| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) gave a qualified acceptance of Lords amendment No. 7 because, he said, it is an improvement on the original. It says that a court may find
"that the result of the ballot no longer represents the views of the union members concerned".
How will a court determine this? The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) mocked my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but the Labour movement has elections and the one thing that the Conservative party seems most reluctant to have is elections. The chairman of the Conservative party is certainly not elected and there is no balloting over
Column 32
company contributions to that party. The board simply donates money and notifies the shareholders of what has happened--just like that. What worries me is that even when the Government pass legislation on balloting, and the processes set out in that legislation are followed, employers still have the whiphand in the workplace. I can give a demonstration of that and the Under-Secretary may wish to check with his officials about the letter that I wrote in August about a company in my constituency--John Stanley in Willenhall. In this company, several ballots were held in accordance with Government legislation. There was no doubt that they were carried out according to the law of the land. There were resounding majorities in favour of action being taken by the employees over a wage claim. As a result of those ballots a large number of people were dismissed and the dispute continues. I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him how he could possibly explain to the workers why, after they had observed the requirements of the legislation, they were treated in this way. The trade union official concerned, in Wolverhampton, which is near to my constituency, wrote to ask whether the Secretary of State or any of the Ministers in the Department of Employment could explain in person to the workers why they had been dismissed in this way, but the Secretary of State did not take up the invitation. There is a contradiction between the way in which the Government handle trade unions and their attitude to employers. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was right to say that there is inbuilt prejudice against trade unions. I can give an example of this. A Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who is not present--I am not saying anything about the Whip who is here--has been quoted in the local press as saying that he would rather see his factories closed than accept trade unions. That is one illustration of a member of the Government who has a strong prejudice against trade unions. Are we to believe that the Minister who is to reply is not hostile towards trade unions? We remember him as a Back Bencher, when he mocked and baited trade unions on numerous occasions. Can he be regarded as impartial and as someone who wants to see fair play between employers and employees? Of course not. The Minister is on the side of the employers. He probably does not believe that it is right that trade unions should exist in the first place. He is certainly not in favour of trade unions being able to organise industrial action. Perhaps I speak for myself, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will disagree with me, but I do not want to see industrial action at every opportunity when there are difficulties. I believe that it should be used as a weapon of last resort. If the right of industrial action is taken from the work force, however, a fundamental freedom is removed from it. It is interesting to bear in mind some of the first actions that have been taken in eastern Europe. The countries concerned have been doing away with the Communist dictatorships and introducing free speech and free Parliaments. One of their first actions was to permit free trade unions to be formed that would have the right to take industrial action. My right hon. and hon. Friends have been trying to maintain freedoms which were established over many years, which the Tory Government have undoubtedly undermined to a large extent.Column 33
There is so much hypocrisy surrounding these matters. Yesterday, The Sunday Times supplied us with information about the way in which the very rich try to evade their income tax liability. We read about offshore tax havens. I do not know whether there are any Conservative Members present now in the Chamber who take advantage of those loopholes, but one or two Conservative Members were named in The Sunday Times. The Government talk about the rule of law and fair play and say that trade union officials should not encourage their members to ask for too much in wage claims. The same Government tolerate loopholes that give the rich extra money. The rich have done so well out of the Government, yet, despite pressure from the Inland Revenue, it seems that over the past two or three years the Treasury has refused to take action to close such loopholes that they know exist. There is a contradiction when the Government talk about fair play yet allow loopholes to remain open for the rich. At the same time the Government try to undermine in every conceivable way the right of working people to organise effectively and to take industrial action.I have given an example of the way in which a group of employees in my constituency have been treated badly. Having listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and for Bolsover, I also take the view that there is not much purpose in voting against this provision. We must be under no illusion, however ; the Government are dedicated to supporting only one part of society. Time and again they have helped the rich and the near- rich. Even their natural supporters, such as those at Eastbourne, have decided that enough is enough. They are fed up with the Government, as are millions of others who voted for the Conservative party at the general election. They have come to the conclusion that the Government do not represent ordinary people. Instead, they represent the rich or the well off. They will do everything possible for a small minority. That is why the Government have lost so much support in the past few years. I have referred to Eastbourne, but in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election the swing against the Government was even greater. That was in the region of which I represent part--the west midlands--and so I am pleased about that. It is clear--[ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who is making idiotic comments while sitting behind the Minister, will undoubtedly lose his seat at the next general election.
