Hours is not to reason why

Phil Dixon marvels at the capacity of the chief constables of Great Britain to back track

Now I do love my telly. The Midlands LVAs gave it to me when I joined the BII almost a lifetime ago. When watching certain programmes there are occasions when I get quite excited.

No, I don't do Red Hot Euro! I always lose it on A Place in the Sun when "Brainless from Braintree" decides not to buy the four-bedroom villa by the beach for £45,000 because the wallpaper is too yellow and the swimming pool isn't quite the shape they would have liked. I sit waving my Tesco Platinum card at the screen screaming: "I'll have it! Here take a deposit now".

Then there are the adverts for debt on Sky. Are you in debt? Arthur Snodgrass of West Bromwich had debts of £27,000 but now it's just £4.50. I meditate mumbling in some quasi-Buddhist monk-like mantra: "If you are that much in debt you can't afford to be watching the f****** advert! Cancel your Sky."

But all the above pales into insignificance compared with the sheer exasperation of circa 7 February, when the likes of Sir Trevor McDonald and assorted newsreaders informed the hoi polloi of Great Britain that all-day drinking was being introduced ­ with the support of Tessa Jowell, two civil servants and the entire drinks industry. When 90% of licensees in surveys came out against the proposals, how does that equate to support?

Many, including myself, have repeatedly stressed that the so-called "savings" [from reform] would never happen. Fees under the new regime will undoubtedly place an increased financial burden on the very pubs that can least afford them. The prospect that thousands of pubs would apply for 24-hour opening is as likely as finding a publican objecting to his new rent proposal on the grounds that it is too low. For those "trade leaders" who preached patience and a "let's give it a try" attitude, dust down the forgotten picture of Stuart Neame and say slowly "maybe you had a point".

Then there is that strange breed of individuals known as chief constables, who somehow have, in these last few days, emerged as opposing extended hours. Yet a committee organised and chaired by the chief constables organisation, ACPO, has been meeting with trade representatives since the 12 November 1993, discussing, yes you guessed it... extension of hours. How can you propose an idea for 13 years and then disown it when it comes into force?

The answer lies in politicking. We are approaching a general election. We may have a Govern-ment that is more concerned with grannies in their Ford KAs than burglars with crowbars. They are, though, certainly tough on one aspect of crime, and that is the statistics of crime.

Chief constables are not slow, therefore, to see the potential increase in income from demands to ensure they can meet the policing tasks of the new licensing regime. Indeed, you have more chance of licensees calling for an increase in the rate of VAT than a chief constable proclaiming he/she has adequate resources.

Now let's borrow Doctor Who's Tardis and go back to 12 November 1993. Venue: the Brewers Society, Portman Square. Assembled: the "great and good" ­ and I was there too. If Alan Charlesworth for ACPO had opened the meeting by saying: "We know the trade simply wants to extend hours by an hour at weekends and half an hour in the week, but we are going to propose 24-hour opening, the abolition of the magistrates system, the transfer to local authorities, a one-off legal-application bill of £1,000 per pub, and a minimum 10-fold increase in annual costs, together with a surcharge for extra policing of any outlet within two miles of a town hall"... then we could have all responded with a simple "thank you but b******s" and adjourned to the Three Tuns.

Bent rent?

Q. How many of our pubco directors respect the laws of our land, the institutions of our great heritage, the Mother of all Parliaments, the Royal Courts of Justice?

A. All of them.

Q. How many have, in view of the Trade and Industry Select Committee's recommendations to release the AWP machine tie, done absolutely nothing about it at all?

A. All of them.

What's more they are not going to. Pub companies will not change unless there is legislation on the matter because they hold the aces.

1) Licensees are not AWP machine experts.

2) Licensee-solely-controlled machines take a lot less than professionally-managed ones.

3) The Coup de Gras ­ when the companies have the machine emptied, all the VAT due to HM Treasury gets there. When the licensee... let's leave that one shall we?

So, if push comes to shove, then the clout lays firmly with the pubcos. There is, however the question of openness. The deal on machine income is a simple one ­ typically a 50:50 split, after the VAT and rent has been taken out.

What remains a mystery is the amounts of prior site rent (called a backhander in some parts) that the pubcos charge the machine companies. This, of course, artificially inflates the actual machine "rent" and as a direct result reduces the licensee's share. Having had 50% of the machine profit as a form of "rent", do the pubcos then put the licensee's share into the overall calculation and then take another 50% of it for pub rental? In effect this would give the licensee 25% and the pubco 75%... plus the machine company's sweetener. So much for a 50:50 approach.

"We would not do something so underhand and devious," a pubco director assured me. Then let's see the calculation in all it's glory.

If you have nothing to hide, why the secrecy?

PhilDixoncmbii@aol.com