 Slux fourteen. Thank you. Pho dopead hedderродdvan, fallen?! Finally my business today is a members business debate on motion number one, two, three, fort, eight in the name of Paul Martin on protecting rent tied pub tenants in Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put and it invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak, but those two are not as soon as possible. I now call on Paul Martin on to open the debate. I begin by thanking all those members who have supported the business motion in my name, and I think it should be put on record that the motion has attracted support from all the political parties in the chamber, for the exception of the Conservatives. I hope that, after what is there, it is from a sense of position that Alex Johnson has made a gesture towards me, so I do not really mean that the Conservatives are now supporting the motion in my name, perhaps he can make that clear during his contribution, but I hope, after a constructive debate this evening, that we can take this issue forward in a manner that is cross-party. Many of us will have various experiences of pubs, many more experiences than others, but can I make the point that my main thrust of the debate this evening is in respect of tied pubs and the contractual arrangements that could tied pubs find themselves in. It is estimated that there are more than 4,600 pubs in Scotland, and more than 20 per cent of them are tied pubs owned by pub cos. I am sure that, over the years, we have all received various representations on the challenging economic climate for those pubs and many pubs across Scotland for that matter, particularly in respect of laws that have been passed, both in Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament. I think that we owe it to those hard-working pub tenants to ensure that we do not put any further obstacles in their way in dealing with the challenges that they face over the coming years. I think that it should be recognised that, although we support many of those legislative changes that have been made, that is all the more important why this debate should be taken forward at the same time. All of the evidence that I have seen on this issue is recognised that the tied model is wide open to abuse, with many tenants finding themselves trapped in bleak financial situations, forced to buy products at an inflated rate from the pub cos, allowing them themselves to make very little savings and investments in their business. Last year, the CGA strategy group surveyed the Scottish tied pub tenants for the campaign for real ale, and the findings for me were absolutely shocking. I can just highlight a number of them. First of all, 66 per cent of those respondents earned less than £15,000 per annum, with 10 per cent of them earning less than £10,000 per annum. 74 per cent of respondents considered themselves worse off as a result of the tied model, and 3 per cent of those had a very positive sentiment for the tied pub arrangement that they have with the pub cos. I think that for us how we should ensure that we take this issue forward is to recognise that 99 per cent of respondents felt that the Scottish Government should take action now to protect pub tenants north of the border. We should also recognise that the tied pub model has been scrutinised for a number of years, particularly in Westminster. The UK Government in 2013 received a great deal of evidence in respect to that, and I can just highlight some of those and some of the examples of the activities of the pub cos. A great deal of activities should be highlighted, and I am sure that it will be highlighted by other members. However, there are a number of practices, including tenants being advised about large rent rises without giving them any kind of justification for the rises. There were examples of pub cos providing tenants with misleading estimates of potential sales. I also met a publican who advised me that, if he were to look at investing in his own particular premises, those works could be carried out, but would be carried out by the pub cos contractors at an inflated rate to ensure that the pub cos also received their cut of the work that was to be carried out. I think that most of us in this chamber would find such practices to be unacceptable and are certainly not ensuring that small businesses are supported across Scotland. I think that it has to be, and I need to highlight that once again today. For far too long, Tide pub tenants have been squeezed by the pub cos behaving like payday lenders. That is unacceptable, and I call on the Government to take specific action. I need to highlight once again that last year MPs passed a small business and enterprise employment bill in England and Wales to ensure that no Tide pub tenant is worse off than a free of Tide pub tenant. The bill introduced a statutory code of practice and an independent adjudicator to govern the relationship between the tenants and the pub cos. It was also recommended that we should include a market rent only option for pub tenants, so that provided options that could take forward that relationship between the pub cos and the tenant to ensure that there is parity in that relationship. For many years there has been a constitutional discussion concerning this grey area, and I know that there has been a number of constitutional discussions