Mr. Holt : I had no intention of contributing to the debate, but, having listened to some of the cant and nonsense from Labour Members, I find it necessary to intervene.
I represent many working people. Most of the Conservative voters in my constituency are working people. Most of them would find much to resent in the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who I believe has never done a day's work and dirtied his hands. He is a Member of Parliament who has been thrown out on one occasion, and I think that he will be thrown out again.
Reference was made to my antecedents. I think that the reference was prompted by the Opposition Whip. As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not get his facts right. I was not born in the north of England, but I was educated there. My opponent during the general election was not born in the north of England either. He was born in India. I do not think that that
Column 34
should necessarily disbar anyone from becoming a Member of Parliament. If candidates must live, work and have been born in the area, the Labour party's national executive committee will have great difficulty selecting a candidate for Eastbourne at the general election. It threw out its good local man because he did not conform to the Mandelson image. Of course, Mr. Mandelson--the man who really runs the Labour party, with the puppet Kinnock up front--is seeking a seat in the north of England. He has been selected as a candidate for an area that he had never previously visited. He is fighting a good local Conservative candidate who was born and raised in the area. He will beat Mr. Mandelson at the next general election--Mr. Speaker : Order. I know that such matters have been mentioned, but the debate is about a ballot ceasing to be effective in accordance with the relevant subsection. I know that general elections are about ballots, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks more closely to the Lords amendment.
Mr. Holt : I am just coming to the connection that you are seeking, Mr. Speaker. We are discussing ballots. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) referred to the dock strike at Tees and Hartlepool. It was, "All out boys, all out", but it was not very long before it was, "All back boys, all back." The union leader said that the strike would last for six months and would break the port employers, but in fact it lasted for about six days and almost broke the union. It is the workers from the Tees and Hartlepool port authority who will elect the Conservative candidate, Mr. Graham Robb, to this House rather than Mr. Mandelson, the carpetbagger from the south of England.
Mr. Forth : I have at long last achieved one of my life's ambitions, which is to be acknowledged by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) as a member of the Establishment. It is something that I have always wanted to be, and now I have it from the most impeccable authority in the House, if I may refer to the hon. Gentleman thus, that I am a fully fledged, bona fide member of the Establishment. I thank him for that because it has made my day.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) implied that the matter had not been fully and properly debated, but that is not strictly true. The principles underlying this important clause were debated throughout the Bill's proceedings both in this House and in another place. Although the exact clause had not been debated here, it was debated at length in Committee and on Report in another place and was widely welcomed on all sides. It had a fair amount of coverage. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could conceive of or suggest any events that would meet the requirements of clause 7(4)(b). Almost immediately, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) gave examples of two such events-- first, the possible reinstatement of an employee whose dismissal had given rise to the balloted action, and secondly, a new pay offer being made during the proceedings. Those are two obvious circumstances which could give rise to the requirements under the clause. It is not as unlikely or as obscure as the hon. Member for Stretford suggested.
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : Although those are relevant circumstances, if they were likely to arise
Column 35
the union probably would not have returned to the court on an application. The sting would have been taken out of the potential dispute. It is more likely that the circumstances will be much greyer and less obvious to define than the clear circumstances suggested by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), which would probably result in the union not wanting to make an application.Mr. Forth : The hon. Gentleman may well be right. However, the thrust of this late change to the Bill comes in response to points raised-- quite legitimately--in the other place. They were considered very carefully, and were prompted largely by the events involving the Transport and General Workers Union which were outlined by the hon. Member for Stretford. We intend to prevent a recurrence of those events.
4.30 pm
I shall not attempt to envisage in detail the circumstances that may arise ; I feel, however, that the clause provides a mechanism that will allow the unions to prevent a recurrence of the TGWU problem by going back to court. I shall say more about that in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West asked whether an appeal to the employment appeals tribunal would be possible. As a division of the High Court, it hears appeals from the industrial tribunals, so it would not be possible in this instance. Besides, we feel that allowing for such appeals would introduce yet more potential for delay and uncertainty. I should add that employers have no chance to appeal either ; to that extent, the position remains evenly balanced.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) queried the ability of the judicial process to respond quickly enough to the events that we are discussing. I can give him two assurances--one quite serious, the other entirely serious. Given the dramatic fall in the incidence of industrial action that we have observed over the past few years, the number of occasions on which this machinery will be needed have also been dramatically reduced ; it will therefore be invoked in only a few cases. I am confident that a quick enough response will be possible, although, if I am proved wrong, we shall re-examine the position as a matter of urgency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) asked whether the term "likely to occur" related to the future. If something is happening or has already happened, the court can already take it into account under subsection (4A) ; subsection (4B) would not be applicable. I do not believe that his fears are well grounded, but, if he is not satisfied with my reply, we can consider the matter again if necessary. My hon. Friend also asked what was the applicable date of the ballot. The applicable date is the last date on which voting can take place.
