Mr Toby Perkins
MP for Chesterfield · Labour · United Kingdom
“The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is absolutely right to say that what is behind this is the deep unpopularity of President Milei; it is not anything actually that the UK has done.”
“In Chesterfield, there will be unmitigated despair at the statement we have heard today from my right hon. Friend. For the authorities for which she is doing a review—the 14 that thought they had got their decision in July—could she clarify the basis of that review?”
“It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this debate.”
“The report spells out the link between degradation overseas and the impact here. The assessment lays out the consequences: food insecurity, economic insecurity, increased migration and refugees, increased interstate competition, conflict and geopolitical instability, all of which will threaten us here at home.”
“The Government are right to take their time and make sure that they get this right—we saw what happened when the previous Government did not do the work that was needed. This is a delicately balanced decision.”
“Thirdly, will the Minister consider bringing forward the fourth national adaptation programme? NAP3, published by the previous Government in 2023, was deemed ineffective by the Climate Change Committee. NAP4 is not due until 2028, but can we afford to wait two more years before we have an adequate plan?”
The complete record
Every one of 3,898 lines we hold for Mr Toby Perkins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 53 of 78.
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that because it fits in with something I will say in a few moments about the Government’s role of ensuring that all businesses in a free market get a fair chance. His contribution was powerful in several ways and I look forward to returning to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) reflected on the fact that small business owners often work incredibly long hours to keep the wheels of commerce turning, and he was right to point that out. He also said that they are often the last to be paid, both personally in terms of taking money out of the business, and often because they are way down the list of supplier payments.”
“Does the Minister think the balance is right, at the moment, between the need for local authorities and communities to have a say about what happens in the high street, and the need for planning to provide opportunities for those with entrepreneurial or innovative development ideas? I have a sense that the Government see planning as a barrier to growth; what do they propose to do in support of getting the right balance in high streets between reflecting history and not preventing reasonable, sympathetic growth? I look forward to the Minister’s responses, and I have enjoyed winding up an incredibly constructive debate.”
“Does he think it might affect future high street growth? He will know that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted in relation to the autumn statement that consumer debt will be higher in the next two years than it was at its pre-recession peak. There is a sense that much high street growth is fuelled by consumer debt. I am interested in what the Minister may say about balance, in the context of giving communities a say about the make-up of their high street. Often a lack of attention to planning commitment in a high street has led to action that is good in the short term but destroys the look of the town centre in the long term. We need to support town centres through transition periods.”
“Working with councils and the high street, a future Government will be able to make a positive offer on various aspects of skills, which will make a real difference. I want to repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for City of Chester and all those who spoke in the debate, and I have a few questions for the Minister. First, we have heard about what action people are taking to support small businesses, and to support and promote small business Saturday. The fact that it is a bottom-up development is valuable, but a quarter of a mile from us in Victoria street there is a huge amount of resource, and it would be interesting to know what contribution the Government have made to supporting the day. The autumn statement highlighted the fact that consumer debt is fast approaching a record level. Is the Minister concerned about that?”
“We recognise that that would be incredibly important to small businesses. We are concerned that the privatisation of Royal Mail threatens the universal service obligation. We will campaign to ensure that, under a Labour Government, it will remain. Late payments mean that small businesses do not get money they are entitled to; 2,500 businesses a year go bust because they have not been paid the money they are owed. The proposals that we have made in debates on the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill to put the onus on customers to pay on time, rather than on small businesses to report them, will be taken forward in the Labour party manifesto. Those proposals have won support from the small business community, including from the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business.”
“Small businesses consistently say that limited access to finance is the biggest barrier to their growth; 89% of UK small businesses are locked into the five big banks for banking facilities, and we are committed to a more competitive banking system. Hon. Members reflected on Nick Tott’s suggestion in 2011 of a British business bank. We are delighted that the Government’s British business bank is morphing more into what we originally suggested, but we think that we can go much further with that—in addition to a generation of new local banks. A primary child care guarantee would give all parents of primary schoolchildren guaranteed access to child care through their school, from 8 am to 6 pm—we have heard about the need to offer more free child care to nursery age children.”
