Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman could recognise and welcome the fact that the Government have responded to the concerns he raised and have moved on the issue, but he has chosen not to, given his comments about colleagues in the Department, with which I wholeheartedly disagree. We must ensure that we consider those concerns, but they were raised not only by his colleagues, but by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who was a member of the Committee, and by Opposition Members concerned about the issue.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

That is a fundamental part of this. The Government lost the vote in Committee, and now they say that the Bill will go right through to Third Reading as it is, but that they have some vague idea of doing something about the matter in another place. As we have been through Committee and are now on Report, that does not give this House much opportunity to debate whether we are happy with these eventual changes.

[Jo Swinson]

We have between now and 4 o’clock to have that discussion. What I have clearly set out is in line with what the hon. Gentleman wanted in Committee, which was for smaller companies to be excluded. As I have said, he made the very reasonable and rational point that there were some companies—this deals with the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—that had in excess of 400 tied pubs, for example, and it might seem strange to people that such companies would not be covered. We listened in Committee and now propose that the threshold should be 350 tied pubs, rather than 500. I think that it is a positive thing that the Government have listened to the views of hon. Members and responded accordingly.

[Toby Perkins]

For the benefit of the House, can the Minister clarify how many businesses she believes will now be brought into scope that would not have been previously?

[Jo Swinson]

Three further businesses would fall into that category. It is obviously a fluid issue, because companies buy and sell pubs all the time, so that might change in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

The point of a consultation is to explore the issues and, if necessary, to make changes to the Government’s proposals in response. That is exactly what we have done. The parallel rent assessment responds to some of the concerns expressed in the consultation about the initial ideas that we had outlined. It is right that the Government should be flexible enough to respond to a consultation. If the Government go into a consultation with a set of plans and come out of the consultation with exactly the same set of plans, that means either that the plans were perfect—sometimes that may be the case—or that the Government refuse to listen. That was the point of the consultation on this issue.

My hon. Friend makes the point that there was great support in the consultation for a market rent only option. He is right. The Government recognise that. Although I appreciate that he will be disappointed that that will not culminate in the Government accepting his new clause 2, it gives a great fillip to campaigners who have worked on this issue and shows that the Government are serious. We think that the parallel rent assessment approach that we have outlined will deliver the “no worse off” principle, which we should all be able to agree is what we want for tenants. We will make sure that with the further power, the market rent only option is still on the table if, for any reason, the parallel rent assessment proposal does not deliver the intended outcome.

[Toby Perkins]

I will not dwell on the fact that the Minister is suggesting that a consultation is a success if the Government change their view and conclude that something that no one was asking for is the right answer. The industry is desperate for certainty. If we come out of the process proposing another review in two years which might change the whole landscape yet again, does the Minister agree that we will have failed to give the industry the certainty it requires?

[Jo Swinson]

We recognise that a significant number of companies appreciate the beer tie. For many tenants and companies it is a model that works well, as Members on all sides would agree. Therefore, we do not want to undermine it. There is a danger that that could happen under the market rent only option. Equally, I understand that many people advocate that as a market-based solution to deal with the issue. We are trying to forge a way forward that will have the confidence of the industry and will allow the market rent only option to be introduced two years after commencement of the Bill if a review finds that the parallel rent assessment is not working. It is clear that the “no worse off” principle is paramount and needs to be delivered. We believe that the parallel rent assessment will deliver that, but if it does not, we do not want to have to introduce another piece of primary legislation. We want the Government to be able to act swiftly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I would like to correct the hon. Gentlemen’s characterisation of what is happening. He is saying that this is the market rent only option but with a two-year wait. To be absolutely accurate, it is a power for the Secretary of State to introduce the market rent only option after a period of two years if a review finds that that is necessary. That is not exactly the same thing. It is important to put that on the record.

Throughout this process, the Government have been engaging with companies and with individuals. The market rent only option was extensively covered and discussed within the consultation process. I have had very many such discussions with companies over the course of the past 18 months. As was put to us forcefully on various occasions, some large pub companies will not welcome this and are very opposed to it. At the same time, we recognise the issues that have been raised in successive BIS Committee reports about the tenants who are suffering and the need to do something about it. We think that our parallel rent assessment is a proportionate and sensible way forward that will deliver for tenants, but we are keen to make sure that if that does not happen we do not end up at this stage again; we need the ability to act swiftly to introduce a market rent only option.

[Toby Perkins]

Let me try to clarify this. In the last few moments we have discovered that there is to be a two-year review before fundamental change to the industry, leading to two years of uncertainty. Is the Minister saying that she has discussed a whole series of things over 18 months but has not spoken to anyone within the industry about the new development that she is presenting to us today?

[Jo Swinson]

I am saying that we have had plenty of negotiations and discussions about all the different options, but specific round tables have not been reconvened with the industry since the Committee stage. We know where the industry stands on this. My officials are in regular contact with the industry and with campaign groups, who have been making their cases fervently. Many Members represent tenants and also have pub companies and family brewers in their constituencies. Ministers have had many discussions with those hon. Members on behalf of their constituents who have raised these issues over the past couple of weeks since the Committee stage. Indeed, we also had such extensive debates in Committee. There has been plenty of consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

The review was always built into the process, because we wanted to look at how the measure was working. What is new is the introduction of the power to introduce a market rent only option, and when that proposal goes before the other place, supporting documentation, such as impact assessments, will also be submitted. Clearly, different quarters have opposing views on what it will mean: some say it will be excellent for business, while others say it will result in concerns for business. People will not necessarily concur and agree about what the exact impact will be, but the Government will produce the documentation to go alongside that amendment when it is tabled in the other place.

The Government’s technical amendments—amendments 34, 35 and 55—deal with the particular issue of franchises. Clause 40 already makes it clear that tied pub agreements are in the scope of the pubs code where tenants pay some sort of fee, such as a turnover fee, rather than rent. Such agreements are often called franchise agreements and it is right that they are covered. The same potential for the abuse of a tie exists, and if franchises were not in scope there would be a sizeable loophole by which companies could evade the code.

Amendments 34 and 35 therefore ensure that franchises are covered by clause 42, which refers to rent assessment and rent review arrangements, which the Secretary of State may rule as void or unenforceable. Amendment 55 provides the Secretary of State with a power to define parallel rent assessments in regulations so that we can ensure there is appropriate flexibility in the approach to cater for franchise pubs. That will allow the final design of parallel rent assessments to take account of further engagement with the industry and public consultation, and through that we will ensure that those assessments are available to all tied tenants of large pub-owning companies.

Amendments 40 and 56 ensure that agreements where the tenant is tied for some or all alcoholic drinks are still covered, even when the tenant does not purchase those drinks from the pub-owning company. We are aware of some franchise agreements where the tenant does not technically purchase drinks from the pub-owning company. The tenant is still contractually obliged to sell those drinks on behalf of the pub-owning company and cannot source them elsewhere, so the amendments are important to avoid a loophole in the legislation.

The Opposition’s amendment 5 seeks to clarify that franchise agreements are in scope of the legislation. I absolutely agree with that view and hope the hon. Member for Chesterfield will be reassured by the Government amendments, which make that crystal clear and address the point by ensuring that no loopholes are being created.

Amendments 38, 39 and 47 to 53 seek to ensure that tied agreements are covered by the protections of the pubs code, whether the tenant occupies the pub under a tenancy or under a licence to occupy. This is another measure to ensure that all tied tenants are protected. Amendments 36, 37, 42, 46 and 54 are technical clarifications to ensure that the provisions of the Bill apply to pub-owning companies and any subsidiary companies they may own.

Finally, amendment 57 provides that all regulations under part 4, other than regulations under clause 61(1)(c), are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which, given the sensitivity surrounding the issues and the interest in them, is absolutely appropriate. I hope the Government amendments will be supported and that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be reassured by our commitment to make further changes in the other place in order to address any concerns.

[Toby Perkins]

It is always a singular pleasure for this House to gather to discuss what we can do to support our great British pubs, which are crucial institutions, bedrocks of our community and vital economic and social hubs, as well as really important employers, particularly of women and young people—two groups who are underrepresented in the workplace. Pubs and brewers also make an incredibly important contribution to the economy as taxpayers and employers, and our communities take tremendous pride in these institutions. The industry is watching this debate with tremendous interest and concern, in the hope that we in this place will do justice by everyone involved in it.

The Government are creating a spectacle by changing the Bill as we speak. These are incredibly important issues, but the Government’s attempts at debating this part of the Bill are rather like attempting to mount a moving bus: the moment we think we know what we are going to discuss, the debate suddenly focuses on something completely different. It is a complete and utter shambles.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I am conjuring the image of the hon. Gentleman mounting a moving bus. On the new clauses and amendments under discussion, however, is it not the case that he himself intends to move the bus? Is that not the very purpose of our having a debate in this place?

[Toby Perkins]

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the amendment we tabled and that the Government voted against and that they then adopted only to drop again, his description is rather uncharitable. He is right to say that the Government should listen to consultations and follow the right process for a Bill, but on Friday the Government tabled new amendments to undo amendments that were voted on in Committee and now, without any discussion or notice, they have come to the debate and said, “Actually, we’re going to drop the amendments we tabled on Friday to the things that were voted out of the Bill a couple of weeks ago. The Lords can talk about them, but Members of Parliament will not have the opportunity to vote on them.” I do not think that is any way to run a whelk stall, much less a really important industry about which we feel so passionately.

