THE VIEW THROUGH MY GLASS BOTTOM

Time forever blowing bubbles

Has the physical impact of lockdown infected the functionality of my brain? I'm struggling to concentrate and focus, be perceptive and incisive, and consequently turn a fragmented jigsaw of words into a complete picture of joined-up and coherent sentences.

Tasked with this latest article, all I could come up with at first was a word game: start with BUBBLE, change one (or the double) letter, and see where it takes you. Thus I got BUBBLE – BABBLE – BAFFLE – WAFFLE...

And doesn’t that paint a reasonably accurate image of the weird time we’re living through?

Time…the keyword that renders this writing assignment so challenging. Events and developments, at regional, national and international levels, are fluid and subject to sudden changes of direction, so anything I put down on paper now will probably be out-of-date by the time you read it. As I write it’s the end of September, the ‘Rule of Six’ (under differing home country interpretations) has been in place for nearly three weeks, and new localised regulations have come into legislative force.

But most significant for readers of this magazine is the resurrection of stringent restrictions on the pub trade. I’m bewildered by a curfew that obliges my village local to call last orders at 9.30pm and get all its regulars off the premises by 10. It’s a revival of the false accusation that, as the clock ticks on, the entire on trade becomes a hotbed of worsening behaviour and social irresponsibility.

And is this really the time – in the midst of economic chaos and commercial uncertainty – to announce a radical overhaul of the smaller breweries’ duty relief scheme (SBR)?

(I know I'm seriously out of the lobbying loop these days, but I have just re-read the six beer reports I wrote while masquerading as SIBA’s chief executive, to digest the many significant references to what we then mostly called ‘Progressive Beer Duty’.)

The need for review and possible consequent revision is not an issue. Since its introduction in 2002, SBR’s basic format has combined with various subsequent market and taxation factors to unbalance the level playing field it was supposed to create. However, it is vital to remember the immensely positive effect it has had on the British industry. Each of those reports was based on an annual members’ survey, and in 2014 I noted that 63% of respondents were businesses founded after 2002 – almost certainly as a consequence of SBR. The core proposal is to reduce the qualifying annual production cap, for the full 50% duty discount, from 5,000hl to 2,100hl. Beer writer Martyn Cornell has pointed out that 85% of brewers – ‘the vast majority’ – are outside these production parameters, so would not be adversely affected. But he then goes on to claim that maybe no more than 100 would lose some relief – which my arithmetic says is a lot less than the other 15% of 2,400 registered UK breweries. But tell us, Martyn, how many would be too many?

Whilst accepting that positive reform is required to soften the rapid ‘cliff edge’ drop in relief above 5,000hl, SIBA continues to adhere to the fundamental principle that the 50% cut up to that level must be maintained, so no brewer loses entitlement to relief currently received.

That is a time-honoured standpoint I wholeheartedly endorse, but allow me to add to the debate with a quote from the 2010 report:

“Support for the existence of PBD… [SBR] …does not preclude proposals that it should be reviewed and possibly amended. European law would allow the threshold for qualification to be extended to 200,000hl, which would provide some benefit to every SIBA full brewing member. But perhaps a more persuasive counter to its critics would be for it to be restructured along ‘tax threshold’ lines, so that brewers of all sizes could receive relief for lower bands of production, reducing in stages with full duty payable from a fixed level onwards. This would still provide the greatest proportional savings for smaller brewers with all or most of their production qualifying for the top rate of relief, but at the same time it would neutralise the arguments of those who claim they suffer most by being just above qualification and consequently receiving nothing. Furthermore, thresholds at any level that entail the disappearance of some or all of the benefit below them are a serious disincentive for growth, and this model would prevent that.”

Time marches on…but, a full decade later, does this still make sense?

Julian Grocock