Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Greg Mulholland

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland]

I shall be as quick as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had a conversation with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and I must thank him for his collaborative way of working, and his attempt to find a solution and get through to the Department for Communities and Local Government—alas, he failed. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) rather gave the game away when he said that what is being proposed is not a concession but something the Government were discussing and planning to do in any case. So this has nothing to do with a concession for today; the House needs to be clear on that. One serious point is that DCLG civil servants told the Campaign for Real Ale that the change that has been proposed—not a concession, as we know—would need primary legislation and could not be done through secondary legislation. There is a concern as to whether it could even happen.

New clause 16 is a much better solution. It is not partial and the Government’s solution would cost more, involve much more bureaucracy, take much longer and be considerably less effective. None of us wants red tape, but if hon. Members think red tape is acceptable for nightclubs, theatres and laundrettes, not supporting new clause 16 sends a clear message that not only do they not support local pubs, but they do not think local people should have a say. If hon. Members support pubs and support local democracy, they should vote for new clause 16, and if they do not, they should vote against.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I shall take a minute to tell hon. Members that we all need to see pubs protected and to see them thrive. What the Minister has done today is to say that if 21 people in a community want to protect their pub, they can do so and they can afford it protection under the planning laws. If a pub cannot get 21 people to support it, it is not financially viable. There is no need to have extra red tape and regulation as proposed in new clause 16. The Minister has, simply and succinctly, put the power back in the hands of pub goers, pub lovers and beer drinkers, and I commend him for doing so.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Greg Mulholland

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can reassure the House that I will not be speaking for 40 minutes, nor will I be reading off a list of pubs that have been saved or want to be saved around the country. I just want to get to the nub of the point.

I begin by telling the Minister that I want to help her today. In fact I want to help her so much that I have sent my researcher off to WHSmith to buy two packets of Benson & Hedges, not because I have taken up smoking or I think her nerves are bad, but just in case she wants to write two new policies while we are having this debate and she needs something to write them on.

We have debated this issue for many years and today the Minister comes up with an amendment that was cobbled together within the last couple of hours. This is an important industry. It employs thousands of people across the country. Livelihoods depend on the decisions we make today, and I am deeply concerned that there has been no consultation whatsoever with the industry about her proposal today to have this two-year stay so that we can assess the situation. There has been no impact assessment, and there have been no discussions.

I have the same aims as the hon. Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). We want to see pubs prosper. We want to see pubs thrive. We want to keep the community pub. We want publicans to do well and to be profitable. It is how we achieve that that is key. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West mentioned unintended consequences. I have heard that said a number of times over the last 24 hours or so. I would bring the House back to the fact that we find ourselves in this situation because of the beer orders. A Conservative Minister decided, with the best of intentions, that the Government should interfere in the market; the Government decided that they should split up the big brewers because they were acting in an uncompetitive way and the consumer was not getting a good deal. They broke up the big brewers. The reality is that that decision set us on this path we are on today with the pub companies. We should therefore be careful and cautious—and afraid—of unintended consequences. The hon. Gentleman said that there is no certainty. Of course there is no certainty, but as politicians—as legislators—we have to act with caution when we are interfering in business and in the marketplace and in people’s livelihoods.

[Greg Mulholland]

A little bit of the beer orders story is conveniently forgotten, which is that it was not the Government’s decision; it was the industry lobbying to stop there being a limit on non-brewing companies that led to the creation of the large pub companies. The lesson is to not listen to that sort of self-interested industry lobbying and instead get the legislation right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I saw that look in your eye, so I shall try to make some progress.

[Greg Mulholland]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think I have been fairly generous, but I will of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Greg Mulholland]

The most fundamental dishonesty is the suggestion that the new clause would abolish the beer tie. It absolutely would not; it would simply give an option, at certain trigger points, for people to choose between a tied agreement and a rental-only agreement. That would make the tie work properly and ensure that we got back to what the beer tie used to be.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think I found a question in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Given that he spoke for only 40 minutes earlier, I quite understand why he wanted to have another go.

