Queboid too strong for SIBA

There is a lot of fuss at the moment about how brewers should not criticise the UK brewing industry. Now, before I go any further, I have lots of very good friends in the UK brewing industry. These friends span the whole industry from the very biggest companies to the very smallest. There are many people who help us out with all sorts of problems, be it the loan of the odd bag of malt, advice on technical problems, sharing transport or even just being able to call people up for support.

On the customer side of things there are lots of great licensees, bar staff, bar managers and drinkers who are absolutely great and a pleasure to be acquainted with. Despite my misgivings of CAMRA policies the  majority of the members are fantastic people.

An area of the industry that I have always struggled with however is SIBA. I find the organisation generally to be bullish and to take the "well this is the way we run our organisation, so tough" kind of approach. Or even a bullish "we don't care what your opinion is, SIBA do things this way"

I had failed to see any advantage of joining, but as we grew, and as a result of what I think was proactive canvasing from various top officials, we realised that there may be some important advantages in joining. Access to their beer competitions, perhaps, or the advantage of the Direct Delivery Scheme (DDS) maybe.

DDS is something we've yet to find beneficial, and I could write a whole piece on that by itself. But what I want to discuss here is SIBA competitions; specifically, the SIBA Craft keg festival.

We entered Queboid, our 8% Belgian Style IPA. It gained bronze in the speciality beers section. Beaten by Thornbridge Versa, which won silver and gold going to Freedom for their Organic Dark Lager; Well done guys. Our friends from Stringers Beer were there and they had entered Mutiny, their 9.3% big stout, as well as a slightly more run-of-the-mill IPA called Hop Priest 6.5% - sadly for Jon and Becky they didn't win any prizes. That fact in itself puts that quality of the festival in question.

All fine and dandy, and despite my initial reaction to the organic lager winning, along the lines of "how can a lager be a speciality beer?" - I feel quite stupid now that I've found out it was a DARK lager. I am of course delighted that another of my beers has seen recognition at a competition. Even more important as this was the first batch of beer I have put into KeyKeg.

However, my outrage is not to go hungry it would seem. Despite Queboid, which was the second strongest beer there, being a medalist and Mutiny, the strongest there, although not being a medalist is still delicious, the organisers BANNED both beers from being served because they were TOO STRONG.

Apparently, so our contacts are being told, no beer over 7.5% was to be served.

I was tweeted at last night:

http://twitter.com/#!/westy9000/statuses/165541672824999936

It was later confirmed to me when the Stringers team got back. They also seem to be the only people to have confirmed the results on the interweb.

I cannot quite express how shocked I am by this. SIBA is supposed to support smaller breweries. It is smaller breweries, craft breweries like ourselves, who are both making the stronger beers and are being most affected by the introduction of HSBD. I am hopeful that this is a terrible misunderstand between SIBA and the venue. But even so I find it extremely insulting that the style of product we specialise in has been banned from being served to the public.

With the increase of craft beer bars and the number of small breweries now producing stronger, more flavourful beers that are capturing the imagination of beer connoisseurs, rather than just targeting the mass beer drinker with session blandness. It seems churlish in the extreme to ban the style of beers that are currently bucking the trends in the bigger beer market.

Craft keg lends itself to stronger beers. Many of the current craft keg beers found in the likes of The Rake, Craft Beer Co, Euston, Sheffield and York Taps and Port Street Beer house, to name just a few, are imported. Although more of us are making stronger UK beers there is an increase of home grown keg beers available. I know people who don't like session beer and prefer wine or stronger beers. I know there is a danger of stereo-typing as a result of my own narrow experience, but it is often women, with their apparent superior flavour and olfactory receptors, who are enjoying these stronger beers.

We are unsure as to whether the refusal to serve these strong beers is directly the fault of SIBA or a premises decision. However, what is clear is that SIBA chose this venue. It is the ONLY keg competition and festival that is nationally recognised. To fail to serve to the general public a beer that has been entered and listed is grossly offensive.

Jon and Becky were at the public session afterwards. Becky asked for a 1/3 pint of Mutiny and was confronted with the staff at the venue with them saying "What, a whole 1/3 of a pint?" - for the record, 1/3 pint a 9.3% beer has exactly the same number of units in it as a pint of 3.1% beer.

All the beers were donated free of charge to the venue. Obviously, part of the motivation for us giving away beer is to enter the competition. Equally, we also expecting our beer to be served to the general public as well. Hopefully we will have the remaining beer uplifted and it will be served in a pub in another location.

I am getting an increasing suspicion that a large part of the brewing industry, and that includes SIBA, is becoming unsettled by the progress of craft beer. Certainly the reports I have got back about the keg festival would indicate a lack of professionalism in its approach. Be that the fault of the venue or SIBA I have yet to find out.

A question for CAMRA

I have repeatedly complained about the High Strength Beer Duty levied on beers over 7.5%. I still question CAMRA's approach on this matter. On my last writings on the subject it was suggested I talk to CAMRA. I decided to write to Mike Benner, Chief Executive of CAMRA.

I was delighted that he replied. Many will no doubt see his reply as satisfactory. It will probably disappoint, but not surprise those people to know that I don't see it that way.

However, my views have been made and some assurances have been given that my concerns are being addressed. Most importantly I very much welcome that fact that Mike took the time to reply and agreed for his words to be published.

--------


Mike,

I hope you don't mind me contacting you, a commenter on my blog suggested I should talk directly to CAMRA, and it seems appropriate that I should approach you.

