Brian Binley MP for Northampton South has slammed the Government’s response to the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committees report in to the Pubco’s inquiry.
Brian said: “I am bitterly disappointed in the Government’s reaction to the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Select Committee Report on Pub Companies (Pubcos). The Select Committee report suggested a major overhaul of the system but the Government’s response suggests they are tinkering with the brakes when they should be repairing the steering and reinvigorating the power unit. It looks like they have sold out to the pubco’s and their agents.”
“This is the fourth report the Select Committee has undertaken since 2004 into the relationship between pubco’s and their tenants and pubco’s have been given every opportunity to work to a voluntary code of practice, which they have deliberately failed to do.”
“This Government promised the Select Committee it would enact a Statutory Code of Practice if the Committee at the fourth time of asking, suggested that was the way to proceed. But the Government has reneged on that promise and I find that simply unacceptable.”
“Tenants the length and breadth of the Country provided a depth of evidence which suggested pubco’s are often lying to them with regard to the financial structures of pubs they are about to takeover, exaggerating the return and belittling the expenses.”
“Time and time again we have heard cases of heartache and despair from publicans who have invested and lost their life savings and instead of listening to the evidence presented to the Select Committee and their subsequent recommendations the Government has sold out to pubco’s and their agents despite their initial promise.”
“Don’t the Government realise that landlords are some of the leading opinion formers in the land and not only is it bad for business, but it is also bad for the Coalition Government.”
“It is clear they don’t understand the importance of pub landlords in this respect and they will pay a massive price for their sell out.”
“I shall now contact the BIS Select Committee Chairman, Adrian Bailey MP to consider our position as a Select Committee and I shall also contact Greg Mulholland, my fellow Officer of the Save the Pub Group to see what action we can take to get the Government to change this disastrous position before it’s too late.”
“Let me conclude by saying this is not about the small breweries it is about the big pubco’s.”
Thursday, 24 November 2011
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
“European Commission out of touch with the people”
Brian Binley MP for Northampton South has accused the European Commission of “not living on the same planet as the rest of us” and that they are “out of touch with the people” whilst debating a motion to approve a European Document relating to European Budgets in the House of Commons yesterday.
At the Treaty that created the European Union in 1992, Maastricht, Article A states: “That this Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen.”
Brian said: “The European Commission has clearly recognised the great strength of the first part of that sentence, but I fail to see where it has recognised the latter part. It appears to me that our Government has not got behind the spirit of Maastricht and perhaps they ought to look at that sentence again.”
“For too long the European Union has failed to recognise that edict. The very fact that the European Commission could propose a 5.9% increase this year shows just how out of touch it is, at a time when Europe is raging under the constraints of the defunct EU currency.”
“I welcome what the Government has done to get the 5.9% additional contribution down, and I congratulate them. However, I believe they have to do more in Europe. They have to point out article A of the Treaty to the EU, and particularly to the eurozone."
“They have to point out that if democracy is to succeed, we have to make every effort to get closer to the people, not to take Government away from the people. The truth is that the whole European adventure has achieved the latter, and it is about time that our government got the point that they ought to aim for the former.”
At the Treaty that created the European Union in 1992, Maastricht, Article A states: “That this Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen.”
Brian said: “The European Commission has clearly recognised the great strength of the first part of that sentence, but I fail to see where it has recognised the latter part. It appears to me that our Government has not got behind the spirit of Maastricht and perhaps they ought to look at that sentence again.”
“For too long the European Union has failed to recognise that edict. The very fact that the European Commission could propose a 5.9% increase this year shows just how out of touch it is, at a time when Europe is raging under the constraints of the defunct EU currency.”
“I welcome what the Government has done to get the 5.9% additional contribution down, and I congratulate them. However, I believe they have to do more in Europe. They have to point out article A of the Treaty to the EU, and particularly to the eurozone."
“They have to point out that if democracy is to succeed, we have to make every effort to get closer to the people, not to take Government away from the people. The truth is that the whole European adventure has achieved the latter, and it is about time that our government got the point that they ought to aim for the former.”
