House of Commons - Pub companies: follow-up - Business, Innovation and Skills Committee

Pub companies: follow-up - Business, Innovation and Skills Committee Contents

2 BBPA Framework Code of Practice

Introduction

21. One of the principal recommendations in the 2004 Report was that BBPA's Framework Code of Practice "should be revised as a matter of urgency".[22] In evidence to our 2009 inquiry the BBPA told us that it believed that its revised code had fulfilled "most of the requirements of the 2004 Report."[23] The BBPA further asserted that all member companies were subsequently invited to review their codes and revise them as appropriate in line with the BBPA's new Framework Code.[24]

22. Our 2009 Report tested these assertions and found that, contrary to the view of the BBPA, the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Committee had not been met and that further work was necessary to solve the problems of the "inequality in bargaining power and inadequate means to resolve disputes".[25]

23. The BBPA's submission to this inquiry stated that:

The BBPA (in conjunction with the BII and FLVA) is developing a new industry Code of Practice that will bring real tangible benefits to both those entering into new agreements and existing licensees. The revised Code will […] include improved transparency, better and more complete information, better protection for prospective tied pub operators and a more open rent review process with inexpensive and accessible redress in case of dispute.[26]

A key aspect of this inquiry was to test whether this new code would deliver these 'real tangible benefits' to new and existing lessees. Simon Clarke, representing the IPC, argued that this statement was nothing new:

It is almost as if there was never any code before and this will now be the code. […] there was a code before the [Trade and Industry Committee Report] in 2004 and a code before the [Business and Enterprise Committee Inquiry] in 2008 and one after the [Business and Enterprise Committee Report] in 2009. This one really cannot be any different in that it is not mandatory, not regulated and independent.[27]

24. Mr Alistair Darby, representing the BBPA, tried to reassure us that the industry was now committed to real change. He explained that the working party set up by the BBPA to rewrite the framework code was made up of people "who recognise that some very serious concerns are raised by the [2009] Report and they have to do a substantially better job this time than it did post the [2004] Report."[28]He was at pains to point out that the BBPA was "determined to ensure that the new code is established and properly conducted in the trade, not least because fundamentally that is good for business."[29]

25. Brigid Simmonds, representing the BBPA, explained that once the new BBPA Framework Code of Practice had been approved, the BBPA would then go through the process of:

"bringing all the individual company codes into alignment with the overarching industry code. All of those codes will have to be implemented".[30]

The new Framework Code states that "all pub companies operating tenanted or leased pubs should produce a Code of Practice based on the principles set out in this Code", and that "this is a requirement for membership of the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA)".[31]

26. We do not believe previous BBPA and pub company Codes of Practice have been sufficiently robust. Nor do we believe the pub companies have properly complied with them. This history of evasiveness and the demonstrable consequences for lessees inevitably requires a critical response to the new Framework Code.

Does the Framework go far enough?

27. Lessee groups have expressed disappointment with the new Framework Code. The IPC believed that the Framework "does not address the specific needs and concerns of lessees" and that it represented a "codification and formalisation of existing good practice".[32] It also said that the code "does not deliver anything particularly new or substantive. Crucially, it leaves the fundamental nature of the commercial relationship between landlord and lessee—which is at the heart of the Committee's deliberations—untouched."[33]

28. The IPC argued that any revised Framework Code had to be "independent of the companies being regulated; capable of being rigorously enforced and upheld; and carrying significant and effective sanctions for any breach of its provisions".[34] It concluded that the published Framework Code of Practice:

fails those tests and we continue to believe that the only effective remedy will be a mandatory Code of Practice with access to independent redress. The estate agency and now the grocery market provide effective models for this type of government intervention.[35]

29. The Fair Pint Campaign stated that the BBPA code was:

a wholly inadequate response to the criticisms of the sector made by the Select Committee given that it totally ignores the key areas of the Committees' concern. The fact that the BBPA has chosen to respond to the Select Committee with a set of proposals which would more or less leave the status quo untouched shows that the BBPA's biggest pubco members are totally unwilling to consider any meaningful change in the structure of the industry. Their primary concern appears to remain their ability to extract short-term income from their pub estates in order to meet their debt obligations.[36]

