Enterprise Bill [Lords]
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Toby Perkins
The hon. Gentleman asks a legitimate question. All of those questions were debated at the time of the original legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) said, a compromise was reached. The existing compromise is vital for the convenience store sector. The number employed in large Tesco, Morrisons or Sainsbury’s stores far outweighs the number employed in those other stores. I will not say anything more about that matter, but the exchange between the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the Secretary of State entirely exposes the fact that many people do not entirely understand what they are being asked to vote for today.
I come to this subject as someone who ran his own small business for five and half years before entering this place and who spent the previous 20 years working in a range of medium-sized businesses—I was once a human being. I have also had the opportunity, as a shadow Business Minister, to debate many of the issues.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway) said about the impact of late payments on small businesses in particular. Late payments beget late payments: when someone receives payments late from their customers, they end up being late payers to their suppliers, and so it goes on. She is absolutely right to say that action needs to be taken. She may want to research the amendments that we tabled to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill during the last Parliament. Those were far more powerful proposals, and I may encourage my Front-Bench colleagues to dust them off and have another look at them. Those serious legislative proposals would have outlawed late payment and removed the incentive for late payment.
When discussing late payments, we must understand why they exist. Payments are made late because businesses like to keep the money in their account for the purposes of cash flow. There will be an opportunity for a small business to go off to the commissioner and report their customer, but in the course of that process the big company may well have paid the small business. That will not get the small business paid any quicker; it just puts in place a bureaucratic process. The idea of a small business commissioner in itself is not a bad one—it may well deal with some of the disputes between suppliers—but the idea that it is the solution to late payments is entirely wrong. It will make very little difference to whether or not companies are paid late.
The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) spoke about major companies that are setting out with purchasing terms of 90 or 180 days. They are paying after 90 days and they are not even late. The Government may say that, if companies do not pay within 60 days, they cannot be classified as a prompt payer under the prompt payment code, but these are relatively small measures. They do not provide legislative protection against major firms in the way that the amendment I proposed in the last Parliament would have done. I urge the Government and all members of the Bill Committee to look at how we can strengthen the proposals, because this is a matter of real importance.
It always strikes me that the Secretary of State believes all regulation to be a bad thing. Recently, I met the UK Weighing Federation, which had a reception in Parliament. It said that the lack of policing of the regulations in the weighing industry leaves the UK market open to cheap foreign imports that are not compliant and that undercut good-quality British manufacturing.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) that we do not want unnecessary burdens, but we do want a regulatory regime that protects not only the consumer, but British businesses that are doing things in the right way. A similar case was made by NAPIT recently in respect of the electrical competent persons register and the lack of policing of building regulations.
Part 7 includes measures on the pubs code. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say today that the Government have listened and learned from the discussions in another place, and that the four triggers that were originally put in place when the legislation passed in that famous defeat of the Government in the last Parliament will be retained in the pubs code. It is incredibly important that the code continues to operate in that way.
It is important to remind Members who were not here in the last Parliament why we decided to legislate for the pubs industry in a unique way; we have not used that for any other industry. There was a simple unfairness in the relationship between the major pub companies, with all the power they had, and the small individuals who owned a single pub, who often put their life savings into it, only to find that the information that they had going into the relationship was very misleading. As a result, those people often found that they were not in a position to get the deal that they thought they were signing up to. It was incredibly important that we came up with an arrangement where they had the opportunity, at certain trigger points, to say, “I don’t think this relationship is working for me. I’d like to take my chances on the open market and buy beers from wherever I can.”
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that pubcos are misrepresenting their investments and seeking, via that loophole, to game the legislation and avoid the market rent-only option?
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I share the view of other right hon. and hon. Members that this is a hotchpotch of a Bill that rather loses the focus on what it claims to be about in its title. In the limited time available, I shall rattle through a few key issues and spend a little time on the section that deals with pubs.
Let us remember that the Green Investment Bank has been a huge success. This bank, which was a direct result of Liberal Democrat policy, has invested £2.3 billion into the UK green economy, which then attracted a further £7 billion of private sector money. This means that it is already profitable. Considering that it was set up only in 2013 with a statutory purpose, the fact that it is being privatised now with such indecent haste really exposes the ideological decision making behind this rather than what the Green Investment Bank was set up to do. I pay tribute to my colleague in the other place, Lord Teverson, and congratulate him and other colleagues on inserting their clever initiative on special shares being looked after by green guardians. I ask Ministers to think about what message is being sent out by this Government’s record on hitting our climate change targets.
Small businesses are the driving force of our economy. There are 5.4 million private sector businesses and 99.3% of them are classified as small. However, there are not enough measures in the Bill, which is an opportunity wasted. I welcome the creation of the small business commissioner. It is vital for small businesses to have a champion with a statutory footing, but the reality is, unfortunately, that this commissioner has no teeth. Any recommendations for resolving complaints will not be legally binding. We believe that the commission should have real sanctions, particularly over late payments, where repeat complaints against the same larger companies should result in state-level sanctions or penalties.
There are a number of measures to widen the responsibilities of regulators and to ensure that decisions do not impact negatively on small businesses. Clearly, that is welcome, but the measures will have little real impact. Has any assessment been made of whether this will lead to a significant boost for small businesses, which is what we want to see? We also want to see greater use of the growth duty.
Apprenticeships, of course, were yet another Liberal Democrat flagship policy during the coalition Government. Conservative Members keep talking about “the Government” over the last five and a half years, but that is simply not honest. It was the Liberal Democrats who pushed the apprenticeship agenda, and it was the former Business Secretary Vince Cable who oversaw that policy and the creation of 2.4 million apprenticeships. We warmly welcome the decision to make it an offence to describe a programme as an apprenticeship scheme when it is not officially classified as one.
Late payment is clearly a huge issue for small businesses. In 2014 alone, £46.1 billion was owed in late payments, and that simply cannot continue. We need stronger measures to deal with it.
I agree with what has been said about public sector exit payments, but I should like to hear from the Minister why, given that local government workers, teachers, health workers, police officers and fire and rescue workers are included in the cap provisions, public financial institutions have been excluded. Fred Goodwin, former chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Scotland, reportedly receives an annual pension of £342,500. The public will surely demand that banks that have been bailed out should be the first to be subjected to the cap.