It is remarkable that the hon. Member for Bolsover should still criticise the Government over the level of unemployment. Of course, any level of unemployment--even the present level, much reduced though it is--is unacceptable. Is not it significant, however, that our current rate of about 5.5 per cent. is below the rate in socialist France and socialist Spain, below the rate in
Column 36
Germany--that much-vaunted example of industrial efficiency--and, certainly, below the rate in many other countries that allege to have socialist Governments?Presumably the hon. Gentleman still claims to be a socialist. I do not know whether that can now be said of any other member of the Labour party, but I suspect that, if there is one party member who still wishes to regard himself as a socialist, it is the hon. Gentleman. Given that that is the case, it is remarkable that he should criticise the present Government for the level of unemployment that an unacceptable number of people are still suffering : even his friends in the Socialist International--no doubt he, too is an active member, although he does not possess a passport--would consider that unfair. I hope that he will think again.
The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members expressed suspicions about the courts. I regret that, because, although those of us who do not participate in court proceedings may find them difficult to divine from time to time, by and large it is a fair and impartial system. We should accept it as such, and we shall not make any progress by constantly criticising court procedure and those who dedicate their lives to this country's system of justice.
Mr. Skinner : The system of justice in this country is bent. I believe that the judges, by and large, mirror the views of the Establishment. When a Tory Government are in power, the judges, by and large, support that Government's views. There may be odd little exceptions, where the judiciary throw a sprat to catch a mackerel, but I do not believe that they act independently. A good example of that is the way that judges came back from their holidays and opened up the courts on Saturdays and Sundays to imprison miners. They do not do the same in the case of people from the City. Cameron-Webb and Dixon got away to America with £40 million without even having their collars felt.
When the judges were nearly tackled by the present Government two years ago, the judges threatened to go on strike and to have a big march down the Strand. As a result, the Prime Minister--the so-called lady who is not for turning--caved in, because the judges were her friends and she did not want to strike at them. I am sorry that the judges did not strike, because I had already made a placard and intended to join them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Forth : The hon. Gentleman has just answered the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who complained about the judiciary's lack of speedy response. The hon. Member for Bolsover offered the best example that anyone could of the judiciary's speed of response. I wish that I had thought of it myself.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland queried whether the courts could respond quickly enough when unions referred a matter to them under the terms of the clause. The court will already be dealing with the matter, so such a request would only be an extension of existing proceedings rather than anything new. Therefore, there is no reason why any obstacle should be placed in the way of a union in that respect.
I will not deal in detail at the Dispatch Box today with the specific case raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but I undertake to study again the
Column 37
correspondence that passed between him and my Department. If there have been any significant or relevant changes in the circumstances, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will advise me. However, that case does not change the substance of the amendment and the clause.Mr. Winnick : I thank the Minister for agreeing to review the correspondence. I think that he will find that a rather useful exercise.
As the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) would not give way earlier, may I ask him now whether he agrees that it would be more useful to proceed by argument and not by smears? Apart from two years' national service and a further two years in higher education, I have been in paid employment of one form or another since the age of 15. To say that I have not worked is a Tory lie. I have worked all my life. Despite the wishes of the Tories, I hope that I shall have an opportunity to work for many more years to come. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh should acknowledge that he told a lie, and withdraw it.
Mr. Forth : I do not want to pursue those matters, but I hope that I have replied adequately to the substantive points made during our useful debate.
Mr. Holt : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I may point out that in response to the claim by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that only people who get their hands dirty are workers--
Mr. Skinner : I did not say that.
Mr. Holt : He did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In response to that remark, I said that the hon. Member for Walsall, North had never done a day's hard work. I stick by that.
Column 38
Mr. Winnick : What work has the hon. Gentleman ever done? Acting?