“That would be paid for by not taking forward the final 1% of the planned corporation tax cut and, instead, ploughing all that money into supporting the 1.5 million small firms with a rateable value under £50,000. That would be a really significant step, which would reduce business rates in the first year and freeze them in the second year. That is not a discount approach, and there would not be an underlying rate that is going up all the time, with a discount being offered, as we are seeing currently; there would actually be a real cut and then a freeze. We also have a proposal to freeze energy bills. Energy is one of the highest costs that small businesses pay, and our proposal would save the average small business £1,800. The banking system was mentioned.”
“Member for City of Chester spoke about wanting to be positive, and that is absolutely right. We need to say what we in this place can positively do, and we need to think about what the small business community might ask of us in relation to small business Saturday. However, we should also make sure that supporting small businesses is something we do not just for Christmas, but every day of the year. There are a number of things a future Labour Government should aim to do. The first, which we have had a lot of focus on in the debate, relates to business rates. Labour has a specific proposal to reduce business rates in its first year in government.”
“Mari Williams led a small business Saturday in Whitchurch, working with the local community and trader association, and more than 50 businesses took part. Lynette Kelly in Leamington set up a business consultation event at the Lamats hardware store in Regent place on her patch. Andrew Pakes in Milton Keynes worked with the local council to provide high street information packs. Catherine Atkinson ran a “Shop Local” campaign in Ilkeston and Long Eaton. Right across the country, people from across the business community and the political scene, as well as community campaigners, worked together to see what they could do on that one day to promote small businesses. That provides a really powerful recognition of the importance of small businesses and small business Saturday. The hon.”
“It encourages people to get off the beaten track slightly. The council has showcased a map giving independent retailers, cafés and bars an opportunity to promote themselves in their local community. Derby city council is hosting an event that will showcase a wide variety of support for small businesses and provide networking opportunities. Community campaigners up and down the country got in touch to talk about what they were doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough reflected on what was happening in Stockton and Louise Baldock’s contribution. In Harlow, Suzy Stride worked to promote small business Saturday by visiting a local “mumtrepeneurs” group promoting the message about female business owners that we have just reflected on.”
“Finally, I had the opportunity to visit 25 different small businesses right across Chesterfield and Staveley—I should stress that I am not being competitive—and I have photos of me at all of them on the wall of my constituency office. I was also delighted to see that local authorities of all colours have been backing small business Saturday in their own way. Brent has a campaign called “Think Brent, Celebrate Local”. In Stockton, the local council has opened the Enterprise Arcade, with 13 new businesses testing out their retail ideas ahead of small business Saturday. Ashfield district council is one of many local authorities that will be supporting small business Saturday by offering free car parking. Waltham Forest is running its “Hidden Gems” campaign, which fits in with what I was talking about a moment ago.”
“Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) did her Christmas shopping at the Wood street Christmas market on small business Saturday, combining important family duties with promoting the high street in a very practical way. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) backed local festivals, including I Love Allerton Road and Loving Lodge Lane—there is a lot of love going on in Liverpool—to promote and support the small businesses that trade in those areas of her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) publicised the free parking on offer in his constituency, to support the 100,000 people in the wider local authority area who are employed by small businesses.”
“Friend the Member for Middlesbrough spoke about some of the work he has done in his constituency. I did a little research before the debate to find out what happened last year, and I was amazed by the different contributions people told me they had made. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) wrote to local small businesses and to business groups such as the local chamber of commerce to encourage them to participate in the festivities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) spent the first small business Saturday on the high street in the Horwich area of her constituency interacting with people and promoting the small businesses there. My hon.”
“Lady’s earlier contribution, in which she paid tribute to the Federation of Small Businesses. She also gave us an evocative historical tour of her constituency. She was right to say that small businesses are an important part of the history of our town centres, and we want them to be a part of their futures as well. That is what this debate and small business Saturday are all about. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) spoke about the extent to which small businesses can make an impression on the national, as well as the local, stage. She also mentioned the importance of the relationship between our public services and local authorities and our small businesses. One thing that has come across in the debate is how widespread support is on this issue. My hon.”
