Loneliness and Local Communities
Debate between Jo Swinson and Toby PerkinsWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on securing the debate and on all her work on this issue, alongside the hon. Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) and so many others, including, of course, Jo Cox. I did not have the privilege of knowing her—our time in Parliament did not overlap—but even as someone who did not get to meet her personally, it is so clear how her inspiration shines through and lives on in initiatives and debates such as this.
I love the practicality of the hashtag, #HappyToChat, about empowering individuals to make small changes that together can add up to become a big solution to a problem such as loneliness. We all pay tribute to the many volunteers in our communities running the lunch clubs, the faith groups, the youth groups and the community spaces that provide opportunities for people to interact and to help to combat loneliness.
Jo Swinson
I am conscious of time, so I am afraid that I will not.
I remember my time as a new mum on maternity leave. It is so easy to understand how loneliness can creep in and how you can feel like climbing the walls with a new-born. Despite the fact that you are spending 24 hours, 7 days a week with another human being—perhaps it is not despite that, but because of it—challenges arise. It is so easy to feel isolated. At the other end of the age spectrum, I recall my grandfather Matthew Marshall, who, after my grandmother died, I think did feel loneliness. It was compounded by the fact that he suffered from deafness. Particularly as part of a generation that was not able to embrace the internet, that became a massive isolating factor and another layer of difficulty.
On the positive side and the value of social interaction, my grandmother Gladys Swinson—my dad’s mum—lived independently on her own to the age of 99 and then for a further two years in a home. I think one of the secrets to her longevity and long good health was that every day she made a point of going out on the Broadway and going into the shops to get her messages and speak to the individuals. I think the value of that to health is so significant.
The key message we need to learn from this is the value of human interaction. In an age of tablets and smartphones, of technological developments, it is so easy to overlook the importance of a kind word, a friendly conversation, a smile or a hug in all our daily lives, in our public services and in our interactions in shops, at the bus stop, at the school gate, in the queue at the post office, with neighbours, friends and family. Those have such an impact on our quality of life, yet they are not captured in the economic data that too often drives decision making to the exclusion of all else. We cannot be reduced to pounds and pence, to figures on a spreadsheet. Our humanity matters and connecting with others matters. We must all ensure that the issue of loneliness stays on the political agenda.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Jo Swinson and Toby Perkins(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Swinson
The adjudicator will be able to make recommendations so that problems can be put right, and ultimately it will have the power to levy fines. The specific details will be set out in secondary legislation, but we have a model in the Groceries Code Adjudicator. That adjudicator is already working, and we are learning from it how such a system can work smoothly in terms of staffing, for example.
Amendments 43, 44, 45, 55, 132 and 139 are consequential technical amendments to the MRO amendments. They relate to the enforcement of the code, the adjudicator’s annual report, the list of defined terms in clause 69 and to commencement.
The original market rent only clause allowed brewers that own tied pubs to require their MRO tenants to continue to sell the brewery’s products, as long as the tenant may buy them from any source. Amendment 46 implements that intention by amending clause 65 so that such a stocking requirement in a tenancy agreement would not of itself make the pub a tied pub. In stakeholder discussions, brewers requested greater clarity on what they were permitted to do under a stocking requirement; others were concerned that the stocking requirement might lead to undue restrictions on tenants who have chosen MRO.
Amendment 46 clarifies that brewers may also protect their route to market by allowing some restrictions on the sales of competitors’ products in their MRO pubs. However they will not be able to require that these pubs sell only their products and they will need to satisfy themselves that the requirements they are imposing are compliant with competition law. The restrictions may be placed only on beer and cider products and, crucially, tenants must be able to buy the brewer’s products from any source.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
In the event of marketing arrangements which meant that the only place that beers could be purchased was direct from the brewer, do the provisions take account of the fact that the tenant’s right to do so might be difficult to put into practice?
Jo Swinson
The adjudicator could look into whether practices were all fair and whether the code had been properly complied with. Depending on the circumstances, competition law may also be relevant. The companies would have to assure themselves that any restrictions that they were placing were compliant with competition law. Through the new code and the adjudicator we will make sure that there is somebody who can look into the circumstances and arbitrate on whether what is being offered is fair and compliant with the statutory code.
For completeness, I shall touch on three other important areas of debate both here and in the other place where the Government have made important commitments to use existing powers in the Bill. On Report in this House, I committed to consider calls to exempt genuinely short-term agreements from the pubs code. My noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe confirmed that the Government would use the power in clause 68 to exclude from the code tied pubs that are operated on short-term tenancy at will and temporary agreements that do not extend beyond a certain limited period. We intend to consult on the length of the period for exemption.
