Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Toby Perkins and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

I am not sure that I would necessarily accept that we are suggesting those companies are wrath-deserving. We are attempting to create a regulatory framework that is reliable, so that businesses know where they stand. The limit of 500 is arbitrary, as is the 350 limit. I suspect this is more about attempting to save political face than save the actual companies. Suddenly bringing smaller pub companies into the heart of the Bill is seen as an act of bad faith by the industry. Having lost the vote in Committee, and having then voted against almost exactly the amendment that they then attempted to bring back, which, for the avoidance of doubt was the one that is now not being brought forward, is a pretty shabby way to treat an important industry.

Members and the many thousands of CAMRA members who have written to us all in such impressive numbers in the very short period of time during which there has been an awareness of new clause 2 will be aware that the Opposition supported a free-of-tie option for pubco tenants. [Interruption.] Goodness me, this is a magical moment for the House! I can now say I was there when the Minister for Business and Enterprise, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) actually attended proceedings on his own Bill. I can tell my grandchildren, “I was there!” He is here, Mr Deputy Speaker. Goodness me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

And I can tell the hon. Gentleman that he is running out of time.

[Toby Perkins]

I have just been waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to arrive, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate barely seemed worth getting on with until he was here.

The people who have written to us in such numbers will be aware that we have supported the introduction of a free-of-tie option for pubco pub tenants at the date of renewal ever since the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee concluded that the industry had had its last chance and that the time was right. That was back in September 2011, and in debates in January 2012, 2013 and 2014 the Opposition sought the support of the House for that viewpoint. It will therefore come as no surprise to Members that it remains the view of Opposition Members that the time for the mandatory rent-only option is now.

I am delighted that a cross-party group of Members has tabled new clause 2. In a time of great cynicism with politics, the fact that Members of four different political parties have added their names to it shows that there are things more important than naked party political advantage. It shows that this House can work in the finest traditions of democracy in a collective voice in support of our pubs, not because there is necessarily party political gain but because it is the right thing to do. I pay tribute to all those who added their names and to everyone from any party who votes for it today.

I look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I hope he considers that yet another review is not the right step for the industry. It appears to be a political solution to a political problem at a time when a serious industry needs a serious response from this place, and needs to be able to conduct its matters with real certainty knowing what it will face in the future. I think that anyone bought off by the review and the suggestion that the issue will be looked at in two years’ time if today’s measures are not considered to have worked was never really serious about supporting it in the first place. The House should vote in support of new clause 2 and repeat the unanimous support it gave to the motion in the January 2012 Backbench Business debate.

In conclusion, I said on Second Reading that the Government had introduced a Bill that expected too much of family brewers and not enough of pub companies. I also said that I hoped the Bill would leave the Committee and Report stages in a stronger shape than it arrived in. Already, thanks to the hard-won amendment brought by the hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and others, it could do that. Supporting the two other substantive amendments before us today would mean that we were finally on the way to repaying the debt the House owes to Britain’s publicans.

By supporting our amendment 5 and ensuring that large pub-owning businesses with tenanted, leased and franchised models are exempted, by continuing to reject any amendments that bring family brewers under the scope of the Bill and by backing new clause 2 to ensure a free market solution in this most important of industries, with an industry regulator, the House can unite in support of Britain’s pubs and ensure that the pub sector enters a new, better and more optimistic period free from the restrictive practices that have been allowed to dominate, with faith in the market to choose who is offering a fair deal. That will allow our pubs to offer one of the greatest of all Britain’s great inventions, the simple pint of ale, for many hundreds of years to come. I commend our amendment to the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Toby Perkins and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. CCS Media in my constituency is a major supplier to South London Healthcare NHS Trust. It contacted me yesterday to try to get assurances that its bills will still be paid in the light of the recent unpleasant news. I have had a letter back from the Department of Health that offers no such assurance and states that the Department is discussing the point with lawyers. It is fundamental that the companies that supply the NHS trust know that they will be paid for the services they provide. Has Mr Speaker been notified of any intention to make a statement so that companies can be reassured that they will be paid for the services they provide to the NHS?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

No notice of such a statement has been given to the Chair. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the other part of his question was not a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he had to say.

Points of Order

Debate between Toby Perkins and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Speaker has a strong view and opinion on the subject. He believes that this House should hear announcements through oral or written statements. Of course, the point is now on the record.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the Prime Minister’s statement earlier today, he refused—not for the first time—to answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) on account of his age. That sort of discrimination would not be accepted against black or female Members, so I have no idea why this House has tolerated, on numerous occasions, Members at the Dispatch Box refusing to answer my hon. Friend’s questions. Will you—or, indeed, Mr Speaker—say what action can be taken? I ask not on behalf of my hon. Friend, who can stick up for himself, but on behalf of every person in my constituency who gets discriminated against because of their age, and sees the Prime Minister do exactly that. This House should be above that. What action can be taken to make sure that today is the last time we have to see this disgusting spectacle?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

There is no place in this Chamber for racism, ageism, gender discrimination—I could go on. That is about respect to all Members. The point has quite rightly been put on the record; I hope that people will take on board what I have said, and what the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) has stated. Dennis Skinner is a long-serving Member of this House, and like all other Members, he should be treated with respect.

Youth Unemployment

Debate between Toby Perkins and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

If you realised that they were making such a mess of things, why did you agree to follow those plans? Is it not the right hon. Gentleman who has the amnesia?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Members should not be using “you”—I have no responsibility for this and am certainly not guilty for the unemployment figures.

Finance Bill

Debate between Toby Perkins and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

I should like to bring my right hon. Friend back to what he was talking about—unemployment, housing, the impact on people and how the last Labour Government protected people on the ground. Is it not strange that there seems to be no acknowledgment from those on the Government Benches about how many extra people are in work and still have the homes for which they have worked so hard all their lives? There seems to be no acknowledgment from the Conservative party that that issue is worth worrying about. Perhaps that is because they were not the people who lost their jobs or were in danger of losing their homes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I press hon. Members to make shorter interventions. The shadow Chief Secretary is being generous; may that continue.