Pub Companies
Tony Cunningham Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It comes almost as a surprise to me to speak in this debate. First, I am a member of the Methodist Church and we have a long tradition of not being very keen on drinking, although we have modernised a bit since those days. As I said in an intervention, I also own a pub as chairman of the John Clare Trust, because we bought the Exeter Arms in Helpston. It is temporarily closed while we finance what we call an omni-hub in the village, which will meet the needs of the local community and the overall educational purposes of the trust. A journalist said to me the other week, “You must be the only MP who owns both a church and a pub.” Funnily enough, the church in Norwood Green in Halifax, where we have an environmental body, has a strict codicil that states we cannot serve alcohol. It is an interesting world we live in.
May I remind the House of a bit of history? I support the motion today. I do not say that in a partisan way because there is so much agreement about the need for action. I shall support it not only because the Whips will tell me to, but because it is about time we had some action. I think there is a majority in this House for action on the situation of the many people in tied houses. When we took over the Exeter Arms, having negotiated a reasonable price with Enterprise Inns, there had been a succession of tenants who just could not make it work while having to pay premium prices for beer and everything else. They had to pay if they introduced new varieties of food and for all the gaming machines—I did not realise the tie could take a lot of that as well. Many people had found it very difficult to make a go of that pub, and they need a new and fair deal.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
I do not want to miss the point because the whole essence of this debate is about fairness. We should always remember that word—fairness—because it has been absent for a very long time in that relationship.
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I was about to make that point. Let us look at the history. I have been in the House quite a long time and I remember what seemed to be a dramatic change when Lord Young of Graffham, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, cut up the industry, and the link between brewers that cared about their pubs and the pub estate was broken. That was done perhaps with the best intentions, but the unintended consequence was that people who had a tradition of brewing and who loved beer and their pub outlets were cut out of that relationship. The Conservative Government at that time—I am not being too rancorous about this—created unintended consequences that severely damaged brewing and the pubs of this country.
Beer Duty Escalator
Tony Cunningham Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for making that important point—I agree that the pub offers a safe environment particularly for young people to be introduced to alcohol—but for the work that he has done on behalf of the all-party beer group, as have other colleagues in the Chamber, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who, with the all-party save the pub group, has done such a lot to champion our pub industry.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
With 16 pubs a week closing, it is important to remember that is what is really at risk is the football team, the cricket team, the golf society, the theatre at the back of the pub, the small library, the shop, the bowling green—the list goes on and on. The pub is a huge part of the community. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
Andrew Griffiths
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has read my speech. We all recognise the value of the community pub in our communities. Be it the last pub in the village, the pub on the council estate, or the bar on the high street, we recognise that those establishments are at the heart of our communities. They not only provide employment but give people an opportunity to come together to celebrate and to meet friends, and they run football clubs, for example.
Fuel Prices
Tony Cunningham Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon
Absolutely. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to introduce pilots in some rural areas. I know that people will talk more about that today, but I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks.
In real terms, adjusted for inflation, motoring fuel has never been this expensive, apart from twice in history during historic crises of supply—Suez in 1956 and the OPEC strike in 1973. The current situation is being driven by higher taxes and we have to be realistic and truthful about who pays the lion’s share of fuel duty: it is ordinary families driving to work, mums taking their children to school, small businesses that cannot afford to drive vans or lorries, and non-motorists who depend on buses and who are also being crushed by rocketing food prices as the cost of road haulage goes through the roof.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned restricted bus services. Can I tell him that in large parts of Cumbria and other rural areas, there simply are not any bus services and people have to use their cars?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was pleased to bump into him on holiday in Cumbria not so long ago. In certain areas, we cannot simply say, “People should use public transport.” People depend on their cars.
HM Revenue and Customs
Tony Cunningham Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mudie
They probably are, but the report that I am quoting is a couple of years old.
The other thing that we highlighted—the hon. Member for Chichester referred to this—were the dire results for HMRC of a cross-government staff survey. We expressed deep concern about employee engagement at HMRC and its effect on performance, along with the severely low morale, which has been referred to. What that amounts to is this. The problem could be a passing phenomenon, but it is not. It has been consistent for a number of years and it has to be faced up to. What are the reasons for it? We cannot move away from that dismal performance without accepting that severe staff cuts in the department are a major—if not the major—contributory factor. The work force has gone down by 30% since 2005. There might be some excuse in that the merging of two departments—Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue—provides scope for rationalisation, but not for losing 30% of the staff. There is worry that with the spending review, another £2 billion might be taken out—or £3 billion, with £900 million going back. In addition to seeing those 30,000 jobs, another £2 billion is to be taken out of its resources, and we cannot anticipate a better performance in the years ahead.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
I am hearing rumours that some people threatened with redundancy are earning £20,000 to £25,000 a year, yet the work they do saves the Treasury hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. Surely that does not make any sense either?
