26/01/2017 House of Commons

properly manage our transport network? This may be an inadequate

birthday present, but I will do my best to deliver on what you want.

Point of order. I am glad the Brexit secretary is here to his moment of

history. If I could just detain him for a second, he used a quote from

my successor's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, somehow suggesting

she wanted to deprive 160,000 European citizens of their right of

residence in Scotland. By the wonders of modern technology I

traced the original quote from July 20 14. In fact she was arguing the

exact opposite, that that was one of the reasons Scotland would remain as

an independent country and amber of the EU. I know the Brexit secretary

well, here's a decent and man. And when I found another minister it

used the same smear last October, I'm bound to conclude some teenage

scribblers in his department are feeding out misleading information

to hapless ministers who are then repeating it to the house. I'm sure

the Brexit secretary, perhaps even before he has his moment of history,

will want to correct that. Further to that, Mr Secretary. If I am wrong

I apologise, I will send him the quote directly. A separate point of

order. I will answer the right honourable gentleman's first point

of order which, as he and the house knows, was not a point of order. But

he sort in his usual rhetorical way to set the record straight as he

wished to do so. The secretary of state has responded adequately to

the point raised by the Right honourable gentleman and I hope that

honour is satisfied in all sites. Point of order. And this is a point

of order. Which is to say as you know when a minister makes a

statement to the house, the moment base it down a printed copy is then

circulated around the chamber by the doorkeepers. That is very useful for

many members. You can check exactly what has been said in case you

misheard it. The one time we don't do that is the business statement. I

admit it is a business question, so it is slightly different, but would

it not be for the convenience of the house of the moment that the leader

of how is has finished announcing forthcoming business, it was not

then circulated for all members? The honourable gentleman raises an

interesting point of Administration, and it might be that the leader

would like to say something further to the point of order. I completely

see that as a reasonable request and I will make sure that happens. Once

again, that was not a point of order for the chair, but we are having a

very well-balanced session of points of order, and as the gentleman says

it gets better. Would you care to make a point of order? It seems a

good point for request of ministers, as we seemed to be having 100%

record of having the requests fulfilled! That was not a point of

order for the chair, so we will move on. Presentation of bells. -- Bill.

Notification of withdrawal Bill. Second reading, what date? Tomorrow.

Tomorrow! Order. We now come to the backbench motion on the statutory

pubs code and the pubs code adjudicator. Thank you. I beg to

move the motion as on the order paper and I want to start by

thanking the backbench business committee for granting this time for

this important debate, to thank the honourable members for Hartlepool

and Warwick and Leamington who will lead members with me on this debate,

and I thank the honourable gentleman, the member for

Hartlepool, and pay tribute to all the work they have done, and the

member for Warwick and Leamington who has seen himself first-hand the

way these codes are thwarting tenants exercising their rights

under the pubs code, and the failure of the adjudicator to address this.

I must declare my interest as the chair of the British pub

Confederation, the organisation that represents the vast majority of

tenants organisations and pub campaigners as well. It is six

months now since the start of the statutory pubs code. 21st of January

was the six-month anniversary. I wish to make his house that I did

not want to have to call this debate today and to bring to the house what

I have to so today. More than anyone, perhaps, apart from those

believed good coli Suzy 's, I wanted the issues solved the code working

and the unfair model as operated and all the tales of abuse is as

detailed by the select committee to be thing of the past. But that is

I'm afraid not going to be the past -- case on less the code is working

and enforced. And that is not the case. The pubs code must work as

intended. It is the law. At the moment, pub codes are flouting. And

thwarting the will of Parliament and of the Government to laid out how

the code should work. As well as work causing a great deal of stress

to tenants. Would he agree with me that it is no surprise that the pub

codes are doing their utmost to thwart the rent revisions but that

the surprise is that the adjudicator seems to think his position is one

of private arbitrator and not what we set him up as, namely a judge

enforcing the law? I warmly welcome and thank you for the intention. He

is someone I know, with great thoroughness and intellect, has

looked at this and he is correct. I'm very grateful to the honourable

gentleman forgiving way. Does he agree with me that the real issue

with the adjudicator Izzy needs to have the confidence of all parties

involved and does not seem to be the case of the moment? He is absolutely

right. To have ignored the fact that the majority of tenants

organisations rejected him and do not have confidence in him and have

rejected the recommendation from the select committee to reopen the

process is not acceptable. We are talking about the evidence which I

will keep presenting in the course of my speech. From the numerous

cases that have been taken forward and taken to the adjudicator. I pay

tribute to the most representing tenants who have supplied evidence

on the situation, the pubs advisory service, the Forum of Private

business, the punched talent network, just as the licensees and

others. That has led to the British pub Confederation report which is 19

detailed pages or based on direct evidence where tenants have sought

to take legal rights in the pubs code. All cases taken to the

adjudicator. What has the adjudicator produced? A 2-page press

release. Worse than that, this press release, this glib statement, is

simply not an honest disruption of the situation. The statement from

the adjudicator's office provides unexplained and meaningless data

while failing to deal with or even mention any of the big issues facing

tenants, healing ignores the ways the regulatory pub codes are

breaching the code. This covers his own failings to uphold and enforce

the code. He effectively admits, to go back to the point, you

effectively admits both his failure to enforce or indeed to understand

the real role of the adjudicator. There is no mention in the statement

of the myriad complaints about pub code behaviour. No mention about the

complaints about him. Many complaints from the tenants who have

approached him. No mention of issues where tenants are giving up and

giving in because of the failure of the code and his office. And

extraordinarily no mention at all of the key issues of plain of concerns,

key issues people are seeking verification on and the systematic

ways of those are insisting the market rent only option needs a new

release, which is a clear breach of the pubs code. Would he not a due

that the whole point of the pubs adjudicator was to even up and

inequality of arms between paps Siddle tenants, a sole trader, or a

family business, and very large and powerful chains, and that the lack

of equal access to justice or add to our advice is causing great

problems? She is right, and the intention is not the reality. That

is why the house must take action as must the Government.

I have a big spoon to seeing some of these things first-hand and I will

say that it has been an unsatisfactory experience, I would

like to share with the house the following quote, " moving to a rent

only commercial free time lease agreement means larger upfront

payments and the loss of the award-winning business friendly

services and support, aside from business insurance. " without naming

them is involved, would he agree with me that this could be

interpreted as threatening, and not in my view a business friendly

approach at all. I have that quote in my speech, he's

absolutely right, I will refer to its now that he has referenced it,

to quickly remind the house, the pubs code and adjudicator was

introduced in 2015, the code came into force last year and applies

only to business, owning more than five typed pubs in England and

Wales. Was I judicial statutory pubs code adjudicator was created to

uphold and enforce the pubs code so that it is properly implemented, and

to act as impartial arbiter, when there are disputes on certain

issues. Is a strong clear document. And of course, at this stage, six

months in, ministers and civil servants should not have do

intervene when the adjudicator has a role laid down in primary and

secondary legislation, to implement and enforce the code, the role of

ministers would now be to oversee and scrutinise that activity, but

I'm afraid that ministers now have two intervene, because the pubs code

adjudicator is not doing the job as laid down in the pubs code, and as

laid down in the law. I will be very specific, regulation 50 of the pubs

code states, above only business must not subject one to any

detriment on the ground and this regulation is being routinely

ignored and flouted by other companies. And let me go on to give

examples, pub companies are refusing to allow the simple deed of

variation to leases if they suggest they want to move it. This would

force them to accept a new lease, which is being offered only on

unfavourable and detrimental terms, clearly flouting regulation 50,

enterprising things are doing systematically and saying they need

to go to arbitration over what is clearly not an arbitration point but

is a legal breach of the code regulation. Tenants seeking the

market only rent option are being presented with unreasonable options,

terms making it unviable to obtain or even pursue the option,

unreasonable, unaffordable demands for upfront quarterly payments.

