Subsidy Control Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have added my name to Amendments 6 and 64 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I did not add my name to the other amendment in this group because I did not have time to study its implications, but I am grateful to him for having put these amendments forward and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his comments.

I am a little worried because these are described as very modest amendments. Are they too modest for me to urge on the Government? No, they are not. The Government, who have been forthcoming on some amendments tonight, should be sending a message to Cardiff and Edinburgh, and to Belfast—to the extent that there is a Government there—that there are acceptable mechanisms for dealing with any disputes. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, there is every argument for having a framework that is acceptable to Westminster and the devolved Administrations so they can at least respect the mechanism and when problems arise they can turn to it. I hope that the Government will be forthcoming on this tonight, and perhaps they will be. If they cannot accept these amendments, there may be other forms of words whereby this can be achieved.

This issue has arisen in so many pieces of legislation over the past two or three years where the relationship between devolved Governments and Westminster is concerned that a framework that is acceptable to both sides need to be established—all four sides, in fact. I hope that doing so will ensure that problems can be resolved before they have been created and that there is a transparent mechanism for everyone to do so, and for that reason I support these amendments.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I shall make a few remarks with regard to Amendments 6 and 64 in particular. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is modest. He did not need to take us through the hoops of Amendment 58. His argument that the Government should be thinking again on this approach was very powerful. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, this is now the third Bill, I think, which will become an Act, where the devolved Parliaments have withdrawn consent at the outset and there have been rather tortuous discussions during the passage of the Bill to try to receive consent. Those Parliaments, properly constituted under our constitutional arrangements, feel that the Government are deliberately encroaching on their territory.

We debated this at length in Committee and I do not need to rehearse any of the arguments, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, the Government seem to be open, when it suits them, to moving the dial towards consultation before further regulations are made. I think the noble and learned Lord was referring to Part 3 of the economic crime Act. In Section 14, the Government indicated that if there were going to be further provisions, the Secretary of State must consult the devolved Administrations on them. In this Bill, the Government have been reluctant to take a similar position of forcing Secretaries of State to consult where there are implications on devolved legislative areas.

In Committee, the Minister fell back repeatedly on saying that this Act is a reserved issue. That has been disputed by some, but even if we take it as read, the implication is that some of the schemes will impinge on devolved legislative competence. Therefore, the amendments in this group are very well made. Amendment 6, which has been supported by my noble friend Lady Randerson, regards offering some form of equivalence. While the Secretary of State indicates that this is a fully reserved issue, when there are schemes that are applicable to England only, there is no equivalent power for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is what this amendment is seeking to correct.

I call this devolution equivalence. We are not disputing reserved or devolved competences; we are simply saying that when there are schemes that will be put forward for one nation under the legislative framework for that nation—England—there should be legislative equivalence for schemes operating within other nations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, might say that that is modest; I say that it is reasonable. Surely one fundamental principle of our system of devolution could be that when it comes to the implementation of legislation, the reasonable test should apply.

With regard to Amendment 64, as I said, the Government seemed to move in the economic crime Act, but they seem very reluctant in this Bill. I simply do not know why, because both are comparable. Both indicate that there are reserved functions but devolved competences. Ultimately, if the Government believe, as the Minister will make the case, that this Bill will bring about great benefits, there should be equivalence between those authorities to utilise those benefits. Therefore, I hope the Government will consider these modest and reasonable amendments today and, if not, bring back at Third Reading some indications of moving.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for tabling these amendments relating to the various devolution matters we have had outlined. We have been pleased to engage with the noble and learned Lord between Committee and Report and are glad that he and his supporters have facilitated this debate. The Minister knows we have several concerns around this Bill and its impact on devolution. The arguments have been rehearsed consistently throughout the Bill, and it is regrettable that the Government have not moved on a single one of the devolved Administrations’ requests.

We hope the Minister can clarify the situation around streamlined subsidy schemes. It has been asserted on a number of occasions that, while the Bill does not expressly permit this, devolved Ministers will be able to propose such schemes. Amendment 6 seems a very sensible proposition. If a devolved Minister makes a reasonable request of the UK Government, the Government should facilitate the creation of the relevant streamlined scheme. The simplest solution here is for the Government to accept the amendment, but, failing that, we hope the Minister can offer a very clear answer as to whether the UK Government will respond positively to sensible requests from the devolved authorities.

Amendment 64 is an interesting attempt at reformulating several Labour amendments tabled in Committee. We continue to believe that there should be a formal attempt to gain the consent of the devolved Administrations before exercising certain delegated powers or publishing guidance. Subsidy control may technically be a reserved matter, but, as we have said on numerous occasions, it directly impacts on several areas of devolved competence, not least regional development. When the economic crime Act was fast-tracked through this House, the Government worked hard to accommodate requests from colleagues from the devolved Administrations. We had hoped that would mark a new dawn for the Conservative Party’s approach to the Sewel convention, but this does not appear to be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

They could choose not to use the scheme if they wished, but it would be a UK-wide scheme. They would be consulted on the development and involved in the expert groups that put them together.