Mr Mudie
That is a well-accepted fact. To be fair, the £900 million is an acceptance of what my hon. Friend says. Theoretically or on paper, this money is going back to bring in £7 billion-worth of tax that has not been collected for one reason or another. I would like the Minister to deal with the phasing of that £7 billion. As usual with the Treasury, this can be read any way. I know that we culminate with this £7 billion, but what are the targets for the years ahead?
The computer has also contributed to demoralisation in the Department. It is not just the computer, but the man in Whitehall who thinks that the computer is the answer, because pressing a button produces something and it does not argue back. As we have discovered elsewhere in government, that simply does not work under any circumstances. The Revenue saw the computer as an answer to its problems with the budget cuts and thought that the staff could be taken out. They were removed before the computer was up and running, before it became operational and proved to be defective. That is why we had the debacle at Christmas 18 months ago of millions of taxpayers receiving an unexpected and largely unwelcome envelope. I grant that some might have been welcome, but they were mostly unwelcome.
The 30,000 jobs are gone, but I have yet to mention the merger. It was particularly important for staff morale, because at the same time this brilliant Department—I suppose it was the Treasury—brought in McKinsey to do its thinking, and it ended up adopting a French model of “départements”. There were 36 such departments inside the organisation, which meant no joining together of the two departments with their great traditions and ethos, and no welding together of the best bits from both. Instead, the departments were broken up—everybody was broken up—and there were no lines of accountability or anything like that. It was a complete shambles. Steps have been taken to put that right, but some of the damage persists, which is another contributory factor. That is what has happened. It is not possible to take out 30,000 people, have a merger or reorganisation, load in additional work and duties and expect it all to work. It is not working; something has to be done about it.
The hon. Member for Chichester touched on the issue of taxpayers. When the new computer came in, as usual somebody in Whitehall said, “It is wonderful to have this computer in London, so we can shut some offices”—and they gaily did so. On paper that meant saving staff, costs and so forth. The trouble is that tax is a very complicated issue. The best of us—I say this because I am among them—simply cannot handle tax and the details relating to it. Two or three years ago I decided that my accountant was too expensive, and took over the job of filling in the forms myself. In the first year, I received £300 back; in the second year I was charged £1,500. Now I am back with my accountant.
The difficulties involved in dealing with tax are a fact of life. The closure of tax offices has been a disaster, along with the cuts in working hours and days. We have reached a stage in public life, at both local authority and national levels, when call centres may seem to be the answer but are really—I suspect—a way of placing a brick wall between the decision-makers and the public. They can be helpful when dealing with ordinary questions, but are often unhelpful when it comes to detailed matters such as tax. That is especially true when they are talking to the elderly and those for whom English is a second language. I am reminded of confused.com: call centres are unhelpful to anyone who is confused.
Independent Financial Advisers (Regulation)
Tony Cunningham Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Garnier
I trust that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the independent financial advisers, who will have to do that. I will come to that a little later in my speech, if I may, but I will address it specifically.
The point I was making is important because it highlights the significant amount of money being drawn out of the net savings pool of the country. It is only right that the FSA and the regulators should address the problem. They looked into it and surmised that in this marketplace competition is hindered by opaqueness and incentive conflicts, resulting in the interests of firms versus those of customers not being fully aligned. The FSA set up the retail distribution review—RDR—in 2006 to address those problems, and the new rules are due to come into force in January 2013. Specifically, according to the FSA, the RDR aimed to bring about three principal changes. The first was an improvement in the clarity with which firms describe their services to consumers. Secondly, it sought to address the potential for advisers’ remuneration to distort consumer outcomes. Finally, it aimed for an improvement in advisers’ professional standards.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
On that final point, I have also had a number of people writing to me. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the overriding concerns—I have had letters from people with 29 or 30 years’ experience—is that experience does not seem to count for anything?
Mark Garnier
That is a recurring theme and I shall come on to that point, but the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. It has been raised by huge numbers of IFAs who have got in touch with me, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire and with many other Members.
The three aims that the FSA has talked about are, I believe, laudable in principle, overall. It is not our intention tonight to derail the retail distribution review, which will improve standards for consumers. I suspect that not a single professional in the industry would disagree with the overall principles. Indeed, Which?, the consumer champion, strongly supports the measures contained in the RDR, and states that its members
“firmly believe that the IFA industry is best placed to offer this advice”.
However, the devil is, as always, in the detail.
In addressing the problems, the FSA has, through the RDR, introduced issues that disproportionately affect the IFA community. The IFA trade organisation, the Association of Independent Financial Advisers—AIFA—suggested in evidence to the Treasury Committee that although some 30% of IFAs strongly supported the RDR and 40% were rather ambivalent towards it, 30% would not put up with the RDR. The 30% who are against the RDR suggest that it would be better to leave the industry altogether, so the community of IFAs would shrink significantly.
Comprehensive Spending Review
Tony Cunningham Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why was no decision made about whether the debate that we had been having all afternoon had gone on long enough?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The rules of the House dictate that once the debate has gone past 6 o’clock it finishes and we move on to the Adjournment debate.