Excessive dilapidation 's charges, and at the same time, as the right

honourable gentleman has said, they are presenting these free of Thai

offers, calling them market rent only offers, as if they are the same

but they are not, they are the liberally confusing the two. The

market rent only option is the right to an independent assessment of the

market rent and the right to take it on an existing lease, with no other

changes to the lease or to the terms, and yet they are insisting on

shorter leases, detrimental terms. Clearly breaching the pubs code. As

well as the document, and I will tell the house, it is a punch

document, given to tenants, but also, the trade association of the

pub go, their Chief Executive has said that it is inevitable that

these agreements would have terms that more closely reflect rental

agreements elsewhere in the marketplace, with the market rent

only option, that is not allowed, that is detriment, it must be simply

the lease carrying on and moving to a free of Thai basis paying rent

independently assessed. In terms of the independent assessment itself,

one issue putting people off, up to ?6,000, and I have been sent a

document from a surveyor, of course, any self-regulation, it was 4000

maximum, so 2000 each. Unlike what the Royal Institute of chartered

surveyors are now presenting. Who is a member for the Royal Institute

More than comes from the regulated pub codes. To make things worse and

he has been allowed to construct a zone per conflict-of-interest policy

and it falls well below what would be considered an industry standard

for such a document. Surprisingly it Inc to cleanly falls below the

standards of his own professional body. The conflict of interest

policy should be similar to that of the grocery goes adjudicator but

unlike the GCA he is chosen to publish a separate register of

interests along with how his policy will be applied in relation to the

register and specifically in regard to his own conflict of interest. He

is setting his own rules to avoid having to fully disclose his

conflict-of-interest when he is taking on cases. The select

committee in July 2016 was clear that he was not only evasive, and

the concluded he could not command the necessary confidence of tenants

and the post should be reopened. In actual fact he also misled the

select committee on important points and has not responded properly two

letters asking him to explain. Going back to the key point, he is

adjudicator. His job is to uphold and in force. The Government

themselves say the adjudicator is responsible for in forcing the

statutory pubs code. He is failing to act as an adjudicator, refusing

to make rulings on important issues like the deed of variation versus

new lease issue and is failing to uphold never mind enforce the code.

Does he not understand the role or is this a deliberate attempt to

undermine the whole statutory code which has many tenants are fearing?

this case-by-case approach, saying that he will do everything on a

case-by-case process, means there will not be any opportunity to look

at many of the issues which are the same issues being raised by tenants,

the same systematic ways that pub codes are seeking to flout and

fought the code. I'm thankful for the campaign for many years on this.

It may well be true about what he's saying about the motives, but the

feedback I am getting is that the entire industry is frustrated about

the failure to come to an adjudication, and I think that the

entire industry will benefit from the certainty we have in

adjudicating, getting on, making decisions and clarifying many of

these important point is that he is raising. I thank the honourable

gentleman. I would also issue a word of caution, to be careful who you

listen to, listen to the licensees that are looking at the cases

brought before them. He is right when he says that rulings must be

made, his job is not to horse trade behind closed doors and Muddy

Waters. And deal with breaches, tenants and pub codes need that

clarity which is not doing, the refusal to step in and stop those

bridges and make the general rulings amounts to a refusal to perform his

statutory role, that is and not acceptable. Most of the nearest

thing to bring before the house, Mr Paul Newby, himself in his role as

pubs code adjudicator, as breached the very pubs code that is his

statutory duty to enforce. Extraordinarily, knee has breached

regulation of 38 of the code, which clearly states that where a pub

codes and tenant cannot agree, the adjudicator, must within 14 days

appoint an assessor, rather than doing so, which is clearly a very

important part of his role and laid down in the legislation, he is

passing this duty on, to his colleagues, in the Royal Institute

of chartered surveyors, dispute resolution service. They are then

demanding a fee, which they have no right to do, something which is not

in the pubs code and the adjudicator has no right to ignore. This has

been raised by the pubs advisory service, and made a complaint,

because tenants were being charged this ?250, and he has now said that

tenants will no longer be charged and those who have been will be

refunded. But he was letting this happen, and he says that the fee

will still be charged but they will now be paid from levies. And also,

during this very strange period, where Mr Newby was wrongly and

illegally delegating these duties to appoint an independent assessor, at

this same time, Ricks then appointed a surveyor with the adjudicator 's

knowledge called Barry voicing, for a tenant in a punch rent case, and

yet Barry voicing was acting at the same time for Punch taverns in

another rent case. The tenant refused to accept this, Mr Roissy

did not pay his upfront invoices, and this breached the Royal in the

Jude of chartered surveyors. And yet it happened and it happened on the

knows, and with the knowledge of the pubs adjudicator, who was a member.

I wish to refer to a couple more issues, which are of importance to

the house, and the first is the proposed Heineken takeover of Punch

taverns, 1900 Punch taverns pubs, something of great concern to Punch.

They have 1100 pubs, you would be talking about a pub company of 3000

pubs. It is clear, and this is a worrying competition issue, it is

clear that Heineken are seeking to take over to stop competitors

because the Heineken bid document states, improvements in this ability

and increases in sales of Heineken brands in high-quality barbs, so it

is clearly a bid to gain market share through acquisition of pubs,

which, as people have said, would create a monster type, and make it

much harder for brewers of all sizes to get products into pubs, which

remains an issue. I have to say, it is surely time to consider looking

again at the maximum number of pubs owned by breweries to stop this sort

of market dominance. But also, a limit on the number of pubs that can

be owned by any company, unlike the flawed beer holders, which were

floored by government allowing lobbying from big brewers, which

allowed a loophole. And here we are today. In terms of the role of the

adjudicator on this, the concerns are, of course, that Heineken will

seek to force Punch Taverns to stock only their products, and despite

discussions, there is nothing in the code that says that they are allowed

to do this. The adjudicator has so far refused to clarify this simple

point, which is in his remit to do so, this lack of clarity means that

potentially the brewers will have ability to use this confusion to

threaten legal challenges which could be seen again as putting off

discussions over tenants rights under the code. I have dementia

Scotland, which is just as important as England and Wales, to the British

pub Confederation, and a member of the British pub Confederation be in

the Scottish licensed trade Association and all the wonderful

work they do in Scotland and they and the British pub Confederation

supports the same rights for Scottish licensees tied to pub

companies, you have an absurd situation where people tied to the

same companies on one side of the border have certain rights and then

one mile away, across the board in Scotland they have none of those

rights. It should be extended to Scotland. I look forward to

comments. I am grateful to him for giving way

on that point. Very important, we remind ourselves of the process of

legislation that went through. In that vote, which predominantly was

about pubs in England, the SNP actually voted with ourselves in

that victory because they wanted to have the right in the future. The

same as Scotland. It's a shame it hasn't actually been brought in. He

is right, that was indeed the only way to ever get these sorts of right

and fairness for Scottish tenants was to it to be established anywhere

in first. I was delighted the SNP were supporting that are here today,

because it is simply wrong that they are discriminated against, which is

the point, versus the English and Welsh counterparts. I will indeed

touch on some of the points that he and honourable colleagues have made

during the debate. He has made an excellent case in many of the

deficiencies of the Pubs Code Adjudicator, particularly the

conflict of interest, which appears to have it causal link. I'm confused

as to why he would recommend that to another jurisdiction when by his own

admission it doesn't seem to be working correctly. Honourable

gentleman makes an excellent point, which of course is covered in the

briefing that the British Pub comfort oration on the Scottish

licensed trade Association sent him. One of the exciting possibilities

was with a delegation who met the Minister Fergus Ewing MSP. We said,

actually, we think you can do this in a simple, clear and better way

and one that is appropriate to Scotland, which is a challenge for

the Scottish Government. The Scottish licensed trade Association

and the British pub but oration will be delighted to offer support in how

that can achieved in the best possible way for Scottish licensees,

learning some of the lessons about what is going wrong here and the

sort of person that should and shouldn't be an adjudicator if that

is the system they choose to follow. In conclusion, the reality is that

the Statutory Pubs Code is not working as Parliament intended when

we voted it through, and it is not working as this Government intended

when it drafted the Pubs Code. It has been routinely flouted and

ignored by PubCo it's, and Mr Paul Newby, a hugely inappropriate choice

for Pubs Code Adjudicator, is failing in his basic and statutory

duty to uphold and enforce the code. Tenants seeking to uphold the legal

right to the market rent only option are being discriminated against,

misled and bullied the excepting tied deals. The problems identified

by four Select Committee reports and now by the British pub comfort

oration or simply not being addressed. The two things that need

to happen, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ministers, I have to say, have so

far ignored this, so far washed their hands of this. But they can no

longer do so because the Pubs Code and the law is being flouted. First

of all they must intervene, now, and ensure that the Pubs Code works as

they Parliament intended and ensure that the office of the Pubs Code

Adjudicator is actually upholding and enforcing the code. But I'm

afraid after you have heard the reality of what is going on of the

six months of the operation of the code, the Secretary of State must

now accept the recommendation of the business energy and industrial

strategy Select Committee and reopen the appointment process of the Pubs

Code Adjudicator. We needed adjudicator who actually properly

understands and then clearly properly fulfils this important

statutory role. That requires somebody who does not have the

conflict-of-interest that Paul Newby has. Somebody who will carry the

role as intended, rather than seeking to skew and undermine the

very role and the code. A lot of time has gone in from MPs, from

ministers, from civil servants, from the Select Committee, and all of

that is being ported and ignored. So the code now be made to work with

the adjudicator, who will be enforcing it and help to appropriate

standards of the quasi judicial position. The law must be able to

work, and the will of the House must be upheld. The question is as on the

order paper. Laurence Robertson. Can I congratulate the honourable member

for Leeds North West on being the energy behind getting this debate.