Hon. Members will remember that pub franchise agreements are in scope of our measures. They are, after all, tied pub agreements and share many of the characteristics of traditional tied pubs. Nevertheless, consistent calls have been made in both Houses to exempt certain franchise agreements from the code, or at least from MRO, if they do not charge rent and the price of products does not affect the tenant’s share of income. After much consideration, my noble Friend the Minister announced in the other place that the Government will use the power in clause 68 to exempt genuine franchises from the MRO provisions. The remaining code protections—for example, in respect of transparency—will still apply.
Given the differences between traditional tied pubs and genuine franchise agreements, we consider this a reasonable exemption. We will consult on the precise definition of “genuine franchise”, but we expect it to include criteria such as where a turnover fee rather than a rent is paid by the tenant and the share of the profit is unaffected by the price paid for tied products. This is important as these criteria can mean that the tenant’s interests are arguably more aligned with those of the pub company because both rely on a fixed proportion of turnover. The tenant in such circumstances does not face the combination of the wet and dry rent, as tenants do in traditional agreements.
There are other agreements in the industry which may be marketed as a pub franchise that display elements common to franchises in other sectors, such as common branding. But if they charge tenants a tied rent in the traditional way, they are not inherently fairer than a tied pub agreement. The consultation will allow us to set out the criteria for a genuine franchise.
In addition, I should clarify that where a franchise pub falls within the definition of a tied pub in clause 65, it will count towards the number of tied pubs that a company owns for the purposes of the 500 tied pub threshold. This will ensure that we do not create a loophole in the legislation. Furthermore, the Government would be able to amend the regulations should there be attempts to use this exemption as a means of avoiding the legislation.
Next, I come to the matter of investment. Hon. Members will recall that Government committed to avoiding unintended consequences in introducing this legislation. In the other place, and in discussions with stakeholders, concerns were raised as to whether investment in tied pubs could be discouraged because of uncertainty as to whether a tied tenant might trigger MRO. Views vary as to the extent of this risk to investment, but the Government consider that we should act to minimise any risk. We want to ensure that investment in pubs can take place and that pubs thrive. I am sure that sentiment is shared across the House.
The Bill as drafted does not prevent pub companies from issuing a tenant with a new lease alongside an offer of investment, and no amendment to the Bill is necessary to enable companies to do so. This would, in effect, provide a waiver from the rent review and renewal MRO triggers for five years. However, the Government recognise that significant investments may warrant a longer period of return on investment. My noble Friend the Minister therefore announced in the other place that the Government will use existing powers in clause 41 to set out in the code different rent assessment periods for different amounts of substantial capital investment offered. This will have the effect of deferring the rent assessment trigger for MRO for a longer period. It is important to note, though, that the other MRO triggers—that of a significant price increase and an economic event that impacts on a tenant’s trade—will remain throughout the deferral period.
Alongside setting out the deferral periods for different levels of investment, the secondary legislation will set out important safeguards for tenants—for example, to ensure that they accept an investment offer only after taking proper advice and that they cannot be pressurised. This is an area where both sides of the debate recognise that the need to enable investment and the need to protect tenants must go hand in hand. It is important that we can consult fully on the details so that we get it right.
These commitments regarding exemptions for certain tenancy at will, temporary and franchise agreements, and for a deferral of MRO in return for substantial investment, are not on the face of the Bill. They will be set out in secondary legislation after full public consultation.
I shall touch briefly on a number of technical amendments in this group before turning to the second issue in the group. Amendments 34 to 37 are technical clarifications to the “no worse off” and “fair and lawful dealing” principles. The key change is to make it clear that tied pub tenants should not be worse off than they would be if they were not subject to any product or service tie. Amendments 35, 36, 38, 42 and 48 to 54 are consequential on the changes made to clause 66 in this House to exclude family brewers from the provisions. This change means the legislation will apply only to a pub-owning business with 500 or more tied pubs. There are further minor technical amendments, on which I refer honourable Members to the explanatory notes for a fuller explanation.
Finally, amendments 136, 137, 138, 140 and 141 relate to adjudicator staffing and the point that I made earlier in response to the hon. Gentleman. They amend schedule 1 to enable the adjudicator to second staff from any source, in addition to the existing power in the Bill for the adjudicator to second from the public sector. The aim is to provide the necessary flexibility for the adjudicator to find suitable staff from a wider pool.