over the years, and this has been one of them. As a result of that, Scottish publicans will not benefit from the new laws that have been passed in Westminster. In taking forward this debate, I am calling the Scottish Government today to introduce an independent adjudicator, a statutory code of conduct and a market rent only, similar to that legislation that has been passed in Westminster, and to allow every tenant to choose between the right for a Tide or a free of Tide arrangements, allowing the market to decide what is best, and this would allow tenants a fair and reasonable transparent review of the true rental value of their property. If I once present an officer, we have passed legislation in Westminster that has been passed in Westminster that we agree with, and I am surprised that the Scottish Government finds themselves in the position that we want to debate that issue, given that we have received cross-party support from their members of government today. I want to say that in a constructive tone, because I want to take this forward and ensure that the publicans and the small businesses across Scotland benefit from that. We should recognise the importance of those businesses across Scotland. Members would be surprised to hear that directly pubs employ over 43,000 people in Scotland, a very important part of their industry and employment opportunities for people in Scotland. I call on the Scottish Government to give clear clarity today on how we can move forward for that. I will intervene if the minister does not confirm that. I would like the minister to give us a commitment that there will be a consultation exercise, similar to the one that was carried out in Westminster, and that we will look to legislate before the Scottish Government, before the Scottish Parliament elections next year. I could submit the motion in my name and I call on the chamber to support the sentiments of what I have laid out. I thank Paul Martin for securing the debate and all the groups that are here tonight, all the groups who sent information in regard to the debate and also the bottle of beer, which is all very welcome. I would like to look at the legislation that Paul Martin has picked up on the part of that, which was passed in Westminster and is a small summary of what tie pubs or beer tie actually is. Paul Martin touched on the fact that, in March 2015, in Westminster primary legislation, establishing a statutory code in the adjudicator received royal assent in the UK Parliament. While the legislation has been passed, the code will not come into effect until June 2016, and it will be implemented via secondary legislation. The next year, there will be further consultation with a range of stakeholders to write the code, and the adjudicator will also be established. During that period of consultation, Paul Martin will look at how it intends to arbitrate disputes and undertake investigations in relation to the breach of the actual code. It seems to me that when Paul Martin looks at what has been passed in Westminster, what the motion asks for and the contributions that I am sure you will hear tonight, not just for Paul Martin but for others. It seems to me that what has been asked for here is in line with the legislation that has been passed in Westminster. It is supported by small and large businesses and organisations. When I mentioned the timescale, I think that it is important to note the timescale that has been passed by Westminster of one year going into consultation. I wonder whether the minister would be minded to follow similar timescales for, as Paul Martin has already mentioned, consultation and adjudication in relation to introducing similar proposals, as he has called for, in the motion. If you look at what tied pubs are or tied beer, it works in two ways. Beer and other products are supplied to the pub on an exclusive basis in return for a below-market fixed rent for the pub and other benefits. In general, the tenant agrees to pay above the wholesale market price for the tied products, for example, the beer. We know how many pubs in Scotland are estimated to run around 850 tied lease agreements and 530 of those are owned by companies covered in Wales. That is an important point that has been covered by the legislation that has just been passed in England and Wales. That is an important point to look at. If we look at the take point of my constituency, in particular, I have a brewery in my constituency, the Dragartate brewery, Paul Martin's constituency, the Wellpark tenant's brewery, and there is also the West brewery. There are a number of tenants that have been established for many, many years. I have met the brewers, and they have been established for many, many years. However, the Dragartate brewery and the West brewery are small breweries that are coming on board. It is great. In my eyes, it is not about competition, but fairness and equity for everyone to enjoy. I do not think that just big breweries should be able to get to equity. I think that everyone should be able to get fairness and equity. I am sorry—I am on my last minute. I am sorry about that. I am sorry, Dennis. I cannot take that. I just want to get in the point about my own constituency. Sorry about that. I just wanted to get in my own part of Glasgow, Kelvin. In my area, it is obviously the city centre. I have got 319 