Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I apologise for the confusion. There are a lot of different amendments here and perhaps I may have noble Lords’ patience. Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify to which amendments in which groups he seeks a response, because there are two or three different ones that relate to “must” and “may”. I explained where I was happy to accept “must”. If he is asking me to accept it in other places, there are reasons that I can go through.
My apologies to the House; we have moved on more rapidly than I could possibly have believed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for his amendments. Amendments 33H and 33K would change two references to “may” in Clause 42. This would turn the powers in the Pubs Code to require pub companies to provide parallel rent assessments and give the adjudicator functions in relation to PRAs into duties. We have made a commitment to this House to introduce PRA. This commitment, together with the duty on the Secretary of State to produce the Pubs Code in Clause 42(1), means that the Government must deliver on these provisions in the secondary legislation one year after these provisions come into force, as I explained a minute ago. There can be no doubt that we will introduce these provisions.
We had similar debates on a number of topics in Committee. As I set out then, it is standard legislative drafting to refer to provisions that “may” be set out in secondary legislation to preserve some flexibility. If we were to change these “mays” into “musts”, we would need to be aware of the possibility of overly restricting and restraining the use of these powers. For example, we have said that the adjudicator “may”, in the interests of fairness and administrative effectiveness, choose not to charge fees to smaller pub companies that have bought only one pub formerly owned by a pub company. These amendments would remove such flexibility and I hope my noble friend will recognise the undesirability of that. I can assure him that the Government will include all the provisions set out in the Bill in the statutory code, which will be made by secondary legislation and subject to parliamentary scrutiny by the affirmative procedure.
With noble Lords’ permission, I shall comment on Amendments 33AJ, 33AL and 33AP. Where the Bill provides that the Secretary of State “may” by regulations give the adjudicator functions in relation to dispute resolution and determining rent for market rent only, it is clear that the Government must set out these functions for the adjudicator in secondary legislation. Clause 42(1) sets out a clear duty on the Government to introduce the statutory code within 12 months of the Bill coming into force—14 months from Royal Assent, as I have said—and to establish an adjudicator to enforce the code. The code must include the market rent only option and the adjudicator must therefore be able to enforce the market rent only option.
I turn now to Amendment 33AR. The definition of a tied pub set out in Clause 68 determines the scope of the regime and deliberately focuses on the alcohol tie, rather than other product and service ties. This is because it is in the abuse of the combination of the alcohol tie and property rent that we have evidence of problems in the relationship between tenants and pub-owning companies. This has been documented in the evidence we received to the Government’s consultation, in the continued correspondence the department receives from tied tenants, and in the multiple reports into the sector carried out by the BIS Select Committee. These reports and the evidence we have received point to problems with the alcohol tie.
The requirements for a market rent only-compliant agreement set out in the Bill specify that an agreement made once the tenant has opted for MRO must not include any alcohol, product or service ties. This is to ensure, when a tenant opts for MRO, that he or she is offered a genuinely free-of-tie agreement. However, it does not follow that all pubs with any kind of tie should be brought into the scope of the code at the outset. Amending the definition of a tied pub in the way proposed is a different prospect, as this changes the scope and application of the measures as a whole. For example, this would mean that a pub with no alcohol tie but with a service tie of some description would be covered by the legislation. This would bring into scope a pub that is contracted to a pub-owning company for something like cleaning services, but is in all other respects free of tie and able to purchase beer and other products from any source. This is not the sort of pub where we have evidence of a problem, and I believe we must avoid inadvertently capturing free-of-tie pubs and creating greater uncertainty in the regime. Focusing these measures on those pubs that are tied for their beer and alcohol will ensure that we target that part of the market where we have evidence of a problem.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Stoneham has found my explanation reassuring. I know it is all very complex, but on the basis of my full explanation, which I think has explained why the Bill says “may” and “must” on different occasions, I hope that he will feel reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, could the noble Baroness clarify—I, too, feel that it is a bit complicated—that the first five amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, which replace “may” with “must”, will in fact be done in secondary legislation? Even if she does not accept these amendments, will their spirit and meaning be in the secondary legislation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am sorry; I think he is a friend on this occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—I will have to go back to Lords school shortly. As I explained in my long reply, it is standard legislative drafting to refer to provisions that “may” be set out in secondary legislation. In practice, we will do all the things that I have described. Therefore, I feel that these “musts” are not needed.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
Before we get to that, could the Minister please clarify what she said, quite a long time ago in a very interesting speech, about the timing of the introduction of the MRO? That has been changed in her amendments; the Bill says a maximum of one year. What is the actual timing? That is one of our big worries—that this could get kicked into the long grass.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for raising that point. The confusion may arise because it is within 12 months of Royal Assent.
