UK Export Performance

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Kirsty Blackman

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). I am not sure that I can be quite as animated as he was during his speech, but I will do my best.

The issue was clearly laid out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), with the stats on exports. The Government are incredibly positive about how wonderful exports are, but the reality is, when we are compared to G7 partners, the stats tell a very sorry tale.

Of course, we are the only country in the world dealing with the hangover from covid—no, wait, that is not right. We are the only country in the world dealing with the impact of the war in Ukraine—no, that is not right, either. We are the only country in the world dealing with demographic challenges—no, that is not right, either. The thing is, we are the only country in the world dealing with removing ourselves from our largest trading partner. That is the differential. That is why we are not seeing the growth in trade.

The Minister talked about the fact that there are agreements in place with 73 countries. Fabulous. We left the EU, which has agreements in place with 72 countries. So with all that work and all the running around that Government Ministers have been doing, we currently have one more country with which we have a trade agreement in place than the EU. It almost seems as if the immense amount of uncertainty that everybody—individuals and businesses—has been put through was not really worth it after all.

We could go back to 2016 and make different decisions about how to make Brexit work—six different leaders of Labour and Conservative colours have spoken about it—and how to make the best future for the economy, the wellbeing of people throughout these isles. What the Government should have done was ask, “What do we export the most? What is our trading relationship with the EU?” We exported a lot of services to the EU before Brexit. So, if it had been me taking decisions on this, I would have done everything I could to try to protect those services. I would also have done everything I could to protect those communities that would be decimated by the loss of something, such as fish processing—and whisky, which the Minister mentioned a moment ago. The Government should have been focusing on those things. Instead, they put forward that their No. 1 priority in negotiating Brexit was to end freedom of movement. They have had to suffer the economic losses that go along with that. So they have sacrificed the beneficial position we were in before Brexit, affecting a number of businesses and individuals as a result, not just because of the decision not to prioritise services but for the loss of freedom of movement. That has meant that our farmers, for example, are struggling to find people to work on their farms. It is the same issue in food processing and across some of our most rural communities, which are being decimated as a result of how much harder it is for people to come and live and work in the United Kingdom.

In the automotive debate, we heard comments about the rules of origin. I first raised the rules of origin in relation to the automotive industry in this House five or six years ago, and the problem has not been solved. That level of uncertainty has been hanging over the automotive industry since then, and there is no clear answer. The clock is ticking; there is a very short period of time before this kicks in, and decisions need to be made. At that point, I spoke about diagonal cumulation. We need to ensure that there is certainty or we will continue to see those large manufacturing companies with bases all over the world choosing to invest in improving their factories in European countries rather than those in the United Kingdom. It has been decimating for our manufacturing.

I was glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned the numbers—£3 billion—in relation to the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that we will lose £100 billion as a result of Brexit—£3 billion does not touch the sides of that number and the 4% drop in GDP that we see as a result. Whenever trade deals like these are signed, we might see an improvement in exports. In fact, after the Japan trade deal was signed, we saw a reduction in exports to Japan, so the jury is out on whether they work. However, regardless of whether there is an increase in exports, throwing beef and lamb farmers under the bus is not the way to go.

According to the OBR, there is likely to be a 15% reduction in trade intensity. The OBR has those figures as a result of the Government’s economic plans, the deals signed and the proposals in place. Our food processors and producers, who are producing the best food in the world—as a Scottish MP, hon. Members would expect me to say that—are being massively undercut because the Government have the wrong priorities when signing trade deals. We have already seen beef exports go down by 22% since the deal was signed. The price of producing lamb in Australia has reduced again, which will undercut our farmers and make us less likely to become a nation self-sufficient in food production, because it will cost us more to rear the lamb. That is a problem. The Government have prioritised the wrong things.

