Hansard

Thank you, convener.—Inaudible.—approaching the bill. It is unhelpful to take a Marxist view of tenants versus landlords or multinationals versus tenants with respect to the legislation. From hearing what members said at stage 1 of the bill, I believe that every member wants a fair and proportionate system. I also believe that we can achieve the system that every member wants through discussing the amendments in this group and the other groups. I was a tenant in retail—that is part of my background. I was subject to arbitrary rent increases, and a multinational retailer put up a large complex just 500 yards up the road from my business. I understand the needs of tenants, and it is with that understanding that I approach amendment 15 and all the proposed amendments to the bill. Amendment 15 would enable rather than require the Scottish ministers to make a statutory code that would capture all pubs in Scotland that operate under the tied partnership model. It would also remove any time limits for the introduction of a code. The Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill is a solution to a problem either that does not exist or that we, as a committee, are entirely unsure of the extent of. Amendment 15 would do several things. Most important, it seeks to strike a balance between giving the Government all the powers that it would require to introduce a statutory code for Scotland’s tied pubs and the respective pub-owning businesses, and not dictating the extent of the code or—most important—including the strict and, in many cases, totally unworkable parameters that it sets into primary legislation. I believe that it is a sensible, worthwhile and consensus-seeking amendment that shows that both the proponents and the opponents of the bill have been listened to. As all members of the committee are aware, there is very little evidence to point to a major problem with Scotland’s approximately 750 tied pubs that the bill would address. First and foremost, the only detailed and qualitative study of the tied pub sector in Scotland came in 2016. That study was produced for the Scottish Government by APS Group Scotland and CGA. It can be viewed via the Scottish Government website, and we can be sure of its independence and unbiased view. The study was carried out “to help Scottish Ministers to decide whether legislation on the operation of pub companies in Scotland needs to be introduced.” The “overall aim” was “to provide a robust evidence base to assist Ministers in coming to a view as to whether legislation on the pub sector in Scotland is required, and where the parameters of that legislation should apply.” The study noted—quite significantly, in my opinion—that, until that report, “Scottish Ministers received no robust representations which took account of all benefits of particular pub models to highlight whether any particular model was significantly disadvantaged in Scotland.” The report’s outputs aimed “to help inform future policy direction on better regulation for the Scottish pub sector whether using a voluntary or regulatory approach.” The report stated: “The original research design required the data collection to be made over two phases. The first step, the Scoping Study, aimed to use empirical evidence to assess if any part of the pub sector was unfairly disadvantaged based on case studies from all parts of the sector. This initial exercise also looked to inform whether there was a need for further investigation through follow on research. The second stage aimed to expand upon the key results of the initial case study through a robust quantitative assessment of the market via a wider sample survey of pubs.” The report also stated: “The Scoping Study was designed to be representative of the different pub types across Scotland; i.e. Fully Tied, Partial Tied (Leased/Tenanted), Managed and Independent Free Trade. To provide as broad an evidence base as possible CGA used a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis to help understand the scale of any issues within the Scottish pub tie model, and the rationales behind them. The research undertaken included a literature review, semi-structured in-depth interviews, case study data collection and triangulation of data by contrasting internal CGA data, Companies House information (when available) and data collected through interviews. In order to assist with the research, a Sounding Board was established. The Sounding Board comprised of key stakeholders from the Scottish Licensed Trade, relevant trade associations and related businesses. The group—” which included both opponents and proponents of the bill— “was instrumental in assisting CGA with defining both the requirements of the research and in providing access to key contacts.” According to the report, “A number of pubs volunteered to participate in the case study research programme. These pubs were verified against Outlet Index and had been continuously present in the database for at least two years. The sample set was a random sample across tenure type and trading style of outlets to a pre-set quota provided in the project brief.” The context is important for the amendment. The report stated: “CGA retained control of the sample base at all times to maintain complete anonymity and made the final decision, regarding those outlets selected for the study, on an entirely confidential basis. The confidentiality of all case study and survey data was paramount to the project. CGA used all reasonable means to ensure strict adherence via the Data Protection Act, Market Research Society (MRS) Code of Conduct, CGA Internal Confidentiality Policies and Non-Disclosure Agreements.” The report went on to state: “Independent free trade (IFT) are those pubs that are wholly operated by the licensee and free to purchase all drinks from independent sources. Within the tenanted pubs, those Fully Tied represent pubs that are Leased/Tenanted with a total tie to their Pub Company for drinks. Pubs that are Partially Tied are defined as those pubs that are Leased/Tenanted with a partial tie to their Pub Company for drinks (some agreed drinks can be purchased outside their agreement).” 09:15 It is important that we know the context. The report stated: “CGA produced three structured bespoke questionnaires for each type of pub interviewed”. It noted that there was a disappointing response from individual tenants. Nevertheless, it concluded: “The on trade is currently a very testing market in which to operate a retail business, and has been for some time. There are financial difficulties driven by significant social, legislative and economic long-term changes.” The result of that research is increasingly important. That concludes my remarks. I would like to listen to the views of other members. I move amendment 15.