Lord Berkeley
If it will help the Minister to deal with this, I could speak for a little longer. I thank her for her comments generally in her necessarily long speech. She gave me a lot of comfort that what the Government are trying to do is the right thing. She prayed in aid the will of the Commons a number of times, and that is right. Of course, timing is one of those issues. I will be very pleased to hear what she has to say.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Before the noble Lord sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, takes the Floor, the answer is 12 months—but that is 12 months after the Bill comes into force. Apparently it will take two months for the Bill to go through to Royal Assent, so the maximum is 14 months. However, the message that I was trying to impart to the Committee is that we are determined to get on with this, push ahead and find workable solutions in that time.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for these amendments. In the spirit of collaboration, perhaps I can explain why we see them as problematic and see whether he agrees.
Amendment 68T would require pub-owning companies to publish wholesale prices. Even if that requirement was limited to alcoholic drinks, it would make public the details of a commercial financial arrangement between two parties to the world at large—including the pub owner’s customers, if I have understood the amendment correctly. It is important to stress that in this Part of the Bill we are regulating the relationship between tied tenants and their pub companies. At no point in our consultations has the need to publish wholesale prices emerged as a requirement to address unfairness. To do so would be an additional piece of regulation for the sector on top of the regulation we are introducing. In a few cases, pub-owning companies that we expect to be covered by the code already publish their wholesale drink prices online. Others publish those prices on a site with access restricted to their own tenants. Others do not publish them at all. On beer prices, tied tenants will tend to pay higher prices for their beer than from an outside wholesaler. That is integral to the tied deal. We recognise that transparency is important, and the Pubs Code already provides that transparency where it is needed—in the relationship between the tenant and the pub-owning company. As I said, the Pubs Code will require the wholesale prices to be provided to the tenant, as well as the current and relevant price lists.
Turning to Amendment 68U on guest beer, when the Government consulted on the issues and evidence that preceded the drafting of these clauses, we included questions about guest beer. The reasons for rejecting that option were clearly set out in our response to the consultation. Some will remember that I come from an all-male family of very keen beer drinkers, so I sympathise with the point, but while there was considerable support for the right to stock a guest beer, there were concerns about the potential for this to undermine the tied model by reducing the alignment of interests between the tenant and the pub company. This was because many tenants would select a draught lager as guest beer, which would typically be the biggest-selling beer. The proposal in the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to address this concern by stipulating that the guest beer should be limited to a brand of cask-conditioned or bottle-conditioned beer. I understand that. Unfortunately, this raises potential competition law issues. We are advised that restricting the guest beer to a particular type is likely to be contrary to EU competition law.
I hope that that background shows that the Government have considered the noble Lord’s proposition seriously and that, in the circumstances, he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister and to my noble friends for their responses. On Amendment 68T, I think that putting the price of beer charged to a tenant in the public domain may be going a little bit over the top, but if it is published on a website and available to the tenant that is fair enough. However, this comes to the imbalance between a small business—and tenants are, after all, very small businesses—and the pubco. The fact that these people did not understand that the price of beer may not have been what they thought shows something about the unbalanced and bad relationships that some of these pubcos clearly have with some of their tenants. I am not blaming anybody but they are small businesses. Maybe we could have a think about that and have a meeting to discuss it before Report.
