Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Adrian Bailey
Tuesday 18th November 2014

(10 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adrian Bailey Portrait Mr Bailey
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I haven’t finished yet. My other point is that the new clause—

Economic Growth

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Adrian Bailey
Wednesday 15th May 2013

(11 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adrian Bailey Portrait Mr Bailey
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give way very shortly after he has made those comments.

Pub Companies

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Adrian Bailey
Thursday 12th January 2012

(12 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

Order. A lot of Members want to get in, so we need shorter interventions.

Adrian Bailey Portrait Mr Bailey
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The short answer is that the motion is designed to provide a way forward that will end that sort of abuse. Like other Members up and down the country, I am sure, I have several equally unjust examples.

A fourth and crucial problem is the concern within the wider industry that the proposals do not reflect the interests of all relevant sectors. Given that there is effectively a dispute between the pub companies and the licensees, it would be reasonable for all their interests to be considered equally, but this does not seem to have happened. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for the work he has done, through freedom of information requests, which has clearly highlighted that the Government always intended to have a voluntary code, rather than a statutory one, and above all that in their response to the Committee they have reproduced almost word for word sections of submissions made by the British Beer and Pub Association. That completely undermines the confidence that the wider industry had in the Government’s impartiality and commitment to finding an even-handed solution. That is one of my motives for wanting to put what I hope will be a fail-safe device in the motion to gain some sort of purchase on the process.

The fifth issue that I want to address is the Government’s refusal to accept the BIS Committee’s recommendations regarding the free-of-tie option with open market rent review, which I have mentioned. The Select Committee’s position is not that there should be one option or other, but we do say consistently in all our reports that that option should be available for new and existing publicans so that they can, on the best professional advice, make a decision about what most clearly meets the needs in their business plan. Unfortunately, that is not included in the Government reply.

It is fair to ask why the motion does not call for immediate statutory legislation. The original recommendations of the Select Committee were predicated on the assumption that any such statutory intervention would arise from genuine and inclusive consultation, but the overwhelming evidence—I again thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West for the information he has obtained through FOI requests—is that the process is being driven by the BBPA. It is for that reason that I included in the motion a requirement that an independent panel be set up, with membership approved by the Select Committee, to ensure that any assessment of the processes that the Government undertake to deliver their proposals is monitored, and that recommendations can subsequently be made.

It is important for Parliament not only to state clearly today the need in principle for a statutory code, but to retain control of the process to ensure that the code genuinely reflects the interests of all sides of the industry. That is why I changed the motion in that respect.

Trade and Investment for Growth White Paper

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Adrian Bailey
Wednesday 9th February 2011

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Adrian Bailey Portrait Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, I wish to make it clear that previous reports from the Committee are slightly less critical of UKTI than may have been suggested by a Member earlier. I broadly welcome the thrust of the White Paper, especially in connection with export credit finance, which is obviously of crucial importance. It is good that that is being seen to be addressed. The White Paper and the Secretary of State both refer to the potential for further trade with the EU, and the removal of non-tariff barriers will have the potential to boost this country’s export income. Can the Secretary of State be more specific about what policies he will pursue in that area and give us assurances that those will have the support of the European Scrutiny Committee?

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

Can we have very short questions? There are many Members who wish to contribute, and I want to try to fit everyone in.