It is to Parliament’s credit that it has debated and researched the issue of pub companies with incredible diligence. The issue and the industry are incredibly complicated and this Parliament has attempted to strike a fine balance that best meets the needs of the industry with minimum disruption. However, at a time when Parliament should be reflecting with some pride on its contribution to this debate, I think that the way in which the Government are operating leaves everyone unsatisfied. There are Government Members on both sides of the argument—some think the plans go too far while others think they do not go far enough—but I do not think that the way in which the Government are operating the process of the Bill gives anyone any confidence that they know what they are doing.

The Minister for Business and Enterprise made a fleeting visit to our debate on the programme motion a few moments ago: he popped in to tell us that everything was going swimmingly and that there was plenty of time for debate, and then he dashed out again. We are told that he raced around last night attempting to convince Conservative Members not to vote with the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and the other 90 Members who are supporting new clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Surely at the very kernel of any amendment is the fact that we are losing pubs every week right now. As a consequence, the Government clearly need to focus much more on that aspect of the problem, so that it does not continue to recur, as it very regularly does in all our constituencies.

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and precisely expressing the passion which so many of us feel for the pubs in our communities. It is precisely because so many of us are concerned about the changing face of the pub trade in our communities that the issue of the contribution of pub companies to pub closures has been so fiercely debated. It is because so many of us believe that the model under which pub companies operate is the cause of many of the pub closures that the Opposition have brought this matter to the House on many occasions, and many other Members have made that case. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this debate is all about the strength of the industry, but it is also about having a sense of what exactly is being done to support it, and the question of pub companies is a key part of that debate.

I suspect that much of this debate will be about what divides Members, but there is real value in reflecting on what we are all agreed about, including the fact that this Government Bill contains provisions for a pubs code. The very fact that we are debating an issue that for so long seemed destined to elude this Parliament is a tribute to the dogged work not just of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, but of Parliament itself. Today still has potential to be a great day for this Parliament.

In reflecting on the contribution that Parliament has made on this question, notwithstanding my reservations about how the Government are handling this incredibly important debate, I want to pay tribute to the many hon. Members whose work has brought us to this point. In no particular order, those who deserve great credit include the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). They have both chaired the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which produced diligent research on this issue in 2004, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

In 2011, the Select Committee finally came to the conclusion that the industry had had enough time to get its house in order and that the time had arrived for a statutory code with an independent adjudicator, open market rent assessments and a free-of-tie option. It is disappointing that it has taken more than three years to get from the Select Committee’s conclusion to the Bill before the House. It will be an even greater disappointment if we have to move away from the Bill and are told that there will be a further review in two years’ time to debate the whole thing again and decide whether we then need the free-of-tie option. What is more important than anything else is that Members do not let the opportunity to take real action through the Bill pass us by.

I want to acknowledge other Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was the pubs Minister who empowered the Select Committee to be the arbiter of when the time for action had arrived. The hon. Members for Leeds North West and for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) led a cross-party campaign to ensure not only that we had a pubs code, but that it would make a real difference for tenants and create competitive pressure on pub-owning companies to ensure that they offered their tenants a fair deal.

I also want to recognise the Minister’s contribution. Notwithstanding what I said about how the Government have handled this Bill and how she has been badly let down on a Bill that appears to be changing in front of our eyes for what appear to be political considerations, the fact is that she did at least end the prevarication—at least, that is what I wrote down in my speech—that we endured under her predecessors. If this was Prime Minister’s questions, I would be told off for writing my script in advance, but that helps when we are going to be on our feet for a while.

To be charitable for a moment, at least we are here to debate the pubs code. The fact that the Minister’s predecessors constantly pushed for review after review and did not take action, while she came forward to say that there would be something in statute, is a source of tremendous credit. It is a shame that she has unfortunately been forced to come to the Dispatch Box to propose a review in two years’ time, with all the uncertainty that that will create. However, she has at least made an effort to get something on the statute book.

There are many other such hon. Members, but the strength of this campaign has been due to the fact that the push inside the House very much reflects the broad coalition in favour of the measures outside it. The case that we and other hon. Members are making today has been supported by a tremendous range of organisations, almost all of whom come under the Fair Deal for Your Local banner.

Just listen, Mr Deputy Speaker—not that you would ever not listen while in the Chair, but perhaps you will do so with particular attention—to the breadth of organisations that support this case. Such breadth makes the case more powerfully than anything else. The organisations include the Federation of Small Businesses, which does not usually demand regulations or that the business relationship between two parties should be put on a statutory footing; the all-party save the pub group, which is so ably chaired by the hon. Member for Leeds North West; the Campaign for Real Ale and the Fair Pint campaign; the trade unions Unite and the GMB; and the Guild of Master Victuallers and the Forum of Private Business.

There are also two support groups, Justice for Licensees and Licensees Supporting Licensees, which were set up to support licensees affected by what had happened in their relationship with the pub company. Such licensees have often been bankrupted or are facing bankruptcy as a result of having chosen to pursue their dream of running a pub. Who would have thought that a support group needed to be set up for people who have chosen to pursue a particular profession or work in a particular industry?

In some ways most significantly of all, the Punch Tenant Network, made up of tenants who run pubs owned by Punch Taverns, has come out in support of new clause 2. Those tenants’ business success hinges to a large degree on the strength—or weakness, depending on how they see it—of their relationship with their pub company, and they are saying that the hon. Member for Leeds North West and 90 other Members are right that the code should be put on a free-of-tie basis. If the network believed the scare stories that the industry is putting about—that the proposed changes will lead to an increase in pub closures, less choice for punters or increased unfairness in the industry—it would hardly be calling on hon. Members to support the new clause.

The House has heard in recent years from literally dozens of Members who are desperately trying to support pubs in their communities that are under threat—all victims of the great pubco scandal.

[Richard Fuller]

The shadow Minister has listed many people who have been involved in the debate on one side or the other. Now, at the moment when the Government are reversing the policy that they had in Committee, does he think it odd from the point of view of protocol that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is not here to explain that change in Government policy?

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman has a valid point. We have all received a huge number of representations from members of CAMRA; from pub licensees; from many different organisations, some of which I have just listed; from the pub-owning companies themselves; and from the British Beer and Pubs Association. They have all been lobbying us in support of, or in opposition to, what they thought would be in the Bill. The Minister, whether by her own choice or because of the hand she has been dealt today, has had to say to the House, “Forget all the speeches that you have prepared and all the letters and considerations you have received on this complicated issue, because we are ripping up a lot of the amendments you thought you would be voting on. We’ll discuss some of them later; and on another one, we thought we might lose, so as a bit of a sop we’ll come back to it in two years if there’s still a problem.” It is a shambolic way to present a Bill.

I wish to be conciliatory and work constructively on the issue, but it reflects no credit on the Government or the House when people come to watch our debate, or watch it on television, and suddenly discover that the issues they have been lobbying their Member of Parliament on have been totally changed. It is an absolute shambles. I have some sympathy with the view that the Secretary of State should have been here to explain why the changes have been made. The Minister was unable to tell us whether he has been involved in the discussions—maybe she will want to clarify that now.

However, this is the point that we have arrived at, and I think we all recognise that when the Government are under pressure they will sometimes take the opportunity to discuss with Members in the run-up to a debate what form amendments will take. Let us make no mistake, though—this debate was scheduled for next week, so the Government could have had another week to consider what should be debated. For reasons best known to them, they decided to bring the debate forward and table last-minute amendments. Now, on the day of the debate, they stand up and say, “Forget all those amendments, we’re not doing any of that”. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) may well be right to apportion some responsibility to the Secretary of State, but either way, something that should be a source of pride to the House is now a source of embarrassment. I deeply regret that, because this is an important issue on which there is considerable agreement.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that all the ins and outs, ups and downs and unknowns of what the Government will end up bringing forward, either here or in the House of Lords, show why it is important that we support new clause 2, which 91 of us, including me, have signed?

[Toby Perkins]

I do. You will be glad to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will come on to new clause 2 in more detail in a moment, but I basically agree with my hon. Friend’s point. His constituents in Sefton, who feel strongly about their local pub industry, will be glad to know that he took part in debates in the Public Bill Committee and has signed new clause 2.

That brings me nicely on to the contributions that a variety of Members from throughout the House have made on the subject in recent years. The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) told the House about the landlords of the White Horse in Quidhampton, alleging that Enterprise Inns had

“signed them up to a lease on a false prospectus and…made their business completely uneconomic and unsustainable”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 476.]

The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) has confirmed that the closure of the White Hart in South Harting was caused by

“unsustainable rent demands...from Enterprise Inns”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 476.]

The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) wrote to Enterprise Inns to inform it that the Abbotts Mitre public house in Chilbolton was

“under threat largely due to unrealistic rents and changes in terms and conditions”.

The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) wrote to Enterprise Inns asking it not to close the Lamplighters in Shirehampton, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has bemoaned Enterprise’s decision not to save the Little Owl. As a Sheffield United fan I am not generally in favour of saving the Owls, but in this case it would have been important. He said that

“a big company has failed to recognise a pub’s value to the community.”

The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) was also concerned with saving the Owl, this time the one in Rodley, whose threatened closure he blamed on

“the mounting costs imposed by the building owners, Enterprise Inns”.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said of the sale of the Porcupine in Mottingham that the public were

“incensed that their right to bid for the pub has been bypassed deliberately by Enterprise Inns and LiDL”.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a terrific roll-call of his party’s MPs who are apparently now standing up for pubs, but he completely forgets what happened to pubs over the 13 years of the Labour Government. Thousands of them closed all over the country under their regime. This is an extraordinary moment of amnesia, is it not?