And also to thank him for the constant help which he certainly

gives to me and maybe other honourable members when we go to him

with certain issues and problems which we having counted in our

constituency with tenants and leaseholders of PubCo. Can I also

occur a non-Red Rooster a ball interest in that my sister is the

tenant of a PubCo -- a non-registerable interest. Some of

my remarks will be generated from experience that I have in that

respect, but not exclusively - I have a large number of pubs in my

constituency, one or two at the moment are being closed and changed

into housing, changed into car parking perhaps. And it's that

concern about pub closures. Its concern about the lack of

profitability of many pubs which really is my motivation for taking

part in this debate. Can I say from the outset, I'm not instinctively

necessarily oppose to the PubCo model as such. It has a number of

advantages. It does allow people with very little capital to actually

go into the pub trade in the first place. PubCo, under ordinary

circumstances, take responsibility for the building and the exterior

work, which as we all know can be very expensive. It can, when it

works well, provide some professional back-up. It provides

access to a wide range of beers. It doesn't insist that wines and

spirits or included in the tie. Although I'll come back to that

point a few minutes. It provides an opportunity for the landlord to run

a restaurant within the premises. And it provides accommodation where

people can live, where the landlord can live. So there are some good

aspects to the PubCo model in theory at least. So I'm not out to attack

PubCos as such. But in practice, we have seen a lot of problems. Rents,

for example, have been very and fairly assessed in many places. They

are based not only on the profit that the the pub makes from the

Tadhg Beirne, but only the anticipated profit that it might get

under certain circumstances from food -- the beer. Even though the

PubCo benefits from the sale of its own beer, when the business has

actually done better, it's quite often the case that the rent will be

increased, even though the PubCo has benefited from the extra beer sales.

And that does seem to be quite unfair. PubCo sometimes insists that

landlords go on courses, educational courses, when it really is

stretching imagination to suggest that somebody who has been on the

trade for a long time for example actually needs to go on those

courses. The PubCo benefits from the cost of those courses. On many

occasions, PubCos insist that landlords use their own, in other

words, the PubCo's insurance policies, which are enormous more

expensive than elsewhere on the market. They won't allow another

product to be used unless it has the identical wording in the alternative

insurance policy, which seems to be very unfair and costs landlords an

awful lot of money. I have even known it to be the case where the

tenant or leaseholder has been told he has to take out an insurance

policy which covers the buildings insurance and cover, even though

they are not responsible for that very building. And of course,

tenants are charged for fixtures and fittings which are not necessarily,

in many cases, and which the value, the assessed value of those fixtures

and fittings is actually far greater than the actual value. Again, the

landlord loses out in that case. So there are all of these problems. And

the rate of the pub closure of course did persuade Parliament to

change the legislation. As the honourable member for Leeds North

West has very accurately and very comprehensively shown, the

legislation is not working as it should. For example, confusion

actually surrounds who is entitled to the free-of-tie option. There are

landlords who feel that only leaseholders or protected tenants

are eligible, and that really does need clarifying and I hope that the

Minister will be able to clarify that point for us today. Also, if a

tenant is not protected under the landlord and tenant act, the

particular clause saying that a tenancy or a lease has to be renewed

unless the organisation who owns the building actually wants to take it

back for their own use, that they do have the very allow for a lease to

be renewed. Now, many, many tenants and many leaseholders actually have

that clause struck out in the agreement which they reach. And so

that's all well and good until they get to the point where they lead a

new tenancy or a new lease, and they go to the PubCo saying they want to

free-of-tie option. Now, because they are not protected in that way,

the PubCo can simply refuse to renew the tenancy. So, is that fair? I

would suggest that certainly is not fair and again I would appreciate

some clarification on the exact position, because it is an important

matter. In a request recently I was told that about 11,500 tenants are

protected by the code, but there are many more tenants in the UK than

that. It is not always easy to get the new tenancy if you are asking

for a free-of-tie arrangement. The PubCo also offering users outside

agencies to negotiate the new tenancies, including using for

example chartered surveyors, who probably don't understand the local

trade, if they understand the trade at all. I've also received

complaints that business development managers of PubCos don't properly

discuss with tenants the options which are available. The tenant gets

told that even if they are prepared to offer them a new tenancy, the red

might go up considerably. Now, that is of course where the adjudicator

is supposed to be brought in. But the two points from that. That

system really does make for bad relations between the tenant and the

PubCo. And that's not a good situation to be in. And it does also

raise the question, is the adjudicator effectively and

efficiently engaging with pubs and landlords who take cases to the? And

my experience so far is that that is not happening. Another tenant told

me that he started his new tenancy, the need tenancy, he has already had

one, at the start of the new tenancy he is effectively having to apply

for his own pub as if he is a new talent, filling in CVs and

application forms, having to submit a new business plan, going on

training courses, which I mentioned earlier, which he had to do when he

entered the trade in the first place. This is somebody who has been

running a pub or a similar establishment for close on 20 years.

So where is the sense, where is the fairness in that? And all of this

causes a great deal of stress and problems. I think it's worth

pointing out that the tenants quite often can fear and could actually

end up not only being out of work and out of business, but actually

out of a home, because the pub is the home. It is very unlikely that

during the course of being a PubCo tenant they are going to be able to

have built up sufficient capital to either buy a new home or certainly

not to buy a new business. They are in a very, very precarious

situation. And the House of Commons did not intend that to be the case

when it passed this legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, just to

conclude, the value of pubs to the communities they are in,

particularly in rural areas, or enormous. They are often meeting

places, places where people can dine together, where clubs and societies

can be formed, where friendships can be made. And pubs also raise an

awful lot of money for charities. That's something that often gets

forgotten. They are valuable community assets. I would just ask

the Minister, as far as you can today, and perhaps following this

debate, if she can perhaps try and answer some of these queries, if she

can consider if anything else can be done to, as the honourable member

for Leeds North West said, to give effect to the law and to what the

House of Commons actually intended when it brought in these changes.

