Latest News
May 2009
Brulines Initial Reaction to published BEC Findings relating to Brulines
Brulines are extremely disappointed in the findings in the Business and Enterprise Select Committee Report released today 13 May with reference to the comments it makes regarding the Brulines business.
It is important to note that at no time during the enquiry has any member of the BEC enquiry sought clarification from Brulines on either the claims made, or examples quoted concerning the beer monitoring system or processes used. They have failed to establish and present, a clear, balanced view of the technology and methodology which is used in dispense monitoring.
Brulines produces over one million reports annually on dispense and delivery volumes of over 22,000 public houses. The BEC enquiry appears to have relied upon one specific example (and some unstated others) and assume that this is representative of 22,000 public houses. This is wholly misleading and presents an imbalanced view.The findings in relation to Brulines and dispense monitoring are ill informed, one sided, misleading, and unrepresentative. Brulines beer monitoring provides transparency to beer operations in a pub which is not a problem for the vast majority of lessees.
To support its findings the BEC enquiry has relied upon limited anecdotal evidence from individuals. Items are stated as fact when they have not been verified with the company in question i.e. Brulines, or any attempt made to seek comments or a response from us.
That the report has resorted to using such evidence runs contrary to Peter Luff’s previously stated intent on the 05 May, that the report would not rely on anecdotal evidence.
"However, we commissioned a full survey of tenants that gives us a firm statistical basis for our conclusions and which means we do not have to rely on conflicting anecdotes, however convincing, on both sides of the case.”
On the specific content raised in the report, the description and terms used to describe what happens in the beer dispensing and line cleaning process demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter.
The report appears to have taken a specific instance of cask ale cleaning and generalised this across all products including the vast majority which are monitored via the line cleaning ring main.
The statements about line cleaning detection are ill informed. They do not take into account the relative ratio of the volume in question, or that line cleaning ring mains are used and that this activity is detected by Brulines systems. This could have easily been verified had Brulines been approached for information or to comment on any of the other anecdotes which are referred to in the report.
In the specific example quoted the BEC enquiry has presumed that the 2000 gallon variance calls into question the accuracy of the flow-meter. This specific instance resulted not from the inaccuracy of flow meters, but the total absence of them in several beer lines. Had the enquiry team contacted Brulines this major contributing factor could have been easily verified and taken within the proper context.
“Furthermore, given the impossibility of distinguishing between beer dispensed and sold, beer run off and disposed of preparatory to serving, and water used to clean the lines”
Beer dispensed, sold, beer run off and disposed of preparatory to serving do not need to be distinguished for the purposes of data provided to the pub companies. The information simply compares the volume of beer dispensed for whatever purpose, to beer supplied via the official supply chain.
We are already working with Trading Standards to establish what, if any, steps could be taken to improve our methodology, calibration or operating processes regardless of whether these fall under the Weights and Measures act. Following initial and subsequent discussions with them it is our intention to continue to work openly and in co-operation with Trading Standards. We have made it clear to them that they are welcome to come in and inspect any aspect of our equipment and processes should this be required, in order that we agree on a best practice.We will be seeking an urgent meeting with our local Member of Parliament to make clear our concern and frustration at how we as a publicly quoted business could have been so grossly misrepresented in a parliamentary report by a committee which has not even had the courtesy to consult with us.
We will be taking full legal advice on the prejudicial statement ‘we believe pubcos should not be allowed to rely on data from Brulines equipment to enforce claims against lessees accused of buying outside the tie’ in the report given that is based on flawed and misleading testimony, and erroneous assumptions. Deliberately or otherwise the BEC report is a misrepresentation of Brulines products and services and we will take whatever steps necessary to rectify the situation.