[Toby Perkins]

I think the moment of amnesia is the hon. Gentleman’s, because all the Members I have listed so far are Conservative Members—in fact, many of them are sat behind him. I was not seeking to make a party political point. Sadly I do not have in my speech—as it is currently drafted, although we know these things are subject to change almost on the spur of the moment—a reference to a contribution that he has made to saving a pub, but he might well want to tell us either now or sometime in the future about what he has done to support pubs in his local area.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I launched a strong campaign some months ago to save the Ridge and Furrow in Abbey. It is an ongoing process, and I am confident that we will win in due course. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make that point, so that the residents of Abbey ward in Gloucester can hear it loud and clear.

[Toby Perkins]

I am glad I was able to facilitate that magic moment.

I have not finished listing members yet. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) told a packed crowd that he would be joining the campaign to save the Red Lion in Sidbury, which Punch Taverns was planning to sell.

The list of pub-saving parliamentarians is long. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) joined the campaign that successfully saved the Wheatsheaf, and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) was busy trying to save The Clifton and The Star. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) campaigned to save the Bittern, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) joined the Legh Arms campaign for community pubs—the list goes on. Eventually, however, comes the time to put up or shut up, and many people outside this House will be looking to see what we do.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way we can all support local pubs, whether in urban or rural areas, is by supporting the Government’s planning reforms, and allowing pubs—whether tied or not—to expand restaurants or develop bed and breakfasts? We should back those pubs to grow their businesses on brownfield sites wherever they can.

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman mentions planning and whether pubs can expand, and it is important that pubs have that opportunity. However, the biggest planning issue currently facing pubs is the fact that big supermarkets can come in and change a pub into a supermarket without any reference to planning law. In my constituency we have a significant campaign to try to save The Crispin—I was not going to mention it, but the opportunity now arises. A pub that currently operates perfectly successfully under Enterprise Inns will be closed because the lease has been signed to Tesco. Indeed, Labour’s planning proposals would increase restrictions on pubs that are turning into supermarkets, and deal with many of the concerns that I have already raised. Hon. Members gave many examples of pubs that are being closed to become supermarkets.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman has treated us to a tour of the country and listed some 30 or 40 MPs who have done something to save pubs. It has all been very interesting, but we have not heard what he will do to save pubs. Rather than packing his speech with such examples and filling time, will he get on with telling us what he is going to do?

[Toby Perkins]

Many contributions that hon. Members have made are important to their constituents and they will consider it pretty disrespectful for the hon. Gentleman to say that I am filling time. I do not think I am—this is a significant issue. We can all get the press release out or attend packed public meetings, and we can all rail against unfairness and talk about how a pub company sold a false prospectus and failed to consider the needs of the community, but today is the day for talking to finish and for us finally to act. People will reflect on whether, when given the opportunity to act, Members of Parliament stood up in the Chamber to complain about the situation or actually took action.

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, but earlier he did not address my question. I was not asking about pubs that have not succeeded and therefore a change in use to retail has been suggested to the local authority; I was asking about successful pubs that want to expand further, to build bed and breakfasts, hotels or an extra restaurant. The question is about successful pubs and whether the hon. Gentleman and Labour Members support the Government’s planning reforms on permitted development rights and change of use, for example, to make those successful pubs flourish even more.

[Toby Perkins]

I take issue with the idea that the only pubs that are being closed and turned into supermarkets are unsuccessful ones. The Crispin in Chesterfield is a successful pub that makes good profits, but it does not offer Enterprise Inns the 25-year lease that Tesco is willing to offer, and that is why it is being shut down. Pubs that are turning into supermarkets should not necessarily be described as unsuccessful.

I thought that I had responded to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I will do so again. Of course we are supportive of steps to support larger pubs, and we think that is important. The specifics of the Government’s proposal and whether it has implications on the right of a community to have its voice heard on such issues is a matter that my hon. Friends in the communities and local government team will consider at greater length. Of course we support pubs that are successful and want to expand, but we also want to defend pubs that have a future in the community but often fall victim to the vagaries of pub companies’ operations, particularly when pub companies close pubs that are successful.

In response to the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) let me turn to the specifics of new clause 2. When debating pub tenants we are talking about a group of people who often work as many hours as anyone, but who earn less than they could legally be paid by an employer on the minimum wage.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) asked my hon. Friend what he is doing to help, and he was just starting to explain. My hon. Friend supports the market rent only option in new clause 2, so that is exactly how he, and the 91 hon. Members who have put their name to the new clause, are supporting pubs in our communities. When mentioning those Members who have referred to pubs in their constituencies, I hope my hon. Friend also expects them to support new clause 2, as do I.

[Toby Perkins]

I certainly do. The hon. Member for Burton had the unrivalled pleasure of listening to a day and a half of debates to which I made a fairly significant contribution—I appreciate that he cannot get enough of my contributions on pubs, but he has had a significant opportunity to hear my thoughts on the matter.

Pub tenants are those who clean their pub and get it ready for the next day’s trade. They are working at the bar, handling supplier relationships, generally keeping a cheerful presence, wearing the mask, and closing up long after most people have finished work, and all the while they know that the unfairness of their relationship means that the whole day’s work has been for nothing financially. Latest figures show that more than half of tied licensees work for less than £10,000 a year. Indeed, during the recent mini-recess I spoke to three pub tenants in my constituency who run pubs owned by the big pub companies, and none of them was taking a wage out of the business. By voting for new clause 2 and amendment 5 we can take a significant step towards preserving pubs for the next generation, and hardwire fairness into that longstanding business relationship.

Amendment 5 is simple but important and should reassure people who have concerns about these complicated issues. The Minister attempted to say that she believes the Government have found a different way to achieve broadly the same thing, but the specific wording of our amendment leaves a lot less potential for businesses to get out of saying that they are covered. To my mind, there are two ways in which the pubs code could fail to deliver what we want—first if the code is too weak and allows pub companies to comply with it while continuing unfairly to disadvantage their tenants; and secondly if we end up with a code that strikes the right balance for our expectations about the behaviour of pub companies, but is drafted in a way that allows pub companies to exempt themselves, or creates confusion as to who is covered.

Already the big pub companies have attempted to create confusion over definitions. The Government were right to acknowledge that they dropped a clanger with the phrase “tied pubs”, which in their definition is supposed to mean those on a tenanted or leased model in England, Scotland and Wales, although the code would need to be enacted separately in Scotland. The phrase “tenanted, leased” is the type of tenure clearly defined and easily established. We remain of the view that amendment 5 will provide the greatest clarification on exactly who should be covered by the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

I did not want to take many more interventions because many other Members wish to speak. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that it would add a huge amount to the debate I will give way.

[Richard Fuller]

The shadow Minister is making an absolutely crucial point. I think he will have heard, as I did, the Minister say that three companies will be captured by the reduction from 500 to 350. Is the shadow Minister aware of what those three companies have done to incur the wrath of the Secretary of State to be included in the regulation?

[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.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am delighted to speak at this important stage of this important Bill. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues for their work in bringing measures forward not only on pubs, which is an area of particular interest, but other positive measures.

I will concentrate my comments on new clause 2, which I am delighted to introduce on behalf of myself, as the chair of the all-party save the pub group and co-ordinator of the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) who is the Chair of the Business, Innovations and Skills Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), the president of the save the pub group and a member of the BIS Committee. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today because he is becoming a freeman of Northampton. I am sure we all congratulate him on that. I am also speaking on new clause 2 on behalf of the 91 colleagues who put their names to it and the many others who have said they will support it.

Over the past few days, in the limited time between Committee and Report, more than 8,000 e-mails were sent by CAMRA members up and down the country and several thousand by members of the Federation of Small Businesses, licensees, organisations and trade unions, urging the Government to take the sensible, obvious, market-based action to resolve the issues that have been a problem in the leased and tenanted pub sector for too long.

So that Members are clear, new clause 2 is the cross-party solution from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee introduced first by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), then ably continued by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and supported by all colleagues on the Select Committee at all stages in this and the last Parliament. It is also backed by the FSB, the Forum of Private Business, the Pubs Advisory Service, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Supporting Licensees, CAMRA, Licensees Unite the union, the Fair Pint campaign, the Guild of Master Victuallers, the GMB and now the Punch Tenant Network, which represents Punch tenants and is giving an honest and a very different picture of the Punch model from that which Punch Taverns has been trying to communicate to MPs.

To remind the House, the problem is a simple one, despite the complexity of the sector: the large companies went on a reckless acquisition spree, buying up pubs using borrowed money, and got themselves into grotesque amounts of debt—more than £4 billion in the case of Punch Taverns and more than £3 billion in the case of Enterprise Inns—and with nothing to stop them charging unlimited prices for beer and unlimited rents, both of which have gone up and up and up. The beer tie, which was always operated responsibly, has been abused. It used to offer lower rent in exchange for higher beer prices and genuine support for small breweries, but the pub company model does not do that.

What, then, is wrong with the proposals as they stand? I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in both coalition parties for having the courage to bring forward the statutory code of practice that the Select Committee first recommended so powerfully and clearly in 2009. As drafted, however, the proposed statutory code will not deliver the Government’s two key principles: fairness and the principle that a tied licensee should be no worse off than a free-of-tie licensee. The problem is that there is no direct mechanism to stop the double overcharging that I have mentioned.

As I have already said, not a single respondent to BIS’s extensive consultation thought that the Government’s proposed parallel rent assessment was the right solution, whereas two thirds said that the Select Committee was right. The assessment would need considerable participation from the adjudicator—in fact, the proposal confuses the adjudicator with the rent assessor, as the adjudicator is there to adjudicate disputes, not to survey and set rents. Without the direct mechanism, the basis on which the adjudicator is set up is currently weak.

