Pubs Code: Guest Beers
Debate between Justin Madders and Gareth Snell(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders
I absolutely do thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has obviously heard that I am quite easily tempted into Strangers. It is a very important part of the facilities that the Strangers Bar offers Members the opportunity to serve guest beers. It is a great opportunity to plug great local businesses.
Small independent brewers often reflect their local area in their products, from locally sourced ingredients to their marketing, branding and style. The resurgence in brewing in the UK over the last decade has strengthened awareness among the general public of local beers, whether it is the new-style craft beers or independent breweries resurrecting well-loved local beers that had been lost in the consolidation of larger breweries.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is quite right about the importance of local brewers. Stoke-on-Trent’s own Titanic Brewery serves a wonderful pint of plum porter in Strangers now and again. It is not just about the products they sell, although if they were able to access guest beer lines they could grow their business and create more jobs; it is also about the story they tell about the history of who we are. Titanic is so-called because Captain John Smith was from Stoke-on-Trent. That is often missed in our cultural storytelling: breweries are doing a great job of exporting who we are and what we are around the country and around the world.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a really important point. It is an essential part of our culture and a real selling point for us around the world. When people come here, they want to visit a traditional English or British pub, and we have a different style in every part of the country. The point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle about some of the larger breweries now mimicking the local brands is an interesting development, which shows that imitation is the best form of flattery.
More generally, we know there are challenges for the hospitality sector, which is still struggling to recover from the pandemic. The subsequent cost of living crisis has compounded the challenge for pubs, increasing costs and the ability of businesses to repay debts. This is an ongoing struggle. Our system of business rates is particularly unfair on high street businesses. It disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. That is why the Government are undertaking a review of the business rates system, to ensure that all businesses are paying their fair share, recognising and addressing the fact that high street businesses, including pubs, have shouldered the majority of the burden for far too long.
In her Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government are freezing the small businesses multiplier for 2025-26 to protect small properties from inflationary bill increases, and that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will receive 40% relief worth up to £110,000 per business. This support package alone is worth over £2.2 billion over five years. It was also announced in the Budget that the Government would reduce the alcohol duty on draft products. This will reduce businesses’ total duty bill by up to £100 million a year and increase the duty differential between draft and non-draft products from 9.2% to 13.9%, so that a pint in the pub attracts less duty than the beer in the supermarket.
The Government will also increase the cash discount provided to small brewers and producers for non-draught products and maintain the current cash discount provided to small producers for draught products. This in effect increases the relative value of small producer relief for both draught and non-draught products. Jobs, too, lie at the heart of our plans, backed by the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading earlier this month, and local growth plans will be a cornerstone of the place-based approach. We have heard already about the importance of pubs in the local economy.
Turning more specifically to the guest beers consultation announced in the Budget, the Chancellor said that the Government will consult on ways to ensure that small brewers can retain and expand their access to UK pubs and maximise drinkers’ choices, including through provisions to enable more guest beers.
At this point, let me echo the support for the work done by the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates and the Campaign for Real Ale in championing beer drinkers’ choice and pursuing the case for more independently produced beer in pubs. We will work closely with both those organisations, but also with the wider hospitality sector, to identify barriers to market access for small brewers and how they might be addressed. I want to ensure that we have a clear understanding of the current position, and of what interventions may be necessary and the impact of those interventions.
We want to find the right solutions to help small brewers gain access to the market, but to do that we will need to understand all the issues and ensure that any interventions are proportionate, that they address the problems, and that they do not result in unintended consequences. For instance, we will want to develop a good understanding of the extent to which tied tenants use existing flexibilities, by, for example, buying beer from small brewers through their pub companies on payment of a tied release fee. We will want to understand whether managed and retail pub chains could or do offer local beers, to understand the scope for increasing the provision of local beers in other licensed premises such as restaurants and hotels; and to understand the barriers preventing local brewers from gaining access to more pubs, and the reasons for those barriers. There are a range of issues that we will want to consider as part of the consultation. I can respond to my hon. Friend’s questions about what we would consider by saying that we are ruling nothing out at this stage, and that we intend to take a holistic view of the sector.
The next statutory review of the pubs code is due to take place next year, but it is only one part of the picture, as it applies to only about a fifth of all pubs in England and Wales. As has been mentioned, there is to be an interesting development in Scotland, whose pubs code will include a guest beer provision. That does not necessarily mean that the provision will automatically be transported to England and Wales, but it also does not mean that we would not be interested to see how it pans out—although, as it will not be introduced until March 2025 at the earliest, we will need a bit of time to understand how it works. We will be able to consider that as part of the consultation, and we will, of course, consult formally on all the options available to us to increase small brewers’ access to the market. It is important for us to get a handle on the complexities of the market before we undertake the consultation. We will work with SIBA and CAMRA and will engage with a range of stakeholders in the pubs and wider hospitality sectors before consulting on options.
