Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

There is, indeed, far too much abuse of the system of cash retention, and it has been going on for too long. The burden of administrative time spent securing payments and the drain on working capital weigh far too heavily on smaller firms in the supply chain, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be taking action.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

If the Government had only listened in 2015 to the amendments the Labour party tabled to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, we would already have a solution. We were told then that the Government were going to take action. We were told again a few months ago that they were taking action with their proposals about naming and shaming businesses that did not publish their late payments. We now have yet another consultation. Research from Crossflow Payments shows that 74% of small businesses do not believe that the Government’s recent changes will make any difference. Can we have a policy that actually enforces action on late payments, rather than the series of consultations that we have had?

[Margot James]

I agree that action is needed, but it is important that we take the right action. We have undertaken a consultation, the results of which will be published shortly. That will be followed by a consultation on the 2011 changes to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, which will consider the merits of ring-fencing retentions and the extent to which contractors are making the payment of retentions conditional on the performance of obligations under other, completely separate contracts.

CSC: Redundancies

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered redundancies at CSC.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I want to talk today about the redundancy programme that has been introduced by Computer Sciences Corporation; the impact of the redundancies on my constituency and on services provided to the UK Government and the wider economy; the management of CSC and its financial and service performance; and the way in which CSC performs its functions and how that fits into the UK’s economic interests. I am also keen to explore the plan to merge with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services to create one of the world’s biggest IT services conglomerates, and whether the rush to deliver that change and the attached bonuses might be becoming a paramount concern over the long-term interests of the business and the impact that it has on the services that it provides in the UK.

CSC is a Texas-headquartered IT services software and outsourcing corporation employing 70,000 people worldwide—that number has gone down 26,000 in the last five years. The company designs, builds, runs and maintains major critical IT systems for many UK private and public sector organisations, including—but not limited to—the Metropolitan police, the national health service, Network Rail, civil nuclear fuels, BAE Systems, HM Passport Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and many other Government Departments. It also has specialisms in other industries, such as insurance.

CSC employs around 5,500 people in the UK. Its latest round of redundancies, which will see about 1,100 more people laid off on top of the 499 redundancies that were recently announced, means that around 2,350 people will have been made redundant in the last financial year. CSC has many employees who work from home—so, in potentially every single constituency in the country—and major offices in Aldershot, Banbury, Chorley, Leeds, London, Preston and in my constituency. Those jobs are high-skilled, with people predominantly employed on salaries that are considerably above the average national wage—we might say that those jobs are precisely the kind that the UK economy needs more of. The move follows the announcement that CSC will merge with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services to form DXC Technology, which will, with revenues worth $26 billion dollars, be one of the world’s largest IT services companies. I will refer more to the merger shortly, but first I will tell the House about CSC and its impact on Chesterfield, as I think that will put the firm’s performance and actions into context.

CSC has been based in Chesterfield since 2003, when it won the Royal Mail outsourcing contract to provide IT services to Royal Mail. At the time, Royal Mail IT employed around 1,500 people in Chesterfield. Royal Mail has been a very significant Chesterfield employer since the 1960s, when Harold Wilson’s Government set out on a programme of moving Government institutions out of London. Thousands of staff moved to or were recruited into Chesterfield.

The Royal Mail contract was awarded to CSC in 2003. In Chesterfield, 1,500 staff were TUPE-ed across and in the 13 years since the awarding of the contract, around 80% of those staff have left the business. Others have been recruited and about 500 staff now work in Chesterfield on services relating to the NHS contract, BAE Systems, the HM Passport Office, Aviva, Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Defence and others. The 500 employees mean that CSC is still one of the biggest private sector employers in Chesterfield and the jobs make a significant contribution to our economy. I have no idea what the exact cost has been to the Chesterfield economy of the 1,000 skilled, well-paid posts that we have lost over the last 13 years, since CSC took over the Royal Mail contract, but it is very substantial and should not be overlooked.

As we all know in this place, jobs come and go. Tough as it is for a local area—even more so for the families and individuals involved—global businesses will organise their affairs in a way that suits them, and as long as the rules of consultation and severance are followed, there is often not all that much of a role in that for Government. However, elements of this programme of redundancies should concern us in this place.

It is useful to understand and consider how CSC has grown its business to such a significant size in the United Kingdom. The growth has come from winning predominantly outsourcing contracts with a range of companies, including a large number of Government contracts. I have alluded to how 80% of the staff on the Royal Mail contract in Chesterfield are no longer there. CSC’s work with the Department of Health has attracted considerable previous scrutiny, and the last report that I read in The Guardian suggested that its NHS contract was still worth about £2.2 billion. CSC has contracts in a huge variety of sensitive Government and corporate installations, including police services, HM Passport Office, civil nuclear and aerospace. I think it is fair to say that when CSC moves in, jobs often move out. It is not like many firms in my constituency that have moved in, grown exponentially and recruited more as they go. What CSC has done in Chesterfield is move into an existing contract and, over a 13-year period, gradually reduce the number of jobs in the local community.

