Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to make a few thanks and remarks, but first I must declare my interest as a director of the London Stock Exchange and as a long-term investor in listed investment companies. I thank everyone involved in the drafting and discussions of this Bill, including the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Livermore—who has been supportive on the issue, all noble Lords who have supported the Bill during its progress, the Public Bill Office, Nigel Farr of HSF, the AIC, many industry specialists who have contributed to the drafting, and consumer organisations such as Which? and ShareSoc which support the Bill and the wider cost disclosure campaign. I also thank journalists who have put the issue in the public eye. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who is unable to be in her place today as she is recovering from a shoulder operation, trod a similar path with her Bill in the previous Session and has stood with me on this issue through many a debate and meeting. I also thank in advance the honourable Member for Hazel Grove, Lisa Smart, who is sponsoring this Bill in the other place.

Yesterday was the deadline for submission to the Treasury’s call for evidence on growth and competitiveness in financial services. I cannot help but say that it seems peculiar to be hunting for changes to promote growth when there is low-hanging fruit available to end the market disruption for listed investment companies that has resulted in more than £20 billion and counting of lost investment in the UK economy over the past two years. HMT or the FCA could lean on platforms and the Investment Association to get fully behind the changes for listed investment companies made by the legislative actions and forbearance in September. Instead, it seems they await the slow turning of the handle of consultation on, rule-making for and embedding the entire PRIIP legislation, which will take well into 2027 with tens of billions more pounds of lost investment in UK infrastructure.

By way of help, the chair of the FCA did finally confirm to the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee on 13 November that, for listed investment companies,

“ongoing charges are not deducted from the share price”,

and that,

“as a fact, there is not a deduction from the share price”.

Yet platforms such as Hargreaves Lansdown still insist that a misleading disclosure about cost deductions from the investor must be entered or they will block retail purchase. I am told that they claim that they are urged to do so by the Investment Association, which is the association for the dominant open-ended fund sector, not for listed investment companies. The open sector is a sector that may relish scooping up some of the lost equity investment for itself but, make no mistake, it cannot replace the lost billions in social and environmental infrastructure. While this regrettable situation continues, I believe this Bill still has an important role to play.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I shall say a word in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, before we wave this Bill goodbye. The investment trust movement is a proven success story in this country but has been uniquely caught up in the PRIIP regulations. For three or four years we have been trying to find a way through that thicket.

I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, and the Government have produced some temporary forbearance regulations that are now in effect, but that is only a quarter of a loaf. To rebuild the sector, we need new investment trusts, but no one will launch investment trusts with only temporary relief that might at any moment be withdrawn. Therefore, while of course the industry is grateful to the Government for what they have done, it is only a sticking plaster.

The worrying aspect is that, now that we have forbearance relief, there will be no pressure on the regulators to make their mind up and the hitherto glacial progress will proceed even more slowly. I hope the Minister might take the noble Baroness’s Bill, stick it in his back pocket and say, “It has no commencement date but, if you don’t get on and sort your mind out, we’ll put a commencement date on it and bring it in”.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, who has argued so cogently and cohesively for the Bill.

Finding ourselves in this position appears to be a mistake, and it is essential that we take the right steps to ensure that disclosures relating to closed-end listed investment companies are presented accurately. This is not merely a point of minute detail. As the noble Baroness has argued so diligently, the current situation has led to the loss of tens of billions of pounds of potential investments, resulting in economic damage to our country.

The Government tell us repeatedly that they want growth, and therefore the British people expect them to take the right steps to foster that growth. Indeed, as the Minister highlighted at Second Reading, EU-derived legislation related to retail disclosure is not fit for UK markets. We understand that the Government have committed to making changes to address and resolve these issues, and His Majesty’s Official Opposition greatly hope that the Government will continue to listen to the noble Baroness in a co-ordinated and collaborative effort to foster the growth that is essential if we are to deliver optimal outcomes for everyone across the country.

Credit Card Invoices

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to require credit card issuers to provide a full description of goods or services provided on their customer invoices.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, while issuers are not obliged to provide full a description of goods or services, there is existing legislation governing customer transactions. This requires customers to be given a statement of their transactions at least monthly. Under the rules, providers must include a reference to help the customer to identify the transaction, and, where appropriate, information relating to the payee.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, and also for allowing me to brief her on what I felt was the problem, but I am afraid her Answer does not satisfy me at all. How many Members of your Lordships’ House when they receive their credit card slip find transactions which they simply cannot recognise at all, for £5, £10 or maybe £15? How many times do noble Lords go on the fraud line and find, after quarter of an hour sitting there, that they have to put the phone down because they can go no further? Would the Government not agree this must be an incitement of low-level but quite extensive fraud, which is likely to get worse as we do more tap-and-go transactions and less in cash? Would it not be a good idea if it was a requirement to put on the credit card entry the name of the customer, the postcode that they operate from and a two or three-word description of the product or service provided?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, payments are governed by the Payment Services Regulations. The Government published a call for evidence in January 2023 to test whether the regulations are meeting their aims. The Government did not receive any evidence that would imply that more specificity would be helpful, either for customers or in terms of tackling fraud. However, I say to my noble friend—and I appreciate him raising this issue—that, as part of the smarter regulatory framework, firm-facing requirements will be repealed and replaced by rules from the FCA. Of course, this may be something that we can take forward in the future.

Financial Stability: Private Equity Firms

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am afraid that the noble Lord speaks about things I have no knowledge of.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I declare an interest in that I am involved in the private equity industry. If we in the industry do not calculate the risks properly, build into our modelling the necessary degree of leverage and allow for it, is it not right that we should be allowed to fail? We should not just be kept alive when we have shown incompetence.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I completely agree with my noble friend. Private equity is all about risk and returns, and not all firms will succeed in perpetuity. That is the way of a capitalist market, and it allows the correct allocation of capital within the system.

Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that the FCA has the appropriate powers to implement regulatory forbearance where it considers it appropriate, but it must operate within the legal framework and it does not have the powers to amend legislation—that is for this House to do. It is right that forbearance can only be a temporary, short-term fix. That is why the Government are committed to repealing and replacing retained EU law, including legislation related to cost disclosure, under our smarter regulatory framework.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that there really is a win-win situation here—a proven method of investment, offering individuals an opportunity to invest in new technologies relatively safely and new sources of funding for those technologies? The only thing standing in the way is the FCA. Where there is a will, there is a way, so could my noble friend please ask the FCA to engage in some digital extraction?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I reassure my noble friend that the FCA is indeed engaged in this issue, as are the Government. There are many problems with inherited EU financial services rules and we have set out a programme of work to look at how we can repeal them and replace them with UK-appropriate measures. These include the PRIIPs rules, which affect this issue, and the Government have set out our plans to repeal these measures and replace them with FCA rules, as soon as possible.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I need to begin by reminding the House that I have two interests. I am an approved person under the FCA rules, and I chair a regulated firm.

The Bill is big and important. I always felt that the task of trying to create a Europe-wide regulatory structure to deal with the many different types of financial markets—from quite small and unsophisticated to quite big, as we see in London—was going to be a big ask. Therefore, I was not surprised when we found a number of pinch points, many of which did not operate to London’s advantage. Given that the Bill’s strategic objective is to onshore our regulation, to get rid of one size fits all and to operate within a risk-based assessment framework appropriate to London, I support the Bill.

There are lots of things I would like to talk about, but I have only five minutes. I would like to talk about cash and the role of MiFID II, but I will focus on process. Here I follow the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Butler. How do we get from here to there? What is the process to be followed? How is it envisaged that Parliament will play a role in the process envisaged under Chapter 1, Revocation of Retained EU Law? As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out, this Bill is a carve-out of a much larger Bill that will come before your Lordships’ House in a few weeks.

I chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and we have been taking evidence from Ministers on some of the practical aspects behind the Government’s thinking. I suspect that not many of us—not even my noble friend Lord Forsyth—who voted for Brexit thought that this risked handing powers from Brussels to Whitehall without any serious effective parliamentary scrutiny or involvement along the way.

I have made a rough count of the number of regulations listed in Parts 1 to 3 of Schedule 1; there are, I think, 246. Some of these will be technical and of no significance; others will not. It is this fact that makes the Bill a framework Bill. At the moment of passing the Bill, Parliament will not know what it is signing up to. That is really important. Will all of these 250 or so regulations be treated in the same way? There appears to be no triaging process to sort the important ones from the less important ones. I fear that the idea of saying “Affirmative resolutions go this way, and negative resolutions go that way” may not be sufficient in as complex an exercise as this.

There is a widespread view—again, pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his remarks—that the existing parliamentary powers for scrutinising secondary legislation are inadequate for the increasingly heavy weights being placed upon them. When my noble friend the Minister comes to wind up, will she tell the House what supporting documentation will be made available in respect of each regulation, to aid parliamentary scrutiny? Under current law, any regulation that carries an impact of more than £5 million is required to have a specific impact assessment, tabled at the time the regulation is laid. If this is now not to be the case, there is a real danger of Parliament being effectively muted.

Secondly, an important statutory requirement is the provision of post- implementation reviews. Post-implementation reviews decide where hope and expectation met reality and how they clashed. If we are not going to have post-implementation reviews—PIRs—then the opportunity for improving government performance will be greatly missed.

Finally, there is the question of tertiary legislation. Tertiary legislation is where the Government hand away the pen to another body, usually having very little if any democratic accountability. Despite that, the laws and regulations that these bodies produce bind us all just as tightly as any other law. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm my understanding that, under Clause 4, all tertiary legislation will be subject only to the negative procedure? If I am right about that, then I am afraid I shall regard this as a very disappointing response.

To conclude, I support the direction of travel of the Bill but, as we enter this brave new world, we should at the same time not allow the role of Parliament to examine, scrutinise and hold the Government to account to be further reduced.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his very kind remarks and for giving me the opportunity to return briefly to the matter of pubs. As he said, I sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, yesterday and I have, for the convenience of the House, placed a copy in the Library.

Noble Lords expressed concern on Report about protections that would be available to a tied tenant whose pub is sold. Let me clarify the position: when a tied pub, owned by a company covered by the statutory code, is sold to another code company, the rights of the tenant under the code will be unaltered and will continue seamlessly. A tenant in this situation will retain the right to exercise the market rent only option after sale if any of the MRO triggers are activated. Where a tied pub is sold by a code company to a company outside the scope of the statutory code—for example, to a family brewer—the tenant will retain all the protections of the code except for MRO until the end of the lease or until completion of the next rent review, whichever comes first. In this scenario, if the purchasing company offers the tenant an agreement on different terms from their existing agreement, the tenant will have the right to a rent review.

If the tenant considers that the rent review breaches the code then he or she will be able to refer the matter to the adjudicator for arbitration. The adjudicator will not have powers to investigate non-code companies because the investigation powers are designed to address suspected systemic abuses of the code across many tenants. It would not be right to include in scope companies which are covered by the code only by virtue of the historic ownership of some of their pubs and in respect only of those particular pubs.

I turn briefly to the matter of investment. I have been clear that the Government want to see investment in tied pubs. That is key to the success of the industry, both for pub companies and for tenants. Pubs are at the heart of our communities and our heritage. They are important to the old and the young. We want pubs to thrive. I therefore announced on Report that the Government would set out in secondary legislation how tenants and pub companies can agree a waiver of two MRO triggers in exchange for significant future investment in a pub. I would like to make it clear that the waiver will apply only to the renewal and scheduled rent review triggers for MRO. All other code protections will remain in place during the waiver period. This means that the two exceptional triggers for MRO will remain; namely, a significant price increase and an economic event which impacts on the tenant’s ability to trade. The Government will set out safeguards in the code to ensure the tenant is protected from attempts to abuse a waiver. Any attempt to avoid these safeguards could be referred to the adjudicator for arbitration and redress.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I hoped to get through this afternoon without having to discuss pubs yet again. When a pub is sold by one of the companies covered by the code to a company that is not covered by it—a family brewer was the example she used—who enforces the rights of the tenant against the pub company that is outside the code? At that point, as my noble friend said, it is not part of the code so how does the adjudicator make that work?

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that introduction. I have two amendments in this group and I am certainly not happy that they are in a group of 66 amendments. This must be about a record for Committee stage. It is interesting that amendments in this group have been put down by a number of different noble Lords, but there are five separate groups further on for amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I am sure that he deserves such special treatment but I wonder why. I do not know whether any other noble Lord was consulted about this grouping—I certainly was not. I give notice that I would like to debate Amendment 90A separately. I do not know whether any other noble Lords will have a similar view, but I hope that that is acceptable.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I also have a number of amendments in this group. I think the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that these amendments are all about Clause 42 and the subsequent groups are about subsequent clauses. What we are doing here is debating the whole of Clause 42, rightly or wrongly. It may be too big a group but that, I think, is the background. I think other amendments to subsequent clauses form other groups.

The Government have said that they will accept the spirit of the amendments passed in the other place, but I am afraid that despite the Minister’s assurance—

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, proceeds, the point made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley indicates a more serious procedural problem. It is not that these amendments are not serious, but they are specific. I also have some amendments in this group, but if I degroup them, a decision would have been taken on the Minister’s amendments before we reached the appropriate point in the text of the Bill.

We have a very new clause, inserted at the final stage in the Commons. The Minister quite rightly said that there has been limited chance for consultation on that. We have a huge amendment from the Government deleting an entire clause and replacing it. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Hodgson, and I, all have amendments to the original amendments. My noble friends Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Stevenson have amendments to the Government’s amendments. So, there is not only a large number of amendments, but it is going to be a very confusing debate.

That is not to say that we should not have the debate today. However, the way that this has been dealt with, and the fact that consultation since the Commons decisions until now has not allowed consultation with the bodies that represent tied landlords, has not allowed for significant debate with those in the Commons who pushed this amendment. We have a few weeks between now and Report stage for proper consultation to take place. I am very happy to have the discussion today because that will inform the Government, but at the end of that discussion it will behove all of us to withdraw our amendments and move them for a proper discussion on Report, which could have been preceded by some effective consultation between the Government and the various parties involved, both politically and industrially.

