will be seen to have played an important part in achieving that objective.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we accept the reason given by the other place for rejecting Amendment 1, but we continue to disagree on the substance. I place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his work on this amendment. His sparkling curiosity and polymath tendencies, combined with his government experience, make him ideally suited to this issue. He has been incredibly generous with his time and knowledge, and I am grateful to him for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, suggested a sensible amendment to protect benefits arising from the UK’s creativity and ingenuity in ensuring that the taxpayer—the investor—retains the benefit of it. The majority of noble Lords agreed with my noble friend when we tested the will of the House. In the absence of any measures enabling sufficient scrutiny of ARIA’s activities, we felt we needed this amendment. We are clear that the benefits of ARIA’s investments must be felt in the UK. Lords Amendment 1 would have assisted in this; it would have given ARIA the option to treat its financial support to a business as convertible into an equity interest in the business, and thus to benefit from intellectual property created with ARIA’s support.

It would also have enabled ARIA to require consent during the 10 years following financial or resource support if the business intended to transfer intellectual property abroad or transfer a controlling interest to a business not resident in the UK. As my honourable friend Chi Onwurah said in the other place, we have to acknowledge that currently

“the UK does not provide a sufficiently supportive environment for innovation start-ups to thrive. That is why we have already lost so many of them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/2/21; col. 89.]

It is welcome that Ministers have said they agree with our concerns. It is just unfortunate that the Government did not want to take this opportunity to act on our shared concerns and seemed to lack the resolve to do anything about it on this occasion. Finally, I wish the new leadership of ARIA and the agency itself well. We look forward to the innovations and inventions that it is able to bring us.

Subsidy Control Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I shall speak to these amendments very briefly. This has been a bipartisan debate, and there is a consensus across the Committee that amendments along these lines can improve the working of the Bill and make it more acceptable in the court of public opinion. I urge the Minister, if he cannot accept the amendments as they stand today, to consider at least bringing forward his own amendments at the appropriate time.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak to this set of amendments until I received the Minister’s letter—this time before the Committee started rather than during it, which is a great step forward. Unfortunately, the letter creates a problem for me because what I understand from the debate seems not to be represented in this letter, so perhaps the Minister can explain.

On the issue of subsidy schemes, the letter states:

“As my noble friend Baroness Bloomfield stated during the Committee session, all schemes must be uploaded to the transparency database”—


and I understand that to be true, so the scheme will go up on the database. The letter continues:

“This database will be freely accessible and is a key part of the new subsidy control regime, enabling the public and any interested parties to see which subsidies have been awarded, and to whom.”

But my understanding is that people will be able to see only those subsidies that exceed the limit, whereas the implication of the letter is that all subsidies will be accessible to everyone freely via the database. I would like the Minister to acknowledge that that is not the case, whether they are within a scheme or stand-alone, and this letter is therefore incorrect.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, further to that point, I wish to ask a couple of questions. First, on a factual issue—I have been struggling to find this—what has the typical award been for relatively small schemes that will operate under the Bill? I am familiar with schemes in my former constituency, either under LEADER+ or a number of other schemes, where there was not a single award over £500,000 but there was transparency as to who received it, because that is basically along the principles on which local authorities operate. So my question, really, is: what piece of legislation will trump the duty that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, referred to? If a local authority has a duty to publish, then ordinarily if it receives a grant through, for example, the levelling-up fund—on which the Minister wrote to me; I thank him for his letter and look forward to the answer to the question on a separate occasion, as I have replied to his office to highlight an omission from it—what will be the primary duty on the local authority as far as making that information public is concerned? Will it be under the duty on the local authority to publish subsidies greater than £500,000, or, if it is defined as a subsidy scheme, will it not be under such a duty?