In the limited time that remains to me, I want to say something about pubs. I declare an interest as chair of the British Pub Confederation. The confederation gives a new voice to pubs and publicans and enables them to stand up to the British Beer and Pub Association, which represents the interests of the pubcos. Its members include the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business, the two leading small business organisations. We warmly welcomed today’s announcement of a U-turn on the disgraceful clause 8.12 of the draft pubs code, which will not now go ahead. It should never have been there in the first place, and where it came from we can only surmise, but I think that it must have originated from pubcos or their supporters.
What concerns us most now is the current proposal for the pubs code to allow a waiver for investments before someone signs up to a tenancy. That would clearly enable the pubcos to game the position.
Toby Perkins
There is talk of substantial investment, but a substantial level of investment by a city-centre pub will be far greater than a substantial level of investment by a small pub on a street corner. Is it clear what the Government mean by substantial investment?
Greg Mulholland
It is not clear, and I do not believe that there is sufficient understanding of the reality of pub investment. I suggest that Ministers in the Department and other Members read an excellent article in The Publican’s Morning Advertiser by Robert Sayles, published on 6 January 2015, which exposes part of the myth that has been created by pubcos and their supporters. For instance, in 2015 Enterprise Inns invested £66 million—which sounds a lot, but only amounts to £13,200 per pub across the estate—and, interestingly, made a loss of £66 million at the same time, which it can offset against tax. Who is really investing in its pubs?
BIS has said that it will look at ways of preventing the pubcos from gaming the position. However, I want to deal with another myth. The last Conservative Government were right to introduce the Beer Orders in order to bring about competition. The fact that they gave way to industry lobbying and provided a loophole to allow the creation of the stand-alone pub companies was the problem, not the Beer Orders themselves. The Government must not do the same thing again. We must have a market rent only option that is triggered in the way that was intended in the legislation, and there must be no opportunities for the pubcos to game that, including abuses of the investment waiver. I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister and her team to deliver that.
Student Maintenance Grants
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I, too, represent one of the constituencies containing the largest number of students in the country. In 2011 there were just over 19,000 in the three fantastic universities, Leeds University, Leeds Beckett University and Leeds Trinity University. However, I have just three minutes in which to speak, which I believe equates to 0.0095 of a second per student in what is a hugely important debate. Given the importance of these measures, the fact that the Government have proceeded with them through secondary legislation without a full and proper debate is an absolute disgrace.
Why has there been no public consultation on these major changes? They were announced last summer, but there has been no consultation with the higher education sector in the six months since. There has been no consultation with the universities or with the student unions. It is also a matter of huge concern that the Government conducted an equality impact assessment only after the National Union of Students instigated legal proceedings. If that does not suggest that the Government know they are doing something unacceptable and have something to hide, I do not know what does.
The equality impact assessment explicitly states that the changes present a risk to the participation of students from poorer backgrounds, mature students, BME students, disabled students and Muslim students. So, having being forced to accept that all those groups will be affected, has the Minister done anything to deal with it or to suggest ways of mitigating the impacts? I am afraid that the answer is no.
I do not have time to go through all the facts, some of which have been put forward today, but these changes will clearly have a detrimental and unfair impact on students from poorer backgrounds—the students we clearly want to encourage to go to university. At the same time, the Government are also freezing the repayment threshold at £21,000. The House of Commons Library states that this will have
“a proportionately larger impact on repayments by graduates with lower lifetime earnings”.
Martin Lewis has already been mentioned. He was tasked with selling the new system to the public, but he is now looking into a judicial review of the freezing of the repayment threshold. You could scarcely make this up. Whether the Government wish to accept it or not, the evidence shows that these measures will hit students on lower incomes and discourage people from going to university. The Government must today announce a proper debate with a proper vote on this matter in the House. We will settle for nothing less.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Soubry
This is all very useful and helpful, and I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I look forward to him putting his views into the consultation; a mix of views is critical to what I emphasise again is a consultation.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Tenants’ groups and the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign have contacted me to say that they believe that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has acted in bad faith, and that the draft code of practice for pubs does not even abide by the legislation and entirely negates the market rent only option. They will be asking the Minister tomorrow to withdraw the code, which is entirely unacceptable, and engage with them to come up with something that accords with the will of the House as it was expressed last November.
Anna Soubry
I am very disappointed to hear all that. Let me make it clear that I have stood up against planned closures of public houses in my constituency and railed against companies such as Greene King. [Interruption.] Yes, I have, and I have fought for other pubs. Hon. Members can look on my website for details. That is not the point. It is really important that we strike the right balance on this issue. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the parallel rent assessment provision, which I know he has not always been in favour of—I think he changed his mind at the last moment—is not in the code.
Anna Soubry
Shouting from a sedentary position does not help at all. The new style of politics has not quite reached the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lords have made their concerns very clear to Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and as a result of my conversations with her, that particular proposal will go into the second part of the consultation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware that our stated ambition is that all children should have an excellent education regardless of where they live and their birth or background. I am particularly conscious of the challenges facing rural schools, and I look forward to working with him and MPs across the House on these particular challenges facing their schools.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
T7. Free school meals was a Liberal Democrat policy achieved by the coalition Government and the pilot areas show it has improved attainment particularly for lower-income children. Will the Secretary of State now give those families the assurance and certainty they need by saying that this programme will not be reduced in the comprehensive spending review?
Nicky Morgan
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was here for the earlier exchanges on this issue. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say to him that, like all Government Departments, we are having to look at all areas of spending and at every line in the Department. However, there was a clear commitment in our manifesto to free school meals, which the Prime Minister has recently reiterated.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak at the final stage of this important Bill. I shall of course speak about the pubs code. I am delighted that there is a string of amendments from the other place which I and my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary save the pub group and the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign can support and welcome.
I thank all Members from all parts of the House who voted for the market rent only option on 18 November 2014, which will go down as a historic day for the British pub. I thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for bringing his side firmly behind that proposal. I especially thank the Government Members who had the courage to defy their Whip in what was the only defeat of the Government Whip in this Parliament.
