Mike, CAMRA, action

Is it an insult to sit and have a lunchtime drink with the chief executive of CAMRA and have a Coke?

Now, this isn't a philosophical point - more just a matter of trying to avoid social embarrassment. It crosses my mind as he goes to the bar and orders me one, and returns clutching the Coke and a pint of Discovery for himself.

Have I committed the ultimate faux pas? Is it like going to dinner with the head of the Seafish Industry Authority and ordering a sausage sandwich?

Well, if I have offended Mike Benner he doesn't show it. While only a minor point, it does demonstrate the nature of the man. There are many CAMRA members I have had a drink with who would have made a big deal of my foray into soft drinks (jokingly or not). Benner, as ever, has his sights set on much more important issues.

In the past five years, since he was promoted from head of campaigns to chief executive, Benner has led CAMRA upwards into the arena of political debate.

He admits that a strategic decision was taken five years ago to focus CAMRA's campaign energies increasingly on community pubs, as well as real ale.

"That is where you buy real ale from. So there is a natural logic to it," he says.

"Our members spend a great deal of time enjoying real ale in community pubs. So they do care a great deal about the future of pubs."

Be it a canny strategic move on Benner's part or a natural extension of CAMRA's remit, this has inevitably led to a greater public and political profile for the group, given the problems faced not only by community pubs but the whole pub industry in recent years.

However, there is little doubt that the issue of the beer tie has only intensified the spotlight on CAMRA in the past 12 months, given the group's recent decision to launch a super-complaint against the operation of the beer tie to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

This move has been seen in many quarters as an aggressive one that will disrupt the mediation process currently going on (involving members of Fair Pint, trade associations and key industry figures), and has been wildly lauded by many anti-beer-tie campaigners as a nail in the pubco coffin.

These are all assertions that Benner emphatically rejects as he talks exclusively with The Publican.

Why did you launch the super-complaint?

"The community pubs inquiry of last year led to a meeting of five government ministers and leading industry figures in March. It was clear to me in that meeting that the government was not minded to do anything in terms of supporting community pubs until the industry had sorted what was being seen as a problem. And that comes back to the beer tie.

"Therefore it was right on the back of that that we started to look at using our super-complainant status to force the OFT to deal with it.

"I think it was a major, major step forward to get five ministers together in one room to talk about the industry. But in many ways I think their reaction was expected. It is very difficult to campaign for government support for community pubs, and on excise duty, when the ministers are able to stand and blame a lot of the problems in the industry on the industry itself.

"So driving the industry on to sort out our own problems effectively and quickly is a key part of our logic behind the super-complaint. And I hope the industry understands that.

"What followed was the outcome of the Business & Enterprise Committee inquiry and I don't think anyone expected the outcomes to be quite as tough as they were. That was another trigger.

"We have faced unprecedented levels of pub closures over the past 12 months - what we want to see is these problems in the industry being dealt with swiftly and effectively, and one way of achieving that is via a super-complaint."

What, at the end of it all, do you hope will be achieved?

"The prize at the end of this - be it through a successful super-complaint, or successful mediation process - is that we all end up with a viable and sustainable pubs market where we get people back into the habit of using their local pub.

"At the moment everything is going the other way. There are too many pubs that are in a dilapidated state because they are not getting the right levels of investment because the licensees in them can't afford to do it and the price gap between on and off-trade is widening. You hear so many people in the industry saying 'pubs need to close - 10,000 pubs need to close to make the industry work better'. I think that is a huge and grave error.

"The more pubs that close the more people in that community and area get out of the habit of going to pubs. People are less likely to go to the pub if they have to get in their car or on a train or bus to do so.

"Every local community needs a pub at the centre of it, and it's essential we work together to recognise that. So the industry needs to sort out this issue, the OFT will hopefully uphold the complaint and force them to do so, and the prize at the end for all of us is a vibrant, viable and sustainable pub sector."

Are you not concerned that the meaning of your super-complaint has been somewhat hijacked by the anti-tie campaigners? Nowhere in your super-complaint do you actually call for an end to the tie.

"Well, let us make this clear first. It is nigh on impossible to get the tie abolished. That would require huge amendments - amendments to the Treaty of Rome and all other kinds of legal issues. Article 81 of the EU Treaty specifically allows for restrictive agreements, such as the beer tie, provided that they deliver a fair share of the benefit to the consumer."

Why do you not want to see the end of the beer tie?

"Well, it's quite simple: we think the vertical tie is a great way of getting family and regional brewers' products to market. And I am convinced that if the tie disappeared completely those family brewers in particular would struggle to compete with the onslaught of the four global brewers."

Don't you feel this is slightly moving against the opinion of many licensees who want rid of the tie completely?

"Most campaign issues become polarised between what's good and what's bad. In this case: 'should the tie stay the same or should it go?' In fact, neither is the case. There should be severe reform. I don't see why there needs to be these two polarised extremes.

"There are several aspects that need to be dealt with - not least the rent calculation and valuation methods.The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors is running its own reviews; it's in our super-complaint; it's being dealt with in mediation; it's in the BEC Report; so we are making progress."

CAMRA has been accused by many in the industry of undermining the mediation process by launching its super-complaint. Is that fair?

"I don't accept that. I see no reason why the super-complaint can't run in conjunction with the mediation. The preferred outcome of the complaint is that the OFT will seek undertakings from the companies that are directly aligned with the outcomes of mediation. Right at the heart of this is the fact for a tied agreement to be in line with European competition rules it has to ensure that there is a fair share of choice for the consumer. That is what this is about."

So it's about competition in the best sense of the word?

"Good competition comes from a vibrant market, good, talented business people, and flows of investment. All those things have to work well for the market to function properly. If any of them then the market is on the road to ruin and no one wants to see that. The beer tie is not actually about beer as such - it is about a fair relationship between licensee and pub operating company."