However, my specific question is: how will this Bill interact with the Freedom of Information Act? The only way that any enterprise or anybody would be able to find out what the award is if it is under £500,000 would be to submit a freedom of information request. I have not seen anything in this legislation which excludes elements of the Freedom of Information Act, and I therefore assume that all elements of the Freedom of Information Act will apply. If that is the case, it is rather pointless having a £500,000 limit for publication if you can get all this information by issuing an FoI request. If the Minister’s response is, as I expect, that the whole thrust is to have less burden on our public bodies for the administration of this scheme, I wonder which is less burdensome: simply publishing what is already used under the e-claims scheme—I understand that most applicants under these schemes will be through the e-claims schemes, and therefore it is a press of a button to publish the information for an award—or responding to an FoI request. If I were a member of a public body, I know which one would be far less burdensome for me. I wonder whether the Minister agrees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Nothing in this Bill affects the existing duties of local authorities and others to publish any financial information that they already do. This Bill concerns the information that needs to be published on the subsidy database. The same point applies to the earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about freedom of information. I hesitate, given the trouble I got into last time, to return to the FoI principles, but nothing in this Bill affects the original FoI legislation or the principles contained in it.

I turn to Amendment 47, which seeks to introduce a transparency threshold of £500, above which subsidies granted as minimal financial assistance would need to be uploaded to the database. As noble Lords will be aware, the MFA exemption allows public authorities to award low-value subsidies of up to £315,000 per recipient over three years, with no requirement to consider the subsidy control principles or other requirements, and no need to upload on to the subsidy control database. I think that clarifies what the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked about—what I said earlier on this was probably incorrect, so my apologies for that. The Government have taken this approach to ensure that public authorities can deliver smaller subsidies quickly and easily without undue administrative burden, since they are very unlikely to have any appreciable distortive effects.

This amendment, by seeking to require the addition of low-cost subsidies to the subsidy control database, would certainly introduce an additional burden for public authorities. Introducing a low-value transparency threshold for such low-value subsidies would require additional staff time and costs as the volume of entries would be expected to increase significantly—for what gain, bearing in mind that these subsidies are those that, by their very nature, are unlikely to have any appreciable distortive effects?

On this basis, I do not believe that the amendment would introduce the appropriate balance between sufficient transparency to allow for meaningful scrutiny and an efficient allocation of resource to identify those subsidies that are most likely to harm our economy, either locally or nationally.

Turning to Amendments 48 and 49, as we have discussed before, the Committee will be aware that services of public economic interest—SPEI—are vital services that, without public subsidy, would not be supplied in the appropriate way by the market or, in some cases, would not be supplied at all. This clause exempts certain SPEI subsidies from the transparency requirement in Clause 33 to upload the subsidy on to the database. There are two categories of exemption: first, for subsidies of less than £14.5 million; and, secondly, subsidies for one of the activities listed in subsection (1)(b). In response to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, the reason for the difference is that, in our view, subsidies in the second group are even less likely to distort competition.

These amendments would mean that all SPEI subsidies of £500 or more would need to be uploaded on to the database. I submit that this would represent a significant burden on public authorities, yet it is generally agreed in the Committee, I think, that these subsidies, granted for public services, are unlikely to be unduly distortive.

The same arguments put forward for not setting a transparency threshold of £500 for MFA apply equally here, in that doing so would not represent a balanced or proportionate outcome for our domestic regime. Although noble Lords are right to challenge the Government on the issue of transparency, I would like to set out why reducing the exemption from transparency requirements for SPEI subsidies to £500 would not result in a stronger regime.

First, by its nature, granting subsidies for public services is unlikely to be unduly distortive. This is because the very reason they are needed is that other providers are unable or unwilling to provide the necessary service at a reasonable cost. This goes back to the example we discussed last time, when the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, referred to bus services in rural areas: granting a public subsidy there is unlikely to be distortive because the reason why the public authorities have to provide that service is because nobody else in the market does so. The lower risk of distortion therefore justifies a higher transparency threshold.

Secondly, Clause 29 sets out that the award of a SPEI subsidy must be given in a transparent manner, which means that the subsidy must be being given through a written contract or other written legally enforceable arrangement. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, noted, public authorities normally publish these contracts, and it is good practice to do so.