30. Mr Simon Clarke, a representative from the IPC, told us that

In total there were 25 [Business and Enterprise Committee] recommendations. If we consider the entire industry response to the report, 18 recommendations remain untouched in any shape or form. In reality the pubcos and BBPA have fully addressed none of the issues raised in the Report. Instead, once again, the pubcos have merely given the impression that the industry is capable of self regulation by 'promising' to partially address the less substantial recommendations.[37]

He referred to it as "lipstick on a monster"[38] and that the bad guys "stay rich and the good guys stay scared".[39]

31. The ALMR noted that it had taken the BBPA eight months to produce the Framework Code and that this was "in stark contrast" to the work undertaken by RICS to revise its guidance over the same period.[40] The IPC and Fair Pint also questioned the reason for the delay claiming that the Framework Code:

differs little from the Heads of Terms reached by BBPA, BII and FLVA in September 2009. We are at a loss to understand why it has therefore taken so long to publish and, more importantly why it was not available ahead of the Committee's evidence session in December. This appears to be simply a delaying tactic rather than an attempt to address the Committee's genuine concerns.[41]

32. We are disappointed that it took until the end of January 2010 to publish the new BBPA Framework Code of Practice. We were given sight of a draft Code ahead of the evidence session in December 2009 and the difference between the draft and the published Codes appears to be minimal. This delay put back publication of our Report as it was only fair to let other groups respond to it.

The Framework Code of Practice

33. In this section we offer an initial assessment of the new Framework Code of Practice and the changes it has made to the assignment of leases, the provision of training and professional advice for new and existing lessees, the impact on local and regional brewers, upward only rent reviews (UORRs) and Amusement with Prizes (AWP) machines. An analysis of the differences between the existing Framework Code and the new Framework Code can be found in the Annex to this Report. We also consider the issue of flow-monitoring equipment. In the next section of the Report we consider the enforceability of the Code.

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES

34. In 2004 the then Trade and Industry Committee made the following recommendation:

We are aware that pubcos, as landlords, do not have the right to unreasonably withhold consent to assignment by tenants and can only offer advice to these prospective tenants. Pubcos should insist that tenants assigning leases provide prospective tenants with the same level of information that their pubco would provide.

Prospective tenants entering the trade through lease assignment should not sign agreements until they are fully aware of an incumbent's annual profit and loss accounts for the business they are purchasing. They should also contact the pubco for information they believe is not forthcoming from their assignor. [42]

35. Our 2009 Report returned to this matter and noted the perceived problem that assignments from outgoing lessees, as opposed to leases direct from a pub company, were a cause of disputes. Our Report concluded that greater levels of information needed to be provided by both sides:

We accept that in many cases pubcos do not have access to their lessees' books. However, they have access to a substantial amount of information about the business of a particular pub, and are likely to have extensive information if a business is in difficulties. Pubcos entering a commercial relationship with a new lessee should be required to share all their information on a pub's trading history with them.[43]

36. The new Framework Code states that:

The assignment of leases places obligations on both the pub company and the lessee wishing to assign his lease (assignor). This is to ensure that the potential purchaser of the lease (assignee) is supplied with the same information as would be supplied by the landlord at the commencement of a lease and is able to take his own proper business decisions about the business being offered.[44]

37. Lessee groups believe that the new Code places significant obligations on lessees. The Fair Pint Campaign said:

By restricting the freedom of lessees to sell their interests, the framework seeks to impose new onerous conditions on lessees. In return the lessee gets nothing from the landlord apart from the promise to fulfil obligations which they should be doing anyway.[45]

The IPC also argued that there was a risk that signing a Code based on the Framework Document had the potential to undermine a lessee's existing legal rights and remedies. It believed that "professional advisers would advise clients not to sign such an agreement."[46]

38. Pub companies and lessees have a responsibility to assess the ability of a new entrant's ability to run a pub, and to provide them with the necessary information to make an informed decision. However, in doing so, the new Code should not undermine the existing rights of the lessee. On the other hand, many of the worst problems seem to arise from inappropriate assignments and such assignments are bad for the industry, for the pub companies and, crucially, for the new lessees.

39. The clauses in the Framework Code of Practice regarding the assignment of leases are an attempt to address our and our predecessor Committee's concerns. We note the concerns expressed by lessees about the obligations it would place upon them but we believe that the new Code represents a step in the right direction. However, lessees' existing right to assign their leases needs to be treated with the upmost consideration.

40. The BBPA and the lessee organisations need to work together to develop processes in a way which are mutually beneficial. Both sides must ensure that the history of lack of trust and intimidating behaviour by pub companies does not magnify disagreements on this issue and undermine the Framework Code.

TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL ADVICE

41. The new Framework Code of Practice sets out the minimum level of training and professional advice which will be required by a lessee before he or she can take over a pub. The Code includes the following requirements to be met by a new lessee:

Obtain accredited pre-entry training to enable them to evaluate and understand the contract they are seeking to enter into;

Demonstrate they have taken proper independent professional advice prior to accepting a tenancy/lease (and during the operation of the tenancy/lease whenever the need arises); and

Take professional legal and business advice which should be used to prepare an appropriate business plan.[47]

42. The British Institute of Innkeeping (BII) told us that it is currently working with industry to develop a training course to ensure prospective lessees fully consider their legal and operational responsibilities before they enter into a lease. The BII's hope is that this "will give newcomers the chance to take on a tenancy or lease fully aware of what they are signing up to."[48]

43. Fair Pint recognised that training was important:

We agree that people should only enter any business agreements once they have attained a good understanding of what is required to run that business and a full understanding of what they are committing themselves to.[49]

However, its members were concerned by a waiver in the Code that allows for some lessees not to attend training and concluded:

The requirements on pre-entry training are of little value because the requirements can be waived at the company's discretion. The criteria set down for waiving […] seems broad enough to potentially include most new entrants into the market.[50]

In response to that concern the BII stated that:

We recognise that in this industry there is a good deal of movement of licensees between pubs and pub companies. We feel it is entirely reasonable that [...] a new lessee/tenant of a pub company who has current experience of running a lease or tenancy may attract a waiver to such training.[51]

44. The introduction of a waiver represents a pragmatic approach to dealing with existing lessees who have a proven track record. It should not be used widely and liberally for idle convenience. A high threshold must be met before a waiver is issued, the criteria for which should be clear and publically available.

45. We welcome the inclusion of the clauses on training and professional advice in the Framework Code which will greatly assist newcomers to the industry. We also agree that experienced publicans should not have to undertake basic training when taking on a new lease. We therefore understand why a waiver has been included in the training clause of the Framework Code of Practice. It is vital that both of these clauses are applied rigourasly. We will expect the BBPA to introduce a system to monitor use of the waiver and publish clear guidelines on its use by the end of August 2010.

REGIONAL AND FAMILY BREWERS

46. We have received no evidence to suggest that the tie is a cause of controversy or dispute between smaller regional and family brewers and those who operate their tied estate. That said, we have heard concerns from regional and family brewers about compliance costs for the new Code.[52] Bridgid Simmonds told us that the BBPA would be taking this into account.[53] In addition, the BII said that it would be giving initial assistance to all applicants to the Code and that a permanent member of BII staff would be visiting each company or brewery to discuss the production of their Code and to explain how the scheme worked. It also told us that BIIAB (the BII's accreditation board) would ensure codes were in an appropriate state before submitting to its Benchmarking Committee for accreditation.[54]

47. We welcome the fact that the BII will work to help and advise smaller pub companies and family brewers on the new Framework Code and the subsequent accreditation process. We recommend that the BII monitor closely compliance costs for regional and family brewers to ensure that these costs remain reasonable.

UPWARD ONLY RENT REVIEWS

48. Both the 2004 Report and the 2009 Report deprecated the use of upward only rent reviews (UORRs). The industry has insisted that UORRs "have been a thing of the past since 2005."[55] Although UORR clauses are a 'thing of the past' as far as new leases are concerned the problem is that they still exist in old leases. During the 2009 inquiry the pub companies told us that they would not enforce these clauses and would provide 'comfort' letters confirming this to their lessees. The BBPA asserted that such letters were "legally binding."[56] Pub companies have also offered lessees a deed of variation on their leases to remove any UORR clauses although there was a legal fee for this. However we continue to receive submissions arguing that UORR clauses are being enforced.[57]

49. The BBPA argue that the new Code would put an end to this matter:

Comfort letters will not now be necessary since, as DLA Piper [BBPA's legal advisers] point out, company codes will state categorically that any upward only enforcement clauses remaining in leases will not be enforced.[58]

50. We recommend that where leases have upward-only rent review clauses they should be removed by a deed of variation, the cost of which should be borne by the pub companies. This would also have the benefit of being binding on a pub company's successor in title.