Mr. Skinner : Bookies' runner?
Mr. Holt : It is not a question of what I have done but of what work those two hon. Gentlemen have done.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. None of this has much to do with employment.
Mr. Forth : I ask the House to support the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1
Further Provisions Relating to Access to Employment
Lords amendment : No. 12, in page 17, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. Forth.]
Mr. Tony Lloyd : By way of clarification, will the Minister be good enough to confirm that subsection (5), which has been deleted as a result of the Lords amendment, was unnecessary in the first place? Will he place it on the record that health service employers, and those working within the health service, are covered by other sections of the schedule, and that, therefore, there is no question of their not being given the benefits of this legislation?
Mr. Forth : Yes, I confirm that what the hon. Gentleman said is correct.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 16 agreed to.
Column 39
Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
Lords amendment considered.
Clause 1
Licensed premises : application of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II
Lords amendment : In page 1, line 18, at end insert
"and section 24(3)(b) of the 1954 Act (which, in certain cases, preserves the effect of a notice to quit given in respect of a tenancy which becomes one to which Part II of the 1954 Act applies) shall not have effect in the case of a tenancy which becomes one to which that Part applies by virtue of this subsection."
4.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, as amended in 1969, will offer more protection to tenants of licensed premises if the Bill is passed. I know many people will welcome the amendment. I believe it is common ground with the Opposition that the extension of protection offered by this legislation will be beneficial to the tenants to whom it will apply and I welcome their support for the measure. The amendment has arisen out of consultations during the passage of the legislation. We believe that it represents a further improvement in the protection which the legislation will afford to affected tenancies. As the words of the amendment show, it disapplies a section of the 1954 Act, which could otherwise call into doubt protection for tenants where notice to quit might already have been served--something that the National Licensed Victuallers Association, among others, is worried about. I hope that the Opposition will agree that this amendment is welcome and strengthens the protection that the Bill offers.
Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North) : The Opposition have reservations about the Bill, but we support the amendment, as was made clear by the noble Lord Williams in another place, and I repeat our support on this occasion.
I commend the National Licensed Victuallers Association, which has been extremely diligent and meticulous both in this matter and in assisting politicians throughout the passage of the Bill. It was due only to that diligence that we were able to modify the wording on this subject so that the Bill could achieve the common ends agreed between the Government and the Opposition.
The amendment provides further minor protection for a tenant. However, I regret that the Government, during the preparation of the amendment in another place, were unable to incorporate a commitment given in both Houses on compensation, which is also relevant when a tenant may be forced out of a tenancy. I refer the House to the original commitment given by the Minister in response to a probing speech from a Conservative Back Bencher when the matter was considered in Committee. The Minister said :
"I shall re-read what has been said by hon. Members on compensation and give it further thought".--[ Official Report, Standing Committee G , 25 January 1990 ; c. 71.]
Column 40
I am pleased to be able to acknowledge that further thought was given to the matter by the Government, and when it was considered in another place the noble Lord Trefgarne gave a further commitment when he said :"I can announce that after further consideration the Government intend to bring forward an amendment which will recognise that special arrangements for compensation should apply during the period of adjustment to a more open market. The amendment will provide that for a transitional period additional and separate compensation will be payable to tenants of un- licensed premises to which the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II will apply because of the Bill, and where the landlord wishes to use them as on- licensed premises himself."--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 22 March 1990 ; Vol. 517, c. 413.] That commitment was welcomed by all those participating in the debate in another place. It was with some amazement that the Labour party spokesman on trade and industry in another place reported to me that, following discussions which had taken place with the noble Lord Trefgarne, it was found impossible to amend the Bill in a way that would accomplish what had been agreed.
In another debate in another place on the same issue on Report on 17 July this year, the report was accepted only with the proviso that there was regret that it had not included mention of compensation although the Government entered into a commitment in Committee in the House, which had been reinforced by a further commitment given on two occasions in another place.
I wish that the Government had given more careful scrutiny to the Bill when they were preparing the title and drew up the clauses. A crucial part of the Bill was found not to be in order by the House of Lords. It means that the protection that Members on both sides of the House want is not in the Bill.
The Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) (No. 2) Bill is in another place, and it covers this ground. It has been supported by the spokesman of the Labour party and the Government in another place. I understand that procedurally it will not be possible for that Bill to come before the House, which would enable it to have an opportunity to become law during this Session.