You may be aware that I am one of an increasing number of CAMRA sceptic "noisome" bloggers. Indeed, I suspect you are already familier with the views I wish to communicate. I should also point out that I have held CAMRA membership for some years now, and intend to retain that membership even if I disagree with some policies. I understand that CAMRA must follow policies that are for the benefit of the majority of the membership. I recognise that the organisation's aims are not to provide a blanket beer-related organisation but a cask beer and pub focused organisation.

However, I still feel that it is better to have a general consideration for the wider beer community if we wish not to see further fragmentation within the community.

CAMRA helped to introduce the progressive beer duty system along with strong help from SIBA. Without progressive beer duty it is unlikely that the beer market would be shaped the way it is. There would be significantly less microbreweries and there would very certainly be much less consumer choice.

Part of the choice that has developed is a much wider range of beer with a wider alcohol content. Many of these beers are extremely flavoursome and have revitalised the whole market. This revitalisation has also encouraged many bigger brewers to up their game significantly and further stimulating a broader choice for consumers. The fact that there has been an increase of more flavoursome beers, I would suggest, has helped to contribute to a much more responsible drinking culture amongst the consumers who have been persuaded into this market.

Unfortunately, introduction of the low and high strength beer duty bands is in danger of undoing all of this excellent work. It is effectively undermining the benefit of progressive beer duty. The discount given to small producers of beer is designed to address the fact that stagnation was occurring in the beer market. It was almost impossible to start a microbrewery and remain competitive as the larger breweries had economies of scale which cannot be achieved in the microbrewing sector.

The low strength beer duty discount is benefiting larger producers who already have a competitive edge due to economies of scale. The microbrewers cannot take advantage of any further discount. This is resulting in the very large breweries having significant advantages when producing products under the low strength threshold.

The high strength duty increase, which Government documents state is being used to pay for the low strength discount, is creating additional costs for microbrewers who choose to make beers over 7.5%. This is likely to inhibit further product development in this area. Beers in these strengths are looking likely to provide an export growth market. however, if it is uneconomic to develop for a domestic market first then this is likely to inhibit the development of this important part of the British brewing industry.Exporting is one of the potential areas to generate economic growth.

I understand that CAMRA are now asking for an increase in the low strength threshold to 3.5% and so allow big brewers to retake this bread and butter market. My sources are confident that any widening of the low strength beer duty band will be paid for with significant changes in HSBD too. I ask that CAMRA rethink this policy for the sake of the many microbrewing businesses. If this proposal goes ahead there is likely to be a decrease in the number of breweries that will remain viable.

Dave Bailey


--------


Dave

Thanks again for your e-mail.

The key point is that CAMRA is totally committed to the retention of small brewers relief and are keen to see the scheme extended further to assist small brewers to grow.

Additionally, we would like to find a way of ensuring small brewers can benefit from the reduction in duty on low strength beers and would be very keen to work with SIBA on this.

CAMRA opposed the levy on beers above 7.5% along with SIBA and the BBPA.

Increasing the EU cap on reduced duty for low strength beers from 2.8% to 3.5% would require a change to an EU Directive to make it possible. That is quite a challenge and wouldn’t happen overnight. CAMRA would also like to see this Directive amended so that small brewers can benefit from this concession, which I think would deal with some of your concerns.

Cheers

Mike

Increase in HSBD

I got a DM yesterday on twitter regarding High Strength Beer Duty (HSBD). I was being informed that there may be more increases on the way. I can see this as being very likely. Thanks to the provider of the information, and for the kicking to get me to talk about more important stuff.

I currently have no firm information, it's a rumour. But there certainly are noises off stage left¹ regarding this issue. Let us make sure this baddy is defeated.

CAMRA are championing an increase in the low strength relief. The family brewers would also like this to happen. Beer duty reduction for the big, efficient brewers would help pubs, apparently. This is something I disagree with, but it would certainly be politically beneficial. I feel certain that if the low strength duty band is increased it will almost certainly be countered by detrimental changes in HSBD in order to balance the books for HMRC.

We, the microbrewer, will see no benefit from the low strength discount. We already get 50% discount so we are told we can't get more. Progressive Beer Duty (PBD) which is the name for the discount given to microbrewers, is what has given the microbrewing sector a much needed boost. Erosion of this taxation relief will see the microbrewing industry start to dwindle.

Failure to see that the discount given to low strength beer is going to damage the microbrewing industry is a major issue I have with CAMRA. It is undoing the one thing for which I applaud the organisation.

------------------

¹Stage left is a thespian term to indicate the side of the stage as seen from the actor's perspective. i.e. the right from the audience. In pantomime, it is traditionally the side the baddy enters.

Go on, do it if you haven't already

We're just about to release a very big beer. It's a triple imperial stout with lots of stuff in it. It's full of beans, just to give you a clue, three different types in fact. It's 11% and black. You wouldn't neck it very fast, it will be seriously expensive for one thing. Also, you wouldn't drink much of it because of the intense flavours. It is unlikely to cause major drunken behaviour mainly because it is aimed at beer geeks rather than tramps.

There will be several events, including twissup, where it will show up.

However, it will be a little more expensive than it needs to be because the Government have put a High Strength Beer Duty on it. Sadly we didn't get it into bottles, keg and cask quite quick enough so couldn't pay up the duty for last month, which was the last chance to move beer out of "duty suspense" before the new tax comes in.

There is an e-pertition that is asking the Government to consider reversing this tax. Yes, it might be true, as Jeff Pickthall points out, that we are unlikely to get the tax revoked, but if we don't make our voices heard then beer duty is going to keep on increasing.

If you haven't read and signed this e-petition then you need to read more beer blogs, I must be the last of the beer bloggers to have posted about this.

--------------

If you'd like to get hold of this beer as soon as it is released you could do worse than apply to be a beta tester for our shop.