The Government have missed the opportunity of renewables, and not just in terms of capitalising economically on climate change and the move towards a just transition. In fact, they have missed the opportunity to invest in amazing innovations in renewable technologies and to export them around the world. During the oil and gas boom, Aberdeen in north-east Scotland became known for exports. My constituency was top for the number of patents per head of population. There is an amazing amount of research and development as a result of the oil and gas industry. We are seeing declining amounts of oil and gas and an increase in the number of countries looking to capitalise on and use renewable technologies. Because we are not seeing investment in things such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage, we are not able to stay ahead of the curve and use that tech to assist other countries around the world in the way that we were able to do with oil and gas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I am slightly confused about the hon. Lady’s policies and those of her party. I think she said that oil and gas production was coming down. Is it not her party’s policy to prevent any new exploration of oil and gas in Scottish fields? Is her own policy in disagreement with that of her party? I am very confused on that matter.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The party’s policy is that every new oil and gas licence should go through a rigorous environmental assessment. As much as the Conservatives try to paint it as something else, that is the party’s policy. The vast majority of my constituents who contact me would like no new licences to be granted. Far more constituents contacted me to tell me that Cambo was a disaster and should not go ahead. I have a large university in my constituency, and a huge number of people from all around the world, who are massively concerned about the impacts of climate change. I urge the Minister to come and spend some time in my constituency, to see the passion on the ground for a just transition.

My constituents really like having jobs. Most people do. It is great to be able to take a salary home. My constituents, in the main, are not terribly fussed if the job that pays them lots of money is in oil and gas or in the renewables sector. When I talk to people, they tell me that they would like a good job. Those people in the oil and gas industry ask for their tickets to be transferable so that they can go to offshore wind just as easily as they can go to oil and gas platforms. The UK Government have failed to capitalise on that. They failed to invest in CCUS. In fact, back in 2015 the then Chancellor pulled the plug on CCUS without even telling the industry. He stood at that Dispatch Box during the Budget and did that.

The UK Government have failed to prioritise improving our food exports. If they were serious about supporting our farmers, they would do everything they could to ensure them access to the labour that they need to pick the fruit, butcher the pork and export all that wonderful produce. If the UK Government were serious about supporting people and businesses in Scotland, they would have come forward far quicker with the decision on Horizon. They would have prioritised ensuring that our world-leading scientists across these islands, and particularly in my constituency, continue to have access to those research grants. They would have ensured that they could continue to work closely with European counterparts to develop the really cool tech of the future and to develop drugs for Alzheimer’s and heart disease in my constituency. All those things would have been prioritised by the UK Government if they cared about supporting individuals and businesses. They would have taken these things seriously, and they would have prioritised those industries rather than simply prioritising the removal of freedom of movement.

A number of Members have mentioned making Brexit work. It is not possible to make Brexit work. We cannot make Brexit work, because Brexit does not work. Various Conservative leaders have stood there saying, “Make Brexit work.” The Labour party has stood there saying “Make Brexit work.” It cannot work. It is not the positive economic future that we want. The Scottish National party will continue to stand for being in the single market. We will continue to support being members of that single market and, yes, having freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is great for economic benefit. In nine out of the last 10 years—and eight years running—Scotland has had the highest levels of foreign direct investment of any area, country or region in the United Kingdom other than London. That is because the Scottish Government are doing everything they can to ensure that we continue to trade and export, and continue to have a great relationship with as many countries in the world as we possibly can.

The UK Government do not even have a published trade strategy document that pulls everything together. If they had an internal trade strategy document, it would be great if they would publish it, so that we can all see their strategy. Conservative Members say that there are missed opportunities in international trade because they are not prioritising work on selling renewables around the world. Clearly, something is missing. It would be great to see that strategy so that we can provide the appropriate scrutiny. If they continue to hide it, no one can scrutinise it. We do not know what they are trying to do because they are not willing to tell us and share the strategy with us, if they have one.

The only way to ensure that trade with the EU continues to go up and to bring back freedom of movement is for Scotland to free itself from Westminster and take its own decisions on immigration and trade, ensuring we have as close a relationship with the EU as possible, not by making Brexit work but by being back as a member of the EU and the single market. That will protect our economy and our freedom of movement, and ensure our scientists have the best possible access to collaboration. That will ensure our farmers have a level of protection they do not currently have in being able to export food without whatever is going to happen with the Windsor framework, which could be disastrous for our farmers. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 continues to go over the top of what the Scottish Government would like for our future, our farmers and our food producers. I recommend that everybody looks very closely at the SNP’s next manifesto, in which we will lay out those policies even more clearly than I have this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. I thank all the Members who have contributed.