In response to the questions about when this will happen, I can say that we will try to get on with it as soon as we can, but we do want to undertake that work before launching the formal consultation. We understand the points that have been made and the good intentions behind the suggestions that we have heard, but we want to ensure that this works for the industry as a whole.
Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend for initiating her first Adjournment debate. I look forward to working with her on these issues in the coming months, and I will certainly be taking up her offer of a drink—although, owing to diary constraints, I will probably do so on premises closer to the Chamber than to her constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Whistleblowing Protections
Debate between Justin Madders and Gareth Snell(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Mark. I start by offering my triple congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell): first, congratulations on returning to this place—it is good to see him back—secondly, congratulations on securing the debate; and thirdly, congratulations on being appointed chair of the all-party group for whistleblowing, which I am sure he will lead with distinction. We have heard a number of very important and passionate contributions today. I will do my best to sum them up, but it is fair to say that we are looking forward to working with all Members across the board on this very important topic.
Before addressing some of those points, I will start by discussing the current whistleblowing framework. As Members have said, it is essentially about employment protection, and that is the reason why I am here, as the Minister for Employment Rights, to respond on the Government’s behalf. The protections were introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which amended the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The legislation was intended to provide a route for workers to make disclosures of information that they reasonably believed were in the public interest and tended to show a relevant failure or someone covering up a relevant failure. Those relevant failures could include criminal offences, the endangerment of health and safety, causing damage to the environment, a miscarriage of justice or a breach of any legal obligation.
Disclosures need to be made in line with the requirements of the legislation, usually to a worker’s employer or lawyer, or a prescribed person. As Members may know, there are more than 90 different prescribed persons under the legislation to whom relevant failures can be reported. They are usually regulators, such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority. I will not go through every single prescribed person today, but most have a statutory obligation to report on the disclosures that they receive and to publish the reports annually.
Since the reporting requirements came into effect, there has been an increase in the number of disclosures that are made to prescribed persons. The volume of disclosures is around 50,000 a year and, as we can probably tell from the contributions today, they are highly concentrated in the health, public administration and financial and insurance sectors. The reports summarise the actions that a prescribed person has taken, but there is variation in how that information is protected. As we have discussed, workers have, under the law, a right not to be dismissed or subjected to a detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure, and there is recourse to an employment tribunal. The number of employment tribunal complaints under the jurisdiction for protected disclosure in each year since 2017-18 has increased, reaching 3,128 in 2020-21. That is the latest year for which a full dataset is available.
But enough of the overview. We need to talk about some of the important contributions that we have heard from Members. This debate is really about how whistleblowing affects individuals. We know that it can fundamentally and irrevocably damage, indeed end, that relationship with the employer. We know there are reasons why people will not speak up: some are in senior positions and fear for their career or their reputation, some may be at the other end of the spectrum and fear insecurity and power imbalances that may make it difficult to speak up, and some may have a link to the organisation but may not be covered under the legislation.
I would like to make a few comments about the contributions in this debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for contributing. I am sure if he had come in earlier, his speech would have covered many of the points that had already been made, but that is the lottery of Westminster Hall, and I am sure there will be many opportunities for him to speak earlier in other debates. He referenced a number of Members’ speeches.
It was particularly pleasing to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Sarah Russell), who brought her professional experience to bear today. She made an interesting suggestion about the use of “some other substantial reason” as a potentially fair reason for dismissing someone in whistleblowing cases. We probably need to look at the use of “some other substantial reason”, as it is likely that it gets overused. However, as she will be aware, the current Employment Rights Bill has enough in it for us to be getting on with. She made an interesting suggestion in respect of the potential use of the Fair Work Agency here, and that is something we will bear in mind.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), highlighted some of the legal issues under the current legislation, including the question whether someone is within scope, the hurdles that they have to overcome to qualify for protection and the public interest test. Those are all things that we want to look at in a broader sense, if we get around to a review of the legislation. I take his point about officials in the Department for Work and Pensions, but I hope that this Administration would want to be an exemplar of best practice, and we would want people to feel confident that they can speak out if they see a wrong or an injustice.
