Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors: Property Act Receiverships

Debate between Adrian Bailey and Bill Esterson

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. My hon. Friends have set out examples of how their constituents have been badly treated over a number of years, first by the banks that distressed their thriving and successful businesses and then by the failure to secure justice after a long struggle, often with the support of my hon. Friends and their predecessors.

This is not just about one bank. It has been about Lloyds, HBOS and Royal Bank of Scotland. A constituent of mine came to see me just last week about NatWest, his business having been run down in a similar way to those of my hon. Friends’ constituents’. Businesses that were successful, that paid their interest on time and that were in a position to continue making their payments were run into the ground, in order to realise the maximum possible amounts for the banks and not in the interests of the customer. That is the reality of what has happened over many years and I am afraid that it could still be happening today, given the system that still exists.

The Tomlinson inquiry found at RBS a lack of competition and conflicts of interest, as well as the need for a proper retail banking sector, and yet we are in a situation today where those issues are still to be addressed. RBS may well have its own compensation scheme being set up, but no money has been paid out and at this stage it is being handled by RBS itself. It is still not independent of RBS. At the heart of this debate is that lack of independence and whether there are conflicts of interest in the LPA system.

[Mr Bailey]

Often, banks will say that the poor levels of business lending are because businesses will not come to banks for that lending. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is cases such as those mentioned today that have deterred many small businesses from going to their local banks and that, by default, inhibit our ability to invest in our economy for the future?

Pubs Code and the Adjudicator

Debate between Adrian Bailey and Bill Esterson

Thursday 14th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, as it was to see Sir David in the Chair earlier. I congratulate the hon. Members who applied to the Backbench Business Committee on securing this afternoon’s debate. It has been an excellent debate, and I want to mention the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) in particular. It is nearly 30 years since I attempted the Otley run, much of which is in his constituency. I was a Leeds student then, and cannot remember it very well. We can all guess some of the reasons why my memory is not what it was.

I value the country’s pubs, whether they are in Leeds North West or my constituency. Members of Parliament have a duty to look after them as much as possible, particularly the ones that are run by pub tenants, because this is about a fairer deal at our locals. At a time when pubs are closing at a rate that has not been seen in more than 100 years, there is an urgency about doing what we can to support the great British institution of the local pub. A fairer market would help local communities and economies as well.

The prearranged monopoly, which is what beer ties amount to, locks microbrewers out of almost a third of the market. The Society of Independent Brewers showed a 25% increase in the choice of cask beer available in the UK between 2012 and 2015. That is 4,000 cask ales—a huge industry with incredible potential for many small and micro businesses. Imagine the potential for sales and jobs in the industry if the market grew by up to 50%, and yet microbrewers are denied access to a third of pubs because of their ownership structures. I have three excellent new microbrewers in my constituency alone: Red Star, Neptune and Rock The Boat. Members will be able to sample some Red Star ale when it is on sale in the Strangers Bar in the week commencing 8 June. I encourage you to sample some as well, Mr McCabe.

[Mr Bailey]

Can I clarify whether my hon. Friend is offering to treat us?

[Bill Esterson]

I am not sure what the ethics of such a proposal would be, so I shall move on, but I would be happy to share a pint with my hon. Friend in that week.

There is real consumer appetite for quality, locally-produced real ale. The monopoly on beer sales for pub companies and the breweries they own really does not reflect what consumers want to buy. The landlords of pubs in my constituency, including the Corner Post, Stamps and the Freshfield, are seeing booming custom and will back me up because they are serving some of the beer that I mentioned from the breweries that have recently started up. We have heard many stories, not only today but over the years, about how pub tenants have been ruined or promises of investment have not materialised because of the actions of the pub-owning companies. That is why it is so important that we get this absolutely right.

Market rent-only is only an option. If the pub companies and brewers run a robust and positive business model, they have nothing to fear from the alternative. If pub companies feel that they are giving tied tenants the best option, they should be willing to put the options for their tenants on the table and convince them that beer ties are a sensible business decision.

We await the publication of the pubs code. When she responds, I hope the Minister will tell us when it is going to be published. It needs to be published soon, so that the industry has the time to analyse it properly and to address the weaknesses we have heard described today—I will come to some of those later—before it goes live on 1 June. Suspicion has often been raised about how the code has been handled and we need to see the final version to allay those concerns. Let us remember that it took an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West for the market rent-only option to be included in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. That amendment received wide, cross-party support. To their credit, the Government accepted the will of MPs and peers and made the commitment to include market rent-only options and parallel rent assessment to go alongside them.

Parallel rent assessment matters because it offers a side-by-side comparison, so that pub tenants can determine whether to remain tied or to go free of tie. Pub tenants need parallel rent assessment so that they can make an informed decision, so having market rent-only without parallel rent assessment simply made no sense. That is why there was so much concern when the initial consultation that was published in autumn 2015 appeared to exclude parallel rent assessment. But, after a lot of fuss, including during exchanges with the Minister on the Floor of the House at BIS questions, the mistakes in the consultation were rectified. The Minister deserves some credit for her response on that occasion.