I warmly welcomed it when the Government said that they would accept the will of the House. However, as most right hon. and hon. Members know, it appeared that that would not to be the case a few weeks ago. I and others expressed concern when, at the Grand Committee stage in the House of Lords, we no longer had a workable market rent only option that would definitely be introduced at a certain trigger point. We had to get that back into the Bill and we did.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), and all the other Ministers, including the Minister for Business and Enterprise. I thank the whole team who have worked on this issue. It has been a challenge for all of them to balance the different views. In the end, they have achieved that. They have achieved something remarkable: a proposal that people accept will be the future of the tied pub sector.
I must express a few notes of concern because this is not the end of the matter. I was not sure whether to raise a pint this evening or next week when the Bill has gained Royal Assent, so I have decided to do both. This is not the end of the matter, because we still have the passage of the statutory instruments and the consultation over the pubs code, which will take a year. I and others will certainly be engaged in that. We understand and support the principle, but we must get it right.
Let me say firmly that there must not be any watering down of the fundamental principle in the Bill—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said, that would be as disgraceful as watering down the beer, and just as illegal. We must ensure that that principle is honoured, whoever is in government after the election—a question that none of us can answer at the moment.
I wish to say quite forcefully that we must not be fooled by the idea that somehow the beer orders were the problem; it was the watering down of the beer orders as a result of industry lobbying that led to the tragedy and disaster of the beer orders. That watering down happened in the House of Lords, and I am delighted that this time we have collectively managed to stop it. It was precisely that watering down, with large companies saying, “Okay, well you’re going to legislate the beer orders, but give us that loophole and allow us to have that freedom if we don’t brew beer”, which led to the problem, although I believe we have avoided it this time.
A number of changes have been made to the clause, but it does not apply to all tenants of large companies as we intended it to. If someone exercises their right to take the market rent only option, they suddenly exclude themselves from any protection under the code, which seems strange and perverse. Despite all the sound and fury, the market rent option is only the right to an independent rent assessment on a free-of-tie basis, and the right to pay that. There is no logic in saying that it should apply only to tied or part-tied tenants, and not to any tenant who believes that they may be being exploited at their rent review.
The loopholes in the beer orders are the problem, and an obvious loophole—a new vehicle for some of the large, less scrupulous companies to exploit—allows companies to have excessive rental only agreements and excessive costs for insurance. There is an insurance scam in parts of the industry whereby people are forced to pay considerably more for insurance to their pub-owning company, even on a free-of-tie basis, than they would if they got insurance on the open market. The Government must be aware of that.
Clearly we would have liked the sale of a pub to be a trigger, but I welcome the fact that the Government have sought to deal with the issue. We shall look further at the detail of the measure because there is a problem with companies, including developers, buying pubs and using the terms of tied agreements to force people out of those pubs so that they can get vacant possession and develop a site. There is a danger that large companies will seek to use the loophole to put themselves deliberately into administration, restructure and form smaller companies that would come under the limit, and then carry on business as usual.
Investment is clearly a big issue, and I have had helpful and sensible discussions with Heineken, Greene King and Marston’s—all sustainable companies that will continue to survive and thrive. As I have made clear, it was never our intention to stop or discourage investment in pubs, and one of the biggest problems of the tied pubco model was the grotesque lack of investment—those scruffy pubs with the threadbare carpets that people could tell were Punch Taverns or Enterprise Inns pubs. Investment was left to the tenants, but they were not able to invest anything in their pub. James Baer of Amber Taverns said that the large companies were walking around with as much debt as Lance Armstrong had dope in his arm, and that that was one of the biggest problems in the pub sector—stopping investment in pubs.
The intention behind our clause was always that if two partners agreed an investment, there would be a new rent and therefore no need for a rent review for another five years. We must avoid any sense that the market rent only option can or will be waived for investment that happens before a tenant signs an agreement, or signs up to one during a tenancy at will. Often the previous tenant asked for that investment but it was refused, even if it should have been made anyway to keep the pub in a fit state to let in the first place. That is not the kind of investment we should be talking about.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gibb
It is always tragic when young people take their own life for whatever reason, but particularly when that is linked to cyber-bullying. As this is a particular worry for parents, we recently issued advice on how they can help protect their children from cyber-bullying, the signs to look for and what to do if children are being cyber-bullied. We also produce advice for schools on how to support pupils facing cyber-bullying.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
A two-year research project entitled “Addressing Sexual Bullying Across Europe” has just been published by Leeds Beckett university, revealing that sexual bullying in young people is widespread across Europe, with 73% of young people aged 13 to 18 having experienced at least one form of sexual bullying on more than one occasion. This is horrendous. What more can we do in our schools to deal with this very worrying problem?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is an increasing trend and we have to make it very clear in our schools that this form of behaviour in our schools is unacceptable. The guidance issued by the Department makes it clear that issues such as consent have to be taught in our sex and relationship education lessons.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
We warmly welcome challenger banks offering a service to small business. If they can be organised on a local and regional basis, so much the better. There is an organisation called Cambridge and Counties, which is performing this role in the east of England, and I know that Airdrie bank does so in Scotland. We would like to see many more. The liberalised process of licensing means that these things can come on stream rapidly when they are put forward.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Regrettably but inevitably, the pubcos trade association, the British Beer and Pub Association, is providing misleading information to the media and MPs about the London Economics report commissioned by BIS, including presenting figures for an immediate free-of-tie option for all tenants, which clause 2 is clearly not; it is gradual. The association’s presentation is therefore false. What assurances can I get from Ministers that they are aware of this, will scrutinise it and will ensure that civil servants also know that these misleading claims are just that?
Vince Cable
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the long and successful campaign that he has fought on this subject. I am inclined to let the matter rest, rather than continue a debate that he has won.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Swinson
The definition is as set out in the Bill. Where a pub is directly managed, it does not meet the definition of a tied pub. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the reassurance she seeks.
As I have said, the Government have listened and recognised that the largest number of concerns originate at the end of the market with the largest pub companies, which is why we will focus the pubs code adjudicator on those companies. We recognise that there are concerns about other parts of the market, but clearly the House can return to those issues in future if it so wishes. We think that focusing the adjudicator’s attention in that way will resolve the vast majority of the issues that we have identified in the market.