MP backs report on High Speed 2
Brian Binley MP for Northampton South has welcomed the House of Commons Transport Select Committee’s report published today supporting the Governments plans for High Speed 2.
The report states; we support a high speed rail network for Britain, developed as part of a comprehensive transport strategy also including the classic rail network, road, aviation and shipping. We believe that HS2 could form part of this network and provide substantial improvements in capacity and connectivity for inter-urban travel.
Brian said: “Northampton would benefit especially from the additional capacity that will be provided as a result of High Speed 2. It would free up the West Coast Main Line (WCML) hugely and as today’s report suggests, proposals to simply upgrade the existing West Coast Main Line, given the recent substantial growth in passenger numbers might seem inadequate.”
“Northampton is expected to build an additional 59,000 homes by 2026 which is an additional 120,000 people. 5,000 people per day already commute to London and we will have another 12,000 who will wish to do so; we will fail without high speed 2. We need to create another 85,000 jobs; we will fail without high speed2.”
“Last week I praised the Government when they announced that Virgin would continue with the current WCML franchise and that they had found 28,000 seats in additional capacity on the WCML per day. But we must look to High Speed 2 if we are to solve the current congestion and capacity problems.”
“The UK has sometimes been accused of failing to invest sufficiently invest in its transport infrastructure and I think that a major piece of Government investment for the long term future of our Nation should be welcomed- particularly if it is of potential benefit to Northampton.”
The report states; we support a high speed rail network for Britain, developed as part of a comprehensive transport strategy also including the classic rail network, road, aviation and shipping. We believe that HS2 could form part of this network and provide substantial improvements in capacity and connectivity for inter-urban travel.
Brian said: “Northampton would benefit especially from the additional capacity that will be provided as a result of High Speed 2. It would free up the West Coast Main Line (WCML) hugely and as today’s report suggests, proposals to simply upgrade the existing West Coast Main Line, given the recent substantial growth in passenger numbers might seem inadequate.”
“Northampton is expected to build an additional 59,000 homes by 2026 which is an additional 120,000 people. 5,000 people per day already commute to London and we will have another 12,000 who will wish to do so; we will fail without high speed 2. We need to create another 85,000 jobs; we will fail without high speed2.”
“Last week I praised the Government when they announced that Virgin would continue with the current WCML franchise and that they had found 28,000 seats in additional capacity on the WCML per day. But we must look to High Speed 2 if we are to solve the current congestion and capacity problems.”
“The UK has sometimes been accused of failing to invest sufficiently invest in its transport infrastructure and I think that a major piece of Government investment for the long term future of our Nation should be welcomed- particularly if it is of potential benefit to Northampton.”
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Rehearsal for a Bloodbath
It was at 11 p.m. on Halloween, Oct. 31, that Iraqi security forces made their latest menacing incursion into Camp Ashraf. Thirty military vehicles accompanied by 10 police cars entered the camp northeast of Baghdad where 3,400 Iranian dissidents live, intimidating residents with glaring lights and deafening noise and conducting exercises around their homes. Simultaneously, the 300 loudspeakers placed around Ashraf to pile on the psychological pressure stepped up their barrage of threats and insults.
This bullying show of force followed a press conference in Baghdad earlier in the day at which Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, promised his visiting Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Salehi, that Iraq would keep its promise of closing Camp Ashraf by Dec. 31, which is also the date that the last U.S. soldier is due to leave Iraq. The world now has less than two months in which to stop this closure turning into a possible massacre. After two armed assaults by the Iraqi Army on the camp in 2009 and last April -- when 36 people, including eight women, were killed and 300 were injured by soldiers carrying U.S.-made weapons -- there are no grounds for believing that the December closure will be carried out peacefully and humanely.
The Ashraf residents, protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, are members of the principal Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).