Furthermore, the Government made the fundamental mistake that the shadow Minister has pointed to already. The Fair Deal for Your Local campaign and the Select Committee are clear that this measure must not apply to smaller companies—those with fewer than 500 pubs—because that is not where the majority of the problems are. A “large pub company” must be defined as any company with 500 or more pubs of any type, with the measure applying to its leased and tenanted pubs only, not to tied pubs.

The issue of tied pubs is a legal minefield, as the Government have realised, with the absurdity that Harry Ramsden’s, a fish and chip shop restaurant, could have been categorised as a “tied pub”. There are different forms of the tie in the UK—some free houses opt to be tied to a brewer in return for soft loans and business support—and how would we categorise “part tied” and “fully tied”? It is a nonsensical way to categorise. We need to define a “large company” simply as a company with 500 or more pubs, some of which are tenanted and leased pubs, and then apply the measure to the tenanted and leased pubs only. In that way, there would be no question of the large managed companies, such as Wetherspoon’s and Mitchells and Butlers, being caught any more than there would be of a restaurant chain being caught.

At the moment, the Bill and code do not deliver what the Government have set out, courageously, to deliver. Do not take my word for it; take the word of one of the two companies lobbying particularly vociferously against the code. In its own prospectus for potential investors, dated 6 October 2014, Punch Taverns said it did not believe that the reforms proposed would materially adversely affect the Punch group. In other words, it would be business as usual, and it would continue to charge excessive beer prices—often 70% more than hon. Members could get from the brewery—and set entirely unregulated rents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I will put on record strongly that there are many small pub companies and breweries that run their pubs exceptionally well and, interestingly, are doing very well and are expanding rather than contracting, but here is the rub: I speak directly to my Conservative coalition colleagues. The question I put to them is this: “Do you believe in competition? You all say you do. If you do, you should not be afraid of allowing brewers of all sizes to compete.” The reality is that small microbrewers do not have adequate, fair and direct access. They cannot turn up at thousands of pubs and say, “We would like to sell our beer to you because we believe it is good.” They are prevented from doing that.

Let me tackle the issue directly; this will be controversial. SIBA, the Society of Independent Brewers, has a direct delivery scheme that used to be part of the solution to the pubco closed shop. It is now part of the problem; many small independent brewers have contacted the save the pub group to say that. Incidentally, there was a U-turn in SIBA’s position. SIBA was a member of the Independent Pub Confederation, which supported the market rent only option. Seemingly without consulting its members directly, SIBA suddenly decided that it was against it; that is what SIBA members have told me. It no longer represents the majority of microbrewers on this key issue.

[Toby Perkins]

I wish to reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point that new clause 2 is precisely about a free market option, and that to defend the status quo is to defend a restrictive practice, which should be absolutely anathema to any Conservative MP; if they vote against the new clause, they will be voting for a closed shop and against an open market.

[Greg Mulholland]

I share the shadow Minister’s bafflement about that, and I am delighted that we have a strong group of Conservative colleagues who, having heard the reality of the situation from their local branch of the Campaign for Real Ale, their local pubco publicans and their local Federation of Small Businesses branches, are fully supportive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. I can send him the e-mails I have received from microbreweries—cider as well as beer producers. They are desperate to get more direct access, so that they can knock on the door of the pub 2 miles down the road and say, “We believe our beer is great and that your customers would like to drink it. We would like to sell it to you at our brewery price, rather than you having to go through the SIBA-directed delivery scheme, which has a considerable mark-up, or get on a pubco list,” as the pubco outrageously demands an incredibly low price that many microbrewers simply cannot afford to brew at, and then marks up prices by 60% to 70% to sell the product to their own so-called business partners. Is that seriously a model that Conservative MPs can support? I remain baffled by that.

Let me remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the reality of the pub company model. As I look round, I see hon. Members who have family and smaller brewers in their constituency and want to support them; I respect their position, and I am at one with them on that, which is why the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign has always said that the provision should apply only to companies with over 500 pubs.

Let us look at the reality of what the big pubcos have done to skew the traditional tied tenancy model. Punch Taverns, a pub company that does not brew a single pint of beer, made a profit over 10 years—these are its figures from its own annual report—of £2.271 billion, all from on-selling beer to its own so-called business partners. Frankly, in any other country, that would be called a protection racket. It is extraordinary and unjustified, which is why it is right for us to try to deal with it.

If Members do not believe that this is an anti-competitive model—I know that some colleagues behind me do not, for their own reasons—they should listen to former Punch licensee Alison Smith, a Conservative activist who has e-mailed all colleagues today to tell of the reality of the pubco business model, and how it stifled her and her partner, preventing them from being able to create a successful pub. Even though they were doing well and improving their business, the draconian terms of the pubco lease meant that that was simply not possible.

What do hon. Members think these large pub companies are? They are not pub companies at all; unlike the traditional brewers, these are people who do not really care about our pubs or our brewers. There was a huge rush in the City when people saw this “get rich quick” scam, a way to inflate the value of companies artificially by basing it on what they could overcharge their own tenants by—their tenants for 25 years on these outrageous, new, long-term, fully repairing and insuring leases.

Let me give the example of what happened to the excellent Sir John Barleycorn in Hitchin. The community, I am delighted to say, applied to use powers introduced by this coalition Government to apply for community value status; they applied for the pub to be an asset of community value. There were objections. The most vociferous one said:

“the current use of the premises as a public house…does not itself further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community and therefore is not land of community value.”

Who said that? Was it someone living down the street who was anti-pub? No, that objection was from the so-called pub company Punch Taverns, which was seeking to get rid of this pub and sell it off after forcing out the licensees. That is what is going on.

If there is any doubt that this model is closing pubs, let me read out the stark evidence of the figures. These figures, collated by CGA Strategy for the British Beer & Pub Association and CAMRA, showed that there was a much greater drop in the number of leased and tenanted pubs than in the number of free houses between December 2005 and March 2013. The number of non-managed—that is, tenanted and leased, mostly tied—pubs fell by 5,117, whereas there was a fall of only 2,131 free-trade pubs. All pubs have issues—there has been a difficult recession—but the difference is clear and stark.

We could also look at the pubco trade association’s own figures—figures that it has frankly been keeping very quiet about. Its own figures show that over 10 years, the number of non-managed—in other words, tied, tenanted and leased—pubs decreased by 8,000, while the free-trade sector expanded by 1,600 pubs. I repeat: that is its own figures. Between 2008 and 2012—just four years—the two giant pubcos, Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns, collectively disposed of over 5,000 pubs—a third of all their pubs in just four years. Can any Member seriously stand up and say that this is a business model that is working for pubs?

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman is hitting on a really important point. These big pub companies are often heralded for employing so many people, but they, of course, inherited these pubs and employees, and what they are doing over a long period is laying people off and shutting pubs, not the opposite.

[Greg Mulholland]

Absolutely. The debt level is still in the billions, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extraordinary restructuring that has left Punch shareholders owning only 15% of the company. Meanwhile, the Punch tenant network expressed its serious concern about the effects on them of the company’s instability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

We have had a lively debate on the various amendments before us. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) made the point that today has the potential to be a great day for Parliament. Given all the detailed discussions we have had—that is what we do on Report—getting into the specifics on thresholds, family brewers and new clause 2, I think it is easy to lose sight of quite how far we have come and what a real change this Bill will mean for tenants who have been arguing for such a long time for action to be taken to improve their situation.

We have heard hon. Members make contributions of various lengths—significant, in some cases—and we have heard more make interventions, on both sides of the argument, about new clause 2, and we have heard speeches from those who powerfully oppose it. I want to respond to some of the specific points made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about family brewers and the Government’s proposed threshold of 350. He was right that earlier I confirmed that three companies would be included. An important fact to put on the record is that none of those three is a family brewer. Those who have been arguing for the exclusion of family brewers can rest assured that, with the reduction in the threshold from 500 to 350, that exemption will remain, as I think was the will of the Committee, which the Government have listened to and recognised should be reflected in the Bill.

I take issue with the suggestion that those companies are all small businesses. Of the three that will be included by changing the threshold from 500 to 350, one has a turnover of £758 million a year and some 16,000 members of staff. I do not think that it is accurate to say that we are necessarily talking about small companies in that sense. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who is new to the House, asked about the brewery JW Lees in her constituency. I am happy to confirm that with fewer than 350 tied pubs, it will not be affected by the measures.

In his comments about family brewers and the changes we have introduced, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford indicated a certain lack of confidence that the commitments made here by the Government will be implemented. We have set those out in clear words, which will appear in black and white in Hansard if he chooses to read it tomorrow. The amendments will be made in the other place but this House will have the opportunity to vote on them as well. The situation is not necessarily good versus evil, as he outlined it. I began to worry that he was being a bit uncharitable towards me at one point, until he compared my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary to Saruman, who was a pretty evil and nasty piece of work. I do not think that comparison is warranted, but perhaps I should just be pleased that my hon. Friend did not reach for Sauron instead.

New clause 2, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), seeks to introduce a market rent only option requiring pub-owning companies with more than 500 pubs of any description and one or more of those being a tied pub to offer their tied tenants the right to go free of tie. It is widely accepted in the industry that tied tenants should be no worse off than free-of-tie tenants. It is one of the key principles underpinning the Government’s proposals and goes to the very heart of the measures we have set out in this Bill. There was an attempt in Committee to take that principle out—a probing attempt, apparently, but none the less an attempt—by some of the Back Bench who have spoken today. It is a vital principle that underpins the impact that we are trying to have.

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Lady to some extent predicted what I am going to say. People who listened to the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) might want to reflect on the fact that he attempted to introduce an amendment in Committee that would have removed the principle that tied tenants should be no worse off than tenants free of tie. It may be valuable for hon. Members to consider in that light everything else they have heard from him.