We have listened to the concerns about smaller pub companies and family brewers. Of course, later this afternoon we will discuss another issue about which hon. Members from various parties have expressed strong views. It is clear from the number of hon. Members who have put their name to new clause 2 that there is a strong desire in the House for the statutory code to go further and to introduce the market rent only, or MRO, option.
We ran a consultation on that whole issue. As I pointed out in Committee, and as was said on Second Reading, it was one of the most popular consultations the Department has run in a very long time.
It received a huge number of responses because tenants, individuals and campaign groups take a great interest in the issue. Many representations were made on whether there should be a market rent only option and there was support from many quarters for that approach, but we recognise that there could be uncertain outcomes from such an approach. We would not want unintended consequences to harm the sector and the people we are trying to protect—
Jo Swinson
I will finish my sentence, then I will give way to my hon. Friend, who has such a strong record of campaigning in this area.
We recognise that many hon. Members worry that the pub companies need the very real threat of tenants going free of tie before they will offer their tenants a good tied deal. I can commit today that the Government will bring forward amendments in the other place to respond to this. Following the many Select Committee reports and the campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and others in all parties in the House, we have listened to those strong representations and we plan to add to the Bill a power to introduce a market rent only option after two years if a review concludes that the measures have not delivered sufficiently for tied tenants.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she has done. I will respond to that last point when I make my speech. She commented on the popularity of the consultation; two thirds of all who responded backed the market rent only option. None supported what the Government are proposing—a parallel rent assessment—so what was the point of the consultation?
Jo Swinson
The point of a consultation is to explore the issues and, if necessary, to make changes to the Government’s proposals in response. That is exactly what we have done. The parallel rent assessment responds to some of the concerns expressed in the consultation about the initial ideas that we had outlined. It is right that the Government should be flexible enough to respond to a consultation. If the Government go into a consultation with a set of plans and come out of the consultation with exactly the same set of plans, that means either that the plans were perfect—sometimes that may be the case—or that the Government refuse to listen. That was the point of the consultation on this issue.
My hon. Friend makes the point that there was great support in the consultation for a market rent only option. He is right. The Government recognise that. Although I appreciate that he will be disappointed that that will not culminate in the Government accepting his new clause 2, it gives a great fillip to campaigners who have worked on this issue and shows that the Government are serious. We think that the parallel rent assessment approach that we have outlined will deliver the “no worse off” principle, which we should all be able to agree is what we want for tenants. We will make sure that with the further power, the market rent only option is still on the table if, for any reason, the parallel rent assessment proposal does not deliver the intended outcome.
Toby Perkins
I have just been waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to arrive, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate barely seemed worth getting on with until he was here.
The people who have written to us in such numbers will be aware that we have supported the introduction of a free-of-tie option for pubco pub tenants at the date of renewal ever since the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee concluded that the industry had had its last chance and that the time was right. That was back in September 2011, and in debates in January 2012, 2013 and 2014 the Opposition sought the support of the House for that viewpoint. It will therefore come as no surprise to Members that it remains the view of Opposition Members that the time for the mandatory rent-only option is now.
I am delighted that a cross-party group of Members has tabled new clause 2. In a time of great cynicism with politics, the fact that Members of four different political parties have added their names to it shows that there are things more important than naked party political advantage. It shows that this House can work in the finest traditions of democracy in a collective voice in support of our pubs, not because there is necessarily party political gain but because it is the right thing to do. I pay tribute to all those who added their names and to everyone from any party who votes for it today.
I look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I hope he considers that yet another review is not the right step for the industry. It appears to be a political solution to a political problem at a time when a serious industry needs a serious response from this place, and needs to be able to conduct its matters with real certainty knowing what it will face in the future. I think that anyone bought off by the review and the suggestion that the issue will be looked at in two years’ time if today’s measures are not considered to have worked was never really serious about supporting it in the first place. The House should vote in support of new clause 2 and repeat the unanimous support it gave to the motion in the January 2012 Backbench Business debate.
In conclusion, I said on Second Reading that the Government had introduced a Bill that expected too much of family brewers and not enough of pub companies. I also said that I hoped the Bill would leave the Committee and Report stages in a stronger shape than it arrived in. Already, thanks to the hard-won amendment brought by the hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and others, it could do that. Supporting the two other substantive amendments before us today would mean that we were finally on the way to repaying the debt the House owes to Britain’s publicans.
By supporting our amendment 5 and ensuring that large pub-owning businesses with tenanted, leased and franchised models are exempted, by continuing to reject any amendments that bring family brewers under the scope of the Bill and by backing new clause 2 to ensure a free market solution in this most important of industries, with an industry regulator, the House can unite in support of Britain’s pubs and ensure that the pub sector enters a new, better and more optimistic period free from the restrictive practices that have been allowed to dominate, with faith in the market to choose who is offering a fair deal. That will allow our pubs to offer one of the greatest of all Britain’s great inventions, the simple pint of ale, for many hundreds of years to come. I commend our amendment to the House.
Greg Mulholland
I am delighted to speak at this important stage of this important Bill. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues for their work in bringing measures forward not only on pubs, which is an area of particular interest, but other positive measures.
I will concentrate my comments on new clause 2, which I am delighted to introduce on behalf of myself, as the chair of the all-party save the pub group and co-ordinator of the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) who is the Chair of the Business, Innovations and Skills Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), the president of the save the pub group and a member of the BIS Committee. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today because he is becoming a freeman of Northampton. I am sure we all congratulate him on that. I am also speaking on new clause 2 on behalf of the 91 colleagues who put their names to it and the many others who have said they will support it.
Over the past few days, in the limited time between Committee and Report, more than 8,000 e-mails were sent by CAMRA members up and down the country and several thousand by members of the Federation of Small Businesses, licensees, organisations and trade unions, urging the Government to take the sensible, obvious, market-based action to resolve the issues that have been a problem in the leased and tenanted pub sector for too long.
So that Members are clear, new clause 2 is the cross-party solution from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee introduced first by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), then ably continued by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and supported by all colleagues on the Select Committee at all stages in this and the last Parliament. It is also backed by the FSB, the Forum of Private Business, the Pubs Advisory Service, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Supporting Licensees, CAMRA, Licensees Unite the union, the Fair Pint campaign, the Guild of Master Victuallers, the GMB and now the Punch Tenant Network, which represents Punch tenants and is giving an honest and a very different picture of the Punch model from that which Punch Taverns has been trying to communicate to MPs.