Although we can degroup this group, there is a rather more profound problem here. If all noble Lords agree to withdraw their amendments at the end of the debate, there is no great problem and we can have a sensible discussion over the next three weeks. However, if we proceed, we proceed as per normal. It would be sensible, even from the Government’s point of view, if we allowed ourselves a bit of a breathing space to have those discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Lord makes a good point. The Secretary of State and Jo Swinson have been intimately involved in all this. I have now taken over the yoke in this House. The next thing I was going to say is that I held an open-door session yesterday. Noble Lords were invited. I was surprised that more noble Lords were not able to come, but that might have been a timing issue. I am keen to get to know all the views of the Committee on this important issue. I joined the House of Lords because it is an important revising Chamber. We have to look at these things and get them right. Our door will be open between now and Report.

Clearly this group of amendments is very large, but I have already said that I would like to listen to what is being said by noble Lords on their amendments before I respond and comment on what we should do with our amendments. We are being very constructive; we are trying to seek a balance and to do the right thing. If we could get on and get into the detail we may find that we can narrow down some of our differences.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, when I was interrupted a minute or two ago I was explaining that I had some amendments here and that we had some doubts still, despite my noble friend’s assurances about the workability of what is now proposed. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who I think asked the question, that I do not propose to move my amendments today; I propose to have them discussed. I suspect that that is what he expected me to say, but then I suspect that he was not putting his question to me.

At this point I remind the Committee, as I did the House at Second Reading, that until a year ago I was a non-executive director of one of the six companies covered by the proposed code. The group of which I was a non-executive director had five breweries, two large ones and three small, stretching from Cumbria to Ringwood in the New Forest. It owns some 2,000 pubs, of which about 500 were managed, and the balance were tenanted in various forms.

This is a bit of housekeeping. The Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms has told me that it has been suggested that I did not declare this interest at Second Reading. For the record, I draw the attention of the Committee, and indeed the House, to col. 1289 of Hansard on 2 December, the date of the Second Reading of this Bill, in which I declared in terms the interest that I just declared. It was further suggested by someone that I did not declare my interest at the beginning of my speech. That is perfectly true; I did not. I think that the Companion does not require you to make your declaration at the beginning of the speech. The beginning of my speech was not about pubs; it was about pre-pack administrations and about the Government’s procurement policies as they affect small companies, in which I had no interest to declare. When we came to the pubs, I made the declaration that I have described, so I hope that we can draw a line under that question.

I thank my noble friend and her team of officials for the time they have given to discussing some of the operational problems that it is feared may occur. I thank the Government, having listened to some of the arguments that my noble friend has just briefly outlined for the Committee, which include a complete rewriting of Clause 42, which, as we realise, is the essential heart of the new regime. The amendments, as we have heard, were tabled last Thursday night, and it is fair to say that, given only three complete working days since, all parties are struggling to understand the full implications of what is now proposed. My noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley had a sensible suggestion to achieve some permanence that we can then discuss and amend on Report if necessary. I do not suppose that CAMRA will agree with much of what I say but it may be persuaded by some of the arguments, and I suspect it would agree that we are struggling slightly with the flow of information that has come so late in the day.

I have tabled a number of amendments to Clause 42, which form part of a strategic whole. Before discussing the amendments in detail, I shall take a few minutes to discuss the shape of the pub industry and how those amendments would be to its long-term advantage. I begin by making three things clear. First, these amendments do not—I repeat, not—seek to overturn the House of Commons decision to introduce a market rent only option, the MRO. I think that that is probably a mistake; time will tell, but it may accelerate pub closures. However, the Government have decided to accept the decision, so I want to move on from that point.

Secondly, the amendments are designed to help to keep pubs open. The sector is under pressure from a wide range of adverse tides. There seems to be a view that somehow pubcos want pubs to close. A landlord needs a tenant as much as a tenant needs a landlord. That is particularly true of the company with which I was involved, which brewed its own beer in integrated premises, and it is through its own pub estate that a large proportion, 25% to 35%, of the product is sold. A closed pub is of no use in this regard, and closure even for a short period can be disastrous. If I may use the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as an example, if he is in the habit of having a pint on the way home from work and his normal hostelry is the Crown but it closes for refurbishment, he will not cease having his pint but will go to the King’s Head, elsewhere in the high street. It may be that as a result of the Crown having closed for a bit, his permanent patronage will be shifted to the King’s Head. In the company in which I was involved, when we undertook refurbishment we wanted it to be as quick and painless as possible to avoid upsetting our regular clientele.

Thirdly, these amendments are designed to iron out some of the idiosyncrasies and unevenness that, if not changed, will seriously affect future investment in the sector and its longer-term health. I am afraid that it is not realistic to believe that individual free house operators will have access to the sums of capital that large companies have at their disposal.

I turn to the industry. As I have said, the Bill affects only six companies, unless the Government accept Amendment 69A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is not surprising that the issue of hybridity has raised its head and has had to be addressed in Clause 70(3). The six companies fall into two categories: two of them brew beer as well as owning pubs, which they sell in part through their own estate. They also sell in supermarkets, through independent pubs, free houses, off-licences and so on. I will refer to these as the integrated model. The other companies are pubcos. They do not brew beer; they very often buy their beer in from breweries operated by their rivals. They are clearly more focused on the rental levels available in their pubs.

As I explained at Second Reading, this rather counterintuitive structure of pure pubcos came about because of a parliamentary decision on the beer orders in the 1980s, which prevented breweries from owning more than 2,000 pubs. The disinvestment programmes forced on them resulted in what have become known as pubcos. They resulted from a parliamentary decision, which many argue had a completely unexpected and unintended consequence. We need to make sure that we do not set out today on a journey that has similar unintended consequences. By the way, some argue that the way in which this weakened the brewers weakened the whole of British beer on the pub market and led to the rise of foreign lagers, which are sold in every pub in the country. If your Lordships go into a pub you will be faced with Stella Artois, which is originally Belgian, Fosters and Castlemaine from Australia, Grolsch from Holland, Kronenbourg and, more recently, Peroni. Most, although not Peroni, are brewed here under licence but not owned in Britain at all.

Those two types of companies have differently aligned interests and objectives, but I would like the Committee to remember a further differentiation between managed and tied pubs. Managed pubs, as the title implies, are run by employees of the company who are paid a salary with a bonus and other fringe benefits. They are quite different from tied tenants, who are essentially self-employed small businessmen. All the issues about beer pricing and other conditions of the tie are of no interest to the manager, who is in effect running a branch office. I am very grateful to my noble friend for having made it clear in moving her amendment that managed houses have no place in the provisions of Part 4.

As I said at Second Reading, people feel strongly about pubs; even if they do not want to go to them, they like them to be there. Their disappearance is resented for removing an essential part of what people see as a community. Just how strongly people feel about pubs, though, even I underestimated. It is not often, working away as a humble Back-Bencher in the decent obscurity of your Lordships’ House, that a single sentence in a 13-minute speech can get one simultaneously on to the front pages of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph and described as an Islamophobe to boot. For the record, let me set my sentence in context.

I said that the pub trade in all its forms—tied, untied and free—faces very adverse tides, which are resulting in pub closures. The adverse tides, in which I fear that the tie plays only a marginal part, include cheap alcohol in the supermarket, with an average price of £1.13 per pint compared to about £3 in the pub, so that people drink at home; the rise in the consumption of other beverages not normally associated with the pub, such as wine; the rise in regulation including drink-driving, the smoking ban and new licensing laws; rises in costs, including council tax; and deep-seated socioeconomic changes, including the deindustrialisation of parts of Britain—I used the example of the carpet trade in Kidderminster at Second Reading—and the arrival of people whose faith forbids the drinking of alcohol. That last point is not in any way and was never meant to be a criticism, as I am a great believer in religious tolerance in every direction. However, it means that such people are, quite understandably, unlikely to be persistent frequenters of premises which, under Clause 65(3), are defined as ones in which,

“one of the main activities carried on at the premises is the retail sale of alcohol to members of the public for consumption on the premises”.

As a result of these trends, in which sectors of the pub trade are closures now taking place? From the publicity being given, it would appear that the conclusion is that nearly all the closures are taking place in the tied sector. The truth, I am afraid, is rather different. Mr Doug Jack, an analyst at Numis, the City investment house, says in a paper that the closure rate in the free-of-tie sector is more than double the closure rate in the tied, tenanted, leased sector. There is a multitude of reasons for this, all connected to the fact that tied pubs also tie the pub company into the pub’s success or failure. As part of the rent is paid through the beer, the pub company is motivated to drive up beer volumes, which is why pub companies invest substantial amounts in capital expenditure, tenant support and rent concessions when good licensees are struggling.

[Lord Snape]

If, as the noble Lord implies, the tie is not the principal reason behind the unhappiness of many tenants, perhaps I could refer him to the CAMRA report into the tie. Can he explain to the Committee why more than 70% of tied tenants feel that the tie is, to say the least, unhelpful to their business?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I do not say that the tie is perfect. In fact, I was about to say that the tie has had its imperfections. But I do not think the statistics that are produced by some of the pubcos show that there is the level of dissatisfaction that the CAMRA figures indicate. We can argue about the polling; no doubt the way you ask the question and who asks the question can move the figures around a bit. But I think the other side—the pubcos—would argue that actually the level of dissatisfaction among tenants is not as great as the CAMRA figures suggest.

[Lord Snape]

Again, can the noble Lord give us some examples? If CAMRA has got it wrong and he has got it right, perhaps he can explain to the Committee how he has come to that conclusion.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

The noble Lord is very kindly almost making my speech for me. I was about to say—

[Lord Snape]

Doing a better job, I hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I was about to say that in the 25,000 or so examples of tied tenancies, I do not doubt that there are examples of egregious behaviour by pub owners. Those need to be addressed swiftly and promptly. But I do argue, and I will provide at least two specific examples when we come to Amendment 82 on significant investment—I remember the noble Lord, Lord Snape, chiding me at Second Reading and asking me to produce them—that the tie can work well for all parties and can provide a cheap and effective way of creating a satisfactory, profitable small business. I do not want to see the creation of a regulatory structure that strangles the possible advantages that the tie can offer.

To compete for people’s leisure time and their leisure pound, pubs have to offer an experience that is valued by the chosen target market. The target market may be younger males with sport, TV and pub games; younger females want more of a wine bar; families want play areas for children; and cheaper meals attract the retired. But noble Lords will quickly recognise that setting out first to choose a target market and then to develop it successfully takes experience and knowledge. That back-up and support is what in good circumstances a pubco can provide.

Whatever type of pub you are running, running a successful pub is very hard work: long, anti-social hours; periods of the year when external events such as the weather dramatically reduce your level of trade—this evening, if the weather continues as it is, pubs all over the country will be empty; and a readiness to deal with, humour and enjoy the company of the great British public in all their diversity. By no means do we all possess the multifaceted set of skills required to be a successful Mein Host.

[Lord Berkeley]

Looking at the list of groupings, it appears that the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is Amendment 69, which seeks to leave out Clause 41(6), which says:

“The Pubs Code may require large pub-owning businesses to provide parallel rent assessments”.

Is that what he has been speaking to for the past few minutes?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I hope I made it clear to the Committee that I was trying to give a bit of a tour d’horizon of how these amendments fitted into the future. I was trying to explain that the adverse tides, which I have just been talking about, are not part of the tie but are part of other, bigger issues. In a couple of minutes I will come to each of the amendments, of which Amendment 69 is the first.

I explained that running a pub was exceptionally hard work and many people coming into it, often as a second career, find that it is not as easy as it looks. Like all of us, they are inclined not to blame themselves but to look for somebody else to blame. In such circumstances, the owner of the tied pub can be a first, and relatively easy, target. A complaint sells itself well in the community and the local MP’s surgery. This does not just apply to pubcos; I have had correspondence since Second Reading from people with free-of-tie pubs which have fallen on difficult times. When they tried to close them they were prevented from doing so by them being listed as assets of community value, so they were left with a bit of a pub they could not sell and a pub which they did not want to buy.

Finally on this opening section, I draw the Government’s attention to what I call the nuclear option. This is not available to the integrated companies because, as I explained, they need the pub estate to sell their beer, but it is available to pubcos. The pure pubcos could react to this parliamentary focus on rent only by becoming property companies. They could cut their overheads drastically by removing all the pub support, such as business development managers. This would boost their profitability in the short term; in the longer term, they would sell the better performing parts of the estate to other companies while closing and seeking alternative uses for the rest. This nuclear option—and I have no idea how likely it is—could dramatically increase the rate of pub closures. The amendments in my name—the focus of the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, a minute ago—are designed, as a whole, to avoid a dogma-driven solution and instead create, with the MRO option, a balanced and flexible structure which affords the best chance of keeping pubs open in as many places as possible.

After that very long introduction, I will whip through the amendments in my name. Amendment 69 seeks to delete Clause 41(6). As my noble friend said, this proposes a system of parallel rent assessments. These might have been of value before the House of Commons amendment introducing the MRO and associated provisions. Given that change, parallel rent assessments are essentially duplicates of what is proposed elsewhere. I am not sure whether they are needed anywhere, but they are certainly not needed in connection with the MRO option. I hope that my noble friend will explain why they are still there and how they are supposed to operate within the confines of the Government’s proposed new clause to replace Clause 42.

The remainder of the amendments in my name are all concerned with Clause 42—which, as my noble friend has explained, it is proposed to remove. The proposed new clause definitely answers some of them, definitely does not answer others, and the impact in the remaining cases is unclear. I would be grateful for my noble friend’s help in bringing clarity to these points. Amendments 70 and 71 are covered because they are about tied and managed pubs and my noble friend has made it clear that managed pubs form no part of the new regime. Amendments 72, 73 and 74 are important because they concern integrated businesses that brew beer and sell it through their own estate. It must be logical for the Pubs Code to permit such businesses to require their tenants to stock their own brands of beer and cider. If, under the code, a new MRO tenant could immediately turn round to the pub owner and say: “I am not going to stock your beer any more: I am going to stock the beer of your bitter rival”, this would have a disastrous effect on pub ownership.

