Hamish Champ: Will Bish's bash help solve the industry's woes?

As news filtered through of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailer's (ALMR) forthcoming mediation shindig - the pub industry equivalent of a modern day Munich conference, perhaps? - I couldn't help but wonder what will be achieved by such a get-together.

The meeting may not bring about any reconciliation between the various groups attending, but getting those with an interest in the future of the pub trade together is all to the good.

But quite how the ALMR's Nick Bish will open the event is a bit of a puzzler.

In a way he has stymied his own gig by pouring a bucket of room temperature water on the idea of a government probe into the pub sector - a tad bizarre given his desire to 'mediate'. Presumably those wishing for political intervention in the industry's structure will realise they enter these particular proceedings from the back of the grid, to use MotoGP parlance.

That said, I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the meeting when it is held in London this Thursday. One hopes there will be a 'frank and honest' exchange of views between participants, albeit one that does not descend into school playground-esque name-calling and the protruding of tongues.

But let me play devil's advocate, if you will, and ask for clarification of two points that will surely arise in the get-together.

If the pub industry has nothing to hide should it come to a Competition Commission (CC) inquiry - the umpteenth in less than two decades, we are frequently reminded - why is it putting up such fierce resistance to such a look-see at its activities? It doesn't have​ anything to hide. Does it?

The industry line is that a two year-long investigation into the trade will be counterproductive and could not come at a worse time, given what is being chucked at operators and corporates alike.

Forgive me, but CC investigations usually only come at times precisely when scrutiny is​ required. And how much of a distraction would​ an inquiry prove to be?

And if an inquiry finds diddly-squat wrong then the pubcos and the brewers can say 'ya-boo-sucks' to the moaning minnies in the ranks of Fair Pint and beyond and carry on regardless.

Then there is the 'other side's' argument, the one which suggests that in a tie-free world pubs will be able to flourish as never before, buying beer at reasonable rates from whomsoever they choose and paying fair rents for their properties.

Playing the Hornéd One's legal representative again, won't the removal of the tie actually strengthen the hand of brewers? What good would that do 55,000-odd freehouses? With a level playing field, what with the pubcos being out of the equation, won't brewers be able to raise prices?

They might not be able to charge the hefty mark-up currently the strategy of the likes of Punch and Enterprise, but ramp up prices they surely could. And would.

And would rents necessarily be lower in a tie-free pub sector? Banks aren't charities, as we all know to our tax-paying cost. And if one took away the tie from the regional brewers, wouldn't they simply rack up the rent they charge their own tenants?

My point is that this debate is not as black and white as either side would like it to be.

One regional brewer made the point to me last week that of the 1,000 licensees surveyed for the BEC report 25 per cent of the respondents were not part of the Enterprise/Punch 'duopoly'.

He believed the model was a good 'un - well he would, wouldn't he? - but he also acknowledged that cock-ups were being made and this needed to be addressed.

There is clearly scope for a rigorous and intelligent debate over what is the best route forward for the industry. The BEC report, for all its limited evidence and, in places, myopic conclusions has surely highlighted the need for this like nothing before it.

Undoubtedly there will have to be 'give and take' in the coming months. And it will have to come from both sides.