Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between John Penrose and Deidre Brock

3rd reading
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

That is absolutely right. It is not just about whether a particular subsidy breaches those principles, but as the hon. Member rightly points out, it is also a question of whether we can then spot that a pattern of cronyism is emerging. If a particular local council was giving out grants to its mates, we could see that much faster. That may not be breaching the subsidy control principle, but you can bet your bottom dollar that people would want to know about that and that the most almighty stink would be created.

That brings me on to the final group of my three groups of amendments, which is about the ability to challenge and check individual items or individual examples of a subsidy within a broader subsidy scheme. At the moment, if someone registers a subsidy scheme under the terms of the Bill, dishes out subsidies under that subsidy scheme and then basically ignores the terms of the subsidy scheme or misapplies them in some terrible way—because of cronyism, because they are just doing a bad job, or even fraudulently—nobody, under the terms of the Bill, can challenge the individual decisions being made. That cannot be right, and it seems daft. All I am saying is that we need to be able to challenge individual examples within a broader scheme, otherwise this transparency mechanism or challenge mechanism will be fundamentally flawed.

That is the modest proposal. So far, I have not heard a single argument that unpicks the logic of that. As far as I can see, there are three Departments of Government with a dog in this fight. There is Lord Frost, who is in charge of the Brexit dividend, and he ought to be thoroughly in favour of this because of the opportunity it offers. There is the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—he was here briefly just now, and I hope he will be back later—who is of course a good free marketeer and is thoroughly committed to improving productivity, so he should be in favour of this, too. Finally, there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the guardian of taxpayers’ money. As I have said, we should be taking pride in the fact that we are one of the least heavily subsidising economies in the developed world, and we certainly were when we were part of the EU, so I cannot see that he is going to be objecting to it either.

As I sit down, I therefore just ask the Minister to please explain the logic behind opposing any of the arguments that not just I but others have been advancing. Will please explain who on earth thinks this is a bad idea, because I cannot find them or see them and I do not think anybody knows who they are?

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in support of all the amendments and new clauses in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, but specifically new clause 1. I am aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands has already written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs specifically on this matter.

To begin with, I will tell a little story to illustrate that the apprehensions around this issue were long-standing, even before the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 passed into being, and now appear to be fully justified, especially when we take into consideration the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination contained in that Act. In late November 2020—on St Andrew’s Day, rather ironically—in the debate on the statement on the agricultural transition plan, I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for assurances that the Bill, as it was then, would have absolutely no impact on Scotland’s ability to set support in Scotland independent of the system chosen for England. He responded that Scotland and the other devolved authorities

“will have more freedom than ever before to design a policy that they judge to be right for them. We will set up a joint group across the UK to do market surveillance, to ensure that there is not disturbance to the internal market”.—[Official Report, 30 November 2020; Vol. 685, c. 42.]

The House will note that there was no answer to my question in that reply. However, shortly afterwards the Secretary of State reassured a fellow Conservative MP who had expressed fears on behalf of farmers in his English constituency that food production might not be supported under the new English scheme and that his farmers could

“be undercut by farmers, including in the devolved nations, who are subsidised for food production or by area, not just for stewardship”.—[Official Report, 30 November 2020; Vol. 685, c. 50.]

I wondered how he could give any such assurance if he intended keeping the UK Government’s nose out of our agricultural support choices, but I ken noo.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has mentioned, at the heart of the problem is the broad recognition that agricultural subsidies do not fit neatly into standard subsidy control regimes. That is why agriculture has its own separate subsidy control arrangements in the EU through the common agricultural policy, and in the World Trade Organisation through the agreement on agriculture. Equally, while the trade and co-operation agreement has provided interim rules on subsidy control in the UK since Brexit, it does not apply to subsidies subject to the provisions of part 4 or annex 2 of the WTO agreement on agriculture, which relate to most agricultural subsidies.