[Jo Swinson]

Indeed. I am glad that that amendment did not ultimately form part of the Bill, as that principle, which we have set out from the beginning, is crucial. We looked at various means of achieving it. One of the things we consulted on was whether the market rent only option should be included in the pubs code. We looked carefully at whether to introduce that. It might seem a straightforward way of strengthening the negotiating position of tenants, because if they are faced with a compulsory free-of-tie option alongside market rent only, pub-owning companies will arguably work much harder to offer a tied deal which represents a fair share of risk and reward.

The freedom to choose the supplier and the likely lower costs of supply could mean that free-of-tie agreements offer greater potential profits for tenants wanting to maximise the benefit of those terms. Those would be the most experienced and entrepreneurial tenants. It would not necessarily help others, whereas the parallel rent assessment will do that. It was interesting from the consultation, and almost unique in such a polarised policy area, that concerns were expressed by people on all sides of the debate about the impact of introducing that provision and the consequences it could have on the tied model as a whole. There would be some uncertainty and unpredictability, especially in relation to pub-owning companies and how they would respond.

The parallel rent assessments that we are introducing provide a way of making sure that the prime principle that a tied tenant should not be worse off than a free-of-tie tenant can be enacted and made real. That is why we are proceeding with the arrangement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I can give an assurance that the review will be rigorous and that, in response to it, there will not only be this power for the Secretary of State, but, if he finds that there is insufficient protection for tenants as a result of the parallel rent assessments and the system is not working as it should, a requirement for him to bring forward the market rent only option.

[Toby Perkins]

The Minister is attempting to straddle a very difficult line. She claims that we should believe that the measures proposed by the Government today are likely to work, but if not there is an alternative process that is her party’s policy for which she will argue going into a general election. Why do we not just do away with all that nonsense, give the industry some certainty, and support new clause 2?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it would be Liberal Democrat policy. Clearly, we are in a coalition Government rather than a Liberal Democrat Government, and people will make their decisions when it comes to the general election in which we will all be campaigning and voting in a few months’ time.

We have before us a Bill that will improve the lives of tenants and makes real the principle that a tied tenant should be no worse off than a free-of-tie tenant. The hon. Member for Bedford suggested an analogy with “The Lord of the Rings”. Perhaps I can posit an alternative scenario. I think that what we have had on this issue over the past few years is a rather intrepid fellowship—a group including MPs from all parties in all parts of the House, tenants, Select Committees, business groups, and campaigners. I will leave hon. Members to make up their own minds about who among them would be deemed to be hobbits, elves, dwarves or men—[Interruption]—and, indeed, who has been Gandalf at their head. The members of this intrepid fellowship have campaigned hard. In some ways, they probably feel that they have been on an epic journey, battling against the unfairness that has been repeatedly highlighted in Select Committee reports.

We need to recognise that the result of that campaign by all those individuals has been to achieve a great success. What we have is proposed legislation with a statutory code and a pubs adjudicator who can make that code a reality and ensure that if it is not abided by there can be arbitration, investigations, and ultimately, if necessary, penalties with real teeth. We also have the parallel rent assessments to make sure that the system bites. Now, going even further, we have the power to introduce the market rent only option if all that is ultimately unable to work. That is a huge success for campaigners who have worked on this issue for many years. I think that people should welcome what has happened.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West will recognise that success, see how far he has come, and think twice about putting his new clause to the vote. In the Bill before us, we have a solution to the issue identified in the Select Committee reports and a way to make sure that if that does not work we have the ability swiftly to implement a market rent only option. I commend this part of the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Pubs code: market rent only option for large pub-owning businesses

(1) The Pubs Code shall include a Market Rent Only Option to be provided by large pub-owning businesses in respect of their tenants and leaseholders.

(2) A Market Rent Only Option means the right of the tenant, or leaseholder, of a pub owned by a large pub-owning business, to be offered such tenancy or lease in exchange for an independently assessed market rent paid to the pub-owning business and, for the avoidance of doubt, not thereafter being bound by “a tie”, meaning an agreement meeting, in whole or in part, Condition D as defined in section 63(5) of this Act (obligation to buy from the landlord, or from a person nominated by the landlord, some or all of the alcohol to be sold at the premises).

(3) For the purposes of this section, the definition of Condition D in subsection (2) is to be interpreted to include an obligation to buy or contract for goods and services other than alcohol.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the definition of a “large pub-owning business” is a business which, for a period of at least six months in the previous financial year, was the landlord of—

(a) 500 or more pubs (of any description); and

(b) one or more tenanted or leased pub.

(5) The Pubs Code may include provisions to permit a brewery which qualifies as a large pub-owning business to continue to require that specified brands produced by that brewery (required products) are sold within its tenanted or leased pubs—provided that such tenants and leaseholders are free to purchase such required products from any supplier.

(6) The Pubs Code shall contain provisions requiring that the offer of a Market Rent Only Option to a tenant—

(a) at the point of lease, tenancy contract or other agreement renewal, or at rent review or five years from the date of the previous rent review;

(b) when the large pub-owning business gives notice of, or imposes, (whichever is the earlier) a significant increase in the price at which it supplies products, goods or services (falling under subsections (2) or (3)) to the tenant;

(c) when a large pub-owning business implements, or gives notice of, a transfer of title;

(d) when a large pub-owning business goes into administration; or

(e) upon an event outside of the tenant’s control, and unpredicted at the time of the previous rent review, that impacts significantly on the tenant’s ability to trade.

(7) The terms of an offer under subsection (5) shall include provision for a 21 day period of negotiation, commencing from the tenant giving notice of an intention to pursue a Market Rent Only Option, in which the large pub-owning business and the tenant may seek to negotiate a mutually agreeable Market Rent Only settlement.

(8) Following the negotiation period under subsection (7) there shall follow a 90 day period of assessment. In this period—

(a) an independent assessor shall be appointed with the agreement of both parties by joint private instruction and on the basis of an equal apportionment of costs; and

(b) under arrangements and criteria that the Adjudicator shall establish, such an assessor shall be—

(i) independent of both parties; and

(ii) competent by virtue of qualification and/or experience.

(c) if the business and tenant cannot agree on an appointee then a person shall be appointed, on the application of either party, under arrangements established by the Adjudicator;

(d) the appointed assessor shall then assess the market rent for the property operating as a pub with no “tie” as defined in subsection (2) and submit to both parties the resulting sum for such a rent; and

(e) at the time of the three month assessment period, the tenant shall have the right to pay no more than the sum determined under paragraph (d) to the pub-owning business and, if previously one party to a “tie” as defined in subsection (2), shall no longer be bound by it.

(9) The Pubs Code shall contain such measures as ensure that—

(a) the Market Rent Only Option is conducted in accordance with timing provisions and procedures, in accordance with RICS guidance, as specified in the Pubs Code; and

(b) large pub-owning businesses are prohibited from acting or discriminating against any of their tenants who choose the Market Rent Only Option.

(10) The Secretary of State shall confer on the Adjudicator functions and powers in relation to the Market Rent Only Option, that include—

(a) determining what constitutes a significant increase in price, as mentioned in subsection (6)(b) in the event of a dispute between tenant and business;

(b) adjudicating in disputes concerning the process or outcome of the market rent assessment; including the power to set the market rent if the Adjudicator deems the process or decision to have been flawed; and

(c) receiving, investigating and adjudicating in relation to complaints made under subsection (9)(b).

(11) The Secretary of State shall make provisions for the implementation of the following measures in this section by regulations amending the Pubs Code. Such regulations shall be made under negative resolution procedure. The Secretary of State may make provisions changing the types of agreement that fall under subsection (2) by regulations. Such regulations shall be made under negative resolution procedure.”—(Greg Mulholland.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend speaks from experience. That is certainly the experience of many contractors, and we need to address it.

There is evidence that cash retentions have been used to shore up the working capital of local authorities and tier 1 suppliers. There is a key concern that if tier 1 suppliers become insolvent, the small businesses in the supply chain are at risk of losing their retentions.

I recognise that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has said in its construction supply chain payment charter that it wishes to abolish retentions by 2025. My new clause, however, is a stepping-stone towards that by requiring the publication of companies’ policies, practices and performance on retention moneys, reviewing this and subsequently making recommendations about further action to help secure and protect retention of moneys for small businesses—in trusts, for example.

The new clause is timely, with New Zealand considering the requirement for cash retentions to be taken in trusts, and New South Wales in Australia is currently reviewing regulations to that effect. The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to review published information and then issue regulations to ensure that these owed moneys are protected for small businesses.

Moving on to amendment 6, a key issue for small businesses has been the changes made to contract payment terms without negotiation or notice. My amendment recognises that and would require companies to include details of the “circumstances and process” by which payment terms may be amended in the company’s published payment practices and policies. This will prevent ad hoc and unilateral changes from being made to the payment terms, which have again affected the financial viability of so many small businesses.

Amendment 7 looks at the issues around public procurement practices. One major issue identified in my late payments inquiry was that late payment is a cultural issue. Large companies pay small companies late because they can, as I mentioned—they have the power and the small companies do not. We need to change these attitudes, and we need to view late payment as being as unethical as tax evasion. Changing public procurement practices, as identified in amendment 7, provides an opportunity to do so, first, by requiring public bodies to determine the “past payment performance” of potential contractors before any contract is entered into; and secondly, by making the contracts of tier 1 suppliers commit them to pay their suppliers promptly. All the way down the supply chain, there should be a commitment that payments will be made on time.