As well as the impact of CSC’s operating methods, there are legitimate questions about its performance. Managerial and accounting failures led to the business being fined $190 million for over-reporting profits on its NHS work, and it is currently on its fourth UK head in the last two years, having reported very disappointing figures recently. Notwithstanding those reports, the UK management repeatedly advised Unite the union throughout the first 11 months of 2016 that the UK business was healthy and profitable. Given the extent to which there appears to be a constant cycle of change, panic and retrenchment, the unions are understandably concerned.

Unite believes that the company is making redundancies in the UK of such a significant size that it is critically endangering its ability to continue to provide those services. Unite says:

“What is most alarming with this programme is both the scale and the speed with which the company is seeking to achieve the reductions, the sense of chaos it has created within the delivery functions of the company—and the sense of impending catastrophe within the staff body.”

I think that we should take that very seriously. It says:

“The staff cuts are being made seemingly without regard for the impact on staff and services. Senior managers of large parts of the UK business who have questioned the breakneck speed or the business logic”—

of the cuts—

“have been removed, and much of the UK organisation is being managed by managers brought in from elsewhere globally, who know nothing of the day to day running of the UK business, and care little of the significance to the country of the services delivered by the company.”

Under any circumstances, redundancies of that scale should be a cause for real concern. However, when the company has experienced so much upheaval and has gone from one failure to another, and given the sensitivity and national importance of CSC’s work, I think that the Government should be very interested indeed. I would like to know from the Minister what cross-Government work is going on to monitor service delivery, whether there have been any further breaches of contract with Government since the Department of Health found CSC in breach in 2011, and what work she is doing to ensure that the Cabinet Office is aware of the potential impact on Government services if the fears of the unions are borne out.

Members of the House will be aware of the Prime Minister’s suggestion that, although her Government would work to defend free markets and to promote the UK as a place where industry and enterprise is encouraged and thrives, she would expect business and government to work closely together to root out the worst excesses of capitalism. In that context, what interest are the Government taking in the motivations behind CSC’s decisions? The driver seems to be entirely about ensuring that the right financial targets are hit to ensure a merger on the most favourable terms for CSC shareholders. Figures published for the US stock exchange show that 12 individual directors stand to make bonuses of $90 million on successful completion of the merger. How can we be confident that directors who stand to accrue untold riches in the short term will take a long-term view about the best interests of the business, its employees and the customers who rely on it?

Although the tale of CSC’s recent past includes rounds of redundancies, lost contracts, service failures and missed profit targets, followed by further redundancies and the whole cycle repeating itself, one area of CSC’s business has seemed to grow. Many Government contracts paid for by UK tax money are now being serviced by huge offshoring operations in India. An article on CSC’s own website describes how 25% to 30% of its global employees are now employed in India. There is a question for us in the House about how much GDP the UK is losing by allowing the Government to outsource work to an American company that then effectively lays off UK staff in order to provide services to the UK Government from India.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I have constituents who have been made redundant by CSC and who have found that their jobs have gone offshore. My question to the Minister, via my hon. Friend, is whether the Government knew about the offshoring when it occurred, as part of the contract. Did the Government make representations on that issue, and are they concerned for future employment in the UK in such a highly skilled, highly confidential and highly sensitive business?

[Toby Perkins]

My right hon. Friend makes the point excellently. There is a strategic question for us and for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about co-ordination with other Departments on how services are provided. He sums up perfectly the fact that it substantially affects the UK economy if such highly paid and skilled jobs disappear overseas. Presumably, cheaper contracts save Government money, but the impact on GDP and the fall in tax revenue then hit our economy.

Given the sensitivity of some of the contracts provided by CSC to the Ministry of Defence and other organisations, what national security implications should be considered when they are serviced overseas? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that question. I am also interested in how CSC, run by global operators, sees its responsibilities to the UK and to our employees and constituents. For a company that employs so many people in my constituency and provides services to so many Government institutions, its interest in engaging with MPs seems minuscule. I have had no contact with CSC in advance of this debate, despite attempting to contact the company, and with the exception of a discussion about car parking on Old Road in Chesterfield, I have had no contact from CSC in my six years as an MP. I cannot think of a single company in Chesterfield that employs as many people that has not contacted me.

I would like the Government to take a close interest in the services being provided by CSC, and in whether CSC operations and activities in the run-up to the merger pass the Prime Minister’s test, as part of her grand contract between business and the Government, for how businesses should act. What discussions has the Minister had with CSC regarding its UK operations, and what steps is she taking to support the jobs of my constituents and those at the other CSC sites in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to talk about the effect on the public sector contracts that the company has contracted to provide. I mentioned that at the beginning. I first just wanted to cover the rights of the employees in these circumstances and the support that the Government are trying to offer through Jobcentre Plus. I will, indeed, come on to the important matter that the hon. Gentleman just raised.

To conclude on the employment support that we are able to provide, I am hopeful that the rapid response service will be able to assist those workers who have been made redundant in finding alternative employment. Officials at the Department for International Trade have also contacted CSC and are in close contact with Jobcentre Plus.