Obviously, the House is united on the importance of exports to our economy, but it differs somewhat on how we go about it. I was interested in the remarks of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). He talked about 13 years of economic failure. He can choose his own opinions, but he cannot choose his own facts. May I give him some facts? We are now the eighth largest manufacturer in the world; we have moved from ninth. We have just overtaken France, which is a bit of a double-win. We are the fifth largest global trader in the world, up from sixth in 2021. We are the third fastest growing economy in the G7 since the pandemic. Since 2016, we have grown faster than Germany and France and, since 2010, we have grown the third fastest in the G7. The only countries ahead of us since the pandemic are the US and Canada. Of all the major economies in the European Union, we have a great story on growth. Those are three things we have achieved on growth. Those are the facts.

The hon. Gentleman may want to depress the nation. I have met many pessimists in my life. I have never yet met a happy pessimist or a successful pessimist. The same goes when trying to get elected. The public want a dealer in hope, not these Jeremiahs who are determined to talk this country down. That is deeply unhelpful and deeply incorrect.

I have some more facts. The hon. Gentleman talks about export performance since 2010—he said there have been 13 years of failure—but it is 31% up in real terms. How is that a failure? I have a great deal of time for him away from the knockabout of politics, but his quotes were all about goods. He never touched on services. He will recognise that 80% of our economy is not goods but services, which is hugely important. It is why our export performance, in real terms, is growing.

The hon. Gentleman said that exports are down this year. In the 12 months to July 2023—these are facts, not projections—there were £849 billion of exports, up 16% on the previous year. In this debate, we should focus on the facts.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The UN figures are actually for goods and services, so the UK is sixth in the G7, at 6% growth, behind Canada, the US, Italy, France and Germany, on 22%. Those are UN figures on goods and services.

Post Office Compensation

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Kirsty Blackman

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and the Minister about the campaigners who have fought so hard for justice. I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for his conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) in advance of his announcement. [Interruption.] There have been some travel issues today.

The announcement is a welcome further move, but it cannot return the lost years, reunite families or bring back those who are gone. It is something, but it is not enough. Will those who opt to go through the full assessment process be guaranteed a minimum of £600,000, or will they possibly be offered a lower settlement as a result?

In his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon Central, the Minister mentioned the 60 individuals who have sadly passed away, at least four of whom took their own life as a result of this scandal. Can he give us more clarity on how the compensation offer will apply to those who have died? It was not set out in his statement. Will their families be offered the same £600,000? He sort of mentioned it in one of his answers, but if we could have absolute clarity for those who are watching, it would be incredibly helpful.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions and her support for today’s announcement. She is absolutely right: no amount of financial compensation can truly compensate people for what has happened. It is an horrendous set of circumstances and one of the biggest scandals that this nation has ever seen.

The hon. Lady is right, but as I say, it was important that we drew the line somewhere on what the compensation level would be. We looked at the average compensation claims that were coming through for overturned convictions, and we settled on a figure on the generous side of that. We think it is a fair figure, but of course people can still take the other option and go down the full assessment route.

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about whether people who have been awarded less through the full route would get the minimum level. That is something on which we are working with the advisory board. We are very keen to engage with the advisory board; I think it is very important that people who are looking for compensation have the reassurance that the advisory board is in place. Its parliamentary members have been very vocal campaigners on the issue for a long time.

For anybody who had an overturned conviction, but who has passed away: yes, if they had received a lower amount, it would be topped up to £600,000.

Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Kirsty Blackman

3rd reading
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes some very fair points, but to be fair to the Government there are requirements under clause 37(6) for the business to keep records of the subsidies received and report them. That is probably in many ways more practical. That subsidy might be given to all kinds of different subsidiaries of that particular enterprise and therefore, even if she wanted local authorities to determine what they had received in the past, it would potentially be difficult to do so by checking against the database. It makes sense to give the business some responsibility for recording that.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Actually, what the legislation does is to give the business a responsibility to keep the letter. It does not give the business much more responsibility, in my mind, although I will go back and have a look at the clause the hon. Gentleman points me to. I think having the subsidy on the subsidy control database would make all the difference, but if he wishes to come back in, he can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clause 37(6) states:

“The enterprise must keep a written record detailing—

(a) that it has received a subsidy,

and

(b) the date on which it was given, and

(c) the gross value amount of the assistance.”