I should like to get back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) that people often find they have signed up for things that they did not expect. They find that they have been hoodwinked because they were not given all the details, and that they have not got a fair deal. That is what we want to outlaw. I want briefly to consider what, under this legislation, someone wanting to take on a tenancy today would have to do. First, they would have to have a business plan, which would have to be assessed. They would have to have an accountant and a lawyer, and they would be told what they are paying for their rent, their beer, their whisky and for everything else. They would also be told how many barrels of beer and bottles of whisky the pub sold in the past year, in the previous year and in the past five years. All that information would have to go before their accountant before they could sign. I do not know what other Members think, but I think these people are grown ups and business people. If they are provided with all that information calmly and clearly so that they can make a decision, it is not for government to intervene to tell them they cannot engage in a business agreement that is perfectly legal.

Beer Duty Escalator

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Greg Mulholland

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate. He is a big supporter of beer and pubs and it is a great pleasure to be working again with him and colleagues from across the House who support our national drink and our community pubs. This seems to be a case of here we are again, and here we go again.

As chair of the all-party save the pub group, it is always a pleasure to discuss these issues, but I hope that this is the last time we have to discuss the beer duty escalator in Parliament, because I hope that in two weeks this ill-conceived tax—it has not done what the Chancellor in the previous Government predicted, but has caused damage and held back our brewing industry—will become a thing of the past and that we need not ever discuss it again.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I thank him for the way he has engaged in the matter and listened. He is a supporter of beer and pubs, and he has acknowledged the important role of the brewing sector and pubs, and the opportunities for growth and to be part of getting the British economy back on its feet. I warmly welcome that. He has been listening carefully and reflecting, and I hope that that can also be said for the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I urge coalition Members particularly to ensure when we bump into them in the Lobbies that they are also listening. However, the listening must be coming to an end, because there has been a lot of it, as well as a lot of reflecting and campaigning. It is now time for action, and the message from this debate is that nothing other than announcing the abolition of the beer duty escalator in the Budget in two weeks will be acceptable. We urge the Minister to ensure that.

I want to emphasise to the Minister, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that this is a hugely positive opportunity. Too often in debates, MPs say that they want a tax break here and a tax break there, or a favour and a leg-up. That is not what this argument is about. It is simply about two things. From an economic point of view, the tax simply does not add up. It does not make sense. Even the Treasury’s figures have shown that if the predicted rise in beer duty goes ahead in two weeks’ time, the revenues from beer duty will fall, yet we do not need to be geniuses to see what effect the duty is having on brewers, particularly medium-sized brewers. We need to remember that the tax is a producer tax; it is levied on brewers at the point of production, so it directly affects that sector. Taking it away would lead to a change in investment decisions by those companies.

I had a very powerful and stark conversation with Lancaster brewery—it is not in my constituency. The brewery has done incredibly well to get above the level of small breweries relief, to the extent that it is helping either very little or not at all. I heard about how much the brewery would have to pay in duty, and where it would spend that money otherwise. It would spend it on investment, on employment, on increasing production, on taking on more people, and on supplying more beer around the region, and no doubt, around the country.

If the Minister wants clear evidence—I know that he is both a pub lover and a very capable economist—he only has to look at the astonishing effect of small breweries relief since it was introduced in 2002, and I am not churlish enough not to give credit to the previous Government for doing that. I did so at the time, and it has been hugely important. Some people have the idea that small breweries relief is simply something that has helped small breweries—these cuddly microbreweries—to brew beer, and that that is great for beer lovers, but actually, we are talking about incredibly powerful facts.

Figures from the Society of Independent Brewers—SIBA—show that volume sales of locally brewed SIBA beer, against a declining level of sales in the on-trade, were up 6.8% in 2012. Those local brewers already employ nearly 5,000 people, and the really stark figure is that on average, SIBA brewers invested 23% of their turnover back into the business, and into employment, increasing production, and growth. Clearly, there is a direct link between the level of beer duty and the level of investment that brewers are able to make into their business, and that has a huge knock-on effect. As the chairman of the all-party save the pub group, I am deeply concerned about the number of pub closures in this country. It would be wrong to suggest that that is down to one factor, when a number are involved, but clearly the unfair level of beer duty is a factor, and it is time to address it.