While agreeing to support the amendment, I ask the Minister how he intends to proceed with the question of compensation, which the industry agrees is desirable and which the House has acknowledged all hon. Members would like to achieve.
There was virtual unanimity among all those who took part in the debate in another place. Although there are timetabling problems, the issue will not go away. The Minister ought to tell the House how the Government propose to honour their commitment. Are they prepared to consider introducing a short Bill next Session on lines similar to those in the No. 2 Bill that was introduced in another place? Alternatively, would it be possible for the Government to table an amendment for inclusion in other miscellaneous legislation to cover the important question of compensation?
Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham) : As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) pointed out, the Opposition accept the amendment. It is needed to close a small loophole in the Bill. I am the parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association which drew the Government's attention to a loophole that they had
Column 41
overlooked. I, too, praise the NLVA for spotting this error in the original drafting of the Bill. I am pleased that the Government have acted upon the association's advice.However, it is tragic that this is the only amendment to come to us from another place. Important though it is, the amendment does not implement the solemn undertaking that was given by Lord Trefgarne on behalf of the Government on Second Reading in another place. He said that the Bill would be amended to provide better compensation for tenant licensees whose houses are taken back by the brewers for management in the transitional period before the full protection of the Bill becomes available to them. Many tenants are already affected, partly because of the Government's other legislation on the matter, which has resulted in many of the large brewery companies taking back houses for management in order to reduce the number of tenanted properties. Many licensees will, I fear, be denied the protection that Lord Trefgarne tried to promise them.
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the beer orders that the Government pushed through the House will result in a significant number of tenanted houses being taken back for management or being put on the open market. Why did not the hon. Gentleman at that time join me in the Lobby to oppose those two orders?
Mr. Crowther : I shall not attempt to answer that question. If I did, we should be straying a long way from the business before the House. It would not be sensible to reopen a debate that has long since gone. I am concerned with the position as it is now and as it will be in the near future.
I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the point put to him a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. Licensees were given to believe that an amendment would be tabled on the lines to which I have referred, but it has not arrived. Lord Trefgarne gave that undertaking in the other place on Second Reading. I do not blame him for the fact that he was unable to table the amendment that he had promised. It appears that the Government's advisers on procedure, whoever they may be, had failed to detect that the Clerks in the other place would rule that such an amendment would be out of order.
Lord Trefgarne was therefore placed in the embarrassing position of having to tell their Lordships that he could not implement the promise that he had made. In Committee, however, on 23 April, he said :
"I undertake to consider very carefully what has been said during the debate and to do my best to resolve the matter between now and the next stage."--[ Official Report, House of Lords ; 23 April 1990, Vol. 518, c. 354.]
Exactly three months later, at Third Reading on 23 July, he had still failed to resolve it, although other suggestions had been put to him--for example, a short No. 2 Bill to take care of the matter. Why Lord Trefgarne did not do that no one seems to know.
Lord Williams of Elvel showed the way that it could be done by introducing his own Bill which would have implemented the Government's promise, if only the House of Lords had had time to do so. If that Bill had been introduced by the Government in April when Lord Trefgarne found that he was unable to amend the first Bill, everything would have been taken care of and the
Column 42
protection that had been offered to tenant licensees would be about to be implemented. It is tragic that that has not happened. The amendment is important. It improves the Bill. However, it remains a modest little measure which falls a long way short of the high hopes that were raised at the time of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's original recommendations, which would have improved the protection given to tenants.I do not intend to comment on the other matters in the MMC's report. They are not before the House. I am concerned only with the MMC's recommendations for the protection of tenants. They have not been implemented in full, although Lord Young said originally that he intended to implement them in full. It is a tragedy that that has not happened. Consequently, we end up with half a loaf which is, no doubt, better than no bread at all. I hope, however, for better things in the next Session. I suppose that we have to be thankful for small mercies, but time will tell just how small this one is.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : I had not intended to speak in the debate until, when I was sitting in the Tea Room, I saw the Bill's title on the Annunciator. It struck me that the Bill was relevant to a case in the county of Cumbria which I decided to bring to the attention of Parliament at some stage.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we are debating not the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill but a specific and particular Lords amendment thereto.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : It is precisely that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It relates to the position of a particular licensed tenant and the lack of protection for his interests during an argument that he had with the brewery. I understood that when the Bill was discussed in the other place it would lead to an amendment that would safeguard his position.
