← Back to House of Commons Debates
Not specified in transcript - Clause 10 and Lords amendments 1-51
20 April 2022
Lead MP
Paul Scully
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 9
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.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
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.
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.
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
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.