Ten organisations, including the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and various licensee representatives, including the irrepressible Greg Mulholland MP, are working together to present a powerful, consistent response to the Government’s consultation on the statutory regulation of the pubco/tenant relationship.
They are reaching out to a sympathetic press and public with a relentless programme of message-reinforcing communications calling for, in particular: “A new choice for licensees to opt out of restrictive tied agreements and just pay a fair market rent to their pubco.”
Their voluminous social-media activity is certainly eye-catching — you can’t miss the pink @fairdeal4yourlocal ‘Twibbons’ on their activists’ Twitter profile pictures (yes, Twibbon is a new one on me too)!
CAMRA, in particular, as a consumer group with nearly 150,000 paying members, and fresh from its influential role in the abolition of the beer-duty escalator, will make this coalition a force to be reckoned with for those who plan to argue for the status quo, or at least for the lightest-possible-touch legislative intervention.
Anti-beer-tax allies are once again on opposite sides of the table, though perhaps their recent shared experience will ensure arguments and counter-arguments remain civil and constructive in front of Government ministers who have previously seen plenty of unseemly industry infighting.
However, that might be difficult to sustain as the weeks tick by to the consultation deadline date of 14 June in what is such a high-stakes political process — one that even entertains the possibility of a major pubco failure. Both teams are certainly already ramping up their lobbying efforts.
The concern at some pubcos’ headquarters is palpable — one pubco boss privately admitted the consultation is causing him sleepless nights because he feels the documentation, and in particular the online survey, has not been drafted in a neutral manner, and that it asks rather leading questions that prejudge the answers.
He might have a point as even one tenant campaigner concedes. Here is one question: “Self-regulation has been tried since 2004 but has not worked — too many tenants are still being badly treated and facing hardship. The Government therefore considers that it needs to introduce statutory legislation to regulate the relationship between pub companies and tenants. Do you agree that the Government should regulate the relationship between pub companies and tenants? Yes: □ No: □ ”
Pepsi would have a genuine grievance if independent research said: “Coca-Cola is the tastiest cola. Do you agree that Coca-Cola is tastier than Pepsi Cola? Yes: □ No: □ ”
Additionally, nowhere does the survey give satisfied tenants the option to say: “I am happy with my relationship with my current landlord.” The survey’s conclusions will be weaker for this apparently partial approach and key omission.
Last week’s revelation that the Government had misrepresented British Institute of Innkeeping (BII) helpline stats as ‘complaints’ rather than ‘calls’ also leaves the process open to accusations of preconceptions.
Both parties can only hope that, whatever conclusion is reached by the Government on the extent of its intervention in the pub industry, it is well-considered, well-meant, well-evidenced and well-executed.