Although my next topic does not relate to my amendments, it relates to public procurement practices. A report came out today from the Walk Free Foundation on the subject of modern slavery. Although the UK is supported for what it is doing to combat modern slavery, it finds that we are not doing as much as Brazil and the US, for example, in addressing Government procurement practices to stop this happening. I know this is highly irregular, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope the Minister is listening so that he can respond and make clear how we will deal with this problem in future Government practices.

[Toby Perkins]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

I have come to the end on that really important point, but I happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend may be approaching the end, but if I am any judge, I know she is nowhere near the end of campaigning on this issue. She has been a robust and resilient campaigner on late payments, and I know that she was granted an award for her work yesterday by the Federation of Small Businesses. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her, not only on that thoroughly deserved award, but on the fantastic campaigning work she has done on late payments.

[Debbie Abrahams]

That was very kind of my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him. I will continue to campaign, because, as I have said, I do not think that the Government’s measures are strong enough. They have been dragged here kicking and screaming; I hope that they will now listen, and will address what are still weaknesses in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Banks]

Yes, I am aware of that research, and late payment is a major problem. It is not just a transient major problem, but a constant one, week to week. I have lain in bed at night worrying whether the cheque was going to come in so that I could pay the wages of my staff. That is not a position that any business should be put in, and certainly not because of late payments.

A small business, perhaps a new one trying to establish itself, often finds a degree of comfort in dealing with a larger, perhaps household, name in its business sphere. The saying in my sector is, “You know your money is safe with so and so.” It may be safe but it may also be in their bank all the time and not yours.

We also need to consider the credibility that comes from working with such a customer and the possible opportunities, arising from volume increases, for small business suppliers to be able to renegotiate rates from their suppliers. In my experience, those will more often than not be larger companies. So the small business can find itself sandwiched between a large business customer and a large business supplier, perhaps a multinational company, and being strung out at one end and wrung out at the other. These multinational companies, understandably, have strict credit limits and they will be very quick to stop supply if they are not being paid within 30 days. Within a limited period of time they will remove the small business’s credit facilities, so damaging its credit rating, and reducing its access to key products and, in effect, its ability to pay the bill for which the multinational is awaiting payment.

As we know, the reason for late payment in these cases is often that a large customer fails to keep its side of the deal. I wish to draw the House’s attention to an experience I have encountered a number of times, where large multinationals have been pressing for payment within 30 days for a commodity sold by them to my business and yet that commodity has been sold to another division of the same company and it has no intention of paying within 30 days. Even within the same organisation we may have the supplier pressing for payment within 30 days, the product having been sold to another division in the same company as the supplier and yet it not upholding its part of the bargain and being prepared to pay in 30 days—it just strings you out. So the company wants its money in but does not want to pay the money out. That is just not good enough. The current system of being able to charge interest, at the supplier’s instigation, or being able to apply a debt recovery cost is not adequate and we have to improve these experiences.

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on this important subject. He will probably be aware that in Committee we tabled a worked-through amendment that would have moved the onus from small businesses having to pressure their large business customers for repayment on to the large businesses. Does he agree that the fundamental change we need is for small businesses not always to have the onus on them to pursue their large business customers?

[Gordon Banks]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not morally or structurally fair for a small business to be trying to squeeze a few hundred or a few thousand pounds—perhaps even tens of thousands of pounds—out of a large multinational company. That onus must be shifted away from the small company. After all, the company is only endeavouring to get what it is owed. If the larger customer is made to pay its bills on time, it will take the onus away from the small supplier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Banks]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I have asked the Minister to give the issue some thought before he sums up, and I have also said that I do not necessarily think that there will be a simple solution, but I am convinced that there is a way in which this can be developed so that small businesses—in fact, all businesses—can rest assured that 30, 35 or 40 days after they have submitted their invoice, that invoice will not be challenged. Is not 40 days long enough?

[Toby Perkins]

In Committee, we proposed an amendment similar to my hon. Friend’s new clauses. We suggested that there be a period of up to 30 days for someone to register a complaint; after that point, they would be deemed to have accepted the invoice, so that there could not be this constant adding to the payment period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Banks]

Of course they do. Every £1,000 not received has an impact on whether a business can prove to a possible financial investor, whether that is a bank or anything else, that it is a responsible company with the processes and the people in place to take the business forward. It may well have the people and processes in place, but it may be being stymied by the Tuesday and Friday phone calls to try to get the money that is long overdue.

New clauses 3 and 4 are a step along the way to moving the responsibility to where it should lie, ensuring greater financial impact on those who make late payments, and naming and shaming those who are not signed up to prompt payment practices. I was looking at the prompt payment code website last night. I represent a Scottish constituency, so I did a search on Scotland and I found that 43 businesses there have signed up to the prompt payment code. That level of commitment is extremely questionable. There are hundreds of thousands of businesses in Scotland.

[Toby Perkins]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely on that. Does he agree that if a prompt payment code allows a business to pay on 90-day terms and if, so long as it meets those terms and conditions, it is deemed compliant with the code, that calls into question the use of the word “prompt”?

[Gordon Banks]

It most definitely does. Prompt payment in my business experience is 30 days. That is fair and prompt payment. In my book, 90 days is not and should not be considered prompt payment. It is a massively overdue payment allowing one business to make its way in the world at another’s expense.

I fear that we have a long way to go, unless the Government listen tonight. I do not think that the Bill really gets us to where we need to be. It does not, in its current form, lift the onerous responsibility from the shoulders of small businesses; it actually empowers the larger businesses in their relationships with small businesses. However, it could be improved if the Government listen and support new clauses 3 and 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman may well think that the proposal would make things worse, but his opinion is not shared by the Federation of Small Businesses or the Forum of Private Business, both of which support our approach. Why does he presume to think that he knows better than those well-respected bodies, whose members tell them that they support our approach?

[Ben Gummer]

I can only speak from personal experience, which is what I have tried to do, to explain why I think it makes sense to go down the Minister’s route and why we would end up with perverse consequences were we to go down the route of mandation. Many small businesses are not members of the Federation of Small Businesses, and the Federation of Small Businesses is not absolutely right in everything it suggests. All I would say is that, in this instance, my own experience is that mandation would have a perverse consequence that would be inimical to the well-being of all small businesses. As a good first step, transparency, as the Government suggest, will create a new environment for businesses, which will change things for the better for people trying to build wealth and prosperity in our nation today.

The shadow Minister intervened on me to suggest that something better could be done. All I will say to him is that, when in government, his party did absolutely zero. They were, if I may coin a phrase, a zero-zero Administration when it came to small businesses. In 13 years, they did nothing apart from put up taxes on small businesses. They did nothing to cut red tape. Labour Members oppose the Minister’s efforts to tackle bureaucracy and claim that they can do better, but that sits a little ill in their mouths. I know that most business people—this is true of almost everyone I speak to in my constituency—think that it sounds a little false, and there is a reason for that: it comes neither from the heart nor from a real desire to do anything right. The difference is that the Minister understands what needs to be done and he is doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I do not know how many businesses there are in Scotland, but there are 5 million in the UK as a whole, and it is not too hard, by scaling that up, to calculate that the number signing up to the prompt payment code overall is not very big.

There is support for new clause 4 from across the business community. Phil Orford from the Forum of Private Business has said that it would be

“a welcome addition to the proposals outlined in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and would go a long way to reducing the time and cost small firms spend on chasing late payments and allow them to concentrate on growing their businesses and creating jobs.”

Government Members must accept that it is supported across the business community. As my hon. Friends have said, the only way to support small businesses is to make the proposal mandatory to ensure that big businesses pay on time. New clause 4 does just that, and I hope that the House will support it.

[Toby Perkins]

I am in the rather unusual position of speaking to my new clauses and in effect winding up the debate at the same time, but it is a challenge I relish.

There have been some very valuable contributions to the debate. I reiterate my admiration of the campaign on late payments led my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). She has been a really doughty fighter on the issue, and there is no doubt that late payment is a key factor in holding back small business growth. Suppliers frequently report that it is one of the key hurdles that they face, alongside access to finance, because small businesses do not have the cash flow buffers of their large competitors.

The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) has been forced to leave his place—he arrived in rather a rush and left in rather a rush. Let us hope he is properly dressed when he returns. He said, rather ungenerously, that I was in a lonely position as a Labour Member in having run a small business. However, we all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was a small business owner, as were my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and many of my other colleagues. And so are several of Labour’s parliamentary candidates, who we hope will be joining us here in just a few months. Conservative Members often try to create the impression that they are the only ones who have ever been in business and that all Labour Members were previously engaged in social work, school teaching or whatever they think is not worthy.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

Nothing wrong with that.

[Toby Perkins]

Absolutely right, there is nothing wrong with that. However, the suggestion that none of my colleagues has been involved in the business world does not stand up to scrutiny

The hon. Member for Ipswich described the Bill as a thing of “magnitude”, which was an incredibly generous description. It contains a number of measures, none of which has anything particularly wrong with it, but it is not in any sense a thing of magnitude. It contains small steps in the right direction on transparency, with some positive commitments from the Government— [Interruption.] Oh, he’s back. I’ve just been talking about you. For the benefit of anyone watching on television, the hon. Member for Ipswich has returned. There are positive steps in the Bill on the role that central Government will play by paying people on time, but it is certainly not a thing of magnitude. The steps are relatively minor, and the steps that the Opposition proposed in Committee and have alluded to today on Report would have been far more significant, which was why they enjoyed such broad support.

The hon. Gentleman attempted to say, “The Federation of Small Businesses—what do they know? They might be wrong.” I believe that having more transparency would be a significant step, so he was wrong to say that. Many owners of the 2,500 businesses a year that go bust as a result of not being paid on time will think so, too. It is important to get on record the full scale of the problem that we are highlighting, and to reiterate some of the statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth gave. Figures published by Bacs reveal that Britain’s small businesses now carry a burden of £39.4 billion in overdue payment.

