Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 26 November 2020
Presiding Officer,
“This work is dedicated to the abomination of all that restricts travel.”
That sounds almost contemporary, but so reads the dedication to the book “The Thomas Cook Story”, 1954 edition, by John Pudney. What does that tale of the Thomas Cook travel company have to do with pubs? Quite a lot, actually. Thomas Cook originated as a temperance—non-alcoholic beverage—travel company, in the wake of the Beerhouse Act 1830, which was intended to establish free trade in beer.
Pudney wrote that the results of the act
“were soon apparent. Even the poorest might keep a beerhouse, or let the beer house keep them, the more so when some brewers were willing to pay the two guineas for the licence and supply stock if the house were ‘tied’. Thirty thousand new beer houses were opened at once ... Certainly as the Act intended, more beer was drunk ... Those who had favoured the measure were aghast. Sydney Smith reported: ‘The new Beer Bill has begun its operations. Everybody is drunk. Those who are not singing are sprawling.’”
From that, we see that it is well recognised from history that parliamentary measures that relate to beer, pubs and tied pubs need very careful consideration indeed, for the consequences of such legislation can be far reaching—in ways far beyond those that were imagined by proposers, promoters or opposers alike.
However, before I turn from Pudney’s account, I mention the son of Thomas Cook and his wife, Marianne. They named him John Mason—[Laughter.] I kid you not. Pudney wrote:
“The child was something of a phenomenon ... The progress of the little John Mason must have been watched with especial interest.”
As far as I am aware, he is no relation, but we have of course our own John Mason, both in the Parliament and, often, in our committee, plying witnesses with perceptive questions and thoughts for which we are grateful.
As convener of the committee that considered the bill, but someone who was not a member during that time—and given my appreciation of the benefits of the temperance movement of which Thomas Cook was part—I am personally placed in a somewhat invidious position in this debate. To be clear—a modern favourite political catchphrase—I speak here in my capacity as convener on behalf of the committee, and on this occasion perhaps more so than at other times.
The committee’s consultation on the bill landed at a time of economic and practical difficulty for everyone—no less so for pub owners and tenants. The committee is appreciative of everyone who took the time to engage with us despite these trying Covid times. The committee heard from a range of people in response to its call for views in its online survey, focus groups and oral evidence sessions. It heard from tenants who supported the bill and those who did not. It heard from pub membership bodies, tenant membership bodies, campaigners, consumers, large and small brewers and the unions. The committee is deeply grateful to all those who shared their views.
Presenting a bill to a committee, as Neil Bibby has done, involves a great deal of work. Members who seek to introduce good bills are to be commended for doing so. My predecessor, Michelle Ballantyne, who was convener of the committee when the bill was introduced in February and during the evidence taking on the bill, should also be thanked for her good work on the committee.
Evidence for and against the bill was presented robustly. “Robust” is of course another current political catchphrase, but views were genuinely passionate and polarised, and no doubt diverging views will echo around the chamber today as in committee, where majority and minority views were expressed.
A majority of the committee felt
“frustrated by the polarised arguments and the lack of complete, robust and independent data”
that was presented by either supporters of the bill or those who opposed it. That majority was also unconvinced that there was enough evidence to suggest that there were large-scale issues in the tied pubs sector that would justify legislation. A minority of the committee felt that an “imbalance” between pub tenants and landlords exists and that the bill would help to redress it.
A majority of the committee commended the intention behind the bill, but did not support its general principles. I abstained, and in those circumstances, I will leave it up to others to go into the detail of the bill. Presiding Officer, I apologise to the chamber as I need to leave after my speech, which I think you are aware of.