It was a pleasure, as always, to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in his customary place—I may have swapped positions, but he remains a permanent fixture over there. He spoke very movingly about his friend Brian and the great personal cost of his efforts to expose wrongdoing. Brian’s resilience came through in the hon. Member’s description of his fight. As he said, it was about doing the right thing, and his message was that,
“you are not alone when you do the right thing.”
We should be sending that message to anyone who thinks about blowing the whistle. Of course, the matter is devolved to Northern Ireland, but that message should ring out across the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised some specific issues about the Department of Health and Social Care and her constituent Sarah McMahon. I am sorry to hear of the three years of personal difficulties Sarah McMahon has suffered as a result of doing the right thing. Unfortunately, too many organisations make it very difficult for individuals who blow the whistle. I understand that the Department for Health and Social Care has concluded a review of the statutory duty of candour, and it has issued a call for evidence, which I think is ongoing. I take her message of frustration about the length of time that these things take, and I will pass that message back to the Department.
However, my hon. Friend made the important point that some organisations have got it right and encourage people to speak up when they see a wrong. There are some very good examples, including the aviation industry, which is a particular exemplar of that. It is the standard that we should be aiming for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who opened the debate, said that the law looks at how things happen after the disclosure, and always through the prism of an employment relationship. That was a good analysis of where we are and perhaps why there are shortcomings in some of the legislation. I agree that this is about the law giving people the confidence to speak up. I am sure we will return to some of the things we hope to do on that.
Gareth Snell
I ask the Minister and his colleagues across Government to look at the way we fund and support our regulatory bodies. Often, the failure reported by a whistleblower would have been prevented from happening in the first place by a properly funded and resourced regulator. As much as anybody else, he will know that times are tough and budgets are tight, but investment in the regulatory framework early doors could help to save money and lives, and prevent people from having to put their own homes on the line to do the right thing.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I suspect that a week ahead of the Budget we will not get the kind of investment he would like to see. He talked about the legislation, focusing on existing employment relationships and the broader ambit of employment. The legislation was probably framed in that way in the first place because that is where the biggest power imbalance lies: between an employer and their employee.
We can consider how we would broaden this out, but we will bring in particular measures with our Employment Rights Bill. Hon. Members will be aware that Second Reading took place last night, when we made some specific announcements on our overall package. The Bill is the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, and in it we will address specific issues about whistleblowing on sexual harassment. The Trades Union Congress states that 58% of women have been sexually harassed at work. That is a staggering, appalling figure that must be tackled, and it is one of the reasons why we want to improve people’s ability to ring the alarm bell when sexual harassment occurs.
The Bill will require employers to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties. It will strengthen the legal duty of employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment before it starts, and it will enable regulations to specify steps that an employer must take to protect their employees from sexual harassment to ensure that effective steps are taken. It also includes protections for whistleblowers and will make clear that sexual harassment can be the basis for a protected disclosure, which is one of the most important steps we can take to make workplaces safer. Workers who make a protected disclosure will then have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to a detriment for speaking up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, as did several other Members, the possibility of an office for the whistleblower. There were a number of suggestions about the potential remit and role that it could have. Clearly, the cost and precise functions and powers of that would need careful consideration, particularly in how it would relate to current regulators. The point he made about the resources of regulators is relevant to that. There would also have to be some consideration given to how it would exist as an independent body from Government. I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton by saying that the pledge to create the office did not make it into our final manifesto, but that is not to say we are ruling it out forever and a day. We will consider it as we look at a broader review of the whistleblowing framework.
On that point, I will address the remarks made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, about the review initiated by the previous Government, which was intended to assess the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework against its original objectives. As he rightly pointed out, that review was not released before the general election. It certainly does not seem appropriate for us to let that work go to waste; I will talk to my officials about how and when we can release that information, but I see no reason why we should not do so. It will be a starting point for further work in this area.
The number of issues raised today shows that the appetite for reform in this area is much broader than the review commissioned under the previous Government recognised. Of course, other measures are due to be enacted in the next 12 months, but we can do more to ensure people feel confident when they speak out.
As several Members said, the King’s Speech made clear that we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law to introduce a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities. The Prime Minister made clear that that Bill will enter Parliament before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. We believe it will be a catalyst for a change of culture in the public sector by improving transparency and accountability where public services have failed. It will help to address the unacceptable defensive culture that is prevalent across too much of the public sector. It has been said several times that the NHS is one of the worst examples of that; certainly, from my experience, there is a hard focus on trying to justify actions, rather than get to the root of the complaint.