The Scottish Government have asked the UK Government repeatedly why agriculture is included in this new regime when it is not included in most standard subsidy control regimes, but I understand that to date no satisfactory reason has been given. The Minister has responded that a majority of respondents to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consultation thought it should be included, which seems jolly fair-minded of the Minister, we might think. On the other hand, the UK Government have so far chosen to ignore the serious concerns raised by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The UK Government have refused to share the consultation responses with our Government, even the anonymised ones, which makes it even more difficult for Ministers and civil servants to understand the reasoning behind this decision or at least to assess whether the responses were weighted and, if so, how. The only reply that I have seen from the Government’s response to the consultation is that this hitherto accepted exemption has been removed in order to maintain a “consistent approach” and a broad sectoral scope. So it is some sort of tidying-up exercise, apparently.

Taken all together, this ratchets up what were considerable levels of concern to—I think it is fair to say—alarm not just in the Scottish and Welsh Governments and other devolved Administrations but in organisations such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland. There is less concern from the National Farmers Union of England. I wonder why that might be. It is worth reminding ourselves that the high percentage of less favoured areas in Scotland’s agricultural land—some 86%—is almost directly reversed in England, where it is only 12%. We have unique agricultural conditions and practices, so the need for a support system that recognises and understands that and takes it fully into account is vital.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Penrose and Deidre Brock

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

What my right hon. Friend has just demonstrated is the point that I was just about to come on to. We are going to need different words—in the plural—than we have at the moment and the discussions that have been promised from the Dispatch Box, even if an amendment has not yet been promised, will be essential to get the issue right. It is not right at the moment.

During the debate this afternoon, three or four options have already been proposed from the Back Benches, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) just now and by a couple of others. It is clear that there is no shortage of solutions; it will not be acceptable for Ministers to say, “This problem is too hard so we are going to stick with what we have.” There are enough brains in the room for us to get this right—there are certainly enough on the ministerial Benches and among advisers. So it ain’t going to be good enough for Ministers to say, “We understand the principle and have already accepted it in our remarks today, but it is all too hard and we can’t possibly manage it.” That will not fly.

I have discussed this response with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. We are content, based on what we have heard, not to press the amendments on scope that we have tabled here this evening. However, it will be essential before we get to Report to see some creative alternatives that solve the problems that hon. Members on both sides of the House have alluded to. People on both sides of the House can propose lots of possible solutions. We need to find some that work and make sure that Ministers are content to introduce them in the impressively constructive tone with which they have already addressed the issue of the sifting committee. That needs to be done before Report.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I speak in support of the amendments to clause 7 in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other hon. Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) has already mentioned, they are amendments 264, 222, 73, 233, 234, 239, 240, 266, 269, 272 and 161. They are important because they go to the heart of the debate on democracy—whether so much power in so many important areas should be exercised by Ministers without substantial oversight by Parliament. I have not been reassured by the Minister’s lengthy response.

Particular importance has to attach to protecting the rights of consumers and of workers, and I was disappointed at the Minister’s rejection of the amendments we suggested. We have heard some rumblings from Government Back Benchers and fellow travellers that leaving the EU is an opportunity to strip away protections from workers, consumers and the environment, and to cut supposed “red tape” from manufacturers and producers. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) reminded us of the previous views of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this. The Foreign Secretary has also been one of these siren voices in the past, and the Brexit Secretary wrote an article during the EU referendum in which he said:

“The continental response to competition is, rather than trying to compete, to make sure that regulation tilts the playing field in their favour.”

He also said that:

“while the single market may seem like a good idea, in reality it has distorted market incentives, reduced competition and burdened European economies with unnecessary regulations.”

So there are people at the very heart of the UK Government who seriously believe that regulations designed to keep us safe and to prevent us from being ripped off, and regulations to ensure that the environment gets a break and that workers get paid and protected properly, are bad things. There are Cabinet Secretaries of the opinion that these things were invented by European bureaucrats as a weapon against UK productivity—that truly is health and safety gone mad.

I mention the current Government members to make it clear that there is a clear and identifiable danger to our continued safety, to the standards we expect in goods and the services we buy, and to the rights that workers enjoy—and it occupies Whitehall today.

As has been said by other Members, the extent of the power aggregation is such that it would leave Ministers, in effect, changing primary legislation by fiat. This is a coup, a very Tory coup, that is seizing power from this place—the power to create and amend legislation—and centralising it in the hands of a few who would have nothing to do with these protections and who would claim that we did well enough without them before.