I will now move on to the potential impact on public services that various right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. CSC has undertaken numerous contracts with vital services such as, as we have heard, Royal Mail, the police, civil nuclear and the NHS, and it is indeed of concern to us all that the skills and the contractual obligations given by CSC are honoured. Given the situation, I can well understand right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns about the future. The Cabinet Office has assumed responsibility in Government for dealing with CSC on these matters, and is in regular contact with the company about the viability of the contracts it has assumed. It has been given every assurance that the business will be ongoing and unaffected.

[Toby Perkins]

I am pleased with the tone of the Minister’s remarks. However, I wonder whether she shares my concern—I suspect she does from what she has said. We are being given assurances by an organisation that has had four different leaders in the past two years and has gone, as the Minister has rightly identified, through nine rounds of redundancies. The trade unions have reported that the workplace is in chaos and there is a catastrophe of employee confidence. In that kind of environment, where there is a huge financial incentive to deliver in the short term and a track record of failure, does the Minister agree that there is a real need for the Government to pursue the matter and ensure that the assurances are worth the paper they are written on?

[Margot James]

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I have the assurances from the Cabinet Office, which is in regular contact with CSC, and I am sure that my Cabinet Office colleagues are wary of the information they are being given in the climate that has been described this afternoon. I will undertake to have a direct conversation with my counterpart in the Cabinet Office to test out the assurances that he or she has been given. In the past, I have been exposed to corporations that have been going through this process of rapid change. That can be very worrying, especially where software and computer contracts are the main focus, because there could be a loss of the skills vital to the delivery of such contracts. In this country, we have had many concerns about public sector contracting for IT systems. It would be a reckless Minister who assumed that all was well, given the circumstances we have heard about this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

It seems rude to say no, so I will briefly sum up.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

It is always lovely to hear from you.

[Toby Perkins]

In conclusion, I am pleased with the tone of the Minister’s response. I am grateful for her undertaking to pursue with the Cabinet Office the points that have been discussed. We are all conscious that we have had a history of people being put out of work by machines. We know that; it is progress. We are not all still riding on horseback; we have cars now. It seems a shame that we move from the people to the machines, and the machines get ever more efficient, with the outsourcing organisations coming in and saying, “We can provide the same services with many fewer machines.” Even then, the pursuit of profit means that those jobs, funded by the British taxpayer, are ending up offshore, and that poses serious questions for all political parties and for Governments about how we ensure that the desire to get the best value for taxpayer money does not come at too great a cost to the UK economy.

As the Minister has correctly reflected, we have genuine reasons to be concerned by the decision-making processes that have been pursued at CSC. As it lurches from one failure to another, there is concern about the implications not only for those employees and the communities left behind, but for those services that rely on CSC.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered redundancies at CSC.

Statutory Pubs Code and Pubs Code Adjudicator

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I welcome the support that he is giving to his publican constituents. I have that quote in my speech.

Let me remind right hon. and hon. Members that the pubs code and the adjudicator were introduced in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. The code came into force last year. It applies only to businesses owning 500 or more tied pubs in England and Wales, of which there are six, and governs their relationship with their tied pubs. The quasi-judicial statutory Pubs Code Adjudicator was created to uphold and enforce the pubs code so that it is properly implemented, and to act as an impartial arbiter when there are disputes on certain issues.

I wish to praise the current Government and the civil servants in the Department—formerly Business, Enterprise and Skills, now Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—for their very hard and diligent work in bringing through the pubs code, which is a strong, clear document. At this stage, six months in, Ministers and civil servants should not have to intervene given that the adjudicator’s role, as laid down in primary and secondary legislation, is to implement and enforce the code. The role of Ministers should now be to oversee and scrutinise that activity, but I am afraid that they now have to intervene because the Pubs Code Adjudicator is not doing the job as laid down in the pubs code and in the law.

Regulation 50 of the pubs code specifically states:

“A pub-owning business must not subject a tied pub tenant to any detriment on the ground that the tenant exercises, or attempts to exercise, any right under these Regulations.”

This regulation is being routinely ignored and flouted by pub companies. Let me give some examples.

Pub companies are refusing to allow a simple deed of variation to leases if tenants suggest that they want to exercise their right to a market rent only option. This forces them to accept a new lease, which is offered only on unfavourable and clearly detrimental terms, clearly flouting regulation 50. Enterprise Inns is doing this systematically and then telling tenants that they will have to go to arbitration over what is clearly not an arbitration matter but a legal breach of the code’s regulation.

Tenants seeking the market rent only option are being presented with unreasonable charges and terms by pubcos, making it unviable to take or even pursue the option—for example, unreasonable and unaffordable demands for up-front, quarterly payments of rent, or unjustifiable and excessive dilapidations charges. Pubcos are also, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said, presenting so-called free-of-tie offers, sometimes calling them MRO offers as though they were the same thing as the market rent only option, which they are not; they are deliberately confusing the two. I remind the House that the market rent only option gives the tenant the right to an independent assessment of the market rent, and the right then to take the option on an existing lease with no other changes to the lease or the terms. Yet pubcos are insisting on shorter leases on detrimental terms, clearly breaching the pubs code. In addition, I can tell the House that that document being given to tenants is a Punch document.