[Lord Snape]

Has the noble Lord reflected on the wording of Amendments 73 and 74? Does he feel that, as presently drafted, they restrain the sale of products other than beer, even if they do not stop it? I agree with the principle, but is he happy with the drafting?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Well, the focus in these pubs is on the beer—and possibly cider—because that is what is really essential to the brewers. That is part of their output. If they cannot sell their beer through the tied pubs, that might be cutting off 30% of their market.

[Lord Snape]

No, the point that I am seeking to make is that if the amendment is accepted, it appears to stop the tenant selling anything other than beer.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My wording is focused on beer and cider and not on other products at all. I think the clause is clear. It has to be read in conjunction with the fact that the MRO tenant can be clear that he is free to purchase those beers or ciders wherever he wishes, not necessarily through the brewery, so there can be no question of unfairness of pricing.

[Lord Snape]

I am sorry to keep interrupting; I am asking him to define his own amendments here. Brewers do not only sell beers. They sell soft drinks as well, which are often part of the tie. His amendments appear to stop them from doing that. That is the only point I am putting to him. To be quite honest, I think his amendments are daft anyway, but they appear even sillier when one reads them.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

There are two parts to this. The question is whether the tenant is being forced to take supplies at a price higher than he can buy elsewhere. The key part is to ensure that, if the tenant feels that he or she is not getting the fairest price from the brewery, he or she can buy elsewhere. They can go to a wholesaler or other sources. That is his or her protection. A protection for the brewery is that it can insist that its beer be sold. A protection for the tenant is that the brewery cannot insist that the beer be bought from that brewery. It can be bought wherever the tenant wishes. The brewery has to compete for it and make sure that they offer the keenest price to the tenant.

After that exchange, I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify and reassure me that the Government intends to provide certainty of supply, and that this provision will form part of the Bill. This is a very important amendment for the future of the industry.

Moving to Amendments 75, 76, 83 and 86, these are essentially drafting points to clarify the timing on when an MRO offer has to be made. I think the new clause addresses them but I hope my noble friend can confirm this.

Amendment 88 amends Clause 42(9)(b), adding at the end,

“provided that the requirement to enter into a new tenancy or lease if such tenants choose the Market Rent Only option shall not be considered discrimination”.

The purpose of that amendment is as follows. It would surely be unfair for the tenant to use the MRO option as a means to evade his obligations under his existing lease. A tenant may choose the MRO option, but having made that choice, he must then sign up for it and it should not be discriminatory for the pub owner to require him so to do. Further, in taking the MRO option, the tenant is electing to agree to a normal commercial lease as defined by the British Property Federation. That is to say, an MRO lease does not contain any special underlying legal features unique to the sector. It would be most helpful if my noble friend would give some assurance on that point.

Amendments 79 and 89 are about “significant” and “unfair” and potentially have a greater impact. They concern the events that can trigger the requirement to make an MRO option available. Clause 42(6)(b) requires the offer of an MRO option,

“when the large pub-owning business gives notice of, or imposes, (whichever is the earlier) a significant increase in the price at which it supplies products, goods or services”.

This wording appears to be replicated in subsection (6) of the proposed new clause. Amendments 79 and 89 propose to replace “significant” with “unfair”.

The question is, what constitutes a “significant increase”? Is it the right word anyway? The reasons given for the introduction of the Pubs Code revolve around the inequality of arms between the pub owner and the tenant. The Pubs Code is intended to ensure fair dealing between the two parties and give the tenant redress when unfair practices have taken place. The word “significant” is a general term, not a particular one. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “significant” as important and notable. There might be many reasons for there to be a significant, important and notable increase in the price of what the Bill calls a “product, good or service” supplied to a tenant.

[Lord Berkeley]

Has the noble Lord thought about what the word “unfair” means? For the pubco, it is probably different to what it means for the tenant. It seems to me to be rather more wishy-washy than “significant”.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that. I am about to come to the definition of “unfair” in about one second. I am talking about the importance of the definition of “significant” as important and notable. The price of beer might rise sharply because of: the cost of raw materials, such as hops; governmental action on alcohol taxation following medical advice; or increased delivery costs following price rises or road tax changes. It is surely not right to potentially penalise the pub owners alone as a result of such events, which have equal impact on all parties.

By contrast, coming to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “unfair” is: not equitable; “unjust”; not according to the rules; partial. In my view, this precisely matches the concept behind the Pubs Code. It is intended to deal with situations that are inequitable—that is to say unfair—between the two parties: the pub owner and the tenant. I hope that the Government will think again about this wording before Report.

I turn to Amendment 80, which concerns the other events that could trigger the requirement to offer an MRO option. This formed part of my noble friend’s introductory remarks. Clause 42(6)(c) requires an MRO offer on the sale of a pub. This would be quite unfair to pub-owning companies. Pubs, whether singly or in blocks, can be sold for perfectly legitimate reasons. So long as the tenant’s position is protected, as it would be, the identity of the owner really makes no difference to the tenant. If this paragraph were to remain in the Bill it would freeze up the market for pubs and so discourage investment.

The amendment also seeks to remove another trigger point at Clause 42(6)(d): that, if a pubco goes into administration, an MRO offer must follow to the tenants. I think that my noble friend addressed this point in her opening remarks. The same objections apply to this: provided that the tenant’s position is protected, he has no interest in the affairs of the pub owner. If this paragraph were to remain, it would have serious consequences for the industry. First, pubcos would find it much harder to borrow. From a bank or lender’s point of view, the fact that, on administration, the relationship of the pub owner could change with every one of its tied pubs would make lending significantly more risky and, therefore, less attractive, thereby reducing the flow of investment to the sector. Secondly, if administration was to occur, the position of the creditors would be significantly worsened as value could be destroyed by the uncertainties that would result from an MRO option. I understand that the Government are proposing to withdraw those paragraphs. I would like my noble friend to give that commitment.

Amendment 81 is also concerned with a trigger point: Clause 42(6)(e), which appears to form part of the proposed new clause at subsection (6)(d) and subsection (9). This also covers the emergence of trigger events. In the proposed new clause, the definition of a trigger event is drafted very widely and is likely to lead to a good deal of uncertainty in its application and interpretation. That is surely not to the advantage of any party in these circumstances.

We have the well established procedure that has been used to determine appeals against rateable value; that is, whether there is deterioration in the circumstances of a property. Paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act 1988 lays out the matters to be taken into account. They include,

“matters affecting the physical state or physical enjoyment of the hereditament … the mode or category of occupation of the hereditament … matters affecting the physical state of the locality in which the hereditament is situated or which, though not affecting the physical state of the locality, are nonetheless physically manifest there, and … the use or occupation of other premises situated in the locality”.

This definition sets out the criteria for when a change happens to a business and a rating reduction can be allowed. It is a well used and well understood definition that could, with advantage, be used to define when an MRO option could be triggered. I hope my noble friend will reflect further on this before Report.

I come now to Amendment 82 and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. This is an important amendment and I do not think it has been addressed in new Clause 42. The amendment inserts into the Pubs Code:

“The Pubs Code shall offer an exemption from the Market Rent Only Option for a mutually agreed period in return for a significant investment by a large pub-owning business in that tenant’s pub”.

This would mean that if a pub-owning business spends a significant sum improving a pub, the Pubs Code would permit an agreement with the tenant for a period during which there would be an exemption from the MRO option.

Those who successfully proposed the amendment to Part 4 of the Bill in the House of Commons see the tie as universally malign—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, and I discussed a few minutes ago—an arrangement without merit and having no benefit. But this is not true. I was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, at Second Reading to produce evidence to support the continuation of the tie in any form, and this I will now do, with a couple of examples.

If I may, I will take the Committee to the Black Bull in Mansfield. I should make it clear that the tenant, Janice Shaw, has given permission for me to use it as an example. When Janice Shaw took the pub on, it was trading at about £7,000 a week as a result of a lack of catering facilities, which resulted in strict food service times and a rather poor food offering. The brewery invested £100,000 in the pub. It addressed kitchen standards and capacity, doubling the size of the kitchen by extending it into the car park. In addition, the pub was redecorated, with new signage and fixtures and fittings. The result is that the turnover is up to £10,000 a week—an increase of £3,000 a week or £150,000 a year. The brewery has increased the rent by £5,200, from £32,800 to £38,000, and is making, as it wished me to remind the Committee, £6,000 more from increased sales of beer. So from Janice Shaw’s point of view, she has £150,000 of extra revenue while the landlord has £11,200 of extra profit. It is doubtful whether a bank would have funded this. It is a messy lend, being part construction work, part purchase of fixtures and fittings, and part redecoration. Of course, a bank would not have had the same vision and confidence as to the likely success post-investment.

My second example is the Crown Hotel in Southwell, Nottinghamshire. Anna Guise is the current tenant. She took on the Crown in 2005. Although pretty well run, the site had become tired, resulting in the consumer often becoming confused; little food was being sold; the reliance on the town centre drinking circuit was evident; and there was a need to change to a more balanced offer in order to appeal to wider consumer groups. Anna Guise tried to invest in the site but could not afford the necessary capital and the pub remained in decline. To support the operation, the brewery reduced the rent and Anna’s father supported her with regular cash injections.

The brewery invested £84,000 in November 2013 without requesting any rental uplift. The cap ex addressed both internal and external standards, modernising throughout. It developed the back bar to include coffee, wine and a more rounded offer. A new menu was introduced and food was served all day. The evening drinking remained but the message to the consumer was that the feel of the building had been improved and fresh signage was introduced. Post investment, decline has been reversed and there is now 39% growth. That has enabled her to plan for a brighter future for her pub.

The basic point is that integrated pubcos that wish to sell will not invest £100,000, or even £84,000, if there is no guarantee that they will be able to sell their beer and if, after the money has been accepted and an investment has transformed the pub, the tenant will be able to say that they want to change the basis of the contract. The amendment would permit—not require—a situation in which if significant investment has taken place, of the sort that I have just described, the two sides could agree a period during which the MRO option would not be available. Without this, pubco investment will be significantly reduced, and I hope that my noble friend can give some reassurance on that point.

Amendments 84, 85 and 87 are drafting amendments to Clause 42(8). Subsection (8) is concerned with the 90-day assessment period during which an independent assessor reaches a judgment on the terms of the no-tie agreement. It is important to be clear what happens during that 90-day interregnum. It must be made clear that the tenant must comply with the existing contract until the new MRO contract comes into effect.

Finally—no doubt much to the relief of the Committee—Amendment 89 is paralleled in large measure by Amendment 83A in the name of my noble friend Lord Borwick, concerning the rather unattractively named SCORFA—special commercial or financial advantages. I will leave my noble friend to address that and how it will fit into the MRO world post the break of the tie.

I recognise that I have thrown a lot at my noble friend in the last few minutes, although I hope that her officials were already aware of my direction of travel. It is important that all parties to the debate get clarity on the Government’s position. I am talking not about clarity on the broad principle—we all understand the MRO option—but rather on the more granular aspects of how the policy is intended to operate and what the consequences are likely to be.

[Lord Berkeley]

In this grouping, my Amendment 69A is the next one that is not a government amendment, so if it is convenient for the Committee I will speak to that and try not to delay the Committee too long with comments on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. If I then have comments after the Minister has spoken, I am sure she will be willing to accept them.

I want to put on record that it is great shame that the Government have somewhat changed what was agreed in the House of Commons. I see the government amendments, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as putting the whole issue into the long grass, which is very sad. Rather than having the MRO option in primary legislation, which I thought was excellent—although obviously there is detail that we need to talk about—we could be left for many years with people opposing any secondary legislation that comes in and then debating it at that stage. Who knows what will happen then?

Amendment 69A is a probing amendment about why the Government, or the House of Commons, chose a maximum of 100 pubs rather than 500 pubs. I have had some useful discussions with St Austell brewery in Cornwall, which comes somewhere in-between. I have also talked to many of its tenants and others, and many who I talked to would be pleased to be able to renegotiate under the MRO. The family brewers, including St Austell, believe that they provide a much better and friendlier quality of ownership than the very big ones. I suspect that they are right in that.

--- Later in debate ---

changes title. As I have said, it can do that or go into liquidation at any time. That is a reason not for exempting them but for keeping that part of the clause in the Bill. The same comment applies to the noble Lord’s Amendment 82.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

On Amendment 80, if it were a retail outlet such as a high street store, there would be no reason why a company should not sell its retail store to someone else. Why should a brewery be any different?

[Lord Berkeley]

It is a question of what would constitute selling and what would be transferring it to a company in which the brewery had 100% or 99% of the shares. It is a grey area. The noble Lord may be right but I do not see that as a reason for having his Amendment 80 or any of the others. We can go on debating this.

I still think that Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is trying to say that once the tenant has started the negotiation he has to finish it. That is very unfair on the tenant because, while he may have said that he wanted to start it, if he is not happy with the outcome it is surely reasonable that he would not have to conclude an agreement. The short answer is that he will not stay there long and will suffer severe financial hardship.

I could go on for a long, long time, but I have one last comment on Amendments 73 and 74. I did not really understand the noble Lord’s explanation to my noble friend Lord Snape. If his amendment would enable the tenant to buy his beer and other drinks at whatever price he chose from whomever he chose, why are we going through all the rigmarole of all these different adjudications? Just let him do it now. I am sure that I have it wrong, but it would be nice if at some stage the noble Lord could explain the amendment in words of one syllable.

[Lord Snape]

My Lords, to respond to some of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I say in passing that although, at my request, he came up with some examples of landlords being happy with the tie, they did not seem to me typical of what takes place in the industry. I do not want to repeat to the Committee anything that I said on Second Reading, when I detailed some of the problems that my daughter and son-in-law have had. Their treatment by Enterprise Inns is a lot different from the cases outlined by the noble Lord when he moved his amendment. Similarly, on Second Reading, with the permission of a couple called Dawn and Michael Shanahan from the Bulls Head in Old Whittington near Chesterfield, I read out a letter showing how they had been treated, which, I am sure that the noble Lord would agree, is a lot different from either of the examples that he gave to the Committee this afternoon.

The fact that more than 70% of pubco tenants have expressed their unhappiness to CAMRA indicates that far more of them have been and are being treated as in the two examples that I gave on Second Reading than in the two examples that the noble Lord has given to the Committee today.