“I absolutely do. The right hon. Lady may be aware that the proposal first featured in Labour’s small business taskforce report, and we are pleased that the Government have brought it forward. Whoever’s idea it is, the fact that good ideas are followed up is positive. The right hon. Lady is right to focus on child care. She and many other people across the House will look forward to the day when child care is not seen as just a women’s issue, but it remains one of the barriers that women entrepreneurs face. I am therefore pleased that the Labour party has made a commitment to increase the level of free child care to 25 hours a week. We have seen some positive steps under this Government, notwithstanding our concerns about the increase in costs in the sector. However, I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady. I also enjoyed the right hon.”
“I agree entirely with the Minister; but he does not usually hide his light under a bushel, so can he be a little more specific? He said that the Government have put in a huge amount of effort, so what specifically have they done?”
“The Minister will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) has declared that we will continue to have the lowest corporation tax in the G8. On business rates, when Government set out on a review, they usually have an idea of what they want to find at the end of that. We accept that a lot of evidence will come in before the report’s final make-up becomes clear, but will the Minister give us an idea of what the Government see the end point looking like?”
“My hon. Friend has congratulated the Government on the speed with which they have brought in these measures. She will be aware that I have secured an Adjournment debate later today on the unintended consequences that have been visited on some of my constituents as a result of previous hastily introduced pension legislation. The Government have attempted to undo that legislation but, unfortunately, without any great success. Will my hon. Friend therefore temper her praise and reflect on the fact that hastily introduced pension legislation can often have unintended consequences?”
“We recognise what the Government are attempting to achieve, but it would be sensible to have a review of how it is working, the impact of the changes on the behaviour of investors, the impact on Government revenues, the impact on the broader economy, and what behaviours are being encouraged and introduced by the changes.”
“However, we are also aware of why the annuities method of accessing pensions that people had invested in was introduced. We as a society decided that, in an age when people were living longer and longer, we wanted people to make provision for themselves and, having done so, to buy something that provided a regular income that they could rely on. If we have a scheme in which people decide what to invest their pension funds in, but, with the best of intentions, those investments go wrong, the people who we thought had provided for themselves in later life will come back to the state and say, “Unfortunately, the investments that I made with my pension pot have gone wrong and I have run out of money.” That will have an impact on the Government.”
“They were dragged into it on the basis of knowing friends that they could go and sell pensions to. People with very little knowledge came into the industry. Their business plan was based on phoning all their friends and relatives to encourage them to give up their pensions in reliable public sector or other schemes and to go in to private schemes. There was of course a huge explosion, and many of the people in the schemes were seen to have been given very poor advice. We recognise what the Government are attempting to achieve, and we support their aims of having greater flexibility for the industry, allowing people to be put back in charge of their investment and ensuring that they have the freedom to decide what to do with the money that they have saved.”
“We would be well advised to think about the impact of the changes on the professionalism of very important industries such as financial services. If decisions are not taken in professional enough a way, they can have massive effects on people at the time in their life when they take their pension. Back in the 1980s, there was a huge explosion of private pensions, with people—mineworkers or teachers—advised to give up their pensions. They were told, “No, if you give up your pension, you can opt in to one of these private schemes, with 15% growth every year.” There was a huge mis-selling scandal. I previously worked—briefly, and largely unheralded—in the financial services industry. I was not necessarily particularly suited for the job, which highlights a point about people being invited into the industry.”
“If I had been contacted by my constituents and had a response from the Minister a few weeks or months earlier, there might have been an appropriate opportunity to propose that the issue was looked into in relation to the Bill, but perhaps there will be an opportunity to consider such issues in the other place. It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who speaks with tremendous knowledge on these issues. He was absolutely right to focus on the way in which some industries operated in the past, and the extent to which the financial services industry had some very negative selling practices back in the deregulatory period of the 1980s. I am pleased that the industry, with Government assistance, has very much got its house in order.”
“I do not intend to detain the House unduly, but I want to speak briefly in support of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). I also do not intend to give too much advance notice of my Adjournment debate, which I will have the pleasure of holding later and to which I know that the House is looking forward with considerable interest. My hon. Friend made an important point about the haste with which some of the changes have been introduced and the impact that that can have. The Government may be entirely well meaning, but such changes can have unintended consequences, and I shall refer to some of them in more detail later.”