The reason why pubs are affected in a powerful way is that supermarkets can absorb any increase in duty that the Treasury throws at them. They have ways of doing that and even now, they are selling alcohol at a price that many people believe is not responsible. The difference between the price of a pint in a supermarket and a pub is now tenfold—it is ten times cheaper to buy alcohol in a supermarket, compared with in the controlled, sociable environment of the British pub, which as we know, provides community value. The Institute of Public Policy Research published an excellent report, which estimated that the wider social value provided per pub was between £20,000 and £120,000, on top of the economic benefits. An interesting fact for the Treasury and BIS about the local pub is that for every pound spent in a pub, compared with a supermarket, twice as much is then circulated and invested in the local economy.

Therefore, it really is a win-win situation. We all know that the Budget has to focus on growth—I look forward to some of the excellent suggestions from Lord Heseltine being included—and here is a simple opportunity to send the message to Britain’s brewers that we want them to invest, to continue to succeed, and not to fall into the trap that we currently have with small breweries relief, where if brewers start to be too successful, they find themselves being penalised.

I also ask the Minister to look carefully at the levels of duty for all drinks, because when it comes to beer, there has been a blind spot that many of us simply do not understand. Beer has been seen as a cash cow for the Treasury, and that must end. However, I also urge the Minister and his colleagues to look at other levels of duty, and particularly to consider the situation with cider. Cider is, of course, another wonderful drink, which is often produced by small producers. There is also a relief for small cider producers, but interestingly, it does not go as far as the relief for beer.

However, I need to bring the Minister’s attention to the situation we have in which huge, mass-produced cider brands—the likes of Magners and Bulmers—pay a fraction of the duty that equivalent large beer brands pay, and that is simply because of the idea that all cider is produced by small producers. I am afraid that there is a lot of dishonesty in the cider market. When it comes to Magners, so-called “Irish cider”, if it really was Irish cider made from Irish apples, every Irish apple would be making something like 20 litres of cider. Some marketing kidology is going on—I say that as someone who used to work in marketing—and there is a profound unfairness.

I want to see a way of helping our wonderful small cider and perry producers. That is absolutely important, and perhaps the relief to them could be extended, but we must also ensure that someone buying a pint of Marston’s Pedigree or Fuller’s London Pride is not paying significantly more—currently more than double the duty—than someone buying a pint of Strongbow, Magners or Bulmers. There is no justification for that, and that inequality must end.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important and strong case. Does he share my concern about figures that I have recently discovered showing that one of the largest producers of cider in this country imports 77% of the apples that it uses in production? On the argument that we need to support the cider industry with special pleading because of its importance to UK apple production, does he not agree that those figures demonstrate that all we are doing is subsidising apple production overseas?

[Greg Mulholland]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the marketing claim that Magners Irish cider is made with Irish apples, when it clearly cannot possibly be.

A pint serving of beer is subject to 41p of duty, whereas cider is subject to 19p. I want to reiterate that when we are talking about those wonderful, small producers of cider and perry, they should have our support, but we cannot have a situation where the huge producers—as the hon. Gentleman has said, many of which are not using British or Irish apples—are being given the subsidy that they are getting, frankly, from overpriced beer. As well as protecting small producers, we need that issue to be looked at.

We need to remember that the beer duty escalator is not the only issue facing pubs, and I am delighted that the Government have now pledged to deal with the behaviour of large pub companies. I reiterate the message that the Minister must send to the large pub companies, which is that if the Government go ahead, as they must, and get rid of the beer duty escalator, pub companies need to pledge that they will pass on the reduction in duty and cost directly to their lessees on their so-called wholesale and list prices. That is fundamental, or frankly, those pubs will not see any benefit, because the money will simply deal with the debts that the companies have got themselves into. The Minister must put that message out, as well as listening carefully to the figures on investment that have been put in front of him, when considering the effect of his decision.

Beer Duty Escalator

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Greg Mulholland

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely understand what my hon. Friend is saying. Nobody wants one industry to fight against the other, but we are seeing a reduction in the brewing industry simply because it is being treated unfairly. All that we are calling for is fairness. He talks about cider, and he will know that there is a 50p difference between the duty paid on a pint of cider and on a pint of beer. How can it make sense to the Treasury that every time somebody buys a pint of cider instead of a pint of bitter, it not only disadvantages brewers but costs the Treasury 50p?

