My reform efficiency could well prove costly

I noted with interest your cover story last week about BII pressure to put back the Second Appointed Day.

Having worked in secondary education for 30 years, mostly in management, I am well used to constant form filling and bureaucracy. Indeed, it was one of the reasons for my departure. As a new entrant to the licensed trade I have to say that I have struggled to complete the conversion forms despite all of that experience. However, the forms are now in, apparently acceptable, self-drawn plans passing muster, and I expect to receive the premises licence in plenty of time.

However, I have understood that the fees that I have paid will take me from the Second Appointed Day, ie November currently, to April ­ five months only ­ and that I will be paying an annual fee from April onwards.

What will happen if, as has been suggested, the Government reacts to the pressure and defers the Second Appointed Day to July 2006. Does this mean that I will have paid a large fee 14 months in advance? Will I be expected to pay an annual fee from next April as originally expected as well, unlike later applicants?

The changes that I have applied for, and hopefully will receive, would not, therefore, come into effect until more than one year's time, which wrecks the current re-written business plan somewhat. In education, we were constantly dealing with the Government moving the goalposts but I had not expected this in my new career ­ naïve perhaps, I know ­ and from "my own side" as it were. It seems to me that I need not have spent all those rushed hours form-filling, preparing plans, deciding which way the business would be going, liaising with licensing officers and writing cheques in order to meet the set deadline. Perhaps those who have been tardy have been the most sensible because goalposts do tend to move as time goes on. It seems that trying to be efficient could well cost me.

Mick Lee

Landlord

Blue Lion

North Pickenham

Norfolk PE37 8LF

Area managers not to blame in Barber debacle

Apologies for not identifying myself fully, but the demise of Barber Letting is a delicate issue in some pub companies at the moment.

Whilst I take on board the general comments about identifying dodgy operators, the blame for what has happened to Barber cannot in many instances be laid at the door of area managers.

Many of the pubcos appoint account managers from the senior team to look after multiple operators and as such, all communication and day-to-day account handling is channelled through the account manager, only to maintain a consistency of communication.

The responsibility for negotiating deals falls with the account manager and as such the financial checks that are undertaken in that process are fed back to the senior staff member and not the individual area manager. The area manager will visit these sites but order handling, invoicing and account management is all centrally managed.

The main area where the area manager can influence is in monitoring house standards and analysing sales information. In my experience, sales and standards rose with the introduction of Barber into estates.

Clearly, the pubcos concerned have not been vigorous enough in undertaking background checks on Barber; my contention is that in many cases this has been the responsibility of members of the senior management teams, not area managers.

The area manager role has, in my view, taken a bit of unfair stick in recent months. I think it only fair to try to point out that the Barber debacle is, in many cases, the result of senior management failings.

Name and address supplied

Figures show alcoholic drink consumption

Like other journals, which also ought to know better, you state that the Datamonitor report on women's drinking says females in the UK will be consuming "291 litres of alcohol per head" by 2009 ("Women's thirst for alcohol rising: study", Morning Advertiser, 28 April.

This is clearly nonsense, since it is the equivalent of two bottles of whisky a day.

What the report actually says is that females will be consuming 291 litres of alcoholic drink, not alcohol.

Since alcoholic drinks can range from 4% abv lager to 12% abv wine and up to 40% abv gin or vodka, it is impossible, without knowing what proportions of different drinks are involved, to say how much greater UK females' consumption of actual alcohol is against consumption by women in other countries.

If a British woman drinks 291 litres of mostly lager, and a French woman 110 litres of mostly wine, the French woman is drinking more alcohol.

Martyn Cornell

15 Albert Road

Twickenham

Middlesex TW1 4H

Cask Marque shouldn't have put Salisbury down

I refer to your recent article (MA 7 April 2005), which stated that "Newport tops Cask Marque League table".

Regrettably, several towns of which I have more than a passing acquaintance were amongst the losers ­ Salisbury, Reading and Swindon.

I have lived, drunk and brewed in Salisbury for 23 years and I consider it one of the best towns in the UK, if not the world, for its range and quality of real ales sold in "real pubs".

Yes, I am biased, but I suspect that Cask Marque inspectors only visited Cask Marque registered pubs. A visit to the Cask Marque website (www.casque-marque.co.uk) reveals where these pubs are in the towns mentioned. I will not name the breweries and pubs involved, but they don't include Hop Back, Ringwood, Stonehenge or other award-winning beers. Nor are Camra (Campaign for Real Ale) Good Beer Guide-listed pubs amongst their number.

Curious? Visit Salisbury, Reading or Swindon and see for yourself: all have Hop Back, Camra Good Beer Guide-listed pubs.

Richard Harvey

Hop Back Brewery

Unit 22-24 Batten Road

Downton Business Centre

Nr Salisbury

Wiltshire