Thank you. Iain Wright. Thank you. Can I begin by saying how grateful I

am to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this

important debate to take place. I really want to thank the honourable

gentleman the Leeds North West. Together with the Jen the

Tewkesbury, who has just spoken about the superior knowledge and

flexibility and awareness of the Pubs Code and how it should be

operated. I also paid tribute to the honourable gentleman Flemington, as

well as who is also in her place, the honourable lady the panic Chase,

who are both fantastic members of the Select Committee which I'm

privileged to chair. All who have spoken so far, Madam Deputy Speaker,

have worked hard on the issue of pubs and the pub industry. And this

industry has been characterised for many years with a real imbalance in

the power between large pub companies and the tenants of pubs

tied to those companies, the market has not worked in a fair and

equitable way. And tenants have seen unfair conditions imposed upon the

manner in which a whole variety of things take place - how they sell

the beer, and particularly the rent which they pay and belief in which

they operate under. The Pubs Code sets out how PubCos should deal with

the tenants in a much fairer way, and I am pleased to see my

honourable friend, the member for West Bromwich West, my predecessor

in terms of the business Select Committee, who really worked hard in

pushing this and making sure that the Goverment's feat will help to

the fire with regards to that. His select committee and the Labour

front bench, the member for Chesterfield did great work on this,

it is nice to see him in his place too. These honourable members have

worked incredibly hard to try and balance that imbalance in the power

relationship between pub cos and tenants, and a key part of

addressing that is the Pubs Code adjudicator, the adjudicator

providing guidance and judges on transactions to making Sarah. As

we've heard, Mr Newby is the first adjudicator and in many respects by

being the first appointment Mr Newby will shape the nature, style and

tone of the job enable way which actors will be dealt with by his

successors. His judgment. Set residents having ramifications on

the pub trade under pub property business for decades to come. Dave

Manfred of the pubs advisory service and a landlord himself said to us

when we were taking evidence on the select committee that the man I

quote committee pubs adjudicator needs to be fair and harsh and the

decisions he makes need to be based on our common law of justice and

fairness, such that they can be then applied to similar cases so that

precedent is set. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. It

is therefore essential that the first appointment of a key role

commands universal respect immediately and is not subject to

criticism or accusations of conflicts of interest, whether those

conflicts of interest are either real or perceived because perception

is equally important in matters such as this. I'm grateful for him

forgiving way. Would he agree with me that the imbalance he rightly

speaks of means that the proper role of the adjudicator is not to

maintain an impartial view solely, but specifically to look at cases of

abuse by the pub codes, a symmetrical case of abuse, it isn't

the tenants abusing the code but PubCos and abusing the issue. He

makes an incredibly important point and the balance has to be addressed

in the respect to the power dynamics. I would suggest that isn't

taking place. I want to be clear Mr Newby's professional credentials and

expertise are not disputed commit his knowledge of the industry having

worked in the pub property business for something like 35 years, that is

not in doubt and cannot be questioned. However, having looked

at this in a select committee, we believe there is a significant

reason why he should find it difficult and is finding it

difficult to command the confidence of all parts of the industry, namely

that strong perception of conflict of interest made worse by an ongoing

financial interest of Mr Newby's in his former firm. I give way. Thank

you very much, and following the speech by the Honourable member for

Leeds North West, and the chair of the select committee, there has been

a number of criticisms made of the pubs adjudicator. Do you think he

should be called in front of the select committee again? I think this

is an issue that has attracted enormous interest not just from our

select committee, Madam Deputy Speaker Garth from predecessor

select committees who actually helped to change the law when it

comes to this. I will maintain them as chair of the select committee

presents, in terms of hard-working and determined members on the select

committees that as the honourable gentleman for Warrington and Cannock

Chase, that this is not going to go away, and we will continue to put

our attention and pressure on this, to pressure the government is to

look again at the appointments process to have disappointment, this

important appointment to be fair and impartial and that is not happening

at the moment. Before I touch upon the key reason why we want to see

this appointments process reopened I want to touch upon an issue came up

in the select committee. Simon Clark is eighth tied tenant and a surveyor

and as well as Mr Mountford were mentioned earlier they expressed

surprise and concerned that Vista Newby, a chartered surveyor can even

applied for the job. Both said that they needed some money -- somebody

from outside the industry. Mr Mountford said that they had said to

the Department of business innovations and skills that it was

then, and I quote, that they appoint a judge or somebody with legal

experience. We should not be appointing a surveyor. Mr Clark

suggested that it definitely shouldn't have been as surveyor

because there would always be a topic of interest because in all

likelihood they would have always advised one of the parties. Prior to

becoming the pubs adjudicator, Mr Newby was a director of a firm of

business property valuers and surveyors. In giving evidence to the

select committee, and I think the gentleman for Leeds North West has

mentioned this, he stated that around about 23% of the firm's fee

income, a material amounts, derived from advice provided to large pub

companies. That in itself would lend itself to accusations of potential

and certainly perceived conflict of interest. However, Mr Newby

continues to have financial interests in the company. He came to

the committee to give evidence in May and then clarified some of his

self confessed inaccuracies to us in a letter to me in November, at the

instigation of the minister that he said. Mr Newby has both shares and

notes owed to him by the company. We asked him on the committee whether

he would provide a clean and the findable break with his old firm by

divesting himself of his financial interests, and he stated in his

November letter to me that the company was unwilling to do so in

order to avoid putting in his own words, undue strain on capital

resources of the firm. I think it is probably more accurate to call it

the firm's cash flow. I think this is very serious, Madam Deputy

Speaker and really undermines the ability of the adjudicator to

command the trust and respect of all sides of the industry. My only does

he have a significant financial interest in the hands of both shares

and loans in the company, which drives a significant part of its

revenue from large pub companies, he cannot alter that situation because

that would put strain on cash flow. In other words, there remains an

ongoing financial interest and it is in Mr Newby's interest for the firm

to do well in order to secure the monies owed to him. That could mean

that his judgments would assist large PubCos who commissioned

arrangements to arrange cash flow position and profitability for the

firm, and allow payments hence to Mr Newby to be made. When he came for

the committee, Mr Newby said that he had taken off his previous hat and

thrown it away. But he hasn't, Madame Debbie disputed. The ongoing

financial interest means that he's very clearly wearing that had. It

comes down to this, that there is a clear perception of conflict of

interest. I look at things through the prism of football, Madam Deputy

Speaker, and it seems to me like it is a refereed officiating in a

football match between Chelsea, who are top of the premiership at the

moment, and Newport County, who are bottom of League 2. Hartlepool

hasn't fallen quite just yet. Yet. So there is a match between Chelsea

and Newport County. That huge imbalance between different skills

and experience. Although that is a separate debate, I would suggest.

Only for fans to discover that the referee owns shares in Chelsea's

shirt sponsor. It is as close a relationship as this. And with

regard to perceptions of conflict of interest it started with the first

appointment immediately, and I said to Mr Newby at the committee

committee cannot possibly win any judgment he makes will always now

accused in terms of being unfair and impartial. Very much like a referee

who would be considered to be impartial, to be not independent.

This is a serious failing in the ability of the Pubs Code to be

operating effectively. And a vivid contrast was brought home to me in

the select committee when I asked both tenants and landlords and then

executives from large PubCos whether they had confidence in Mr Newby and

his appointment. The large SAID they did not have a problem once

volley-macro whatsoever. The tenants believed clearly that they didn't

believe judgments will be fair and impartial. That strikes the contrast

and it shows that it cannot operate effectively. The Pubs Code has

broken down before it has even begun and the Minister needs to intervene

to ensure the code starts to work. Now, I'm disappointed that the

Secretary of State rejected calls to reopen the appointments process. I

hope the Minister would accept that this case demonstrates a serious and

clear perceived conflict of interest and that perception is stopping the

code from working effectively. To ensure the viability of the pub

industry and to protect the interests of tenants, which have not

been provided with -- for many, many years, will she opened the process

again, and have an adjudicator that is and is seen to be completely in

independent and impartial? Toby Perkins. They derive much Madame

Leopard is bigger. I congratulate the member for Leeds North West for

securing the debate, a good pubs campaigner and speaks very

powerfully on behalf of the industry and I'm pleased we have worked

together to introduce the code in the last Parliament, and to ensure

the free market rent only option be part of it. It has been a great

honour to take over from him as the chair of the pub All Party

Parliamentary Group and I'm sure 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 hope that we

would be part of the Labour government that would get to deliver

this code, but sadly that is not the case. The Pubs Code was a

contentious and important battle to win. I recall as I'm sure the

honourable gentleman does, campaigners tears of joy when we

finally secured the victory that it should market rent only options were

a part of the pub code after he had brought forward that's amendments to

the report stage. And I recall those campaigners, many campaigners coming

to me saying it is too late for me, I've gone bankrupt as a result of

the imperfections and the way in which the industry has been run in

the past but nonetheless, it is crucial for me to know that the

government, parliament is going to be bringing this kind of abuse to an

end. And so it is incredibly important that campaigners who have

spent many many years getting governments to recognise that power

imbalance in the industry, and the exploitation of that situation

resulted from that, and that those people now have confidence in the

Pubs Code and that we end up delivering what those tears of joy

were expecting from us. The Labour government of 2000 and 52 2010, did

excellent work -- 2005-2010, and the Labour member from Wentworth pursued

and look at this issue, set a final challenge for the industry, in the

latter days of government the coalition government that followed

of it were wary of regulating a corrugated industry and attempted to

do everything within their power to give the industry time to put their

own houses in order. It was very much last resort for the government

is doing to use the statutory pubs code and it was a shock to them and

were able to get the house to introduce a market rent only option

to the legislation. All critics were determined to say we shouldn't

legislate, that it would make matters worse, they reflected back

on the pier owners and they said the Labour didn't turn out how it was

expected, and there were always people who were saying that any kind

of government legislation would make the industry worse. And it is

important that those people who have faith in this code get the sense

that this Parliament and government are serious about ensuring that the

legislation that we pass actually delivers what we intend for it. Now,

I have to say, I think it did to the credit of this government that

following the election they have stuck to their word and they did

indeed introduce the code that they committed to. And it is now the

entire industry's interest to ensure the pub codes is established, it and

that the industry sees the rigour with which it is enforced and that

is established. The Pubs Code adjudicator needs to be seen to be

impartial, and clearly the motion in front of us, supported by the

committee and of course the honourable gentleman Felice

north-west and the honourable gentleman from Warrington means that

the test of confidence have not been met. We have had deeply concerning

allegations about the conduct about companies when tenants wish to avail

themselves of the market rent only option and one of the key tests of

the adjudicator will be to start talking clarity deterrence and the

pub owning businesses on issues like the appropriateness of these

variations as a tool for transferring from a tight tenancy to

everyone. I haven't had a convincing reason as to why that shouldn't be

appropriate in the majority of cases. Now, I will come in a moment

to the appointment and performance of Mr Newby, I do think it is fair

to reflect that alongside my praise for the government in bringing

forward some form of legislation there are also legitimate questions.

