Proceeding contribution from Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 January 2012. It occurred during Backbench debate on Pub Companies.
Pub Companies
I agree with my hon. Friend to a degree, but the principle of the tie is the same. We need to make sure that the tie operates fairly. These problems must stop, but should the answer be legally to require companies to offer a free-of-tie option? The balance has indisputably tipped too far towards the landlord, but I think we are tipping the baby out with the bathwater. For the breweries, what would be the point of having their own pubs if they could not impose a tie? Why would they go to the trouble of buying and refurbishing property and recruiting suitable tenants only for those tenants to start in competition against them, selling someone else's beer? Breweries have been anxiously awaiting the Government proposals because they want to invest in the industry, but they will not do that if they cannot keep the tie.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 538 c389
- 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 14:53:58 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799682
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799682
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799682