To remind the House, the problem is a simple one, despite the complexity of the sector: the large companies went on a reckless acquisition spree, buying up pubs using borrowed money, and got themselves into grotesque amounts of debt—more than £4 billion in the case of Punch Taverns and more than £3 billion in the case of Enterprise Inns—and with nothing to stop them charging unlimited prices for beer and unlimited rents, both of which have gone up and up and up. The beer tie, which was always operated responsibly, has been abused. It used to offer lower rent in exchange for higher beer prices and genuine support for small breweries, but the pub company model does not do that.
What, then, is wrong with the proposals as they stand? I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in both coalition parties for having the courage to bring forward the statutory code of practice that the Select Committee first recommended so powerfully and clearly in 2009. As drafted, however, the proposed statutory code will not deliver the Government’s two key principles: fairness and the principle that a tied licensee should be no worse off than a free-of-tie licensee. The problem is that there is no direct mechanism to stop the double overcharging that I have mentioned.
As I have already said, not a single respondent to BIS’s extensive consultation thought that the Government’s proposed parallel rent assessment was the right solution, whereas two thirds said that the Select Committee was right. The assessment would need considerable participation from the adjudicator—in fact, the proposal confuses the adjudicator with the rent assessor, as the adjudicator is there to adjudicate disputes, not to survey and set rents. Without the direct mechanism, the basis on which the adjudicator is set up is currently weak.
Furthermore, the Government made the fundamental mistake that the shadow Minister has pointed to already. The Fair Deal for Your Local campaign and the Select Committee are clear that this measure must not apply to smaller companies—those with fewer than 500 pubs—because that is not where the majority of the problems are. A “large pub company” must be defined as any company with 500 or more pubs of any type, with the measure applying to its leased and tenanted pubs only, not to tied pubs.
The issue of tied pubs is a legal minefield, as the Government have realised, with the absurdity that Harry Ramsden’s, a fish and chip shop restaurant, could have been categorised as a “tied pub”. There are different forms of the tie in the UK—some free houses opt to be tied to a brewer in return for soft loans and business support—and how would we categorise “part tied” and “fully tied”? It is a nonsensical way to categorise. We need to define a “large company” simply as a company with 500 or more pubs, some of which are tenanted and leased pubs, and then apply the measure to the tenanted and leased pubs only. In that way, there would be no question of the large managed companies, such as Wetherspoon’s and Mitchells and Butlers, being caught any more than there would be of a restaurant chain being caught.
At the moment, the Bill and code do not deliver what the Government have set out, courageously, to deliver. Do not take my word for it; take the word of one of the two companies lobbying particularly vociferously against the code. In its own prospectus for potential investors, dated 6 October 2014, Punch Taverns said it did not believe that the reforms proposed would materially adversely affect the Punch group. In other words, it would be business as usual, and it would continue to charge excessive beer prices—often 70% more than hon. Members could get from the brewery—and set entirely unregulated rents.
Greg Mulholland
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was Punch Taverns’ acquisition spree that took the leased pubco model to Scotland—it bought up pubs simply as a way of artificially increasing the value of the company—although there are other tied leased pubs in Scotland as well. The only way to get justice for Scottish licensees is for Westminster to pass new clause 2 today: I had a meeting last year with Minister Fergus Ewing, and he said that if that happened, the Scottish Government would consider enabling legislation to take it forward in Scotland. So it is vital for Scottish licensees, as well as for English and Welsh ones, that we vote for new clause 2.
The new clause has been carefully drafted with the help of expert surveyors, lawyers and publicans. It is a new clause that works, and I pay tribute to all who helped to draft it and to the Clerks in the Bill Office who assisted with the process. It would make for clear primary legislation specifying how the market rent only option would work in practice and exactly what it would be, and crucially—this is why Members can give it their support—it would come in gradually over five years and be triggered only at certain key points in the cycle of a lease or tenancy. It would be triggered at five-year rent reviews, on lease renewal, on the sale of the property title, if there was a substantial change in prices—mirroring BIS’s own clauses—which would be for the adjudicator to decide, or if there were a change of circumstances, such as the opening next door of a Wetherspoon’s offering cheaper beer prices, which should lead to lower rents, but often does not under the pubco model. The new clause would give the large pubco tenant the opportunity to go to the adjudicator to plead that it was a significant change in circumstances.
The process is clearly laid out in the new clause, and there can be no confusion or suggestion it would come in straightaway: a tenant serves notice requesting an independent assessment of the market rent; there is a 21-day period of negotiation to allow the two parties to come up with a new deal; if they do, there is no need for it go further; but if they cannot agree within the 21 days, they must agree to appoint an independent surveyor to set the rent; if they cannot agree, the surveyor is appointed by the chair of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, as is standard practice, following RICS guidance, and in conformity with statutory guidance for tied pubs. At the end of the 21 days, the rent assessment is done and presented, and then there is another period of negotiation for both sides, at which point the company should come forward with attractive, fair tied agreements to keep them buying beer through them, but offering genuinely lower rents and genuine business support.
That is a reasonable, gradual process that will simply bring back market forces into a sector that has become grotesquely anti-competitive. It is closed to many smaller breweries, it is not working for publicans or those communities losing their pubs, and frankly it is not working for the large companies either.
Sheryll Murray
I am a little confused. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the economic impact that his free-of-tied proposal might have on small family brewers. Has he done any work on the financial impact on family brewers, such as the one owned by my constituent James Staughton, who rely on selling their beer far and wide across the UK?
Greg Mulholland
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised that issue. So let us all be clear; the clause, in primary legislation, cannot and will not apply to a single family brewer. All the family brewers—members of the Independent Family Brewers of Britain—have fewer than 500 pubs. The clause—in primary legislation to ensure that it cannot be changed—will not apply to them. The simple answer is that it will not and cannot affect them in any way. Surely Conservative MPs above all would like to see more competition and more ability for all brewers—regional and small microbrewers—to compete and to get their beer into pubs if it is good enough and if people want to drink it.
