Committee
Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee 23 February 2021
23 Feb 2021 · S5 · Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee
Item of business
Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Am I going to be timed? During the pandemic, it has been evident that the hospitality industry has arguably suffered the most. With lockdowns, strict restrictions and limited support, the sector has been brought to its knees. The Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill appears to want to damage the industry further by imposing levies on businesses that are already struggling; the countless small businesses that they support will also be affected. The Scottish market is substantially different from that of England and Wales, with one of the major differences being the number of tied pubs in each region. Tied pubs account for around 39 per cent of the market in England and Wales, which is nearly 20,000 pubs. In comparison, in Scotland, only 17 per cent of the market—750 pubs—is tied. Those statistics demonstrate multiple issues. At stage 1, the committee was clear that, on the balance of the evidence presented, we did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to progress the bill and all that it entails. The written evidence that we collected and the oral sessions that we held with representatives from all sides of the debate allowed us to be confident in our conclusion. Indeed, that was consistent with the Scottish Government’s 2016 study, which concluded that no one part of the sector is disadvantaged over any other. However, we are of course now at stage 2, so it is incumbent on us all to ensure that legislation enacted in this area is proportionate. It is vital that the bill does not lead to a large waste of taxpayers’ money and, crucially, that it does not further undermine the pub sector, which is currently on its knees, and prevent it recovering from the devastating impact of the pandemic. We must protect investment in the livelihoods of the many operators and individual licensees who rely on the support of pub companies in running their businesses and pubs. Why reinvent the wheel, and why invent a new code that has unworkable and potentially damaging provisions, when the voluntary code of practice, which was specifically designed to reflect the Scottish pub market, already exists and operates well? The intent of amendment 16 is to avoid all sorts of complicated factors with the bill and to develop a new code by first putting the existing code on a statutory footing. When the existing United Kingdom-wide voluntary code was adapted in 2016 as a Scotland-specific code, the minister at that time noted that that was very positive. The Scottish Arbitration Centre, which is located in Princes Street in the heart of Edinburgh, was opened in March 2011 by Fergus Ewing MSP, who was the Minister for Community Safety at that time. The centre promotes arbitration in the Scottish business community as an effective alternative to legislation, and promotes Scotland to the world as a place in which to conduct international arbitration. It is an independent, non-profit company, limited by guarantee. In its distinguished legal tradition and innovative legislation, and in having the Scottish Arbitration Centre, Scotland is well placed to compete globally as an attractive, cost-effective venue for arbitration. The bill is, in effect, a mishmash of the 2016 English regulations and the old Thatcher beer orders. It is not proportionate and, because of that, it is bound to be struck down by any legal test. Tenants of more than one in five pubs that are impacted—more than 150 premises—have written to the First Minister, desperately pleading with her not to let the bill go through. That should not be news to anyone. Before we voted at stage 1, one tenant said that the news that the matter was being discussed, coming at a time when their businesses were on their knees and they were still completely in the dark about when they could open again, made them want to cry. Why are we progressing the bill? It reflects badly on the committee and the Parliament that the bill could still become law. The voluntary code already exists and, as members can see, is extremely comprehensive. It guarantees fair and lawful dealing with tenants. Ingoing tenants are as prepared as they can be; they have total clarity in their agreement and in exactly what it entails. Ultimately, there should be no surprises. I do not know how long I spoke for, convener.
In the same item of business
The Convener
Con
Under agenda item 2, the committee will consider the Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I welcome to the meeting Neil Bibby, who is the member in charge o...
The Convener
Con
Amendment 15, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendments 16 and 17. I will call Maurice Golden to move amendment 15 and speak to all the amend...
Maurice Golden
Con
Thank you, convener.—Inaudible.—approaching the bill. It is unhelpful to take a Marxist view of tenants versus landlords or multinationals versus tenants wit...
The Convener
Con
Willie Coffey would like to make a point of order.
Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
SNP
On a point of order, convener. I want to get your guidance on how much time you will allow for members to make their points. Maurice Golden spoke for more t...
The Convener
Con
My notes suggest that he spoke for seven minutes and not 10. However, the record will show how long it was. The reason for allowing Maurice Golden some leewa...
Willie Coffey
SNP
Thank you, convener.
The Convener
Con
Bearing that comment in mind, I turn to another member of the committee. Richard Lyle, you will start at 09:17, according to my clock.
Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
SNP
Am I going to be timed? During the pandemic, it has been evident that the hospitality industry has arguably suffered the most. With lockdowns, strict restri...
The Convener
Con
We need not worry too much about that. It was brief and to the point, as always. I have two points to make. First, I have been advised by the clerks that, t...
Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)
Con
Good morning. My amendment 17 recognises that the process has been rushed and that we lack a solid evidence base. It would require more dialogue between the ...
Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
You will be pleased to know that I do not intend to speak to every group of amendments, convener. The committee has a responsibility, which I wrote to the co...
Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
A number of members have discussed how we should approach the amending stage. Having dealt with a number of bills in the current parliamentary session, I bel...
The Minister for Business, Fair Work and Skills (Jamie Hepburn)
SNP
I am here today to set out the Government’s views on amendments to the bill. I stress that it is, of course, not a Government bill, but Mr Bibby’s member’s b...
The Convener
Con
Before Neil Bibby winds up on the group, I want to ask the minister about the proposal in subsection (c) in amendment 17 that the Scottish ministers must “h...
Jamie Hepburn
SNP
Of course not, convener—
The Convener
Con
Inaudible.—I think that a contrast is drawn out there between Scottish law and English law.
Jamie Hepburn
SNP
I beg your pardon, convener. I did not hear part of what you said. However, my perspective is that we clearly have to have regard to those matters. Anything ...
The Convener
Con
Thank you, minister. We come to Neil Bibby, who is the member in charge of the bill.
Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Good morning. First, I respectfully say to the committee that the purpose of stage 2 is not to reopen the debate on the general principles of the bill, as Mr...
The Convener
Con
I ask Maurice Golden to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 15.
Maurice Golden
Con
Thank you, convener. If the bill is passed and the Scottish Government has the same composition by the time the act is in place, my amendment 15, which chang...
The Convener
Con
The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con) Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Against ...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0. Amendment 15 disagreed to.
The Convener
Con
Does Richard Lyle wish to move amendment 16?
Richard Lyle
SNP
I listened with interest to the comments that were made about my amendment and I have taken them on board. I will not move the amendment. I am sure that Mr R...
The Convener
Con
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con) Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Against ...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0. Amendment 17 disagreed to. Section 1 agreed to. Schedule 1—The Scottish Pubs Code