Skip to main content


EDM (Early Day Motion) 1299: tabled on 22 April 2013

Tabled in the 2012-13 session.

This motion has been signed by 23 Members. It has not yet had any amendments submitted.

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

Motion text

That this House welcomes the launch of the consultation to determine what will be in the forthcoming statutory code of practice for large pub companies; notes that the code has become necessary as large companies continue to take more than is fair or sustainable from pub profits in both inflated product prices and excessive rents which is causing the failure of pub businesses up and down the country; further notes that self-regulation failed and did nothing to address the overcharging; welcomes the explicit commitment to enshrine in law that tied licensees should be no worse off than free-of-tie licensees; believes that the way to deliver this is an option for tied landlords of large companies to pay an independently assessed market rent only to their pub owning company and that this should be offered alongside tied agreements; further notes that this is the solution put forward by the Business Select Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire; further notes that this is not abolishing the tie, but making the tie work as it should, which is that if a licensee pays higher product prices they then pay a correspondingly lower than market rent which is currently not the case; further notes that this is supported by small business organisations, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business as well as the Campaign for Real Ale and licensees' organisation; and supports the commitment to protect the family brewers by applying the code only to companies that own more than 500 pubs.

The first 6 Members who have signed to support the motion are the sponsors. The primary sponsor is generally the person who tabled the motion and has responsibility for it. The date shown is when the Member signed the motion.

In addition to the sponsors, the following Members have signed to support the motion.

There are no withdrawn signatures for this motion.