Proceeding contribution from Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 January 2022. It occurred during Committee proceeding and Debate on bill on Subsidy Control Bill.
Subsidy Control Bill
As I understand it, the guidance states that every authority now needs to define for itself what a social equity is as far as deprivation is concerned, even taking into consideration what relative that would be. It says:
“Public authorities must use supporting evidence which … should include measures or statistical indicators set against appropriate comparators”.
That suggests that every public authority defining its own scheme will have to provide its own statistical basis and definitions. How will the CMA judge those against others? Given that there will be no commonly agreed areas of social deprivation, is it not likely to create even more bureaucracy and confusion if every public authority has to make its own definitions and provide its own necessary material and statistical basis?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 818 c149GC
- Session
- 2021-22
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Climate change Devolution Environment Energy Exemptions Industry Legislation Fossil fuels Northern Ireland Nuclear power Legislative consent motions Equity Wales Scotland Regeneration Reserved matters Competition Appeal Tribunal Competition and Markets Authority Levelling Up Fund UK Shared Prosperity Fund Subsidy control
- Legislation
- Subsidy Control Bill 2021-22
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-06-24 08:00:01 +0100
- URI
- http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-01-31/22013167000062
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-01-31/22013167000062
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-01-31/22013167000062