Proceeding contribution from Stephen Lloyd (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 January 2012. It occurred during Backbench debate on Pub Companies.
Pub Companies
My hon. Friend is so right: a lot of the work that I did for the FSB before coming to the House involved meetings with landlords who had pubco tenancies. Some of the meetings were among the most desperate I have ever had, because those people were getting absolutely nailed by the pub companies. So, to be perfectly honest, I would not advise anyone to become a tenant under the present criteria. That is absurd, because I am massively pro-small business; it is precisely that sector that is going to get us out of this economic mess. At the moment, however, the playing field is much too uneven, and something really has to be done. Let me cite the recent research by the IPPR, which was called ““Tied Down””. It talked to 550 publicans, and some of the resulting figures are quite startling. It found that 57% of those subject to the ties that oblige tenants of the big pub groups to buy beer from them were struggling financially, compared with 43% of non-tied landlords. That is a difference of almost 20%. The IPPR's associate director, Rick Muir, said:"““Thousands of publicans across Britain are being put under significant financial pressure by the 'beer tie'. Our survey of publicans shows that they have suffered worse through the recession because of this tie. A recent select committee report shows that the higher prices tied publicans have to pay for their beer are not adequately compensated for by lower rents.””" That is why we need regulation. The original theory was that the publican would pay a lower rent because of the tie, but some of those absolutely deplorable companies got themselves into such a mess financially because they were so heavily leveraged in debt that they leant on their tenants to a quite disgraceful degree, and lifted the rents hugely. The time has come for the Government seriously to look at regulation. I could, just possibly, be persuaded to give the companies nine months and review the situation in the autumn, but this has been going on for years, and I would urge the Minister to agree to a review. Furthermore, he should publicly state on behalf of the Government, in the Chamber, that if the pub companies do not come up to speed this time—and, my God, they have had so many opportunities in the last chance saloon—we will regulate. It was noted earlier that pubcos have a lot on their mind at the moment, and we were asked whether we really needed to put them under this pressure. Well, yes we do. How many times are we going to allow them to say that they are going to do something, only for them not to do it? I urge the Government to tell them that if they have not come up with voluntary proposals within nine months, there will be statutory regulation. That is the compromise that I am prepared to accept. I know that the Minister has worked hard in this area, but if the companies do not change, to the extent that we have to regulate, they will have brought that upon themselves. I urge the Minister to take action.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 538 c377-8
- 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 14:54:15 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799655
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799655
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799655