There is a pub in the county of Cumbria which some eight years ago was turning over approximately £35 a week--a very small sum indeed. A well -known brewery in the north of England owned the pub. It removed the tenant and a new tenant was brought in who increased the turnover of that pub from that small sum to more than £300,000 a year. The brewery developed the business, the barrelage and a food business to go with the sale of drink.
The pub has become well known in Cumbria. Some months ago the brewery informed its tenant that it wished to take the property for itself and, in effect, to evict him. That is what it means in practice. The brewery informed the tenant that it intended to install one of its own managers. It wanted to do that because it was rationalising its estate. That company, which is a reputable local company, wishes to secure the highest possible return for its shareholders and for its internal investment in its brewery operations. Therefore, it felt that it needed a turnover injection of that scale to help to improve its profitability.
The tenant felt most aggrieved and looked to Parliament and the law for a means by which he could be properly compensated--that is what we are considering in the amendment--either by the state, which was not really his priority, or by the brewery. Having taken legal advice, he discovered that he had no rights in law. The only thing
Column 43
that supported his position was a code of conduct that had been drawn up by the breweries and with which they are expected to comply.5 pm
The result was that an argument broke out about the compensation that should be paid to that tenant, who was about to be evicted. I am unaware of the final settlement, but I know that it runs into very few thousands of pounds. We must take into account that, over a period of seven years, that man and his wife had built up the business until it had a turnover of £300,000. One would expect them to receive compensation in excess of £100,000 to enable them to purchase another public house.
I expect that, in future, the Bill will protect people in that position and enable them, if a brewery must take a commercial decision based on the need to rationalise, to acquire another public house so that they can rebuild their business. I do not see how, in natural justice, a principle can be reasoned or defended by which a man's livelihood can, in effect, be terminated because a brewery wishes to rationalise.
If the Minister checks his facts, he will find that that matter has been referred to by a Member of Parliament for Cumbria, but I do not intend to identify the pub or constituency. The Minister should reply directly to the point that I have made. No doubt that publican will see the Minister's reply reported in the newspaper, and in so far as it directly relates to the substance of the amendment, and indeed the substance of the Bill, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity of replying.
Mr. Redwood : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for offering the Opposition's support for the amendment. We all agree that it is a welcome improvement in the protection afforded to tenants under this legislation.
I express gratitude to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and echo his words, because the National Licensed Victuallers Association has been helpful to me and to other hon. Members during the passage of the Bill. It found something that needed improving and the Government responded. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the dialogue between us was useful.
I said in Committee that we would carefully consider compensation to see whether there are ways of improving it further. I gave a cautious pledge to improve it further because I well knew that there were many technical and other problems barring the way to achieving a better compensation regime to which I needed to give further thought. My noble Friend in the other place thought that those obstacles had been cleared and that he could see a way of drafting something that would meet the requirement. He offered that in good faith, and he and the Government are sorry that it was not in order in the other place. This House understands the rules of procedure, which are not a matter for the Government. Like the Opposition, the Government should live within the rules of order and accept all the judgments of the proper authorities. Unfortunately, this matter was not in order and so we were not able to make progress in the way that my noble Friend had thought possible when he made his
Column 44
pledge. He apologised for that in the other place, and I echo his apologies on behalf of the Government. We are sorry that it was not possible, but that is how the procedure had to work, given the nature of the short title of the Bill.The Bill already contains compensation provisions which are important to the industry. The Government believe that it is important that the Bill should go through in a timely way to make that protection available.
Mr. Crowther : We all accept that Lord Trefgarne gave in good faith an undertaking which he was unable to implement. I do not understand--and I should like the Minister to try to explain this--why the Government did not adopt one of the other options open to them of introducing a short Bill on the lines of the Bill introduced much later by my noble Friend Lord Williams of Elvel. If they had done so, there would have been ample parliamentary time for it to go through both Houses and to meet, in a different way, the undertaking given by Lord Trefgarne.
Mr. Redwood : Lord Trefgarne gave his undertaking on the basis that he would be able to amend this Bill, which would have been the shortest and simplest way of proceeding had it been in order. When the Government considered the other possibility we realised that new legislation would have required substantial allocations of new parliamentary time and we did not feel that that would be possible within the limited time available. We felt that it was important not to jeopardise the substantial protection that the legislation offers.
| Next Section
| Home Page |