What a great pity, then, that doubts still remain about the effectiveness of the pubs code so close to its implementation. The Government say that the market rent-only options will be offered to landlords at rent review or lease renewal. They also say that the trigger will be the rent review or lease renewal itself, rather than, as seemed likely at one point, only in the event of an increase in rent. However, there are two interpretations as far as tied tenants are concerned. One is that the effective date for rent review is the date of implementation; the other is that it is the date on which the notice is issued and when the review process starts, which is six months earlier.

The market rent-only option will be enforceable only from 1 June this year. Only rent reviews or lease renewals made after that date will entitle a tied tenant to a market rent-only option. When she responds, will the Minister clarify whether renewal notices issued before 1 June will allow pub companies to avoid offering the market rent-only option, even when the reviews are agreed after 1 June?

Then there is the pubs code itself and the concerns raised by the British Pub Confederation and others. The draft code appears to allow pub companies to force tenants to surrender a long lease for a much shorter one in exchange for the market rent-only option. The problem with that is that a tenant who takes a short lease will face uncertainty about what will happen at the end of it. Running a business of any kind requires certainty, and when the building itself is so crucial to the business—in fact, in this case the building is the business—not knowing whether a lease will be renewed dramatically reduces the attractiveness of market rent-only. This approach certainly appears to be the very opposite of creating the level playing field that I think we are all trying to achieve.

The draft code also suggests a waiver of the right to the market rent-only option for prospective new tenants, so pub companies could decide to let pubs only to tenants who waive their rights. Our concern about the loopholes that have been discussed today is that the combined effect of the two proposals in the draft code could mean business as usual for the pub companies, because tenants who want the market rent-only option will not have their tenancies renewed, while only those who accept the tie will be allowed to take on leases. Will the Minister clear this up and say whether those provisions will be included and whether the loopholes will be removed from the final version of the code? If they are not, pub tenants might start to think that the pubs code is not actually going to change very much at all.

All that brings me to the appointment of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. Like other Members, I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) made an excellent speech. I agree with pretty much everything he said. He made the points that, for a free market to operate effectively, it needs to be a fair market—I agree wholeheartedly with that—and that unless the code is drafted correctly, it will be unworkable. He also talked about conflicts of interest, which I will come to shortly.

In a number of our exchanges, not least when my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) was on his feet, the point was raised about whether the newly appointed adjudicator, Mr Newby, had been involved in the drafting. I think the Minister was trying to clear that up. Mr Newby may well have been involved in setting up his office, which of course is entirely proper; the problem is that the Business Secretary’s letter to the British Pub Confederation says that

“he shared his professional insights”

when the draft pubs code was discussed with him. I do not know whether that counts as setting up his office or as helping to draft the pubs code, but there seems to be some blurring between where setting up an office ends and helping to draft a code begins. In the end, I am not sure we are much further forward on what his role has been so far.

On the point about conflicts of interest, the Fair Pint campaign’s submission to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill Committee was clear: do not appoint a surveyor to the post. Any surveyor with experience of the field will have potential conflicts of interest. They will have acted for the big pub-owning companies and will not be seen to be impartial in arbitrating as the adjudicator between pub companies and tenants.

Higher Education Fees

Debate between Adrian Bailey and Bill Esterson

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

I do not want to be diverted by the grief and contortions of the Lib Dem party because there are some other very serious issues that need to be addressed.

Any package that is put forward must meet two criteria. The first is that it must provide the extra funding necessary to provide the flow of graduates into our industries and public services that will sustain the economy.

[Bill Esterson]

The University and College Union estimates that students currently graduate with around £23,500 of debt and that these proposals would increase that to £40,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that such high levels of personal debt are one of the main failings of the proposals?

[Mr Bailey]

I will come to that issue in a moment.

Let me just finish what I was saying. I have questioned Ministers both at the Select Committee and in the Chamber on whether these proposals will bring in any net increase in funding for universities. I have yet to receive any assurances that they will. In the context of the world situation, we must remember that these proposals have been introduced at a time when the most advanced western countries, including European countries with similar financial problems as us, are investing in higher education because they know the economic dividend that accrues as a result will get them out of recession. Despite such a profound change to our funding system and all the potential consequences, this country could lose out on the vital issue of growing itself out of recession.

My second point is about social mobility and accessibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) mentioned the potential £40,000 debt that is incurred. My constituency is a case in point, as a traditional industrial area with traditionally low aspiration and educational attainment. Over the past five or six years, that has been transformed by the money that has been put into education, the education maintenance allowance and the Aimhigher project.