Subsidy Control Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

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

As emphasised earlier, we will continue to work closely with the DAs in developing different streamlined routes. This will include inviting DA officials to sit on expert working groups for each route we are developing. The DAs will, of course, also be able to suggest areas that future streamlined routes might cover, and we will undertake to consider any proposal extremely carefully.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister and thank him for giving way. I am struggling a little with why the Government want to hoard the right to create streamlined subsidies to central government. I can assume only that it is because it gives the Government the ability to parachute schemes into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—which might not be seen by those devolved Administrations as something they would have—and, because they are streamlined schemes, they cannot be challenged. Is that the reason the Government are not prepared to let devolved authorities have streamlined subsidy schemes for themselves?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No, I think the noble Lord is being unfair; the operation of these schemes is entirely optional. We will consult the devolved Administrations closely before making any such schemes. I only just said that we will seek to involve DA officials and others in expert working groups for each of the routes we are developing.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am sorry to prolong this, but is the Minister now saying that, for a streamlined scheme that is presented by central government and could be taken up by, for example, organisations and companies in Scotland, the Scottish Government have the option of not allowing that to happen? That, I think, is what the Minister just said.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, this group of amendments gives me an opportunity to express my appreciation to the Minister and his team for the work they have been doing under the legislative consent process. The Constitution Committee studied the working of this process for much of last year and in its report, Respect and Co-operation, expressed the concern that the process was not working properly—indeed, we heard quite a lot of evidence from the devolved Administrations that they were dissatisfied with the way it was working.

My impression has been that since late autumn of last year the working of the system has very much improved, and the remarks made by the Minister at the beginning of his reply on the last group of amendments tend to confirm that a great deal of work has been done behind the scenes to try to make the process work. I am therefore much encouraged by what he said, both in private conversations and in the Chamber.

I have one particular to request to make. When we come to Third Reading, I wonder whether the Minister would provide the House with a report to explain why, if it is the case, that consent Motions have not been passed by the devolved legislatures. It would be helpful to know what the sticking points were and why the Government were not prepared to give ground to the devolved legislatures to obtain their consent. It would inform the House. It would also enable us to understand how the process is working and to appreciate that the Government have been working as hard as they could to obtain consent and that there were genuine reasons for their inability to obtain it. I would be grateful if the Minister could do that when we come to Third Reading. I make that point now so that he can take it into account when the time comes.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Your Lordships will remember that I made a very long speech on the DPRRC’s reports and I would like to think that it was the power of reasoning within that long speech that led to these very welcome amendments from the Government. I suspect, however, that it is the reputation of the DPRRC and the rigour of its work that caused these changes to be made. For that, we should be grateful and pleased. It is a shame that the Government had to go through this process to do it, but it has happened.

We on these Benches also welcome the announcement made by the Minister on financial stability issues and bringing in the PAC and Treasury Select Committees confidentially on that. That is a common-sense approach, and it goes a long way to solving any issues.

On defining subsidies and schemes of interest and of particular interest, we are disappointed that the definitions are not brought into the Bill, but I hope that following the consultation process the Government will come back and, either formally or informally, inform the Front Benches and those others involved in the Bill of progress, so that when the regulation is made, we will in a sense have been brought into that process. This is a good set of amendments that we broadly welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has set out, this group includes a number of concessions around the transparency issue. Again, we should thank him for coming some of the way towards the arguments that surfaced in Committee.

We welcome the reduction in the reporting threshold from £500,000 to £100,000. We recognise that that is some way short of the level that many external organisations were calling for and indeed that we wanted, but we also understand that it is a big step for the Government and they have come a long way towards where we think it should be.

I put my name to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and I am looking forward to hearing his proposal. I am still not 100% convinced by what the Minister said, although he worked hard to explain to us why it would not be an issue. I think some of the points he made were right—sorry, acceptable; I am sure they were all right.

On the Minister’s first point about multiple payments to different branches, if they all have the same parent company, I start to get concerned about that issue. However, the biggest point was that if nefarious activity is going on and a £99,999.99 subsidy is being paid out by this mythological nefarious authority, the Minister said that that would no doubt surface. I am not sure how it would do so, given that there is no reporting requirement, unless that extra penny is forthcoming. Apart from sleuthing, submitting freedom of information requests and citizens’ activity, how does the Minister expect this information to surface—or indeed is he going to have an investigative unit at his side, ready to swoop on such nefarious organisations? I am interested to hear how this disclosure or uncovering process will work.

