Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I entirely accept what you say, as does every hon. Member, but, because the procedures are so unfortunate, will you ask Mr. Speaker to ask the Procedure Committee to examine the manner in which the House deals with such matters in future?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has great experience in the House. He knows that it is perfectly in order for him to write directly to the Procedure Committee if he wants a generic point to be considered.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I suspect you know, the matter was raised at business questions on Thursday. A clear request was made to the Leader of the House for the regulations not to go through until the House had had an opportunity to debate the subject, at least on the Easter Adjournment. Given that the regulations will be railroaded through this evening, will you be kind enough to ask Mr. Speaker to ensure that time is made available on the Easter Adjournment to debate the matter, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations will have gone through?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that Mr. Speaker will have observed the hon. Gentlemans comments.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you convey any remarks to the Speaker, perhaps you will also tell him that, in Committee, the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) revealedI was therethat Government Front Benchers had offered more time but that Tory Front Benchers had refused to take it. The Tory Front-Bench spokesman voted with us and the Tories split two ways. Three voted with us, including the Tory Front Bencher, and two voted against. The idea that the matter has not been dealt with is farcical.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House is interested, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a Member who supports the regulations, as do most Liberal Democrats, we nevertheless share the concern about the way in which the matter has been rushed through. Given that the details have never been debated in primary legislation and require discussion by many hon. Members who have different views, can the House decide noweven though I generally disagree with Conservative Members and agree with the Government on the matterto provide debating time, or is there no way in which we can do that at this late stage?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no further scope for debate at this point. The procedures of the House have been followed correctly. Even if some hon. Members are unhappy about what has happened, nothing incorrect has taken place and we should now proceed to deal with the business on the Order Paper.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new point of order because I have dealt with the previous one.
Mr. Brazier: Yes, it is. My understanding is that motion 10, about which the previous points of order were made, applies to England, Wales and Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland, which has separate regulations. However, it covers some mattersfor example, adoptionwhich are devolved to Scotland. My Adjournment debate on the subject showed that, when the matter was considered in Scotland, the Scottish Government gave assurances that negotiations would be held between the Scottish Executive and the Government here. No report has been given to the House about the outcome of those negotiations, yet we are expected to vote tonight.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has got it exactly. That is the case.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No Back Bencher has been able to make a speech about motion 10. Is it correct that the Government do not necessarily have to move it tonight?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a question that the Chair can determine. The motion is on the Order Paper and I must assume that it is likely to be moved.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As one who supports the regulations, I would be delighted if the debate on the matter had taken place on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee, not least because it would help us win the next general election. However, can you confirm that, although Standing Order No. 118 states that it is a for a Minister to decide whether the debate is held on the Floor of the House or in Committee, the practice and convention of the House is that, if Opposition Front Benchers had called for it to be held on the Floor of the House, it would have been?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no means of knowing that; it is nothing on which I can rule.
Mr. Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that you expected motion 10 to be moved. Is not it the case that a Minister could choose not to move it tonight, but take account of what has been said in the Chamber and make a statement tomorrow, which would enable questions on the matter?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall simply have to wait and see.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on motions 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),
That the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
That the draft Northern Ireland Policing Board (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
That the draft Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
That the draft Policing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved. [Kevin Brennan.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),
That the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved. [Kevin Brennan.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Kevin Brennan.]
Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West and Royton) (Lab): There has been a good deal of adverse publicity in the last few weeks about the operation of private equity firms, and not without good reason [ Interruption. ]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there should not be conversations going on in the Chamber when he is seeking to address the House.
Mr. Meacher: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Venture capital involving investment in small start-up businesses has always played a significant role in improving performance and paving the way for expansion, but the credit-fuelled bubble that is now driving private equity deals is something quite different. That is what I want to address tonight. Private equity firms are going after healthy, well-managed firms, looting themI do not think that that is an unfair word to usein the interest of huge personal gains for themselves and often at the expense of substantial job losses for employees, and often crippling the companies with debt.
Examples of that abound. They certainly include the Automobile Association: within months of buying it, the private equity owners Permira and CVC Capital had cut 3,400 jobs, reduced front-line services for motorists drastically, and forced employees to work, if necessary, for longer than allowed by European Union regulations on pain of losing their jobs. If they were stopped by the police and found to be in contravention of the regulations, they would be sacked anyway.
Another example is Birds Eye. Permira pledged to keep workers employment terms for at least three years, but within five months it had closed a plant in Hull at the cost of 600 jobs. In the case of Debenhams, the private equity partners increased the firms debt from £100 million to £1.9 billion, paid themselves a dividend of £1.2 billion, sold the freehold of the stores for £500 million and leased them back, then floated the business and took another £600 millionthus making three and a half times their investment in a little over two years. Debenhams was left with huge interest payments, while having to pay rent on stores that it had previously owned. I need hardly addfor Members will be well aware of the factthat private equity now appears to be lining up Sainsburys and Boots for the same kind of treatment.
Roberto Italia, then of Warburg Pincus and now of Cinven private equityone of the doyens of private equitysaid, on a public platform,
Of course were out to shaft the companies we invest in.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |