Proceeding contribution from Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 January 2012. It occurred during Backbench debate on Pub Companies.
Pub Companies
I apologise to the Minister, but I have given way twice. He will have plenty of time to respond. This is clearly not an industry solution. I am afraid that the Minister has been misled by the BBPA, because its report, which was copied into the Government's response, clearly stated that the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and the Guild of Master Victuallers had agreed to be part of the pub independent conciliation advisory service. However, the chairman of GMV has stated:"““We as an organisation have neither agreed to, or been presented with, any proposal in respect of our participation in PICAS at this time.””" The Minister needs to ask why he has been misled by the BBPA and then answer to the House. Let us be clear that the Government's proposals for reform are not industry proposals. They are not supported by the Independent Pub Confederation, the GMV, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the ALMR, CAMRA, Fair Pint, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Unite or the all-party save the pub group. Why on earth did the Minister suggest throughout the Government response that it is an industry proposal? It is not even the Government's response, but the response of the pubcos trying to avoid the self-regulation that he agreed was necessary. The Prime Minister rightly talks about dealing with crony capitalism, and I absolutely agree with him on that. In 2010, after shares in Enterprise Inns collapsed—they fell from 770p in 2007 to 26p in January this year, a decline in value of 96.6%—Mr Ted Tuppen awarded himself a 50% pay rise of £412,000, taking home £1.22 million, including a bonus of £558,000. At the same time he was closing pubs and making things impossible for tenants. I am sorry to say that the Government's response has backed the pub companies and crony capitalism in the worst sense. We now need the statutory code of practice, including the genuine free-of-tie option. That was promised by the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister before the election. We have waited long enough. We will wait until the autumn, but no longer.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 538 c362
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Codes of practice Alcoholic drinks Companies Competition Public houses Tenants Tied housing
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:54:30 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799615
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799615
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799615