I will move on to Amendment 58, also tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. This amendment sets out a new route for subsidies given in devolved primary legislation to be considered by the courts, by allowing the relevant law officer to refer the question of whether a Bill is compatible with the principles in Chapter 1 of Part 2 to the Supreme Court. It also removes the requirement for the promoter of the legislation to consider the subsidy control principles and other requirements, and the ability of the courts to consider whether the provisions of Parts 1 and 2 of Chapter 2 have been properly applied, thereby removing the ability of an interested party to challenge the subsidy in the general courts on that basis.

I am of course very grateful for the interest taken by the noble and learned Lord in this clause and for his engagement on it with me and my officials. I believe that both he and I share an objective to ensure that these provisions reflect our constitutional and legal institutions, as well as our obligations under international law. Schedule 3, as it stands in the Bill, accomplishes those objectives.

It is important that the subsidy control requirements apply to subsidies in devolved primary legislation, and that these subsidies are not immune from challenge by interested parties. This is both for consistency with other subsidies and to ensure compliance with our international obligations, particularly under the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. However, it is also important that the unique constitutional status of the devolved legislatures is respected. That is why we have tailored the provisions in Schedule 3 specifically, and there is no mandatory referral to the subsidy advice unit for these subsidies.

I must therefore reject the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord for two reasons. First, it would not meet our international obligations under the TCA, which requires us to make available a route to challenge in a court or tribunal for interested parties, on grounds of compliance with the substantive subsidy control requirements. This amendment would, effectively, remove that route.

In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the intention of paragraphs 6 and 7, it is those interested parties that may challenge, for example, another public authority or another business, as long as they meet the test set out in Clause 70. The promoter would normally be the government Minister, or the person making an amendment to the Bill, and this is defined in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3.

The second problem with the amendment is that it would have the effect of asking the Supreme Court to consider questions of fact. It is my understanding that the High Court or Court of Session is the appropriate forum to consider these questions in the first instance, followed by the relevant appeals court, and, as relevant, the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter for questions of law. Creating a route for the law officers to refer a question to the Supreme Court implies that any challenge to a subsidy in devolved primary legislation would be a constitutional question, as it is comparable to the route for referring devolution issues under the devolution settlements. While the Bill affects the exercise of responsibilities of all public authorities in the UK, I do not consider that this is a constitutional question.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I have a point of clarification, because this aspect draws two areas together. Given that agriculture and fisheries are part of this legislation, and because agriculture and fisheries are unquestionably devolved competences, there will be subsidy schemes—let us say for Scotland, an agriculture or fisheries subsidies scheme. The Minister has indicated that there can be a UK-wide streamlined scheme which will cover agriculture and fisheries, so for the first time in the devolution period, there would theoretically be two parallel support schemes for agriculture and fisheries. But there is no capacity for the devolved Administration to challenge the UK-wide scheme, because the Government are indicating that this is a reserved area, even though support for agriculture and fisheries is fully devolved. Furthermore, there is not even a direct route to ask the Supreme Court to consider the competences on the division of this. How does the Minister see the benefit of two parallel schemes: one streamlined and unchallengeable, and another a devolved one on agriculture and fisheries?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but the idea that the UK Government are going to want to set up a streamlined scheme covering agriculture and fisheries in Scotland, in parallel to an existing subsidy scheme that the Scottish Government are already pursuing, is extremely unlikely. A streamlined route can indeed be challenged in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and we would not introduce such a scheme without consulting closely with the devolved Administrations in the first place. I understand the constitutional question that the noble Lord is positing, but I think this is very unlikely. As the noble Lord well knows, all existing schemes are automatically out of scope of this Bill anyway, so the existing subsidy regimes that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have can continue as they are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I do not think I said that there would be a streamlined scheme from the UK that would be uniquely for Scotland. I indicated that there would be a UK-wide streamlined scheme that would be for agriculture and fisheries within Scotland. As the Minister said, it would apply in England and in Northern Ireland as well. However, there would be, for the first time since devolution, two parallel subsidy schemes operating. While the Government can indicate that there would be consultation, there is no mechanism in this Bill for that dispute to be resolved, because the Secretary of State retains the decision-making power. That is why the support for these two schemes running in parallel is not equitable.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

There is a difference in principle here. Subsidy control is a reserved matter. Under the memorandum of understanding, we have said that we will set up a mechanism that the Scottish Government can use to challenge schemes. Of course, any streamlined scheme would be approved by this Parliament anyway. In any practical political environment, there is no way that the UK Government will want to set up a parallel scheme to subsidise agriculture and fisheries, which are devolved competences, when the Scottish Government already have similar schemes in the same area.

As I have said, the devolved Administrations will of course continue, as they have always done, to make subsidies and subsidy schemes using the resources that they have. It is important to note that this Bill does not provide any resources for any schemes, and the court would need to look at the facts of the case on legality grounds in the light of the requirements of Schedule 3 to the Bill. This is, in my view, comparable to other circumstances in which devolved primary legislation is reviewed on legality grounds, such as the Human Rights Act or the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. Importantly, and in contrast to the review of the Competition Appeal Tribunal for other subsidies, the court could not consider common-law public law grounds alongside the requirements of the subsidy control grounds.

For all the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble and Lord will not press his amendments.