Statutory Pubs Code and Pubs Code Adjudicator

Debate between Iain Wright and Oliver Letwin

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

May I begin by saying how grateful I am to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important debate to take place? I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who has just spoken. I bow to their superior knowledge and awareness of the pubs code and how it should operate. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), who are in their places, and are fantastic and assiduous members of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy, which I am privileged to chair. All who have spoken so far have worked hard on pubs and the pub industry.

The industry has been characterised for many years by an imbalance in power between large pub companies and the tenants of pubs tied to those companies. The market has not worked in a fair and equitable way, and tenants have had unfair conditions imposed upon the manner in which a variety of things happen: how they sell beer and, particularly, the rent that they pay and the lease under which they operate.

The pubs code sets out how pubcos should deal with their tenants in a much fairer way. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), my predecessor on the Select Committee, who worked hard on pushing the matter and ensuring that the Government’s feet were held to the fire, is in his place. I pay tribute to him, his Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who was on the Labour Front Bench at the time and did some great work on the subject. I am pleased to see him in his place. Those hon. Members have worked incredibly hard to try to rebalance the power relationship between pubcos and tenants.

A key part of addressing the imbalance is the Pubs Code Adjudicator. The adjudicator provides guidance on complying with the code and judges transactions to make things fairer. As we have heard, Mr Newby is the first adjudicator. In many respects, by being the first appointment, Mr Newby will shape the nature, style and tone of the job and the way in which matters will be dealt with by his successors. His judgments will set precedents, which could have ramifications for the pub trade and the pub property business for decades.

Dave Mountford of the Pubs Advisory Service and a landlord himself said to the Select Committee when we were taking evidence:

“The Pubs Code Adjudicator needs to be fair and impartial, and the decisions that he makes need to be based on our common law of justice and fairness such that they can then be applied to similar cases, so the precedent is set.”

I do not think that anybody would disagree with that. It is therefore essential that this first appointment of someone to a key role commands universal respect immediately and is not subject to any criticism or accusations of conflicts of interest, whether actual or perceived. Perception is important in such matters.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the imbalance of which he rightly speaks means that the adjudicator’s proper role is not solely to maintain an impartial view, but specifically to consider cases of abuse by the pubcos? They are asymmetrical cases of abuse: the tenants are not abusing the pub code, the pubcos are allegedly abusing it. The adjudicator’s role should therefore be to enforce on the pubcos obedience to the code. At the moment, we see examples of his looking as if he is just an arbitrator between the two parties.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Iain Wright and Oliver Letwin

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

We have had a series of bombshells during this debate. As became increasingly evident would be the case, no Lib Dems whatever have spoken in this Second Reading debate or even intervened, which I thought was very telling.

There were also a series of bookended bombshells. At the end of the debate we heard from the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who I was not aware had qualified as an Austrian ski instructor. I will certainly take that on board next time I am on the piste.

The Minister who opened the debate mentioned in his second or third sentence the fact that regulation was, to use his phrase, often sensible and necessary, which also came as a bombshell. That was welcome and—to be sensible for a moment—set the tone of the debate throughout: that we should try to have a regulatory regime that is proportionate and appropriate, but that any unnecessary legislation should be removed from the statute book. We on the Labour Benches would certainly agree with that.

The Minister also mentioned—this was the biggest bombshell of all—that Charlie Chaplin can be now be rehabilitated. Chaplin, who was seen as a communist in the United States in the 1950s, has now been fully rehabilitated into the Conservative party of the 21st century. That is welcome. The Minister said that village halls up and down the country are happy to be able to screen Chaplin. I have to ask him: has he seen “A Woman of Paris”, which highlights illicit sex encounters between an unmarried young woman and her boyfriend, who shoots himself at the end of the film? Is this the type of film that the Minister wants to deregulate, to ensure that it is available to the village halls and the spinsters of old England? I do not think it should be.

This is a somewhat ad hoc Bill. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) called it a hotch-potch, while my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) called it a mishmash. The Minister has scouted and hawked round Whitehall for the best part of a year, asking for any ideas for a deregulatory Bill. In many respects, that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is good, as we have heard several times, to have a spring clean. However, I disagree with a lot of what the Minister said. He opened the debate by saying that health and safety legislation was “wretched stuff”. I hope he will use this opportunity to say that not all health and safety legislation is wretched.

[Mr Letwin]

I never said any such thing. What I was referring to was ludicrously overburdensome guidance that is verbose and unclear. That is the bit that is wretched stuff. Of course health and safety legislation is necessary and desirable; it is a question of trying to make sure that is straightforward, clear and to the point.

[Mr Wright]

The phrase that the Minister has just used—straightforward, clear and to the point—is very important, because I am not entirely certain that clause 1 is. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said that it serves no purpose other than to confuse, and I have to agree with him. The Health and Safety Executive consulted on the proposals. To be fair, clause 1 was the preferred option, but the majority of those responding to the consultation opposed the idea.

As has been said several times in the debate, the Opposition are concerned that clause 1 does not really have any tangible impact, but introduces more confusion for self-employed people, who may wrongly think that they are exempt from health and safety laws. No self-employed person has ever been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for risking only their own health. Given that only people who pose no risk to anybody will be exempt, I cannot see how there will be a practical impact on business or individuals. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which we have heard about, can already be used only in circumstances where a person puts another person at risk anyway.

We have heard about the construction sector on a number of occasions. There is an awful lot of bogus self-employment in the construction industry. Does clause 1 deal with that? I thought that the Minister was very precise, in a vague sort of way, in his use of language, because he said that by the time the Bill reached Committee, “activities” would be prescribed. Is that activities or professions and jobs? It would useful to have an idea about that, because we are extremely concerned about clause 1. We would like clarification, both this evening and in Committee, about which jobs will be excluded and reassurances that protections will be in place.

[Mr Letwin]

Of course I am happy to provide that clarification. When the shadow Minister sees the prescribed list, he will see that it largely concerns activities, but also certain sectors in which so many of the activities cause dangers to other people involved in them that they are completely exempted from the provision.

[Mr Wright]

That is helpful.

I thought the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) made a great speech, which was quite literally Churchillian in its approach. Let us not forget that the second Churchill Government produced the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, because Churchill recognised the importance of improved regulation and health and safety in things such as welfare and employment, especially for women and young people. In terms of domestic legislation, the Churchill Administration of 1951 to ’55 were very progressive.

The hon. Gentleman talked about first-time entrepreneurs and first-time exporters. He talked about realising dreams and achieving objectives. I have to agree with him: that is exactly what we want to see. However, there is nothing in this Bill that allows that to happen. Not one jot of what he mentioned in his rhetoric would be allowed under this Bill.