Other government amendments mean that the declaration of subsidies scheme is being improved in time terms, and that is also very welcome. The Minister was talking about a review process. I think he would be wise to maintain a rolling review in the department to be able to surface any issues and problems. This is a new process and a lot of different organisations will be trying to bed into it. The sooner that any misunderstandings or misapprehensions are understood, the sooner the department and the Government can do something about it.

In closing, I have a personal request. I probably should really understand this but I still do not: could the Minister clarify the rules regarding the declaration of subsidies awarded within subsidy schemes? I have heard different wordings at different times throughout the process, so perhaps the Minister could clarify once and for all how and if individual subsidies awarded under subsidy schemes will or will not be reported.

Overall, we are pleased with the amendments in this tranche. The Minister has moved on transparency, but we hope he will keep that situation under review with a view to more transparency in future rather than less.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of concessions, as the Minister has outlined, is significant because of both the number of amendments and, more importantly, their text and practical effect. We are grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for their engagement on these issues over many weeks now; our discussions have been very useful, and although we have not achieved everything we wanted, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the new subsidy control scheme will be far more transparent than the Bill initially proposed. There are 31 amendments in this large group, 30 from the Government and one from me. I still think mine is a good amendment but I understand the Minister’s points, which we will come on to in a second.

The main issue is that we remain somewhat unconvinced of the Government’s argument in relation to the £100,0000 threshold. Given that many public authorities already have to publish details of spending at much lower levels—in many cases, it is £500 for local authorities—the £14 million cost quoted by the Minister to take the transparency threshold down from £100,000 to £500 would be well spent because that transparency would then sit across the whole of the subsidy controls and subsidies issued. However, an 80% reduction, coupled with the universal requirements across different subsidy types, is a clear step in the right direction.

To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already stolen a lot of my thunder in relation to Amendment 20. The points he made were absolutely spot on so I will not repeat them; I look forward to the Minister’s response. I tabled Amendment 20 in an attempt to deal with the potential for public authorities to award multiple payments that fall under the £100,000 disclosure threshold. As the Minister outlined in his opening remarks, there are a number of possible reasons why a subsidy may be given at that level. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right: it is the final one of those three points, about a nefarious reason why an individual in a local authority would encourage a local authority to give multiple awards under the reporting threshold. A fundamental question still sits there: how will we and, more importantly, businesses and organisations that are or could be affected by a subsidy, challenge it if we have no sight of it?

We would be delighted if the Minister accepted this amendment but he explained in his opening remarks why he will not. If the Government are not willing to accept it, can the Minister outline any other safeguards that could be brought in to check this possible kind of behaviour? He did not touch on safeguards in outlining the three points; his response was that the Government do not expect this to happen or do not believe that it could happen. I hope that the Minister can also confirm, because this is important, that the ministerial delegated powers to amend the transparency thresholds will not be used before—I would prefer that they were not used at all, but especially before—the CMA and other interested parties are able to see the new system in operation. We appreciate that any future increases are subject to a cap but it would make a mockery of the process and the concession package if any of the thresholds were increased before the new system was up and running and had been tested and checked by the CMA.

One area not subject to amendments today but which we see as incredibly important is the process around MFA subsidies. At present, beneficiaries in receipt of MFA subsidies must maintain paper records, which not only increases the bureaucracy involved but goes against the grain of the general transition to paperless record-keeping. We do not believe that moving this system to a digital process would require any amendments to primary legislation, so can the Minister commit today to looking at the available options for digitising the MFA process, either as part of the department’s existing subsidy database workstream or as a stand-alone project?

I will touch on one final point about the move on upload from six months to three months. Again, I fully support this. The sooner this information is uploaded on to the database, the better for all, but we still have concerns about the right to appeal against a subsidy that a business or an organisation could be affected by. That is limited to one month; the Minister and the department have not moved that to six weeks or two months. I have some concern that we could have gone a bit further. With the reduction from six months to three months, we could have increased the ability for someone—or an organisation—adversely affected by a subsidy awarded to a competitor to challenge this by giving them a little more time. I understand the Minister’s argument about wanting the subsidy to be in place, agreed and unchallengeable, before the business will spend it, because it then has certainty. None the less, we could have given a bit more time to those who could possibly be adversely affected by it to make a challenge. With that, I again thank the Minister for the 30 amendments—it is just a shame that he could not go one more and make it 31.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

47: Clause 55, page 30, line 40, after “State” insert “or the CMA”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I rise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, to move Amendment 47 and also speak to Amendments 48 to 50. I had never expected to be the noble Lord’s stunt double but I do not regret it at all. As on many issues, the noble Lord and I agree that the role of the CMA requires boosting so that, as he said at Second Reading, it can police the control of the regime. It is a shame that he is not here to speak on his own account as he would do so with much more vigour and verve than I, but we both see these amendments as analogous to the independence that was given to the OBR and the Bank of England. If the Government genuinely want to control subsidies, as the title of the Bill suggests, there should be greater independent enforcement instead of what is a pretty weak SAU.

