Too late to cry wolf over bill
Where have the pub companies and trade bodies been for the last five years? Is it really credible to believe that organisations so closely involved in the drafting of the Licensing Bill could only now, when said bill is on the verge of becoming law, be waking up to a reality that has been crystal clear from day one? It was the pub trade associations (with or without the support of their members), who lobbied for later hours in the first place. Without their efforts, we would not have the bill in Parliament today. The failed Conservative deregulation in 1996 had demonstrated the public's opposition to a straight extension of hours. Labour made clear from day one that its support for later hours was conditional on councils acting as a sole licensing authority. Against this background, BEDA warned the other trade associations that, if they wanted to keep their cosy world of £30 licences and few, if any, licence conditions, then they should stop lobbying immediately. Unlike afternoon opening and the Sunday extension, later hours were always going to come at a price. Have the pub companies not been listening to their trade associations or did the message not get through? The Licensing Bill was always going to transform the regulatory regime for pubs. Former licensing ministers George Howarth talked about "blowing away the cobwebs", and Mike O'Brien spoke of "engineering social and cultural change". Yet, whenever BEDA spoke up, we were accused of being negative. It seems that finally the truth has dawned we were realists not pessimists. Pub operators have to realise that licence conditions and enhanced regulation are the price we must pay for safer town and city centres. The Fire Brigades Union recently discovered, in its long-running dispute over pay, that the Government does not hand out significant new benefits with-out expecting some additional responsibilities. The increased pay package for firemen came with tough new working conditions. Now, many wish their union had never kick-started the dispute in the first place. How many pub operators share that sentiment today? John Hayes Chairman, Bar Entertainment & Dance Association Filtering back kills quality I was amazed to see the photograph purporting to show trainees "learning the art of cellar management" (MA 26 June). The picture shows beer being poured back into a cask using a filter pan it is this practice that has done more to damage the reputation of cask beer and hasten the decline in sales than any other. Ironically, an article on the previous page rightly extols the success of Cask Marque in "helping save the nation's cask-ale heritage". I wish to quote from our excellent training manual as I believe this sums up the situation: "We're famous for our commitment to quality, and good cellar management is vital for top quality beer. That's why we don't let you filter back our beer. This dubious practice of pouring slops and dregs back into casks or kegs ruins the beer and cons the consumer. So we don't allow it. "The number one rule in our cellars is: never attempt to pour back into a cask or keg. This is a strict policy. If we catch anyone doing it, they're likely to lose their job." Ian Swanson Quality Assurance Brewer Young & Co's Brewery Top work, but sloppy picture Just a short note to say what a super edition the MA was on 26 June. Topped by, I think, a magnificent article on Cask Marque, with a balanced argument on why the industry should proceed with it. However, the sting in the tail in this congratulatory note is that on the next page (page 20) we have a tenanted and leasehold market report with a picture of staff learning from a licensee the art of cellar management and what are they really doing? Filtering ale back into a cask. This is not something that any of us like, but it is just a slight lack of attention to detail after what was a marvellous article. Roger Clayson Email via Roger Protz Diageo not cutting price' In response to your story on Diageo RTDs (Morning Adver-tiser 26 June), I would like to correct some false impressions that the article gave. The journalist appears to have confused the news that we have reduced the abv level of our RTD brands to 5% which is true, by reporting that we are currently planning to reduce prices on our RTD brands by 5% which is not true. Our decision to reduce the abv of our RTD brands from 5.5% to 5% has allowed us to increase our support to the trade in the form of pricing and promotional support, and we communicated this enhanced support to all our customers earlier this year. The first stock of 5% abv Smirnoff Ice and Smirnoff Black Ice was with our customers in March, the first stock of 5% abv Archers Aqua will be with customers in the next few weeks. Our aim with this abv change is to make RTDs more accessible thus creating benefit for our customers, our consumers, and the industry. We remain confident in the long-term health of the RTD category. It is well-established in consumers' repertoires and has driven phenomenal growth for the trade and our business. Paul Flanagan Commercial PR Manager, Diageo Great Britain