pubs in my constituency. I have one brewery, as I have already mentioned. The total amount of jobs at 16 to 24-year-olds is more than 2,000. Direct jobs are 5,000 over 5,000. Total jobs are 6,684, which is associated with a lot of jobs. A lot of people rely on that and the contribution to the economy, not just in Glasgow, Scotland as well. I would like the minister to have a look at the actual proposal that is here in the motion. If he could perhaps let us know if he is prepared to look at it in the same vein, as has already been mentioned by Paul Martin. I would like to join Sandra White in welcoming the debate today. I congratulate Paul Martin on securing this important debate and issue in the chamber. Pub company reform is crucial to the wellbeing of Scotland's beer and pubs industry and the fact that two pubs close every week in Scotland is a stark reminder of the need for real action. Like many members, I have been contacted by constituents and pub tenants in advance of this debate about the specific difficulties facing rent-tied pubs. I have previously written to the minister on this issue and I hope that this evening he will address some of my constituents' concerns. The camera briefing circulated ahead of this debate provided some eye-opening statistics. We know that forcing licences to buy beer from their landlords has resulted in them paying at least 50 per cent more than they would on the open market. The camera survey of tied pub tenants last year showed that almost two thirds of respondents had an income of less than £15,000. Is this type of financial pressure that results in rent-tied pubs being 62 per cent more likely to go out of business than free of tied pubs? We need to remember the human cost of closures because, as Sandra White said, there are thousands of jobs that rely on employment in pubs and in rent-tied pubs. It should come as no surprise that there is a real demand for a Scottish pubs code to ensure that tenants tied to large pub companies are no worse than off than if they were free of tie. As Paul Martin has said, we have seen action to increase protection for these tenants recently in England and Wales through the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Bill that was introduced recently at Westminster. That includes the introduction of a statutory code and an independent adjudicator to ensure that the relationship between tied licences and pub companies is subject to fair and lawful trading. It also introduces, as Paul Martin said, a market rent-only option so that tied tenants can buy beer on the open market. The introduction of such a market rent-only option in a Scottish pubs code would allow tenants to choose between a tied agreement and a non-tied agreement every five years or in the event of a significant increase in the price of tied products. That would place tenants in Scotland in a fairer and far stronger negotiating position. That is crucial in delivering a fair deal for tenants and keeping prices reasonable for pub goers. I am sure that there are quite a few pub goers in the chamber this evening. Presiding Officer, I want to highlight the thoughts of a rent-tied pub tenant in my own area. I met the licency of a pub in Paisley who told me that having seen the action being taken down south, it was a no-brainer that the same action should be taken here. He and many others are calling on the minister to listen to their voices. He told me that allowing pubs like his to buy beer on the open market could be the difference between them struggling to make a living and having a thriving business. Support for action is widespread, as we know, brothers including tenant Caledonian Breweries, Fine Ails and William Brothers have all indicated their support among others. They feel that tied rents place real restrictions on both Scottish brands and publicans, and that bringing Scotland to line with England and Wales would mean that those operating in Scottish market can see positive changes in their businesses. 99 per cent of tied licences agree that the Scottish Government should act to ensure that the protections to be afforded to tied licences in England and Wales are also enacted in Scotland. Paul Watterson, chief executive of the Scottish Licence Trade Association, said that our message remains clear. We need parity with the rest of the UK and we need it fast. I would like to join with Paul Martin in urging the minister to listen to those voices that Colin Farf from and to outline this evening what actions the Scottish Government will take to provide much-needed protection for the rent-tied pub tenants in Scotland. Many thanks. Deputy Presiding Officer, can I begin by offering some reassurance to Paul Martin? There has been one or two things that have taken up my attention just in recent weeks and I managed to miss his motion, otherwise I would have signed it. However, I hope that he takes this opportunity that I have tonight to express my support for the motion and the principles that lie behind it as a guarantee of my support. It is some years ago now—in fact, it was the week of my 18th birthday that I first presented myself to a senior rugby club. The captain of the club took a look at me, looked up at me and said, I, you're a big lad but you'll hate to put on weight and you'll get hurt. So that night I did two hours of physical exercise and then