I have a number of direct questions to channel from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, before I speak on my own account. It is worth noting that on 7 February, the Minister said that

“the Bill does not, of course, replace our gold-standard mechanisms … for managing public money”.

The noble Lord would like to know: to what mechanisms was the Minister referring? I am looking forward to the answer to that question as much as is the noble Lord himself. As the Minister highlighted at the time, and as is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, balancing the current budget while having national debt on a declining trend does not deal with the micro issues such as distortions of competition caused by subsidies. That is clearly true. I wonder on my own part why the Minister brought that up. The final point is that the Minister went on to say that

“public authorities … take their statutory obligations seriously … we expect the vast majority of public authorities to comply with these requirements”.—[Official Report, 7/2/22; col. GC 382.]

The interpretation of that is that public authorities, including the Government, are to police themselves. This is not an enforcement mechanism; it is incredibly weak.

For my own part, I would say that this is strong criticism from a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and hits at the heart of the Bill. To that end, I think that we deserve a serious and studied answer from the Minister, which I am sure we will get. This centres around the self-policing, public reporting mechanism that, essentially, has been adopted. What we have are amateur regulators and citizen detectives. It is clear that this is not the way to police something as important as a subsidy regime.

In addition to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I am delighted to support Amendment 55 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Throughout this and previous debates, his dedication to the cause of trying to bring some structure to this legislation should be commended by us all. In many ways, this amendment sits somewhere between the positions of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and the Government. As we would expect from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, it also addresses some serious devolution issues. I am really looking forward to hearing him set out how this amendment will solve some of the problems we have encountered throughout our debates.

A lot of those problems are based around the asymmetry that both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Purvis raised on a previous set of amendments. There is an asymmetry here: the Secretary of State in London can call in the CMA, whereas the authorities in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast cannot do the same thing. This is at the core of the problem that people have. When we hear, in response to the request by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, what the stymie on getting legislative consent is, I suspect the problem—one of the central issues—will be a version of that. Addressing that would go a long way towards bridging the gap to getting legislative consent, which I hope is the Minister’s objective.

That said, I will speak no longer and look forward to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, explaining his Amendment 55 much better. I beg to move Amendment 47.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 55. I first thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Fox, for their support. The amendment has two purposes, one of which has been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, dealing with the position of the CMA. The second is to deal with the position of the devolved Governments and legislatures.

I ought to deal first with the position of the CMA. Although I co-signed amendments with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, before Committee, the amendments he put down did not include two of them; I am not sure why. I have restored them all, because it seems to me that, on analysis, if the Bill is to be regarded as a serious attempt to uphold the rule of law and not as a piece of window dressing to satisfy our international obligations, we need to look more carefully at the position.

There are three methods of enforcement. The first is to have transparency and force disclosure. We know of the force that has; the effect of sunshine as a disinfectant is well recorded in history.

Secondly, there is the need for the CMA to investigate. It seems to me that without the CMA having powers of investigation, you do not have a properly independent system of enforcement compliant with the rule of law. It cannot be right to leave enforcement to those giving subsidies. You must have someone independent and objective in making the investigation. That is a requirement of the way in which all investigations are carried out; they have to be independent and impartial. I simply do not understand why the CMA cannot be allowed to conduct investigations that it thinks should be carried out, not merely those that the Secretary of State wants carried out or that are referred to it. Of course it will carry out the investigations referred to it by the Secretary of State independently, but it does not have the necessary power to do it where it thinks it is in the interests of enforcement.

For a similar reason it seems clear that, as was proposed in the amendments in Committee, the CMA ought to have powers of enforcement before a CAT—this is where it differs slightly from the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. Again, independent powers of enforcement are essential. The Secretary of State will have some powers, as will those who say they are injured as a result of what has happened. But that is essentially, to take an analogy with the ordinary enforcement system, a system of effectively private prosecution. My experience of private prosecutions has always been that, unless they are funded for extraneous and charitable purposes, such as is done by the RSPCA, or there is money in it by obtaining a conviction for those who are businessmen interested in getting a private prosecution, it is unlikely that there will be private enforcement. There is no doubt that this kind of enforcement action is extremely expensive. Therefore there is a real risk that there will not be much effective enforcement and that such effective enforcement as there is will be directed only at what I would call big money cases. Having a justice system that deals only with big money cases is recognised to be no just system at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, put it very pithily by creating Juvenal: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” It seems to me that that summarises it in four words. There must be someone independent, both to investigate and to bring a matter before the courts if necessary, who can ensure that the Secretary of State and others uphold the rule of law. That is all I wanted to say about the position of the CMA.