I thought that the noble Lord was seeking to intervene; he looked a bit restive. I thought that he was going to come up with even more examples of happy tenants, but there are not that many of them around. He has probably exhausted the lot of them with those two.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

The noble Lord has provoked me enough. I was sent a book this thick by some of the pubcos containing responses from tenants. Have I leafed through it? Do I want to bore the noble Lord and the Committee by producing it? Certainly not, but a large number of tenants drawn from all around the country were explaining how satisfied they were with the way that the tie operated. The ALMR has written to Members of the Committee to say that the tie works for its members and that it supports it.

[Lord Snape]

The first question about that association, whatever it was he said, is: who is funding them in the first place? Let us leave that aside. The noble Lord tells the Committee that he has a very thick book of completely satisfied tenants. Again, is there some reason why CAMRA did not consult them? The figures are there. I will send the document across to him. Oh, he does not want it—he indicated dissent. If there is such a crowd of happy tenants up and down the country, CAMRA would surely have spoken to them. I hope that I take both sides of the Committee with me when I say that CAMRA is a trusted and respected organisation on these matters. The fact that it records a dissatisfaction figure of more than 70% indicates that the bulky document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, may not be as laudatory about the pubcos as he indicated.

Let us look at some of the amendments in the noble Lord’s name. It is impossible to read, from the Minister’s expression, whether or not she favours them. Sometimes it can be an advantage sitting on this side, as Ministers are not always as inscrutable as the noble Baroness. Given some of the obvious failings in these amendments, I cannot believe that the Government are about to accept them. The noble Lord has not told us why in Amendment 69 he wants to take out the parallel rent assessment, but I presume he—or those who have briefed him—has a good reason to do so.

Amendments 70 and 71 are concerned with the definition of a large pub-owning business as one with 500 tied pubs. I do not know whether the Minister can understand what the noble Lord is getting at, but I am afraid I do not and I find those amendments pretty confusing. I ask for clarification from the noble Lord on Amendments 73 and 74 because they seem to refer specifically and solely to beer, whereas we know that the tie includes lots of other products, including soft drinks. They are excluded under the terms of the amendment, presumably, and it would have been useful if the noble Lord could have expanded on that point.

On Amendments 75 to 82, it is interesting that the former editor of the Sunday Telegraph is in favour of denying MRO to existing tenants. She did not particularly say why but the newspaper has, sadly, sunk in its popular appeal since she left the editorship. It would have been helpful if she had given some reason why she feels that existing tenants should be denied MRO. If one combines those amendments with Amendment 69ZB, there would be neither code nor MRO for existing tenants. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is in favour of that too, because she did not tell us. I can understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and—I put this as delicately as possible—those he associates with might be in favour of excluding existing tenants from both the code and the MRO, but I am at a loss to understand why the Committee at large would wish to do so.

Amendments 84 to 87 are also in the noble Lord’s name. In Amendment 85 there is no time laid down for the period of negotiation between the tenant and the pubco. If a tenant is in financial trouble and the pubco knows it—and, of course, it would—dragging on the negotiations would mean that the tenant went under anyway, regardless of the final outcome. I am sure that was not the intention behind the amendments. If I have provoked the noble Lord to his feet again, I would be delighted to give way.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I understand that the noble Lord wishes to find fault with my proposals. The amendment relates to Clause 42(8)(e), which refers to,

“at the time of the three month assessment”.

The question is, where in the three months? All my amendment does is change this to, “at the end of the three month assessment”. All I wanted to do was to get clarity so that the tenant—presumably an MRO tenant—or the pub owner knows when the events actually happen. It must be in everybody’s interests to have clarity about the sequence of events and how everything fits together, whatever one’s view may be about the legislation as a whole. That is my only point.

[Lord Snape]

I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that I am out to find fault with his amendments. He should not be unduly sensitive. I was under the misapprehension that that is what Parliament is about: maybe I have got it wrong. I find fault with his amendments first because they do not do what he thinks they will—or at least I hope that they do not—and secondly because they are unfair, particularly to existing tenants. That is one of the reasons why I have taken the view that I have. I would like to know the Minister’s view on the amendment, particularly the question of denying the MRO to existing tenants. As far as Amendments 88 and 89 are concerned, if the Minister accepts them, she would be discriminating against existing tenants and I hope that she will reject them.

There is a considerable debate to be had on new Clause 42. I am not proposing to start that now. I hope that the Minister will reply to these amendments and bear in mind that as far as the general point of new Clause 42 is concerned, we would seek to have a substantial debate on its content aside from the amendments that we are currently discussing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I take the noble Lord’s point, but I spoke in support of my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s amendments on the grounds that there would be an exemption from the MRO.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

The issue is that every company has a target return on capital. If it is to make an investment, it wants to make a return on capital and the company will set a target. The problem is that if you are going to invest your £30 million, you want to know what your return on capital will be. One issue that relates to return on capital is what will be the contractual relationship. Therefore, before you make your investment, you want to know what the end play will be, because that means that you can be assured—if it all goes well; it does not always go well—that you will get that rate of return on capital. That is the background to the figure that my noble friend is giving. Companies want to be certain that they have targets for the return on capital which they need to meet.

[Lord Berkeley]

With respect, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”. I am glad that the cavalry has been brought in to help the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. The noble Viscount says that that £30 million would not be invested. “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”. We could do with some figures.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

The truth of the matter is that every time an argument is produced to point out how pubcos operate as commercial enterprises, the noble Lord says, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”. Capital investment budgets are set to be achieved, with certain target rates of return required to justify them. Otherwise the value of the stock—or the value of the company, if it is a private company—falls. If you do not have a rate of return on your investment higher than the cost of capital, the value of your business is falling.

You need to know what you are getting into, what your contractual relationships are and how long they will last. You cannot be certain, because, with the best will in the world—taking the example of pubs—some pubs do not do as well as one hopes. It does not work because the location is not right, the tenant is not right or the arrangements are not right. The idea is to hit the target. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, he must understand that unless your rate of return on capital is higher than your cost of capital, you are destroying the value of your business.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am sorry, my Lords, but I will try just one last time. The rate of return could just as easily be calculated on the basis of the rent that the tenant will be paying once he has been through the process, because that will be fixed and the company will know it. That is the rate of return, whether the company likes it or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point about what will be in the legislation and what will be in the code. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and we are all concerned about it. If there are two sides to the argument, both sides are suspicious that consultation will mean that they lose out one way or the other. Have the Opposition reached a view on how much can be in the code and how much in the Bill, or are we still working that out?

[Lord Mendelsohn]

As I am pressed, there are a number of details where that balance is the issue we have to address. Perhaps we need some more comments from the Government in explanation of the current provisions. We are also looking for the direction of travel to help give us a real sense of what should and should not be.

As I said, although we support the Government’s approach, we take the view that some of their drafting has lost the strength and essence of the Commons amendment. We are keen to ensure that what is passed is workable and sensible and we are happy to work together on this. However, to be fully satisfied, we need to see an evolution on Report, in a couple of important respects. We are keen for an indication that the Government would show some willingness to consider changes. There is a very important need to provide detail and direction. There are some issues which should be dealt with in the Bill but others whose place is in secondary legislation. We will be looking for a strong indication of the direction of travel to provide us with the right assurances that we will be looking at the right sort of areas and issues at the next stage. There is also a requirement for clarity in what we would describe as “dual-use clauses” where the drafting suggests that a measure could be used for two diametrically opposed purposes. In that regard, it would be useful if the Government would give an indication of how it is used for one and not the other.

We understand the concerns of the many different parts of the industry that variously have particular and shared issues with the Bill as it stands. We appreciate their need for greater clarity to ensure that they can make decisions and reasoned evaluations. We have a great industry in this country and we expect that the legislation will make it greater. We have met with a number of companies and I have been impressed with their management. There will be some costs and adjustments to make, and listed companies with short-term expectations—hyped by banks’ analysts—will be put under particular pressure. As my noble friends have said, a number of business models were dubious to begin with.

Many of the managements of the companies I have spoken to will fare very well indeed under the new provisions. They are a very capable group, readily able to innovate and develop new, efficient and sound commercial operations, relationships and models. They are, indeed, doing so in the face of a number of factors which have hugely affected the industry over the last decade, including the amount of beer that is bought in supermarkets, the change in consumer tastes, substitutional competition and other sorts of regulation. It is right that their concerns are properly addressed: we may not agree with some of them but we are certain they should be properly considered and clarity provided as far as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out her thinking on the future of the industry.

We would appreciate a fuller understanding on the issue of investment. Pubcos have come to us to say that they will be discouraged from making investments in their estate. We have tried hard to get a full estimate of whether that investment is income-generating or is just for maintenance, because these alternatives offer different returns on capital. This addresses my noble friend’s point that the property element of this is very different to the other commercial aspects. We have not had sufficient clarity on that but we take the point that we need to address this question.

For example, if a pub company were to redecorate a pub and install new aspects at a cost of £50,000, it would be reasonable to expect a return on that investment over time. The company’s view would be that it would be unfair for the tenants to go to a market rent only provision six months later. They say that this would discourage them from making the investment. They suggest that the pubco should be able to make it a condition of their investment that a contract of around five years would come into force and supersede the old one, so the tenant could go MRO only where the code had otherwise been breached. They would like this assurance in the Bill. Can a pub company reach an agreement with a tenant to establish a new agreement in return for an investment and therefore postpone a rent review for five years? Is that one of the provisions of the Bill? Could we provide some certainty on whether they have the scope to do that? Perhaps the Minister could address this matter in detail.

It would also be helpful to have clarity on allowing breweries that qualify as large pub-owning companies to require tenants taking the MRO option to continue to stock certain of their products. Organisations such as CAMRA have said that they are comfortable with this provision as a means of ensuring that the brewing pub-owning companies can continue to distribute their brands. Companies, understandably, are wondering what parameters are available to them now, and what is likely to be in delegated legislation. It would be useful all round if the Minister gave us a better sense of the Government’s direction of travel. For example, have they considered giving brewer pub companies the right to require that a tenant does not sell direct competitive products? Can the Minister provide a broader understanding of the nature and level of legal advice that the Government have taken on this, and of their expertise in evaluating the European competition considerations?

Similarly, what certainty do the Government intend to provide for brewers in Amendment 91ZA? Is it to ensure that they will have the right to require that an MRO tenant must stock their required beer and cider products? What is their evaluation of the argument that the brewers need the certainty that they will be able to require and enforce a stocking requirement as an integral part of the MRO lease offer? What are the Government expecting a stocking requirement to cover? Is it to specify the individual products to be sold, whether draught or bottled; does it include minimum purchase obligations, if necessary, to ensure incentives are made to sell its products and not those of a direct competitor; and would they require a tenant to prove that the stocking obligation has been met, given that the tenant is not required to purchase the specified products direct from the brewer or approved wholesaler?

There are some other areas worthy of consideration. We would appreciate some detail on the code and the adjudicator. The industry is interested in whether the Government’s view of the role and function has evolved since it was first introduced when there was no MRO provision, and whether it is likely to widen in scope in secondary legislation. It would also be very helpful if the Minister were able to indicate what lessons the Government have learnt from the current operation of the Groceries Code Adjudicator—which is not without some criticism—for how they will establish the Pub Code Adjudicator and the drafting of the code.

We are delighted that the MRO is now in the Bill, but we are also very aware of a need to strike a balance in the final legislation. Using the primary legislation to try and close every feasibly conceivable loophole while protecting tenants could put a straitjacket around the industry. Our amendments are designed to ensure that the legislation delivers on the intentions that we support but is not so restrictive as to cause harm to an industry we all want to see thrive. Some of our amendments are probing in nature to make sure that we have a clear sense about some of the detail. In this House we need to answer two questions—what should be in the code, and who it should cover—before sending the Bill back to the Commons. That is what these amendments intend to clarify.

Amendment 89AA is a probing amendment. This clause examines the provision that tied tenants can trigger an MRO only when changes specifically impact on their business as opposed to pubs in general, including managed houses, hotels and free houses. As it is currently written, if there was suddenly a global increase in, say, the price of barley, which was passed on to all licensed traders, the tied tenant could use this unforeseeable event as a trigger to go MRO if the price increase was passed to them. Is it the Bill’s intention that an MRO option could be triggered in such circumstances? What is the Government’s view of how “unforeseen events” would operate? Would this include actions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does it mean unforeseen at the time of contract, or does “unforeseen” apply to things that would ordinarily be put in a risk register to establish potential risks that could happen to a business? Do “unforeseen” and a risk register become mutually exclusive? Does an unforeseen event have to have a particular impact and effect on all kinds of alcohol sales? Is this drafted so that if, for any reason, those in tied pubs were to be charged excessively more than free-of-tie and other tenants, tied tenants should be allowed to react against this specific treatment? We would be grateful for any indications on this.

We believe that Amendments 89AB and 89AC will remove ambiguity from the Bill and ensure that the trigger points can be activated only when all these specific criteria are in place. We are looking for an explanation of how the Government arrived at the current drafting.

On Amendment 89AD, we feel that there is a problem with the Government’s use of “level of trade” as a trigger point, which merely refers to how many pints a pub is selling and not to the deeper situation. For example, if a pubco increased its supply prices and the tenant felt that they could increase the price at which they sell a drink to the public because of local competition, their level of trade would remain static. However, their overall profitability could be fatally undermined. The amendment would ensure that the overall level of profit would be the key factor.

On Amendment 89AE, the idea that a transfer of title should be used as a trigger point was originally placed in the Bill for very good reasons—for example, in the case of a tenant who agreed to a tied contract for five years with a large pub company, but who found after two years that they were now the tenant of a smaller pub company that was not covered by the code if their pub was sold. However, if this power is given carte blanche it could stifle the pub sales market, which would not be sensible for the overall health of the sector, particularly where smaller companies could revive pubs in their local area.

Likewise, it would not be right for publicans to be stuck in a tie when their circumstances have significantly changed and they no longer have any of the protections of the code. This amendment would make it clear that transfer of title alone is not enough, but if such a transfer detrimentally affected a pub, the landlord should be able to assert his or her rights. We would be grateful for some understanding of how the Government arrived at the current drafting.

