What they said
CAMRA's proposed guest beer law, (which would see all companies that own 30 pubs or more give their outlets the freedom to buy a guest beer), has caused a bit of heated debate.
No one can deny that offering customers more choice is a good thing. After all, we live in the age of local sourcing - when people are getting ever more interested in eating and drinking products produced in the local village rather by big business.
But things are never as simple as that. The guest beer law introduced with the Beer Orders in 1990 didn't lead to an explosion in the volume and quality of micro brewing. It simply led to a minor price war involving the big brands.
Here's what some key figures in the debate told The Publican.
Keith Bott - head of Titanic Brewery and chairman of Society of Independent Brewers (SIBA)
"When they originally introduced the Guest Beer Law I thought it would save my brewery - I though that everyone would want my fantastic beer. In fact what happened was that my local pub (which was a Bass pub) was offered cut-price Worthington's and bought it instead of my beer."
"I am not sure that legislation is the way to solve this problem. But we do want the subject of guest beers in the political and trade domain. Choice is a way to drive business."
"They [the family brewers] need to prove that they sell more by being protectionist and keeping the tie. Brewers like Charles Wells have guest beers and they obviously feel that improves their business.
"CAMRA wants to see more choice but that can be delivered in a number of ways. A price war isn't what we want. Removing the tie would be a disaster. I think it is very unlikely the government would look at it, especially with the problems the law caused last time. But CAMRA is right to raise the idea of improving choice."
Paul Wells - managing director of Charles Wells and chairman of the Independent Family Brewers of Britain
"As chairman of the IFBB I think we need to look at a wide range of views. At Charles Wells we have had guest beers since 1990. But not every member of the IFBB wants that - they believe passionately that their beers should be sold in their pubs.
"If a law was introduced on this it would deny the brewery the certainty of the tie, and this would affect their ability to invest in their own pubs and their brewery. And the other fact is that CAMRA, which has always been a great supporter of the category, has always supported the regional tie.
"The truth of the matter is that when any microbrewery gets real traction and success in the market, then they will buy their own pubs. And they will then tie them. It's a logical step.
"The last big piece of legislation in this area broke the cartel of major brewers. It was a wide-ranging piece of national legislation. This is too detailed and minute I think [for government action]."
Jonathan Mail, head of policy at CAMRA
"Our proposed guest beer law would not force licensees to take a guest beer but would simply enable those who believe, in today's competitive environment, that they need to create a unique selling point for their pub by offering an additional cask ale from a supplier of their choice
"We are not calling for the tie to be removed or be weakened. The excellent beers provided by family brewers would also be able to compete for and benefit from the new markets as small as they may be, provided by a guest beer law."
Motion 14, passed at CAMRA's AGM in Blackpool this year, which outlines the guest beer law policy
"This Conference notes that pub-owning companies now control over half the UK's pub stock. It therefore instructs the National Executive to campaign for legislation that would allow tenants and managers of pubs owned by companies with more than 30 pubs to choose a guest beer of the tenant or manager's own choice."