Thirdly, a public authority providing SPEI subsidies must be satisfied that the subsidies are limited to what is strictly necessary in providing that service, with regard to costs and reasonable profit, and must keep that under review. This means that the SPEI enterprise should not gain an unfair advantage over other enterprises; consequently, again, there is unlikely to be undue distortion to competition.

The Government do not share the view that requiring public authorities to upload SPEI subsidies with a value as low as £500 would contribute to a more robust regime. SPEI subsidies are, and will continue to be, subject to appropriate safeguards where public authorities actively ensure that this is the case so that contracts deliver value for money for the citizens in that particular area.

Although I understand the objectives of the noble Lord, for the reasons I have set out, I cannot accept this amendment. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to withdraw it.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I have a brief question because £14.5 million is a curious number. There is no reason why it should be a round number in millions, but it is strange. Can the Minister explain the genesis of that particular number? Also, could I be cc’d into the Minister’s reply to the important question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, on the subject of what is in and what is out?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Fox is clearly not tired of receiving letters from me, so I will happily copy him into the letter that I send to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. I will have to come back to him on his question about the £14.5 million. I will include that in yet another letter—or maybe even the same one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. I shall not weary the Committee by repeating the points that he made, but I strongly agree with him. I added my name just because I was puzzled and regard as unfair the imbalance between the time given to public authorities to list subsidies and the very short timetable for people to object to them. I do not see why it should take six months to make public what has been done, while one month seems an extraordinarily short time for somebody to challenge it. As may have been said when I was unfortunately out of the room trying to get on PeerHub, one could easily imagine circumstances where perhaps the website was not working very well, and a few days were missed. “It never happens,” the Minister says. Well, we shall see. That would be a first in public sector computers.

There seems to be an imbalance here. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander—or is it the other way round? Six months is certainly far too long and one month is far too short. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, during the debate on the previous group, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked, “How will they know?” This amendment seeks the answer to the question: how will they know in time? As the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said, because of the limits of reporting, we are talking about very sizeable subsidies that could exist with a competitor company for up to a year before a person is able to find out what their company is competing against. I am sure that the Minister would understand that that is not a fair situation, and it is within the gift of the Government to make it fairer.

Both noble Lords spoke about the imbalance; that is, a long time to report it and a short time to appeal it. One would almost think that the Government were seeking to discourage the process of challenging subsidies. I am sure that that is not the Minister’s aim and therefore the best way of expressing that aim is to redress that balance.

Reflecting on the last debate and this one, I think that we are in a bit of a mess around reporting—or, indeed, we are not but the Government are. On the one hand, we have the database with the six-month time limit and a very high ceiling; on the other hand, we have local authority websites with a three-month time statute and a much lower ceiling, and potentially we have FoIs—although the problem is that you need to know something exists before you can FoI it. The Government have therefore knowingly or unknowingly set up a multiple market for information.

If I am a business and I need to know what is happening in my sector, the Minister will say that this information is freely available. It is freely available on a pull basis. I shall have to employ someone to go out there regularly to check whether the information exists, where it is and what is happening in my sector. If I am a small business in a market where the receipt of subsidy could affect my business, I shall have to employ an extra person or part of an extra person to do that. This does not seem a sensible way of dealing with the issue. A central database with a shorter time span and a lower value ceiling would be the best way to help businesses thrive.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and my noble friend Lord Lamont for these amendments, which seek to reduce the time available to public authorities to upload their subsidies to the database. I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, on the limitation period, which I look forward to discussing in our next Committee session.

As is the case with the thresholds on transparency, our objective here in setting the upload deadlines has been guided by the fine balance between minimising bureaucratic burdens while ensuring that accurate information is available promptly for interested parties to enable them to consider whether to launch a challenge. We agree that subsidies should be available to be seen on the database as soon as is practical. However, there are good reasons why public authorities require longer than the one and three months put forward in these amendments.