“As far as they were concerned, they sat in the same desks and did the same job. The name above the door may have changed from Royal Mail to CSC—although in this case it did not in practical terms—but those staff were classed as having two different jobs and therefore two different pensions.”
“In supporting my hon. Friend’s call for a review of the impact of the changes, I wanted to flag up the debate that we will be having later and to put it in the context of the taxation of pensions. I have secured today’s Adjournment debate on the impact of such measures on public sector workers who transferred to the private sector when their public sector job was transferred. They are protected under transfer of undertakings protocols. However, as many staff at CSC in Chesterfield who previously worked for Royal Mail discovered, when they were made redundant, the changes hastily introduced by the Government in 2012-13 meant that although they left their pension with Royal Mail when they were transferred and opened a new pension with CSC, that new pension was treated as a second pension.”
“The FCA risk outlook of 2014 stated: “Retirement income products and distribution may deliver poor consumer outcomes”. That means that the Government recognise the dangers that we are highlighting, which adds more weight to the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for a review of the impact on Government revenue and a review of who is affected, with a “distributional impact, by income decile of the population”. The other thing that we must all be conscious of is that this change must not result in an industry that services only the very rich. Financial advice is important. If it becomes the preserve of the very rich, many people will be left out of the market, especially the self-employed, who often see their business as their pension and so never go down the route of choosing financial services products.”
“Absolutely; the hon. Gentleman is right. There was a huge rush of those issues coming to light at the back end of the last century, when people who believed that they had saved into corporate pensions found that the company had disappeared and so had their pension. When we are debating these issues and supporting the Government in this important initiative, we must be conscious that it must not end up with people effectively gambling with the income that they will rely on, without being aware of the risks. It is important that protections are in place to ensure that when people make such decisions, they have the information and know what they are letting themselves in for. It must be clear not only what impact it will have on them and their future, but what impact it will have on Government resources and revenues.”
“I realise that the Minister does not want to predict the outcome of a debate to which we all look forward with such interest, but will he tell us whether the taxation of pensions element of that debate could be considered during further stages of the Bill’s progress?”
“I would be grateful if the Minister recognised that the measures to alleviate the problem are sticking plasters that aim to provide compensation or to reduce the damage of the proposals, and that what is required is for people who are perceived to have had two jobs, when in reality they had one, not to have to choose to pay a tax bill, which they would not have faced if they were still in the public sector, either all at once or from their future pension income. I look forward to hearing her response on this important issue. I recognise, in bringing this matter to the House, that the Government’s intentions were positive. However, when unintended consequences arise, it is our responsibility to evaluate them and, hopefully, to work together to deliver a fairer outcome for our constituents.”
“The further stages of the Taxation of Pensions Bill provide an opportunity to establish cross-party support for further analysing the effect that pension changes have had on CSC workers, and for setting out a framework in which the unfair nature of the situation can be tackled. I hope that that might happen in another place, as I suggested on Report. The Government’s approach to reforming pensions tax relief was supposed to be based on ensuring that fairness was maintained, but it appears that a loophole has developed that could, in some cases, lead to people losing thousands from their pension.”
“It is ironic that this debate is taking place on the day that the House has again debated the Taxation of Pensions Bill, because the Bill was a missed opportunity to address the plight of TUPE-ed public sector workers who face the unfairness that I have highlighted. The Government have thus far fallen short of the action that is required. The measures that have been put in place are compensatory, but they do not compensate fully. They mean that the workers of CSC and probably many other former public sector workers will lose out on the pension to which they should have been entitled.”
“He said at the time that the Government had consulted on options to give individuals and schemes more flexibility over the payment of charges. On 3 March 2011, the Government announced that individuals with annual allowance charges of more than £2,000 would be able to elect for the full liability to be met from their pension benefit. That obviously made it easier in the short term, but in practice it still means that individuals will lose out, as they receive a lower pension than they otherwise would have done. The fact that they are still taking money out of their future earnings to pay a bill does not seem to fit with the principle of the Government’s measures.”