The Iranian Resistance says it fears the clerical regime in Iran and the Iraqi government are setting the stage for a new bloodbath in Ashraf and it is urging the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations to prevent it, calling for the implementation of the appeal of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in a report to the Security Council on July 7 in which he asked “all stakeholders involved to increase their efforts to explore options and seek a consensual solution.”
One of the stakeholders is the United States, which earlier promised Ashraf residents its protection. But so far President Barack Obama has shown little sign of being willing to put the necessary pressure on Baghdad to make sure that Ashraf residents are treated humanely.
During the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Ashraf residents remained neutral. The following year, the U.S. gave written guarantees to all of them that, in return for a voluntary disarmament, the U.S. would protect them. But, in early 2009, the U.S. handed over responsibility for the security of the camp to Iraqi forces. Since then, apart from the two violent military assaults, the camp has been under a punishing blockade, with residents deprived of basic services, such as access to proper medical help.
At the behest of Tehran, the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki set Dec. 31 as the final deadline for the camp to close. Iran, rattled by fears of contagion of the Arab Spring and facing a growing international crisis caused by its drive to develop nuclear weapons and by exposure of its terrorist activities -- the most recent being a foiled plot against the Saudi ambassador to Washington -- wants Ashraf wiped out at any cost.
In September, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, stating that the Iranian dissidents are asylum-seekers entitled to international protection, urged that Ashraf’s closure be delayed. Still, Baghdad insists that the December deadline be met. Iraq has not the slightest interest in letting the U.N.H.C.R. carry out its mission. Rather, by refusing to cooperate, it is creating the pretext to claim that no progress has been made and that the only solution is the closure of the camp by force.
One way out of this dreadful situation would be to station U.N. monitors in Ashraf alongside peacekeeping forces to allow the U.N.H.C.R. to do its work until the final resettlement of Ashraf residents.
The U.S. may be leaving Iraq but it still has a lot of leverage vis-à-vis the government in Baghdad and at the U.N. It could and it should make a move.
As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by U.S.-supplied armoured personnel carriers.
Speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Oct. 27, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington had sought assurances from Iraq “that it will treat Ashraf residents humanely, that it will not transfer the residents to a country that they may have reasons to fear.”
The time for words is over. Concrete actions are now essential to safeguard the residents of Camp Ashraf. The U.S. has the power to help them. If not, 2012, a crucial election year, risks starting with a tragedy that the world could have stopped.
This bullying show of force followed a press conference in Baghdad earlier in the day at which Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, promised his visiting Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Salehi, that Iraq would keep its promise of closing Camp Ashraf by Dec. 31, which is also the date that the last U.S. soldier is due to leave Iraq. The world now has less than two months in which to stop this closure turning into a possible massacre. After two armed assaults by the Iraqi Army on the camp in 2009 and last April -- when 36 people, including eight women, were killed and 300 were injured by soldiers carrying U.S.-made weapons -- there are no grounds for believing that the December closure will be carried out peacefully and humanely.
The Ashraf residents, protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, are members of the principal Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).
The Iranian Resistance says it fears the clerical regime in Iran and the Iraqi government are setting the stage for a new bloodbath in Ashraf and it is urging the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations to prevent it, calling for the implementation of the appeal of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in a report to the Security Council on July 7 in which he asked “all stakeholders involved to increase their efforts to explore options and seek a consensual solution.”
One of the stakeholders is the United States, which earlier promised Ashraf residents its protection. But so far President Barack Obama has shown little sign of being willing to put the necessary pressure on Baghdad to make sure that Ashraf residents are treated humanely.
During the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Ashraf residents remained neutral. The following year, the U.S. gave written guarantees to all of them that, in return for a voluntary disarmament, the U.S. would protect them. But, in early 2009, the U.S. handed over responsibility for the security of the camp to Iraqi forces. Since then, apart from the two violent military assaults, the camp has been under a punishing blockade, with residents deprived of basic services, such as access to proper medical help.
