Shaky evidence fails to support government action
It seems that based on evidence of poorly ventilated buildings in Asia, large gatherings of people indoors for long periods in China and Japan, Hong Kong weddings where no one wore a facemask, high energy sporting events, concerts and Korean nightclubs, which I assume was collected early in the pandemic where none of the preventative measures, social distancing, protective clothing or hygiene measures which the UK’s pubs and bars have introduced were in place and on this data a decision has been reached to decimate the UK pub sector in particular, by introducing unnecessarily harsh lockdown measures.
Having spent time in these countries, it’s fair to say that Asian bars and the behaviour that takes place in them is completely different from the average British pub, the Asian culture is one where larger high energy group gatherings are the norm, be it with family, friends or workmates, and bars propensity for social contact is far greater, so the data is not comparable with British pubs and British drinking culture!
The government evidence gathered from these countries identifies gyms as an issue, but we are opening gyms, does that mean we accept the differences between those in Asia and those in the UK. There is also reference to the effectiveness of firebreaks and regional lockdowns yet Leicester which shut down in June now has a higher infection rate than it did when initially locked down.
The US CDC data points at restaurants and coffee shops as an issue which could be interpreted to be linked to food service, this would make sense as there is a lot of contact in preparing and delivering a meal to the customer, but we insist you have to have a meal to get a drink!
It’s obvious we are not comparing like for like, a well run pub, with social distancing, table service, staff wearing PPE and observing high standards of hygiene is a different matter from those being referred to in the data by the health advisers who probably don’t understand other drinking cultures.
Investment in pubs
For me pubs could be operating with far less restriction if they follow the rules, I’m thinking in particular those who have invested heavily in outside facilities, I’ve seen everything from individual greenhouses in pub gardens, to open sided marquees with heaters in the car parks, so why can’t the rules for drinking outside be relaxed a bit more in all tiers. Government in the opinion of the Forum of British Pubs needs to give pubs a fighting chance, by providing some sensible loosening of restrictions in terms of who can meet and how, this would help the sector, the economy and reduce the need to provide more support from the treasury.
I also have concerns about New year where we traditionally meet in larger groups, mix and celebrate, I think younger people will still do this despite the lockdown, be it in houses or at outdoor gatherings, as we saw in the first lockdown where criminal gangs, mainly drug related, funded DJ’s with sound systems and supplied drink to put on outside events which attracted large crowds enabling them to ply their trade. Surely the government would prefer people to be drinking in safer well run pubs and bars observing the rules than at these unlicenced events?
On a separate note, I think that if the Pub code which was introduced over 4 years ago had been working as parliament intended, then the industry would have been in a better state to survive this situation, particularly the wet led regulated pub company tenants, if they had the choice of a true Market rent only option, achieved simply and cheaply as a deed of variation, rather than a brand new agreement written from scratch. This simple and effective choice for tenants would have balanced the marketplace and put more power into the hands of the tenant, meaning that the regulated pub companies would have had to behave better, treat their tenants more fairly and give them true value for money in their dealings with them or they could have exercised the MRO choice. It would have also meant that these tenants would have been making a larger margin and pub companies would have been operating more fairly.
As a result tenants would have had more money in reserve to fall back on rather than the heavy debt many already carry and which has grown to unsustainable levels in many cases this year, large regulated pub companies would have had to cancel rather than defer rent and they would not have been able to put conditions on ordering for reopening. Tenants would have had more choice on products they stocked and the prices they paid when they reopened and as they would be making a better margin, would have bounced back from this pandemic and the restrictions which resulted far quicker.
Fragile state
But what we currently have is Government having to support the industry, they have ploughed huge sums in during the first lock down and are being pressed to do more now, a large number of publicans who are already heavily in debt and now in tier 3, so not trading over Xmas will close their doors permanently and walk away from a sector which continues in an unnecessarily fragile state because of the tie which has been and continues to be abused by the regulated pub companies who unfairly benefit from it at the expense of their individual pub tenants.
Government could be doing something about this by making sure the pub code is working correctly and they have it in their power through the ongoing review of the pubs code to future proof the industry from these kinds of issues happening again, it would benefit the tenants, the economy and save the treasury and the taxpayer a fortune.