I am sure the House will agree that throughout our debates in both Houses all the pubs measures have been thoroughly scrutinised. Incorporating the market rent only option into the Bill in the limited time available to us and ensuring that it will work in practice has not been easy, but I believe that we have produced legislation that promises to be effective as well as targeted and proportionate. Crucially, these measures mark an historic moment for tied tenants of pub-owning companies. They will have the protections of a statutory code with a powerful and independent adjudicator to enforce that code. That the measures have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, CAMRA, Fair Pint and others is testament to that, so I hope the House will agree to the amendments.
Jo Swinson
Clearly, the intention is to make sure that the adjudicator is able to recruit staff with the requisite expertise and experience, not only from the public sector pool. That is an important change and we have learned from the legislation that we have in place for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Understandable concerns were raised in Committee about whether staff would come with vested interests. It is important that protections are in place to ensure that everybody can have confidence in the staff who are seconded, and to ensure that up-to-date experience of industry does not entail a conflict of interest.
On amendment 86 and the important matter of pay transparency, I am delighted to reiterate the Government’s support for this amendment to the employment part of the Bill that was introduced in the other place. We have already legislated in this Parliament to ensure that companies which directly discriminate against women in pay matters can be required by a tribunal to complete a gender pay audit, as well as to pay compensation. The new provision requires the next Government to make regulations under section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Section 78 requires mandatory reporting of gender pay information by larger companies.
It is 45 years since the Equal Pay Act, and although the gender pay gap is at its lowest ever level and has been virtually eliminated for full-time workers under the age of 40, it is simply not acceptable that in 2015 we still have a gender pay gap at all. We are determined to eliminate it entirely.
Toby Perkins
I endorse what the Minister says about the need to deal with this matter urgently. Given that urgency, will she explain why the provision she is now bringing forward under the Equality Act 2010 has been sitting on the statute book for five years? Why is it that only at the fag end of this Parliament are we seeing some action, which the Opposition have been calling for throughout those years?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition have been calling for this throughout this Parliament, but unfortunately that was not the case when they were in government. I refer him to the Hansard report of proceedings on the Equality Bill on 24 June 2009, when the then Labour Minister said that
“having mandatory arrangements in force by 2011 would run the risk of riding roughshod over the legitimate voice of both sides of the business community. Progress can better be made by bringing employers with us—by including, encouraging and cajoling, rather than compelling.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) responded:
“We cannot wait another four years…It is clear that we must take action now”.––[Official Report, Equality Bill Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2009; c. 410-432.]
We have got agreement in the Government to take that forward, but I have to say that the context of the commitments made from this Dispatch Box by the previous Labour Government during the passage of the Equality Act—they committed to a voluntary approach before implementing the legislation—certainly did not make that easier. None the less, I am delighted that we are now where we are.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Jo Swinson and Toby Perkins(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman could recognise and welcome the fact that the Government have responded to the concerns he raised and have moved on the issue, but he has chosen not to, given his comments about colleagues in the Department, with which I wholeheartedly disagree. We must ensure that we consider those concerns, but they were raised not only by his colleagues, but by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who was a member of the Committee, and by Opposition Members concerned about the issue.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
That is a fundamental part of this. The Government lost the vote in Committee, and now they say that the Bill will go right through to Third Reading as it is, but that they have some vague idea of doing something about the matter in another place. As we have been through Committee and are now on Report, that does not give this House much opportunity to debate whether we are happy with these eventual changes.
Jo Swinson
We have between now and 4 o’clock to have that discussion. What I have clearly set out is in line with what the hon. Gentleman wanted in Committee, which was for smaller companies to be excluded. As I have said, he made the very reasonable and rational point that there were some companies—this deals with the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—that had in excess of 400 tied pubs, for example, and it might seem strange to people that such companies would not be covered. We listened in Committee and now propose that the threshold should be 350 tied pubs, rather than 500. I think that it is a positive thing that the Government have listened to the views of hon. Members and responded accordingly.
Toby Perkins
For the benefit of the House, can the Minister clarify how many businesses she believes will now be brought into scope that would not have been previously?
Jo Swinson
Three further businesses would fall into that category. It is obviously a fluid issue, because companies buy and sell pubs all the time, so that might change in future.
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 will not dwell on the fact that the Minister is suggesting that a consultation is a success if the Government change their view and conclude that something that no one was asking for is the right answer. The industry is desperate for certainty. If we come out of the process proposing another review in two years which might change the whole landscape yet again, does the Minister agree that we will have failed to give the industry the certainty it requires?