That to me indicates that it must keep a full record of what it has received.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Once again, yes, it has to keep a full record, but it does not have to show Aberdeen City Council that record. There is no requirement on the company to be transparent about that record; there is a requirement to keep it, but not to share it. Having it on the database or adding the requirement to share that record, should a granting authority ask in advance of granting a subsequent subsidy, would make the difference we are asking for.

However, that does not fix the issue in relation to transparency of data and ensuring that the database and the scheme are working properly. This was mentioned in the witness sessions. We need to know whether this is working, and we will only know if it is working if we have an idea of the subsidies being granted, even if they are below the MFA threshold.

I said I would come on to the definition of interested parties. Amendment 12 adds devolved Administrations to the list of interested parties. Again, we discussed this at some length in Committee and the Minister gave some assurances. I shall quote a couple of questions that I asked and the response that the Minister gave. I said:

“Does a devolved Administration’s interests include indirect interests?”

I also asked:

“What if a number of organisations in their jurisdiction are potentially affected by a subsidy given?”

The Minister answered:

“Yes. I would say that is a direct interest rather than an indirect interest. Public authorities, including devolved Administrations, may be interested parties.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2021; c.308-309.]

I am glad that he gave some clarity. It is sort of because of the way the questions were asked that the Minister’s response was slightly woolly. I would very much appreciate it if, when he responds to the debate, he could make it absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box that, in cases of indirect interests, devolved Administrations are considered as interested parties.

Let us say that a subsidy was given somewhere else in the UK, or even in Scotland, and that subsidy negatively affected the chances of seven businesses in Scotland. I think that the Scottish Government should be able to bring a request to the tribunal to say that that needs to be looked at and that they believe that that is an issue. Under the definition of interested parties, it is only those people whose interests have been affected. The Scottish Government’s interests would not have been directly affected by that, but they would have been indirectly affected. I was trying to tease out from the Minister that he believed that, definitely, the Scottish Government or any of the other devolved Administrations could bring a challenge on behalf of organisations within their area. I am quite happy for that to be limited to devolved competences even. However, if they are not in the Bill as interested parties, we very much need that commitment from the Minister. If they are not in the Bill as interested parties, why is the Secretary of State included in the Bill as an interested party? If the definition is wide enough to cover all those areas—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Secretary of State is not necessarily an interested party, which is why he needs to be named in here; he might not be affected. The hon. Lady’s point about being directly or indirectly affected is covered under clause 70(7), which says that an interested party means

“a person whose interests may be affected”.

That could be directly or indirectly, surely.

[Kirsty Blackman]

We discussed this at length, with a lot of banter, in Committee. But I have a concern that the provision does not say “directly” or “indirectly”. It does not make that as clear as it could. A clear statement from the Minister at the Dispatch Box would give me a level of comfort. I do not think that it is the intention of the Government to exclude the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, or the Northern Ireland Assembly from making these challenges, but I think that the Bill is written in a woolly enough way that it potentially accidentally excludes them.

Subsidy Control Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you, Ms Nokes, for your forbearance in continuing to chair these sittings for us; we appreciate it.

It strikes me that there are three really important things in the Bill. The first question is this. What is a subsidy, and when can and cannot a subsidy be awarded? Actually, we have had not much disagreement across the Committee about what constitutes the answers to those points. The second question, which we have raised a number of concerns about, is this. How do we know what has been awarded? Specifically, we have raised a number of issues about transparency, how transparency will work and whether the transparency measures being suggested are adequate. The third question is how subsidy decisions can be challenged. The Bill and this system, the subsidy control regime, will not work if there is not a mechanism for a challenge to be made. That seems to me to be the third of those three important areas.

