“we welcome the Committee’s report and its recognition that too little has been done too late to merit a clean bill of health. It is only right and proper that the committee’s earlier report and recommendations remain on the table and that there is a clear direction that they must be addressed in full before the threat of a Competition Commission investigation can be lifted. This chimes exactly with the evidence presented by the IPC to the Committee and justifies our assertion that the Framework and RICS actions are insufficient in and of themselves. The BBPA’s Framework left three-quarters of the Committee’s recommendations unaddressed and we would urge them to work with us now to tackle the outstanding issues. Only then can we step away from our call for the government to intervene to ensure a robust legislative and regulatory framework to deliver the free and fair market we demand.”

Kate Nicholls
Head of Communications 

Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers

9B Walpole Court, Ealing Studios, London, W5 5ED
Tel:               020 8579 2080         020 8579 2080 or fax: 020 8579 7579

Last Chance Saloon for Large Pub Companies to Reform

CAMRA Responds to Select Committee Report on Pub Companies

 Issued: Thursday March 4^th 2010

CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, has welcomed today’s Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee Report on Pub Companies which demands major reform in the way the Large Pub Companies operate and threatens statutory intervention if these reforms are not implemented voluntarily by June 2011. The Committee also urges the Office of Fair Trading to look more carefully at the issues involved as it responds to CAMRA’s super-complaint for the second time.

In addition to today’s Select Committee Report the Liberal Democrats have indicated that they will pursue radical reform of the Beer Tie in the next Parliament, including a free of tie option and a guest beer right.

Mike Benner, CAMRA Chief Executive, said: 

‘The Large Pub Companies are now in the last chance saloon. The pub sector has had long enough to deliver self regulation and failed. They either voluntarily reform to ensure a fair deal for consumers or risk potentially punitive intervention from the Competition Authorities and Government.

‘CAMRA is demanding that the Large Pub Companies act immediately to allow their licensees the option of selling one guest real ale purchased at free market prices. Given the popularity of locally brewed real ale it is simply crazy that most pub licensees are prevented from buying beer from their local brewers. The Large Pub Companies should also agree to a legally binding code of conduct and move quickly towards offering all their lessees a free of tie option at a fair rent.

‘Over half of the UK’s pub licensees are prevented from buying beer on the open market at freely negotiated prices and the Large Pub Companies are exploiting this to charge licensees between 40% – 45% more than free market prices. These artificially inflated prices are passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices, reduced investment in pubs and pub closures.’

CAMRA defines a Large Pub Company as one which owns more than 500 pubs.

 CAMRA’s Tracking Omnibus Survey: February 2010 revealed strong support for locally brewed beers. 85% of real ale drinkers felt it was important support local producers including locally brewed beer.

Details of CAMRA’s super-complaint are available at www.camra.org.uk/supercomplaint

For further information-

CAMRA Press Office, 01727 798443

Mike Benner, CAMRA Chief Executive, 07971 591224

Music is valuable to businesses

PPL and PRS for Music are two different music licensing organisations with a single aim – to ensure music creators and performers are fairly paid for the public use of their music.

PPL distributes money to record companies and performers from the exploitation of recorded music. PRS for Music distributes money to songwriters, composers and publishers from the exploitation of lyrics and musical composition.

In order to play music in public two forms of music licence are usually required: from PPL and from PRS for Music. This is a legal requirement and failure to obtain both music licenses, where necessary, may result in legal action.

 PRS for Music Licence

PRS for Music is a not-for-profit music licensing organisation that collects royalties on behalf of its 60,000 songwriter, composer and publisher members whenever their music is played, performed, broadcast or reproduced, while helping businesses and organisations get the permission they need to play music.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says that permission is required from the copyright owner in order to play music in public – i.e. outside the home and domestic life. A PRS for Music licence makes this easy, allowing millions of copyright songs to be played live or by any recorded means (for example, on CD or jukebox) or via the internet, TV or radio.

We have agreements in place with our counterparts in most of the world’s countries, allowing us to collect royalties on each other’s behalf. So our Music Licence can cover the use of music from all over the world.

 PPL Licence

PPL is the UK based music licensing company that collects domestic and international revenues from UK television, radio and digital media as well as public performance income from business such as bars, shops, offices and restaurants that play recorded music. This money is then distributed to the performers and record companies who produced the music. PPL does not retain a profit for itself.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says that permission is required from the copyright owner in order to play music in public – i.e. outside the home and domestic life. PPL  offers  thousands of licensing solutions to thousands of businesses every year – giving access to literally millions of songs – at a very low cost.   

 Further information on obtaining music licenses from both organisations can be found online:

If you hire a Music System the supplier normally includes the PPL fee, but always check that point.

If you buy your own Music System for use in the bars and public areas, you must consult with PPL as to your licensing requirements

 
PPL
1 Upper James Street
London
W1F 9DE
musicworks@ppluk.com
www.ppluk.com/musicworks
New customers Tel:               020 7534 1070         020 7534 1070
Existing customers Tel:               020 7534 1000         020 7534 1000
Fax 020 7534 1111

Issued: Tuesday March 2^nd 2010

CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, has today expressed its discontent at the move by Carlsberg UK to ship its iconic Tetley’s cask brand from its Yorkshire heartland to Marston’s of Wolverhampton.