Jo Swinson
We recognise that a significant number of companies appreciate the beer tie. For many tenants and companies it is a model that works well, as Members on all sides would agree. Therefore, we do not want to undermine it. There is a danger that that could happen under the market rent only option. Equally, I understand that many people advocate that as a market-based solution to deal with the issue. We are trying to forge a way forward that will have the confidence of the industry and will allow the market rent only option to be introduced two years after commencement of the Bill if a review finds that the parallel rent assessment is not working. It is clear that the “no worse off” principle is paramount and needs to be delivered. We believe that the parallel rent assessment will deliver that, but if it does not, we do not want to have to introduce another piece of primary legislation. We want the Government to be able to act swiftly.
Jo Swinson
I would like to correct the hon. Gentlemen’s characterisation of what is happening. He is saying that this is the market rent only option but with a two-year wait. To be absolutely accurate, it is a power for the Secretary of State to introduce the market rent only option after a period of two years if a review finds that that is necessary. That is not exactly the same thing. It is important to put that on the record.
Throughout this process, the Government have been engaging with companies and with individuals. The market rent only option was extensively covered and discussed within the consultation process. I have had very many such discussions with companies over the course of the past 18 months. As was put to us forcefully on various occasions, some large pub companies will not welcome this and are very opposed to it. At the same time, we recognise the issues that have been raised in successive BIS Committee reports about the tenants who are suffering and the need to do something about it. We think that our parallel rent assessment is a proportionate and sensible way forward that will deliver for tenants, but we are keen to make sure that if that does not happen we do not end up at this stage again; we need the ability to act swiftly to introduce a market rent only option.
Toby Perkins
Let me try to clarify this. In the last few moments we have discovered that there is to be a two-year review before fundamental change to the industry, leading to two years of uncertainty. Is the Minister saying that she has discussed a whole series of things over 18 months but has not spoken to anyone within the industry about the new development that she is presenting to us today?
Jo Swinson
I am saying that we have had plenty of negotiations and discussions about all the different options, but specific round tables have not been reconvened with the industry since the Committee stage. We know where the industry stands on this. My officials are in regular contact with the industry and with campaign groups, who have been making their cases fervently. Many Members represent tenants and also have pub companies and family brewers in their constituencies. Ministers have had many discussions with those hon. Members on behalf of their constituents who have raised these issues over the past couple of weeks since the Committee stage. Indeed, we also had such extensive debates in Committee. There has been plenty of consultation.
Jo Swinson
The review was always built into the process, because we wanted to look at how the measure was working. What is new is the introduction of the power to introduce a market rent only option, and when that proposal goes before the other place, supporting documentation, such as impact assessments, will also be submitted. Clearly, different quarters have opposing views on what it will mean: some say it will be excellent for business, while others say it will result in concerns for business. People will not necessarily concur and agree about what the exact impact will be, but the Government will produce the documentation to go alongside that amendment when it is tabled in the other place.
The Government’s technical amendments—amendments 34, 35 and 55—deal with the particular issue of franchises. Clause 40 already makes it clear that tied pub agreements are in the scope of the pubs code where tenants pay some sort of fee, such as a turnover fee, rather than rent. Such agreements are often called franchise agreements and it is right that they are covered. The same potential for the abuse of a tie exists, and if franchises were not in scope there would be a sizeable loophole by which companies could evade the code.
Amendments 34 and 35 therefore ensure that franchises are covered by clause 42, which refers to rent assessment and rent review arrangements, which the Secretary of State may rule as void or unenforceable. Amendment 55 provides the Secretary of State with a power to define parallel rent assessments in regulations so that we can ensure there is appropriate flexibility in the approach to cater for franchise pubs. That will allow the final design of parallel rent assessments to take account of further engagement with the industry and public consultation, and through that we will ensure that those assessments are available to all tied tenants of large pub-owning companies.
Amendments 40 and 56 ensure that agreements where the tenant is tied for some or all alcoholic drinks are still covered, even when the tenant does not purchase those drinks from the pub-owning company. We are aware of some franchise agreements where the tenant does not technically purchase drinks from the pub-owning company. The tenant is still contractually obliged to sell those drinks on behalf of the pub-owning company and cannot source them elsewhere, so the amendments are important to avoid a loophole in the legislation.
The Opposition’s amendment 5 seeks to clarify that franchise agreements are in scope of the legislation. I absolutely agree with that view and hope the hon. Member for Chesterfield will be reassured by the Government amendments, which make that crystal clear and address the point by ensuring that no loopholes are being created.
Amendments 38, 39 and 47 to 53 seek to ensure that tied agreements are covered by the protections of the pubs code, whether the tenant occupies the pub under a tenancy or under a licence to occupy. This is another measure to ensure that all tied tenants are protected. Amendments 36, 37, 42, 46 and 54 are technical clarifications to ensure that the provisions of the Bill apply to pub-owning companies and any subsidiary companies they may own.
