Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Greg Mulholland and Adrian Bailey(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Greg Mulholland and Adrian Bailey
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State described his 50-minute speech as “Castroesque”, whereas I shall describe my five-minute speech as highly castrated. But, in the limited time available, I wish to concentrate on an issue that has long exercised the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills and its predecessors: pub companies and their regulation. Let me say to the Minister that although I may appear critical, I recognise that, having wavered and gone down the voluntary route, he has tried to rescue this and put regulation on the statute book. That has long been the position of the Committee, but grave flaws remain with the proposals before us.
The Shadow Minister outlined the problems of low incomes among tenants and mentioned the attrition rate of 28 pubs being closed every week. Our basic model of tenant and pub company is not viable and is in long-term decline. Worse still, the low incomes of tenants mean that many have to resort to state benefits to prop up their income. Under the current model, the pub companies take substantial profits from an unfair relationship with the tenants; the number of pubs is declining, with a consequent impact on the community; and many pubs that do survive have tenants on low incomes, which generates personal problems and the taxpayer liability. So that issue needs to be addressed.
Having the statutory code and adjudicator, which the Government are supporting, is a step forward, but it does not address the issue of the free-of-tie option. The Minister said that the Government were not going to introduce that because of the potential impact on the pub industry. It is difficult to see how, in the long term, we are going to affect the balance of risk and reward between the pub companies and the tenants without introducing a mechanism that will strengthen the hand of the pub tenants. The proposals for parallel rent assessments, which would enable the tenant, in certain circumstances, to apply to have a rent assessment, suffer from a number of difficulties, not least that it has to be after a five-year review or after protracted negotiations have failed. In some cases, they can last two or three years and drive the tenant into bankruptcy long before they reach the assessment point. It is difficult to say how such a time-consuming and complex procedure can substantially alter this balance of risk and reward. Indeed, under the existing system there is a voluntary arrangement whereby tenants can go to an adjudicator and, although that has addressed certain problems, it certainly has not changed the overall balance of risk and reward in the industry.
The argument against that is that pub companies will abandon their tied tenants and become real estate investment trusts and that others may step in and try to reproduce the model to the detriment of the existing variety of agreements and range of beers. That is a hollow threat, because under real estate investment trust legislation, 95% of rental income must go to shareholders, which would render that impossible for pub companies, and 75% of income must come from rents, which would also be a barrier. Therefore, the threat of an alternative model is hollow.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work and the fantastic work of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills over the years, including the four crucial reports that have finally led us to legislation. Does he share my bewilderment that the Government did not listen properly to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and have not introduced the market-rent-only option that he proposed? A clear two thirds—67%—of all respondents to the Government’s consultation said that it was the right way to deal with the problem.
Mr Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and pay tribute to his contribution to the ongoing political pressure. I do find it mystifying; at the end of the day, the Government have fudged the issue and have bought some of the pub companies’ arguments. They are being more protective of pub companies than of tenants, which is to the potential detriment of the industry.
The free-of-tie option would lead to considerable changes in the industry, but such changes would be difficult to quantify. The survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that 75% of tied tenants would take on more staff and increase staff hours, 78% would increase investment, 73% would invest in modernisation and 91% would deal with microbreweries. It therefore seems that the alternative model has the potential to strengthen the industry while the present proposals will only lock it into a long-term, terminal decline.
Pub Companies
Debate between Greg Mulholland and Adrian Bailey(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Bailey
I need to make a little progress, as I am conscious that many people want to speak. If I have time, I shall take further interventions.
For the reasons I have outlined, the BIS Committee and its predecessor have held no fewer than four inquiries into the issues surrounding the trade. The previous report in 2010 under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) gave the industry a year to get its house in order or have statutory legislation. That was agreed by the Labour Minister in 2010. Subsequently, after the general election, when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was asked whether he would uphold the previous Government’s position, he confirmed he would.
The current BIS Committee held an inquiry in 2011 and came to the unanimous conclusion that pub companies had not met the requirements of the previous Committee’s recommendations and that a statutory code with an independent adjudicator should be introduced. It also recommended that any code should have within it the option for a publican either to be tied to the pub company or to be free of such a tie and instead pay a rent to the pub company, which would be determined by a general open market review by a suitably qualified assessor.
The Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations has been totally inadequate. The Minister’s pledge fails to meet the aspirations of virtually all sections of the industry apart from those of the pub companies and reneges on the pledge given previously by a Minister. In the time available, I cannot deal with every point of variance between the recommendations of the Government and those of the Committee, but I know that many of the issues will be teased out in subsequent speeches.
Greg Mulholland
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I pay tribute to his work and that of the Committee. He mentions the clear commitments given by Ministers. Is he aware of the e-mail from the office of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) to Justice for Licensees on 13 April 2010, saying:
“The Conservative Party support the idea that should the industry fail to deliver self-regulation by June 2011, the Government . . . should end up consulting on putting the Code of Practice on a statutory basis”?
Mr Bailey
No, I was not aware of that e-mail, but I am sure it will illuminate subsequent discussions.
I cannot deal with every issue that has arisen, but it is possible to summarise some of the key issues, the first of which is the statutory code of conduct and an adjudicator. Instead of doing as the Select Committee recommended and introducing a statutory code, determined after consultation with all sections of the industry, the Government have said they will make the existing codes between pub companies and their licensees legally binding. That might sound like a very subtle distinction, but most pub companies believe that their existing contracts with their licensees are legally binding anyway. This approach simply legalises and regularises a situation that is the source of the problem in the first place, and makes very little change.
The second key issue concerns the legal advice that the Government seem to have obtained in reaching their conclusion on the best way forward. On pressing this issue, it became clear to the Committee that the legal advice taken by Government was actually that given to the British Beer and Pub Association—the trade association of the pub companies. They do not seem to have taken any independent legal advice whatever.