Twenty different pub operators from Punch Group to White Rose Inns, more than two dozen UK and overseas brewers, retailers from J Sainsbury to First Quench and organisations from the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers to the Campaign for Real Ale gave evidence to the Competition Commission for its investigation into the acquisition of Bass's brewing interests by Interbrew.
The submission from Punch Group, a virulent opponent of the takeover, covered eight pages of the report. Punch told the commission that the results of the takeover would be category dominance, with Interbrew able to tie the purchase of its other brands to the likely category leaders of Stella Artois, Carling and Caffrey's; brand rationalisation and reduced consumer choice, with Heineken, Murphy's, Carling Premier and Grolsch likely to be chopped; and further concentration, with Carlsberg-Tetley and smaller brewers finding it difficult to compete in the medium term.
Carlsberg-Tetley itself said that if the merger went through, retailers would choose to take all their requirements from Interbrew because it would be able to supply all the major brands in all the market sectors at the lowest price. Apart from Scottish Courage there would be no effective competitor, C-T said, and it admitted that it did not have the product strength, brand range or marketing budget to compete with either of the big two.
Scottish & Newcastle told the commission that it believed the long-term viability of Carlsberg-Tetley as a wholesaler and distributor was in doubt, and it would be unlikely to survive as a wholesaler after the end of its supply agreement with Punch in six years' time. It said the only effective way to keep competition in the British beer market would be to force Interbrew to sell Bass.
The ALMR told the OFT that the acquisition of Bass Brewing by Interbrew would be against the public interest, especially as it followed the earlier purchase of the Whitbread Beer Company.
The Association said it believed that a duopoly of leading brewers would be created with "unacceptable" concentration of brands and distribution power. It said there was every reason to fear that multiple operators would lose brand choice and the opportunity they previously had to negotiate supply and distribution arrangements with a wider choice of brewers. Ultimately, the consumer would be faced with less choice and higher prices and the industry as a whole would be poorer.
The association said it had always resisted the concentration of supply, believing that it has proceeded too far from the situation that applied at the time of the Beer Orders when there were six big British brewers.
Among other pub owners, Enterprise Inns told the commission that it had moved entirely to independent supply, losing a substantial amount of profit margin, because it refused to accept what appeared to be Bass's desire to keep unreasonable control over distribution. It was worried that other companies might not have the strength to stand up to a combined Interbrew/Bass in a similar way. It was also worried that the merger would mean the marginalisation of Carlsberg-Tetley and regional brewers.
The submission from Punch Group, a virulent opponent of the takeover, covered eight pages of the report. Punch told the commission that the results of the takeover would be category dominance, with Interbrew able to tie the purchase of its other brands to the likely category leaders of Stella Artois, Carling and Caffrey's; brand rationalisation and reduced consumer choice, with Heineken, Murphy's, Carling Premier and Grolsch likely to be chopped; and further concentration, with Carlsberg-Tetley and smaller brewers finding it difficult to compete in the medium term.
Carlsberg-Tetley itself said that if the merger went through, retailers would choose to take all their requirements from Interbrew because it would be able to supply all the major brands in all the market sectors at the lowest price. Apart from Scottish Courage there would be no effective competitor, C-T said, and it admitted that it did not have the product strength, brand range or marketing budget to compete with either of the big two.
Scottish & Newcastle told the commission that it believed the long-term viability of Carlsberg-Tetley as a wholesaler and distributor was in doubt, and it would be unlikely to survive as a wholesaler after the end of its supply agreement with Punch in six years' time. It said the only effective way to keep competition in the British beer market would be to force Interbrew to sell Bass.
The ALMR told the OFT that the acquisition of Bass Brewing by Interbrew would be against the public interest, especially as it followed the earlier purchase of the Whitbread Beer Company.
The Association said it believed that a duopoly of leading brewers would be created with "unacceptable" concentration of brands and distribution power. It said there was every reason to fear that multiple operators would lose brand choice and the opportunity they previously had to negotiate supply and distribution arrangements with a wider choice of brewers. Ultimately, the consumer would be faced with less choice and higher prices and the industry as a whole would be poorer.
The association said it had always resisted the concentration of supply, believing that it has proceeded too far from the situation that applied at the time of the Beer Orders when there were six big British brewers.
Among other pub owners, Enterprise Inns told the commission that it had moved entirely to independent supply, losing a substantial amount of profit margin, because it refused to accept what appeared to be Bass's desire to keep unreasonable control over distribution. It was worried that other companies might not have the strength to stand up to a combined Interbrew/Bass in a similar way. It was also worried that the merger would mean the marginalisation of Carlsberg-Tetley and regional brewers.