At the behest of Tehran, the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki set Dec. 31 as the final deadline for the camp to close. Iran, rattled by fears of contagion of the Arab Spring and facing a growing international crisis caused by its drive to develop nuclear weapons and by exposure of its terrorist activities -- the most recent being a foiled plot against the Saudi ambassador to Washington -- wants Ashraf wiped out at any cost.
In September, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, stating that the Iranian dissidents are asylum-seekers entitled to international protection, urged that Ashraf’s closure be delayed. Still, Baghdad insists that the December deadline be met. Iraq has not the slightest interest in letting the U.N.H.C.R. carry out its mission. Rather, by refusing to cooperate, it is creating the pretext to claim that no progress has been made and that the only solution is the closure of the camp by force.
One way out of this dreadful situation would be to station U.N. monitors in Ashraf alongside peacekeeping forces to allow the U.N.H.C.R. to do its work until the final resettlement of Ashraf residents.
The U.S. may be leaving Iraq but it still has a lot of leverage vis-à-vis the government in Baghdad and at the U.N. It could and it should make a move.
As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by U.S.-supplied armoured personnel carriers.
Speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Oct. 27, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington had sought assurances from Iraq “that it will treat Ashraf residents humanely, that it will not transfer the residents to a country that they may have reasons to fear.”
The time for words is over. Concrete actions are now essential to safeguard the residents of Camp Ashraf. The U.S. has the power to help them. If not, 2012, a crucial election year, risks starting with a tragedy that the world could have stopped.
ISOLATION NOT INVASION
A pre-emptive attack by Israel or coalition forces against Iran’s nuclear facilities would prove disastrous to the interests of the West.
Although just rumour and rhetoric at present, if such thoughts were to become a reality they would represent a major set back for the democratic ambitions of an Iranian population determined to bring about change without international intervention. Equally importantly they could impact massively on those democrats in the Arab Spring countries working to establish democratic regimes through the ballot box.
Let us put such thoughts into context. For too long the West has tiptoed around Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, closing its eyes to Iran’s nuclear weapon programme. Time and again British and U.S leaders have appeased the Mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard and each step along that path, taken in the vain hope that the regime can somehow be moderated, has simply strengthened the regime’s view that the West is both weak and vacillating. In fact they have had the opposite effect of actually emboldening the regime.
Time and again we have been told that engagement with Tehran is the only solution. Time and again Tehran has come to the nuclear negotiations table, taken all the carrots offered, and then used the proverbial stick to punish us by supporting terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
We should, of course, deal with the Iranian regime in a forceful and meaningful manner using every tool at our disposal short of military intervention. But the time is not right to step ever that line.
The West’s ambition seems to have centred on only two options when attempting to deal with Iran’s nuclear threat. The first is appeasement and the second is war. Both are dangerous and neither should be considered as practical solutions.
The third option, to which little thought has been given, revolves around the solution proffered by the Iranian resistance leader, Mrs Maryam Rajavi, which incidentally is supported by a large group of British Parliamentarians and would involve isolating the regime with targeted sanctions whilst actively supporting the Iranian people’s opposition movement both internally and externally.
The first step has to be political and economic isolation using sanctions levied against the regime’s entire infrastructure, whilst at the same time removing the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) from the list of banned organisations in the U.S. which was initially enacted as a part of the appeasement programme during previous nuclear negotiations.
Secondly we must end talk of war which can only help to silence the voice of Iranian opposition in the country. We must end talk of appeasement which has bitterly disappointed Iranian opposition both inside Iran’s borders and beyond and we must act to isolate the Iranian regime whilst supporting the Iranian peoples democratic opposition movement recognizing the value of the Chinese proverb that my “enemy’s enemy is my friend.”
That’s the Third Way to create internal regime change and nullify Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
The big question is why the West has failed to recognize that option.
Although just rumour and rhetoric at present, if such thoughts were to become a reality they would represent a major set back for the democratic ambitions of an Iranian population determined to bring about change without international intervention. Equally importantly they could impact massively on those democrats in the Arab Spring countries working to establish democratic regimes through the ballot box.
