Pubs Minister? (An interesting press release)

[Eddie86]

I had a look at the super whizzy "12 point action plan" of "tough, practical measures" , for what it's worth here they are:

• Give "Pub is the Hub" £300,000 a year for 3 years for some business advisors - (someone to tell pubs to become restaurants or shops or sell stamps).
  
  
• Make a contribution (£3.3 million over 3 years) to the Plunkett Foundation to support up to 50 community pubs - (they'll have to find the full amount for this themselves of course; 50 pubs is less than a fortnights worth of closures).
  
  
• Commission a (another) study into pub ownership and management and not only that but, hold another review into how well licensees know their business.
  
  
• Ensure "Local Action Groups" are aware that pubs are a jolly good thing and tell them where they can get the forms to apply for a grant for rural pubs.
  
  
• Maybe reform the live music provisions in the 2003 Licensing Act
  
  
• Maybe regulate contracts between PubCos and their tenants - but not just yet we'll let them think about it. If they don't do it themselves we'll jolly well make sure they do by making them regulate themselves, so there!
  
  
• Ask the PubCos if they wouldn't mind awfully relaxing the tie a bit please, maybe next year chaps?
  
  
• Ask the PubCos to have Bruline* equipment properly calibrated (* measures all beer served to make sure the tenant isn't buying it elsewhere at half the PubCo price).
  
  
• Review the way gaming machine licensing duty operates.
  
  
• Write a letter to Local Authorities asking them to be especially nice to pubs who want to become restaurants please.
  
  
• Give Planning Authorities time to think about if planning permission might be needed to demolish a pub.
  
  
• Ask the Ministry of Justice if they wouldn't mind having a look at restrictive covenants.

I'm sure you'll agree "tough, practical measures" indeed ! Our pubs are safe in their hands.

What he said

[Rex_Rattus]

I've had an E-mail from CAMRA hailing the Minister's announcement as a great success. A bit premature, methinks, as the proof of the pudding will undoubtedly be in the eating. The current Government making this sort of announcement can't do any harm, but the fact is that whether the next Parliament will be minded to devote any Parliamentary time to new legislation if the pubcos don't make the changes demanded is anybody's guess, and most certainly not a done deal. Wait and see, I suppose.

[Conrad]

From what I could pick up CAMRA were still going to try and chase after the tie as being monopolistic even despite this. If I was them I would grab the publicity and run, but I really don't understand why they are hell bent on going after the tie, particularly on the basis of it being a monopolistic practice.

As to the rest, I am just glad that someone is making enough noise to at least get them to make token gestures, more of the same sort of noise needed to try and get the gestures to happen I think (and yes I realise that sounds a little contradictory of the first paragraph ). Also I was glad to see that Essex contacted us about getting a list of pubs implying they were at least doing something on a practical level, although that was clearly local rather than central Government.

[oldboots]

From what I could pick up CAMRA were still going to try and chase after the tie as being monopolistic even despite this. If I was them I would grab the publicity and run, but I really don't understand why they are hell bent on going after the tie, particularly on the basis of it being a monopolistic practice.

CAMRA has always had a bit of a problem with the tie, when it was "The Big Six" it was evil, likewise now with the PubCos, however with the cuddly family brewers it was "a good thing". People often equate the problem CAMRA has with the tie to its supposed Trotskyist leanings or perhaps some its members yearning for a less industrialised bucolic past. There's no doubt that some PubCo practises are harmful to the industry and the drinker and should be sorted out. The tie crystallizes some of this for CAMRA in one neat target. They also hope along with SIBA, naively I believe, that removing the tie would open up a world of opportunity to small brewers.

[Conrad]

I'm not in favour of the tie, but as I understand monopolies then the OFT are right to say it is not a monopoly practice, there are after all other pubco's and independents successfully running their business in the sector. It seems to me that pursuing the monopoly case further is just a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere by CAMRA.

I also agree that it is naive to think that removing/relaxing the tie would make little difference to the small brewer, I am inclined to think that if the people running the tied pubs were that bothered by Real Ales they wouldn't have signed a contract to run a tied pub (I could be wildly wrong there). I just think that CAMRA should be focusing a little harder on the Real Ale aspects and doing what I think they are better at, so promoting Beer Festivals and raising the profile of Real Ale.

All IMHO of course

[rpadam]

CAMRA has always had a bit of a problem with the tie, when it was "The Big Six" it was evil, likewise now with the PubCos, however with the cuddly family brewers it was "a good thing". People often equate the problem CAMRA has with the tie to its supposed Trotskyist leanings or perhaps some its members yearning for a less industrialised bucolic past. There's no doubt that some PubCo practises are harmful to the industry and the drinker and should be sorted out. The tie crystallizes some of this for CAMRA in one neat target. They also hope along with SIBA, naively I believe, that removing the tie would open up a world of opportunity to small brewers.

I'm largely with CAMRA on the beer tie and the "cuddly family brewers" of whom I am mostly very fond (Hall & Woodhouse obviously excepted). The idea of taking the tie away from the small estates of companies like Harveys, Bathams, Arkells, Holdens, etc. (and especially even smaller outfits such as Wye Valley, Westerham and Goachers) would surely put investment and expansion of such enterprises in great doubt. In fact, on balance, I would happily keep the tie for the likes of Shepherd Neame, Fullers and Charles Wells and even (sharp intake of breath) Greene King...

[arwkrite]

I believe the tie gives wannabe publicans a way into the business at an affordable price. The Pubcos have property which they want to rent out and get a return on by preferred suppliers giving them good rates. This is not always a good thing for the publican who knows his market. I have seen some pretty greedy actions by pubcos in the days after the break up of the big six. My local changed pubcos three times in a year and profits were skimmed off every possible thing the landlady did to try and offer the users more amenities.
However you look at it the The Big pubcos i.e Marstons, Greenking, Weatherspoons are pretty healthy . Whitbread had problems by taking their eye of the ball. The purely property portfolio pubcos are the ones which seemed to have been hit hardest. The smallest or least profitable of pubs the accountants believed were a drain on the pubco. Result ..sell off for redevelopment even though there may have been a modest living for a freeholder. This sort of pubco wants it all ways, both the rent and a skim of any takings. In my opinion that is greedy but something has to feed the debt mountain these sort of pubcos have built for themselves.