Richard Fuller
The Minister has just said that she wants to reduce the limit of the pub adjudicator from 500 to 350, which will start capturing some of the larger family brewers. Is he saying that he stands apart from what the Minister has said?
Greg Mulholland
That is helpful but I shall make it clear; the point of new clause 2 is that it is a stand-alone clause and has no bearing on that matter. I understand the position of those hon. Members with family brewers. They can support their family brewers if they wish by opposing new clause 6, but they can still support new clause 2, which, as I say, will apply not to a single family brewer but only to the large pub-owning companies. We have defined that very deliberately, which the Government failed to do despite our telling them that they should. A Member can vote for their family brewer by voting for new clause 2. To be clear; it is primary legislation and cannot then be changed without other primary legislation. It is not being put into the statutory code—secondary legislation—as some measures are. That is precisely why we have done it.
There has been a shameful campaign of misinformation against new clause 2 and the market rent only option from the usual suspects; the large pub companies and their mouthpiece, the so-called British Beer and Pub Association. In reality it is the big brewers and pubco association. They have been lobbying vociferously, making a whole stream of utterly baseless comments. It is simply scaremongering to suggest that somehow these companies offering a fair commercial rent to their tenants would cause collapse, chaos and closures.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Greg Mulholland
I remind the House of what was said by the BIS Select Committee in its follow-up report in 2011—
Greg Mulholland
Let me finish my point and I will give way. The Select Committee said:
“The BBPA (British Beer and Pub Association) has shown itself to be impotent in enforcing its own timetable for reform and the supposed threat of removing the membership of pub companies who did not deliver was hollow.”
Just last year the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association misled the Select Committee and said two things that were factually untrue, as well as presenting a series of baseless evidence.
Finally, before I give way, I will read what the Select Committee said in its 2008-09 report:
“As is noted elsewhere in this Report…in evidence to us both Mr Thorley of Punch and Mr Tuppen and Mr Townsend of Enterprise Inns made assertions which, on investigation, proved to give a partial picture, or on one occasion were positively false.”
Members on all sides of the House can know exactly how to take the absurd and baseless claims from those organisations.
Liz McInnes
Like the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), I am seeking clarification on small family brewers. I, too, am confused by the effect of the proposal on J.W. Lees brewery in my constituency, which has fewer than 500 pubs but has a strong retail arm. I am concerned—as is the brewery, which asked me to raise the issue during the debate— about the effect it will have on a family brewer with fewer than 500 pubs but which has a strong retail arm.
Greg Mulholland
I thought I had given clarity. I ask the hon. Lady and all hon. Members to read this detailed new clause, as this is precisely why all of us who have been involved in writing it have done so. Let me read new clause 2(4):
“For the purposes of this section,”
meaning the market rent only option,
“the definition of a ‘large pub-owning business’ is a business which, for a period of at least six months in the previous financial year, was the landlord of—
(a) 500 or more pubs (of any description)”.
That cannot apply to any family brewer, and because it is in primary legislation, it cannot be changed in the future.
Greg Mulholland
I will briefly, but I have covered the point. I do not think I could make it any more clearly, but I will give way to my hon. Friend, whose work I respect.
Richard Graham
The point is not so much about whether the specific paragraph excludes microbrewers and small family brewers; the question is whether they support this proposal. It is interesting that the microbrewers’ trade association does not. It is concerned that it leaves the doors open for greater domination by foreign-owned brewers such as Carlsberg and AB InBev. The issue is not the hon. Gentleman’s integrity or the value of his drafting work on the paragraph, but the unintended consequences of new legislation. I should declare that my family has a pubco. It is a very small pubco, with two pubs, but we would not be in favour of the amendment.
Greg Mulholland
I will put on record strongly that there are many small pub companies and breweries that run their pubs exceptionally well and, interestingly, are doing very well and are expanding rather than contracting, but here is the rub: I speak directly to my Conservative coalition colleagues. The question I put to them is this: “Do you believe in competition? You all say you do. If you do, you should not be afraid of allowing brewers of all sizes to compete.” The reality is that small microbrewers do not have adequate, fair and direct access. They cannot turn up at thousands of pubs and say, “We would like to sell our beer to you because we believe it is good.” They are prevented from doing that.
Let me tackle the issue directly; this will be controversial. SIBA, the Society of Independent Brewers, has a direct delivery scheme that used to be part of the solution to the pubco closed shop. It is now part of the problem; many small independent brewers have contacted the save the pub group to say that. Incidentally, there was a U-turn in SIBA’s position. SIBA was a member of the Independent Pub Confederation, which supported the market rent only option. Seemingly without consulting its members directly, SIBA suddenly decided that it was against it; that is what SIBA members have told me. It no longer represents the majority of microbrewers on this key issue.
Toby Perkins
I wish to reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point that new clause 2 is precisely about a free market option, and that to defend the status quo is to defend a restrictive practice, which should be absolutely anathema to any Conservative MP; if they vote against the new clause, they will be voting for a closed shop and against an open market.
Greg Mulholland
I share the shadow Minister’s bafflement about that, and I am delighted that we have a strong group of Conservative colleagues who, having heard the reality of the situation from their local branch of the Campaign for Real Ale, their local pubco publicans and their local Federation of Small Businesses branches, are fully supportive.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite extraordinary that there seems to be such a strong voice for preventing new market entrants from moving into the brewing industry? Those are important small businesses that want to make progress. The message I hear from microbreweries is that they are prevented by this archaic and extraordinary system that we have endured for far too long.
Greg Mulholland
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I repeat that if we believe in competition, an open market and entrepreneurship, we cannot defend the closed shop of the leased pub sector, which is dominated by these large companies.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way and I appreciate that, especially as he knows that I will not necessarily speak in support of his new clause. The crucial point is that hundreds of new microbreweries have been springing up over the last few years; the microbrewery in my family’s pub sprang up last year. This will make no difference to them whatever.
Greg Mulholland
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. I can send him the e-mails I have received from microbreweries—cider as well as beer producers. They are desperate to get more direct access, so that they can knock on the door of the pub 2 miles down the road and say, “We believe our beer is great and that your customers would like to drink it. We would like to sell it to you at our brewery price, rather than you having to go through the SIBA-directed delivery scheme, which has a considerable mark-up, or get on a pubco list,” as the pubco outrageously demands an incredibly low price that many microbrewers simply cannot afford to brew at, and then marks up prices by 60% to 70% to sell the product to their own so-called business partners. Is that seriously a model that Conservative MPs can support? I remain baffled by that.