On the second purpose of the management, I can deal with that briefly. It is an important question even at this hour of night, because it raises the issue of equality between our nations. I spoke at length about this when proposing the amendments in respect of seeking the consent of the devolved authorities and giving them certain powers, but this is an egregious example of inequality. Whereas the Secretary of State qua Minister responsible for England and the giving of subsidies in England can refer matters dealt with by, say, the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland Governments to the CAT, there is no equality the other way round. That seems a fundamental flaw in this part of the Bill. It could be remedied by an undertaking by the Secretary of State that, if he was asked by the devolved Governments to make a reference, he would do so, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give such an undertaking.

What is important about these issues of equality is that they matter in two respects: first, that there is equality, but also that there is seen to be equality, and the equality between the nations is fundamental to the union. Secondly, there is the purpose of the amendment relating to the devolved authorities—this differs from the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. It seeks to make clear that the devolved Governments will always be interested parties for the purposes of appearance before the CAT. Again, this could be clarified. It would be far better if this was done in legislation, but at least it could be taken some way by the Minister making this clear.

I am sorry to have spoken at such length at this hour of night but these are important points of principle. They go to the rule of law and the position of the CMA, but also go to the equality between our nations and the survival of our union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. It has been a good discussion, both tonight and in the previous discussions we have had on the regime as a whole and the subsidy advice unit. I particularly enjoyed the contribution from the spokesman for my noble friend Lord Lamont. This is a trend that should perhaps continue on other subjects on which my noble friend feels strongly.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Have I been fired as the Minister’s speechwriter?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

If the noble Lord is going to write my speeches, he might as well write them for my noble friend Lord Lamont, as well. The answer to the question of my noble friend Lord Lamont, through his spokesman, is the Green Book and Managing Public Money guidelines; I suspect as an ex-Chancellor he knows that very well indeed—probably better than we do.

Government Amendments 52 and 53 to Clause 65 have been tabled to address your Lordships’ concerns regarding the frequency of the CMA’s monitoring reports under Clause 65. Instead of mandating a report within five years of the implementation of the regime, the amendments require an initial report after only three years, subsequently followed up by a further report after another three years. Subsequent reporting will then revert to a five-year cycle.

I hope noble Lords will agree that the publication of these two initial reports will be sufficient to keep Parliament and the public informed of how the new subsidy control regime is functioning, and to assist in setting best practice going forward. As a result of these changes, I have also tabled two consequential amendments to clarify how these new initial reports will interact with other provisions in the Bill. These are Amendments 54 and 63.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to Amendment 56 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the question of whether subsidies given under the scheme should be subject to challenge in the CAT. We debated that extensively in Committee, and the House will be pleased to know that, given the lateness of the hour, I will not repeat the arguments I made then. But this does not mean there is absolute protection for a subsidy purportedly given under the scheme. An interested party can argue that a subsidy does not in fact meet the terms of the scheme and can challenge it as a stand-alone subsidy. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment. I would like to move my amendments and hope others will not press theirs.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answers, although many of them are disappointing. On Amendment 56, it would be helpful if the Minister could write on how that challenge would work. I am looking particularly at where a scheme has been approved and a number of businesses granted subsidy under that scheme. What happens if I want to challenge not the scheme but the validity of that particular business getting that particular subsidy? It is not clear to me, under the rules, how that works, so could the Minister write a letter to me and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, clarifying that?

On Amendment 55, repeating the mantra that it is a reserved issue is almost exactly the opposite of what we were calling for: having some sensitivity in the nature of the Bill. It is a reserved issue but it trespasses into areas that are devolved and, as my noble friend Lord Purvis illustrated, agriculture is one such area—there are others. The absence of sensitivity is the disappointing thing.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, my noble friend Lord Bruce and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, all made valid points about reaching across that barrier, but there seemed to be no such reaching from the Minister. I hope he will have time to reflect on this and can come back at Third Reading with something a little more conciliatory than “This is a reserved issue” because that is really not good enough.

The criterion on which I was allowed to act as the spokesperson of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was that under no circumstances should I press Amendment 47 so, as a man of honour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.