Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR)
I wish to clarify a number of points raised during
the Minister's evidence to the Select Committee. An unfortunate
impression was given that the Minister had negotiated with ALMR
and delivered against ALMR expectations. This was far from
the case, as I hope the attached letter makes clear.
The ALMR and IPC did liaise with officials
before and after the publication of the Select Committee's Report.
Two meetings were held at which it was made clear that lessees
wanted reform in four key areas: the Code to be made indisputably
legally binding; a new, strengthened and genuine industry Code
addressing lessee concerns; enhanced enforcement and compliance
activity; and, independent redress. We made clear at all times
that the most effective mechanism for delivering this remained
the speedy implementation of the Select Committee recommendations.
Officials rejected this as the basis for ongoing dialogue and
stated that the Government would not be willing to consult on
the content of a Code.
Subsequently, the ALMR provided commentary,
information and operational insight to officials throughout this
period. This was dialogue, and at no time did we believe we were
in a period of negotiation. Indeed, we had no sight of the Government's
package of proposals until they were published.
As a PIRRS Board member, we were contacted by BBPA
about their proposals for PICAS and we understand that this was
at the request of the Department. Again, this was dialogue not
negotiation. We copied officials and Minister into our commentary
on the PICAS proposals making clear our unwillingness to engage
and dissatisfaction at their proposed outcome. Furthermore, we
confirm that these were BBPA/BIS proposals we were commenting
on, not the product of negotiation.
We reiterated all these points when we finally met
the Minister on Monday 21 November. At that stage, the Department's
response to the Select Committee had been written and we were
informed in general terms of its contents. We stated at that meeting
that we were unable to support or endorse these proposals and
raised specific concerns about the paucity of the proposed reforms
and the gaps in the plans to make the BBPA Code legally binding.
We did say to the Minister and BBPA that we would
be willing to enter dialogue in 2012 to see if we could agree
a process to develop a genuine industry code and new industry
regulatory structure. An initial meeting has been confirmed for
13 January but we wait to see a proposed programme of negotiations
at a pan-industry level.
There appears to have been a headlong rush to reach
a solution by December 2011, and this has precluded full and genuine
consultation. This haste has seen helpful commentary wrongly portrayed
as participation in negotiation and the unrealistic timescale
has made it impossible to agree meaningful reform in the timescale.
9 December 2011
Letter to Edward Davey MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State, from the Association of Licensed Multiple
Retailers
As you will be aware, the ALMR has been liaising
with the BBPA and other industry stakeholders following the publication
of the Business Innovation and Skills Select Committee Report
on Pub Companies; and we have kept your officials fully briefed
on developments.
Our preferred approach would have been to work collaboratively
with all partners together to present a fully worked up series
of proposals, but this has not been possible and dialogue has
proceeded bilaterally and the BBPA has unilaterally submitted
proposed reforms which address some, but not all of the key commercial
and political issues.
As a result there are a number of positive ideas
on the table—presented individually by different interest
group—which hold out the prospect of delivering meaningful
change. Much more work is required to flesh these out and fill
in critical details to determine whether, taken as a whole, they
are an adequate and appropriate response to the Select Committee
recommendations. We do not believe the BBPA proposals as presently
drafted deliver this; they fail to deliver a legally binding Code
and no substantive reform is proposed to rebalance the commercial
risk and reward in the relationship.
The BBPA has made clear that it will not meet again
to discuss further reform until after the Government has responded
to the Select Committee report. Given the timescales involved,
we therefore see no option but to proceed to a formal consultation
on the content of a new Industry Code of Practice and a mechanism
for ensuring it is legally enforceable—as recommended by
the Committee.[2]
A formal consultation at this stage would send a
clear signal to all sides and give the industry time to reach
agreement on the content of a new Industry Code. We had hoped
that this could have been achieved ahead of a Ministerial announcement
but the paucity of proposals put forward by the pub companies
and their failure to share it other than with identified individuals
has hampered further progress. We therefore urge you to respond
positively to the Committee recommendation to consult in this
area.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you
formally to expand on the points contained in this letter.
9 December 2011
2 The position of the previous Goverment-endorsed by
the current Government-was that if we so recommended it would
consult on how to put the Code on a statutory footing. It is now
time for the Government to act on that undertaking . . .
the Government has to set out the timetable for that consultation
and begin the process as a matter of urgency (Select Committee
Report September 2011). Back
| 