Amendment 89AF is in response to concerns raised with us by publicans and those in the industry. There is a feeling that there are ways that companies that we would all accept should be covered by the code could get around it as it is currently written. One such way is that a business owning 2,000 pubs could split itself into five smaller concerns, each of which would own fewer than 500 pubs, but to all intents and purposes the same ownership structure would exist. There may be myriad ways that lawyers—some clever, some just expensive—could exempt their clients from the code. However, as noted, we do not want the code to be so long and onerous as to paralyse the industry. We therefore believe that it would be right to create this power, which we hope will never need to be used, to act as a powerful deterrent against such egregious behaviour and ensure that the spirit of the code is always fulfilled.

In general, we are concerned that some of the drafting could create a situation where there may be ways to avoid the Bill’s intentions. We take these concerns very seriously. We do not feel in a position to prepare any amendments that would not be without flaws at this stage, but we would be very keen to work with the Government to ensure that any potential risks are addressed. We are keen to hear some assurances from the Government that they will look very carefully at these matters and their general approach to avoidance, and how they think those assurances could be met in the operation of the legislation, the code and the adjudicator. In particular, we are concerned about how the triggers will work and whether they will provide sufficient protection to small businesses. We want to be assured that the protections are there to stop triggers being used to game the legislation.

We also make a general point to urge that the new code is swiftly implemented via secondary legislation within 12 months of the enactment of the Bill. In short, we need to ensure, as the Bill progresses, that it secures the best of the existing model, reforms what is needed and eliminates bad practice. We understand that that is where the Government are on this. Some reassurances would be very helpful.

I hope that the Minister will forgive me for being so forward and will find the following suggestion useful. We think that the right way forward is to let the Government have their amendments today and return, after discussions with all parties, with amendments to those amendments to strengthen them in the light of these discussions. We hope that we can get a clear assurance on that and a strong commitment that that is what we will see in the Bill on Report. That would be useful reassurance at this stage.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in a helpful discussion. When we saw the grouping we knew that it would be a marathon. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I make a lengthy 10,000 metre reply, so that the various questions that have been raised are answered.

I shall respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on timing, and secondly, to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, on his suggestion. I want to reassure the noble Lord that Clause 41 places a clear duty on the Secretary of State to introduce the Pubs Code within 12 months of Royal Assent. As government Amendment 89A sets out, this must include the MRO provision. The Government are completely committed to getting on with things and to swift implementation. I am also completely committed to open discussion in this House between now and Report. I will try to answer the points in this debate, but if I fail I would urge noble Lords to talk to me before Report, and I am sure that there will be further collective discussions.

I enjoyed the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, because he put today’s discussion into the context of small business policy where there is much consensus. I sense that he is trying to make progress. I agree that we should try to get the framework right today, if noble Lords agree, once they have listened to me, by agreeing the government amendments. Then we should discuss the issues and possible changes ahead of Report, including whether we have the right balance between the core Bill and the subordinate legislation, as he mentioned. We have thought about that quite a lot. I do not want to lose this important Bill, which would be a very serious unintended consequence, and timing is tight.

Before turning to the individual amendments, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who took the Floor for a long time, for bringing his knowledge of the industry to this important debate. He spoke of the impact of social change on pubs, which is an opportunity and a concern, and described a nuclear option, which is exactly what we want to avoid.

I now turn to Amendments 69ZC, 74ZB, 87A, 87B, 87C, 89ZA and 102B. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his comments. We have certainly tried to listen to the other place and come up with provisions that achieve the objectives agreed, and to ensure that there is no avoidance in the system of the kind he described. These amendments set out the detailed definition of the market rent only option in the Bill. One effect is that the MRO will come into force on Royal Assent, before the Pubs Code Adjudicator existed. Market rent only and the protections it brings can work properly only if it is introduced with the code and with the adjudicator.

Clause 42, introduced in the other place, says:

“The Pubs Code shall include a Market Rent Only Option”,

so it would still require secondary legislation. The code must be introduced within a year, and under our Amendment 89A it must include MRO.

Secondly, and importantly, the amendment would not allow us to consult on the MRO process. As I have already said, given that it was introduced into the Bill only at a relatively late stage, it is incomplete in its design and it is important that we have some public consultation to ensure that the process works as intended. Following consultation, we will introduce the code by secondary legislation through the affirmative procedure.

Much of the detail of the triggers for MRO is more appropriate for secondary legislation. Clause 42 as drafted provides no detail on the terms of the new commercial tenancy and what an MRO-compliant tenancy would be. We wish to consult to get a stronger sense of what this constitutes and, similarly, what constitutes a “significant” increase in price and,

“an event outside of the tenant’s control … that impacts significantly on the tenant’s ability to trade”.

Companies and tenants affected by market rent only need the opportunity to comment on the process, not just the authors of Clause 42. The Government are committed to ensuring that MRO is robust and workable.

Turning to Amendments 75 to 78, 82A and 83 to 88, I am not convinced that these amendments are necessary. To respond first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, the market rent only clause introduced into the Bill in the other place outlines some of the process involved in obtaining a market rent only assessment and taking up the offer, but it does not set out a complete process of the kind he is seeking. The Government will consult on the detail of the process and set this out in secondary legislation. I have explained that there is a drop-dead date for the whole process.

Our intention is to follow the outline process in the Mulholland clause. So after the tenant requests a market rent only option, the first step will be for the pub-owning company to offer a market rent, which the tenant will accept or which will provide the basis for negotiation between the two sides. If the tenant and pub-owning company cannot agree a market rent only agreement within a certain period of time, the tenant and pub-owning company will jointly appoint and jointly pay for an independent assessor to determine the market rent for the pub.

Our amendments allow the code to stipulate that the existing agreement between the pub-owning company and tenant will prevail until the market rent only procedure concludes. To answer my noble friend Lord Hodgson, there is a power in government Amendment 89B to set out in the code that existing contractual arrangements remain in force until such time as the procedure comes to an end and the new market rent only contract starts.

If in the end the tenant opts for a market rent only agreement, this will constitute a new agreement between the tenant and pub-owning company. The terms of the agreement will need to be clear to the tenant before he accepts the offer. To be clear, at this point the pub-owning company can remove from the MRO agreement any special commercial or financial advantages—SCORFA—that the tenant was entitled to under the tied agreement. As I said earlier, we intend to consult publicly to ensure that the process works as intended.

On my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s Amendment 88 in particular, the only requirements for a lease to be MRO-compliant are set out in Clause 43(4). Other than this, it is up to the pub company to decide what the MRO lease or licence looks like. The pub company will be free to offer a new lease or tenancy without it being considered to be discriminatory.

Turning to Amendments 79, 81 and 89, in addition to consulting on the detailed process for MRO, we will consult on the detailed definitions of the trigger points for an MRO assessment. These will be set out in the statutory code, which is subject to affirmative resolution. Under our amendments the tenant would be entitled to the MRO option: at rent review; if the tenant renews their lease; when there is a significant price increase for tied products which was not reasonably foreseeable; and if an event occurs that is beyond the tenant’s control and meets the descriptors set out in the Pubs Code. The headlines would rightly be in the Bill but we need to set out the details in secondary legislation.

I confirm that the MRO trigger at the point of renewal applies to tenancy agreements that are protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act or which have a specific right of renewal clause in their tenancy agreement. Those tenants who are contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act will have the protection of the parallel rent assessment in any negotiations on a new lease at their existing pub. The trigger if there is a significant price increase which was not reasonably foreseeable at the beginning of the tenancy or at the point of a rent assessment would not include circumstances when a pre-agreed discount period ends.

By contrast, Amendments 79 and 89, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson—

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Can we therefore take it that the trigger points will not include the sale of a pub, provided the tenant’s position is protected, or a pubco going into administration?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, that is the proposal set out in the Government’s amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

My noble friend Lord Younger rightly raised the question of cash flow.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Again, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, and I am grateful for the detailed response that she is giving. The example that she is giving about investment does not deal with the fact that beer is being sold. The beer companies want to sell their beer—25% to 30% of their beer is sold through their tied houses, their estate. If the legislation does not allow that, it knocks away a reason for investing. It is not sufficient to get a return on the capital—that is, the rent—it is also selling a product that they produce elsewhere in the group. That is, provided—to meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Snape—that the tenant is free to buy it anywhere if he can buy it cheaper.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for raising that point. There is a link to the stocking requirement, which I shall come on to talk about, as he suggests. I am not suggesting that investment is the easiest thing to deal with, because we all want investment in this important industry.

Perhaps I can mention a couple of final points before I move on from investment. One is my noble friend Lord Younger’s point about cash flow, which is a good point. If a tied tenant expresses an interest in choosing MRO, the pub company can make the argument about the benefits of the tie—for example, in managing tenant cash flow. That freedom will still exist. At that point, the tenant can choose to remain in a tied agreement. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for entering the fray on this issue and suggesting a way forward on the question of securing pub company investment in pubs. I am happy to look at that further.

Further, enabling tenants to forgo the MRO in exchange for a promise of investment may risk intimidation of a pub in difficulty. That will probably not occur often, but it was a concern that we considered in trying to balance these things.

I turn to Amendment 89AA. I believe that it is designed to help to define a significant price increase in relation to a price increase that would trigger an MRO. It is important to get that definition right. It needs to be fair to pub companies and tenants alike. That is why the Government propose to consult on the definition and set the detail out in secondary legislation. I confirm that reference to wholesale price lists will be used in our consultation proposals for that definition.

Amendments 89AB and 89AC amend the MRO trigger for circumstances outside the tenant’s control that affect trade. The noble Lords opposite wish to confirm that all four of the conditions set out in subsection (9) of the proposed new clause in government Amendment 89A must be met for this trigger to be engaged. I can confirm that the current drafting of the clause delivers this effect.

Amendment 89AD relates to the same change of circumstances trigger and proposes to replace,

“an impact on the level of trade”,

with,

“an impact on the level of profitability”,

as the measure for that trigger. We consider that a focus on the tenant’s ability to trade addresses the key issues that affect the fair balance of risk and reward between pub company and tenant. The government amendments ensure that where changes in local economic circumstances affect tenant income, the protection of the MRO trigger will apply. To focus instead on profit would bring in issues such as rates, energy prices, wages and salaries. These issues could further impact on the income of the tenant but there is likely to be minimal impact. The amendments also introduce more complexity in terms of definition and measurement of a significant impact.

I believe that through Amendment 89AE, the noble Lords opposite are seeking to confirm that on the sale of a pub the other triggers for MRO would still apply. Where the new owner of the pub is covered by the code, then this is the case. Where the pub company purchasing the pub is below the threshold, the tenant will not have the MRO option but will have the protection of the voluntary industry code. This is consistent with the Government’s acceptance of the will of the other place to remove family brewers from the scope of our measures.

Amendment 89AF would introduce a power for the Secretary of State to provide an MRO trigger on transfer of title or administration in two specific circumstances. The first is if avoidance of MRO was the “sole or significant” reason for transfer of title or administration. The second is where,

“fewer than 500 pubs … are part of a group or have similar ownership to other companies”,

which own more than 500. I will deal later with the detail of the Government’s reasons for removing the transfer of title and administration trigger, but first I will focus on the specifics of the Opposition’s amendment.

We think it is extremely unlikely that the serious step of administration would be used to avoid MRO. No company considers insolvency lightly. Where a company is in financial difficulty, it will seek professional advice from an insolvency practitioner. It may be advised to restructure the business, which could involve selling off some parts of it. However, entering administration to avoid MRO would not achieve the objectives of administration, which is to rescue the business. For this reason, an insolvency practitioner would not recommend administration. It is also hard to imagine that pub companies would sell off high numbers of pubs purely to take themselves outside the scope of MRO and the code. Most of the pub companies in scope have over 1,000 pubs, so that would be a drastic step. I reassure noble Lords that where a tied pub is sold to another company covered by the code, MRO protections would continue to apply.

The amendment tabled would also provide a power to bring companies with fewer than 500 pubs into the scope of the code where they were part of a group or had similar ownership to other companies that cumulatively own more than 500 pubs. We share the noble Lords’ concern about the potential for gaming—for example, through the break-up of a pub company to avoid the threshold—but I confirm again that the Government have provided this protection in Clause 69(2). I am afraid that we are not clear whether there are companies with fewer than 500 pubs that have similar ownership to companies with more than 500. Nor, if there were, is there evidence that they should be brought into scope with reference to a concept of similar ownership.

Amendment 80, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, seeks to remove two of the trigger points in the MRO clause so that tenants will not have the right to MRO if their pub is sold or the pub-owning company goes into administration. The Government’s amendments should address my noble friend’s concern. In the case of the transfer of title trigger, the Government consider that other, more proportionate protections exist for tenants when their pub is sold to another owner, as any new owner would be bound by the tenant’s existing contractual rights. If the sale makes little difference to the pub, there is no problem. If it makes a significant difference to the trading position, another MRO trigger is already available—the trigger for circumstances outside the tenant’s control. The inclusion of the transfer of title trigger would have the unintended consequence of making the sale of pubs as going concerns less appealing to potential buyers, leading to fewer pubs and fewer pub tenancies. For these reasons, the Government wish to remove this trigger from the Bill.

The Government’s amended clauses also remove the trigger when a pub-owning company goes into administration. During administration, the company in administration may continue to operate. Tenants will continue to have their existing obligations towards the company in administration, and the company will continue to have its existing obligations to the tenants, acting through the administrator. If any of the other triggers for MRO are met during this period, such as if the company brings in a significant price increase, the tenant will still have the right to MRO. The primary aim of administration is to rescue the company, and this preserves jobs as well as value. Giving all the pub-owning company’s tenants the right to MRO at this critical point would be likely to reduce the value of the pub company’s estate. Pub-owning companies below the threshold are unlikely to buy the company’s pubs if the tenant could opt for the MRO option during the course of the sale. This would reduce the chances of rescuing the pub-owning company and could ultimately push the company into liquidation. Clearly, this would not be in the interests of the tied tenants, employees and suppliers of the former business and the creditors.