Since the announcement to shut the historic Hunslet site in Leeds was made in November 2008, CAMRA has attacked Carlsberg UK, owner of the Tetley’s Leeds site, for failing to promote Tetley’s beers at a time of increasing consumer interest for real ale.

As part of a national campaign, CAMRA has previously written to Carlsberg UK, offering ways to keep Tetley’s cask brands brewed in the city of Leeds, and has seen mass support for its ‘Save Tetley’s’ campaign, launched at the Great British Beer Festival in August 2009.

Bob Stukins, CAMRA Vice-Chairman, and Yorkshire resident, said:

‘Carlsberg don’t do geography lessons, but if they did (….?), they’d clearly realise the impact this move will have on the pub-going community in Yorkshire.

‘It’s unbelievable to think that a long-standing global brewer would make this move at a time  when the real ale industry is enjoying year on year growth, and CAMRA’s annual research is showing a steep increase in the number of consumers trying real ale for the first time.

‘While it is comforting to know that Tetley’s iconic cask brand will continue to be brewed by an experienced party, it is difficult to comprehend how this latest move will be received positively by pub-goers when this historic brand is stripped of its provenance and tradition in 2011 and shipped over 100 miles away from its Yorkshire heartland.’

For further information-

CAMRA Press Office, 01727 798443

Bob Stukins, CAMRA Vice Chairman, 07788 641294

Mick Moss, CAMRA Yorkshire Regional Director, 07885 345796

Advertise on our site, click on the image to get started.

 WESSEX REGION B.I.I.

Charity Golf Day – Tuesday 30^th March 2010

At OAKE MANOR GOLF CLUB

Dear Friends and Fellow Golfers          

You may know the reason why the above Golf Day is being held but for those who don’t, the Wessex Region BII (British Institute of Innkeeping) Annual Charity Golf Day is to raise money for the

DAVID MINERS COLON CANCER CHARITY.

We have set ourselves high target to raise badly needed funds for a worthy charity and call upon all of our friends, golfing pals, golf societies and local businesses to help us whilst enjoying them selves on a relaxed (but still competitive!) golf day at

OAKE MANOR GOLF CLUB on Tuesday 30^th March 2010

We are looking for sponsors for each of the 18 holes plus sponsors for the longest drive, nearest the pin etc at £100 per sponsor. If you have an advertising company logo we will be pleased to display it.

An entry form is available from Phil or Nigel and we would be delighted for you to join us and give your support. If you’re unable to attend any contribution towards the day would be most gratefully appreciated with such items for competition prizes and raffles. May we thank those who have already donated.

The trade press have promised coverage and we do hope to have around 25 teams plus supporters. So simply fill in the entry form and we look forward to seeing you on the day.

We raised £1600 last year it would be nice to beat it.

Philippe Giorgetti  F.B.I.I.

PLEASE REPLY TO:         Mr Philippe Giorgetti            Tel: 01934 86 22 05

                                                Golden Lion

Broad Street

Wrington

North Somerset

BS 40 5 LA    email: phil@giorgetti.co.uk

or Nigel Wakefield         01271 81 2 4 15 email: all@wakefieldfamily.freeserve.co.uk

• Date: 01/03/2010
• Author/Solicitor: Jeremy Allen

Why do I say this? In the first instance these mandatory conditions throw a duty of compliance on specified persons. In one instance, this is the premises licence holder and in all the others it is the premises licence holder, DPS and anyone else authorised to supply alcohol. Why does this matter? Well, the existing mandatory conditions within the Licensing Act do not specify the individual who was responsible. That makes life a lot easier as you will see below.

The second problem is that the conditions are worded so as to allow for a number of alternative interpretations which could lead to expensive difficulties in the future. Once again, it’s unfortunate that there was no opportunity to view the draft conditions and to make suggestions for improvement.

Thirdly, the first condition carries what could be an unhelpful restriction. This provides that an “irresponsible promotion” must carry “a significant risk of leading or contributing to crime and disorder, prejudice to public safety, public nuisance or harm to children”. This is important because the activities which are classed as irresponsible promotions are very widely drawn and could catch promotions that are perfectly proper and do not cause any difficulties. By way of example, one of the paragraphs forbids the provision of unlimited or unspecified quantities of alcohol free or for a fixed or discounted fee to the public or a defined group. On its own, this could catch a number of activities such as charitable events, corporate receptions or book/ film launches on licensed premises upon payment of a fixed fee for the ticket. Hopefully the preliminary words will mean that few of these get caught.

There is one further difficulty with this condition. There is a requirement that the responsible person (the holder of the premises licence, DPS or someone authorised for this purpose) must “take all reasonable steps to ensure that staff on relevant premises do not carry out, arrange or participate in any irresponsible promotions in relation to the premises”. Who are “staff”? This could include people who are not employed but are operating in a voluntary capacity. They might not be the answerable to the responsible person.