Amendment 68U deals with guest beer. I spent the morning at DG Comp in Brussels today. I cannot say I was talking about beer but I know the people there well and I can always check on that. There are important issues here but perhaps we could have a discussion about this too. I would like to see guest beers in some of the tied pubs and I think many others would too. What beers they are would depend on what kind of beer you like drinking. That is enough of that, at this time of the night. I am grateful for the Minister’s response and look forward to further discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this amendment concerns how the adjudicator takes into account the various financial factors relating to a pub when considering what its market rent should be. We have a lot of pubs where I live in Cornwall, some of them very lovely ones on the waterfront. I do not know how much money they make but there is a feeling that if they were sold for desirable waterside residences, of which there are already an enormous number, they could probably fetch a much larger amount of money than they earn for the owners at the moment as pubs.
That may or may not matter, but there is an issue here of what the role of the pub is in a small community. It acts as a kind of community centre. It may be where people congregate at different times of the day. It keeps village life going. It would be a great shame if the value of a pub on the open market, for retail or as a house, made it in the interests of the landlords to sell it and try to change its use.
There was another example in the Guardian last Saturday, in a nice article on pubs generally, given by someone who works for a company called Paramount Investments:
“In north London if I am selling a pub as a development opportunity I might be able to ask £700,000-£1m for something that as a pub I would only be able to get £350,000-£450,000 for”.
It gives other examples in Marylebone and other places where property values are very high, as they are in London. The problem is wider than London and Cornwall; it could be in many places where the property value is high. In this amendment, which obviously is a probing amendment so the wording might not be quite right, I am trying to propose that in assessing the rent no allowance should be made for a change in value due to a change of use that could be achieved if the pub were no longer a pub. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment and I am looking forward to visiting some of his local pubs in Cornwall before long. To be brief, subsection (10) of the proposed new clause in government Amendment 89A makes it clear that a market rent is,
“the rent which the premises might reasonably be expected to fetch at that time in the open market”,
on the assumption that the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises remains the main activity or one of the main activities of the premises. It is clear that the market rent is for the premises as a pub. I hope this reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Berkeley
I am very grateful to the Minister. The amendment came through after I went through all this. I am very grateful for her explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I really cannot imagine how anyone would want to take a franchise like this. It is a variation on the old zero-hours contract, which we talk about. It could be a franchise with zero income and the hours being 24/7. Why should anybody want this contract? I will be interested to hear what the Minister says, but the pubcos must love it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for this amendment on franchises and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his intervention. Pub franchises are of course covered by these measures because they fall within the definition of a tied pub in Clause 65. I understand my noble friend’s argument that a pub franchise agreement based on a share of turnover, rather than a tied rent, can lead to a better alignment of interests between a pub company and a tenant.
However, there are other aspects of the pub company and tenant relationship that can lead to unfairness, in the same way as for more traditional tied pubs. The Pubs Code includes transparency protections for tied tenants to ensure that they are clear as to what they are signing up to. We believe that these protections and others in the code should be available for all tied pub tenants, including those with a pub franchise agreement. I can, however, provide some reassurance to my noble friend. If, as he says, price increases make no impact on the tenant in a franchise agreement, the MRO-only trigger for pricing will never apply to a franchise agreement. Should a franchisee exercise the MRO option the pub company will still be able to benefit from the stocking requirement, so the tenant could still be required to stock its beer and/or its cider. The pubs company’s obligation to provide services as part of the franchise agreement would of course fall away.
I am, however, afraid that we believe that to exempt franchises would leave a loophole in the legislation. Tied pubs could be converted to franchise pubs to gain exemption from the code. If pub franchise agreements seek to reduce some of the risks of the tied model for tenants by revenue-sharing, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson explained, we would welcome that. One would expect such agreements to be less likely to fall foul of the Pubs Code. In turn, one would expect those tenants to be more satisfied and less likely to request the MRO option. This is not a reason, however, for removing franchise agreements from the scope of the legislation where we remain uneasy about opening up a loophole. I appreciate my noble friend’s amendment but I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.