Let me remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the reality of the pub company model. As I look round, I see hon. Members who have family and smaller brewers in their constituency and want to support them; I respect their position, and I am at one with them on that, which is why the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign has always said that the provision should apply only to companies with over 500 pubs.
Let us look at the reality of what the big pubcos have done to skew the traditional tied tenancy model. Punch Taverns, a pub company that does not brew a single pint of beer, made a profit over 10 years—these are its figures from its own annual report—of £2.271 billion, all from on-selling beer to its own so-called business partners. Frankly, in any other country, that would be called a protection racket. It is extraordinary and unjustified, which is why it is right for us to try to deal with it.
If Members do not believe that this is an anti-competitive model—I know that some colleagues behind me do not, for their own reasons—they should listen to former Punch licensee Alison Smith, a Conservative activist who has e-mailed all colleagues today to tell of the reality of the pubco business model, and how it stifled her and her partner, preventing them from being able to create a successful pub. Even though they were doing well and improving their business, the draconian terms of the pubco lease meant that that was simply not possible.
What do hon. Members think these large pub companies are? They are not pub companies at all; unlike the traditional brewers, these are people who do not really care about our pubs or our brewers. There was a huge rush in the City when people saw this “get rich quick” scam, a way to inflate the value of companies artificially by basing it on what they could overcharge their own tenants by—their tenants for 25 years on these outrageous, new, long-term, fully repairing and insuring leases.
Let me give the example of what happened to the excellent Sir John Barleycorn in Hitchin. The community, I am delighted to say, applied to use powers introduced by this coalition Government to apply for community value status; they applied for the pub to be an asset of community value. There were objections. The most vociferous one said:
“the current use of the premises as a public house…does not itself further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community and therefore is not land of community value.”
Who said that? Was it someone living down the street who was anti-pub? No, that objection was from the so-called pub company Punch Taverns, which was seeking to get rid of this pub and sell it off after forcing out the licensees. That is what is going on.
If there is any doubt that this model is closing pubs, let me read out the stark evidence of the figures. These figures, collated by CGA Strategy for the British Beer & Pub Association and CAMRA, showed that there was a much greater drop in the number of leased and tenanted pubs than in the number of free houses between December 2005 and March 2013. The number of non-managed—that is, tenanted and leased, mostly tied—pubs fell by 5,117, whereas there was a fall of only 2,131 free-trade pubs. All pubs have issues—there has been a difficult recession—but the difference is clear and stark.
We could also look at the pubco trade association’s own figures—figures that it has frankly been keeping very quiet about. Its own figures show that over 10 years, the number of non-managed—in other words, tied, tenanted and leased—pubs decreased by 8,000, while the free-trade sector expanded by 1,600 pubs. I repeat: that is its own figures. Between 2008 and 2012—just four years—the two giant pubcos, Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns, collectively disposed of over 5,000 pubs—a third of all their pubs in just four years. Can any Member seriously stand up and say that this is a business model that is working for pubs?
Toby Perkins
The hon. Gentleman is hitting on a really important point. These big pub companies are often heralded for employing so many people, but they, of course, inherited these pubs and employees, and what they are doing over a long period is laying people off and shutting pubs, not the opposite.
Greg Mulholland
Absolutely. The debt level is still in the billions, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extraordinary restructuring that has left Punch shareholders owning only 15% of the company. Meanwhile, the Punch tenant network expressed its serious concern about the effects on them of the company’s instability.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions the high number of pubs that have closed, but there is also the personal tragedy: a whole succession of tenants went into business with really high ambitions, and found that they simply could not make a living out of the existing model. That is a personal tragedy for them and their families.
Greg Mulholland
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every pub is a story about a community, and a story about the people who are running it. There have indeed been many tragedies. I had one in my constituency; a pubco tenant died of a heart attack a week after closing his pub. There are awful stories of human misery here. It comes down to the simple problem I outlined at the beginning: the over-charging. These companies continue to take more than is fair. It can often be 70%, 80%, 90% or even 100% of the pub’s profit, meaning that licensees cannot make a living.
Most revealing of all, I have asked Punch Taverns—in writing, and to its representatives’ faces—four times why it is so afraid of the market rent only option, the simple option to give tenants the right, at certain trigger points, to be offered a fair commercial market rent, and it has failed to answer four times. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, tells you all you need to know. It tells you that this business model is precisely based on taking more than is fair and sustainable. The only solution is the market rent only option.
Let me deal finally with the Government’s suggestion of a compromise: “Perhaps we can include a reference to the market rent only option or the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee option being built into the Bill, but only after a review two years after the statutory code comes into force.” I understand why this is being said, because the will of this House is clearly in support of the market rent only option, with 90 coalition MPs signed up to the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign, which calls for that option. I understand why the Government Whips are getting so worried: they realise that they might lose this vote today.
Let me say clearly on behalf of the campaign and all the organisations that have expressed this view that the last thing we need is yet another review. We have had four exhaustive Select Committee reports. In 2011, when the Government were supposed to act, we had a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills review, and BIS decided not to act. What was supposed to be the last chance became a second-last chance for the pub companies. When people realised that nothing had changed, there was a further review. We have had four reports and two reviews. The simple reality is that we need action and need it now. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to grant a vote on new clause 2; I think that you will agree that it is the will of the House to vote on it, given the support for it.
The simple message from all the Fair Deal for Your Local campaigns, thousands of tied publicans, and all who believe in pubs, publicans, communities and fairness is “No more delays, no more reviews, no more excuses.” Please let us solve this problem at last, properly, once and for all. Please let us all vote for new clause 2 today.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a sense of déjà vu as I rise to speak about this subject yet again. I shall confine my remarks to new clause 2, because that very well-researched clause is consistent with nearly 10 years of successive recommendations from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and because I feel that it will address an issue that all the other proposals have failed to address: the unfair relationship between the pubco and the tenant. That unfairness, and the need to redress it, were spelt out to me in a letter that I received from a tenant, who wrote:
“The pub company wins all the time, they get a share of the Games Machines, the pool table, the Rent and they also put £30-£50 on top of each barrel so we pay a lot more for our beer than buying it off a wholesaler or warehouse.”