“The Treasury document, “Restricting pensions tax relief through existing allowances: a summary of the discussion document responses”, revealed: “The nature of DB schemes means that some individuals on moderate incomes could exceed the AA—particularly where they are in final salary DB schemes and see spikes in pension accrual… The Government is committed to managing impacts on these individuals as far as possible.” One of these solutions was to allow individuals “to carry-forward unused annual allowance from up to three previous years, to offset against contributions in excess of the AA in a single year.” However, the Government recognised that in exceptional cases such mitigation would not be sufficient. The Financial Secretary made that clear in correspondence with me.”
“The Treasury viewed the money as having been paid all at once, even though it was received by the workers annually over many years, and the way in which workers’ pensions are taxed by the Treasury meant that people on decent but not in any sense exceptional salaries faced huge tax bills—more than £200,000 in one case that I have heard of—on income that they had not necessarily received. It is too early to know the total number of people who will be sucked into this unfortunate state of affairs, but taking into account how many have moved from the public sector to the private sector, it might be very high. That raises important questions about the extent to which the Government fully understood the impact of the changes they made to the annual pension allowance when they made them.”
“The workers had their CSC pensions taxed as second pensions, whereas if, back in 2003, they had decided to transfer their pensions into the CSC pension scheme, it would all have been seen as the same scheme. CSC attempted to honour its commitments to its employees by ensuring that they still received as employees of CSC what they would have been entitled to if they had remained with Royal Mail, but that led to those individuals being treated as though they had two separate pensions, although in practice they have been employed in the same job throughout that period. The issue is about how public sector workers whose employer changes, even though their job does not change, are seen as having two different jobs. Although TUPE should protect them from being worse off as a result, in practice they are not protected.”
“An annual allowance of £50,000 will affect 100,000 pension savers—80% of those will have incomes over £100,000.” Unfortunately, as Mr Randell’s case has shown, the policy has also hit those on lower incomes with reasonable pensions. The Government have accepted the possibility that individuals on lower incomes could in exceptional circumstances face a sharp increase in the tax charged on their pension, but as I have demonstrated, such moderate language does not reflect the significant numbers that might be affected or the size of the impact on their pension planning. The second example involves the group of CSC workers who were made redundant in 2012. That was part of a global redundancy programme in which CSC laid off 640 workers.”
“At a time when the Government rightly ask employees to put money aside to save for themselves in retirement and to plan ahead, this group of workers, who did precisely that, are being caused huge problems because, back in 2003, they made a decision about which pension scheme they should choose to contribute to, yet they could not possibly be expected to have had foresight as to the implications of that choice. The intention of the Government’s proposals was to target richer pensioners. In 2010, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) announced: “It will be targeted at those who make the most significant pension savings.”
“Therefore, in order to comply with TUPE, CSC arranged to make a notional payment to source an equivalent pension value until he is 60, when he will move on to the Royal Mail pension. Mr Randell’s usual pension contributions are less than £5,000 per year, but when he is made redundant, this one-off notional payment—which would effectively buy an annuity for the next seven years to comply with TUPE regulations, from CSC’s perspective—is classed by the Treasury as a one-year contribution to a second, in this case temporary, pension. In practical terms, it is not a second pension—it is a continuation of the first pension that he has from doing the same job with two separate employers.”
“Although exact numbers are not known, it is believed that the majority have left the business completely. That suggests that some 1,082 employees could be affected in this case alone. Some of those will have chosen to move into the CSC pension scheme and will not be affected in the same way. There appear to be two different ways in which workers have been disadvantaged. First, I would like to raise the case of Michael Randell. Michael had worked for Royal Mail Group for well over 25 years, during which he had saved for his retirement by contributing into the pension scheme. Mr Randell is now 53. Under the terms of his employment, had he remained a Royal Mail employee he would have been entitled to take his pension under early retirement provision if he had left the firm over the age of 50.”
