Publicans need new champion

The pub industry's specialist demands have outstripped the capabilities of the FSB. James Wilmore learns why it feels licensees require a dedicated national body to represent them.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has been having a busy time of late when it comes to the pub trade. With current headaches over the new Licensing Act, rate reviews and the threat of alcohol disorder zones, pub tenants - and freetraders in particular - have been turning to the federation for help and advice.

Normally its trained staff can assist, but sometimes the issues are just too specific and need more specialist help.

As such, David Bishop, parliamentary officer at the FSB, believes freetraders are crying out for a more focused national organisation to represent them in the corridors of power. Trade associations such as the British Beer & Pub Association are clearly too driven by the pubcos and brewers to have the best interests of the licensees at heart, while the Federation of Licensed Victuallers' Associations cannot hope to represent pubs on a truly national scale, David suggests.

"In an ideal world there would be a vocal and effective national trade association that isn't dominated by the pubcos and actually sticks up for tenants," says David.

Meanwhile, new players, such as the Freedom for Pubs Association, formed at the height of last year's Trade and Industry Select Committee investigation into the trade, have yet to prove effective.

And the Guild of Master Victuallers revealed plans to form a new national body at its recent annual conference, but so far no details have been confirmed. In its absence the FSB is not doing a bad job.

Representing licensees​

The federation represented licensees during evidence sessions at the select committee probe 12 months ago.

Despite the committee's lightweight conclusions, the FSB took a number of positives from the investigation.

"There's still a huge opportunity, but only if the recommendations are implemented and so far there's been very little movement from the trade," explains David (pictured)​.

"But pubcos should be forewarned - this is not something we are going to go to sleep on."

He points out that the committee has suggested it will look at the issue again in the new Parliament and the FSB will be meeting with the new committee chairman as soon as an appointment is made.

Among the 33 recommendations that the committee published last December, and which the government responded to in March, there were three key areas that gave the FSB hope:

• The committee recommended a code of conduct for rent reviews, and that the whole system become more transparent, with tenants being told exactly how their rent is calculated. Pubcos have already gone some way to meeting this requirement. "This is still a massive opportunity," says David. "It means that chartered surveyors and accountants can get involved in that process, and it should give an equal split of profit between pubco and tenant."
• David also takes solace from the fact pubcos submitted hundreds of pages of evidence which could be used to hold them to account.
• The recommendation that the AWP tie should end, although there has been little encouragement from the trade that this will be put into practice.

Moving on​

Whatever the findings, the relationship between tenants and their pubcos is still an important issue, judging by the number of licensees who contact the FSB.

David also believes the recent protest from about 100 Greene King tenants in Oxfordshire over higher beer prices than their managed neighbours, reflects a greater malaise in the industry.

"I think there are thousands of licensees who are genuinely struggling to make a living," he says. "Ultimately, that's not good for the sector and we think that everybody involved in the trade should be working together."

The FSB has also been deluged with licensees raising concerns about the new Licensing Act. He argues Labour has "completely underestimated what it is asking each tenant to go through".

David adds: "It has underestimated the fact that costs will actually increase for community pubs. There's a real danger the whole train will come off the tracks this November because Labour hasn't thought carefully enough about how you move smoothly from one regime that's been in existence for hundreds of years to another."

For licensees who may have been looking forward to the benefits of opening for longer hours under the new regime, it has all added up to yet another example of red tape, says David.

"All the government's good work on the economy is undone by the fact that in the average week a publican will spend 15 hours dealing with red tape and not serving beer," he says. "That's simply not a way of ensuring a business is productive."

Looking to the future, the FSB's concerns are the contributions employers may be forced to make to their employees' pensions, and whether business rates will fall under the control of local authorities.

All these pan-industry issues can be dealt with by the FSB up to a point. However, some of the more specific problems, David feels, should be left to a pub trade-specific organisation.

But ultimately the FSB is quite clear about how tenants are handicapped. "The fundamental problem is that all the knowledge is on the side of the pubcos and the big players," he claims. "There is very little knowledge elsewhere within the trade and it's such a complicated industry that the pubcos use that to their advantage."

• For more information on the FSB visit www.fsb.org.uk.

Single voice adds strength​

The FSB believes that a more united response from the pub trade - with licensees speaking as one voice, alongside the pubcos and brewers - could be effective in opposing threats such as alcohol disorder zones (ADZs).

If implemented, the policy, set out in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill earlier this month, would see pubs and clubs in designated zones having to pay up to £100 a week for extra policing.

"The Bill is a fantastic example of absolutely awful regulations," says FSB parliamentary officer David Bishop. "It's been rushed through in response to the Daily Mail-led campaign and there's been very little thought on how this will help to combat bad pubs. It's still not exactly clear who will be paying for them."

But he suspects the fee won't be quite as much as feared. "What often happens is the government paints the worst-case scenario, so that when it actually comes out with what a fee is going to be, everybody breathes a sigh of relief and forgets that it was a bad idea in the first place," he comments.