First, let me note that public authorities have an incentive to upload subsidies as quickly as possible. The sooner a subsidy is uploaded to the database, the sooner the clock for the limitation period starts to run, and therefore the sooner the public authority and the beneficiary will gain certainty that the subsidy will not be challenged. Public authorities also have a strong incentive to upload subsidies accurately first time round to avoid the possibility of having to amend entries later on.

Upload deadlines as short as one and three months may result in more public authorities needing to amend their entries at a later date. Although this is of course possible on the database, it creates an unnecessary burden for those authorities. This means that the initial period where the subsidy has been uploaded is more likely to contain inaccuracies, which will not help an interested party to know whether they wish to challenge. Surely we agree that, although we all want prompt uploads to the database, upload speed should not come at the expense of accuracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Whitty. I agree with all his comments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling this amendment to enable further and deeper discussion on another of the many concerns that were raised by colleagues across the House at Second Reading.

As we have already debated, although relatively briefly, the new subsidy regime will operate alongside certain legacy schemes, including, but not limited to, basic payments given under the EU’s common agricultural policy. As we have heard, the Government’s decision to include agriculture and fisheries in the scope of the new subsidy regime is an interesting one. BEIS asserts that there is logic in applying the same rules across the board. While that might make sense in some areas, doing so raises other significant issues. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Whitty, agriculture is fundamentally different and therefore so are the issues relating to the subsidies and the subsidy control systems. That is before we even touch on the issue of devolved responsibilities.

As we know from many hours following debates on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment Bills, these are areas of devolved competence. Some of those matters have been addressed in discussions on the UK-wide common framework arising from the Brexit process. However, due to Her Majesty’s Government’s treatment of subsidy control as an entirely reserved matter, there is no common framework on this topic, something that we have already touched on in Grand Committee and will be returning to in later groups.

Specific nations and regions of the UK have very different interests from those of their neighbours. Public authorities will of course be able to do what they deem appropriate in the context of overarching subsidy control principles, but this is one of the areas where we may end up seeing subsidy battles and/or legal appeals. If we can reach agreement in your Lordships’ House, then we may be able to reduce the chances of some of that happening. One potential solution to some of these issues may be for the Secretary of State to establish one or more streamlined subsidy schemes covering agriculture. I ask the Minister: is that one of the department’s intentions?

I want to ask a couple of practical questions that have been subject to initial exchanges between my advisers and the Minister’s office. I thank her office for that information, but it raises some questions. Is it the case that schemes already made under the Agriculture Act, for example, will be treated as legacy schemes for the purposes of this legislation? If the environmental land management scheme, which has already been rolled out, is treated as a legacy scheme but the Defra Secretary of State later introduces a separate agricultural scheme using powers under either Act, will that new scheme be subject to the subsidy controls? If the answer is yes, will that not make it harder for everyone involved to keep track of which requirements apply and when? If so, how exactly does the decision to include agriculture in the new subsidy control regime meet the target of making the new process more straightforward and less burdensome?

A number of other issues arise around devolved authorities, many of which have been touched on. We will come on to them when we look at the CMA but, if we do not make changes to the Bill as it is currently written, we could end up with a situation in which the devolved authorities have responsibility for these delegated areas but no oversight in the Bill—no engagement with the CMA or the subsidy advice unit—and will not be at the heart of the decision-making. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My father spent half his working life milking other people’s cows and the other half milking cows in a small, tenanted farm. Farming is a way of life across the United Kingdom. You must be committed to it to make it work, so people are anxious when they see this subsidy scheme in such turmoil.

At Second Reading, the Minister said that including agricultural subsidies in the subsidy control regime would

“help to protect competition and investment”—[Official Report, 19/1/21; col. 1749.]

in agriculture and fisheries. First, will the Minister acknowledge that the agricultural subsidy scheme has much wider objectives than simply competition and investment? There is a range of social and other economic benefits that the schemes are supposed to be designed to protect. Secondly, how does including agricultural and fisheries subsidies in the subsidy control regime protect competition and investment better than leaving them where they are: outside the scheme?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to ask the specific question of how, if this Bill includes all agricultural support without the delineated areas we have discussed previously in Committee—such as for upland farmers and areas with less favoured status—it will interact with the internal market Act.