we retired to the pub with the real training started and I have to say that I've been working on that ever since. The truth is that I discovered that beer is good for you and that practice is something that I went on to adopt through my career in the young farmers movement where a similar approach was taken. The sad thing is that the many pubs I remember being in at that stage, none of them now exist. The pressure that there is on our licence trade is quite extraordinary and the effect that various other socioeconomic drivers have had on the licence trade has sadly been negative. Too many of us now buy our wine or our beer at supermarkets and we take it home and we drink it in front of our children which is not the ideal situation to be in but yet that's the practice we now indulge in. The number of pubs has fallen quite dramatically and while it's been done often for the best of motives other changes continue to drive a fallen demand for the traditional pub. The smoking ban which we all understand had an impact on many bars. The more recent change in the blood alcohol level limits for driving has resulted in changes and effects on the footfall at many country pubs. That on-going problem means that there is serious pressure in the licence trade. I will briefly. Would the member accept that the minimum pricing might swing the balance back towards the pubs? Absolutly. I have to point out that I wasn't questioning the motives that lay behind the changes that have taken place. Those motives are sound even though I have argued occasionally against some of the drivers. However, what we can see is that the number of pubs has fallen and that of the pubs that we have lost, the vast majority appear to be rent-tied pubs. That is the sector that is under the greatest pressure today. There is also the concern that has been expressed by some speakers already, but I will repeat it, that with the changes in the law south of the border, we may actually see attempts to force the tied pub trade forward in Scotland in a way that the pressure has not been visible in recent years. I want to take the opportunity to back changes that will free up the pub market in Scotland, that will prevent those who are in a rent-tied situation having to accept financial decisions and buying pressures that are not their own, pressures that will reduce their income and reduce their viability, leading to yet more closures. I do believe that beer is good for you. I believe that local pubs are good for their communities, but I believe that unless we take swift action to avoid the continuing decline of the traditional pub, then we will lose many, many more. The rent-tied pubs are the battlefield on which this is currently being fought. I think that I have given you an insight into what my views are, why my views are motivated that way, and why I believe that it is worthwhile for us to pursue this change. If Paul Martin, the mover of the motion, will now accept that, yes, even the Conservatives accept his point of view, let's go forward together and make sure that we don't lose any more pubs than is necessary. I thank my colleague Paul Martin for bringing this to the chamber this evening. On the surface, the debate this evening is about the licensed pub trade, but it is about Scottish small businesses. The most damning statistic of them all is that tenanted pubs across Scotland are 62 times more likely to close than their free trade counterparts. Those pubs are not run by huge companies, nor by big business men or women, but by ordinary people. They work tirelessly, day in, day out and, for that tireless work, they are paid. They are not a salary that provides security for their families, they are not a salary that allows them to enjoy a lifestyle that rewards their hard work, but in most cases less than £15,000 a year. We all agree that Scotland needs a thriving business sector to grow our economy, but it simply cannot be fair that hard-working honest publicans work day in, day out and yet do not receive or do not see the benefit of a paycheck that befits their efforts. I believe that enacting legislation to protect rent-tied tenants, similar to that in England and Wales, won't solve this problem completely, but it will most certainly help. Introducing a statutory code of practice will provide guidance, support and clarity to the industry in Scotland, encompassing fairness and lawful dealings. A Scottish adjudicator should also be established with the power to arbitrate disputes between pub companies and tenants. It should provide a fast, low-cost and effective means of redress for tied tenants in the event of code breaches. It should have the power to impose financial penalties. For me, that is quite simple. To many of our pubs are closing down in Scotland and many of those that aren't only a few steps away from disaster. It is in the interests of everyone across this chamber that our pubs do well, and I am not by any manner of means advocating for us all to go out and rectify this tonight. However, Presiding Officer, it is imperative that our pubs earn a decent wage to reinvest in our economy and that they grow their businesses and create jobs in our communities. A continuation of the current policy will see many ordinary people lose not just their jobs but their livelihoods. Our friends in England and Wales have already legislated