We have suggested amendment 23, which is specifically about the definition of interested parties. The Bill says that “interested party” means

“a person whose interests may be affected by the giving of the subsidy or the making of the subsidy scheme in respect of which the application under subsection (1) is made, or…the Secretary of State”.

The Minister has been clear a number of times that being too prescriptive about some things and including too many things risks suggesting that we are not including others. If the measure includes a, b and c, potentially an imaginary d would be excluded, because it explicitly says a, b and c.

The legislation talks about “interested parties” as those people who have been affected, but it also includes the Secretary of State, so presumably, in the Government’s eyes, the Secretary of State has a specific role whether or not he or she has an interest or the Government have an interest in whatever it is that has been subsidised. The Secretary of State has the ability to request a call-in whether or not they have an interest. The Minister has spoken at some length—indeed, a number of people have—about the asymmetry of the legislatures in the UK, and there is an asymmetry of legislatures. Westminster has reserved powers and, as we have seen in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and various other power grabs, the ability to override some of the devolved competencies. We are not disagreeing that there is an asymmetry, but there is a requirement and a recognition that we have devolved legislatures that have a very important role to play in not just the economic development but the wellbeing of their citizens under whatever the devolved competencies are.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady not defining that exactly as the legislation is set out? The devolved legislatures have an important role to play. Therefore they are an interested party. That is the point; it does not need to be set out specifically.

[Kirsty Blackman]

In that case, it does not need to be set out specifically that the Secretary of State is an interested party. There would be no need to include the Secretary of State if the Bill applied equally to any of the devolved legislatures whether or not they had a direct interest or whether or not their interests would be affected. It may be the case that the Scottish Parliament’s or the Scottish Government’s interests are not affected by something but that the interests of a significant number of businesses in Scotland are affected, in which case it would be completely reasonable for the Scottish Government or Scottish Ministers to be included, as we have suggested in the amendment; we have also referred to Welsh Ministers and “a Northern Ireland department”. The aim is specifically to catch the issue that has just been made clear. Sometimes the devolved institutions will not have a direct interest that affects the operation of their Parliament, but they might have an interest on behalf of the wellbeing of their citizens or the economic development of the places they represent. Subsection (7)(a), which defines interested parties, does not go far enough to allow those institutions to raise concerns about potential issues. If the concern does not affect them directly, it seems they are excluded from raising it.

I understand the point made earlier by the Minister about the Competition Appeal Tribunal and how it may define interested parties, but there is a definition of interested parties in the Bill. I feel it is too narrow to include other interested parties such as Scottish Ministers, unless they are directly affected.

Legislatures need to be responsible. We need to take action on behalf of our citizens, and to be able to take that action. Given that these institutions are democratically elected and there have been votes that resulted in the creation of the institutions, we must recognise that the devolved legislatures have a stake and a responsibility—a place to fill in supporting their constituents. This is not about trying to say that the Scottish Government are better than the Westminster Government—I mean, they are, obviously, but the amendment is not about fighting to change the power structure of the UK. It would simply allow Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland Department to take their place and be able to exercise their right to protect the people, the businesses and the countries they are elected to represent.

If the term “interested parties” covers everybody, including those who have an indirect interest, then it does not make sense to include the Secretary of State in the definition. However, if the term “interested parties” does not include Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland Department, we have a really big problem. This is not how devolution is intended to work; it is intended that those institutions can support their constituents.