AWP MACHINES

51. Both the 2004 Report and the 2009 Report recommended that the Amusement with Prizes (AWP)[59] tie should be removed:

In 2004 the Trade and Industry Committee concluded that "In our opinion, pubcos do not add sufficient extra value from their deals to justify their claims to 50% of the takings from AWP machines. We remain unconvinced that the benefits of the AWP machine tie outweigh the income tenants forgo and we recommend that the AWP machine tie be removed." That conclusion remains valid.[60]

52. These recommendations were resisted by industry which argued that both the pub company and the lessee make more money when an AWP machine is tied. Mr Darby, the Managing Director of Marston's Brewery, told us that a trial carried out for Marston's demonstrated this to be the case. He argued that with non-tied AWP machines:

AWP income rapidly diminishes because the tenant seeks to reduce the rent on the machines in his pub by selecting lower quality machines or opting for lesser levels of service from the machine supplier.[61]

Mr Mallen, a member of the IPC, was not convinced and commented that the BBPA appeared to suggest that "the lessee can operate his business but he is not capable of managing his own machines".[62] He argued that the pub companies were only interested in maximising their own profit:

For years they have taken upfront access payments; they have refused to allow machine operators onto their list unless they pay their weekly rents; they have taken a disproportionate amount of the machine income over four years. I do not believe we can leave the BBPA to manage these machines on our behalf.[63]

53. Although the AWP tie issue remains unresolved, the new BBPA Framework Code contains a minor improvement to the current position:

It will be made clear in the process of profit assessment that where machines are tied machine income will not be included in the "divisible balance".[64]

According to the BBPA this would result in a net gain to a lessee with a £2,500 AWP income of £1,250.[65]

54. Removal of the AWP income from the divisible balance is a belated step in the right direction. It should never have been included in the divisible balance in the first place. To take 50% of profit as part of the machine tie and then 50% of the remaining profit as part of the divisible balance is totally unacceptable.

55. However, the Framework Code does not address the issue of royalty payments to pub companies by AWP machine tie suppliers, an issue which was considered in the 2004 Report.[66] And it does not seriously tackle the question of whether the tie itself should be abolished. Mrs Nicholls of the IPC told us:

The Select Committee's recommendation in 2004 was very clear. The benefits of the tie are not outweighed by the restrictions imposed as a result of it. The BBPA suggestion does not go far enough because it does not meet the fundamental recommendation that the AWP tie should go.[67]

Fair Pint said that:

The fact that BBPA member companies have not even been willing to consider getting rid of the AWP tie, which can't be justified for any other reason other than it affords pub owning companies the opportunity to extract more income from their estates, is disappointing. It shows that pub companies are unwilling to even make the smallest changes to the relationships with their tenants which could in any way improve the fairness of the division of pub profits.[68]

The Office of Fair Trading in its report following CAMRA's super-complaint found that lessees were between £2,000 to £3,000 a year worse off as a result of the AWP tie.[69]

56. Karl Harrison from the IPC believed that choice should be at the heart of any solution:

Why can we not be offered a range of choices? Some publicans will feel more comfortable perhaps with that arrangement [an AWP tie]; others will want to manage their own machines because they are very good at it, but at the moment the choice is not there.[70]

57. It is unacceptable that pub companies have again failed to address the AWP tie or to seriously offer free of tie options. If the AWP tie offers the benefits claimed for it, offering such a choice on an informed basis would demonstrate goodwill at little if any cost to the pub companies as lessees will freely chose to retain the tied machines.

FLOW MONITORING EQUIPMENT

58. An issue of deep concern and anger during our 2009 inquiry was the use of flow monitoring equipment (FME) supplied by a company called Brulines to 'police' tied pubs. Flow monitoring equipment is designed to monitor how many pints pass through a pub's pipes. The pub company can use this data to compare the amount of beer it has delivered to a pub against the amount which has passed through the pumps. A difference can indicate the possibility that additional beer, not bought through the tie, is being dispensed.

59. Our 2009 Report found that the equipment was not calibrated and that there was no external verification. It concluded that "pubcos should not be allowed to rely on data from Brulines equipment to enforce claims against lessees accused of buying outside of the tie".[71] This was compounded by reports of fines being direct-debited from lessees' accounts before they had had an opportunity to query the charges. Mr Harrison from the IPC believed that flow monitoring equipment was "inaccurate;" "possibly unlawful" and "used for intimidation."[72]

60. In respect of direct debits, the BBPA told us:

We are assured by our members that direct debits are not applied where transgressions against buying-out are concerned without the consent of the tenant or lessee concerned.[73]

This is a bold statement and one which we, and our successor Committee, will continue to monitor in great detail.

