Greg Mulholland MP

Representing you in Westminster

Greg Mulholland is committed to fighting YOUR corner in Westminster; he lobbies the Government actively on the issues that you raise with him making sure the voice of Leeds North West residents is heard at the highest level:

• Greg has spoken in 70 debates in Parliament in the last year - well above average amongst MPs.

• Greg received answers to 70 written questions in the last year - more than most other MPs.
• He presented a petition to the House of Commons opposing the closure of three Post Offices locally.
• He questioned the Prime Minister on Alzheimers funding and the plight of Christians in Iran.
• • Feb 2, 2012:
    • Topical Questions | Oral Answers to Questions - Business, Innovation and Skills | Commons debates

      The one seemingly hopeful part of the Government's otherwise dreadful response on pub companies was the unfortunately named PICAS-the pub independent conciliation and arbitration service. However, hope soon faded when it was revealed that it was to be pubco-funded, and this week it has been announced that it will be chaired by a Punch Taverns surveyor. Does the Minister think that licensees will want to use that supposedly independent body?

  • Feb 1, 2012:
    • Taxation: Sports | Treasury | Written Answers

      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

      (1) how many people have paid tax on testimonial matches in each year since 2000;

      (2) what revenue accrued to the Exchequer from testimonial matches in each year since 2000;

      (3) how many successful appeals against the payment of tax on testimonial matches there were in each year since 2000.

    • Engagements | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

      On new year's eve 2010, my constituent Jamie Still was killed by a drink-driver who was more than twice over the limit, yet Jamie's family had to face the fact that the person who had killed him continued to drive for a further eight months until sentencing. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet the family and consider their campaign, which is that people who are seriously over the limit in death by dangerous driving cases should have their driving licences withdrawn as part of their bail conditions?

  • Jan 31, 2012:
    • Topical Questions | Oral Answers to Questions - Justice | Commons debates

      It has come to light that barrister David Friesner recently defended a fraudster, despite having just been convicted for stealing £81,000. We had an absurd situation in which a criminal was representing a criminal, which brings the legal system into disrepute. Will the Minister look into the actions of the Bar Standards Board and consider mandatory suspension for those guilty of serious crimes?

  • Jan 26, 2012:
    • Business of the House | Commons debates

      May we have a debate on the process of applying for village

      green status? In 2004, "Keep Yeadon Banks Green" applied for village green status for Yeadon Banks. Several attempts by Leeds Group plc to block it have been overturned, including in the High Court, but now, in 2012, we are having to take the matter to the Supreme Court, which is outrageous. May we have a debate on simplifying the process so that areas get the protection they need?

  • Jan 25, 2012:
    • Vehicle Number Plates: Fraud | Home Department | Written Answers

      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of number plate cloning were reported to the police in (a) the UK, (b) England and (c) West Yorkshire in each of the last three years.

    • Detention Centres: Death | Home Department | Written Answers

      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-UK citizens have died in asylum detention centres in each year from 1995.

  • Jan 24, 2012:
    • Prisoners: Death | Justice | Written Answers

      To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many non-UK citizens have died in prison in each year from 1995.

  • Jan 12, 2012:
    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      Apart from concerns about the misrepresentation of PICAS, does the hon. Lady share licensees' concerns that although PICAS is set up to be an independent arbitrator, it will be funded and controlled by the British Beer and Pub Association, and therefore the pub companies?

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      To be clear, the CGA Strategy figures, which no one disputes, show that between December 2008 and June 2011, the number of tied pubs fell by 3,216, and that in the same period the number of free-of-tie pubs increased by 425. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is baffling that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills simply accepted the British Beer and Pub Association's misleading representation of those events, which, as she says, omitted transfers that happen. in some cases deliberately to distort the figures?

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      Of course there are a number of factors affecting pubs, but when we compare a tied pub and a free-of-tie pub, we see that the fundamental difference that shuts a tied pub is the pubco's unreasonable terms.

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      Does the right hon. Gentleman find it odd that the first response of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to this wonderful Select Committee report was to rush out an invitation to the pub companies to a meeting to talk about how to circumvent the report?

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      I apologise to the Minister, but I have given way twice. He will have plenty of time to respond.

      This is clearly not an industry solution. I am afraid that the Minister has been misled by the BBPA, because its report, which was copied into the Government's response, clearly stated that the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and the Guild of Master Victuallers had agreed to be part of the pub independent conciliation advisory service. However, the chairman of GMV has stated:

      "We as an organisation have neither agreed to, or been presented with, any proposal in respect of our participation in PICAS at this time."

