Pub 2610 p10 news 21/10/09 11:56 Page 10
10 Monday 26/10/09 thePublican www.thepublican.com
This Week News
WAS IT WORTH IT?
The failed mediation process has resulted in more in-house squabbling and
the emergence of yet another industry body – and that was an outcome
no-one expected. So where does the trade go from here?
AFTER FOUR exhausting months of
cloak and dagger mediation talks CAMRA Federation of
between the major trade groups, what
did we get? Another trade body – and CAMRA expressed disappointment the mediation process Licensed Victuallers
promises of “fundamental reforms” to had failed to address issues in the BEC report and its
the way the pubco model operates. own super-complaint. But chief executive Mike Benner Associations (FLVA)
The groups involved in mediation said: “The formation of the Independent Pub Confederation
failed to come to a consensus on how is a very positive step forward, providing a common Like the BII, the FLVA has aligned
to tackle concerns raised about the voice for consumers, licensees, lessees and small itself with both the BBPA and
pubco model in the MP-led Business brewers.” indicated support for some of the
and Enterprise committee (BEC) aims of the IPC.
report. FLVA chief executive Tony Payne
Instead, we are left with the new said it was important to “bank
Independent Pub Confederation (IPC) The Guild of Master Victuallers (GMV) benefits” that are available not only
– which claims to represent 25,000 to its members, but to all licensees.
licensees – and is hopeful good things The GMV said it was “disappointed” mediation had failed He added: “The working
can be achieved. and branded the BBPA’s new plans to tackle pubco issues relationship will not stop the FLVA
The British Beer & Pub Association as “nothing more than best practice, which should pursuing other
(BBPA) is promising to revise its code already be in place”. avenues in
of practice covering tenancies and During mediation, the guild argued that the beer and the interests
leases. AWP tie were “unfair” and should be abolished – and of our
Here we take a look at what some licensees should be able to seek their own building members.”
major groups have said in the wake of insurance, instead of being forced to go with a
mediation… pubco’s insurers.
But the group is positive about the IPC. Bill Sharp,
the GMV’s representative at the talks, said: “The
The BII creation of a strong and unified voice is an
extremely positive step forward which will enable
The group has aligned itself with the concerns of ordinary licensees to be heard.”
both the BBPA and the IPC, but chief
executive Neil Robertson hit back at
suggestions his group is hedging its
bets.
“We don’t see it that we have a Fair Pint
foot in both camps, we see it as
doing our job,” Robertson said. Fair Pint argues that the BBPA’s promise of reforms to the pubco model does
“When the pubcos do something not tackle the “bigger picture of concern” highlighted in the BEC report.
good we need to support that and The group’s Steve Corbett said: “This agreement does nothing to rebalance
when the IPC do things that are this relationship between pub-owning companies and their tenants and simply
relevant to our members we will enshrines existing good practice in the management of tenancies.
support them and encourage them.” “Fair Pint will continue to work with the main groups representing tenants
and consumers to ensure action is taken in response to the main issues raised
by the select committee and that publicans are given a fair deal.”
An outside point of view – the freehold licensee
Nigel Jones of the Railway Hotel, in Blandford Forum, Dorset, has been left
bemused by the whole mediation episode.
Commenting on the formation of the IPC, he said: “We need fewer trade
groups, not more. The BII represents me – and I’d just like to see them have
more teeth.
“I have sympathy for tied tenants, but there ought to be enough protection in
the law for them. I don’t think the pubco model should ever have been allowed.
A company that does not brew beer should not be able to have a tie. I can
understand the tie for breweries, but not for the property companies.”
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72