Ministers offer CAMRA hope on beer tie
25 November, 2009
Consumer group pushes forward with bid to get OFT decision overturned
CAMRA says there is still a chance the government will overturn the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) decision on the beer tie during, following a meeting with ministers yesterday.
Three CAMRA officials met with consumer minister Kevin Brennan and business minister Pat McFadden in Westminster to urge them to send the matter to the Competition Commission.
Labour peer, Lord Bilston, a long-term supporter of the trade, also attended the meeting offering his backing for CAMRA.
Jonathan Mail, CAMRA’s head of public affairs, said: “It’s very encouraging they agreed to this meeting and they have not dismissed the possibility this decision would be overturned.”
Last month the OFT rejected CAMRA’s super-complaint on the way the beer tie is being operated, saying there was no evidence it was having a detrimental effect on consumers.
But CAMRA has challenged this decision and is determined the Competition Commission look at the issue.
Mail added: “We used the meeting to reiterate to the government it must overturn the decision and send it to the Competition Commission.
“We reiterated our concerns over exploitation of the tie by the larger companies and the higher wholesale prices being paid by tied tenants compared to free-of-tie licensees.”
it is understood the ministers will see other groups involved in the debate, including the British Beer & Pub Association.
Readers' comments
After speaking to a member of Camra recently, I was encouraged by the understanding that they now as a body have of the unfairness of the tie. He said that in the past the pubcos had managed to hoodwink them into believing that the pubco model was fair and equitable, but after discussion with Fair Pint, had realised that this was clearly not the case. He, in fact, said how sorry they were as a body, that it had taken them so long to to see the whole picture.
Steve if you are referring to the pole dancing, never wear anything (chaffes too much) Ken Nason
Colin, excellent idea ! Not sure if Ken's gonna fit into a skimpy bikini though. :)
Roger, as usual, yet another unfounded accusation, i.e my having pals in the pubcos. Don't you feel just a little bit silly when that's all you can respond with?
I took Camra a long time to understand the real meaning of the tie, and when they did, they were horrified. Thank you Camra for taking this forward.
Colin Matlock's wisdom: "The simple fact of the matter is that tied licensees could afford to use beer as a loss leader and sell it at cost if they generated sufficient profits from there (sic) other offerings such as food". Perhaps you could get your pals at the Pub Cos to build that into their marketing material for 'the partnership'.
Having suffered at te habds of a greedy pub co several years ago long before the current news. I had a pub with an almost acheiveable rent, however, once I started to sell more food and therefore more soft drinks and wine for which I wasn't tied they put the rent up to compensate for their loss on paper. Also trying to get POS for the brands I wanted to push was impossible. I have an idea why not sell off all non brewery owned pubs to the sitting tennants if they don't want them then put them on the open market !! So no rent increases fas compensation for the 'broken' tie, and the banks get their money back. So as I can see no losers, Bank managers happy, tennant happy, breweries happy (after all the pubs will have to buy stock somewhere). Greedy Pub Cos unhappy what a shame !!
Someone has said they fear rent increases on this forum(below) The fear of this is not helping matters, Please remember that each 11 gallon keg of beer bought from a pubco is actually a STEALTH RENT, the pubco's make an extra �120 on one of these kegs, if you are stupid enough to think they can achieve these levels of rent without the beer tie, then you are not aware of the full picture! join pubrevolution on facebook now, before it is too late! D Smithers,
re; �We reiterated our concerns over exploitation of the tie by the larger companies and the higher wholesale prices being paid by tied tenants compared to free-of-tie licensees.� This is a straightforward issue, the pubco leases say that the pubco's will "share any discounts achieved by bulk buying" They have not done this, so it is a breach of contract, not only have they failed to share their massive discounts, but they have also succeded in EXTORTING money from tied leaseholders and consumers by dominatating the market, thus also reducing freedom of choice.
'strangled', yep, got in one and Wetherspoons is just around the corner to keep your ex customers happily chatting to each other instead of listening to your whining. Oh and BTW, these threads are about the ills afflicting the licensed trade ( not just beer) and the tie is merely perceived as just one of those ills. Have you even TRIED to provide food or are you just one of the 'why should I ? ' brigade>
mr Colin Matlock - are you saying that the traditional backstreet/estate public house which offers its community a point of meeting and a quiet friendly pint should cease to exist. I don't know if you have realised but these threads are about beer not food!!!!!
Thank god for Camra. Your our only hope now.
Unfortunately these greedy Pubcos will not let it lie if they lose the battle. I envisage rent increases and other devious means to claw back money for the shareholders!
Yes, good on yer CAMRA - go get 'em.
I'm sure I'm not alone in awaiting the definitive explanation for how the beer tie adversely effects the consumer. Plenty of choice out there from 99p a pint upwards, The simple fact of the matter is that tied licensees could afford to use beer as a loss leader and sell it at cost if they generated sufficient profits from there other offerings such as food.
Cant wait for another extract from Brigids BBPA diary on this! Well done Camra, keep up the pressure.
Camra are to be admired as ambassadors of the trade, their view overrides any views by the pubcos and their media face the BBPA. Lets be transparent and see the evidence put by the BBPA to the government. No doubt it will be the same as they gave to the OFT which was not allowed to be publically available. If the government can do one good thing before they go this is it. Sort of this mess once and for all to give the Great British Pub a chance. God knows they dont need thousands more publicans on the dole just to feed the greed of the pubcos and give profits to offshore investors who dont contribute to the economy.
Well done Camra, keep the pressure on, the Competition Commission is the only way forward.