Political intervention brings little support

Enjoying a pint with some mates in my local last week, we reflected on the staple diet of bar chat: sex, religion and politics. Leaving the first two aside, I considered the political intervention/ interference the pub industry has endured over the past 20-30 years.

It really is impossible to find any tangible examples of help we have received. The belief that Chancellors can continue to ‘rape and pillage’ the industry with the duty escalator is beyond words.

I am convinced politicians do not understand that the majority of pubs are run by single operators; if they did, why would they continue to push the cost of drinking in a pub beyond the reach of alarge number of customers, who are forced to drink at home?

You have to applaud the Independent Family Brewers of Britain’s decision to contribute £250k to a lobbyist in an attempt to persuade Government to reduce VAT to 5%. I wish them all the best, but am not holding my breath.

So then we move on to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s attempts to interfere in commercially binding agreements between freehold owners and tenants. The only benefit from all these hearings has been that pubcos now have legally binding agreements.

The committee members have been misinformed by a number of hugely self-interested individuals and groups who have been castigating the pubcos with ongoing attacks on the tie and agreements, often masking one of the major reasons for decline: poor standards and offer!

The recent furore regarding Stephen Hester’s bonus is totally justified. Whilst Hester has achieved the targets set by that previous comedy act, Brown and Darling, banks have generally failed to support small businesses by reintroducing overdrafts and loans.

With RBS and Lloyds technically reporting to the Chancellor, it was so simple to ensure our industry was supported, but again we have been let down by politicians, and had a mound of red tape heaped on us.

Finally, it is somewhat ironic that Sky is now offering up to 60% discounts — on, I may say, excessive and totally unjustifiable charges — for food-led businesses in rural locations, and a 30-day contract. It is surely purely coincidental that the Karen Murphy case will shortly finally be found in her favour? I certainly hope so.