The remaining four conditions all create problems of their own. Perhaps the most worrying facet is that there is no requirement for there to be a risk of crime and disorder, prejudice to public safety etc. Condition 2 states that the responsible person must ensure that no alcohol is dispensed directly by one person into the mouth of another other than where that other person is unable to drink without assistance by reason of a disability. Disability has the meaning given to it in s.1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It would not cover, for example, somebody who had two broken arms and is unable to lift the glass to their mouth. Perhaps more significantly, it would entirely prohibit somebody holding a glass for somebody else to taste, e.g. “what do you think of this wine?”. It also prohibits the age old practise of the publican providing a yard of ale and turning it whilst the customer drinks from it.

The third condition provides that free tap water must be provided on request to customers where it is reasonably available. What is a “customer” for this purpose? If somebody walks in off the street and demands free tap water, are they a customer? If the publican thinks that the individual concerned has had too much to drink and wishes them to leave straight away, can they still demand free tap water? Can a charge be made for providing the glass and washing it up rather than for the water?

Condition 5 imposes a duty to ensure that alcoholic drinks are available in certain specified measures and states that customers must be made aware of their availability. Because of the way this is worded, it appears to be a matter of strict liability. There is no simple requirement to take reasonable steps to ensure that they are aware of the sizes available. It is specified as a requirement.

I have left until last the condition that I think causes the biggest difficulty. The premises licence holder must ensure that an age verification policy applies to the premises in relation to the sale or supply of alcohol. The policy must require individuals who appear to the responsible person to be under 18 years of age (or such older age as may be specified in the policy) to produce formal identification bearing a photograph, date of birth and a holographic mark. Firstly, what do the words that I’ve highlighted mean? I think that they mean that if you have an under 21 or under 25 policy, then anybody who appears under that age must be challenged by the responsible person to produce photographic proof of age. Many supermarkets have adopted an over 25 policy. They are not required to do so but they’ve done so voluntarily. If the words in brackets remain then I have no doubt that the condition will be breached if they fail to challenge under 21s or under 25s dependent upon the policy adopted. The Government can simply take out the words in brackets and it ceases to be a problem. Leaving these words in raises the risk that a review of the licence could follow if the police or local authority take 22 or 23 year olds into the premises and find that they are not challenged. In those circumstances, it doesn’t matter if the Guidance says something different, the judge will only look at the wording of the condition and the condition appears to me to be perfectly clear.

This condition also puts the burden upon the premises licence holder. This raises considerable problems for tenanted estates.

Inevitably in this eNews I have skated over some of the problems. It is also much longer than is usual in the hope that someone may be able to persuade the Government that it has got it wrong and avoid the possibility of expensive litigation in the future. I have not included the fact that this applies equally to clubs, nor have I pointed out that it applies to every single premises licence in the country. Admittedly only one of the conditions relates to off licences but all five conditions will be added to every single premises licence regardless of whether there is ever likely to be any problem given the nature of the operations being carried out. And remember, we have another four to go before the Government uses the nine that it has legislated for!

For more information please contact Jeremy Allen .

It guarantees your money but takes some days to get to your account, it is extremely convenient and costs you money, customers like it, you can also do cash back with certain companies.

It’s convenience normally outweighs the costs if you are taking more than £40K per annum.

You can have an installation cost, which I consider a rip off and have refused to pay on a number of occasions.

You have the monthly rental, which can vary from around £15-£20 on to-days prices, shop around for the best deal and haggle, you might get an old fashioned look, but ignore it, a deal is a deal.

The bit where you save money is the percentage charged on credit cards, the charges for other than credit cards varies, is normally proportionate to the percentage rate.

Your kindly Bank Manager will invariably set you up with anything between 1.8-2.8%, which seems like nothing until you work out the numbers.

The BII have a deal with HSBC for members at 1.15-1.33%, you don’t have to bank with them but it always pays to have a second account with some money in, in case your main bank gives you trouble, you try opening an account when you’re on your limit.

Banks don’t talk to each other??? I made that mistake once, never again.

You might say that percentage difference is not worth bothering about.

A very sobering thought for every .5%  above the BII member rate per £100K you are giving £500 net profit to the bank, that equates to around £2k at least in takings.

I had two pubs last year putting £500K per year through their PDQ machine at 2.8%, because that was the rate their friendly Bank Manager gave them in their last business, that equates £9K net profit going to the bank.

When they realised the enormity of their profit waste, they both said they were locked into the present machine for a year, I pointed out at that loss of net profit they could well afford to pay the rental on the first machine and still show a vast profit.

It is Net Profit that is being spent not Gross Profit.

This is not a commercial for the BII but straight business sense, if you would like details email me at the buyingapub.com and I will ensure that you are contacted or http://bii.bii.org/membership/Individual-membership/how-to-join.

Sadly Banks take enough money, make sure yours stays in your account.

For BII members  http://bii.bii.org/membersonly/business-benefits#pelican

Barfly