My noble friend Lady Randerson specifically referenced hill farmers. I represented many hill farmers; I will debate with my noble friend separately the merits of Welsh lamb as opposed to Scottish Borders lamb, but it is fairly obvious which is the superior product. The point is that specific subsidy support for the type of production rather than the end product is allowed under the subsidy scheme because upland farms have less favoured area status. It was delineated.

However, the Government proposed under the internal market legislation that no discrimination would be allowed on any of the end product—the lamb. We allowed that discrimination because of the less favoured area status for hill farming. I question whether, if all this is now wrapped into the subsidy Bill, this is open to challenge in terms of competition and non-discrimination, as specific support for the production of one product—lamb—will be provided to certain farmers in certain areas but will not be available to others who do not have less favoured area status.

This Bill removes all those delineated areas. Presumably, all that is now within scope of the internal market Act. That means, I think, that none of this area of support can have the assured status that it did beforehand. I strongly support my noble friend’s efforts to get clarity on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

The public authorities can devise their own schemes according to their own policy priorities, as long as they comply with the principles of the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Let me give a specific example. Herefordshire County Council decides, within the seven principles of the Bill, to subsidise the production of beef in Herefordshire, brands it “Herefordshire beef from Hereford animals”, and then markets it in Aberdeenshire at a rate that undercuts Aberdeen Angus or whatever it is that my noble friend Lord Bruce is peddling in his area. It seems to me that this Bill puts in place a chaotic situation that cannot be managed. We do not know what an area is, we are allowing flexibility for any authority to take action as long as it sits within the seven principles, and then we are going to rely on the CAT to adjudicate. Is this really what the Government have in mind?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have added my name to this group of important amendments. We are pressing a real depth of concern about the UK Government’s attitude to the devolution settlement altogether. With this Bill and the internal market Act, the Government are using the case for reserved powers to appear to be testing the devolution settlement, not quite to destruction, but to considerable tension.

These amendments ask why it is right that the Secretary of State has the right to instruct a public authority to seek a report from the CMA but the same Secretary of State—who is also the Secretary of State for England—is not susceptible to being challenged over any subsidy scheme that he or she has devised that may be perceived by any or all of the devolved Administrations as contrary to their interests or concerns. As the noble Baroness has said, it may not be the case that there should be absolute equality—we do not have a federal system yet—but we need recognition that it is simply not good enough that the Secretary of State can ignore, cast aside and overrule the devolved Administrations without them having any comparable right to challenge the English regime, never mind the UK regime. It is important that Ministers show some sensitivity and understanding on that.

This Committee does not need me to tell it that I have no sympathy with the SNP case for breaking up the United Kingdom or for independence. My view is that the SNP is a monumentally incompetent, obsessive political party that has no capacity to lead Scotland anywhere useful. However, the fact remains that it is in a mood to try to use every opportunity to stir up discontent and break the UK apart. The Government should not be helping it. They should be looking at how they can show, clearly, openly and honestly, that they are trying to set up a system based on mutual respect and understanding.

Even though the powers are reserved and the Secretary of State, in his capacity as Secretary of State for the United Kingdom, may be the decider of last resort, it should be as a last resort. Until you get to that position, it is important that the devolved Administrations have balanced and comparable powers. My simple question is this: why is it right that the Secretary of State can challenge Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on a scheme, but they have no right to challenge him or her on a scheme applied within England, which is what the Bill says?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, suggested, I shall speak to Amendments 55, 57 and 59 in my name. We are back trying to break up the monolith again. In the Bill, the Government seek to centralise the power in the Secretary of State in Westminster and, as my noble friend Lord Bruce set out, that person is Secretary of State for both England and the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Do we have time to finish?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I think we are comfortable starting again on Wednesday and giving this proper time.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has yet to respond as well. It will not take long on Wednesday.