I would appreciate it if the Minister will look at the issue. It is likely I will consider pressing the amendment, because it is such an important issue. As I said, this is one of the three most important parts of the Bill. The devolved legislatures absolutely should have the right to have subsidy decisions called in. This is not a power that is going to be used every five minutes. It is not like anybody is going to be challenging the decisions or looking for assessments on a regular basis—that is not how it is going to work. If the UK Government are committed to levelling up and the principles in the Bill of looking at competition throughout the United Kingdom and the effects of subsidies, it is really important that the three devolved Administrations have this power.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the way that the amendment is drafted not mean that Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland Department could interfere or be an interested party even though they had no interest? For example, a Scottish Minister could intervene in something that was happening in Wales, which has no relevance—they would have no interest at all. Is that the intention—that a Scottish Minister can intervene in a subsidy scheme in any part of the United Kingdom, even though it does not directly affect Scotland?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Yes, because that is the point of the Bill. The point of the legislation is to make sure that we do not have those subsidy races. As was made clear on Second Reading, Members want a situation in which there are not subsidy races and in which they can ensure that the best decisions are being taken for their area. If the hon. Gentleman, the local authority in his constituency or the Secretary of State felt that something in his constituency was being affected negatively because of the actions of the Scottish Government or the Northern Ireland Department in granting a subsidy, I would expect the Secretary of State to consider calling that in. If the hon. Gentleman made representations to the Secretary of State on behalf of organisations in his constituency that might not want to go through the process of employing lawyers to get it called in, but are genuinely affected, surely that is one reason why the Secretary of State may be included.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady makes my point for me. If something were affecting North Yorkshire, I would be an interested party already, because that is how it is defined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

No, the hon. Gentleman would not be an interested party, because the Bill states that an interested party is

“a person whose interests may be affected by the giving of the subsidy or the making of the subsidy scheme”.

The hon. Gentleman’s interests are themselves not affected. His constituents’ interests are affected—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is the same thing.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is not the same thing, and that is the point that I am making. That is why either the definition of an interested party needs to change, or we specifically include those people whose direct interests may not be affected but whose indirect interests—whose responsibilities towards their constituents and their country—are affected as a result. In such circumstances, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not be an interested party. I cannot see how his interests possibly could be affected, going on the reading of the legislation, although his constituents’ interests would be affected. If that is how we want the measure to operate—which is how I would like it to operate—I would very much like it to operate in the way that he is suggests.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My interests are my constituents’ interests, and vice versa, so why would my interests not be affected if my constituents’ interests were affected?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Bill states:

“a person whose interests may be affected by the giving of the subsidy”.

The hon. Member’s interests would not be affected by the giving of the subsidy, his constituents’ interests would be. If the Minister, when he speaks, confirms that a Member’s interests cover all the interests of his constituents, can define the interests of the Scottish Government, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department or can say absolutely that, for example, a Northern Ireland Department’s interests cover the interests of businesses and constituents within its jurisdiction, I will be delighted that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is correct. That is what I would like it to say but, as drafted, that is not what the Bill says.

There is therefore a gap, an issue with not enough people being able to make that challenge and in those democratic institutions not having that right. As the Minister said, it is not a foregone conclusion that such things would go through, that the CAT would look at the subsidy decision and say, “Oh, the Secretary of State has referred this, so they are definitely correct and the subsidy is definitely wrong.” That is not how it would work. The CAT is an independent organisation and it will be making those decisions.

On the specific point about people who have the ability to refer subsidy decisions, however, I think that those people with indirect interests on behalf of their constituents or the areas that they represent should have the right to make that referral—and for the CAT to make the decision after that. Again, that will not lead to a significant increase in the number of challenges to come forward, but if the Government are committed to levelling up and to the Subsidy Control Bill regime working as it is intended to work, changes have to be made to the clause. Amendment 23 was the best way that I could see of making the changes to ensure that those interested parties with indirect parties would be able to fulfil adequately their roles to work on behalf of the people who elected them.

Subsidy Control Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

I want to address a few things that have been mentioned. It is absolutely the case that clause 66 requires annual reporting, but that annual reporting is on a very limited number of things. It seems to me that only numbers need to be provided, and that that reporting does not include very much else. The requirement is, “How many post-award referrals have there been, and how has the CMA dealt with them?” rather than, “Have they been dealt with properly?” It is not as much of a deep dive as it could be.

The Minister could commit to a step in between those two approaches. Clause 65 gives the Secretary of State flexibility to direct a report to be made within a shorter period. The middle step would allow an annual report to address more than just the data while not going quite as far as the requirements under clause 65 for a review of the entire scheme’s efficacy and whether it is working as intended. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister would consider that.

