Debates between Lord Snape and Baroness Neville-Rolfe during the 2015-2017 Parliament

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Snape and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Wednesday 4th November 2015

(8 years, 12 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My understanding is that she met with the pubs after the consultation, as, in turn, she will be meeting the tenants once the consultation was published. I have to reject the underlying implication that somehow we are not balanced on this. Consultation is a serious matter for business. You have to put things out in draft and you have to listen to what is said, which is what we always do.

I turn now to Amendment 53ZC. I understand the concerns about potential manipulation of the ownership of tied-pub estates but I am not convinced that this amendment is the way to address the issue. It would place an additional burden on the adjudicator by requiring him or her to monitor all pub sales, to make a judgment as to whether they reveal a pattern of divestments, and to assess whether their effect is to exempt the pub companies concerned from the jurisdiction of the Pubs Code, thereby causing detriment to the tenants concerned. While one large pub company sold around 150 tied pubs earlier this year to a company that will not be covered by the code, another has recently purchased more than twice as many tied pubs that were previously outside the scope of the code. Purchases and sales of this order have been a feature of the sector for at least 15 years. However, the Secretary of State has a duty under Section 46 to review the operation of the Pubs Code every three years, and that will present an opportunity to look again at issues around sales and acquisitions.

Amendment 53ZD was debated in Committee on the 2015 Act. Parliament’s decision to define the threshold for the Pubs Code in terms of tied pubs reflected more than a decade’s worth of evidence that the problem in the pub sector related to abuses in the tied sector. We talked about this at the time. It is those abuses that the Pubs Code Adjudicator has been introduced to address, and I remain of the view that Parliament was correct to define the threshold solely in terms of tied pubs. At present, the amendment would bring within scope just one company with tied pubs—Mitchells & Butlers, which has in total around 1,800 pubs in England and Wales but fewer than 60 tied pubs. Bringing these few extra tied pubs into scope would create the anomaly of leaving a number of companies owning several hundred tied pubs outside it. Such an anomaly would have risked legal challenge—noble Lords will remember that we discussed this before—possibly imperilling all the pubs measures, which was something that we were keen to avoid.

Section 69 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the number of tied pubs required to meet the threshold. That is the right safeguard for ensuring that the code delivers its overarching principles.

I turn now to Amendment 53ZF. I know that it is a disappointment to some noble Lords that the Government have decided not to proceed with implementing the PRA, if I may call it that. As noble Lords will recall, it was the previous Government’s intention during the passage of the Bill to introduce PRA and to streamline it with the market-only option. We have had a change of government and the incoming Government have looked again at the commitments that their predecessors made in order to get the legislation on to the statute book. We have looked at the best way of achieving the objectives of this policy. Our focus has been on providing a robust Pubs Code and adjudicator that deliver fairness for tenants and stability for the industry within the timeframe set out in the Act. It became clear, when working through the details over the summer, that the complexity of introducing PRA alongside MRO would put unnecessary burdens on the industry. Having two processes which can be triggered separately but on the same bases, which are not administratively connected and which follow different timetables and rules is not a practical or sensible proposition. We want to minimise the burdens on business. Not taking forward PRA at this time would reduce the regulatory burden of the pubs measures by £600,000 a year. These are burdens that we would have to compensate for by a reduction in another regulatory area, so it is a big figure at a time when pubs are closing.

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- Hansard - -

Was that figure not available on 28 January when the noble Baroness made that pledge? She said that,

“our amendments provide that they”—

that is, the tenants—

“will have the protection of the parallel rent assessment—PRA—which will show them how their tied deal compares with a free-of-tie deal”.—[Official Report, 28/1/15; col. GC92.]

That appears to be a specific pledge. Did it not cost £600 million then and, if it did, why did she make that pledge?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am sure that we had some measure of the costs available at the time. I am not trying to dispute that. What I am trying to explain is why we have changed the situation. The costs are not the only matter. I am trying to explain how the two measures sit together and how we have sat down to have a look at these things. Perhaps I may proceed.

--- Later in debate ---
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is £600,000 for having the PRA in addition. I am sorry if I gave the figure incorrectly. I felt that it was helpful to share that figure of £600,000 with the Committee.