I want to clear up something which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. He expressed concern that the Government are trying to deny existing tenants the right to MRO. This is not the case. We have merely sought to remove two of the triggers to avoid unintended consequences that are detrimental to tenants. I should be happy to discuss this further with the noble Lord, as we are in the same place on objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

In the situation envisaged under Amendment 68U, could the guest beer be provided by the brewery that owns the pub?

[Lord Berkeley]

I am sorry, I did not quite hear.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Under Amendment 68U, can the guest beer be provided by the brewery that owns the pub?

[Lord Berkeley]

Of course it could, but to some extent that defeats the object, because if it is a tied pub, the brewery is already supplying the beer. It would be for the tenant to decide; that is the point. If the tenant decided to do that and to have a monopoly with one brewery, that would be fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape]

I will be extremely brief, as the Minister has dealt with most of the points that arose from the amendments. There is a nagging feeling that what we are going to approve now is not what the House of Commons actually wanted. The fact is that—surprisingly, at this stage of a Parliament—the Commons defeated the Government on a fairly basic principle with regard to this Bill.

At Second Reading, the Minister accepted on the part of the Government the will of the Commons and said, basically, that the Government would adopt the principles that the Commons had advocated with regard to pub codes and publicans. With respect, that is not what we are getting today; what we thought was there in the Bill has now become a consultative period and what will amount to secondary legislation. I put it to the Minister, and to the Committee at large, that at this stage of this Parliament what we are doing is not what the Commons wanted us to. I can see that questions will be asked at that end of the building about our procedures here.

We have only a short time before the general election on 7 May, after which there will be a new Government, of whatever political hue or hues. That will mean there is a considerable amount of time before consideration takes place and the Minister’s undertakings to the Committee today are brought into force. I put it to the Minister that before Report we should look again at the two Clause 42s, the old one and the new, and see if there are parts of the old one that really ought to be incorporated into the new one, if only to ease the feeling outside this place that whatever happens over the next year or 14 months will water down the agreements that we thought had been reached as a result of the Commons decision. It is unusual, to say the least, that a Government should be defeated on something like this.

I address my closing remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in particular: he should not think that the decision was arrived at because of pressure from CAMRA or any other body. I think that many Conservative Members of the other place looked at what was happening to their own local in their own town or village and decided that that was why they felt Greg Mulholland’s amendment ought to be accepted. I hope I can get some assurances from the Minister that there will be some discussions with other people before Report so that we can see some of the watering down that we perceive in the difference between the two Clause 42s being rectified.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Once again, the trade is under pressure and the noble Lord assumes that it is all due to the tie. I wish it were that simple. The fact is that there are real difficulties for our pubs, for the reasons that I have explained. Trying to put more pressure on one particular part of the industry will not help it, I fear.

[Lord Snape]

Again, I accept that, but the noble Lord must accept that when Back-Benchers rebel in the way that Back-Benchers rebelled in the other place on a piece of legislation such as this, those rebels share a great many concerns. I put it no higher than that. I asked the Minister for an undertaking that she will look again at the differences between the two clauses and see whether we can toughen up new Clause 42 in the way that I believe the House of Commons intended in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

90: Clause 43, page 40, line 26, at end insert—
“( ) Any proposed changes to the Pubs Code must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and consultation.”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, after three and a quarter hours on the first set of amendments, I shall be exceptionally brief. I propose Amendment 90 and will speak to Amendments 92 and 96A. They are all concerned with the process by which any future changes to the Pubs Code will be brought about. At this stage they are probing amendments.

As we have found in our discussion over the past few hours, the operation of the Pubs Code is not without its controversial aspects, and this is a chance for the Minister to explain to the Committee how she sees those changes being reported on. Amendment 90 is concerned with the operation of Clause 43, concerning any review of the Pubs Code. It would insert the words:

“Any proposed changes to the Pubs Code must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and consultation”.

It is a pretty declaratory amendment, and I should be grateful to hear from the Minister a bit more about the detail of how she thinks that it will operate.

Amendment 92 concerns Clause 66, which defines a pub-owning business as being a landlord of 500 or more tied pubs. Can that figure be changed? When we get to Amendment 91D, I think that my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising will have something more trenchant to say on the subject than I have, but I think that it is important to learn how the Minister thinks that that figure could be changed, if it was to be.

Finally, Amendment 96A substitutes an affirmative order for a negative resolution procedure for the permission for the abolition of the Pubs Code under Clause 63(1)(c). As I said, at this stage, they are all probing amendments, but it would be helpful to the Committee if my noble friend could explain how she thinks that the changes to the code and ancillary aspects might take place in future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that the Pubs Code will be the subject of further formal consultation following Royal Assent. Furthermore, it will be a statutory instrument made under the affirmative procedure, and any future changes to the code will also be subject to that procedure. On Amendment 92, I reassure my noble friend that any change to the threshold for pub companies to be covered by the code must also be made by affirmative resolution, and must follow a review and full consultation.

On Amendment 96A, Clause 63 provides that the adjudicator can be abolished if, following a review, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the role of the adjudicator is no longer deemed necessary. It is only in the event of the Pubs Code having already been revoked and not replaced by the affirmative resolution procedure, as I have said, that the adjudicator would be abolished by the negative procedure. In those circumstances, the removal of the adjudicator is of course consequential on the abolition of the code, which would have been debated in both Houses. The adjudicator’s role is to enforce the Pubs Code; if Parliament has debated and agreed the decision to revoke the code, it seems entirely reasonable to abolish the adjudicator by negative procedure. I hope that this reassures my noble friend that he can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I thank the Minister. I accept her explanation of all three amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

90B: Clause 60, page 47, line 30, leave out “may require” and insert “must require every”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 90C. We come to Clause 60 about levy funding. This brings us to the age-old question of who is going to pay for the regulatory structure now being set up.

Clause 60(1) says:

“The Adjudicator may require pub-owning businesses to pay in each financial year a levy towards the Adjudicator’s expenses”.

Pub-owning businesses are, of course, defined elsewhere in the Bill as having 500 or more tied pubs. I think the word “may” is a euphemism. “Will” require is undoubtedly the right way to put it—who else is going to pay?

I recognise that any pubco with fewer than 500 tenants falls outside the code, although I share the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, over the logic of why a tenant of a pubco owning 500 tied pubs should be treated any differently from a tenant of a pubco owning 450 tied pubs. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a very fair point as far as that was concerned. But I can reassure him because the answer is that in quite a short period of time it will not be outside the code. It is inevitable that the MRO option and the Pubs Code generally will roll out over the whole pub sector. It may be unofficial but no small pubco or brewery will be able to resist the demands of one of its tenants who thinks that his rival on the high street who is owned by a large pubco has gained some competitive advantage. The small pubco or small brewer may resist for a bit, but in fairly short order they will have to concede or risk having some seriously disaffected tied tenants, on the basis that the tenants will say that if the brewer has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

The code will become the standard for the industry, not just in the way the MRO option has to be offered but in a range of other factors that make up the tied relationship under the code. My argument is that those who use the code and are able to take advantage of it ought to pay for the system it establishes. So Amendment 90B leaves out “may require” and inserts the words “must require every”, and Amendment 90C changes the definition of those required to pay the levy to include all companies or breweries that operate tied pubs.

The levy, which will presumably be levied on a per-pub basis, would not cost the smaller companies much. The bulk of the costs of the new regulatory regime will be borne, quite rightly, by the larger tied estates. However, there is an important point of principle that those who benefit from a regulatory regime should contribute, however modestly, to its cost. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to Clause 60, which will enable the adjudicator to levy funds on pub-owning businesses to contribute to the adjudicator’s expenses, with the Secretary of State’s consent. Amendment 90B would change “may” to “must”, making the power a duty. We have had many similar debates on a number of subjects during my time in your Lordships’ House. I remember with affection the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, trying to get us to put “must” into various banking Bills, with no success. As I said then, and as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, realises, “may” in reality often means “must”. I assure him that in this case the amendment is not necessary.

The amendments would together require the adjudicator to impose a levy not only on the pub-owning companies in scope of the code but on any pub-owning company with tied pubs. I hear what the noble Lord says about the code becoming the industry standard for everybody, but that is by no means clear at this point. It is certainly not a requirement of the Bill. To the extent that pubcos not covered by the Bill did not use the code, this amendment would go against the “polluter pays” principle. The Government are clear that funding the adjudicator through a levy on pub-owning businesses covered by the Pubs Code is the right approach. The conduct of the large pub-owning businesses has led to the need for the adjudicator, so it is appropriate that they should cover the costs. This approach is in keeping with the funding of the Groceries Code Adjudicator by the large retailers in scope of the Groceries Code.

It would be unfair for companies such as the family brewers, whose tied tenants would not have the protections of the Pubs Code—at least initially—nor the ability to refer disputes to the adjudicator, to contribute to the levy. The representative body for some of these smaller companies, the Independent Family Brewers of Britain, has committed to continuing the current voluntary arrangements. This includes funding industry dispute resolution services to continue to provide protections for their tied tenants, so the amendment would require them to pay twice. The Government intend to fund the set-up costs of the adjudicator—but, once it has been established, it is only right that the expenses are met by that part of the industry whose conduct has led to the need for the adjudicator. The existing drafting of Clause 60 provides for this.

The amendments would also require the adjudicator to impose a levy every financial year. This would be the case even if, however unlikely, the money was not required that year—a situation which could arise if there was sufficient money left unspent from the previous year. It is therefore right to allow this flexibility for such circumstances. I hope that I have been able to persuade my noble friend that he should not press his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, my noble friend has brought us back to the extraordinary aspect of the parliamentary draftsmen, where “may” equals “must”. Who else in this country would believe that “may” equals “must”? He is quite right to remind us that this is one of the quirks of parliamentary draftsmanship. If, as he points out, the polluter should pay—and if the code becomes widely used by smaller companies below the 500 limit—all I would like to know is whether there is a possibility that, at that stage, the cost of the code could be extended to cover the people using the code, because that is the “polluter pays” principle that he referred to. I hope that the Government will think about that, but, in the mean time, and particularly given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group which go in exactly the opposite direction of the noble Baroness’s amendments.

We could keep the question of definition to talks between now and Report. I do not want to go over the arguments that we had earlier, but to define the owners, the pubcos, to which this applies in reference solely to tied pubs runs the danger of those pubcos altering their tenancy arrangements so that they fall below the threshold. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that this provision is not intended to hit the family and small regional brewers. We know that the large companies have a range of arrangements with their tenancies and are defined by the totality of their portfolio. It is relatively easy, given the turnover of tenants, for the companies to switch from one form of tenancy to another. They would have a motivation to do so, in order to fall below a tenancy threshold related to tied accommodation alone.

This is one of the issues on which we should have further talks. It is possible that we would have a different tied-specific definition, but that would require other obligations being put on the pubcos so that they would not change the designation of their portfolio to get around this threshold. I suppose that it would be difficult to draft such clauses, but there is a real danger of them gaming this situation. We know that some companies are already contemplating breaking their structure up.

We need more talk about what the definition covers. In a sense, this is the wrong way to go about it, but I would hope that the noble Baroness would not press the amendment and would rather make it subject to the talks to which she has committed for the coming period.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I have taken common cause on various things but he will not be surprised to know that I cannot take common cause with him on this tonight. A managed pub, as I explained at some length in my opening remarks, has an employee. It is a totally different relationship. To say that pubcos could switch their estate from being tied to being managed would mean changing the whole basis of the employment. The fact is that they are employees with salaries and bonuses and fringe benefits. It is not possible to undertake the sort of gaming that the noble Lord is describing—in terms of switching from managed to tied—which is why managed pubs can safely be left out. The question of what the tie means is something which we have been discussing tonight, but managed pubs form no part of this because they have employees with all the applicable rights and responsibilities.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, indicates why this needs more discussion. He is right on managed pubs—I absolutely agree—but leased pubs do switch between leased and tied. That is why I was raising my point. The Bill looks very much at the tied part of the sector, but there is movement here which needs to be looked at. To say that any change in the number—once we have decided what that number is—should require further primary legislation and be subject to affirmative resolution is wrong because, as we have seen over the last couple of decades in this sector, people adjust to new legislation and they also sometimes try to avoid its objectives. The Minister, with suitable consultation through the affirmative procedure, needs to be able to make changes as necessary. The number could well be up or down, but it needs to be made appropriately. The prime issue is leased and tied pubs, not managed ones.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

93: Clause 67, page 50, line 27, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) who is party to negotiations which have reached the stage of a provisional trading agreement for the prospective tenancy of a premises which are, or expected to be, a tied pub ahead of any final terms of the agreement being agreed.”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, Amendment 93 could be called, in shorthand terms, the “shopping around clause”. My noble friend the Minister may have spoken to this earlier; I hope that she will be able to reassure me in fairly short order that my amendment is no longer needed with the new provisions.

Clause 67, to which this amendment refers, defines inter alia the term “tied pub tenant”. It does so in respect of prospective tenants at subsection(1)(b), which says,

“who is a party to negotiations relating to the prospective tenancy of or licence to occupy premises which are, or on completion of the negotiations are expected to be, a tied pub”.

That is a very loose definition. An individual might make a casual inquiry—even by telephone—about taking on a tied tenancy but may be without any serious intent, at least initially, of eventually signing up. However, the pubco does not know that when the telephone call is received. As such, under this wide definition in the new regime, it will have to go through considerable administrative procedures at some cost at this early stage.

My Amendment 93 would narrow the definition to people who are getting close to signing up and making an arrangement by inserting the words,

“who is party to negotiations which have reached the stage of a provisional trading agreement for the prospective tenancy of a premises which are, or expected to be, a tied pub ahead of any final terms of the agreement being agreed”.

This has the effect of requiring serious administrative effort to be made only once the tenant has shown himself to be of serious intent. It in no way weakens his position; it merely ensures that he is likely finally to take on a tenancy before he qualifies as a tied pub tenant, with all that that implies under the code. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend Lord Hodgson on this point. Evidence from the Government’s consultation in 2013 and correspondence we have received from tenants shows that many such prospective tenants appear to have been given insufficient information, or have even been misinformed, by large pub-owning companies about the pub that they are negotiating to take on. The Pubs Code will ensure that prospective tenants receive the information they need to make a considered decision on whether the deal they are being offered is fair and right for them.