Finally, amendment 57 provides that all regulations under part 4, other than regulations under clause 61(1)(c), are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which, given the sensitivity surrounding the issues and the interest in them, is absolutely appropriate. I hope the Government amendments will be supported and that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be reassured by our commitment to make further changes in the other place in order to address any concerns.
Toby Perkins
It is always a singular pleasure for this House to gather to discuss what we can do to support our great British pubs, which are crucial institutions, bedrocks of our community and vital economic and social hubs, as well as really important employers, particularly of women and young people—two groups who are underrepresented in the workplace. Pubs and brewers also make an incredibly important contribution to the economy as taxpayers and employers, and our communities take tremendous pride in these institutions. The industry is watching this debate with tremendous interest and concern, in the hope that we in this place will do justice by everyone involved in it.
The Government are creating a spectacle by changing the Bill as we speak. These are incredibly important issues, but the Government’s attempts at debating this part of the Bill are rather like attempting to mount a moving bus: the moment we think we know what we are going to discuss, the debate suddenly focuses on something completely different. It is a complete and utter shambles.
Jo Swinson
We have had a lively debate on the various amendments before us. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) made the point that today has the potential to be a great day for Parliament. Given all the detailed discussions we have had—that is what we do on Report—getting into the specifics on thresholds, family brewers and new clause 2, I think it is easy to lose sight of quite how far we have come and what a real change this Bill will mean for tenants who have been arguing for such a long time for action to be taken to improve their situation.
We have heard hon. Members make contributions of various lengths—significant, in some cases—and we have heard more make interventions, on both sides of the argument, about new clause 2, and we have heard speeches from those who powerfully oppose it. I want to respond to some of the specific points made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about family brewers and the Government’s proposed threshold of 350. He was right that earlier I confirmed that three companies would be included. An important fact to put on the record is that none of those three is a family brewer. Those who have been arguing for the exclusion of family brewers can rest assured that, with the reduction in the threshold from 500 to 350, that exemption will remain, as I think was the will of the Committee, which the Government have listened to and recognised should be reflected in the Bill.
I take issue with the suggestion that those companies are all small businesses. Of the three that will be included by changing the threshold from 500 to 350, one has a turnover of £758 million a year and some 16,000 members of staff. I do not think that it is accurate to say that we are necessarily talking about small companies in that sense. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who is new to the House, asked about the brewery JW Lees in her constituency. I am happy to confirm that with fewer than 350 tied pubs, it will not be affected by the measures.
In his comments about family brewers and the changes we have introduced, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford indicated a certain lack of confidence that the commitments made here by the Government will be implemented. We have set those out in clear words, which will appear in black and white in Hansard if he chooses to read it tomorrow. The amendments will be made in the other place but this House will have the opportunity to vote on them as well. The situation is not necessarily good versus evil, as he outlined it. I began to worry that he was being a bit uncharitable towards me at one point, until he compared my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary to Saruman, who was a pretty evil and nasty piece of work. I do not think that comparison is warranted, but perhaps I should just be pleased that my hon. Friend did not reach for Sauron instead.
New clause 2, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), seeks to introduce a market rent only option requiring pub-owning companies with more than 500 pubs of any description and one or more of those being a tied pub to offer their tied tenants the right to go free of tie. It is widely accepted in the industry that tied tenants should be no worse off than free-of-tie tenants. It is one of the key principles underpinning the Government’s proposals and goes to the very heart of the measures we have set out in this Bill. There was an attempt in Committee to take that principle out—a probing attempt, apparently, but none the less an attempt—by some of the Back Bench who have spoken today. It is a vital principle that underpins the impact that we are trying to have.
Toby Perkins
The hon. Lady to some extent predicted what I am going to say. People who listened to the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) might want to reflect on the fact that he attempted to introduce an amendment in Committee that would have removed the principle that tied tenants should be no worse off than tenants free of tie. It may be valuable for hon. Members to consider in that light everything else they have heard from him.
Jo Swinson
Indeed. I am glad that that amendment did not ultimately form part of the Bill, as that principle, which we have set out from the beginning, is crucial. We looked at various means of achieving it. One of the things we consulted on was whether the market rent only option should be included in the pubs code. We looked carefully at whether to introduce that. It might seem a straightforward way of strengthening the negotiating position of tenants, because if they are faced with a compulsory free-of-tie option alongside market rent only, pub-owning companies will arguably work much harder to offer a tied deal which represents a fair share of risk and reward.
