I have added my name to a cross party amendment to the Small Business Bill that would give a ‘Market Rent Only’ option deal for local pubs which are owned by one of the large pub owning companies. The Small Business Bill already includes plans for a Pubs Code and an Adjudicator to support pubs and their tenants but does not include the essential market rent only option which is needed to stop large pub companies forcing up beer prices charged to pub tenants to unacceptable levels.
The amendment will allow pub tenants tied to the large pub companies, ones which own more than 500 pubs, to opt for a rental only deal, allowing them to buy beer on the open market at prices up to 70% below what pub companies currently force them to pay.
As things stand we are due to vote on this amendment next Tuesday (18th November). The campaign to allow pub tenants to sign up for a rental only deal has been backed by over 200 MP’s from all parties so there is a realistic prospect of winning the vote. The amendment is also backed by the national Fair Deal for Your Local campaign which consists of ten leading national organisations, including CAMRA (the Campaign for Real Ale), the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum for Private Business and licensee organisations.
I should of course declare an interest as I am a member of CAMRA!
David Nuttall 
Your first policy position for four and a half years that I can whole heartedly endorse! Action needs to be taken to protect small local pubs that support the great british tradition of social drinking.
How about doing something that would really help pubs…
…give them the option of being smoking or non smoking?
You know, as if we lived in a democracy and believed in free choice?
Hi,
I support giving Landlords the freedom to have a separate room for smokers. It would be ventilated and with no food being served or children permitted.
Thanks for your comment,
David
But why…?
Why ostracise smokers into a separate room…?
Plus, make the pubs (that you are supposedly keen on helping) fork out for expensive filtering equipment?
Why not just let pubs choose? there is after all no evidence whatsoever that ‘second hand smoke’ is a health risk.
Hi,
Because it is a question of what we might be able to actually persuade those in favour of the ‘nanny state’ to actually agree to.
The proposal would be better than the present situation where there is an outright ban. I would not have voted for a ban in the first place but now it is in place there will be no easy way of overturning it.
David
Suggesting smoke-free areas and ventilation, kids-free, no food gives ‘truth’ to those ‘nanny staters’ who claim they know better than us how to run our lives…
You, in a position of power need to stand up and point out what ghastly legislation this is.
Until you can do that, tinkering around with Pubcos is a complete waste of time… Time funded i should point out by the 25% of the population that smoke and contribute vast amounts to the exchequer…
BTW, I am a never-smoker – I can just see how wrong this is – why can’t you?
surely this will just encourage people to spend more money on alcohol that they cannot afford. Ramsbottom has far too many pubs as it is, and has a problem with people drinking too much. I do not agreed with this proposal.
Hi, I disagree. People who want to simply buy as much alcohol as they can will buy it retail from supermarkets. Buying alcohol in a public house means it is being consumed somewhere which is licensed and where if there is trouble the Licence holder risks having their licence removed.
David
And how much tax will be paid on this ‘cheap’ beer…?
By tax I mean everything that will be paid by the end purchaser to the government, duty, VAT, etc.
Hi,
This Chancellor has at least been cutting the duty on beer rather than just increasing it every year. Credit where credit is due!
By the way I did not say there would be cheap beer but a market only option would give Landlords the possibility to source and sell a wider and possibly cheaper range of beers.
Thanks for your comment.
David