Hansard

I thank all members who have participated in the debate.

I pay tribute to Margaret Mitchell, who just made her final speech. She was a particular help to my constituent, the late Michael McClelland. He was grateful for her support when she was convener of the Justice Committee, and I thank her.

I thank the minister, again, for the leadership that he has shown in listening to Scotland’s tied publicans throughout the bill process.

I thank Willie Rennie for his warm words—although I am sure that I cannot match his charm. I thank him for his support and that of the Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrats were instrumental in getting similar legislation passed at Westminster.

I thank Patrick Harvie for his long-standing support. I recognise that the cross-party group does not have a collective view and I welcome his personal commitment to and sustained interest in the issue. I look forward to having that drink with him when the CAMRA festival is allowed to happen again.

I recognise that the views of members, particularly committee members, have evolved during the bill process. I am aware that there continue to be reservations about the bill; Graham Simpson highlighted some of them. I welcome the collaborative approach of the Government and the candid discussions about how the bill could be amended, which have led to a bill that has reassured members. I particularly thank the committee members who supported the bill and spoke in the debate—I also thank Andy Wightman, who did not speak in the debate, for his support.

I thank Willie Coffey and Colin Beattie for their speeches. They were right to say that the debate about tied pub reform has been described as polarised, with different views on how the model operates in practice. That was a feature of the debate in England and Wales before the UK Parliament chose to act, and it has been a feature of the debates on this bill.

As legislators, we must regularly make decisions about issues on which opinion is divided and about which accounts differ. It is what we are elected to do. However, the fact that opinion is divided does not mean that the weight of opinion or indeed the evidence is divided equally. We have to decide whether to take the global brewing giants at their word—companies such as Heineken, which was fined £2 million for serious and repeated breaches of the pubs code in England and Wales—or to accept the outcome of three parliamentary select committee inquiries, my consultation and the evidence that the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee heard, which brought us to this point.

We have to decide whether to accept the evidence that was brought to us by perhaps one of the broadest coalitions ever assembled in support of a member’s bill that sought to intervene in a sector of the economy, which included the SLTA, CAMRA, FSB Scotland, GMB Scotland, the Society of Independent Brewers, the British Pub Confederation, the Campaign for Pubs, the Pubs Advisory Service, Tennent Caledonian Breweries, the STUC and many more organisations that backed tied pub reform.

As Greg Mulholland told the committee last year, the number 1 cause of pub closures is tenants not being able to make a living out of their pubs. Sarah Boyack and James Kelly talked about the importance of rebalancing the relationships in the tied pub sector. As Alex Rowley said, the SLTA has circulated survey findings today that show that one in three tied pubs earns less than £15,000 a year in profit, while paying excessive mark-ups for the products that it sells.

I have always accepted that there is a place for the tied pub model. We are not debating the model’s merits and whether it should continue. If the tied model was being operated responsibly, as pubcos claim, pubcos would have nothing to fear from the bill. Why would a publican who is getting a fair deal report their landlord to an adjudicator? Why would a publican who is getting a fair deal choose to break the tie and exercise their right to a market-rent-only option? Why would an adjudicator rule against a pubco that is operating in a way that is consistent with the principles on which the bill is based?

If pub companies operate in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the bill, publicans will have recourse to a statutory code, which will be consulted on by Government, approved by the Parliament and enforced objectively by an independent adjudicator.

I will say a few words about the challenges that the pub sector faces. The crisis that we are living through has no precedent in modern times and the impact on the sector has been enormous. As members said, businesses have been unable to trade for extended periods, and when trading was permitted, many establishments found that the on-going restrictions made the business unviable. Politicians of all parties have called on the nation to build back better after the pandemic. Those calls give new meaning and purpose to the bill and to the statutory code for which it provides, which can protect Scotland’s publicans as they choose to do what is best for their pubs and customers as they emerge from the crisis.

We have an opportunity to secure a fairer deal for Scotland’s tied pubs tonight. For the good of the industry, we must seize that opportunity.