Key Facts

• Amendments 29, 30, 61, and 62 are related to Clause 65.
• The CMA would conduct its first review in the third year after commencement under Amendment 61.
• Subsequent reviews should occur annually instead of every five years according to Amendment 30.
• Clause 65 requires the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to produce a report every five years on the effectiveness of the subsidy control regime.
• The reporting interval was selected as an appropriate length to consider medium-term effects over which significant subsidies would be given.
• Labour amendments 61 and 62 propose reducing the reporting period to three years.
• Five-year timeframe chosen for monitoring reports.
• Clause 65(4) permits the Secretary of State to direct the CMA to prepare a report on a specified period if necessary.
• Annual reports to Parliament are already required under clause 66.
• Amendment 63 would require consultation with relevant Devolved Administrations.
• Amendment 64 would mandate laying copies of reports before devolved parliaments and assemblies.
• The amendments aim to ensure transparency and collaboration between central government and devolved administrations.
• The Bill fails to provide a clear role for the devolved Administrations in CMA consultations.
• Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland will have to implement not just what is in the Bill but future regulations by the Secretary of State.
• Amendment would require the CMA to consult both the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations before issuing periodic reviews.
• Amendment 65 requires the Secretary of State to make a statement within 30 days after a report is laid.
• The amendment aims to address deficiencies in the effectiveness of the operation of the Act identified by the CMA.
• There are no existing provisions in the Bill requiring action on CMA’s findings.
• The amendment would impose an arbitrary 30-day time limit on assessing monitoring reports.
• Monitoring reports are the result of months of work by the SAU (Subsidy Advice Unit).
• Transparency and continuous improvement are cornerstones of the new subsidy regime.
• Clause 66 sets out information for the CMA's annual reports.
• The amendment aims to add detailed requirements including assessment improvements, risks to competition and investment, geographical distribution, extensions, and referrals.
• Professor Fothergill from the Industrial Communities Alliance supports using subsidies for levelling up deprived areas.
• Amendment 66 would require the CMA to include specific details about subsidies and schemes in its annual report.
• The amendment mandates publishing information that is either inaccessible or inconsistently available.
• The amendment asks for geographical allocations of all subsidies, which could be burdensome and difficult to comply with.
• Amendment 67 allows the CMA Chair to appoint up to three non-executive members.
• Amendment 69 mandates that the CMA seek consent from Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland before making appointments.
• The amendments aim to ensure representation and input from devolved administrations.
• Clause 68 requires the CMA to establish the subsidy advice unit.
• The amendment seeks to allow the CMA chair to appoint non-executive members with relevant experience from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
• Amendment 69 would require the CMA to seek consent from devolved Administrations before making appointments.
• Clause 68 of the Subsidy Control Bill requires the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to create a subsidy advice unit as a committee of its board.
• The Subsidy Advice Unit is tasked with carrying out subsidy control functions on behalf of the CMA under this Bill.
• Seema Malhotra suggests that the SAU should contain expert voices from across devolved Administrations.
• Clause 70 sets out terms for reviewing subsidy decisions by interested parties.
• As drafted, applications cannot challenge a subsidy granted under a scheme directly; instead, they must review the making of the scheme itself.
• Subsidy schemes are recognized as administratively efficient and long-established.
• The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) can decide if a public authority has wrongly given a subsidy as part of a scheme.
• Seema Malhotra will not press an amendment to a vote today but requests written clarification on how challenges against subsidies inconsistent with their schemes would work and where the power to bring such challenges lies.
• Amendment 70 seeks to alter the definition of an interested party.
• The current test under subsection (7)(a) is 'a person whose interests may be affected'.
• The proposed amendment would align with section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which uses 'has a sufficient interest in'.