Subsidy Control Bill (HL) - Clause 1

Expressed hope that the Bill will benefit the steel industry, specifically asking Kwasi Kwarteng to look into ringfencing £182 million returned from EU funds for innovation in UK steel.

Challenged the Minister's claims about underutilising EU state rules and accused the Government of perpetuating a gift for blaming the EU for everything. She argued that the Bill reflects a new Conservative ideology aimed at dismantling devolved competence.

Inquired about the removal of assisted area status in Wales, questioning why the British Government is making it more difficult for Welsh businesses to receive support.

Asked whether a lower threshold for public declaration of subsidies would be better, advocating for greater transparency in subsidy declarations by local authorities and devolved Administrations.

Pointed out the disparity between Northern Ireland's one-year scrutiny period under state aid rules and the 20-day process for the rest of the UK, arguing it places businesses in Northern Ireland at a disadvantage.

Inquired about why Welsh Government is making a legal challenge to the Bill if it agrees with its principles, questioning the sincerity of the government's claims.

Raised concerns about additional levels of subsidy given to businesses on the Welsh border by the Welsh Government, putting English businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Expressed fear that Scottish nationalists will use subsidies to artificially support their own businesses, potentially fuelling separatism and not benefiting taxpayers overall.

She expresses concerns about gaps in the bill, fairness for devolved Administrations, efficiency versus oversight balance, transparency issues, historical economic disadvantage, clarity on subsidy definitions, and the need for detailed guidance to align with national priorities. She also highlights a lack of commitment to the levelling-up agenda and insufficient industrial strategy.

In an intervention, he pointed out that Labour in Wales is taking legal action against the UK government on this issue. He questioned why there isn't solidarity from their Westminster colleagues.

In an intervention, she questioned whether equating a lack of state aid with the absence of an industrial strategy is fair. She defended capitalism as a way to ensure wealth and employment.

In an intervention, he asked why no Labour Back Benchers are present in the Chamber if the issue means so much to them.

He raised a point similar to Jonathan Edwards about solidarity and questioned why Labour does not vote against the Bill if they are concerned about devolution issues.

He asked for clarity on whether the Labour party believes the Bill should pass despite its perceived harm to devolution.

In an intervention, he argued that a regime of control is important for all UK regions to safeguard against richer regions subsidising more heavily and to protect devolved areas from central government subsidies.

Asked for clarification on whether state aid is necessary in Northern Ireland, suggesting it should be part of the domestic regime.

Questioned if a four-nation approach would involve any nation having a veto over decisions they feel are not in their interest.

Ms. Malhotra raised concerns about oversight and enforcement in the subsidy control regime, noting that while well-designed subsidies can support government objectives, they also carry risks such as market distortion and competition undermining. She questioned the definition of 'interested parties' who can challenge a subsidy and criticised the limited powers of the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) new subsidy advice unit under the Bill, arguing it lacks the authority to initiate investigations or take enforcement action independently.

[INTERVENTION] Will the hon. Lady give way?

Supports the Bill as it establishes necessary principles for subsidy control, but raises concerns about transparency and exemptions. Argues that the current threshold of £500,000 is too high compared to EU standards of €500,000. Suggests fewer exclusions and earlier disclosure to ensure transparency. Emphasises the need for a prompt response from the CMA within 30 days but highlights the issue with six-month delay in notification. Proposes central database to reduce business burden and improve transparency.

Mr. Baynes argues that the new system is more direct, localised, and effective compared to the previous EU system which was biased against regional and localised issues of deprivation.

Ms. Blackman agrees with Mr. Flynn that the Bill does not level up but rather disadvantages disadvantaged areas to protect rich ones.

Mr. MacNeil raises concerns about the arbitrary decision-making power of Westminster and its impact on Scottish islands, renewables projects, and cross-border projects.

Mr. Millar argues that lack of involvement in decision-making was also a feature when the UK was part of the EU, suggesting similar constraints existed under Brussels.

Welcomes the Bill's direction towards a robust subsidy control regime but raises concerns about the lack of defined criteria for 'particular interest'. Emphasises the need for clarity in the line of discretion to ensure certainty and transparency. Supports the idea of a single regulator, such as the CMA, to avoid political interference and maintain consistency across the UK single market. Advocates for greater transparency in subsidy reporting, suggesting that names of entities receiving subsidies should be disclosed down to lower levels than £500,000 to ensure accountability and prevent scandals. Proposes including tax deals as subsidies subject to disclosure and stresses the need for clear definitions around national security exemptions.