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I am delighted to be working with my hon. Friend on this matter. He is aware that beer carries higher duty per serving than any other form of alcohol—spirits, wine or cider. Duty is 19p on a pint of cider and 41p on a pint of beer, which is simply not fair. We are calling today for fair duty on beer.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head.

We need to understand that the beer and pubs industry employs 1 million people across the country, 50% of whom are under the age of 25. We have a problem with youth unemployment, so surely supporting such a dynamic industry is the right thing to do.

Pubs (Planning Policy)

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Greg Mulholland

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Greg Mulholland]

All I can say is that CAMRA has strict criteria. As my hon. Friend well knows, anyone travelling up the A1(M) will come to a sign pointing to Tadcaster one way and Otley the other. One is a famous pub town and the other is a hugely famous Yorkshire brewing and pub town. There are some synergies there, and it is probably appropriate for me to visit Tadcaster to see some of its pubs for myself.

As the Minister will know, councils have the power to compile local lists of historically important buildings. At the moment, however, that power is toothless because it affords no extra protection. Will the Minister find a way to ensure that buildings that are put on these local lists by the good councils that recognise the importance of pubs such as The Whitelocks in Leeds can be protected in the planning process? It is great to have them listed, but listing seems to achieve nothing in the planning process.

Those are the main recommendations that the save the pub group is making for now as part of the conversation we are having. We will have a lively debate about the right way forward, but there is one thing the Minister and the Government must not fall into the trap of doing. I sit on the coalition Government Benches and I support what the Government are trying to do. Like the Minister, I do not want more regulation, and I certainly do not want more regulation on pubs in the licensing system—in fact, I want to see less. However, it is quite wrong to suggest that giving communities the right to have a say over their local pubs and the important local services they provide is regulation, because it is not; it is simply about ensuring that there is a proper process to enable communities to have a say. That will not prevent pubs from being converted to alternative and positive uses when their days as a pub are numbered because of the area they are in or the local population.

I agree with the Minister that we want competition and a free market. As everyone in the pub trade and associated trades knows, however, there is no free market, because of the huge distorting impact of the fact that half the pubs in the country are owned by the largest pub companies, which tightly control prices and dictate rents. That is a separate issue, and the Government are looking at it. However, entrepreneurs—the up-and-coming small brewers and small pub companies—are delivering great pubs, but they are not getting access to the market because of the planning system. If the Minister wants genuine competition, as I do, he needs to make it much easier for not only communities but entrepreneurs to get their hands on pubs. At the moment the Government are not saying that.

Of course, the Minister will hear from the pub companies, developers and supermarkets, who want carte blanche to do what they want with the community’s pubs. They will tell him, “You must not do this; it is not in the spirit of the free market. It is anti-competitive. It is regulation.” It is not. The Government have a clear ideological choice. Do they really want to empower communities to have a say over local pubs, or do they want to back the developers, the giant pub companies and the supermarkets, to let them do whatever they like with their pubs? It is as stark as that. I know what I believe in as a localist, a decentraliser and a real fan of pubs, and I hope the Government will choose the right way.

The matter is linked, of course, to that of the big society, which is a huge issue. There has been a lot of coverage of the big society this week. People say it is a concept no one can disagree with: we want more power for communities, and local people doing things for themselves. The issue has been about the costs and whether it is affordable. However, much of the big society can happen without the Government spending a penny, and what I am talking about presents one opportunity for that. If the Government make the right, bold decisions they can stop the closure of profitable pubs happening against the wishes of communities. That surely is the big society at a local level.

