Gas Market Fraud

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Ed Davey

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

Action is being taken. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the consultation put out by the European Commission. It has also been suggested that ESMA—the European Securities and Markets Authority—should take interim measures. I have to tell him that not just domestic regulators but international regulators are taking a broader look, which is the correct thing to do.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has said that the allegations of market manipulation are being taken very seriously, but considering the substantial evidence of abuse, collusion among large companies and price manipulation, why have Ministers so far turned a blind eye to Britain’s big pub companies? Is it that the whistles that have been blown for eight years are just pitched too high for Ministers and civil servants?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend and I discussed the issue of pubs and competition when I was in my last job in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I think he will realise that I am no longer in charge of competition issues relating to pubs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Ed Davey

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The one seemingly hopeful part of the Government’s otherwise dreadful response on pub companies was the unfortunately named PICAS—the pub independent conciliation and arbitration service. However, hope soon faded when it was revealed that it was to be pubco-funded, and this week it has been announced that it will be chaired by a Punch Taverns surveyor. Does the Minister think that licensees will want to use that supposedly independent body?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I am afraid that as in a number of aspects of this debate, my hon. Friend does not reveal the full details. Rodger Vickers has been appointed with the unanimous support of the board of the pub independent rent review scheme, which includes two members of the Independent Pubs Confederation, the champion of licensees and tenants. I have made it clear to the independent chairman of PIRRS, Mr Brindley, that its efforts to appoint a vice-chair, again with high standing among the licensee community and close links to the IPC, should continue.

Pub Companies

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Ed Davey

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I echo my earlier comments commending the Select Committee on its excellent work. The all-party save the pub group has been delighted to work with the Committee and support its work. I am disappointed that we have to have this debate. As has already been made clear, in the past 18 months we received unanimous, cast-iron commitments from Front-Bench spokesmen of all three main parties that, if self-regulation failed by June 2011, a statutory code of practice would be introduced, including the all-important genuine free-of-tie option.

If people ask why this should be reviewed in the autumn, the simple answer is that it has been going on for seven years and generated four Select Committee reports. The last attempt at self-regulation was supposed to be the final one, which makes the Government’s response even more baffling. The sad reality is that their response simply does not deal with the fundamental issue, which is that the big pub companies take too much from each pub and it makes it difficult or impossible for those licensees to make a living, and that also shuts pubs. The Government’s response does nothing whatsoever to address that.

I am afraid that the Government have also been sold a pup. The immediate improvements outlined in their response are illusory. First, there are no substantive changes in the new framework code of practice produced by the British Beer and Pub Association. Secondly, and even more worryingly, the whole idea of putting the new codes on a legal footing is a mirage. The BBPA’s own legal advice—let us all be clear that it is the representative organisation of the pub companies—based on a legal authority that goes back 100 years, the Carlill case, has made it clear that, if we are to rely on that case, those codes are already binding. A letter was sent to pubco lessees over Christmas that worried them considerably. It suggested that the 2010 company code of practice would become binding if they sought to use it in any case, which is clearly an offer to ensnare them in further obligations to their landlords not already covered in the lease.

The first question to the Minister is this: how on earth can anyone be seeking to put on a legal footing codes that he himself has said are inadequate? He has written to the Select Committee Chair, stating:

“In some case, primarily where the letter was sent in advance of the new code being agreed, the link to the industry Framework Code led to the former version rather than the enhanced version, of the code; however, this will be superseded by the new version of the code once it has been agreed.”

The simple problem is this: which code and which offer? There are so many codes floating around, it is an absolute mess. The Minister needs to know that many licensee organisations believe that the Government, accepting the advice of the BBPA that it is a good idea to make the codes legally binding, will actually make the situation worse for licensees, not better.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

For the sake of clarity, it is the industry framework code that will be legally binding, and it is the strengthened industry code as agreed with the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations and the BBPA on 22 December last year.

[Greg Mulholland]

Not only was that code opposed by all the other organisations, but it was the old company codes that were mentioned in the letter, and the Minister has not adequately addressed that point.

[Greg Mulholland]

Sadly, I am afraid that the explanation appears to be clear from the freedom of information request submitted by the save the pub group: the so-called Government response is basically the BBPA’s own report, with some passages and commitments taken word for word—indeed, there is even a typo in the BBPA report presented to Ministers that was directly cut and pasted into the Government’s response. I am afraid that the evidence is damning, which is why many organisations are saying that the Government should halt their entire proposal for reform in its tracks.

[Mr Davey]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Greg Mulholland]

I apologise to the Minister, but I have given way twice. He will have plenty of time to respond.

This is clearly not an industry solution. I am afraid that the Minister has been misled by the BBPA, because its report, which was copied into the Government’s response, clearly stated that the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and the Guild of Master Victuallers had agreed to be part of the pub independent conciliation advisory service. However, the chairman of GMV has stated:

“We as an organisation have neither agreed to, or been presented with, any proposal in respect of our participation in PICAS at this time.”

The Minister needs to ask why he has been misled by the BBPA and then answer to the House.

Let us be clear that the Government’s proposals for reform are not industry proposals. They are not supported by the Independent Pub Confederation, the GMV, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the ALMR, CAMRA, Fair Pint, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Unite or the all-party save the pub group. Why on earth did the Minister suggest throughout the Government response that it is an industry proposal? It is not even the Government’s response, but the response of the pubcos trying to avoid the self-regulation that he agreed was necessary.

The Prime Minister rightly talks about dealing with crony capitalism, and I absolutely agree with him on that. In 2010, after shares in Enterprise Inns collapsed—they fell from 770p in 2007 to 26p in January this year, a decline in value of 96.6%—Mr Ted Tuppen awarded himself a 50% pay rise of £412,000, taking home £1.22 million, including a bonus of £558,000. At the same time he was closing pubs and making things impossible for tenants. I am sorry to say that the Government’s response has backed the pub companies and crony capitalism in the worst sense.

We now need the statutory code of practice, including the genuine free-of-tie option. That was promised by the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister before the election. We have waited long enough. We will wait until the autumn, but no longer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Ed Davey

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Since December 2008, 3,218 tied pubs have closed and 425 free houses have opened, yet the British Beer and Pub Association, which speaks for pub companies, continues to mislead Ministers and MPs by stating that the opposite is actually the case. Do Ministers agree that this discredits the BBPA and also shows that the Government must stick to their commitment to act on the issue?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner on the subject, and he will know that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has just undertaken a report on all those issues. The Government are therefore considering it and will respond to it shortly. If I were tempted into replying to the details of his question, I would prejudice that response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Ed Davey

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

After vigorous lobbying, including by the all-party “Save the pub” group, the last Government confirmed plans to relax the beer tie and to set a timetable to act if the industry did not reform itself. Can we get an assurance from the Minister that this Government will stick to that plan and timetable?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

Yes.