Intervenes briefly, questioning whether the UK Government is playing both gamekeeper and poacher roles in subsidy control. Challenges the independence of the CMA as a body constructed by Westminster.

Intervenes to assert that this is the United Kingdom Parliament, implying support for the CMA's role as a regulator.

Supports Nigel Mills' position by highlighting the political independence of the CMA, reinforcing the argument against dual roles for the government.

Ms Blackman questioned the Government's position on devolved Administrations' support for the Bill, highlighting inconsistencies and lack of clarity. She raised concerns about Northern Ireland’s state aid provisions under the protocol, the levelling-up principles in conflict with subsidies for disadvantaged regions, and the effectiveness of freeports in Scotland. Additionally, she emphasised the need to scrutinise guidance issued by the Secretary of State as per clause 79.

Ms Malhotra intervened to emphasise the importance of clarity from the Government on changes related to article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol, questioning whether discussions with the EU had been conducted.

Mr Wilson intervened to argue that principle A allows for subsidies aimed at levelling up by addressing market failures in disadvantaged regions.

Mr Hollinrake pointed out that freeports exemplify the principle of offering more beneficial conditions to businesses, supporting Ms Blackman’s criticism.

Mr MacNeil questioned whether the UK Government had a strategy to replace EU regional structural funding and emphasised the need for additional support for disadvantaged areas.

Welcomes the Bill as it will provide a framework for UK-wide subsidy control, enabling tailored subsidies based on local needs. Emphasises that Wales has been underrepresented in previous EU subsidy areas and argues that the Bill is essential for economic prosperity by promoting accountability through a standardised database. Highlights that trade within the UK is more valuable to Wales than external trade. Also asserts that the Bill will support levelling-up objectives, strengthen the Union, and enable local authorities across the UK to play an equal role.

Welcomes the introduction of the Bill but argues that it lacks a clear industrial strategy, transparency in subsidy decisions, and an independent body to assess adherence to principles. Concerned about inefficiency due to lack of information available for businesses bidding for subsidies. Criticises the legal challenge as the sole restraint on how subsidies are handed out.

Kevin Hollinrake supports the Bill, acknowledging that while he is a free marketeer who generally opposes subsidies, there are times when government intervention is necessary to address market failures. He emphasises the importance of spending taxpayers' money well and highlights the need for greater scrutiny and transparency in subsidy distribution. He suggests reducing the threshold for scrutiny from £500,000 to £500, citing that this would create minimal red tape and facilitate better accountability. Hollinrake also mentions the role of public members and press in identifying wrongdoing through a fully transparent database.

Interjected to express confusion about the Government's power to unilaterally change Article 10 without discussing it with the EU, seeking clarity on whether they have the competence to do so.

Supports UK law and subsidy regime in Northern Ireland. Criticises devolution for centralizing decision-making powers, citing examples like EU fund distribution in Wales where only 9% went to local authorities compared to 36% in England. Emphasises principles of local leadership, accountability, and shared prosperity. Welcomes universal reporting database clause 33 for transparency. Acknowledges economic recovery in Aberconwy with specific business examples. Supports additional funds directed by local leaders for future prosperity.

Intervened to question Robin Millar's criticism of devolution and Scottish local authorities, despite stating support for devolution principles at the start.

Echoed concerns about lack of female representation in BEIS ministerial team, highlighted issues with current temporary arrangements for subsidy control, called for clarity on how Bill supports deprived regions. Raised concerns over balance between oversight and efficiency, ambiguity regarding interested parties, role of CMA's subsidy advice unit, need for devolved Administrations' explicit role in the new system.

Paul Scully argues that the Bill is a crucial subsidy control framework for the UK, providing flexibility to public authorities in designing subsidies. He emphasises the importance of this new regime in supporting economic recovery and delivering on key national priorities such as levelling up. He also highlights the extensive consultations with devolved Administrations and stresses the need for independent oversight through the subsidy advice unit.

Deidre Brock raises concerns about the impact of the Bill on agriculture and fisheries subsidies, questioning whether it will interfere with devolved Governments' decisions on these matters.

Sammy Wilson expresses doubt about the adequacy of the robust regime to replace EU state aid rules in Northern Ireland, questioning whether the current legal framework still mandates adherence to EU state aid regulations.