In moving Amendment 64, I will also speak to Amendment 65. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce, Lord Wigley and Lord German, for adding their names to one or both of the amendments.
Just because it was touched on a minute ago by the Minister, I should say that we have received the letters. The lessons from day 3, on Monday, when the letters were received before the Grand Committee started, may well have been learned. Notwithstanding that, I thank the Minister and his department. I have not read the letters in detail because I was engrossed in the previous debate, but I want to pick up one small point in them. Obviously it is worrying that any subsidy under the level of £315,000 does not have to be entered on the database. What is even more worrying is that that subsidy does not even have to abide by the principles in Schedules 1 and 2. This gives more weight to the arguments for reducing the subsidy level and admittance on to the database, especially if the subsidies do not have to meet the principles in the schedules.
5.15 pm
Amendment 64 would allow the CMA chair to
“appoint up to three non-executive members … to ensure that the Unit includes at least one person with … experience in relation to each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
Amendment 64 was considered in the Commons but, like many of the other amendments relating to the role of the devolved Administrations, I do not think it received a satisfactory response. I am sure we will come back to it again in discussions. Hopefully it will not need to come back on Report, but we will see.
As we have covered in previous debates, each of the devolved nations has its own particular interests, and it seems only fair that these be represented—or at least picked up—on this new body, the subsidy advice unit. The CMA has staff based in each of the four nations of the UK, so why should there not be a statutory requirement that the SAU reflect this?
The amendment does not call for a Welsh representative to opine on matters wholly relating to England and Scotland. I am sure that all those in the devolved nations who could be affected by subsidies would feel more supported, protected and engaged knowing that a representative from one of the devolved nations was involved with the SAU.
More importantly, Clause 68(4) on page 39 of the Bill states:
“The Subsidy Advice Unit may consist only”
of representatives
“who are members of the CMA or its staff.”
I am really interested in why, whereas in so many other parts of the Bill there is silence or less prescription, Clause 68 is so prescriptive. I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on that.
Amendment 65 returns us to the question of how prepared the CMA is to undertake these new responsibilities. It would prevent Part 4 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a full assessment of the CMA’s capacity. It states:
“This Part may not come into force until the Secretary of State has … undertaken an assessment of the CMA’s capacity to undertake the functions contained within this Part, and … laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement confirming whether, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, the CMA has the appropriate resourcing to meet its obligations under this Part.”
We appreciate that the CMA will be undertaking preparatory work as we speak, and this amendment is not meant as a criticism, but during the passage of other Bills it is perfectly normal for us to probe whether a chosen regulator—because it will not be an enforcement agency—is the correct one. It very much picks up on my noble friend Lord Whitty’s remarks in the previous debate about the role of the CMA and how ready it and the SAU are. Do they have the resources and the expertise? Amendment 64 aims to make sure that the SAU has four-nation representation on it. With that, I beg to move Amendment 64.