Brigid Simmonds, the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association—the trade association of the pubcos—has said that it is “inevitable” that free-of-tie agreements would have

“terms that more closely reflect commercial rental agreements elsewhere in the marketplace”.

With the market rent only option, that is not allowed; it constitutes detriment. The lease has to continue on a free-of-tie basis, with the payment of independently assessed rent.

One thing that is putting people off is the fees proposed by assessors for carrying out that independent assessment. I have been sent a document from a surveyor that suggests that the fee can be up to £6,000. Under self-regulation, the maximum fee was £4,000, which was split into a maximum of £2,000 for the tenant and a maximum of £2,000 for the pub company. That was transparent and fair, unlike what the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is presenting. Who is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors? Mr Paul Newby, the Pubs Code Adjudicator. It is a clear case of jobs for the boys, because the people demanding those unjustifiable and excessive fees are his former colleagues, associates and friends. I have to say to the Minister that that shows us again why a surveyor was a wholly inappropriate choice to be the adjudicator.

Pub companies are confusing and misleading tenants so that they miss their trigger point—the very limited window in which they can seek to take the market rent only option. Pub companies are putting pressure on tenants by sometimes bribing and sometimes bullying them into signing on the dotted line, so that they stay tied and do not have the chance to exercise their rights.

Returning to the adjudicator, I remind the House that Paul Newby, the director of pub estate agents and surveyors Fleurets, was appointed as Pubs Code Adjudicator and started work in March 2016, despite the majority of tenants’ groups objecting to his appointment, and despite the fact that he had ongoing financial links to the pubcos that he is supposed to regulate. Mr Newby failed properly to declare the conflict of interest when he applied for the role. As well as being a former director, which he did declare, he astonishingly —and completely unacceptably for someone in a quasi-judicial role—retains shares in Fleurets and has outstanding loans of more than £200,000 to it, with a repayment agreement that is set to last until 2023. That information had to be dragged out of him, and he published it only in December. Just to be clear, Fleurets declares that 20% to 23%—a fifth or more of its income—comes from the regulated pubcos.

To make matters worse, Mr Newby has been allowed to construct his own conflict of interest policy, and—surprise, surprise—it falls well below the industry standard for such documents. Surprisingly, it even falls well below the standards of his own professional body, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The conflict of interest policy should be similar to that of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, but, unlike the GCA, the Pubs Code Adjudicator has chosen to publish a separate register of interests, along with an explanation of how his conflict of interest policy will be applied in relation to the register and, specifically, to his own conflict of interest. Mr Newby is setting his own rules to avoid having to disclose fully his conflicts of interest when he takes on cases.

The Select Committee was clear in July 2016 that not only was Mr Newby evasive, but he could not command the necessary confidence of pub tenants, and the appointments process should be reopened. Mr Newby also misled the Select Committee on important points, and has not responded properly to letters asking him for an explanation.

To return to the key point that the right hon. Member for West Dorset made, Mr Newby is the adjudicator, and his job is to uphold and enforce the pubs code. The Government state on the website:

“The Pubs Code Adjudicator (PCA) is responsible for enforcing the statutory Pubs Code.”

He is failing to act as an adjudicator; he is refusing to make rulings on important, basic matters such as the deed and variation versus new lease issue; and he is failing to uphold, never mind enforce, the code. Does he not understand the role—does he not properly understand the code and the legislation—or is this a deliberate attempt to undermine the whole statutory code, as many tenants now fear? The case-by-case approach that he is taking means that there will be no opportunity to look at many of the issues being raised repeatedly by tenants about the way in which pubcos are trying systematically to flout and thwart the code.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his campaigning on this issue over many years, and on securing the debate. What he is saying about the motives for the delay may well be true, but the feedback that I am getting is that the entire industry is frustrated about the failure to make any adjudications. The entire industry will benefit from the certainty that will come from the adjudicator’s getting on and making some decisions, and providing clarification on many of the important points that the hon. Gentleman is raising.

[Greg Mulholland]

I know that the hon. Gentleman had a meeting with Mr Newby the other day, and I would be interested to know what was said. I issue a word of caution to the hon. Gentleman to be careful who he listens to, and to listen to the licensees who are concerned about the cases being brought before the adjudicator.

The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that Mr Newby must make rulings. His job is not to horse-trade behind closed doors or to muddy the waters; he needs to provide clear guidance on what the code means and deal with breaches. The hon. Gentleman is right that tenants and pubcos need clarity, which Mr Newby is not providing. Let us be clear that his refusal to step in and stop those breaches, or to make general rulings on certain points, amounts to a refusal to perform his important statutory role. That is simply not acceptable.

The most extraordinary thing that I want to set before the House is the fact that Mr Paul Newby, in his role as Pubs Code Adjudicator, has breached the very pubs code that it is his statutory duty to enforce. Extraordinarily, he has breached regulation 38 of the code, which states that if a pubco and tenant cannot agree on the appointment of an independent assessor, the adjudicator

“must, within 14 days of the notification…appoint an assessor”.