About the way that is being implemented. It may seem a little

harsh to criticise the government for being too slow and too hasty.

I believe the Government could have come forward much more quickly with

a draft code that the entire industry knew what was in store,

pointed an earlier point the adjudicator and given more time for

that sort of setup process to work. I also think that the scale of the

changes to the code from the initial one to the final one, even though I

support most of those changes, I do think that lead-in time was short

and left the adjudicator and the industry with very little time to

establish the new rules of the game. Now, I'm also very conscious of the

strong criticism from the Select Committee of this process. That led

to the appointment of Mr Newby. This has been repeated by my honourable

friend from Hartlepool, and questioned about whether his

background opened him up to perceptions of impartiality. And I

sympathise with many of those than the MERS. The honourable member from

Leeds North West referred to my meeting with Mr Newby this week --

many of those sentiments. I'm very happy to do so. As always, my

approach to these matters is to meet all parties involved in this, I have

met already with some of the campaigners, my friend from

Hartlepool met in a couple of weeks, I haven't yet met with the BBPA or

with the AMR or many other organisations but I will do. I think

it is important that everybody gets an opportunity to be heard, that's

always the approach that I take. But I said to Mr Newby when I met with

him this week, the focus on his background will continue. While

there are no adjudicator positions coming from his office, while he has

perceived conflict-of-interest that exists. What we all want is for the

adjudicator to get on and adjudicate and start answering some of these

key questions about how the Pubs Code should be interpreted. Once

many of these initial decisions are taken, there will be far greater

clarity for tenants, an opportunity for the adjudicator as the

honourable gentleman for Russ Dorset referred to but actually start

representing the people he is there to represent, those who have set up

the Pubs Code in order to protect, and it will be there for the

adjudicator to be able to go to the pubs, the pub owning companies and

say, we have met previously about the red Lion, and now you're coming

back with a back with the same issue about the dog and dark, we

continuing to have these arguments? I think the honourable gentleman

from Leeds North West makes an important point. Of course there may

be differences of interpretation, differences of fact in individual

cases, but there are themes that emerged throughout this process that

could be looked at and could be processed very, very quickly indeed,

and would give that clarity. As I said in my intervention previously,

I think that across the industry on both sides of the argument there is

a real frustration at the length of time that it is taking for decisions

to emerge. Mr Newby has stored me we will continue to start and see

positions within the next month as -- has assured me. We hope he

delivers on that. The motion also refers to Mr Newby's shareholding

and loans to Florence. This has been referred to by other contributors.

-- the Fleurets. I know the commission reviewed by involvement

of Mr Newby and Fleurets and considered that no conflict exists,

but the fact it is continuing to be raised undermines his perceived

impartiality in the very first place. Mr Newby tells me, as he said

Select Committee, that he has attempted to but unable to come to

come to an early of his loan from Fleurets. And I will be writing to

Mr Newby and the Fleurets to urge them to recommence talks aimed at

ending his involvement with the firm so that the perception of his

impartiality is addressed. I would call on the Minister when she

responds today to do the same thing, to ask Mr Newby again and to ask

Fleurets to recognise this perception is undermining his

ability to be seen as impartial, and to take every possible step to find

an alternative source of this money that isn't Mr Newby. And I will not

go into on the floor of the House the amounts concerned, but in the

context of industry visa huge sums and it would pose a serious question

about the ability of the company if they were unable to replace the sort

of amount they are talking about. But they are significant enough sums

for them to be relevant to the decision-making of the individual,

or at least to be perceived to be relevant to the decision-making of

the individual. I said to Mr Newby, and I will say the same here, but I

believe that that relationship and the perception of that relationship

will undermine the decisions he is taking. It is important that the

adjudicator is free to adjudicate freely on the basis of the evidence.

And if he knows that every time he makes a decision some people are

going to be saying, well like he hasn't made that decision because of

the evidence, he's made it because of this interest, then it undermines

the way that his decisions are seen. And so I reiterate that point and I

hope the Minister will respond to it. Now, I know that campaigners

have called effectively for Mr Newby's dismissal and the restarting

of the process. I am anxious that restarting the entire process pushes

further away the prospect of a resolution for many tellers who

desperately need the certainty that the code adjudications will bring.

The honourable honourable gentleman was right, there has been many

people walking away from the process, people who are either

settling as a result of losing confidence in the process, or are

actually potentially going bust and being unable to carry on in the

trade as a result of that. And so if the Government are mindful, are

minded to agree with what is in the motion here today, then I would want

them to also set out how quickly they are going to be in a position

to ensure we start getting some decisions. Because, much like

Brexit, sometimes no Deal or a bad deal are the same thing. And we need

to make sure we are getting the right decisions but that we are

getting some decisions. Mr Newby has been described to me as a rabbit in

the headlights are free to make a decision that will ultimately need

to be made. The sense of frustration at the failure to start providing

certainty is a very 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, there is a need for this

Pubs Code and the role of the adjudicator to gain public

confidence. It has not made a great start. Government should do more to

identify the cause of the delays and the bride whatever support is needed

in order to clear this Bobridge. I should also urge Fleurets and Mr

Newby to sever their ties, which are comparatively small, and give the

industry the certainty it is crying out for. Adrian Bailey. Thank you,

Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I add my thanks and congratulations to the

honourable member from Leeds North West for securing this debate, and

also compliment him on his tenacious commitment to this particular cause,

which I know goes back over many years. And, to a certain extent, I

do feel that the fact that we are having a debate now on the

application of the Pubs Code, rather than the introduction of it, is at

least if you like a certain consolation and a reflection of the

progress which has been made on this particular issue. Now, I do feel a

certain sense of d j vu standing here again, and once again debating

this issue. I sat on the 2009 business Select Committee on PubCos,

chaired by Sir Peter Love, which in itself is the third, after two

predecessors had also held enquiries into this issue, and indeed as the

former chair of the business Select Committee, I chaired another inquiry

myself in 2014. And I sincerely hope that after the Government did

eventually accept the recommendations of that committee to

introduce this, this would be the last time we would feel the need to

debate it. I do add my thanks to the honourable member for Hartlepool in

chairing the successor committee, which has been prepared to look at

the issues arising from the appointment of the adjudicator, and

effectively carried the torch which has been carried so long by

different manifestations of the business Select Committee. I think

it's fair to say that the history of this issue has been characterised by

obstructive nurse and an unwillingness of the pub companies

to recognise the reality of the injustices to the tenants, the

licensees, and quite frankly the flawed business model that they are

a part of. And the failure to act on recommendations, often quite

moderate recommendations of success select committees has been a

reflection of the Mac just obstructive nurse in any legislation

that actually challenges the business model -- of the obstructive

nurse. Any legislation is here because of that. They have exploited

every possible opportunity to walk the will of Parliament. And I'm

afraid it was always likely, even with the implementation of

legislation, that they would continue to do so -- to thwart the

will of Parliament. Current experience, and indeed this debate

is a reflection of that culture that avails in the industry. You find

that the PubCos proclaim publicly that they accept the legislation,

indeed they embrace the legislation, and are anxious to make it work. And

yet privately, and the evidence I think, overwhelming evidence

submitted by the honourable member from Leeds North West and indeed the

honourable member the Tewkesbury as well, demonstrates that their

Private actions or incomplete contradiction to the public

posturing. -- are in complete contradiction to their private

posturing. It reflects the level of profitability coming from a tied

tenancy, and may be just the negotiating purposes, maybe not,

they add on to it number of other conditions which in fact potentially

make the agreement even more uncompetitive. It's not surprising

that I believe in the first five months of this appointment, the

adjudicator has had something like 376 calls from publicans. And I

believe also that currently there are 77 referrals before the

adjudicator. And most of those odd to do with the market rent only

option. -- are to do. This in itself, given that, shall we say,

obstructive and lack of clarity being conveyed the licensees by the

pub companies, in effect to obscure the rights they have to take, is a

reflection of the profound dissatisfaction with the process so

far. Now, as has been said by a number of speakers, the role of the

adjudicator is actually crucial to the successful outcome of the

legislation, and is crucial to the success of successive Select

Committee recommendations. The commitment of almost now generations

of parliamentarians here to make this work. And if we don't get it

right, then so much work by so many people in this Parliament and so

much parliamentary time will have been wasted. The role and financial

interests of Paul Newby, the adjudicator, have been under

considerable scrutiny. And I commend them for the forensic way in which

they interviewed him. Now, can I say, I am always reticent to

criticise somebody before they've had a chance to demonstrate the

ability to actually act in a particular job. And my instinct when

he was appointed was to say, well, lets just see how he gets on with it

first before we make a judgment. But given the sort of keen nature of it

and the culture that he is there to change and the role that he has the

change in it, I think there are certain issues which have to be

resolved. My honourable friend, the member for Chesterfield and others,

have referred to his financial involvement in Fleurets. And there

is that old adage, perception is reality. And whilst somebody has a

financial interest in a body associated with one side of the

arbitration procedure, there is always going to be this perception

that the adjudicator cannot act impartially.

