I have a point of clarification, because this aspect draws two areas together. Given that agriculture and fisheries are part of this legislation, and because agriculture and fisheries are unquestionably devolved competences, there will be subsidy schemes—let us say for Scotland, an agriculture or fisheries subsidies scheme. The Minister has indicated that there can be a UK-wide streamlined scheme which will cover agriculture and fisheries, so for the first time in the devolution period, there would theoretically be two parallel support schemes for agriculture and fisheries. But there is no capacity for the devolved Administration to challenge the UK-wide scheme, because the Government are indicating that this is a reserved area, even though support for agriculture and fisheries is fully devolved. Furthermore, there is not even a direct route to ask the Supreme Court to consider the competences on the division of this. How does the Minister see the benefit of two parallel schemes: one streamlined and unchallengeable, and another a devolved one on agriculture and fisheries?
Subsidy Control Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Purvis of Tweed
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 22 March 2022.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Subsidy Control Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
820 c919 
Session
2021-22
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-05 13:04:09 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-03-22/22032267000006
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-03-22/22032267000006
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-03-22/22032267000006