      The Minister needs to ask why he has been misled by the BBPA and then answer to the House.

      Let us be clear that the Government's proposals for reform are not industry proposals. They are not supported by the Independent Pub Confederation, the GMV, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the ALMR, CAMRA, Fair Pint, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Unite or the all-party save the pub group. Why on earth did the Minister suggest throughout the Government response that it is an industry proposal? It is not even the Government's response, but the response of the pubcos trying to avoid the self-regulation that he agreed was necessary.

      The Prime Minister rightly talks about dealing with crony capitalism, and I absolutely agree with him on that. In 2010, after shares in Enterprise Inns collapsed-they fell from 770p in 2007 to 26p in January this year, a decline in value of 96.6%-Mr Ted Tuppen awarded himself a 50% pay rise of £412,000, taking home £1.22 million, including a bonus of £558,000. At the same time he was closing pubs and making things impossible for tenants. I am sorry to say that the Government's response has backed the pub companies and crony capitalism in the worst sense.

      We now need the statutory code of practice, including the genuine free-of-tie option. That was promised by the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister before the election. We have waited long enough. We will wait until the autumn, but no longer.

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      Sadly, I am afraid that the explanation appears to be clear from the freedom of information request submitted by the save the pub group: the so-called Government response is basically the BBPA's own report, with some passages and commitments taken word for word-indeed, there is even a typo in the BBPA report presented to Ministers that was directly cut and pasted into the Government's response. I am afraid that the

      evidence is damning, which is why many organisations are saying that the Government should halt their entire proposal for reform in its tracks.

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      Not only was that code opposed by all the other organisations, but it was the old company codes that were mentioned in the letter, and the Minister has not adequately addressed that point.

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      I echo my earlier comments commending the Select Committee on its excellent work. The all-party save the pub group has been delighted to work with the Committee and support its work. I am disappointed that we have to have this debate. As has already been made clear, in the past 18 months we received unanimous, cast-iron commitments from Front-Bench spokesmen of all three main parties that, if self-regulation failed by June 2011, a statutory code of practice would be introduced, including the all-important genuine free-of-tie option.

      If people ask why this should be reviewed in the autumn, the simple answer is that it has been going on for seven years and generated four Select Committee reports. The last attempt at self-regulation was supposed to be the final one, which makes the Government's response even more baffling. The sad reality is that their response simply does not deal with the fundamental issue, which is that the big pub companies take too much from each pub and it makes it difficult or impossible

      for those licensees to make a living, and that also shuts pubs. The Government's response does nothing whatsoever to address that.

      I am afraid that the Government have also been sold a pup. The immediate improvements outlined in their response are illusory. First, there are no substantive changes in the new framework code of practice produced by the British Beer and Pub Association. Secondly, and even more worryingly, the whole idea of putting the new codes on a legal footing is a mirage. The BBPA's own legal advice-let us all be clear that it is the representative organisation of the pub companies-based on a legal authority that goes back 100 years, the Carlill case, has made it clear that, if we are to rely on that case, those codes are already binding. A letter was sent to pubco lessees over Christmas that worried them considerably. It suggested that the 2010 company code of practice would become binding if they sought to use it in any case, which is clearly an offer to ensnare them in further obligations to their landlords not already covered in the lease.

      The first question to the Minister is this: how on earth can anyone be seeking to put on a legal footing codes that he himself has said are inadequate? He has written to the Select Committee Chair, stating:

      "In some case, primarily where the letter was sent in advance of the new code being agreed, the link to the industry Framework Code led to the former version rather than the enhanced version, of the code; however, this will be superseded by the new version of the code once it has been agreed."

      The simple problem is this: which code and which offer? There are so many codes floating around, it is an absolute mess. The Minister needs to know that many licensee organisations believe that the Government, accepting the advice of the BBPA that it is a good idea to make the codes legally binding, will actually make the situation worse for licensees, not better.

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the OFT said clearly that the imbalance in the relationship between tenants and pub companies was not within its remit. It did not even comment on the substantive issue that we are debating today, so its report is not relevant.

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      rose-

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I pay tribute to his work and that of the Committee. He mentions the clear commitments given by Ministers. Is he aware of the e-mail from the office of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) to Justice for Licensees on 13 April 2010, saying:

      "The Conservative Party support the idea that should the industry fail to deliver self-regulation by June 2011, the Government . . . should end up consulting on putting the Code of Practice on a statutory basis"?

    • Backbench Business - [Un-allotted Day] - Pub Companies | Business of the House | Commons debates

      Will the hon. Gentleman give way?