[Ben Gummer]

I apologise for missing the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He has just characterised what I said in terms that were completely different from what I actually said. He quoted me as saying with reference to the FSB, “What do they know?” That was not actually what I said. Maybe if he reflects on precisely what I said, which was that I thought the proposal could have perverse consequences, he might give a different response.

[Toby Perkins]

Members will be able to check Hansard for the exact phraseology, but I was attempting to paraphrase the hon. Gentleman rather than to quote him. He said, if I remember rightly and can quote him more directly, that the FSB was not always right, or that it was wrong on this issue. He said that he believed he was right and the FSB was wrong on the issue—is that close enough? Anyway, anyone who wants the word-by-word definition can check it in Hansard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Banks]

Does my hon. Friend share my ambition that new clause 4 does not have to be onerous or deliver any financial problem to the debtor? All the debtor has to do is pay on time, and there is no penalty. It is simple; it puts money back into the economy and oils its wheels. It ensures that small businesses do not totter on a knife edge of survival at the behest of a larger company. There need be no financial detriment to the large company in the new clause.

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend is right. The proposals brought forward in Committee were detailed, and new clause 4 is investigating those ideas. Small businesses have the right to expect to be paid on time, and we should be taking serious steps to support that.

Current provisions in the law are not adequate to deal with the extent of the problem, and the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 was an important step. The EU late payment directive that the Government introduced in 2012 was broadly built on the same principles. They are valuable as far as they go—the prompt payment code is valuable as far as it goes—but they are clearly not adequate. The idea that more transparency, welcome though it may be, will be a silver bullet or even a significant step towards a resolution, is entirely wrong.

The Bill includes some provisions on interest charging. For reasons that other Members have highlighted, many small businesses feel that they are not able to charge interest because of the impact it would have on their relationship. This was a real opportunity for the Government to take hold of the issue and tackle the problem once and for all. Our amendments in Committee should have won the support of the Committee and the Government, because they had potential and I look forward to promoting them as part of a Labour party business manifesto in 2015. Small businesses will recognise that the measures we proposed were a step forward and that the measures in the Bill are a much smaller step.

The Government have dragged their feet on this issue over the past four years: the EU late payment directive was introduced at the last possible moment and the steps proposed at this juncture are small. We were disappointed after the very successful Back-Bench debate on late payments secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). In the run-up to that debate the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon)—he was great; he used to attend debates and everything—said that he would write to the FTSE 350 and warn businesses that they would be named and shamed if they did not sign up to the prompt payment code. Unfortunately, because that had not happened by May 2014—almost two years on—I tabled a series of written parliamentary questions to find out if companies were due to be named and shamed. We were told that it was no longer Government policy. It ceased to be the policy of the Government before it had ever actually become the policy of the Government. The Government’s record on this is not strong and to describe it in the terms that the Minister did was generous in the extreme.

New clause 3 would take this issue out of any Minister’s hands by ensuring that the very biggest businesses would know that they would all be named and shamed publicly if they did not comply. It would also provide an opportunity for Ministers to name and praise businesses that paid on time and complied. That carrot-and-stick approach is valuable as it would ensure that businesses that played by the rules and ensured that their customers were paid on time would not be tarnished with the same brush as those that gamed the system. It would ensure that the Government had a focus on signing up businesses to the prompt payment code. There was some talk previously about the number of people signed up to the prompt payment code. In the last two years of the Labour Government 978 businesses signed up to the code, whereas in the first two years of this Government just 204 did—a real difference in the number signing up. Our proposed changes will ensure that companies comply with the spirit of prompt payment, not just the letter of the code. I hope Members will give the new clause the support it deserves.

New clause 4 was tabled because the Government’s draft legislation fails to grasp the central problem behind the late payment crisis. Ultimately, despite the extent of the crisis, small businesses are often reluctant to report late payment as they rely on the custom of businesses for their very existence. Just 10% of businesses have considered using late payment legislation, despite 22% of businesses ending a relationship with a customer because they could not be paid on time.

Previous policy initiatives have focused on increasing prompt payment from public sector bodies to contractors. In the March 2010 Budget, the last Government took significant steps to tighten the rules on late payment by the public sector, and this Government are looking to take further steps in that direction, which we welcome. However, the FSB is clear that late payment by private sector businesses is the major problem, and although it is right that government should put their own house in order first, the challenge for policy makers is to shift the burden away from small businesses going out on a limb to ask for interest payments to their being paid as a matter of routine. Ministers are wrong to say that transparency, welcome as it is, will solve the problem. Yes, businesses might know they are dealing with a company that often pays late, but none the less, because of how their businesses are constituted, they might be utterly dependent on that relationship and be unable to do anything about it.

We are clear about the changes we think should be made to alter the balance of power in the late-payment relationship, and our proposed review would be an opportunity to investigate the matter in more detail, away from the cut and thrust of a Committee stage, where Governments, for whatever reason, are often reluctant to take forward ideas simply because they come from the Opposition. Our review would be an opportunity to explore an idea that we think has real merit. Our proposed quarterly statement would list all payments made late to suppliers without a formal query having to be made. It would also confirm whether interest has been paid to compensate the supplier and set out a payment plan to ensure it is paid promptly where it has not. As a package, those measures would be a significant step forward, with greater potential than any other to change the relationship between small businesses and their suppliers in the context of late payments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) spoke to her new clause and amendment. Amendment 6 would require companies to include details of the circumstances and process by which payment times can be amended and details of whose permission is required, which would prevent individual directors from making rash, unilateral or ad hoc changes to companies’ payment policies. Her new clause 1 addresses the issue of retention money in the construction industry, where it is common for firms to withhold payments to protect against problems with work and/or materials. We think that these proposals are worthy of consideration, and we look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. Many jurisdictions abroad have legislation in place for protecting retention money. It has worked well elsewhere and certainly deserves significant scrutiny.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) proposed a couple of amendments, including one on exports. Like the rest of us, she will know that the Government have failed spectacularly to secure the export-led growth they promised us back in 2010. We have the largest 2014 trade gap of any major industrial country, which is a significant issue, particularly in relation to goods, and we believe that the Government should pull their weight in supporting our exporters and that a case can be made for examining the overall role of UK Export Finance.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s remarks very carefully. To touch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) said, the charging of an 8% levy for late payment might not be a catch-all, because there might be people not paying because they have a legitimate complaint about the quality of the work done who might fear being charged the 8% levy for late payment if they raise a legitimate concern but are not successful. That would be unfair and might discourage people from making reasonable complaints.

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The Bill, as originally drafted, would have meant that a business that had raised a legitimate concern within 30 days would have been exempt from punishment for late payment. That is a valid concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

I almost wish the hon. Gentleman had been on the Committee. We debated many of these issues and he raises thoughtful questions on it. His would have been a valuable contribution to the Committee. We are referring to something that we are not debating today but, in terms of his question, the invoice would usually become due for payment at the moment the work is completed. If we were talking about a six-week construction project, the moment at which the invoice would start would be once the work was completed. There would then be a period from that point. A late payment penalty would be due 30 days after the invoice was due. In practical terms, on a traditional contract of 30 days’ net monthly, the business would provide the work and present the invoice. There would be 30 days when the payment was due. There would then be another 30 days before any late payment interest was due. There are a number of safeguards in place to try to deal with that.

[Ben Gummer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Toby Perkins]

I will give way because the hon. Gentleman made a speech. But if we are going to get into a great deal of detail about something that is not actually in the new clause, I would caution whether that is the best use of our time.

[Ben Gummer]

I understand that, but the hon. Gentleman has just made a point that reveals his misunderstanding of how an industry works. Herein lies the problem; his answer suggests that he fails to understand the way in which payment terms work in the construction industry. Often, invoices are not issued when work is complete. They are done on a staged basis when applications are made and certified by an architect or a quantity surveyor. Often the work is not complete; it is part of a process. It might well be that the work may not have been completed to the satisfaction of the customer, but they will be afraid of raising a complaint because it is not worth the 8% premium, or whatever it might be under the proposal. Herein lies the issue; he proposes legislation the impact of which he does not quite understand. It would have perverse consequences, and he has come back with another clause just to satisfy a particular interest group rather than actually trying to support what the Government are doing.

[Toby Perkins]

That was a bizarre contribution in a number of ways. First, we have said we are going to support what the Government are doing so he was factually wrong in that regard. But saying that by giving a single example of how it might work I was suggesting that that example would always work in every single case is a complete straw man. That contribution did not take us anywhere, so let us move on.

In Committee we tabled amendments that would have required the Secretary of State to initiate an independent assessment of the functions on export finance and how to improve awareness of the body. Unfortunately the Government did not accept our amendments. But the next Labour Government will make it a central mission to boost exports. Within that, there is a role for examining the overall way in which UK Export Finance works, but I would be hesitant at this stage about saying that, on that basis, the amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion should be supported. She may be minded to explore the issue today and consider whether to push it to a future stage.

On amendment 92, we strongly agree with the principle that Ministers should be accountable to Parliament for their performance in supporting businesses, and I accept what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said about not wanting a series of meaningless measures with things being deregulated just for the sake of deregulation. I also think, however, that having a deregulatory target has some value in ensuring that Governments and their civil servants are constantly conscious of the impact of any proposed new regulations. We thus think the deregulatory target has some value, as I say, although I share some of the hon. Lady’s reservations about how it will work.