I think that is reflected by the evidence that was submitted by one

of the previous speakers when they said that when interviewed, I think

it was the member for the heart liberal select committee, that the

pub companies declared total confidence in Paul Newby, the

representatives of the tenants said the opposite. And it is very

difficult to secure confidence in a process where one of the two sides

that will be affected by these processes has absolutely no

confidence in the person doing it. The honourable member for Hartlepool

used the metaphor of a football referee. Arising from that, I'm

really very concerned that many tenants who actually need that

adjudication, and for whom it might actually be, shall we say, observing

their livelihood in the long term, will be unwilling to use the

processes that are available under this Parliament, which have they

fought for over the years in order to meet their needs. If they feel

that they are buying going to the adjudicator they will not have an

impartial hearing, and in fact they could actually prejudice their own

business position by doing so, they are going to be reluctant. Building

to his appointment is the implication that the potential that

this piece of legislation will be undermined from the start. I think

there is a way forward. My honourable friend from Chesterfield

said that they basically should divest himself of these interests,

and it certainly shouldn't be beyond his ability if his commitment is

true to his success in this role, he should be to find a way of divesting

himself from this financial interest. If he does not do so, and

refuses to act on this, then I think really it should come back to this

house that further action be taken to ensure that he is removed or some

other process takes place to deal with this particular problem. This

Parliament and members within it have worked for many years to get

this far. It is crucial to the livelihood of thousands of

republicans up and down the country. -- publicans. It is essential for

the business model that it works, and you cannot have somebody at the

heart of the whole process which, shall we say, potentially undermines

the working of it. He should do this, or parliament should act.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, would like to congratulate the

member from Leeds North West for not only securing this debate, but as

has been documented, his tenacity on this issue. He is indeed I would

suggest the pub champion of wetness -- Westminster, and I think he has a

clear run at that title now. Goodness me, are pubs need a

champion, now. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was brought up in a pub full stop

thankfully the right side of the bar. My parents owned a couple of

pubs when I was a kid which extended to a super pub which was where I

spent perhaps a misspent youth. ... I have thought of pubs necessarily

as places not necessarily where they get jumped where people meet each

other. I have been fortunate to live across the United Kingdom in many

different guises and the first places you would go to meet members

of the community would be the local pub. It isn't where you just get a

drink and have a chat but if you are looking for Obama not only did you

find a plumber within ten minutes but you could have seven or eight

different reviews of that, sitting at the bar. They are crucial to

communities, bringing them together and it isn't only about the pursuit

of alcohol, but they are struggling. 25% of pubs in Scotland have

disappeared in the last ten years, and they are social economic and all

sorts of challenges that they face. People drink at home now.

Increasingly come inside their house, without taking the option of

going to the community friendly pub and that is a real, real shame, so

to have people like the member for Leeds North West to champion this

course is very heartening and I wish all success. Madam debit is bigger

the honourable member form Leeds North West gave a very detailed

analysis of the problems that we are facing with the pubs adjudicator and

he and I have spoken on this issue in a few times, in particular the

conflict of interest position that the pubs adjudicator allegedly finds

itself in. Being a former lawyer I am acutely aware of what constitutes

a constitutive interest, -- conflict of interest, and the word perception

has been used many times in this debate and I would suggest that the

perception of the comic of interest is indeed enough to create that

conflict. You cannot enter the controlling mind that person and say

within those circumstances that financial interest is liking to make

him a different decision, the perception of the conflict is enough

and I can't understand why the government have seen this. It seems

to be the clearest example of a conflict-of-interest position, and

perhaps not even opening up the bombers process, for the government

to call Mr Newby before them to see whether that conflict-of-interest

position is tenable or not tenable I think it has to be done as a matter

of great urgency and I can't understand why nobody could look at

the situation and see that there wasn't a clear conflict of interest.

I thank him for giving way. To help them on that point perhaps and to

remind the minister part of the problem is that the conflicts

weren't properly declared by Mr Newby but the right questions when

asked at the appointments process, to these things weren't known, which

is why we had the strange situation where the select committee forced

him to publish his real convict of interest after five months in the

job. We have clear evidence in the select committee that this is the

case, which surely should compel the government to immediate action. The

whole point of an adjudicator was to address the difference between big

breweries and small tenants, and that is the matter that needs to be

addressed with the greatest of urgency. There have been many

accidents beaches here today and I will run through some point some of

them before I make further comment and the position of Scotland that

has been alluded to by honourable colleagues. The member for

Tewkesbury has everybody did Allied problems in the process, and asked

the Minister to answer questions I would particularly interested in,

the problem with renewed tenancies, and I would call the Minister to

give clarity on that issue. He described pubs are valuable

community assets and given what I say, I agree wholeheartedly, and

hopefully we can start campaigning to make conscious of the public

turned back towards seeing pubs as community assets and places where

communities can be brought together and he talks also about the

awareness of pubs because if tenants don't know that they have a code,

they don't know the right of redress, then frankly Mr Newby will

get away with config interest, because people don't know their

rights. Basically when you are right in that case. The honourable member

for Hartlepool in the chair of the business select committee made an

excellent speech, and again touched majorly on the point of time fictive

interest, if I haven't already said, that would corroborate what he said.

He touched on the perception and I would reiterate again that the

perception of conflict of interest is indeed a conflict of interest. As

a lawyer I was taught by a partner in how to identify

conflict-of-interest and it is something that you are acutely aware

of a is a lawyer, looking for it in every single transaction that you

do. He said to me that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,

walks like a duck, chances are, Richard, it's a duck. If it feels

like a conflict of interest, it looks maybe like a conflict of

interest, then it is quite categorically a

conflict-of-interest. I listened with great interest to the

honourable member for Chesterfield who has admitted that the pubs

adjudicator process is not often the best start on that has been

corroborated by members across the chamber and he gave a useful

context, asking the house how it has come about over the last ten years

and what he did in the last ten years to initiate this change and I

would suggest he has been very successful and campaigning on this

issue, side more successful than his last campaign to make Scotland teams

to sing God Save The Queen. I didn't make any suggestion. I would never

attempt to mislead the house, I apologise if I am and back mistaken.