Let us put such thoughts into context. For too long the West has tiptoed around Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, closing its eyes to Iran’s nuclear weapon programme. Time and again British and U.S leaders have appeased the Mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard and each step along that path, taken in the vain hope that the regime can somehow be moderated, has simply strengthened the regime’s view that the West is both weak and vacillating. In fact they have had the opposite effect of actually emboldening the regime.
Time and again we have been told that engagement with Tehran is the only solution. Time and again Tehran has come to the nuclear negotiations table, taken all the carrots offered, and then used the proverbial stick to punish us by supporting terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
We should, of course, deal with the Iranian regime in a forceful and meaningful manner using every tool at our disposal short of military intervention. But the time is not right to step ever that line.
The West’s ambition seems to have centred on only two options when attempting to deal with Iran’s nuclear threat. The first is appeasement and the second is war. Both are dangerous and neither should be considered as practical solutions.
The third option, to which little thought has been given, revolves around the solution proffered by the Iranian resistance leader, Mrs Maryam Rajavi, which incidentally is supported by a large group of British Parliamentarians and would involve isolating the regime with targeted sanctions whilst actively supporting the Iranian people’s opposition movement both internally and externally.
The first step has to be political and economic isolation using sanctions levied against the regime’s entire infrastructure, whilst at the same time removing the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) from the list of banned organisations in the U.S. which was initially enacted as a part of the appeasement programme during previous nuclear negotiations.
Secondly we must end talk of war which can only help to silence the voice of Iranian opposition in the country. We must end talk of appeasement which has bitterly disappointed Iranian opposition both inside Iran’s borders and beyond and we must act to isolate the Iranian regime whilst supporting the Iranian peoples democratic opposition movement recognizing the value of the Chinese proverb that my “enemy’s enemy is my friend.”
That’s the Third Way to create internal regime change and nullify Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
The big question is why the West has failed to recognize that option.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Binley backs knife crime amendments
Brian Binley MP for Northampton South has supported amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill which sends a very clear message to anyone thinking of engaging in knife crime.
The amendments mean that for the first time the youth justice system will recognise that if a knife is used in a threatening fashion the perpetrator will go to jail if aged 16 or 17, and for 15 year olds the chances of facing a custodial order are much higher.
16 and 17 year olds will face a minimum 4 month Detention and Training order, 2 months in custody, 2 months close supervision. Judges can increase the level of sentence by 2 month increments up to a maximum of two years.
Brian said: “These amendments which have gained the support of the Government sends a clear signal of intent to potential offenders that knife crime at this level will not be tolerated.”
“Legislation alone will not solve the problem of knife crime and much work needs to be done in respect of early year’s intervention programmes and education, but this law will provide a long overdue deterrent which could be seen as part of the solution to the problem.”
“The remaining stages of the Bill is to be debated in the House of Commons today and tomorrow and if the Bill is approved by Parliament I believe that we will have made a significant contribution to making the streets of Northampton and our Nation as a whole.”
The amendments mean that for the first time the youth justice system will recognise that if a knife is used in a threatening fashion the perpetrator will go to jail if aged 16 or 17, and for 15 year olds the chances of facing a custodial order are much higher.
16 and 17 year olds will face a minimum 4 month Detention and Training order, 2 months in custody, 2 months close supervision. Judges can increase the level of sentence by 2 month increments up to a maximum of two years.
Brian said: “These amendments which have gained the support of the Government sends a clear signal of intent to potential offenders that knife crime at this level will not be tolerated.”
“Legislation alone will not solve the problem of knife crime and much work needs to be done in respect of early year’s intervention programmes and education, but this law will provide a long overdue deterrent which could be seen as part of the solution to the problem.”
“The remaining stages of the Bill is to be debated in the House of Commons today and tomorrow and if the Bill is approved by Parliament I believe that we will have made a significant contribution to making the streets of Northampton and our Nation as a whole.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)