“Many workers—it is not clear how many—elected to keep their pre-2003 contributions within the Royal Mail scheme and open a new CSC pension with future contributions. However, a combination of the changes to the allowance regime—which was dramatically reduced in October 2010 and further reduced in subsequent Budgets—enforcement of TUPE rights, previous changes made to the allowances on what are perceived to be temporary pensions, and Treasury guidance on what constitutes a temporary pension has led to huge costs being applied to workers made redundant from CSC in recent years. Revelations in Computerweekly.com about the efforts that CSC has made to stem losses on its involvement with the Royal Mail account suggest that 63% of the staff who originally transferred from Royal Mail into CSC have now been cut.”
“The workers whose case I am raising today were transferred from Royal Mail to the IT firm Computer Sciences Corporation Ltd—CSC—in 2003 as part of a contract to outsource all Royal Mail’s IT to the company and retain all the 1,713 staff under the TUPE protocol. At that time, employees had a choice either to leave pension contributions that they had already paid within the Royal Mail pension and start a new separate corporate pension with future contributions with their new employer, or to transfer all their contributions to a new CSC pension and subsequently pay into that. The only choice that appeared to face workers was whether their pension contributions would be safer in one scheme or another and where they would be most likely to get a decent return on the pension contributions to which they were entitled.”
“Back in the 1960s, as part of a move to get Government organisations out into the provinces, Royal Mail moved thousands of head office staff up to Chesterfield. It brought with it a Barbara Hepworth statue and a welcome number of high-skilled and pretty well-paid jobs. Royal Mail has been a key employer in the town ever since. The Loundsley Green housing estate was built specifically to house the influx of new workers. However, while it remains an important employer today, many staff have subsequently been transferred out and do the same or similar jobs working on the Royal Mail account on behalf of private outsourcing companies.”
“I feel that his replies thus far have failed to grasp the full unfairness of the situation or to offer appropriate remedy. I aim to show the House that, as the mechanism currently stands, there is gross unfairness towards workers who have been transferred out of public sector pension schemes. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, can explain to my constituents why they have been hit with such a significant tax bill, often on revenues that they have not even yet received, and what further steps the Government can take to ensure that former public sector workers are not unfairly disadvantaged by an arbitrary decision they made several years ago. Royal Mail has had a long tradition in my constituency.”
“I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring to the House’s attention a matter of significant importance to employees in my constituency who were transferred out of Royal Mail to the IT services provider Computer Sciences Corporation and, I suspect, to many other employees who were transferred out of the public sector. Changes to lump sum pension allowances introduced by the Chancellor in his 2013 Budget have had a catastrophic impact on my constituents’ pension pots and created an accidental discrimination that fits neither the principles nor the spirit of the transfer of undertakings protocol, otherwise known as TUPE. The aim of this debate is to follow up letters I have exchanged with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.”
“I am very concerned to hear that the net increase of just 20 reservists is actually a part of the Government’s plan. With our regular forces at their lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars, the news that just 20 extra reservists have signed up is extremely worrying. Will the Minister tell us his assessment of why the almost £2 million spent on advertising and all the warm words have not led to the extra reservists that we desperately need given the huge reduction in the regular forces that we have seen?”
“I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill. He also carries the congratulations of 1,924 people from across Chesterfield who have signed a petition asking me to be here to support it. He is not just speaking with people behind him here; people right across the country are saying, “Thank you very much for what you are doing.””
“The hon. Gentleman was complaining about the direction in which his party is moving, so I wondered in which party’s direction he was moving.”
“As we head towards small business Saturday, which enjoys the support of the entire House, one group of small businesses that will be feeling better supported and be looking forward with more optimism are the nation’s tied pub tenants. The run-up to Tuesday’s vote saw the Government mired in confusion, as last-minute changes and amendments were proposed and dropped with alarming speed. Will the Minister tell the House what steps he will be taking to ensure that this important change is delivered in a way that works for everyone who cares about Britain’s great pubs?”
“Is the Minister not being a little disingenuous to suggest that the Government have listened to what the Committee said, because they voted against the Committee on the family brewers issue and indeed yesterday they tabled another amendment to try to defeat the will of the House on that matter? Is not the truth that the Government have realised this is a battle they cannot win and they have given in?”