Written evidence submitted by the Federation
of Licensed Victuallers Association
The following is the Federation of Licensed Victuallers
Associations comments on the Government Response as requested
in your announcement 91. It should be read in conjunction with
our original submission to the Committee regarding PubCo's.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FLVA broadly supports the Governments response
especially with regard to the decision to move forward via a legally
binding Industry Framework Code of Practice (IFC) in place of
legislation but makes the point that this document needs to move
away from the de-minimus basis of previous codes and needs
to be far more substantive, precise and provide benefit now and
in the future to all sectors of trade. This is essential if the
codes are to be used as the basis for financial recompense via
the PICAS model.
Within our previous submission to the Committee (copy
attached for ease of reference) we support a re-balanced beer
tie so welcome the response in that respect.
OBSERVATIONS ON
THE GOVERNMENTS
RESPONSE
1. Ref point 13 in Governments response re benchmarking
The provision of the BBPA benchmarking cost data
is welcomed however whilst it is noted within the body of that
document that there are omissions (entertainment and provision
of media sports viewing) it doesn't give any guidance as to the
level of expense which these elements may comprise, which is a
very significant sum, and as such these statistics require an
element of professional interpretation without which the stats
could be accused of being misleading.
2. Ref point 14 in Governments response regarding
progress
We concur that progress must be rapid especially
in areas of legality and dispute resolution but we feel that the
opportunity to get the whole mechanism correct should allow sufficient
time for all parties to explore resolutions in order that the
resultant IFC is precisely that, an industry framework not just
representative of part of that industry.
3. Ref Governments response regarding "the
beer tie"
We support the government's response with regard
to the beer and refer back to our original submission with regard
to the tie, points 23-27 and especially point 28 which calls for
a more balanced and equitable split of the profitability brought
about through the existence of the tied model.
4. Ref Governments response to Brulines
This is an area which requires much work in the strengthened
IFC to protect the right of the landlord to have lease terms agreed
to whilst providing safeguards for the tenant in respect of misinterpretation/error.
5. Ref Governments response to Self regulation
We are in agreement with the key elements as detailed
in point 41 (i)-(v) and are working closely with industry colleagues
to implement these but we are concerned in respect of the phrase
"collateral contract" we believe that this should be
brought about via binding collateral deeds in existing leases
ensuring continued adherence by the PubCo and any successors in
title in the event of a sale.
6. Ref Governments response to PUBS Advisory Service
Point 61 is agreed with, however much more input
is required in respect of the provision of this advice as it needs
to be far more embracing and needs to form part of the ongoing
discussions of all industry partners not purely a "telephone
directory" of third parties. We see the FLVA as central to
this process and facility as a tenant's representative body as
opposed to the BII industry role of Tenants educational body.
7. Timescales for improvement
The 14 specific areas of immediate improvements are,
subject to final detail, agreed with. However we would wish to
see a more firm commitment beyond "discussing" areas
of further improvements complete with timescales regarding implementation.
This is an area where we have already given a commitment to work
with industry colleagues to enable these reforms to be implemented.
In summary we acknowledge that much of the Government
proposals satisfy the demands of our original submission to the BISC
enquiry, but we are concerned that the finished article of the
IFC, PICAS, or PAS will be open to manipulation by the PubCos.
There must be significant input into this process by tenant/lessee
bodies otherwise the result will be a PubCo/BBPA led vehicle which
will ultimately solve nothing.
1 December 2011
| 