I have a few questions for the Minister and, because this is a dialogue, I do not ask him to reply now.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

rose—

[Greg Mulholland]

Before I put my questions I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who represents Burton, another famous brewing town.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall, and for recognising the importance of Burton. As he says it is the home of beer and Britain’s No. 1 brewing town. He talks with some force—and I agree with what he says—about the need to protect our community pubs. Does he also recognise that many brewers and pub companies are trying to reverse the decline of pubs by opening new pubs every day of the week? Marstons in my constituency has just opened The Dapple Grey in Uttoxeter, which is thriving. I was in there a few days ago and it was heaving with people. We need to allow pubs to grow and flourish, and the hon. Gentleman’s viability test is the most important element of that.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. We work closely together, because the all-party save the pub group works closely with the all-party beer group, of which he is the vice-chairman, and we look forward to continuing with that. He is right to say that viability is a key issue. He is right to say that some pubs are opening; but sometimes that is used as an excuse to close other pubs that owners or pub companies want to dispose of because of their huge indebtedness, some of which they need to claw back to please their shareholders and foreign creditors.

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raised is important, but there was a case in Otley where a brand new pub opened—a wonderful little free house called the Old Cock—because it was not possible for Lee and Linda, who run it, to get one of the pubs owned by the pub company. They had to set a pub up in what used to be a café, and now offer a wonderful range of independent beers that they could not afford to buy through the pub company. That is why I say to the Minister that there is no free market or way to do that. The tragedy is that The Woolpack, which I have already mentioned, is a mere 50 yards from the Old Cock. If the system worked, Lee and Linda would have bought it, and would be operating that free house from its wonderful historic building. Instead, it has closed and is being converted. The Old Cock is a brand new pub. All I am saying is that we need to assess viability and first ask communities whether pubs are still wanted. That would answer all the problems that we agree exist.

As to my questions to the Minister, I want to nail him down—not today—on whether he agrees with, and whether he and the Government will commit to, the principle that no profitable and wanted pub should be permanently closed against the wish of the community, without that community having any chance of a say on its future. To me, that is the overriding fundamental principle that we must get to as a localist and decentralising Government—and, hopefully, a pro-pub Government. I also ask the Minister to provide an assurance today, if he can, that the Government are committed to extending planning control to cover the demolition of pubs, as he has suggested he is minded to do. Will he also seriously consider doing the obvious thing and making an A4 use class order subject to planning permission for any change of use? That would make a big difference and stop conversions to Tescos, betting shops, restaurants and cafés with no community right to consult.

Will the Minister consider that the forthcoming national policy framework should include not only the idea that retaining pubs is important—it must do that, and I am sure he will ensure that it does—but the idea of a six-month moratorium? That could say, as guidance rather than diktat, that there should be a six-month period to allow other people to buy the pub and allow for the viability test and the independent community consultation. Will he seriously consider strengthening the right to buy, at the very least to prevent an owner unreasonably refusing a bid from a community? Indeed, in my opinion that should also cover a bid from a small brewery such as Wharfebank brewery in my constituency, which has just taken on its first pub. Perhaps the Minister will consider that and work with us to try to strengthen it and make it meaningful, so that communities feel it is worth putting bids together.

Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Greg Mulholland

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Coors, a fine brewer in my constituency, has extended the terms on which it pays its suppliers from 30 days to 90 days. It is having a considerable impact, particularly on small businesses.

[Greg Mulholland]

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Why would supermarkets not welcome either a genuine ban on below-cost selling, which I support, or a minimum price per unit, which other hon. Members support? Those approaches would increase their revenue, but they sell cheap alcohol for other reasons. Let us face it: supermarkets have virtually destroyed the stand-alone off-licence trade in this country. Names such as Threshers disappeared some time ago. We must remember that pubs, working men’s clubs, stand-alone off-licences and corner shops cannot sell alcohol below cost, because they rely on a reasonable margin on alcohol for their profits. There is something more sinister going on. Below-cost selling is a way to attract people into stores and maintain supermarkets’ power over manufacturers, some of which, unlike Coors, are too small to argue. That situation is causing a problem.

I accept that the issue is difficult, but we must come up with a definition of below-cost selling that includes the cost of production. I realise that we are on the first step, and I accept that the issue is difficult to define, but to say that below-cost selling simply involves tax suggests that supermarkets buy alcohol for nothing. They might take a long time to pay, but they clearly pay something. The price that they pay is often unreasonable, exactly as it is for the milk that they purchase from dairy farmers, but there is nevertheless a price. It cannot be impossible to include in the equation the price that the supermarkets must pay. That is the challenge, and I look forward to working with the Minister on it over time.

