THE PUBS CODE ADJUDICATOR AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

That this House supports the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee's recommendation that Paul Newby cannot command the necessary confidence of pub tenants and should be replaced; notes with serious concern Companies House information which shows that during his recruitment Mr Newby did not fully and accurately declare his past and ongoing financial links with Fleurets, where he was a partner, and has since misled the Committee about this when giving formal evidence; further notes that Mr Newby gave incorrect information about his shareholding and also failed to properly declare the estimated £233,000 that he has loaned to Fleurets and is owed, with repayments dependent on income from the large pub companies that the Pubs Code Adjudicator has to regulate; believes this is a clear and disqualifying conflict of interest; notes the comments from the Public Appointments Commissioner that Mr Newby should have accurately described his role at Fleurets when applying; further believes that the fact Mr Newby failed to accurately and fully declare his interests during his recruitment and misled a select committee, thus covering up his clear financial conflict of interest, shows he is wholly inappropriate for the role and unfit to fulfil its important quasi-judicial function; believes departmental officials failed to undertake due diligence on Mr Newby's conflicts of interest and that he should never have been appointed; therefore has no confidence or trust in Mr Newby as Pubs Code Adjudicator; and calls on the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to accept the Committee’s recommendation, withdraw the appointment and reopen the application process.