The freedom to choose the supplier and the likely lower costs of supply could mean that free-of-tie agreements offer greater potential profits for tenants wanting to maximise the benefit of those terms. Those would be the most experienced and entrepreneurial tenants. It would not necessarily help others, whereas the parallel rent assessment will do that. It was interesting from the consultation, and almost unique in such a polarised policy area, that concerns were expressed by people on all sides of the debate about the impact of introducing that provision and the consequences it could have on the tied model as a whole. There would be some uncertainty and unpredictability, especially in relation to pub-owning companies and how they would respond.
The parallel rent assessments that we are introducing provide a way of making sure that the prime principle that a tied tenant should not be worse off than a free-of-tie tenant can be enacted and made real. That is why we are proceeding with the arrangement.
Jo Swinson
I can give an assurance that the review will be rigorous and that, in response to it, there will not only be this power for the Secretary of State, but, if he finds that there is insufficient protection for tenants as a result of the parallel rent assessments and the system is not working as it should, a requirement for him to bring forward the market rent only option.
Toby Perkins
The Minister is attempting to straddle a very difficult line. She claims that we should believe that the measures proposed by the Government today are likely to work, but if not there is an alternative process that is her party’s policy for which she will argue going into a general election. Why do we not just do away with all that nonsense, give the industry some certainty, and support new clause 2?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it would be Liberal Democrat policy. Clearly, we are in a coalition Government rather than a Liberal Democrat Government, and people will make their decisions when it comes to the general election in which we will all be campaigning and voting in a few months’ time.
We have before us a Bill that will improve the lives of tenants and makes real the principle that a tied tenant should be no worse off than a free-of-tie tenant. The hon. Member for Bedford suggested an analogy with “The Lord of the Rings”. Perhaps I can posit an alternative scenario. I think that what we have had on this issue over the past few years is a rather intrepid fellowship—a group including MPs from all parties in all parts of the House, tenants, Select Committees, business groups, and campaigners. I will leave hon. Members to make up their own minds about who among them would be deemed to be hobbits, elves, dwarves or men—[Interruption]—and, indeed, who has been Gandalf at their head. The members of this intrepid fellowship have campaigned hard. In some ways, they probably feel that they have been on an epic journey, battling against the unfairness that has been repeatedly highlighted in Select Committee reports.
We need to recognise that the result of that campaign by all those individuals has been to achieve a great success. What we have is proposed legislation with a statutory code and a pubs adjudicator who can make that code a reality and ensure that if it is not abided by there can be arbitration, investigations, and ultimately, if necessary, penalties with real teeth. We also have the parallel rent assessments to make sure that the system bites. Now, going even further, we have the power to introduce the market rent only option if all that is ultimately unable to work. That is a huge success for campaigners who have worked on this issue for many years. I think that people should welcome what has happened.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West will recognise that success, see how far he has come, and think twice about putting his new clause to the vote. In the Bill before us, we have a solution to the issue identified in the Select Committee reports and a way to make sure that if that does not work we have the ability swiftly to implement a market rent only option. I commend this part of the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Pubs code: market rent only option for large pub-owning businesses
(1) The Pubs Code shall include a Market Rent Only Option to be provided by large pub-owning businesses in respect of their tenants and leaseholders.
(2) A Market Rent Only Option means the right of the tenant, or leaseholder, of a pub owned by a large pub-owning business, to be offered such tenancy or lease in exchange for an independently assessed market rent paid to the pub-owning business and, for the avoidance of doubt, not thereafter being bound by “a tie”, meaning an agreement meeting, in whole or in part, Condition D as defined in section 63(5) of this Act (obligation to buy from the landlord, or from a person nominated by the landlord, some or all of the alcohol to be sold at the premises).
(3) For the purposes of this section, the definition of Condition D in subsection (2) is to be interpreted to include an obligation to buy or contract for goods and services other than alcohol.
(4) For the purposes of this section, 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); and
(b) one or more tenanted or leased pub.
(5) The Pubs Code may include provisions to permit a brewery which qualifies as a large pub-owning business to continue to require that specified brands produced by that brewery (required products) are sold within its tenanted or leased pubs—provided that such tenants and leaseholders are free to purchase such required products from any supplier.