Turning to the various other things that have been said, the Brexit vote was only five and a half years ago—which is not much longer than the five-year period—and before that we had no idea that we would be creating our own subsidy control regime. We have moved so far, and so much has happened over that period of time, that I do not think a five-year period is short enough. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the possibility of the Secretary of State directing a report for an earlier period, particularly initially, but clause 65(3)(a) could have said that the period should be three or two years. If that had been written in the Bill in the first place, we would have had fewer concerns like the ones we are raising today.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that red tape costs money. He is right, but red tape also saves money, and the whole point of this Bill is that public money is going to be given to organisations. Public money is going to be spent, and we need to make sure that that money is spent effectively, but I do not think that the suggested review system is adequate enough to ensure that we spend that public money effectively. Yes, this review would cost money—I am not for a second trying to dodge that fact—but I think that the benefits outweigh the risks, in that this is such a new regime and it will be really important for us to carry out that review at a relatively early stage. I am not asking for it to be done in six months; I am suggesting two years for the initial review, and the Opposition are suggesting three years. Neither is as long as five years, which will give us the early comfort of knowing that the regime is acting in the way that we hope and expect it will do.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady’s amendment does not say “two years”, though, does it? It says:

“two years, and annually thereafter.”

That sounds like a huge amount of bureaucracy. She said that it would be a lighter-touch report, but I do not see anything in the amendment that says it is a lighter-touch report. It talks about the effectiveness of the provisions, so how would it not end up being a deep dive into the workings of the scheme?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I apologise—I did not make myself clear. When I talk about a lighter-touch report, I am talking not specifically about the amendments but about the fact that there should be a third approach in the Bill. If the Government are not going to move from five years—if the five-year reporting period for this deep dive report is going to remain—and we have the annual reports suggested in clause 66, which are too light touch and are just about the numbers, there is a case to be made for a middle step: a report that contains a little bit more than just the numbers, but not quite as much as that potentially costly review. That is not covered by the amendments; I am simply suggesting that the Minister consider it.

Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Kirsty Blackman

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

Principle F rejects that, so which one has primacy? Which one is the most important? If they directly disagree with each other, is it more important that we can do what is said in principle A or is it more important that we can do what is said in principle F?

I think the subsidy regime should be used in the same way as the EU state aid regime, which focuses on regions that need additional support. Whatever this Conservative Government say—we will not believe them anyway, given the amount of lies we have been told—it is not the case that this regime assists levelling up; it does the opposite. If they want to assist levelling up, they should design a regime that ensures different areas can have different subsidy regimes that benefit their local area even though they may disadvantage other areas.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady may have identified this herself already, but freeports, for example, allow businesses to relocate and benefit from different taxation regimes. Such businesses are treated more beneficially in how they operate and in their cost of operation. Does she accept that freeports do exactly what she is setting out?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Freeports are not covered by the subsidy regime we are talking about today. They are a separate thing. I can say from the Back Benches that I am not particularly keen on freeports, but the idea is that there is a wall around the port—the guidance specifically says that there has to be a physical barrier around the area—and there is a different taxation regime within that wall. I am yet to be convinced of the economic benefits that will come as a result.

We hope to have green ports in Scotland, and the failure of the UK Government to agree that we can pay the real living wage and focus on net zero within those green ports means that the freeport system, as it stands, is not nearly as advantageous as it could or should be. Even though the freeport system is set up to encourage such things, I have not seen evidence that it will actually do so, particularly given the rejection of the key principles we want to put in place.

Onshore Oil and Gas

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate that point and I will come on to manufacturing; I just wanted to answer first a few of the points that had been brought up throughout the debate. “Fracking” is the term that my constituents use and the term that is recognised throughout the UK. That is why I was using it.

It has been mentioned a lot that we should ensure that controls are in place and there is proper regulation. The Scottish Government’s point of view and the direction that we are taking is that we want to prove the safety first and, if we do decide to do this, ensure that the controls are in place after that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

During the moratorium, what evidence has been collated about the safety or otherwise of shale gas?

[Kirsty Blackman]

We are still in the process of researching this. The research does not finish until later this year, and then in 2017 the public consultation will finish, so we are not at the point in time at which we will be publishing the evidence. I think that that is reasonable. It is reasonable to look at the research properly before we bring it all together—