No, I will not. The hon. Member for Leeds North West made it clear that the detail in new clause 2 was specifically designed to exclude small companies such as Brains and others. It is possible that those companies were frightened by the tactics of some hon. Members and others, or, worse, that they were frightened because the pubcos had told them that they wanted friends to defend their own position. I do not believe for one second that small companies in my constituency, or anywhere else, would be adversely affected if pub companies allowed their tenants and landlords to earn a living wage—what is wrong with that?—to have a variety of cheaper beers, including those of the small companies, and to ensure that the profits are shared. Nothing in that could be said to be anti-competition. On the contrary, it probably means that they would do better in their pubs if they were allowed to earn more, to share their profits properly and to sell beer and cider from the microbreweries that exist in many of our constituencies. No, this is all about scare tactics.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 18 November 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
588 c186 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-05-22 06:27:34 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-11-18/14111845000169
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-11-18/14111845000169
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-11-18/14111845000169