(6) The Pubs Code shall contain provisions requiring that the offer of a Market Rent Only Option to a tenant—
(a) at the point of lease, tenancy contract or other agreement renewal, or at rent review or five years from the date of the previous rent review;
(b) when the large pub-owning business gives notice of, or imposes, (whichever is the earlier) a significant increase in the price at which it supplies products, goods or services (falling under subsections (2) or (3)) to the tenant;
(c) when a large pub-owning business implements, or gives notice of, a transfer of title;
(d) when a large pub-owning business goes into administration; or
(e) upon an event outside of the tenant’s control, and unpredicted at the time of the previous rent review, that impacts significantly on the tenant’s ability to trade.
(7) The terms of an offer under subsection (5) shall include provision for a 21 day period of negotiation, commencing from the tenant giving notice of an intention to pursue a Market Rent Only Option, in which the large pub-owning business and the tenant may seek to negotiate a mutually agreeable Market Rent Only settlement.
(8) Following the negotiation period under subsection (7) there shall follow a 90 day period of assessment. In this period—
(a) an independent assessor shall be appointed with the agreement of both parties by joint private instruction and on the basis of an equal apportionment of costs; and
(b) under arrangements and criteria that the Adjudicator shall establish, such an assessor shall be—
(i) independent of both parties; and
(ii) competent by virtue of qualification and/or experience.
(c) if the business and tenant cannot agree on an appointee then a person shall be appointed, on the application of either party, under arrangements established by the Adjudicator;
(d) the appointed assessor shall then assess the market rent for the property operating as a pub with no “tie” as defined in subsection (2) and submit to both parties the resulting sum for such a rent; and
(e) at the time of the three month assessment period, the tenant shall have the right to pay no more than the sum determined under paragraph (d) to the pub-owning business and, if previously one party to a “tie” as defined in subsection (2), shall no longer be bound by it.
(9) The Pubs Code shall contain such measures as ensure that—
(a) the Market Rent Only Option is conducted in accordance with timing provisions and procedures, in accordance with RICS guidance, as specified in the Pubs Code; and
(b) large pub-owning businesses are prohibited from acting or discriminating against any of their tenants who choose the Market Rent Only Option.
(10) The Secretary of State shall confer on the Adjudicator functions and powers in relation to the Market Rent Only Option, that include—
(a) determining what constitutes a significant increase in price, as mentioned in subsection (6)(b) in the event of a dispute between tenant and business;
(b) adjudicating in disputes concerning the process or outcome of the market rent assessment; including the power to set the market rent if the Adjudicator deems the process or decision to have been flawed; and
(c) receiving, investigating and adjudicating in relation to complaints made under subsection (9)(b).
(11) The Secretary of State shall make provisions for the implementation of the following measures in this section by regulations amending the Pubs Code. Such regulations shall be made under negative resolution procedure. The Secretary of State may make provisions changing the types of agreement that fall under subsection (2) by regulations. Such regulations shall be made under negative resolution procedure.”—(Greg Mulholland.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Pub Companies
Debate between Jo Swinson and Toby Perkins(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Toby Perkins
I was with the hon. Gentleman for a bit. I have referred to one of his hon. Friends, but if he is disappointed that I did not mention him, I apologise. I do not mean to be ungallant, but the Under-Secretary’s first contribution to the debate was to tell the House that self-regulation was working and there was nothing else to say on pubs.
Toby Perkins
I do not know quite how the Under-Secretary has got into the position of taking credit, but we might be about to find out.
Jo Swinson
It might be helpful to the House to clarify that I did not make the contribution the hon. Gentleman describes to the House or anything else. I am not sure where he gets his information.
Toby Perkins
I will be talking about the quotes attributed to the Under-Secretary by the Morning Advertiser. She is welcome to take the paper to court if they are not true, but it says that she said that, so I was working on that basis.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) referred to the role of the Secretary of State, who made it clear when appearing before the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on 20 July 2010 that he would honour the previous Government’s commitment. I have no idea why he did not honour that commitment—it should have been honoured 18 months ago. Perhaps it was naivety or a generosity of spirit that does him credit—the belief that, this time, the pubcos would know that the Government were serious. I do not know, but we should be clear that the delay has been costly for the industry and catastrophic for some victims.
Let no one say that the pubcos were not given long enough or that there has been a rush to legislate. Make no mistake: when the Committee said that statutory regulation was needed, it was the reluctant conclusion of Members who had taken every possible step to avoid making that recommendation. Given the breadth of support for the Committee’s stance, it is hardly surprising that there was dismay when the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), decided instead a year ago to give the pubcos yet another final chance.
Jo Swinson
I am sorry. Owing to the lack of time, I must press ahead with my summation.