Public procurement is a hugely important function of government. Central Government spend about £45 billion a year on the purchase of goods and services, and ensuring that more of that money delivers for the UK economy is one of the most valuable things that any Government can do. We are absolutely behind ensuring that the power of UK Government procurement delivers for the real economy. That is the principle behind our amendment 1, which outlines three areas in which such value can be found for our constituents, constituencies and communities, ensuring that proper reports are made and kept in each of those areas.

There is much good practice around the country coming from various public authorities. The TUC has championed the “one in a million” campaign, which aims to ensure that as far as possible, every £1 million of public spend results in at least one apprenticeship opportunity provided to a young person. A Labour Government would deliver on such principles. We would, for example, require the HS2 project to create 33,000 apprenticeships for young people at no extra cost to the taxpayer. Likewise, Labour’s new immigration Bill would compel multinationals to create an apprenticeship place each time a skilled worker was hired from outside the EU. We should leave no stone unturned in fighting for apprenticeships.

We should ensure, too, that we fight for quality apprenticeships. They should be at or above NVQ level 3, so that every business that takes on someone who has had an apprenticeship will know that they have taken on someone who has had a really significant quality of training. We think there is a lot more to be done to support apprenticeships, and our amendment 1 would take significant steps forward in supporting those apprenticeships and the type of economy that we are looking to create.

On both apprenticeships and late payments, we think that the Government are taking small steps in the right direction, but they could have been far more ambitious and delivered far more for small businesses, apprenticeships and a skilled economy. We hope that the Government will support our amendments, which would enable us to do precisely that. If they do not, they can be sure that a future Labour Government will pursue these themes and make sure that we have the kind of economy in which we can have confidence and faith in the future.

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

We have had a good-natured and largely well-informed debate on these new clauses and amendments.

I shall deal first with late payments. We have heard passionate speeches from Members on both sides of the House on the importance of tackling late payment. I will start by addressing a comment made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who performed admirably on the Public Bill Committee and made many important interventions. He argued that the current situation in the country on late payment is not acceptable and is not working, and I think he is right. The question is what to do about it.

We consulted broadly on all the potential options surrounding late payments, including many of the options covered by the amendments, and we listened carefully to the responses to the consultations. There was a range of responses, including from those who would firmly regulate all private contracts and from those who did not want any change at all. It is important for us to take steps that will have a positive impact, and to think about the unintended consequences. If we introduce into English law a requirement for a contract to take a specific form, we will remove a freedom of contract that has served the country extremely well for a long time.

We have today heard passionate arguments about the importance of dealing with late payment, as we did on Second Reading and in Committee. We have heard them from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and from Opposition Members. I bow to none in my passion for sorting out the problem of late payment, because the family business in which I grew up nearly went under thanks to it, but let me point to the big picture. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) argued that there was a moral case, and I agree with that. He also observed that the problem arose when there was a cascade of companies paying late—when, because some paid late, others had to do so, and then others had to as well. I have been at the receiving end of that, as I am sure he has. He is nodding now. The best way to tackle the problem of companies going bust and others paying late is first to establish a stable economy, and then to establish a culture of payment that is stronger and better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

There are 1,700 businesses on the register from across the country as a whole. Of course, this is targeted at the biggest companies because they are typically the ones at the top of the supply chains, but I would be very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to increase the number in Scotland.

[Toby Perkins]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock]

I want to turn to the campaign that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has run over many years, but first I will take an intervention from the shadow Minister.

[Toby Perkins]

Although many people will of course race off to Hansard to catch up on this debate, some, unbelievably, may not. Is it not entirely wrong that a business could have a term of 180 days, pay “on time”—that is, within those 180 days—and be seen as a signatory to the prompt payment code? All we are proposing in new clause 3 is that if they do not pay within 60 days, they should not be considered part of the prompt payment code.

[Matthew Hancock]

There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says, and that is why we are strengthening the code and will in future kick out companies that say that they have signed up to the code but then have unreasonably long payment terms, so I think we are basically in the same place on that point.

I wanted to address a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth about modern slavery. She has run an admirable campaign on prompt payment over many years, and we have had exchanges across the Chamber before. She has brought a huge amount of pressure to bear on this issue, and has pushed this agenda. I strongly agree with the direction of the agenda, and I agree with her on modern slavery, too. We are determined to work with businesses to ensure that supply chains are not infiltrated by the abhorrent crime of modern slavery. There is a new disclosure requirement in the Modern Slavery Bill, requiring all large businesses to disclose what they have done to ensure that their supply chains are slavery-free. That is an important step forward and takes into account the point she made.

New clause 1 would introduce a power allowing a new reporting requirement on the retention of money, require a review, and provide a further power to act on that review, but we already have a new obligation to report on these practices in this Bill. The transparency measures are at the core of the prompt payment changes proposed in the Bill.

We will seek the views of business bodies during the consultation. We are also aware that retentions are particularly prevalent in the construction industry, as the hon. Member from Scotland said—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), as I should have said. We are working with industry to move to a position where retentions are no longer necessary, and I would be happy to work with Opposition Members to push that further.

New clause 3 deals with prompt payment. It would introduce a maximum payment term of 60 days, and also place an obligation on the Secretary of State to write annually to all non-signatory FTSE 350 companies asking them to sign up to the code. I am delighted to say that I commit wholeheartedly to writing to all non-signatory FTSE 350 companies asking them to join the strengthened prompt payment code, and we should continue the cross-party push aimed at getting more large companies to sign up. The new reporting requirement will provide sufficient transparency, which will lead to competitive pressure on companies to improve their payment practices.

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely, and I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend on that. There are large private companies that are not in the FTSE. Larger companies, however they are formulated, need to be considered.

New clause 4 also deals with prompt payment. It proposes a review of how the new reporting requirement can be used to ensure the automatic payment of compensation by large companies. This is the nub of the proposal, which we discussed in Committee, that interest be automatically allowed to accrue after 60 days. We consulted on something similar during the consultation, and some bodies were in favour and others were against. Some of the bodies representing small businesses, such as the Institute of Directors, were against the proposal because of the way in which it would change contract law. I therefore do not think that the new clause is necessary, but, like Opposition Members, I want to work to strengthen payment practices. We will resist this proposal today, because we do not think the case for it has been made and we do not believe that the unintended consequences have been thought through. However, we will report back publicly on the findings of further work before the end of this Parliament.

[Toby Perkins]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said about new clause 3 and the prompt payment code. Given those assurances, we will not press new clauses 3 and 4 to a vote. I hope that we can continue to work together constructively on late payments, because that is a key issue for small businesses.

[Matthew Hancock]

That is terrific. After our voting performance today, I am delighted to hear that.

Amendment 6 proposes that companies disclose details of the circumstances in which, and processes by which, payment terms are amended. I have already said that the Government believe that it is poor practice to subject suppliers to unilateral and ad hoc changes to payment terms. We talked about that in Committee. I agree that greater transparency could increase accountability for this practice, and we are launching a consultation on how that transparency could be achieved. I hope that that deals with the substance of amendment 6.

Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that contracting authorities know about the historical payment performance of potential suppliers before they enter into public contracts with them. It also seeks to ensure that the companies entering into those contracts pay their own suppliers promptly. The new procurement regulations that will be made early next year will place a duty on contracting authorities to pass 30-day payment terms all the way down the public sector supply chain, from the contracting authority to the tier 1 supplier. This has been discussed here today and in Committee. I hope that Members will therefore agree that this amendment is not required in addition to the regulations.

On amendment 1, having prompt payment in procurement is dealt with in the new procurement regulations. The requirement for training in procurement is something I agree with where it is cost-effective. We have delivered that in Crossrail and I very much hope that HS2, which has been mentioned, will also deliver it. That is exactly the sort of training, alongside contracting, that is common in the private sector, but of course we have to drive value for money in the public sector, too. The Government agree that transparency and reporting in public sector procurement is vital, and Departments are already required to report on procurement expenditure with smaller businesses. As hon. Members know, that expenditure has been rising rapidly as a proportion and we are on target to hit the goals we set.

Amendment 2, also on procurement, is designed to ensure that the Minister making regulations under clause 37 is able to specify the reasons why firms may be excluded from entering into contracts. Under the existing procurement regulations a contracting authority can already take account of certain types of past behaviour by an economic operator, such as grave professional misconduct, when deciding whether it is eligible to take part in a procurement process. So that is already allowed for.

Amendment 3 states that any regulations made under clause 37 are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, and I reassure hon. Members that contracting authorities, as public authorities, are already required to respond to FOI requests. Amendment 4 is designed to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny by removing the reference to the negative resolution procedure. I agreed to consider, following the debate in Committee, whether it would be appropriate to change the level of parliamentary scrutiny for these regulations. The Government think that the negative resolution procedure provides the right level, but I did go away and consider the matter. We think that an affirmative process would slow down potential changes when the Government want to remain nimble in responding to the needs of small businesses.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for tabling amendment 91 on UK Export Finance. In our response to the consultation on these issues, the Government rejected such a proposal and set out the rationale: a prohibited list, by its very nature, would not allow the Secretary of State to take an open-minded approach in coming to a decision on whether to support an export falling within an included class. The measures already enhance the support that UK Export Finance can offer, and creating an ability to prohibit support for certain exports which are otherwise perfectly legal goes directly against that goal.

Amendment 92, again tabled by the hon. Lady, relates to the business impact target. I am delighted to debate that with her, because I believe the need for the target proposals set out in the Bill is clear. Too many businesses, particularly smaller ones, find that complying with Government regulation is the single biggest challenge to running their business. We had strong support in Committee for the target. It is only by having a competitive business environment that we can have prosperity, growth and indeed the environmental protections that she is so passionate about. I strongly support, and urge her to support, the deregulation target.