I completely understand the concerns that my noble friend raised. As he said, we clearly need to avoid the situation where any casual enquirer is entitled to all the code’s protections. That would be unnecessary and onerous for the pub companies. At the same time, we need to ensure that prospective tenants receive the information promised by the code early enough in their negotiations with the pub company to influence their decision. That is why we have carefully phrased Clause 67(1)(b) to restrict these rights to those who are,

“a party to negotiations relating to the prospective tenancy”.

If there have been no negotiations, there would be no right to the details. The pub-owning company would not be in breach of the Pubs Code for failing to supply them. We will consult on the code before it is finalised, which will allow us to ensure that we will draw the line in the right place, in a way that takes account of the procedures that different pub companies use to recruit and take on new tied tenants. I hope that that gives my noble friend the reassurance that he seeks.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am grateful to my noble friend. His remarks make clear that the Government have hoisted on board the danger of considerable administrative cost and effort for casual inquiries, which is the thrust behind my amendment. I should just like to get reassurance from outside that the “party to negotiations” carries the weight that he implied in his remark. If it does, I am more than content and, for the purposes of this evening, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 93 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

94: Clause 67, page 50, leave out line 43

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Amendments 94 and 95 once again concern Clause 67, the definition clause—in particular, the definition of a tenancy in Clause 67(2). Amendment 94 would remove line 43, the words,

“includes a tenancy at will”,

from the provisions of the code. A tenancy at will is essentially a short-term informal agreement which imposes no timescale on either side. It would therefore seem illogical to impose the relatively heavy-duty encompassing arrangements of the code in such circumstances, which either side can abrogate at any time. For the same reason, Amendment 95 would exclude from the code short-term temporary agreements by the wording:

“The definition of tenancy … excludes temporary agreement where the tenant has occupied the same pub premises for less than twelve months”.

There are many reasons why individuals take on a pub under temporary agreements. For example, earlier I referred to the hard work and long hours required to run a successful pub. Some people find the experience not entirely to their liking and give up. Others, perhaps more wisely, decide to give the experience a try for a few months to see how it fits with their lifestyle and whether they really enjoy it. They do so under a temporary agreement. It surely cannot be logical to apply the administrative burden of the new regulatory regime in such circumstances.

There are those who argue that that will provide a loophole to evade the new regime—the noble Lord, Lord Snape, will no doubt be on his feet in a second. I accept the existence of that suspicion. The answer must be to draft the code or the primary legislation so that temporary agreements cannot last more than 12 months and that one temporary agreement with the same premises and tenant cannot follow another. That will give people the opportunity to dip their toe into the water and see how they like it, without having to go through a lot of administrative hassle. That is a simpler, better and less costly way to encourage tenants to come forward and see whether they like it without having to take on all the administrative requirements of the code. In that spirit, I beg to move.

[Lord Snape]

My Lords, I enter the debate with some trepidation after the way that it was introduced. I, too, will be very brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for making my speech for me. He underlined the dangers of the amendment. Tenancies at will are where part of the problem lies. I go back to my daughter and son-in-law’s experience. They think that it must be wonderful to have a tenancy on a country pub with ivy round the door, great customers and all the rest of it. Of course, they will be treated very well by the pubcos. They will be looked after; their delivery will come on the proper day; lots of things will be done on their behalf. After a year, once they sign up, they will find out the reality of the situation. It is at that stage that many problems arise, despite the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, so I hope that despite his honeyed words, the Minister will resist the temptation. I say to him: nice try but it will not wash, I am afraid.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his amendment on tenancies at will. I was very glad also to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Snape, given his great experience in the industry.

I agree with my noble friend that tenancy at will agreements are important in enabling pub companies to cover short-term gaps, to keep pubs trading in between tenants. They also allow the company time to complete due diligence on a new longer-term tenant. Temporary agreements can be useful to a prospective tenant as a trial run, prior to committing to a longer-term agreement. I have known ex-senior civil servants who have taken on pubs and found them quite a challenge.

In the other place, my honourable friend Jo Swinson committed to consider calls to exempt genuinely short-term agreements from the Pubs Code. These calls came from pub companies and some tenant groups. I can announce today that the Government will use the power in Clause 68 to exclude from the code tenancies at will and temporary agreements that do not extend beyond a certain limited period. This is to ensure that agreements that are meant to be temporary do not run on for long periods of time as a way of avoiding the code. This does not require an amendment to the Bill but, as part of the consultation on secondary legislation, we will consult on the length of agreements that should be exempted.

We have heard different views from stakeholders as to the length—including 12 months, as proposed by my noble friend—but we have also heard calls for six and nine months. Therefore, we will consult more widely on the length of any exemption period before bringing forward regulations. I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for that commitment. I am not stuck on 12 months. All I think we should be trying to provide is a means for people to test out the possibility of becoming a tenant and, therefore, a reasonable period of time. It could be six or nine months; I am quite content about that. The important thing is we should have a regulatory-light opportunity for people to try it out and then if they decide that they want to make it their career, they get the full protections anticipated under the code. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

96: Clause 67, page 50, line 43, at end insert—
“( ) The definition of “tenancy” in subsection (2) excludes franchise agreements whereby no rent is paid by the franchisee and their share of the profit is unaffected by the price paid for tied products.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the franchise of pub operations. I have remarked repeatedly during the past few hours that the point of weakness of the tie is where the interests of the two parties—the pub owner and the tenant—diverge.

That tension occurs in two places in particular. The first is the rent being charged for the tied premises. The belief or allegation is that landlords are insufficiently deterred from increasing the rent charged. I would emphasise that pubcos have an interest in avoiding pubs closing, particularly those that have an integrated model because they need the outlet for their beer, but undoubtedly the tension exists and, as I said, I do not doubt that some bad cases have occurred. The second point of tension is in the pricing of the goods that the tied tenant is obliged to sell. Again, the allegation is that the pub owner will push the sale price as high as possible. Again, there are arguments why this is not in the pub owner’s interests. Again, let me recognise that the conflict of interest exists.

Some pubcos, particularly integrated pubcos, have sought to address these twin challenges. They have done so by creating a business model based on revenue-sharing. Under such a model, both parties have an interest in maximising turnover. This business model is exactly like a franchise for McDonald’s, Pizza Express or Costa Coffee. Indeed, the agreements have been accredited by the British Franchise Association.

How does it work? The franchisee receives the property, fixtures and fittings, capital investment, and repair and replacement of the fixtures and fittings of the building. All his bills are paid, including rates and utilities. The only bills not paid are council tax and staff wages. He also has services such as training, marketing and business support—the SCORFA arrangement we talked about earlier—and he has products to sell. For this, the franchisee—the operator of the pub—takes a share of the income at the cost of a business fee of about £5,000, compared to the £250,000 that you have to pay for a McDonald’s franchise, for example.

The cost of the products to the franchisee is irrelevant because they are paid a percentage of the revenue of the pub. The goods are delivered to the site and the franchisee holds them on behalf of the franchisor—the brewer. The products are held on the sale-or-return basis. At no time does any cash change hands in respect of payment for the products. The franchisee and franchisor take an agreed share of the total income. The franchisee has the ability to set the retail sales price for the beer in the pub being operated. The pubco effectively supplies everything, with the franchisee then dictating the price to sell it at. The pubco shares the income and, on top of this, the franchisee also receives a profit share. Under the agreement, the percentages and shares of the profit are set out in the contract and cannot be altered.

It appears that this revenue-sharing franchise-type arrangement will still fall within the provisions of the proposed code, so Amendment 96 seeks to insert a new subsection into Clause 67, which is concerned with the definition of tenancy. It proposes that:

“The definition of ‘tenancy’ in subsection (2) excludes franchise agreements whereby no rent is paid by the franchisee and their share of the profit is unaffected by the price paid for tied products”.

This approach in the wording ensures a community of interest between the franchisor and the pubco. If the Government do not accept this amendment, or one like it, they will be singling out the pub trade for very discriminatory treatment. If the argument is that the franchisee has to sell a certain type of product, that is true—but if you hold a McDonald’s franchise, you have to stock Pepsi and are forbidden to sell Coke. Members of the Committee might liken it to walking into a Costa Coffee and asking, “Please can I have a Starbucks?”.

This revenue-sharing arrangement ends the possibility of divergence of interest between pub owner and tenant. It provides a useful model for future pub developments and I trust that the Government will either be able to reassure me tonight that it is not intended to include these or make the necessary changes on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley]

I really cannot imagine how anyone would want to take a franchise like this. It is a variation on the old zero-hours contract, which we talk about. It could be a franchise with zero income and the hours being 24/7. Why should anybody want this contract? I will be interested to hear what the Minister says, but the pubcos must love it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, on a rather sour note, I am afraid that that was a very disappointing response. To say that it is a loophole, this arrangement with revenue sharing does not come within the tied tenancy arrangements, as envisaged. The tension in the tie is the rent you pay and the price you pay for the prize.

[Lord Snape]

I have never heard of one but I am sure the noble Lord can tell us.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

There are probably 400 or 500. The idea is that it is a very easy way for a tenant to start in the pub trade and he shares the risk as he has a revenue-sharing arrangement. Unless the Government say that they will require McDonald’s and others to offer other people’s products, there is no argument for discriminating against pubs that are franchises as long as they have franchises that match what happens in McDonald’s, pizza franchise companies and the coffee companies.

It is just a way of driving the pubs into a corner and finding ways that they cannot live with. The arrangements are used frequently by many other industries, and if pubcos are to prosper they must be able to use similar new developments and not be trapped in what is essentially a framework that has existed for hundreds of years. It was an innovative idea by pubcos to get away from the problems that have bedevilled us all this afternoon. I shall come back on this strongly as it has been too quickly and too easily brushed aside. But, for tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 96 withdrawn.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

118: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Revenue from shale gas: sovereign wealth fund
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulation, establish a sovereign wealth fund to receive and deploy revenue from the extraction and sale of shale gas.
(2) The regulations shall provide—
(a) that the fund shall receive no less than 50% of any revenue received by the United Kingdom Government from any activity connected with the extraction and sale of shale gas;(b) that the assets of the fund shall be deployed to serve long term public objectives other than those connected with monetary and exchange rate policy;(c) that the assets of the fund may be deployed in the United Kingdom or overseas;(d) that no more than 4% of the assets of the fund may be paid out in any one year; and(e) for the governance, independent oversight and transparent reporting of the activities of the fund.”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is simple, although the policy implications are perhaps more complex. It is to insert a new clause that will provide a statutory framework for the establishment of a UK sovereign wealth fund to receive a proportion of the Government’s revenues from fracking and shale gas.

I tabled a similar amendment in Committee on 14 October and I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that I did not find her response entirely convincing. I have therefore retabled the amendment. It is primarily a Treasury matter, of course, and I am therefore pleased and grateful to see that my noble friend Lord Deighton has taken up the cudgels and will reply to this debate. I am grateful also to my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Teverson, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for adding their names in support.

The background to and reasons for my amendment are as follows. This country has been blessed with a wide range of natural assets. These can be divided into two parts, the finite and the infinite. The infinite includes the sun, rain and wind—all of which we can harness in various ways. However, there are finite resources. For example, our huge reserves of coal that powered the industrial revolution for a time made this country the workshop of the world. In the 1970s, we discovered another great gift from nature—North Sea oil. At the time of the original discovery, it was expected that by now it would all have run out. In the event, because of improved technology and higher oil prices, despite our having extracted some 40 billion barrels of oil, it is estimated that at least some 16 billion barrels remain recoverable. But—and this is the important but—one day the oil will inevitably run out and this gift from nature will have been entirely consumed.

Successive Governments and the country have benefited hugely from this oil. Estimates of the overall revenue run as high as £400 billion, but every penny of that revenue has been spent. A debate on whether it has been wisely or foolishly spent would occupy your Lordships’ House for many a long day. That is not the point this evening. The point this evening is that the revenue has all been spent and nothing has been put aside for the future.

On the other side of the North Sea, Norway, which has also benefited from North Sea oil, had an extremely fierce political debate about how to use its proceeds. In the end, it was decided that it should establish a sovereign wealth fund. Norway has a much smaller population than we do—about 10% of that of the United Kingdom—and its oil and gas reserves are commensurately larger. Therefore, I do not wish to push the metrics too far. The fact is that in the 20 short years since revenue started to flow to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, it has grown to $800 billion—£500 billion. At this point, I should apologise to Members of your Lordships’ House because when trying to send a letter to you from Chicago I mixed up my “millions” and “billions”. The figure is, in fact, £500 billion, not £500 million, as in my original letter. That is not the end of it. It is confidently expected that the $800 billion will reach $1 trillion in the next few years. The fund generates between £20 billion and £25 billion every year. That is a lot of money. It is roughly two-thirds of our annual defence expenditure or what we expect to spend on our nuclear deterrent over its life. It is roughly 10 times what the Leader of the Opposition thought was necessary to save the National Health Service. He referred to £2.4 billion in his speech at his party conference.

In this country, we took a different approach, and the decision is irrevocable. Every penny that we receive in future will be spent until the oil finally runs out. But we now appear to have received another potential gift from nature: natural gas extracted as a result of the development of the new fracking process. I argue that we should learn from the decisions of the past, as well as from the example set by Norway, and provide for the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund to receive at least part of the proceeds from shale gas exploration and development. I do so on three principal grounds. First, the costs of infrastructure projects, which are so essential to this country’s long-term prosperity, are notoriously difficult to forecast. The returns from a sovereign wealth fund would help to plug some of these overs and unders.

Secondly, a sovereign wealth fund would provide some insurance against future uncertainties. Governments are constantly urging us as private citizens to save more to guard against the rising costs of our increasingly long lives. We are told that we must forgo current consumption individually for our long-term benefit. It would surely be no bad thing if the Government occasionally practised what they so assiduously preach.