61. The new Framework Code of Practice has, in part, addressed our concerns. It includes a suggested protocol which sets out "the terms under which flow monitoring equipment may be installed and any further prima facie evidence available."[74]Annex A of the Code offers a list of what might be included in a company's protocol:

Details of data to be shared with tenant/lessee and frequency;
Calibration/allowances and parameters for review;
Evidence of buying-out, supported by the flow-monitoring equipment;
Procedures to be followed by the company in establishing with the tenant/lessee that a breach has occurred;
Penalties/sanctions to be applied in lieu of forfeiture of lease in the event that a breach is determined;
How any charges will be applied;
Authorisation of FME personnel to be given access to the premises and circumstances in which such access may be denied;
Tampering with equipment.[75]

BBPA Chief Executive, Brigid Simmonds, told us that it would be for individual pub companies to write up their own protocol, but that any protocol would have to be accredited by the BII. Furthermore, she asserted that it had to be "transparent and above board."[76]

62. The BBPA has stated that it did not want to "anticipate" what evidence of buying out of the tie should be but suggested it could include the presence of products which were not supplied under the tie agreement, purchase evidence, third party evidence and pump clips/keg caps from non-supplied products.[77] The BBPA also suggested that "covert intelligence, for example CCTV, would be acceptable."[78]

63. The IPC claim that 'confessions' have been used as additional evidence to Brulines data. It suggested that these 'confessions' had been obtained under duress because "a nominal fine and confession would probably be better than the forfeiture of the lease which is what [the lessee] is being threatened with".[79]Mr Simon Clarke, representing the IPC, set out how he believed such 'confessions' were collected:

The accusation is often conducted in an aggressive way using electronically enhanced information from Brulines plc. to threaten the tenant with legal action unless a "fine" (usually of an arbitrary quantum) and an administrative charge are paid, and a "confession" signed. The landlord will often present the evidence obtained from Brulines as compelling evidence against the tenant that will persuade a Court of the tenant's breach rendering it hopeless for the tenant to offer a defence or to go to the cost of doing so. The letters and draft "confessions" from pub owning companies are worded in such a way as to imply that remedies against the tenant, such as judgement in the courts or forfeiture of the lease are mere formalities when of course the landlord would need to properly make out their case in the court in the usual way.[80]

64. Brulines stated that it is "significantly more cautious when reviewing and assessing negative variances[81] on cask products."[82] Based on Brulines data from the previous three months "a total of 6,259 customers' premises were visited by Brulines Customer Account Managers as a result of having a negative variance or other data trends requiring review. Of these, 2,368 (37%) were assessed as having a negative variance requiring further investigation which resulted in 1,381 (22%) admissions of buying outside the tie."[83] Brulines has provided us with the following table to demonstrate the cases of negative variance that it has dealt with in the three months and other evidence that was present to support claims that lessees had bought 'out-of-tie':

Product Type or other reason Number of liquidated damages claims % Brulines system accuracy used in assessment Other evidence used to support the claim

Draught Keg and Cask Beer 1,251 90.5 Yes Product order history
Stock count
Foreign stock in Cellar
Best before and racking dates
Photographic evidence

Packaged Products 441 31.9 No Product order history
Stock count
Foreign stock in cellar or fridge
Best before dates

Tampering with the system 52 3.7 No Photographic evidence
Flow-meter bypasses
Secondary cellars
Unauthorised dispense equipment

Brulines

To assist understanding of the data in this table, one full admission of buying out by a lessee may consist of draught cask, keg and packaged product. This explains why claims by product type do not reconcile to 100%.

In addition, Brulines informed us that:

The statistical evidence demonstrates that of the 6,259 sites visited by Brulines […], only 1 in 5 Licensees (22%) signed an admission of buying outside tie and that in these cases further evidence of buying out was gathered to corroborate the data. Of the 987 who did not sign, the data and supporting evidence was passed to the Pub Company for review and action where appropriate. 31.9% of buying out admissions did not even rely on Brulines data or its accuracy as these comprised packaged products which can only be evidenced by foreign stock found on the premises.[84]

65. We welcome the inclusion in the Framework Code of the need for additional evidence above and beyond the data from flow monitoring equipment in any accusation of buying outside of the tie. However, such evidence must be physical evidence and not merely a signed 'confession' by the lessee. In relation to fines being taken by direct debit, without the authorisation of lessees, the BBPA must give public and unambiguous direction to its members that such a practice is incompatible with BBPA membership.