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- Hansard - -

In the context of government expenditure, we are grateful for that but it does not really amount to a great deal, does it?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Every little helps, as they say.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

This is a figure for the burden on business, so to that extent there is a parallel. Perhaps we can move on but there is a cost, and a complexity, in having a double system. We want to try to do this the right way. The market rent only option is the central plank of the Pubs Code. It is a fundamental change for the industry and, I believe, a powerful new tool for tenants. I do not think that there is any disagreement there.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was concerned that the significant increase in price thresholds had restricted the access of tenants to the MRO trigger. We have taken the advice of stakeholders from across the industry on the definition of a significant increase in price. Our draft code reflects the advice we received: that the primary focus should be on the price of beer and that the threshold should be in the order of 5%. We are consulting on this and the percentage increases for other tied products and services. As I said, we welcome the views of stakeholders.

It is vital that we get this right for all concerned. The market rent only option will ensure that tied tenants are no worse off than free-of-tie tenants. That is the actual principle in the Act. Tied tenants will be able to request a market rent only offer when certain trigger events take place. The Government have published draft provisions that allow for the request by the tenant of an MRO in all the circumstances required by Section 43, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. There are four circumstances, which I will not go into again because noble Lords in this Committee are extremely familiar with this.

When we discussed these provisions before, there was a view that giving tenants access to a variety of comparators was of itself a good thing. That was what was being said in the Chamber, but the conclusion we have come to is that that is not really necessary. What really matters is that the tenants are given meaningful comparisons so that they can make the right business decision. We believe that MRO provides that. They will not be committed to accept the MRO offer but can compare it with the tied terms they are being offered. They can use the MRO offer to negotiate a better tied deal, if that is their preference, or choose to take up the MRO offer. They will not need a PRA to do either of those things. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that there is scope for comparison when a tenant requests an MRO, as he or she can request a tied rent assessment. That allows the comparison process to happen.

However, if experience of the Pubs Code in action produces evidence that the introduction of the PRA provisions would be a useful addition to the options available to tenants, this is something that the Government can of course reconsider. The point has been made. It is in the legislation. The power to introduce PRA remains in the Act but it is the Government’s view that we should focus first and foremost on introducing the MRO-only option and the other key provisions of the code on transparency, with the new adjudicator to enforce them.

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- Hansard - -

Before the Minister leaves that point, how was it possible without PRA for a tenant to demonstrate that they would be worse off? The purpose of PRA was to allow them to prove it one way or the other, was it not, so how can they do that without PRA?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I am sure we will come back to this. I will take that point away and go through it again myself. There is scope for a comparison in the way that I have described, so the tied tenants should be able to look at the options easily and clearly. We are trying to bring in a system that is simple, clear and well understood. We have looked at the provisions in the Act and come forward with a consultation that we feel is fair, right, simpler, easier and better.

--- Later in debate ---
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I demurred from reading out the triggers because I did not want to labour the Committee with too long a speech. I do not think they have changed or been reduced to two.

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- Hansard - -

I am as anxious as ever to help the Minister out but I put the same question to her as I did to my noble friend: do the conditions that the Government have attached to MRO under these proposals not mean that a tenant could apply for a rent review only if he or she received a rent increase, and that they could not apply on the basis of the existing rent?

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- Hansard - -

Or if the price of beer goes up.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, given the disappointment and concerns expressed and the lack of complete clarity as a result of my not having read the consultation paper in detail—I have tried to do so and my understanding is that there are actually four triggers—I suggest that we come back to some of these issues in a meeting, outside Committee and formal debate, between now and Report. In the mean time the discussion should continue at a technical level. We are trying to get a good outcome that will help tied tenants and will help the industry go forward in a prosperous manner. We have put out a consultation paper that was designed to try to do things in a simpler way. It is a genuine consultation. Noble Lords have raised concerns and we will obviously look at those. We will try to clarify the various points raised from the perspective of the concerns that have been expressed.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Snape and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Monday 2nd November 2015

(8 years, 12 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for intervening. I can certainly say that this is a very important point. I know that the task forces set up to look at what can be done for employees who, sadly, lose their jobs are on to this point on apprenticeships. I know that in Redcar some new jobs have already been found, but I am certainly happy to talk to the noble Lord further. I am happy to put that on the record.

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister disabuse either me or the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on our progress today and say whether we intend to move on to the clauses that refer to the pub companies, in the way that the noble Lord obviously feels that we are about to do?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is the noble Lord asking about the target for today’s discussion?

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- Hansard - -

I am.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think we are trying to get to Amendment 52Q, not to pass it—so he can go to the pub.

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- Hansard - -

We can go to the pub after Amendment 52Q, as the noble Baroness said, but I am grateful for that clarification. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is not too disappointed.