for this issue. I believe that it would be foolish for us not to follow them. Let's use the powers of this Parliament to allow the pub sector to thrive. Let's create jobs, energise and empower people and give communities the pubs that they deserve and can be proud of. We have seen with the Tenants training academy in Glasgow, along with its recently opened conference facilities at the Wellpark brewery and the dry gate bar that I am aware of some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, that the great benefits that the pub trade can bring to the Scottish economy if allowed to flourish. Presiding Officer, as I have said previously, bringing our laws into line with England and Wales won't solve the issue overnight, but it's a start. Let's make that start and then get out there and speak to everyday pub owners across the country. Let's find out what support they need, what is working for them and what isn't. Let's start the process of change. I would most certainly drink to that, even though I am a tea totler. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to have a chance to speak in this debate. I am not sure that technically my membership of the campaign for relail is a registrable interest, but I declare it in the interests of transparency anyway. Camera exists in many ways, not just to campaign in favour of relail, but to celebrate something positive about the kind of alcohol culture we should be proud of. It's not something that this Parliament often does well. One of my bugbears over the years has been that very often we talk about alcohol in terms of harm—social harm, health harm, criminal justice consequences—and we talk about it in terms of economic benefit and how much money people make out of whisky exports and how many jobs are involved, but we don't actually talk about the kind of alcohol culture that would be healthier, that would be something to be proud of and happy about in our society. We talk about the negative aspects of the alcohol culture, the positive aspects of the economic consequences, but there's nothing in between. I think that this motion gives us the chance. It opens up some space to say something about the kind of alcohol culture we should be aiming for, the kind of alcohol culture that would be healthier. That's why I congratulate Paul Martin most significantly for bringing this motion to the chamber. There will be some who would advocate for the change that's in this motion on the basis that there's a principle that markets ought to set rents or that free markets operate more efficiently and will contribute more to the economy. Members will understand that that's probably not my starting point. My starting point is to recognise that this is a recreational drug, a sanctioned, legalised recreational drug, which we have over the last few decades allowed to be handed over overwhelmingly to a tiny number of multinationals, whereas there used to be so much more diversity, both in production and in on-sales in Scotland and in other countries. There used to be so much more diversity of small businesses with their roots in a community. A recreational drug should be sold carefully and in a responsible manner. I think that it's those independent businesses that do have their roots in a local community, rather than decisions about the businesses' operations that are being taken centrally by someone who is not part of that community. Businesses that look after their staff and have a lower turnover of staff and someone behind the bar who knows what they are doing if problems do emerge or behaviour gets out of hand are the kind of businesses that we should trust to sell the product responsibly and carefully. It's the small independent producers, the kind of producers that are flourishing at the moment in Scotland who make their profits from quality, not from volume sales. They are the ones that we should be looking to see having a bigger, a growing share of the product that is being sold in the country. It's a rare and enjoyable novelty when I agree with something that Alex Johnson says, but yes, beer is good for you when we're talking about quality beer and when we're talking about it being sold in a responsible and careful way. I think that it's the independence of those businesses, both the brewers and the independent pubs, that will lead to that outcome. That's what I have in mind in supporting that motion. Even though an individual pub may decide that they're happy with the reduced rent that the beer tie gives them, part of the consequence is that they'll have an increased incentive on the volume sales. If we want the incentive instead to be in producing a good-quality environment that people want to be in that feels safe, healthy or even with the smoking ban as well, we need to recognise that the inflated price that they're paying for their beer, we shouldn't be putting pressure on them to recoup that always and only through volume sales. That motion, whether people come at it from a free market point of view or from the point of view of responsible selling of something that should not be handed over to the free market and where we should be investing in quality, not in volume sales and not just in economic output, is something that every part of the political spectrum can unite around. I hope that the minister in responding to the debate will say positively that he intends to take the action that we're all calling for. Colin John Mason, to be followed by Graham Pearce. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you also to Paul Martin for bringing forward the subject, which is something that I have also been concerned about for some time. My starting point has to be that I like beer, in particular I like trying beers from Scottish brewers, and within that, especially from smaller brewers. In my own constituency, as Sandra White mentioned, we have the West brewery in the Old Templeton building at Glasgow Green, which members may be familiar with, and that has been a huge success with its German-style beers made here in Scotland. I think that Mr Harvie also freqents it. From a jobs and business perspective, we also want to encourage smaller Scottish businesses to develop new products, grow their businesses and create more jobs. It is crucial that you make in terms of micro breweries and small breweries, particularly in rural areas. There are a number of those in Argyll, I have to say, fine ales as one that's involved in this debate. Without ending the present system, the opportunities for those breweries remain more limited than they should be. Yes, I thank Mr Russell for his intervention. I was in his constituency the other week with the Equal Opportunities Committee and tried three variations of the Islay brew, which was very acceptable. It frustrates me when I see folk in Scottish pubs and restaurants drinking imported beers when perfectly good Scottish alternatives are available. Some of those same people will complain about a lack of jobs in Scotland, and yet they drink imported products. Where is the logic in that? However, having got that point off my chest, I do accept that there are other problems apart from consumer choice, because in many cases there is no consumer choice. That is what we are discussing today with the whole question of tied pubs. As I understand it, that has at least two major impacts. One, restricting the choice of beers available to the customer and two, seriously distorting a market to the disadvantage, especially of smaller pub operators. However, I had not realised until I was reading the briefings that there is also an issue with tenants' deposit bonds, which can involve deposits of between £6,000 and £50,000, which is clearly a serious initial commitment. The briefings have made clear that there is less of a problem in Scotland with 850 out of about 4,900 jobs in tied tenancy lease agreements, which is about 17 per cent compared to 39 per cent down south. That is a point that Fergus Ewing has made both face-to-face and in writing. I appreciate his letter to me of 8 January, which showed very much an openness and willingness to listen to any evidence that might be produced. I also have to say that I object to Scotland always being compared to England, whether favourably or unfavourably. We have our own Parliament, we can do things in our own way, and if we want to make comparisons, there are lots of other countries we can compare with. The briefing from licensees supporting licensees also accepts that the situation in Scotland and England are different, but one of their key arguments is that whereas beer prices are higher to compensate for lower rent, in recent times both the cost of beer and the rental element have gone up substantially, leading to problems for tenants. I was reading the library of the House of Commons comments on some of that, and I wanted to quote what was interesting. The same select committee also found that the notion that tenants were receiving countervailing benefits that compensated for higher tied beer prices was also questionable. There is no evidence demonstrating that a tied lessee receives benefits not available to free tied tenants or free holders. Last year, for the first time, rent as a percentage of turnover in the tied estate overtook the free of tied estate. There is nothing inherently wrong with the franchise-type model, with reduced fixed costs compensated for by higher running costs. However, the argument today is that the balance has been lost in recent times. Trapping some who would benefit from having other options, the whole idea of break clauses and the option to have a different model after, say, five years strikes me as very attractive. I think that we do want to encourage pubs to face other challenges that other members have mentioned as a positive aspect of our culture. I hope that the minister can indicate some changes going forward, whether that is exactly the same as happened in England. I rise with some trepidation to speak in this debate this evening. I am obviously in the company of experts when it comes to the pursuit of the business of beer and, obviously, its consumption. I will try as best I can to play my part in this debate. First of all, I thank Paul Martin for the member's business, which has introduced me to some of the complexities that lie behind the business of public houses across Scotland. In that context, the briefing from Cameron, Scottish Beer and Pub Association, and many of the constituents across the south of Scotland, the region that I represent, has helped to educate me in understanding some of the stresses and strains that should have been apparent to me previously, but were not under consideration by me in my daily study of the issues that attract the attention of my constituents. It is quite evident that the trade is under pressure. As Neil Bibby said earlier, at least two public houses a week are currently closing across Scotland. In the south of Scotland, that is a very serious threat. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of Sandra White in our many public houses and her thousands of jobs. The hamlets and villages in towns across the south of Scotland value greatly the presence of a public house in the midst. I have to say that that public house contributes not only in terms of its business, but in the community aspect of its presence in supporting communication across communities and maintaining relationships with those who live in the area. As was indicated by Mr Johnson, the introduction of the smoking ban and the recent changes to alcohol limits in relation to driving particularly has had an impact on the pubs. It is not all negative, because, certainly since the introduction of the smoking ban, in my view, pubs have become more hospitable, the food is more enjoyable, and I think that the culture of pubs has improved accordingly. I am sure that there will be those in Scotland who would disagree, but, certainly, the alcohol limits that have changed have impressed quite properly our responsibility on drivers to be aware of the new limits that apply, and in many aspects they have decided not to drive at all. That has been reflected in the numbers of people who go into our pubs and therefore allow profits to be made in those premises. This Parliament has no responsibility for ensuring that people make profit, but we do have a responsibility to try and ensure that we provide a context and an ability for people who conduct proper business to conduct that business at profit and to employ people at a rate of pay that is acceptable in our society. For those reasons, having read the briefings from all those various groups and listened to those who are engaged in the trade, I think that the proposals that Paul Martin outlines and the experience in England and Wales need urgent attention from the minister. In the event that he finds it difficult to action the elements that Paul Martin has introduced this evening, I would expect at least a commitment from the minister to begin a consultation exercise with some urgency, because businesses are dying as we speak, and there is a need for us to take all steps that are available to us to deliver on behalf of those who provide a trade on our behalf and for our enjoyment. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We now move the closing speech from the minister, Fergus Ewing. Minister, seven minutes are there by please. Thank you very much to Paul Martin for allowing us an opportunity to debate an extremely important matter. Thank you also to Paul Martin for his constructive tone in opening this debate, one that I hope will be continued. To all members, for their diverse contributions conducted, if I may say so, in a tone of sober conviviality, if that is not an oxymoron, Presiding Officer. I think that we can all agree that pubs do play an enormous part in our culture, heritage, our communities, our society. They contribute in great measure to our economy and employment, as we have heard from many members, and they seem to be very largely concentrated in Sandra White's constituency from what she says, which may account for her happy demeanour, but they also contribute to a large number of employment opportunities, particularly for young people, I think. I pay tribute to all people who work in pubs and clubs and restaurants and who serve the public so well and work in anti-social hours. The contribution is £1.5 billion to the Scottish economy. 58 per cent of all tourists have said that they have eaten in a bar or pub, and 71 per cent have oversees visitors. I know that, as Graham Pearson has said, the smoking ban perhaps has triggered an appetite to diversify and provide other services, better food, reach out to other clientele, make them more family friendly and perhaps introduce more females into the equation than some pubs. Not everyone can do that, of course, but I think that we recognise the entrepreneurialism and the imagination of those who are running pubs in Scotland and the enormous contribution that they make to the economy and, indeed, as Patrick Harvie alluded to, the pursuit of human happiness. However, the serious issue is what we do to address the important issue that has been raised. First of all, many pressures exist in pubs. Many have been alluded to of diverse nature, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has kept in place the small business bonus in which I believe that around two in five pubs pay zero or reduce business rates. That is a very real contribution to those small pubs that are getting a particular benefit, which, as someone who did run a small business before being elected to this place, knows well. We will continue that small business bonus scheme if re-elected to the end of the next session of Parliament in 2021. We also provide access to a range of support through Skills Development Scotland for people who are looking to develop a career within the pub sector and to develop the Taste Our Best scheme, which is open to pubs. It is really raising the standard of food and, if I may say so, cuisine in