Accuracy of data

66. The IPC reported that it had commissioned a study by SGS[85] on Brulines' flow monitoring equipment which found that the system was "not fit for purpose, inaccurate and ought not to be put to the use that it is being put".[86]However, Brulines have responded that Titan Enterprises (the manufacturer of the flow-meter), "completely refutes both the SGS evaluation and methodology"[87] and described the SGS report as being based on "assumptions and poor science."[88]

67. Given the ongoing dispute about flow monitoring equipment, and the importance placed on the information it produces, regulation is crucial. Brulines told us:

Following a comprehensive assessment by Trading Standards and LACORS[89] which required Brulines to submit all its operating procedures and equipment, Brulines was informed on 30th September 2009 that its equipment is not prescribed under section 11 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 thus is not required to be passed as fit for use in trade.

But:

this does not mean that Brulines is unregulated. Under section 17 of the Act there is an obligation on Brulines to ensure that the equipment being used is neither "false nor unjust.[90]

68. However, it seems that Trading Standards officers in different areas are adopting entirely different approaches from that outlined above. We received correspondence from Derbyshire Trading Standards which suggested that beer flow monitoring equipment does fall within the definition of 'use for trade'.It recommended that there should be an agreed performance criteria against which beer dispense systems could be evaluated.[91] We also received a letter from a Trading Standards Officer in Rotherham saying:

I am able to say that the equipment shown to me is definitely not legal for trade use. […] since about 2003 following initial verification no further testing of the equipment has taken place. I have 40 years' experience as a weights and measures inspector and in my opinion such a long period of use without testing or verification of equipment is unacceptable to claim confidence in its accuracy.[92]

LACORS have not made the issue any clearer. In correspondence to Mr Clarke, one of our witnesses, LACORS stated that:

It is our view that this type of equipment may be in use for trade, depending upon the exact nature of the contractual relationship between the brewery and the landlord. This could only be determined on a case by case basis as the legislation is dependent on the individual circumstances in each case. If it could be determined that the equipment was in use for trade, it would be caught by S17 of the Act, and as such if a Trading Standards Department could prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that the equipment was false and unjust, they could take enforcement action. It must be stressed however that any enforcement actions are the responsibility of individual local authorities who have to take into account a whole range of factors in determining the appropriate course of action.[93]

69. The accuracy of data from flow monitoring equipment and the analysis of that data are highly contentious issues. Flow monitoring equipment could be a helpful tool, for both pub companies and lessees but only if it is reliable and has the confidence of both sides. Clearly this is not the case at the moment. We recommend that the Government, through the National Measurement Office, urgently clarifies the position of beer flow monitoring equipment in relation to the Weights and Measures Act 1985. Such equipment must be included under the Act for calibration and verification purposes.

Conclusion

70. The new Framework Code of Practice appears to be a modest step in the right direction. Of necessity it provides a framework for companies of all sizes. We expect the major pub companies to treat it as an absolute de-minimus requirement and to significantly build on it with their own Codes. Only by doing so will pub companies be able to demonstrate that they are committed to reform. We recommend that our successor committee, at an early opportunity in the next Parliament, assess the extent to which pub companies have built on what is a bare minimum of a Framework Code; and evaluate how effective the new Code has been in improving the relationship between lessees and pub companies. Previous codes have been weaker and not fully observed by the pub companies. We will need to see compelling and continuing evidence by June 2011 that the new codes are being observed and enforced if our successor committee is not to recommend statutory intervention.

22 Trade and Industry Committee, Second Report of Session 2004-04, Pub Companies, HC128, para 203 Back

23 Business and Enterprise Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, Pub Companies, HC 26-II, Ev 187 Back

24 Business and Enterprise Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, Pub Companies, HC 26-II, Ev 187 Back

25 Business and Enterprise Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, Pub Companies, HC 26-I, para 156 Back

26 Ev 33 Back

27 Q 169 Back

28 Q 59? Back

29 Q 59 Back

30 Q 58 Back

31 BBPA, Framework Code of Practice on the Granting of Tenancies and Leases, January 2010, p 5 Back

32 Ev 105 Back

33 Ev 105 Back