Rather than doing so—that is clearly an important part of his role and laid down in legislation—he is passing that duty on to his colleagues in the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors dispute resolution service, who are demanding a fee. They have no right to do that; it is not in the pubs code, which the adjudicator has no right to ignore. That has been raised by the Pubs Advisory Service, which made a complaint because tenants were being charged the £250 fee. Mr Newby has said that tenants will no longer be charged, and that those who have been charged will be refunded, but he let that happen. He says that the fee will still be charged but will be paid from levies.

During the very strange period in which Mr Newby wrongly and illegally delegated his duty to appoint an independent assessor, RICS—with the adjudicator’s knowledge—appointed a surveyor called Barry Voysey for a tenant in a Punch rent case, even though Mr Voysey was acting at the same time for Punch Taverns in another rent case. The tenant was appalled at the obvious conflict of interest and refused to accept Mr Voysey or to pay his up-front invoices. The appointment of Mr Voysey breached RICS guidelines—it is defined as a red non-waivable conflict—but it happened under the nose of, and with the knowledge of, the Pubs Code Adjudicator, Mr Paul Newby, who is a member of RICS.

I want to refer to a couple more issues that are of importance to the House. The first is the proposed Heineken takeover of 1,900 of Punch Taverns’ pubs. That is of great concern to Punch licensees and is opposed by the Punch Tenant Network and the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. Star Pubs and Bars, which is owned by Heineken, has 1,100 pubs, so we would be talking about a pub company with 3,000 pubs.

It is clear—this is a worrying competition issue—that Heineken seeks to take over Punch so that it can insist on many more pubs stocking its product rather than that of its competitors. The Heineken bid document states that the company intends to

“improve visibility and increase sales of Heineken brands in high-quality pubs”.

It is clearly a bid to gain market share through the acquisition of pubs, which would, as people have said, create a monster tie and make it much harder for brewers of all sizes to get their products into pubs —that remains an issue.

It is surely time to look again at the maximum number of pubs that a brewery can own, to stop this sort of market dominance, and consider placing a limit on the number of pubs that can be owned by any company—unlike the flawed beer orders. They were flawed because Ministers caved in to lobbying from big brewers and agreed to the loophole that allowed the huge, non-brewing pubcos to emerge, dominate and create their own unfair model; and here we are today.

In relation to the role of the adjudicator, the concern is that Heineken will seek to force Punch tenants to stock only its products—despite the discussions, there is nothing in the code that says it is allowed to do so—but the adjudicator has so far refused to clarify that simple point, which is within his remit. This lack of clarity means that brewers may be able to use the current confusion to threaten legal challenges that could again be seen as putting off discussion of tenants’ rights under the code.

I must mention Scotland, which is just as important as England and Wales to the British Pub Confederation. The Scottish Licensed Trade Association, which is a member of the British Pub Confederation, does a lot of wonderful work in Scotland. Like the British Pub Confederation, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association supports having the same rights for Scottish licensees tied to pub companies. We have the absurd situation that people tied to the same company have certain rights on one side of the border, but a mile away across the border in Scotland, have none of those rights. Those rights should be extended to Scotland, and I look forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), who will speak for the Scottish National party.

[Toby Perkins]

That is a very important point. In the process of passing the legislation, I believe I am right in saying that SNP Members voted with us in the victory on the vote that was predominantly about pubs in England, because they wanted same rights in Scotland in the future. It is a shame that the system has not been brought in there.

[Greg Mulholland]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The only way to get such rights and fairness for Scottish tenants was for the system to be established in England first, and I was delighted that SNP Members supported that. I am also delighted that they are represented in the Chamber today, because it is simply wrong that Scottish tenants are discriminated against in comparison with their English and Welsh counterparts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) on securing the debate. He is a great pubs campaigner who speaks powerfully on behalf of tenant groups and the whole industry. I am pleased that we worked together to get the Government to introduce the statutory pubs code in the last Parliament and to ensure that a free market rent only option was a part of it. It is a great honour to take over from him as the chair of the all-party parliamentary save the pub group and I am sure that we will continue to work closely together on these issues.

The work we have done together in the past has taken us some of the way to where we are today. I hoped that I would be part of a Labour Government that would get to deliver the pubs code, but sadly that was not to be. The pubs code was a contentious and important battle to win. I recall campaigners’ tears of joy when we finally secured the victory that ensured that the free market rent only option was part of the code, after the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment on Report. Many campaigners told me, “It’s too late for me—I have gone bankrupt as a result of the imperfections in the way in which the industry has been run in the past—but it is crucial to me to know that Parliament will bring such abuses to an end.” It is important that those campaigners, who spent many years getting the Government to recognise the power imbalance in the industry and the exploitation of that situation, have confidence in the pubs code and that we deliver the expectations expressed in those tears of joy.

The Labour Government of 2005 to 2010—this included excellent work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)—looked at the issue and set a final challenge for the industry. The coalition Government who followed were wary of regulating a complicated industry and attempted to do everything in their power to give the industry time to put its own house in order. It was very much a last resort for the Government to introduce a statutory pubs code, and it came as a shock to them when we were able to get the House to include a market rent only option into the legislation.

