Hansard

I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate on Neil Bibby’s Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill. I congratulate Mr Bibby and his team, and I thank them for their work in introducing the bill.

As a member of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, I have obviously had a fair bit to do with examining the evidence on the legislation. Along with others on the committee, I was extremely sympathetic to the purpose of the bill. It was clear that the intention was to create a level and fair playing field for all participants in an important sector of our hospitality industry. It is an industry that creates substantial value to the economy and employs a significant number of workers. There are around 4,000 pubs in Scotland, of which 750—about 17 per cent—operate on a tied model.

As members will be aware, the committee took a majority decision not to support the general principles of the bill. It did, however, commend the intention behind the bill. From the beginning, I felt that some members of the committee, such as me, were ambivalent as the evidence taking progressed. The reason for that was, quite simply, that it quickly became clear that there were two sides to the debate on the bill. Both sides deployed information and statistics from their own sources, and often that information seemed to be in direct contrast and even contradictory to the other party’s position. Members of the committee were sometimes left uncertain as to which information had greater validity and which revealed the correct position.

The lack of independently produced or auditable information was extremely disappointing. It added to the reservations that some members held about the true situation. Lacking that information, the majority of members felt that the bill lacked a sound basis on which to be supported. I think that some members also felt that, before lending their support to something as important as the bill, it was necessary for them to have strong evidence that it was the right step to take.

Some effort was made to draw comparisons with the situation south of the border, where a somewhat similar situation had existed and legislation had been introduced along the lines of the bill. Closer analysis did not, however, support clear comparisons, due to there being different market practices and a different basis for legislation.

Notwithstanding those issues, some members of the committee were concerned about evidence that was presented on a variety of subjects, including reports that 10.5 per cent of tenants were surviving on incomes of only £10,000 a year or less, whereas 54 per cent were reported as having incomes of between £10,000 and £15,000 per annum. Clearly, that is an unacceptable income level that does not recognise the hard work that pub tenants put in to make their businesses viable; however, it was not possible to drill down into those figures in order to make sense of them and the context in which they were couched.

It was suggested that moving to a market-rent-only relationship would improve income levels for pub tenants while increasing the choice of beers and other pub offerings for customers. However, given the alleged income levels that I just stated, it is difficult to see how that might benefit pub tenants on such limited income levels. Their access to capital would appear to be limited by the resources at their disposal.

Pubcos made a strong pitch that their financial strength and willingness to invest in tenants’ pubs provided support for businesses, which the tenants might not be able to resource themselves. However, there were complaints that consumer choice was constrained due to a lack of choice of products in tied pubs, and both sides deployed arguments seeking to confirm their positions.

We looked at statistics on pub closures, but without more detailed supporting information it was difficult to assess whether the closures were caused by reason of the pubs being tied or because of market and pandemic forces. There were allegations that, for tied tenants, the price of stock, particularly beer, was inflated by pubcos. There seemed to be some evidence of that, but, again, more information would have been helpful.

Those are just a few of the reasons why I believe that the bill is not quite ready, although the sentiment behind it is definitely genuine.

Where does that leave us? The result seems to be firmly in the not proven area rather than coming down clearly on one side or the other. So, I stand here somewhat ambivalent and possibly a little uncertain. The bill is clearly well intentioned but lacks the definitive and decisive information to make it absolutely clear in my mind that it should be backed unreservedly. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitments to lodge amendments to the bill, which I trust will address my remaining concerns.