I don't want to detain the house I will was proposing that the initial

award team had a separate national anthem to God Save The Queen and

that God Save The Queen is only used when Britain were playing and that

England should have an international at them, not telling Scotland or

Wales want to sing at all. I will look at the leaflet, but I don't

think we should defend the house. -- detain the house. The member for

west branch west talked with d j vu, and I again think he was talking

about d j vu if variants being positive, discussing some of the

other problem is that have occurred with the pubs adjudicator. The fact

I think the fact that we keep coming back to these problems indicates

that it would be slavish policy by the Scottish Government to except

the system on a one size fits all broadbrush approach that has clearly

got problems. It is worth mentioning clearly that I'm committed

personally to defending Scottish pub tenants and the covenant is also. --

government. Given the wording of the motion, urging parity for Scottish

tenants will clearly involve parity in fairness, but whether fairness

exist in the current system given the problems identified is another

matter. I think the government is right to take the approach that they

have to outline that approach in any more detail right now. The Scottish

Government introduced a voluntary code for pubs in 2015 and the

landlords. Clearly voluntary is not essentially as effective as

compulsory. We consulted this year from July 2016 and published the 77

page report in December of 2006 team. -- 2016. It highlighted that

the pub sector has different characteristics to the pub sector in

the rest of the UK, 47% of the pubs in the UK are tied, only 17 in

Scotland. There are longer leases in the UK than Scotland. That is

further evidence of the one size fits all policy might not be the

best suggestion but that is not to say that we don't recognise that

there are concerns. The evidence collected did not suggest that any

part of the pub sector in Scotland was being unfairly disadvantaged. In

relation to another as a result a further dialogue between the

relevant trade bodies, government and other interested parties should

continue for changes to the legislation are made. It isn't and I

emphasise, it is not rolled out. I don the finding of the research, it

is clear that there was more work to do, to ensure the relationship

between power companies and tenants is further distraction than terror

fight, -- strengthened and clarified, also on beer. It faces

significant challenges in recruiting licensees to participate in the

research. Created by an apparent were unwillingness to engage on the

subject of the detailed level. Clearly consequence this means that

more discussions and further detailed study should be taken with

a significantly increased level of interest, and involvement from the

wider industry. Quite bluntly, Madame Debord is bigger, we feel

that more evidence is required before we could go down the road of

compulsory pubs adjudicator 's, and clearly there are lessons to be

learned from the system that has been put in this place. I don't

think that is wrong, sometimes we will do things first here, and then

in Holyrood, sometimes the way round. Of course, ultimately, we

would like to do it better. That concludes my comments but just to

reiterate we believe in fairness for pub tenants, we are not at this

stage in Scotland yet where evidence been compelling to make ask go down

that road but we are looking at this system, we are thinking about that,

we are analysing the mistakes and hopefully in the future we will

devise a system that properly protects the rights and fair

treatment of tenants to tied pubs. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I

congratulate the member of the Leeds North West and Tewkesbury for

securing this debate and being a supporter and defender of pubs.

Honourable friends, the Pubs Code came in after much wrangling in

Parliament. It was a code that was called for by many stakeholders in

the industry. One of the most important objectives of this code

was to provide a level playing field for tenants, often local pub tenants

to be able to fairly compete with PubCos in negotiations. This was

highlighted by my honourable friend for Chesterfield. I congratulate

this House for addressing such issues in the code, in particular

the successful introduction of the market rent is only option for

tenants to seek the best deals when negotiating with one of the large

six PubCos. The Government then set out to appoint a Pubs Code

Adjudicator, a decision was made to appoint Mr Paul Newby to this

position, to oversee the running of the code, provide information about

the code, and come awareness Eysseric, to enforce the code. In

the midst of all this there has been raped tension between some groups in

the industry, in particular surrounding the role of the Pubs

Code Adjudicator -- there has been particular attention. My honourable

friend, the member for Chesterfield, highlighted issues around conflict

of interest in his speech and made some very sensible points. As have

many others, who have made eloquent contributions regarding that issue.

I referred to the honourable member from Leeds North West, Tewkesbury,

my honourable friend for West Dorset and my honourable friend for

Chesterfield, Hartlepool and West Bromwich. And I will not go over the

points they have already so eloquently made. But I will say that

firstly the Pubs Code is an essential part in moving the

levelling the playing field between pub tenants and the larger PubCos.

And in doing so, it provides an outline for protecting pub tenants

against the very large PubCos and their organisations. The market rent

is only option was successfully introduced so that pub tenants could

have more flexibility in their operations. And it was welcomed by

many stakeholders. But clearly, as we have heard today, there are

serious questions on the effectiveness of the code and its

current implementation, and that of the role and the conduct and the

perceived conflict-of-interest of the pub code adjudicator. I will

refer to the honourable member for Dumfries Galloway. I think he

clearly explained from his legal background how that perceived

conflict-of-interest can be a sort of serious barrier to actually what

is going on at the moment, and if there is a perceived conflict of

interest, then that has to really be looked into seriously. Since the

introduction of the code last year, 77 referrals have been put forward

to the pub code adjudicator. And mostly, those are to do with the

market rent issues. This is very crucial to many of the small

operators will this sector. So we will see that there is clearly a

demand for arbitration via this code. And it is of great concern to

me and many others that not one of these cases has actually reached any

resolution. And while I read it Nice that the Pubs Code Adjudicator has

only been imposed the six months, it does seem to me that during that

time he should have made his mark on the industry to try and gain the

confidence of the market. It is essential that the process of

referrals and subsequent decisions by any adjudicator must be seen to

be fair and free of any conflict of interest. And this issue is clearly

one, to my mind, that the Government needs to address urgently. And this

was raised clearly by my honourable friend from Hartlepool. Honourable

friends, the pub industry employs 850,000 people in the UK. In

particular, the local pubs that formed the hub of many communities.

In this time of the Goverment's cuts the vital local services, we have

seen community pubs step in to provide libraries and cafes to serve

their communities. I commend the work done by the not for profit

organisation in this aspect. Therefore, it is crucial that the

pub code works by everyone as the effective measure it sets out to be

and was expected to be. This brings me to the point raised by many

honourable members on the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. There

certainly have been some raised tensions in the debate over the

appointment of Mr Newby as the PCA. And, as I've already said, I welcome

honourable members who have made points about the perceived

conflict-of-interest issues surrounding Mr Newby's former

employer. And I do also want to refer to the findings of the Select

Committee, and I would urge the Minister to look carefully into

those recommendations. Particularly about the perceived

conflict-of-interest, and also taking into account Mr Newby's

shareholdings and the loan issues that have been raised today. In my

view, we should not hide away from serious concerns such as these. The

Government must ensure that the role of pub code adjudicator is truly

impartial. And independent, so that pub tenants, whom the pub code is

there to serve, are satisfied with the work done. And clearly, as

outlined by my honourable friend for Dumfries Galloway, that has not

been the case. It is my view, it is only in this way that we will ensure

a fair and proper process, and it is only in this way that we will ensure

that we focus on the real important issues. I urge the Government to

examine the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator and to explore options

which will increase transparency unfairness. Over the last couple of

weeks, I have had many meetings with the representatives of some of the

pub tenants groups and representatives from the larger

PubCos. In all of these meetings there were recurring theme that

appear to unite all stakeholders, including business rates. Therefore

we must focus on the issues that act as barriers towards a thriving pub

industry. The pub has long been part of established British life, and is

now the number three on the list of things to do the tourists coming to

the UK. We must do everything we can do it sure this continues.

Honourable friends, the Pubs Code is there to help local pub tenants get

a fair deal when negotiating with a larger PubCo. But we have already

heard today that some in the industry and convinced that this is

working for them. -- are unconvinced. I strongly urge this

Government to do what it can to ensure that the Pubs Code is

properly implemented for everyone, and in particular for tied tenants,

who have long campaigned for the negotiations. I believe it is only

fair to Mr Paul Newby that the Minister reviews the way in which he

has been appointed, the matters that have arisen from this debate and

from the Select Committee, in order for us to move on from the position

we are finding ourselves in now, and to make progress to ensure that the

Pubs Code is implemented properly, and that absolutely everybody has

trust and confidence in the way it was meant to be. Thank you.

Minister. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would first like to

congratulate the honourable member from Leeds North West, and my

honourable friend for chicks break for securing today's debate on the

Pubs Code Adjudicator -- for Tewkesbury. And to thank members

across the House who have contributed to the excellent and

thought-provoking debate that we have heard this afternoon. Clearly,

the subject continues to attract strong views, passion and debate,

and the Government, I would like to reassure the House, is fully

committed to ensuring that tied tenants can operate in an

environment that is fair and allows them to thrive. That is why we

introduced the Pubs Code, and I pay by the killer tribute to the

honourable member for Leeds North West -- I pay particular tribute.

The Pubs Code regulates the relationship between around 11,500

tied pub tenants and the large pub owning businesses. Which rent the

pubs to them and sell them tied products. The Pubs Code applies to

pub owning businesses with 500 or more tied pubs, as we have heard

this afternoon, and there are currently six businesses that fall

in scope of the pubs code - Admiral Caverns, enterprise Inns, Greene

King, milestones, Punch Taverns and start pubs and bars owned by

Heineken. The two principles of the pubs code - there and lawful dealing

by pub owning businesses in relation to the tied tenants -- fair and

lawful. And tied pub tenants should be no worse off than if they were

not subject to any time. And the not subject to any time. And the

Pubs Code should make sure that tied pub tenants receive the formation

they need to make informed decisions about taking on a pub or new terms

and conditions, have the rent-free assessed if they haven't had a

review for five years, -- have their rent assessed. And the request in

market on the option to go market on the option to go

free-of-tie and pay only a market rent in specific circumstances,

including at a rent renewal or a renewal of tenancy. I'm going to

first deal with the appointment of Mr Newby and performance issues

raised in the debate. And I'm sure we will be able to come back to some

of these important issues as I go through my speech. We believe that

he is the right person to ensure that pub codes delivers its

statutory objectives, and, for reasons I will come onto, we think

he has got off to a good start in the course of his responsibilities.

Since his appointment, Mr Newby has himself very visible and accessible.

He has attended at least eight conferences across the country.

Various events, and eight road shows across the country, where he has met

many stakeholders, including several hundred talents. He has also taken

pains to pursue greater visibility for the Pubs Code and raise

awareness for the Pubs Code among tenants by appearing on various

television programmes like pubs special and the great British Pub

Revolution. Both with the aim of bringing the Pubs Code to the

attention of a wider audience. You know, I didn't watch the programmes

myself, so I can't comment on the creative content, but there it is

like they are a means of raising awareness with the target audience.

Through these appearances, Mr Newby has explained his role and

responsibility and shown his determination to help create a

fairer business environment for tied pub tenants that allows the pubs, so

important to our communities, to thrive. Contrary to what we've

heard, Mr Newby has been raising awareness among tenants that under

Regulation 50, a pub owning business must not subject it tied pub tenants

do any detriment on the ground that the tenant exercises or attempts to

exercise any rights under these regulations. And it's very important

that he continues to make this case. I will give way to the honourable

gentleman. I'm very grateful. Can she therefore clarify that in the

context of that desire and that order in the legislation that the

pub owning business who was moving from being tied to a free-of-tie

model would be able to do it with a simple the relation that meant that

this was the only change to the terms and conditions, that all of

the other terms and conditions didn't have to be reviewed as a

result of the type to do that? I have great sympathy with the point

the honourable member has made. And I hope that in June course that will

be clarified by the pub code adjudicator. But the pub code itself

is not clear on that particular aspect, and it will be, it will be

up to the Pubs Code Adjudicator to pronounce on that when he feels he

has enough evidence on that point. I reiterate that I do have

considerable sympathy with the point the honourable member makes. Mr

Newby has received a positive response from tenants, with the

majority being supportive of his role. And I do accept that the right

numbers of people, of tenants, who are opposed and deeply so do his

role, and I couldn't have sat here for the last 1.5 hours without

realising that even if I do know before. I won't give way yet, but I

will of cores give way to the honourable gentleman, I will make

some progress but then I will give way to him. The point is that... I

will come to the... I might as well have given way because he's made his

point anyway, I will come to the point that he is raising about

tenants that are in support of him shortly in my speech. But suffice to

say, the numbers of florals he is getting worried in any case the

witness to what I'm saying -- the numbers of referrals he is getting

would in any case the witness. They are coming to the Pubs Code

Adjudicator to seek protection is provided by the Pubs Code. In the

first six months, the inquiry line, set up by the adjudicator to pride

information about the code, has received 435 enquiries -- to provide

information. 91% were from tied pub tenants or their representatives,

bearing out the imbalance that these business people have had to suffer

over many years. On the same period, the Pubs Code Adjudicator received

121 referrals for arbitration. I will respond to a few of the

comments that were made during the debate. My right honourable friend

for West Dorset and other members have observed that the Pubs Code

Adjudicator does have a jewel role in both upholding and enforcing the

code. Adjudicating on alleged breaches of the code, and the Pubs

Code is in law to bring greater protection to tenants. And to

strengthen their position in what was a very unlevel playing field. So

the PCA's role is therefore to uphold the law and not to interpret

it in the way that is biased towards one party or another when it comes

to the adjudication side of his responsibilities.

We have heard allegations of ongoing abuse I pub companies touring

despite -- during this debate, from the honourable member from Warwick

and also from Tewkesbury and others, tenants seeking the mark and others,

tenants seeking the marking rent only option -- market rent only

option, are being undermined by a company is threatening to make the

pursuit of a market rent only option unreliable in direct contravention

of regulation 50 of the code. And there are clearly, I would suggest,

incidences of flouting the code going on, and honourable members are

quite right to bring them forward to the house as they have done this

afternoon. They are what the code is designed to root out and I would

urge honourable members to refer them to the pub code adjudicator.

Continuing on the performance issues, the honourable member for

Chesterfield quite rightly raised his concerns that they have not yet

been any adjudications, there is a clear appetite which is felt indeed

by the pub code adjudicator himself or adjudications to start coming out

and I have no doubt that they will be, that they will do so in due

course, without further delay, and there is no doubt that the pub code

adjudicator will start to form some views based on the evidence that he

is seeing so that we don't indefinitely have a situation where

every single case takes the same amount of time that the cases have

taken in the first few months of his deliberations. I quite concur with

that point, and I have questioned the pub code adjudicator will about

that and he is yours me that although the law is technical and

not clear on every point that when he is satisfied that he can issue

guidance he most certainly will issue guidance. And he has already,

of course, made statements which I think should give some comfort to

the house. On the 9th of September he made a public statement in

response to information received from stakeholders reminding the pub

owning companies of their obligations and what he expected of

them in relation to the code. That they should act in a manner that

doesn't inhibit tied tenants from accessing their rights, must make

available all relation relating to rent assessment and proposed

tenancies and must ensure that M R O tenancies comply with the code and

do not contain the sorts of unreasonable terms we have heard

about the only debate this afternoon. It is clear from even our

investigations prior to this debate is that at least one pub owning

company is still not complying with the code and making life difficult

for its tied tenants and this needs to be rooted out. I will give way. I

thank the Minister for giving way. I feel I have two just remind her of

her wonder work when she was in the select committee and shared the same

view but she must substantiate the statement she has made for the

majority of tenants supporting Paul Newman. Does she realise that the

only organisations that he has cited in support, the eight M R, one of

their members a regulated PubCos, the PII can run by somebody who used

to be a member of Taiwan macro, the FLA run by enterprise ins, and

social would she correct the record that people still in majority oppose

Paul Newby? I don't to the criticisms that the honourable

gentleman makes. I'm sure he has not interviewed all 11,000 buyers and --

11,500 tied tenants in the country and the representation I have seen

is open to question of how many tenants may be representative. It is

all very well to criticise the bodies he is quoted, but they are

credible organisations, they have welcomed his appointment, and they

have commented that it is essential that the post is held by somebody

with an in depth knowledge of the market and when I visited the office

of the pub code adjudicator in Birmingham, and met the team of

staff behind him they were all also very relieved that they had the

leadership of someone who knew so much about the industry, and the

market. If I may continue because honourable members raised other very

important issues including, of course, the conflict of interest

issue raised particularly by the honourable member for Hartlepool.

There have been to accusations against Mr Newby that he is a

conflict of interest through his financial interests in Fleurets, and

also, and I take this seriously, the perception that he is convicted,

which means that he is not able to carry out his role effectively.

There is a delicate balance to be struck by saying that perception is

reality. Also, taking advantage of every opportunity to boost and give

further credence to that conflict. However, on the conflict of

interest, as the Secretary of State explained to the select committee on

the 14th of the December, the appointment of the post was run in

accordance to the code, a proper and rigorously followed process and the

panel concluded Mr Newby and no conflicts of interest which should

into question his ability to do the job. And the Commissioner of Public

appointments, Mr Peter Riddle has also considered the matter and has

confirmed his view that nothing was hidden and there have been proper

and transparent processes. He has also been satisfied that the panel

were entitled to conclude that Mr Newby has no such conflict of

interest. It would be wrong to refuse the judgment of the

independent figure responsible for overseeing these figures. It is a

man of great integrity who has decided this a great understanding

of many of the issues of public employment. The government does not

agree that is his previous environment with Fleurets Crater

conflict of interest that could give rise to a reasonable perception of

bias. I am sorry honourable members are dissatisfied with that but we

have heard the accusations Mr Newby misled the select committee about

his financial interest in his former company but he is not attempting to

disguise the nature of his financial interests in Fleurets. He answered

the question he was asked to do the best of his ability at the time and

there was no intention to mislead. He later became aware that some

technical parts of his evidence were inaccurate, he has written to the

committee to set the record straight. The request for early

repayment which I think was made particularly by the honourable

member for Chesterfield backed up by the honourable member for West

Bromwich West who made a speech which I listened to with great

attention, having sat on his committee in the early years of my

time here in Parliament, and listened very carefully to what he

said, but during his oral evidence, Mr Newby was open about the nature

of his loan arrangements with Fleurets, and in order to be helpful

he did say that he would ask if that would be possible for the loan to be