Critics always claimed that we should not legislate because it would make matters worse, and pointed out that the beer orders did not turn out as expected. It is important that those people who have faith in the code get the impression that the Government are serious about ensuring that the legislation delivers what we intended. It is to the credit of the Government that following the election they stuck to their word and introduced the code that they had committed to, and it is now in the entire industry’s interest to ensure that the pubs code’s meaning is established, that all those in the industry have confidence in the rigour with which it will be enforced, and that the Pubs Code Adjudicator is, and is seen to be, impartial.

The motion—supported by the Chair of the BEIS Committee as well as the hon. Member for Leeds North West—makes it clear that those tests of confidence are not being met. We have heard at some length deeply concerning allegations about the conduct of pub-owning companies when tenants wish to avail themselves of the market rent only option. A key test of the adjudicator will be whether it offers clarity to tenants and pub-owning businesses on issues such as the appropriateness of deeds of variation as a tool for transferring from a tied to a free tenancy. I have not heard a convincing reason why that should not be appropriate in the majority of cases.

I will come in a moment to the appointment and performance of Mr Newby, but it is fair to say that, alongside my praise for the Government for introducing legislation, I have legitimate questions for them about its implementation. It might seem harsh to criticise them for being too slow and too hasty, but there is a reasonable argument that they were guilty of that. The issues facing the industry have been long discussed and are well known, and the Government could have come forward much sooner with a draft code, giving notice to the entire industry of what was in store, appointed an adjudicator earlier and allowed more time for the set-up process. Given the scale of the changes to the code, most of which I support, the lead-in time was rather short and left the adjudicator and industry with little time to establish the new rules of the game.

I am conscious of the Select Committee’s strong criticisms of the process that led to the appointment of Mr Newby, repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), and the question of whether his background opened him up to perceptions of partiality, and I sympathise with many of those sentiments. The hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned my meeting with Mr Newby this week. I was happy to have that meeting. As always, my approach is to meet all parties involved. In the couple of weeks I have been in post, I have also met some of the campaigners my hon. Friend has met. I have not yet, however, met the British Beer & Pub Association, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers or the other organisations, but I will do, because it is important that everyone gets an opportunity to be heard. That is always my approach.

I said to Mr Newby that the focus on his background would continue while there are no adjudication decisions coming from his office and while the perceived conflicts of interest persist. We all want the adjudicator to get on and adjudicate and start answering questions about the interpretation of the pubs code. Once some initial decisions have been taken, tenants will have much greater clarity. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said, the adjudicator will then have the opportunity to represent the people he is there to represent—those we set up the pubs code to protect—and to say to the pub-owning companies, “We’ve met previously about The Red Lion, and now you’re coming back with the same issues with The Dog and Duck. Why are we still having these arguments?” The hon. Member for Leeds North West made the important point that there might be differences of interpretation and fact between individual cases, but themes have emerged that could be looked at and quickly processed to give clarity. Across the industry, on both sides of the argument, there is real frustration at how long it is taking for decisions to emerge, but Mr Newby has assured me that decisions will start coming out of his office within the next month. We all hope he delivers.

The motion refers to Mr Newby’s shareholding and loans to Fleurets. The Commissioner for Public Appointments reviewed his involvement in Fleurets and decided that there was no conflict of interest, but the fact that it is still being raised undermines his perceived impartiality. Mr Newby told me, as he told the Select Committee, that he had attempted but been unable to come to an early settlement of his loan to Fleurets. I will be writing to Mr Newby and Fleurets to urge them to recommence talks aimed at ending his involvement with the firm so that the perceived lack of impartiality might be addressed.

I call on the Minister to do the same: to ask Mr Newby and Fleurets to recognise that this perception is undermining his ability to be seen as impartial and to take every possible step to find an alternative source of money. I will not mention the amounts concerned on the Floor of the House, but in the context of the industry, they are not huge sums. It would pose a serious question about the stability of a company if it was unable to replace such a sum of money. It is significant enough, however, for it to be relevant—or at least to be perceived as being relevant—to an individual’s decision making. I said to Mr Newby’s face that the perceived relationship would undermine his decision making. It is important that the adjudicator be free to adjudicate on the basis of the evidence. If he knows that every time he makes a decision, people will say, “Well, he hasn’t based his decision on the evidence; he made it because of his interest”, it will undermine his decisions.

I know that campaigners have called for Mr Newby’s dismissal and the restarting of the process. I am anxious that restarting the entire process might push the prospect of resolution further away for many tenants who desperately need the certainty that the code adjudications will bring. The hon. Member for Leeds North West is right that people are already walking away from the process, either by settling, having lost confidence in the process, or having gone bust or been unable to carry on in the trade. If the Government are minded to agree with the motion, I would ask them to set out how quickly we can start getting some decisions. Much like Brexit, sometimes no deal and a bad deal are the same thing. We need to start getting some decisions. Mr Newby has been described to me as a “rabbit in the headlights”, afraid to make a decision that will ultimately need to be made, and the sense of frustration at the failure to start providing certainty is a strong and real one. The Government and Mr Newby should be under no illusions about the damage that further delays will pose to the entire process.

