Pub Companies - Business and Enterprise Committee Contents

Further supplementary evidence submitted by David Morgan

  I accept that you have had a multitude of further representations since the BEC hearing in early December when you interviewed the Chiefs of Enterprise Inns and Punch. A specific item of disingenuous evidence has now reared itself in a number of situations nationwide through clients of this company, Cooksey DMP. The issue is that of insurance and Question 297 that was raised by your good self.

  Mr Tuppen's response was:

    "If any licensee can demonstrate that he can get the same cover at a cheaper price, we give him his money back so we could not make a greater commitment than that".

  The reality is that clients of this Firm have sought advice from their independent insurance brokers who, after expressing incredulity at both the size of the premium and the excess (always £1,000 minimum), they said that they could only consider the position if they had sight of the existing Enterprise Inns insurance policy and thus directly give a competitive quotation. Herein lies the problem. Enterprise Inns flatly refuse and have refused in every instance of which I am aware, to issue a copy of their insurance policy. We thus have the ultimate Catch 22 which shows the strength of honesty of Mr Tuppen's reply to your Question 297. As far as I am aware, no tenant has been able to obtain a competitive quote, specifically because they are unable to obtain a copy of the Enterprise Inns insurance policy.

  I do accept that the Committee has now virtually concluded its detailed Report, although I did feel that this item was of such importance that you may care to consider it further before the issuance of the final Report.

19 January 2009

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 13 May 2009