Scotland to a higher level, and it is now, I think, perhaps superior to many other countries that we visit. We may not have said that 20 or 30 years ago. The motion today calls for a statutory code of practice and adjudicator for pub companies to be implemented in Scotland following the introduction of legislation in England Wales. Let me say that I am entirely open to those measures, and I want to comment on some of the arguments that we have been put forward today. First of all, it has been acknowledged that the sector in Scotland is rather different from that in England. There are 4,900 pubs in Scotland, and most of them are independent free trades—64 per cent. The figure in England is almost inverted. Most pubs in England are a tenanted, not freehold. That is the difference. In Scotland, the number of tenanted pubs that I think was mentioned by Mr Martin is 1,100. I think that is what he said, if I heard him correctly. However, only 538 tied pubs fall within the pub co-umbrella. In other words, the protections, the options and the measures that are to be afforded in England and Wales if the legislation goes through and the code of practice comes into effect—as I understand it, it is intended to be brought in in June next year—will apply only in Scotland to 11 per cent of the pubs, and rather less than one-half of the tied pubs. I will just do so in a minute. Therefore, I just wanted to make the point—this is not a point against the motion, it is a point of fact—that, if we agreed to follow suits in England, we will actually only be affecting slightly less than one-half of the tied pubs. Therefore, there is an argument that, if action is required, we may want to go further than down south if the evidence bases it. I will take intervention. Paul Martin Presiding Officer, I recognise the minister's latter point, which I think is constructive. This is an argument that has been used against legislating in Scotland in respect to the numbers that we are referring to. There is nowhere near the increase that we see in England and Wales, but why should it matter to the Scottish Parliament what the numbers are? It should be regardless of the numbers that we should take this issue forward. That is a fair point. I am making the argument to say that we are talking about 11 per cent of pubs here in Scotland, and I think that that is an important point to make. There is a price tag to legislative measures. The prices are not insubstantial. The best guestimates that the policy introduced down south may lead to some further pub closures, it is stated, and an indirect cost to business of £16.7 million per annum. It would be imprudent not to look very carefully at those cost estimates, and what they might be in Scotland. None of us here has mentioned the imposition of additional burdens as helpful. We must drill down and look at that carefully. I received a letter today from various bodies urging support for the motion. The letter said, among other things, that the evidence is crystal clear. The tied pub model has been abused in Scotland as in England. Tenants are forced to buy overpriced products from large multinational pub codes restricting their offer and putting them at a serious disadvantage. On the other hand, in response to that, the other side of the argument has stated, and John Mason has alluded to some of those arguments today, that some argue that rent levels are below competitive, below market rent, other special, commercial or financial advantages known as SCARFA benefits apply, for example financing granting loans in favourable terms, equipping publicans with a site or premises for business, providing them with equipment or undertaking other investments such as wi-fi, sky sports or provision of accommodation. I just mentioned both sides of the argument, because there are two sides. There is a claim and there is a counter claim instinctively as someone who was himself a small business, instinctively as someone in a party that supports fairness and equity. We are on, I guess, the side of the small guy, the tenant. That is where we are coming from, that is where, Mr Martin. I think that many of the colleagues who have spoken in this debate across political parties are coming from. However, I think that I have very little time. What I wanted to say in conclusion, Presiding Officer, and I am sorry that I have not been able to address more points, is that the Scottish Government does recognise that we need to take forward this matter. I have had a number of meetings with many of the interested parties and that is why today I am announcing that the Scottish Government will commission a study to look at the various pub models operating in Scotland to see whether the tide sector is being treated more unfairly than other parts of the industry. For the study's findings to be robust and informative, it will require the co-operation of the entire sector. Once we have considered the outputs of the study, Presiding Officer, I shall most certainly come back to this chamber or make a parliamentary statement of some form to outline our intentions. I very much welcome the fact that this debate has allowed us to focus on some of the issues. I hope that the measure of announcing a study will be welcomed by all members across the chamber. Many thanks and thank you all, and I now close this meeting of Parliament.