Hansard

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 Government and those who will be impacted by the bill. It would create a consultative period of a minimum of 24 months before the code could be introduced. The reason for that is, I think, obvious. As well as the lack of evidence, we must take due cognisance of where we are at the moment with the pandemic and the impact that it is having on the hospitality industry. When the proposal for the bill was floated by the member back in 2016 and when it was formally intimated in January 2020, none of us could have foreseen what was about to hit our country and our world. As we all know, the pandemic has changed our lives and impacted everything. The fact that we are meeting virtually is testament to that. The pandemic has absolutely devastated the hospitality industry and, in the past 12 months, regardless of whether they are tied or independent free trade, managed or free of tie, pubs have spent the majority of the time under forced closure. Grants and support from both the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments have been instrumental in keeping such businesses afloat and we hope to provide as many as possible with a bridge to the other side of the pandemic. Even with that, however, figures from CGA have shown that a further 4 per cent of pubs in Scotland closed for good between December 2019 and December 2020 and, unfortunately, further business failures are expected. We have had representations from groups on both sides of the debate and I have read those with interest along with the committee’s report and the Official Report of the stage 1 debate. Everyone is clear that the hospitality industry will continue to face pressures, even after the pandemic. Obviously, pubs want to open sooner rather than later, but they are realistic. They know that we need to support the national health service and save lives. Until we have clear guidance about when pubs may open, the pressures will continue. It will be a long road back even when they do open, and unfortunately some pubs and other businesses will not make it beyond the pandemic. If the committee and indeed the Parliament burden such businesses with further regulation, cost and bureaucracy at this time, it will compound those pressures and make it likely that we will see fewer pubs reopening when they are allowed to. The proposed legislation affects only a small proportion of the market, but those businesses have arguably received more support from the pub-owning companies than those who operate in independent free trade or under another agreement. The vast majority of pub-owning companies have committed themselves to reviewing rents once businesses have reopened. There is a common understanding that trading might be at a lower level because of social distancing and that pubs may require different support, with reduced payments. That commitment comes on top of the cancellation of any built-in rent increases that were due before the pandemic hit. I have had the opportunity to speak to different pub-owning businesses, particularly in my region, and they have illustrated that the support through rent reductions has been based on the individual circumstances of businesses. That prioritisation of support by pubcos has meant that businesses that received nothing in grant payments from the Government last year—those businesses with rateable values over £51,000—have been given a fighting chance of survival. The point is that the bill was written before any of that happened. All those factors need to be considered when the committee decides on the bill that is before it today. We must listen directly to the operators who will be impacted. One such tenant, Andrena Bowes, who runs several pubs across Edinburgh, said: “The coronavirus has devastated the pub sector and politicians should be focused on that, not wasting time on proposals which aren’t wanted and definitely not needed.” My second major point—I will make it more briefly if I can, convener—is about the number of pubs that we are talking about and the impact that the bill will have on them. Several of them are in my region. I will not read out all their names because of time, but at least 10 to 15 of them are concerned about the bill. We must heed the warnings from those tenants because, after all, they are the ones who are meant to benefit from the bill. We must also analyse the data that the member in charge of the bill, Mr Bibby, used to back up his reasons for introducing it. The consultation that he carried out on his proposal received a very limited response from the tenants that it will impact. If we look again at the evidence that he took, we see that only nine tenants of pubs responded. More Labour MSPs responded to the consultation than people in the sector, yet the takeaway or the headline was that 78 per cent of respondents were in favour of the bill. That gives equal weight to MSPs and people who run pubs, which is not correct. Surely we must listen to those whom the bill would most impact—those whose businesses would be impacted, and especially those whose businesses are meant to benefit. Amendment 17 would allow further scrutiny of the proposals and time for the industry to recover from the pandemic. It would help to ensure that we and the Government did not take a huge misstep that would only result in further hardship for the sector, further pub closures and more job losses. I urge the committee to back my amendment. 09:30