Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Not specified in transcript - Clause 10 and Lords amendments 1-51

20 April 2022 · 9 other contributors

Opened by Paul Scully Party Constituency

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Paul Scully raised concerns about not specified in transcript - clause 10 and lords amendments 1-51 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Paul Scully moved that the House agrees with Lords amendment 1
  • The specific details of Lords amendment 1 are not provided in the transcript
  • No commitments were made by the government in this segment of the transcript

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Paul Scully Party Constituency

Paul Scully moved that the House agrees with Lords amendment 1, which is not detailed in this segment of the transcript. He did not provide specific details on what the amendment does or why it is proposed.

Other contributors (9)
  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Thanked the Minister for his statement and inquired about whether thorough discussions involved devolved Administrations, particularly regarding the Northern Ireland Assembly. He also sought assurance that Northern Ireland would benefit from levelling up initiatives despite facing higher costs of living, lower wages, and higher prices on consumer goods.

  • Deidre Brock

    Challenged the Minister's statement by questioning whether discussions with devolved Administrations included an agreement that English Government could have a power of veto over decisions made in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

  • Seema Malhotra Lab Co-op Feltham and Heston

    Supports Lords amendments for greater transparency, but expresses concern over net zero considerations not being hardwired into the Bill. Raises issues with public procurement laws allowing companies that breach employment law to still benefit from subsidies. Acknowledges improvements in financial reporting thresholds and support for Lords amendments on database publication deadlines.

  • Kirsty Blackman SNP Aberdeen North

    Acknowledges improvements made by Lords amendments, particularly on transparency and reporting, while expressing concerns about agriculture inclusion and lack of comprehensive net zero consideration.

  • Deidre Brock SNP Glasgow North West

    Expresses disappointment at the Government's disregard for concerns raised by Scottish and Welsh Governments and NFUs regarding agricultural subsidies, stating these views are not reflected in the Bill.

  • Paul Scully Con Dorset South

    Acknowledged broad support for the subsidy control regime, addressed concerns raised about P&O Ferries and misuse of subsidies. Emphasised that the purpose of a subsidy is to achieve specific policy objectives rather than ongoing leverage over companies. Highlighted difficulty in enforcing misuse after the event due to legal frameworks but assured ongoing review by Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on effectiveness.

  • Seema Malhotra Lab Co-op Feltham and Heston

    Asked whether companies breaking employment, environmental laws could still receive public subsidies. Highlighted potential misuse of subsidies by P&O Ferries despite legal breaches.

  • Kirsty Blackman SNP Aberdeen North

    Critiqued that companies could still receive subsidies even if they violate employment law or environmental standards, pointing out a specific example with P&O Ferries.

  • John Redwood Con Wokingham

    Suggested that future subsidies could be contingent on meeting labour standards, aligning with government objectives.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy