Act that needs a bit of bite

I was encouraged by Peter Coulson raising (MA 13 February) "Thug Act needs support", and the apparent lack of commitment to strengthening the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980. We welcome this belated attention since the National Association of Licensed House Managers, almost single-handedly (latterly joined by the National Pubwatch) has been campaigning for nearly a decade to give the Act more "teeth". In the mid-'90s we became aware that the Act was becoming ineffective, because nobody other than NALHM members appeared to be asking for exclusion orders. Due to their lack of application by the courts, for unknown reasons, the association made representation to the then Home Office Minister responsible, George Howarth. He actually took some action by reminding all responsible bodies and authorities that the Act did exist and could be used when a thug was found guilty of assault. Equally, he took on board our concerns when we made our submission during the consultation on the White Paper: Time for Reform; Proposals for the Modernisation of our Licensing Laws. More than one page in that document was devoted to exclusion orders and ways to make them more effective. But Howarth was replaced at the Home Office by Charles Clark, who did not appear to show the same enthusiasm. In answer to a question put, on NALHM's behalf, by Liz Blackman, MP, he conceded that no figures were collected relating to exclusion orders any more. The obvious conclusion is that there are so few exclusion orders it is not worth the time and energy keeping a record. To "rub salt in the wound", no mention or reference is made in the Licensing Bill before Parliament. But NALHM does not give up easily. Calling on our TGWU colleagues in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, an amendment is to be put to the House of Lords, sponsored by Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen and Lord Lea of Condall, on 4 March. The reasoning behind our campaign is similar to that of Peter Coulson, in that a "ban", if imposed automatically is more, or can be more, effective than a fine. Peter Love National Officer National Association of Licensed House Managers Pubcos which make me sick Concerning the current beer tie test case in the High Court, I would like to wish Mr Crehan good luck. Having recently surrendered a tenancy with a leading national pubco due to ill-health, due in a substantial way to their treatment of me throughout the term of the tenancy, it appears that the operation of all these pub companies has not changed in the slightest in the last 12 years. They expect the tenant/lessee to adhere to the terms of the agreement, but are not so forthcoming in keeping up their end of the agreement. During my three-year tenancy, I had both bars redecorated twice, all bar one room (of eight) in the private accommodation decorated once, the bathroom three times, and had the whole lot recarpeted. One week before the change-over to a new tenant, they presented me with a delapidations bill of £3,760 ­ this from a company which took six months to replace faulty pipework, which stopped us from receiving any gas central heating or hot water. Also, 18 months to re-route a rainwater downpipe, which was the cause of rising damp in the public bar, and they did nothing about two skylights which leaked from the start of the tenancy ­ and which to this day have not been repaired or replaced. The previous tenant to me received no delapidations bill, yet they had the cheek to include £2,100 for the new tenant to redecorate. For the first year there were free keg incentives and product promotional support from the regional manager, after which the pubco's estate expanded, and everything was surplus to its budgets. The regional managers were then replaced by BDMs (should have been BDNs ­ busy doing nothing). Prices for tied products rose, while my free-trade opposition and Wetherspoon's seemed to come down! I'd urge anyone thinking of changing their life to enter this trade, to buy a freehold or go into management. Other-wise they will find out, like I did, that business development managers are there only to develop the pubco's profits ­ you are not only tied for various overcharged products, but also work to an agreement that is very difficult to re-negotiate in times of difficulty. If any of these pubcos had any morals they would start implementing changes immediately. Kieran Coppinger Surrey A brim fullof worry I am concerned about the action of Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries who are phasing out metered dispense in favour of brim measures (MA, 20 February). I know a lot of managers are very upset about what is happening and are losing trade as a result, because Black Country drinkers want a good head on their pint. I am a former manager who is now a tenant, and there is no way I would take out my metered dispense because my customers like a pint with a good creamy head in an oversized glass. I am actually benefiting through what is happening in the managed houses, so I shouldn't complain, but I feel sorry for the managers who are losing some of their loyal customers. I don't understand the argument either that the company cannot get hold of oversized glasses. The 24oz may be hard to obtain, but I still order 22oz glasses which enable me to serve a pint with a good head and it keeps my customers happy. My pub only holds 32 people, but I would lose customers in droves if I didn't serve their Banks's Original or Bitter in an oversized glass with a good head. Stan Gardener Royal Oak Tettenhall Wood Wolverhampton