Statutory code: BBPA chief says Government must ignore free-of-tie campaigners

She accused advocates for the abolition of the beer tie of thinking the “grass is always greener” and said there was no evidence that beer would be cheaper and a wider choice available as a result.

She urged the Government not to go beyond “light touch legislation”.

Her statement follows comments by Greg Mulholland MP which hinted he could table an amendment to legislation calling for a market rent only option.

But Simmonds said: “It is important for the health of the pub industry that this legislation is implemented as currently proposed and calls for free-of-tie options remain unheeded. 

“Proponents of legislating for landlords to be forced to offer a mandatory free-of-tie option, fail to see that reducing the commercial buying power of the pub company would destroy the model and threaten the closure of vast numbers of pubs throughout the country with thousands of vital jobs lost - as acknowledged by the Government’s own economic analysis.

Reasonable return​

“Why would the pub company invest capital in a business if they did not know that at the end of five years they would still be making a reasonable return from their drinks tie? Regional breweries, often major local employers would be under serious threat of closure without the guaranteed route to market via their tied pubs.   

“The grass is always greener - this could not be more true for proponents of free-of-tie who maintain that their beer would automatically be cheaper and the beer choice wider.  This is not necessarily true and if it was, it is highly likely that they will be tied to a different distributor or wholesaler, who in return for cheaper beer will insist on loyalty to their brand, or range of drinks.  You only have to look at Europe where there are only 2 or 3 brands on the bar. “

She went on to say that support for tied pubs greatly exceeded anything offered by a commercial landlord and that over the past four years beer has been consistently cheaper in tenanted and leased estates than in independents.

She added: “Light touch legislation is one thing, but at the end of the day, pub companies need to be able to support small individual tenants who with very little capital are able to run their own business. Anything which dilutes this support would be very unwelcome and destabilising for the pub sector.