A differential beer duty was suggested, but it would not be possible to introduce such a scheme on the basis of where alcohol was being sold. However, the Government have already acted on a differential duty in relation to the strength of beer. In October 2011, the duty on high-strength beer rose and the duty on low-strength beer fell. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle made an important point about minimum pricing, which could help pubs to regain an advantage when competing against low-priced supermarket booze.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said that regulation might not be needed. That might not be a popular argument today, but I understand what he is saying. It is right that the Government should regulate only as a last resort, and that we should seek alternative solutions first. We have sought solutions, however. The industry was put on notice last year and, sadly, it has not delivered. My hon. Friend also mentioned his concern about a two-tier system. It is right that we should focus regulation on those with the greatest market power. That is proportionate because the evidence shows that the greatest problems are in that part of the industry.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, the consultation sets out that that regulation would relate to the six largest pub companies, with a threshold of 500 tied or tenanted properties. Those companies would be Punch, Enterprise, Marston’s, Greene King, Admiral and Star. Our consultation will listen to views on what the right definition and the threshold should be. I hear the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) that the threshold should be lower than 500. I encourage hon. Members who have a view on those issues to contribute to the consultation.
There has been much debate on the free-of-tie option this afternoon, and there are arguments on both sides. The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) said that the tie must go, but I believe that the beer tie can be important, especially for small family breweries such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). Indeed, in January 2011, CAMRA stated:
“Without the right to tie pubs, the Family Brewers wouldn’t bring their beers to the bar. Closures amongst the smaller brewers would be inevitable. The tie is a viable way for them to run their pubs.”
The problem is not the tie, as such, but the abuse of the tie.
Toby Perkins
There has been a great deal of cross-party agreement in the debate, and many people will be watching it on television. Will the Minister confirm that she will support our motion, so that we can all work together and ensure that we get to where we want to be?
Jo Swinson
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we will support the amendment, which does something that his motion does not do—namely, it proposes the introduction of an adjudicator, on which the Government are going to consult. I believe that that is essential, but it is missing from the hon. Gentleman’s motion. However, I welcome the fact that he has brought this topic forward for debate today.
“A new independent statutory code of practice should be imposed to uphold the prime principle—that the tied tenant should be no worse off than if free of tie”.
Those are not my words, but those of the Independent Pub Confederation. That is the key principle on which the new statutory code should be based. This will be looked at across the board—taking into account the profits, the prices, the insurance, other benefits and the rents—and the adjudicator will be able to look at the whole picture. Having higher beer prices mitigated by lower rents and business support is a valid business model, but having higher beer prices and higher rents is just a rip-off. As the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said, the combination of the two is what causes the problems.
Let me deal briefly with the process and timetable. The Government propose a consultation of six weeks, and we will publish it as soon as possible in the spring. The adjudicator would have to be established by primary legislation, and we are keen to press ahead with the timetable. The House’s support will be helpful in that regard. We will consult on the details in the consultation, and I encourage those interested to ensure that they set out their views. To respond to an earlier query, the consultation will include the future role of self-regulation and of the Pubs Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The power to fine, which the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) mentioned, is certainly envisaged for severe cases, which will of course be decided by the adjudicator.
In conclusion, we want to build a stronger economy and a fairer society, and the Government’s action on pubs will help to achieve both objectives. It will create a stronger economy because pubs are an important part of it, and this will help them to thrive. As for a fair society, pubs are also an important part of our communities and this action will help to put a stop to lessees being treated unfairly by large companies and to abuse of the beer tie. This is good for publicans, good for pubs and good for the public.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Jo Swinson and Toby Perkins(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Swinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is certainly interesting that three quarters of the new pubs that have opened in the last year and a bit have been freehold. That says a lot about how people who are looking to set up pubs feel about the business models. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) outlined some of the initiatives of global entrepreneurship week. The Government have a raft of measures to support small businesses. I know that Members from all parts of the House want to support small community businesses in their constituencies, including small breweries.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister says that she wants to hear from the industry. If she has looked into this matter, she will know that the entire industry was united in thinking that the Government’s response last November was too weak. The Secretary of State said in June 2010 that he would support the commitments made by the previous Government, and this House set out its clear view in January 2012. Now, years after all the Select Committee reviews, we have yet another consultation. Why does the Minister not listen to the view of this House, listen to the view of the industry and set up an independent review of whether self-regulation is working? Let us start saving some jobs and pubs before it is too late.
Jo Swinson
I am listening; that is the purpose of asking the industry how the current approach is working. There are positive signs, such as the setting up of the Pubs Advisory Service and the Pubs Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service. PICAS has started to hear cases and two have been found in favour of the tenants. There has been positive action and we need to assess whether that is sufficient. That is what the gathering of evidence is designed to do.