In summary, the pubs code and the adjudicator need to gain public confidence. This has not been a great start. The Government should do more to identify the cause of the delays and provide whatever support is needed to clear the blockage. They should also urge Fleurets and Mr Newby to sever their ties, which are comparatively small and should not be beyond the wit of man to overcome, and give the industry the certainty it is crying out for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If clear evidence is given to the Select Committee that that is indeed the case, surely that ought to compel immediate action from the Government. It is clear that there is a conflict of interest position here, and if the whole point of the adjudicator is to address the inequality of arms between big breweries and small, defenceless tenants, that matter needs to be addressed with the greatest urgency.

There have been many excellent speeches here today and I will run through some of the points made in them before I make some further comments on the position in Scotland, which has been alluded to in the debate. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) outlined, as everybody did, some of the problems the Pubs Code Adjudicator process is facing, and he asked the Minister to answer some questions. I was particularly interested in the problem he outlined in relation to the renewal of tenancies. He asked the Minister to give some clarity on that issue, and I call on the Minister to do so. The hon. Gentleman described pubs as valuable community assets; given what I have said, I clearly agree wholeheartedly. I hope we can start campaigning to make the consciousness of the public turn back towards seeing pubs as community assets and places where communities can be brought together.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about awareness of the pubs code, which is crucial. If tenants do not know that they have a code and the right of redress, Mr Newby will get away with any conflict of interest position he puts himself into, because if people do not know their rights, they will not pursue them.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, made an excellent speech, and again touched majorly on the conflict of interest point; I can add nothing to his comments. He touched on the perception point, and I reiterate that a perception of a conflict of interest is indeed a conflict of interest.

Lawyers are acutely aware of conflicts of interest; we look for them in every single transaction we do. As a lawyer, I was taught by a partner how to identify a conflict of interest. He said to me, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, chances are, Richard, it’s a duck.” So if it feels like a conflict of interest and it looks maybe like a conflict of interest, it is, categorically, a conflict of interest.

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who admitted that the Pubs Code Adjudicator process had not made a great start; that was corroborated by Members across the Chamber. He provided useful historical context from the past 10 years, summarising the good work he did in the last Labour Government to initiate and bring about this change. He has been campaigning very successfully on this issue. I would politely add that he has been marginally more successful here than in his last campaign, where he was suggesting that supporters of the Scottish national football team should be singing “God Save the Queen” before matches, which even for the most ardent of Unionists would have been a bitter pill to swallow. That is a bit like asking Manchester City fans to sing “Glory, glory Man United” before City play.

[Toby Perkins]

I never made any such suggestion.

[Richard Arkless]

If that is the case, I stand to be corrected, but the House was full of leaflets detailing this a number of months ago—but if I am mistaken, I would never attempt to mislead the House.

[Toby Perkins]

I will be brief, because I do not want to detain the House on this, but actually what I was proposing was that the English football team should have a separate national anthem from “God Save the Queen”, and that “God Save the Queen” should only be used when Britain was playing and England should have an English national anthem. I was not telling Scotland or Wales what to sing at all.

[Richard Arkless]

I will have another look at the leaflet to see if I stand to be corrected—and, indeed, I do not think we should detain the House on matters not relevant to this debate.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) talked about déjà vu. Again I do not think he was talking about a déjà vu experience that is positive, and we seem to be back here discussing some of the other problems that have occurred in respect of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. The fact that we keep coming back to these problems indicates that it would be a slavish policy for the Scottish Government to accept a system of a one-size-fits-all, broad-brush approach that clearly has problems.

I should make it clear that I am committed personally to fairness to pub tenants, and the Scottish Government are committed to making sure that inequality of arms does not persist. The motion

“urges parity for Scottish tenants”,

and clearly I would urge parity in fairness, but whether fairness exists within the current system, given the problems we have identified, is another matter, and I think the Scottish Government are right to take the approach they have taken, which I will outline in more detail now.

The Scottish Government introduced a voluntary code for pubs and landlords in 2015. Clearly, a voluntary code is not, potentially, as effective as a compulsory code, and we consulted from July 2016 and published a 77-page report in December of that year. It highlighted that the pub sector in Scotland has different facets and characteristics from the pub sector in the rest of the United Kingdom. Some 40% of pubs in the UK are tied, while only 17% are tied in Scotland. There is also a much higher proportion of longer leases across the rest of the UK than in Scotland. That is further evidence that a one-size-fits-all policy might not be the best suggestion, but that is not to say that we do not recognise that there are concerns.

The report stated:

“The evidence collected did not suggest that any part of the pub sector in Scotland was unfairly disadvantaged in relation to another. As a result, further dialogue between the relevant trade bodies, government, and other interested parties, should continue before making any changes to legislation”—

but that is not, I emphasise, ruled out.

The report continued:

“Based on the findings from the research, it is clear that there is more work to be done in ensuring that the relationship between Pub Companies and tenants is further strengthened and clarified.”

I think everybody would welcome that. The report added:

“Further clarification is also required on beer costs, the cost of entry into the sector and the value of…benefits.”