Bishop James Jones’s report made it clear that those things have to change, not just in the NHS, but across the whole public sector. That Bill will be an important starting point in changing the culture both in the public sector and across the country. We all want it to improve so that whistleblowers have the confidence to speak out and have the assurance that, if something happens to them as a result, they will be protected and supported.
Gareth Snell
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his summation. I will make a couple of final points. I absolutely understand that the office of the whistleblower did not make its way into our manifesto, but I say to the Minister that the circumstances that led us in opposition to support to such a suggestion have not changed. Although I appreciate that we have had an election and Governments have changed, even an undertaking to meet those of us who think this proposal is part of the solution, to discuss it and go through it, would be welcome—
Post Office Horizon Scandal
Debate between Justin Madders and Gareth Snell(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders
I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the current chief executive officer has stepped aside for a brief period to concentrate on the inquiry. Over the coming months, we will be reflecting on the important questions that the right hon. Gentleman raises, particularly when the outcome of the inquiry is known.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Referring to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), what role does the Minister think this Government can find for third party organisations, such as WhistleblowersUK or those organisations that work with people to highlight such scandals? As my hon. Friend pointed out, this was a systematic failure across Government and society, and we simply cannot allow it to happen again.
Justin Madders
My understanding is that the last Government undertook a consultation on whistleblowing. We are reflecting on the outcome of that and on the important point my hon. Friend raises. Across a whole range of bodies in this country, whistleblowers have not been heard. We need to consider whether the current legislation gives them sufficient confidence to speak out, and whether their actions and concerns are being addressed.
2019 Loan Charge
Debate between Justin Madders and Gareth Snell(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on securing the debate. It is clear from what we have heard that the issue has caused much consternation and anguish for many people, so it is right that those concerns have been aired here.
As much as the next person, I believe that if tax is due, it should be collected. Without the ability to raise funds, our public services would grind to a halt. I am sure there is unanimous agreement about that. My concern, and that of many hon. Members, lies in the way the recovery of the 2019 loan charge has been handled. It raises questions about whether HMRC can say, hand on heart, that all those who are subject to it have had what I would call a fair hearing. I want to make it absolutely clear that if, following due process, the money is owed, it should be paid, but what I have heard from a constituent does not give me confidence that that will be the case.
My constituent, Mr Crook, was working as a geologist in the oil industry when the agreements that are being scrutinised were set up. His work has dried up and he is now unemployed. He tells me that he is not in a position to repay everything he owes—not that he has been told how much that is—and that because of the uncertainty and the failure of HMRC to engage with him, he is concerned about the risk of bankruptcy.
I have corresponded with Ministers and officials to ask someone to look into Mr Crook’s case but I have had nothing back but the standard response. With Mr Crook understandably anxious to resolve matters, he has contacted HMRC at the email address provided on 9 April, 8 May, 30 August, 31 August and 28 September, and by post on 2 July. His emails have had an automated response and he has had no response to his letter at all.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on his constituent’s behalf. I have a constituent much like his who has been told that he may have to pay back more than £100,000 over the five years, which could cost him as much as £2,500 a month. Does my hon. Friend accept that even when people are still in work, if they are trying to provide for their families, those sorts of sums are simply unobtainable for most of our constituents and will lead to bankruptcy, whether that is what the Government intend or not?
Justin Madders
There is a lack of reality and a lack of genuine engagement with the individuals affected. As I said, my constituent has not had a discussion of the sort that my hon. Friend refers to, and until he does, he is in no position to know whether he will be able to repay anything at all. Will there be genuine discussions before the loan charges become due? Is the Minister confident that the Department has sufficient staff and resources to deal with all the inquiries that we have heard about?
My constituent tells me that although he submitted his tax returns each year when he was working they were never queried, and because of that HMRC has at the very least implicitly, if not explicitly, accepted that the moneys he received as a loan were indeed just that. He is concerned by the retrospective nature and long reach of the loan charge, and states:
“We really are normal people, who operated within the law at the time, itemising everything on our tax returns, paying benefits in kind tax on the loans and operating under a registered scheme with a reference number lodged with HMRC at the time.”
I contrast those words with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said earlier about the string of multinational companies that are clearly paying less tax than they ought. When individuals are being driven to despair by the sort of hectoring we have heard about, it is perhaps right if they conclude that there seems to be one rule for the big corporations and another rule for the man on the street. If individuals are made bankrupt we will all lose, but it looks as if we could end up in that situation by default because of a lack of resources and engagement by HMRC. Will the Minister look carefully at how the recovery operation is working, so that we avoid that? Finally, I ask that HMRC acts with competence and compassion.