BISC accused of failure on AWP tie

That is according to the British Association of Pool Table Operators (BAPTO) which made the claim in its written evidence to the BISC as part of its investigation into, and subsequent report on pubco-tenant relationships.

BAPTO, which has given written evidence to pubco inquiries in 2004, 2009 and 2010, said it was concerned that some of the BISC wording on the subject — such as “if AWP machines are now being treated more fairly and tenants are being given genuinely free of tie options” — suggested that the machine-tie goal posts were being moved.

In its submission, BAPTO said: “This makes us fear the pubcos are succeeding in moving the argument from the validity of the (AWP) tie to the terms of the (AWP) tie. This is far from the recommendations of both committees that are totally unambiguous: ‘that the machine tie be removed’.”

The Trade & Industry Select Committee (TISC) 2004 and Business Enterprise Committee (BEC) 2009 both recommended that the AWP tie be removed.

Kate Nicholls, strategic affairs director of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR), said: “There is a place for a tie, but it has to be operated fairly and there has be a fair share of income, and a freedom to choose (for licensees).

“I simply don’t think there was the time for the issue to be picked up (at the latest inquiry) and it was more about what the government can do — the AWP tie is an area that is directed towards the pub companies for consideration.”

Industry consultant Phil Dixon, who is outspoken on the AWP issue, said: “It should be easy to justify the AWP tie, but we can’t because the pubcos are being greedy on the subject.

“Licensees are not knowledgable on AWPs so it is fair enough to have a machine tie, but since 1992 it has not proven to be the fair and equitable agreement it should have always been.”