The report also stated:

“The contractor faced significant challenges in recruiting licensees and Pub Companies to participate in the research, created by an apparent unwillingness to engage on the subject at a detailed level. As a consequence, it is recommended that a further more detailed study should not be undertaken without a significantly increased level of interest and involvement from the wider industry.”

To put it bluntly, we feel more evidence is required before we can go down the road of having a compulsory pubs code adjudicator, and clearly there are lessons to be learned from the system implemented by this place. I do not think there is anything wrong with that; sometimes Holyrood will do things first and this place will learn, and sometimes this place will do things first and Holyrood will learn—[Interruption.] Yes, and of course, ultimately, Holyrood will, without question, do it better, but that is a very healthy process.

That concludes my comments, but finally I reiterate that we believe in fairness for pub tenants. We are not at the stage in Scotland yet where the evidence has been compelling enough to make us go down this road, but we are looking at the system, thinking about it and analysing the mistakes, and hopefully in the future we will devise a system that properly protects the rights and fair treatment of tenants of tied pubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing today’s debate on the Pubs Code Adjudicator, and I thank all Members across the House who have contributed to the excellent and thought-provoking debate. Clearly this subject continues to attract strong views and passionate debate, and I want to reassure the House that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that tied tenants can operate in an environment that is fair and that allows them to thrive. That is why we introduced the pubs code. I pay particular tribute to the role that the hon. Member for Leeds North West played in bringing about that piece of legislation.

The pubs code regulates the relationship between around 11,500 tied pub tenants and the large pub-owning businesses that rent the pubs to them and sell them tied products. The pubs code applies to pub-owning businesses with 500 or more tied pubs in England and Wales. There are currently six pub-owning businesses that fall within the scope of the code: Admiral Taverns; Enterprise Inns; Greene King; Marston’s; Punch Taverns; and Star Pubs & Bars, owned by Heineken.

The two principles of the pubs code are: fair and lawful dealing by pub-owning businesses in relation to their tied tenants; and that tied pub tenants should be no worse off than if they were not subject to any tie. The pubs code should make sure that tied pub tenants: receive the information they need to make informed decisions about taking on a pub or new terms and conditions; have their rent reassessed if they have not had a review for five years; and are enabled to request a market rent only option to go free of tie in specific circumstances, including at a rent review or on the renewal of tenancy.

I will first address the appointment of Mr Newby and the performance issues raised in this debate. I am sure we can return to some of those important issues during my speech. We believe that he is the right person to ensure that the pubs code delivers its statutory objectives and, for reasons I will set out, we think he got off to a good start with his responsibilities.

Since his appointment, Mr Newby has made himself visible and accessible. He has attended at least eight conferences, various events and eight roadshows across the country, at which he has met many stakeholders, including several hundred tenants. He has also taken pains to pursue greater visibility for the pubs code and to raise awareness among tenants by appearing on various television programmes, including a pubs special of “The One Show” and “The Great British Pub Revolution,” with the aim of bringing the pubs code to the attention of a wider audience. I did not watch the programmes, so I cannot comment on their creative content, but they are a means of raising awareness with the target audience.

Through those appearances, Mr Newby has explained his role and responsibilities, and has shown his determination to help to create a fairer business environment for tied pub tenants that allows the pubs, which are so important to our communities, to thrive. Contrary to what we have heard, he has been raising awareness among tenants that under regulation 50:

“A pub-owning business must not subject a tied pub tenant to any detriment on the ground that the tenant exercises, or attempts to exercise, any right under these Regulations.”

It is important that he continues to make that case.

[Toby Perkins]

Will the Minister clarify that, in the context of that desire and regulation 50, a pub-owning business that moves from a tied model to a free-of-tie model will be able to do it with a simple deed of variation? That would make it the only change to the business’s terms and conditions, and all the other terms and conditions would not have to be reviewed as a result. Can she confirm that that is consistent with what she has just said?

[Margot James]

I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I hope that it will be clarified by the Pubs Code Adjudicator in due course. The pubs code itself is not clear on that aspect, and it will be up to the Pubs Code Adjudicator to pronounce on it when he feels that he has enough evidence. I reiterate that I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Mr Newby has received a positive response from tenants, with the majority supporting his role. I accept that some tenants are deeply opposed to his role, and I could not have sat here for the past hour and a half without realising that, even if I had not known beforehand.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for that advertisement for the John Lewis Partnership. I assure the House that there are many other retailers that consumers can trust, and I think I will leave my answer at that.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We would not want to give the impression that poor-quality goods are bought from small businesses. We know that small businesses do an excellent job, and the Minister is right to make that point. She is right about the impact on consumers, but does she recognise that where there is a failure to follow standards it is often British manufacturers that are undercut by cheap imports from overseas? What does she intend to do as we head forward to ensure that coming out of the EU does not mean that standards slip and British manufacturers are unfairly treated?

[Margot James]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all standards derived from the EU that are considered by the UK Government to be necessary, as the vast majority will be, will continue to be enforced. I can reassure him also that National Trading Standards plays a vital role in cross-boundary enforcement, and the intelligence-led approach prevents many of those products from coming into the country in the first place.