Key Facts

• Amendment 23 aims to include devolved administrations as interested parties.
• The Bill currently defines an 'interested party' as someone affected by a subsidy or the Secretary of State.
• Kirsty Blackman argues that devolved institutions should be able to raise concerns even if they are not directly affected.
• The Bill aims to prevent 'subsidy races'.
• An interested party is defined as a person whose interests may be affected by the giving of the subsidy or the making of the subsidy scheme.
• Amendment 23 seeks to include those with indirect interests on behalf of their constituents in being able to refer subsidy decisions.
• The clause allows interested parties to challenge subsidy decisions at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
• An 'interested party' is defined as any person whose interests may be affected by the decision.
• Devolved Administrations have responsibilities that could make them interested parties under the definition provided in the Bill.
• Amendment 74 proposes inserting a clause excepting subsection (1A).
• Amendment 75 introduces a new section allowing six months for challenges if public authorities fail their duties under section 33(1).
• The Government believes the current one-month time limit provides sufficient challenge period and does not support extending it.
• Amendment would extend submission period for review of subsidies from 'one month' to 'three months'.
• Public authorities have six months or a year to publish subsidies on the database.
• Pre-action information request allows public authority up to 28 days to respond, extending limitation period in practice to two or three months.
• Amendment 31 in clause 71 proposes to change 'one month' to 'six months'.
• The amendment aims to allow the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) more time to refer cases.
• Blackman states that other amendments and comments have been made regarding this issue, indicating a broader consideration of challenge periods.
• The amendment would require the CMA’s annual report to include details of all recovery orders made in that year.
• Recovery orders will be made public by their nature, according to the Minister's statement.
• Recovery orders are made by the CAT when public authorities breach subsidy control principles.
• The hearing about Newcastle United’s takeover was viewed by 35,000 people.
• More viewers watched the hearing than attend average games of most Premier League teams.
• The Competition Appeal Tribunal publishes recovery order details on its website.
• Clause 76 imposes a duty on public authorities to provide information about subsidies or schemes.
• Interested parties can request information for deciding whether to apply for a review of a subsidy or scheme.
• Public authorities must respond within 28 days and may impose restrictions to protect sensitive information.
• Clause 76 puts a duty on public authorities to provide certain information upon request about their decision to give a subsidy or make a subsidy scheme.
• Public authorities must respond within 28 calendar days but can impose proportionate restrictions for sensitive, confidential, or legally privileged information.
• The Minister believes that the risk of misuse is small and existing judicial review routes are sufficient without creating a special route of appeal.
• Clause 77 confers public authorities the right to recover a subsidy used for an unintended purpose.
• Public authorities determine if a subsidy complies with the Bill's principles and references the intended use of the subsidy.
• The clause aims to avoid uncertainty by providing a legal basis for recovering misused subsidies.