6 Conclusion
154. The purpose of this inquiry
into pub companies was to assess whether or not the industry had
delivered on its promise of meaningful reform. As with previous
inquiries, modest improvements have been made. However, the fact
that it has taken a number of select committee inquiries to prompt
these improvements demonstrates the deep-seated problems which
lie at the heart of the industry. While the new codes of practice
are a step in the right direction, they only address a limited
number of areas. In many areas we do not believe that there has
been a genuine commitment to reform. Many of the potential benefits
of the new code, which were identified by our predecessor committees,
have been undermined by a process of implementation which can
only be described as half-hearted.
155. The BBPA has shown itself
to be impotent in enforcing its own timetable for reform and the
supposed threat of removing the membership of pub companies who
did not deliver was hollow. The voluntary withdrawal from the
BBPA by Greene King, which has suffered no reputational loss as
a result, clearly demonstrates that fact. Furthermore, while the
BII may be seen to have done an adequate job in accrediting the
new codes of practice, it is clear to us that its enforcement
role is fundamentally undermined by a lack of meaningful sanctions
for non-compliance. Given the high number of breaches allowed
before sanctions would be applied we believe that "naming
and shaming" and subsequent withdrawal of BII accreditation
is insufficient.
156. Intransigence on both sides
remains at the heart of the matter and is highlighted by the lack
of real progress, over a wide range of issues, highlighted in
this Report. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee's
2010 Report gave the industry a final opportunity to address these
issues. It is an opportunity that has been wasted. Reform has
proceeded at a glacial pace and only as a result of dogged scrutiny
by Parliamentary Committees. This latest attempt at reform has
failed and we neither have the time nor the patience to continue
along this path. We therefore conclude that the reforms do not
meet the test set by our predecessor committee.
157. The position of the previous
Government—endorsed by the current Government—was
that if we so recommended, it would consult on how to put the
Code on a statutory footing. It is now time for the Government
to act on that undertaking. In its response to our Report, the
Government has to set out the timetable for that consultation
and begin the process as a matter of urgency. We further recommend
that the consultation includes proposals for a statutory Code
Adjudicator armed with a full suite of sanctions. Considering
the amount of evidence gathered by us and our predecessor Committees
this should not be a lengthy process; and given the Government's
undertaking to us we do not anticipate any meaningful delay. Furthermore,
we caution the Government that offering a compromise of non-statutory
intervention would be a departure from its undertaking to us and
would not bring about the meaningful reform that is needed.
158. We have not come to this
decision lightly and we are firmly of the view that statutory
regulation should only be used as a last resort. However, our
hand has been forced and we see no other alternative for an industry
which has for too long failed to put its own house in order.
| 
