PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
683 Debate on the Address<br />
15 MAY 2013<br />
Debate on the Address<br />
684<br />
[Sir Bob Russell]<br />
for tied publicans to only pay a fair, independently assessed<br />
market rent to the pub owning company—a ‘market rent only’<br />
option.”<br />
It is estimated that this would bring down the cost of a<br />
pint in pubco-owned pubs—around a third of all British<br />
public houses—allowing many pubs to survive and<br />
thrive. It would also lead to fairer access to public<br />
houses for small brewers, which would boost their businesses<br />
and increase choice at the bar. I would have thought<br />
that the coalition welcomed such measures. It must be<br />
stressed that all family brewers would be excluded,<br />
because the code would apply only to companies that<br />
own more than 500 pubs. This relates to pubco public<br />
houses, but legislative help would also benefit other<br />
neighbourhood public houses.<br />
In commending the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign,<br />
I congratulate the excellent work of my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland),<br />
who tabled early-day motion 57. I also remind the<br />
House of what I have said on this subject in previous<br />
debates. In November I said:<br />
“We need to amend the tax levy on beer sold in our traditional<br />
public houses. We should have a tax-neutral approach to keep the<br />
Treasury happy and bring huge social benefits, including job<br />
retention and creation, rather than there being the loss of jobs<br />
that we continue to witness in the sector.<br />
Most publicans of neighbourhood and village public houses<br />
run responsible establishments. Their customers should be rewarded,<br />
not financially penalised because of the irresponsible marketing<br />
carried out by supermarkets and mega-drinking establishments.”—<br />
[Official Report, 1 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 429.]<br />
I returned to this theme in the Budget debate in<br />
March, when I observed that<br />
“there are mixed messages on alcohol tax and the coalition<br />
Government’s desire to tackle binge drinking and improve the<br />
health of the nation.”<br />
I described the confusion caused by having a debate on<br />
whether there should be minimum unit pricing alcohol<br />
when the Chancellor was knocking 1p off the price of a<br />
pint of beer, and added:<br />
“We need a variable price structure to help traditional, community<br />
and village public houses, which would fit well with the coalition<br />
Government’s localism agenda and the last Government’s sustainable<br />
communities legislation.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol.<br />
560, c. 1362.]<br />
Time prevents me from mentioning other Bills that I<br />
would have liked to be included, such as one on building<br />
council houses. The lack of council house building over<br />
the past 30 years under the policies of the Tory<br />
Governments led by Thatcher, Major and Blair has led<br />
to a housing crisis.<br />
Unlike some, I will loyally support the Queen’s Speech<br />
this evening.<br />
3.9 pm<br />
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)<br />
(Lab): As always, I listened carefully to the Queen’s<br />
Speech with the intention of examining how the new<br />
measures would affect my constituents. I was also looking<br />
for measures that would ease the strain on the families<br />
in my constituency who are worried about unemployment<br />
and the rising cost of living. I was sadly and expectedly<br />
disappointed.<br />
Before listing my concerns, I will place on the record<br />
a couple of observations on how we got into the deep<br />
economic difficulty that is causing desperate hardship<br />
for many families in my constituency. The fundamental<br />
error of this stagnant coalition Government was to<br />
assume that they could clear the deficit in four years.<br />
Their plan was to use the final year in office to hand<br />
out sweeteners to the electorate, who would be so<br />
overwhelmingly grateful that they would elect a Conservative<br />
majority.<br />
Dealing with the deficit is the defining issue facing<br />
this country. However, that should never have been<br />
conditional on or linked to the outcome of the next<br />
election. That was a political fix that was destined to<br />
fail. Everybody could see that it was politically too<br />
far-fetched, except for the opportunistic Liberal Democrats<br />
who disregarded their electoral mandate and traded<br />
their principles for government office.<br />
The UK economy is 9% smaller today than was<br />
expected when this stagnant Government took over.<br />
In 2009-10, the deficit was £159 billion. It is now<br />
forecast to be down to £121 billion. However, the public<br />
debt overall is rising from £795.5 billion to a predicted<br />
£1.1 trillion.<br />
On any reasonable analysis of our economic situation,<br />
two significant themes scream out loud and clear. The<br />
first is the continual anaemic economic performance<br />
and the second is our ability to pay off the debt, which<br />
is becoming increasingly strained as a consequence of<br />
the first point. While those two heads travel in opposite<br />
directions, our economy will never recover. The policies<br />
simply have to change. It is time that this stagnant<br />
Government chose to put the national interest first and<br />
their party political interests second.<br />
Ordinary hard-working people and their families are<br />
struggling. Rents and mortgages have to be paid, as do<br />
ever-increasing energy and water bills. Families who<br />
spent £600 a month to cover those costs in 2005 now<br />
spend more than £800 a month. We have record fuel<br />
prices and record amounts of people in fuel poverty. We<br />
have 1 million young people out of work and left<br />
behind. Lending to businesses is continuing to fall. We<br />
have soaring unemployment. We have a Chancellor who<br />
has to borrow £245 billion more than he planned, who<br />
has failed his own economic test of retaining our triple<br />
A credit rating and who, over the course of this <strong>Parliament</strong>,<br />
will have delivered growth of a mere 1.7%. Ordinary<br />
working people are paying the price of this out-of-touch<br />
Government’s economic stagnation.<br />
Mr Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend<br />
agree that one of the methods that the Government are<br />
using to make ordinary people pay for their incompetence<br />
is the bedroom tax?<br />
Mr Clarke: My hon. Friend raises a very important<br />
point. While we witness the introduction of the second<br />
home subsidy, the effects of the bedroom tax are<br />
being seen in my constituency, where an estimated 2,128<br />
individuals will be affected, two-thirds of whom are<br />
believed to have disabilities. Citizens Advice Scotland<br />
has revealed that nearly 800 victims of the welfare axe<br />
are desperately seeking its support. Welfare recipients<br />
are an easy target, but we should not point the finger<br />
too quickly because no job is safe in this economy.