Drink Talking: Alan Dunton

Related tags Public house Cask ale Dispute resolution

Alan Dunton of the King's Head, Llandudno, on what the select committee recommendations could have been.Buzz words, don't you just love...

Alan Dunton of the King's Head, Llandudno, on what the select committee recommendations could have been.

Buzz words, don't you just love them....."clear guidelines", "transparency", "alternative dispute resolution", "flexibility", "code of practice", "business development managers" - the best oxymoron of 2004 - "complaint procedures". We are all now reasonably familiar with the main recommendations of the Trade & Industry Committee's report on the pub companies.

But where were words such as "fairly-shared discounts", "rents not penalising lessees' success", and "guest cask ales"? Hard, concrete and fair recommendations that would have made a difference? Hang on, "the AWP tie should be removed". Well, that's all right then.

When I gave evidence to the committee back in June, I wanted to know where the commercial advantage of operating within the tied system was under European law, and whether the committee would look into the pubcos' claim that pub rents are lower than market value to compensate for the tie. These are fundamental questions which have not been addressed.

I first leased my underperforming pubs eight years ago from Allied Domecq. I understood that I would not be penalised for success by increased rents at review based on turnover.

This was a written statement that we all understood.

The committee's recommendations that upward-only rent clauses should be removed does not mean that rents cannot be dramatically increased. My rent will go up to compensate for a £45 a barrel discount when - or if - I renew the lease with the subsequent pubco landlord.

So what could the committee have recommended?

Open market rent and the tie to remain, on condition that negotiated discounts from suppliers are shared equally
Guest ale provision
Free sedatives to major shareholders when they learn that their company has been recommended to "recognise that they have a responsibility to ensure that they do not exploit their position of economic strength".

I believe introducing the above would have done a great deal to reduce resentment and we as lessees would perhaps have suspended our cynicism of the committee's report.

The current recommendations would have simply dressed the window nicely.