Nigel Wakefield 18/12/2008 09:26:10

0 Star Rating

MA Front Page Select Committee ReportNigel Wakefield :

The BII are very dependent on Pub Co's for income from qualifications and sponsorship, this does not in my opinion give them priority over members problems and seeking a fair solution to the problems that currently exist if possible.

The Pub Co's have grown to be not unlike a very large dog snarling and threatening all that disagree or seek to oppose them, the dog should get a very big smack in the mouth with a baseball bat and sent back to it's kennel.

The BII are terrified unofficially of losing the income revenue from qualifications from Pub Co's, if the BII stood up to the Pub Co's they would still have to go to the BII since they are the only organisation that do quality qualifications, their alternative is do their own which would have little or no credibility outside their particular company. The BII hides behind it's Charitable Status, having their members put into penury by Pub Co's lawyers may be legal but is morally unacceptable.

It makes me question what is Charitable about this so called Status, the only thing that I can say is those members that are threatening to resign over the pathetic showing at the Hearing and I have had members phoning me to do that, get hold of your Regional Chairman and voice your opinions and I hope this new CEO of the BII will get the message.

info man:

I cancelled my membership last year on this principle as have many others. Many more will do so in the coming year and even if the pubcos sponser their new tennants for the first years membership their true numbers will fall.Please speak for us now as i fear you will no longer be credible should you not act immediately.

ME:

info man. Me Too, BII is an interesting one. It’s not quite what people assume it to be (along with various others in the pub business) - at some level involved with supporting individual's needs in the pub industry. 'Our charitable status prevents us’... is trotted to excuse BII from taking any responsibility for what would certainly be a rather valuable and lucrative aspect of their operation – supporting lessees in their relationships with freeholders. Objectively BII is obviously concerned about losing main source income from lessee training. As long as pubcos make it an obligation for lessees to have BII qualifications BII will have a solid income it doesn’t have to work hard on to keep coming in.

The phrase is one of our industry's well worn get out clauses - convenient paper shields used to parry uncomfortable objective probing into the inner workings of the trade by outsiders – such as a Select Committee inquiry. It neatly cleanly excuses everyone in their need to accept any responsibility for what happens to individuals in the trade. I’ve heard these off the peg phrases being pulled out at every level of the pub industry, particularly when people are discussing Tied pubs.

Convenient phrases which mean little on examination but which excuse the user from having to explain why they have no responsibility, care or duty toward individuals, particularly those who have signed binding tied lease agreements. Phrases like the one which echoes even loudly around the rolling valleys of the Home Counties and beyond is the 'they willingly and knowingly signed the contracts they are now complaining about' (a genuine folded fiver to the one who names the person who trots that out most often) as if it absolves freeholders from any responsibility for lessees dropping like flies in a Damian Hirst exhibit.

The BERR Committee noticed this and someone suggested a need for a trade union in the tied pub business. THE FACT IS Ultimately no Official Body in entire Tied Trade is prepared, or inclined, to support tied tenants at any level simply because there’s no mileage in it for anyone. NO WONDER tied tenants are dropping like flies. Tied tenants are THE source of income for the lion’s share of the industry hangers-on – EVERYONE profits from tied lessees except themselves. At the most obvious level look at the profits generated by Brulines. Was it £2.6 million this year? Say their turnover is £10 million (just a supposition). This turnover and profit is ALL money which is being drained directly out of pubs. And for what reason?

My business Partner is very supportive of BII due to her reading their excellent newsletter and other publications on a regular basis which help inform her understanding of our legal and pastoral position as employers and licensees with statutory responsibilities. However I have very little time for BII because I have a more long term view of the operational side of our business. Whenever I contacted BII for advice about anything which would affect our business I’d put the ‘phone down and be irritated and annoyed that yet again I was not hearing anything other than ‘you have to take your own independent advice on that’.

In effect BII's presence in the tied pub sector endorses and underpins the pubco status quo. Its very existence in pubco publications as being the trainer of choice imparts respectability on the pubcos. I hope this is clear, I’m tired after a day speculating about my arbitrator having taken a stubborn stance seven months after the high court told him to reconsider his rent award against me in favour of the pubco.