Thirdly, and most importantly, it is about intergenerational fairness and equity. These gas reserves have built up over millions of years. Are they properly ours to plunder and spend in a couple of generations? Should we not ensure that some parts of the proceeds are left for those who come after us?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

In his amendment, my noble friend says that no less than 50% of any revenue received should go into the fund. Can he indicate what he expects that revenue to be and why he chose 50%?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

If my noble friend waits for one minute, I shall explain the detail of the amendment. That will take care of the 50% point. Since I think there is possibly an indication that other uses should be made for this revenue, I will come to that immediately after that point. If I have not answered those questions in a couple of minutes I invite him to intervene again.

I turn to the details of my amendment. As I have said, it is an enabling amendment. It does not require the Government to do anything now, but it does indicate a direction of travel. The enabling provision is subject to five provisos. The first, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth has just pointed out, is that the Government should get 50% of the revenue from shale gas. That is part of the fairness argument: 50% for us, knowing that at least some of it will be spent on projects that will benefit future generations, and 50% put aside for those generations directly.

Secondly, the fund should support long-term public policy objectives. That underpins the philosophy and approach behind it.

Thirdly, the fund may invest overseas, as well as in the United Kingdom. That is necessary to ensure that the fund obtains the best returns. In that context, it is worth noting that the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund now owns more than 1% of the entire world’s quoted equities.

Fourthly, no more than 4% of the fund may be paid out in any one year. The need for a limit is obvious. Without one the fund would almost certainly be drained very quickly indeed. My proposed maximum level of withdrawal, 4%, is calculated based on a 2% long-term rate of real return and a 2% allowance for inflation. That level should mean that a well managed fund should be able to operate long into the future.

Finally and most importantly, proposed subsection 2(e) provides that the operation and activities of the fund must be transparent and open to public scrutiny. If noble Lords read the literature, it is clear that transparency has been a vital part of creating trust and confidence among the Norwegian public in the operation of their fund.

So much for the reasons for the fund and the detail of my amendment. Before I conclude, let me briefly address the reasons given for not having a fund, which I think underlie the intervention from my noble friend Lord Forsyth. There are essentially three of them: first, this is not the right time to do it because we do not yet know how large and profitable the shale gas development will be. That is absolutely true. My answer is that the amendment is permissive—it requires only an indication of the direction of travel. I hope the House will not think me unduly cynical if I say that, in the absence of any specific prior commitment, I believe the chances of establishing a sovereign wealth fund once the revenues are beginning to flow are even closer to zero than the chances of the Government accepting my amendment tonight.

The second reason is that any revenue from shale gas should be used to reduce the deficit. Again, that is a perfectly understandable argument, but one that undermines the concept of intergenerational fairness. In any case, under my amendment, half the proceeds are available to reduce the deficit. However, to suggest that all should be used for that purpose is akin to me saying to my children, “I was going to leave you a decent sum of money, but I’m afraid I’ve been living beyond my means and I’ve run up debts. I don’t wish to take difficult decisions to reduce my standard of living, so I’m afraid that if you want your inheritance, you’ll have to take all my debts with it—or, of course, I could use your inheritance to pay off my debts”. We need to face the consequences of our own actions and not slide them on to a future generation.

The third and last reason revolves around the most feared word in Treasury-speak—hypothecation, the sin that dare not speak its name. If one consults the Oxford English Dictionary, hypothecate is defined as:

“Pledge … by law to a specific purpose”.

I argue that the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund which has no specific purpose would require an unusually broad interpretation of the concept of hypothecation. Of course, in reality, this is all a smokescreen. The real reason for Treasury opposition is that it always opposes policies that in any way diminish its direct day-to-day control over every aspect of our national life.

To conclude, this enabling amendment is designed to balance the long-term national interest against short-term political expediencies, to enable future generations to share in this potential windfall and to encourage Governments to follow the saving practices they so urgently suggest we individually adopt.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend has not answered my question on what he anticipates the revenue to be.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I think I answered it by saying that the reason given for opposing a fund at this stage is that nobody knows quite how much money is going to flow. No one can know. I pointed out that if you do not get something in principle in place now, once the revenue starts to flow, the chances of having a sovereign wealth fund are very low. If we do not get a peg in the board now, when revenue starts to flow there will be a million reasons as to why it should not be put in place at that stage.

I was most encouraged by the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the weekend about the advantages that a sovereign wealth fund would bring. I hope that my noble friend will put some flesh on these bones when he winds up. The very last word must rest with Jens Stoltenberg, the then Prime Minister of Norway. In September 2013, at the John F Kennedy School of Government, he said:

“The problem in Europe with the deficits and the debt crisis is that many European countries have spent money they don’t have. The problem in Norway is that we don’t spend money we do have”.

He went on to say that to achieve this happy state of affairs needs actions to be taken that require “political courage”. It is that political courage that I am looking for from the Minister tonight. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I added my name to my noble friend’s amendment and I congratulate him on the way in which he moved it. I want to make two points. First, I was the Minister for Energy in the very early stages of our North Sea oil and gas. I was the Minister for only seven weeks when we lost the election at the end of February 1974. At that stage, no one had the remotest idea of setting up a sovereign fund. I do not remember the thought crossing my mind or my desk. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth has indicated, we did not have the slightest idea of how much it was going to be.

In a sense, I take issue with my noble friend Lord Hodgson for saying that it was a massive mistake. I find it difficult to accept that. There may have come a time when one should have seen that the prospects were going to be as bright as they have been and one might have done something to meet my noble friend’s wish. But to have expected that to happen in the very early stages when the oil and gas had scarcely begun to flow is a little unfair. At the time, when BP was investing in the Brent oilfield, which became the most important oilfield, its financial director said that he had established a law; namely, that, however much is spent in developing a North Sea oilfield, the amount still to be spent would be constant. It stands constant. It does not go down. That was the climate in which the oil industry was operating then. The Government, I think, gave it every opportunity to develop and we have enjoyed the success.

Secondly, I hesitated to put my name to my noble friend’s new clause because of the figures. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has already raised this. Nevertheless, I think the principle is sound, particularly what was said about intergenerational equity. Where you have the prospect of major wealth, is it right that it should all be spent on the present generation? It seems to me that there is a principle here that it is desirable to support. My noble friend referred at the end of his speech to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor said over the weekend about,

“making sure money is not squandered on day-to-day spending”.

When you have the indebtedness we have it is unrealistic to say that when you are spending money to keep the economy going to meet the needs of social services and so on that somehow if we spend the revenues from something such as shale gas we are squandering it. However, there may come a time, as happened in Norway, when it would be right to set up a fund. My noble friend’s new clause says that the Government “may”—it does not say “must”. I have already indicated that I have some doubts about the figures he has put in at the end but the principle seems to be very sound and I hope that the opportunity may come when we shall do something about it. Like him I look forward to the reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deighton]

That is one of the reasons for our anticipating that this subject would be explored in the next Parliament rather than this one.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for his experienced view. I accept his stricture that it would have been hard in 1970 to foresee the flows from North Sea oil. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Teverson, for their support.

There was a characteristically combative speech from my noble friend Lord Forsyth from which I drew four things. The first was that the priority must be debt repayment; otherwise, it is a charge on future generations. That is fine, so long as you do not think that there should be any intergenerational fairness and you think that the assets that flow from shale gas are ours to use to repay the debts that we have created. That is a philosophical question. Secondly, he said that we should not spend money that we do not have. However, a sovereign wealth fund is not spending; it is saving. It is not actually spending but making sure that we do not spend it. Thirdly, he said that it is like going along to your bank manager and asking to borrow £1.4 trillion. Of course it is, but what we are doing at the moment is saying, “We’re not going to take the actions to cut that; we’re going to pledge some future assets that actually might belong to future generations”. That is the conversation that we are having with our bank manager rather than one about how we cut our coat according to our cloth. On my noble friend’s last point, this is a permissive amendment. It is not designed to set out how things are going to work; it is designed merely to say that, if things develop in a certain way—that is, profitably—then we should look at it again at that point.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on the question of hypothecation, when we are talking about a finite natural resource that might belong not just to this generation, we should consider whether there is a special case for dealing with it in a particular way, which you might or might not call hypothecation.

Finally, I turn to the Minister’s reply, for which I thank him greatly. It is interesting that, given institutional concern about this, the Kuwait Investment Authority, which is the sixth largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, is worth about $600 billion. It was set up in the 1950s, at a time when Kuwait looked to this country for guidance and help and support, by a team entirely from the UK Treasury. So we have tried to deal with the sovereign wealth fund idea, but not here—only with people who were looking for our advice.

I recognise, and am grateful for, what is at least half—probably more than half and possibly two-thirds—of a loaf tonight. I think that I heard my noble friend say that he wholeheartedly commits to the principle of a sovereign wealth fund, a commitment which he said the Chancellor will reaffirm in his Autumn Statement. Further, the Chancellor will at that time commit to bringing forward a proposal for a sovereign wealth fund in the next Parliament.

There is of course many a slip between principle and practice. I equally have to recognise that my amendment is a pretty rough and ready one on which to hang such a radical new departure for British public policy. Weighing all of these factors up, I am going to trust that practice will follow principle, and watch developments closely. In the mean time, I thank my noble friend for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for an opportunity to speak briefly in the gap. I am afraid that I was away on business in the United States last week and I arrived back at Heathrow only at 10 o’clock last night. By the time I got my mind into gear, I am afraid that the speakers list had closed.

My two simple points refer to the point made by my noble friend in his opening comments. The heavy type on page 3 of the Law Commissions’ report, which is the first recommendation, says that,

“a society may be registered as a community benefit society only if it is shown to the Financial Conduct Authority’s satisfaction that the society’s business is being, or is intended to be, conducted for the benefit of the community”.

I would like to explore with my noble friend some of the practical implications of this. First, who defines “benefit of the community”, where is it defined, who judges whether the definition has been met and who hears appeals against judgments perceived to be unfair? Secondly, does the test precisely match the public benefit test applied by the Charity Commission, which is the key to charitable status? If not, is there not a danger that the unscrupulous will game the system to take advantage of whichever regime is laxer? As far as the charitable sector is concerned, which is under pressure with the Cup Trust and executive pay, further adverse publicity would be surely unwelcome.

My second point concerns the question of “to the FCA’s satisfaction”. Is my noble friend convinced that the FCA will devote sufficient resource to ensuring that the benefit to the community test is met? When I reviewed this as part of my charity review, it was clearly low on its agenda. At paragraph 10.29 of my report I said:

“Only a small proportion of IPS are charities; all of those are community benefit societies. Charitable IPS are exempt from registration with the Charity Commission and, although they are registered with the Financial Services Authority … the FSA undertakes no regulation in respect of any type of IPS. This, then, is essentially an unregulated sector”.

It needs to be a test that is not just a nod-through. It needs to be a test that is reapplied from time to time; it should not be the case that, once a society is through the hoops, it is in the pen for ever.

I appreciate that these are detailed comments made in very short order. I have not been able to give my noble friend any advance warning, and I apologise for that. I would be happy if he wanted to write to me, but these are potentially very important issues, which deserve a public response and airing.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Lords Chamber

The second reserve power is a vital component in the structural reform of our banking sector. I urge the Minister to look again at this recommendation of the PCBS. They have gone so far. Surely to add the possibility of full separation in the review is only a further small step and a very reasonable one. Recognising that we are trying to build a banking system for the next half century, not for the next five years, I urge the House to support these amendments.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have not so far taken part in the debate on this Bill, although I participated during the passage of the earlier Financial Services Act. I therefore need to declare my interests as the chairman of two regulated entities and an as approved person under FiSMA.

I have listened carefully to the arguments deployed on both sides of this complex debate and have a couple of concerns about what is being proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, described his amendments as designed to provide—I think that I have got the words right—a three-stage, self-reinforcing regulatory process. In doing that, he may have overlooked the degree of uncertainty that his amendments may cause. If I may follow his analogy further, I think that it is his amendment that may remove the third leg from the three-legged stool that he mentioned.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Lawson about the importance of reviews, particularly in cases where the likely outcome of fundamental legislation is so uncertain. In a parallel case in the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, I have tabled amendments that would have that Bill reviewed in a couple of years when one can begin to distinguish reality from supposition. I therefore favour reviews, but—and it is an important but—a review, as my noble friend Lord Flight said, must not begin with any presuppositions as to its outcome. If I may use a rather vulgar card-playing metaphor, one must not play with a loaded deck. Listening to some of the arguments so far, I formed the impression that these amendments could lead to a loaded deck because of the implicit power of the review to trigger separation without further primary legislation and therefore to introduce radical change without serious parliamentary consideration. As I read it, this would be the result of the House accepting Amendment 196. I think that this implication—and, of course, it is an implication—will weigh heavily on the banks and their executives and, as a result, be by no means to the advantage of the financial services industry specifically or the United Kingdom generally.

It is an oft-repeated truism that financial markets hate uncertainty. Perhaps I may offer at a rather lower level an example from my experience of what I mean. I was for a number of years a chairman of a network of independent financial advisers. For a prolonged period, the IFA sector suffered in the shadow of the uncertainty caused by the drawn-out processes of the retail distribution review. I have absolutely no doubt that the savings regime of this country, a very important part of our body politic, was set back by this elongated debate. I feel the same may be true for the banking sector if these amendments are passed.

Further, I am not quite clear how this approach will impose discipline, unless it is intended that some could suffer full separation and others would not. I have not yet heard that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, although I may have misunderstood him. If I, as a good guy, obey the ring-fence but am treated in exactly the same way as my competitor, a bad guy who has jumped the ring-fence, what incentive is there for me to follow the prescribed path?

My second area of concern can best be summed up by the well rehearsed argument that generals always plan to fight battles that are like the ones of the last war. Of course, we have discovered egregious examples of corporate and personal behaviour that took place in the period leading up to 2008, but it is by no means clear, to me at least, that ring-fencing or not ring-fencing will have any relevance to solving the next financial crisis—and, if history tells us anything, one will be along in due time.

Having listened to the arguments, I am forced to the conclusion that there should be a review but that it should be a review without preconceptions, and that, in any case, to trigger a move to full separation on the basis of secondary legislation, of which the ability of this House to scrutinise and amend is in my view woefully weak, would not be the right way to proceed.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, there are a lot of very interesting propositions in this group. Am I right in thinking that what is in due course printed in Hansard will be one amendment which is moved, with other amendments not printed because they are part of a single group? If so, how can one proceed with that?