I realise that the Minister and the Government have moved a long way in the last two years, from insisting that a voluntary code would be sufficient to deal with the problem to recognising, following a long consultation, that it was necessary to introduce a statutory approach. However, I feel that, in its current form, that approach is lacking.
Let me begin by responding to the Minister’s reference to a possible Lords amendment postponing the implementation of the Government’s proposals until after a review and a ministerial decision. I oppose that course of action for a number of reasons, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). The industry has already been consulted to death. As the Minister said, the Government’s last consultation received an enormous number of responses, and it took them a long time to reach their conclusions. I therefore see no grounds for any further consultation.
The issue here is the deeply entrenched position of the British Beer and Pub Association, which represents the pub companies and which, over the years, has consistently paid lip service to the BIS Committee recommendations for the introduction of a voluntary code while dragging its feet and procrastinating at every stage of the procedure. Indeed, our last report referred to “glacial” progress. There is no reason to believe that any further consultation over the next two years will make any difference whatsoever.
Andrew Griffiths
I can reassure the House that I will not be speaking for 40 minutes, nor will I be reading off a list of pubs that have been saved or want to be saved around the country. I just want to get to the nub of the point.
I begin by telling the Minister that I want to help her today. In fact I want to help her so much that I have sent my researcher off to WHSmith to buy two packets of Benson & Hedges, not because I have taken up smoking or I think her nerves are bad, but just in case she wants to write two new policies while we are having this debate and she needs something to write them on.
We have debated this issue for many years and today the Minister comes up with an amendment that was cobbled together within the last couple of hours. This is an important industry. It employs thousands of people across the country. Livelihoods depend on the decisions we make today, and I am deeply concerned that there has been no consultation whatsoever with the industry about her proposal today to have this two-year stay so that we can assess the situation. There has been no impact assessment, and there have been no discussions.
I have the same aims as the hon. Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). We want to see pubs prosper. We want to see pubs thrive. We want to keep the community pub. We want publicans to do well and to be profitable. It is how we achieve that that is key. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West mentioned unintended consequences. I have heard that said a number of times over the last 24 hours or so. I would bring the House back to the fact that we find ourselves in this situation because of the beer orders. A Conservative Minister decided, with the best of intentions, that the Government should interfere in the market; the Government decided that they should split up the big brewers because they were acting in an uncompetitive way and the consumer was not getting a good deal. They broke up the big brewers. The reality is that that decision set us on this path we are on today with the pub companies. We should therefore be careful and cautious—and afraid—of unintended consequences. The hon. Gentleman said that there is no certainty. Of course there is no certainty, but as politicians—as legislators—we have to act with caution when we are interfering in business and in the marketplace and in people’s livelihoods.
Greg Mulholland
A little bit of the beer orders story is conveniently forgotten, which is that it was not the Government’s decision; it was the industry lobbying to stop there being a limit on non-brewing companies that led to the creation of the large pub companies. The lesson is to not listen to that sort of self-interested industry lobbying and instead get the legislation right.
Andrew Griffiths
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I saw that look in your eye, so I shall try to make some progress.
Andrew Griffiths
I think I have been fairly generous, but I will of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Greg Mulholland
The most fundamental dishonesty is the suggestion that the new clause would abolish the beer tie. It absolutely would not; it would simply give an option, at certain trigger points, for people to choose between a tied agreement and a rental-only agreement. That would make the tie work properly and ensure that we got back to what the beer tie used to be.
Andrew Griffiths
I think I found a question in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Given that he spoke for only 40 minutes earlier, I quite understand why he wanted to have another go.
I should like to get back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) that people often find they have signed up for things that they did not expect. They find that they have been hoodwinked because they were not given all the details, and that they have not got a fair deal. That is what we want to outlaw. I want briefly to consider what, under this legislation, someone wanting to take on a tenancy today would have to do. First, they would have to have a business plan, which would have to be assessed. They would have to have an accountant and a lawyer, and they would be told what they are paying for their rent, their beer, their whisky and for everything else. They would also be told how many barrels of beer and bottles of whisky the pub sold in the past year, in the previous year and in the past five years. All that information would have to go before their accountant before they could sign. I do not know what other Members think, but I think these people are grown ups and business people. If they are provided with all that information calmly and clearly so that they can make a decision, it is not for government to intervene to tell them they cannot engage in a business agreement that is perfectly legal.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
I am certainly very happy to give the hon. Lady an assurance to meet her in the House and to visit her constituency. I have been to Tyneside on several occasions and I am aware that it is a centre for advanced manufacturing. In many respects it is doing very well on the back of the growth of the oil and gas industry in the North sea. We clearly need more jobs on Tyneside and I am happy to work with her to deliver them.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
T5. Twenty-five years ago the then Government intervened in the pubs market, recognising that it was failing consumers and small brewers. However, as a result of industry lobbying, they failed to place a limit on the number of pubs, which led to the development of the large pubcos. Twenty-five years on, will the Secretary of State assure me that he will listen to the majority of MPs in the House of Commons rather than giving in to industry lobbying, and that he will introduce the market-rent-only option which is the solution offered by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)
As my hon. Friend knows, we have had a number of debates about this issue in the House, and the House has expressed its view. The Government recently held a consultation, to which thousands of responses were received. We are now considering those responses, and will issue our own response as soon as we can.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Mulholland Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I recently attended a meeting with all the head teachers from the Otley family of schools, which covers Otley, Bramhope, Pool-in-Wharfedale and Adur, and they expressed concern about the chronic shortage of school places at primary level. After the debacle of Labour-run Leeds city council closing schools a number of years ago, and now that we need some, what work is going on to have discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government about how this problem can be avoided in future?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is exactly right. One of the reasons there are pressures in some parts of the country is that under the previous Government over 200,000 primary school places were eliminated after 2003. He will be aware that Leeds is one of the areas to which we have given significant amounts of basic need funding, and it is now using that money effectively. I will be happy to meet him if it would be helpful to discuss this in further detail.