I accept some of the concerns aired by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). This is not about social engineering, moralising or saying that we should not sometimes welcome a reasonable deal and the chance to get a couple of pounds off a bottle of wine in a supermarket. Indeed, many people are concerned that if we set a high minimum price, that chance would disappear. There would also be other unintended consequences. For example, apart from increasing supermarket revenues, which is surely perverse, it could have the surprising effect of pushing up the price of a bottle of wine that currently costs £3.50 and is not worth more than that, and making good bottles of wine more expensive, which is not what any of us want. People should be allowed to enjoy alcohol sensibly without sudden unacceptable inflationary pressures.

I am concerned to stop the irresponsible selling of alcohol, which I am glad to say has been largely stamped out in the on trade but is, sadly, still alive and well, particularly in supermarkets. The Government have made a good start, but they can go further. I know that the Minister is listening, and I look forward to working with him and his team to close the unacceptable gap that has done so much damage to pubs, which are part of the solution to problem drinking, and to do something—we must recognise that it is only something—to deal with the problems associated with alcohol abuse that other hon. Members have rightly discussed.

The Future of Pubs

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Greg Mulholland

Thursday 9th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I thank you, Mr Benton, and Mr Speaker for understanding and accommodating my somewhat challenging situation, in that I have to speak in two debates at the same time. If I start going on about student fees, I hope that you will forgive me and put me back on track.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—when I say “Friend”, I mean it literally—for her excellent introductory speech, which showed a depth of real knowledge drawn from personal experience. I have had the great pleasure of meeting her parents, who, as publicans, have done such a good job in their community for so many years. I am absolutely delighted that they have now got their hands on their pub, that they own it and that they can run it as they like. We would, I hope, all agree that those of us who believe in small businesses and localism should want as many of our pubs as possible to be in the hands of those who run them, and the save the pub group certainly wants to campaign for that.

My experience of pubs is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend, in that it relates largely, although not entirely, to the other side of the bar. I have worked in some pubs, but I have spent an awful lot more time on the other side of the bar. A little over 18 months ago, however, I decided that we needed a save the pub group in Parliament because the British pub faced such a crisis and, as hon. Members have so eloquently explained, because the pub is central to our communities. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the pub is iconic to us as a nation. Pubs are unique to this country and are part of our heritage, history and culture, and we lose them at our peril. Sadly, we are losing them in great numbers.

The biggest scandal, which some organisations, companies and developers try to cover up, is that we are losing viable pubs every week. Some of those pubs are actually profitable when they are closed. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) so powerfully said, that is happening simply as a result of the greed of developers and individuals who see an easy way to make money, and that is not acceptable.

I ask those hon. Members who are concerned that we do not go down the route of having more planning restrictions to accept that the community has the moral ownership of community pubs—pubs that have been in the community for years and years. Legally, of course, those pubs will go through certain hands, and as my hon. Friend said, they will have passed through the hands of breweries and into the hands of pub companies. Although the simple reality is that those organisations legally own the building and the business, the moral ownership is surely with the community that the pub has served for many years. That is not, however, reflected in planning law.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend has a great record of standing up for the great British pub in this place, and we all applaud him for that. I absolutely agree that we need to do all we can to preserve pubs, but one difficulty is that many people are put off making the large investment involved in buying a pub—purchasing a pub is a heck of a financial commitment. However, somebody who has attempted to run a pub and been unable to make it viable may be prevented from realising that asset if we introduce restrictive requirements for the sale of pubs. Does my hon. Friend share the concerns of those who say that the unintended consequence of that might be that we put people off investing in pubs and becoming landlords or publicans in the first place?

[Greg Mulholland]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on many things, but I am afraid that I simply cannot see his logic on this occasion. Let me explain the position of the save the pub group to make it absolutely clear. If one pub business fails, he would surely agree that another pub business should have the opportunity to attempt to make the pub a success. At the moment, people are prevented from doing that simply because the owner says that they do not want the building to be used as a pub any more. Even if the entire community wants it to be a pub, even if it is viable and even if it makes an awful lot of money, the community has no say.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister has chosen, a little belatedly, to appoint a Minister with responsibility for community pubs, whom I had the great pleasure of welcoming at the save the pub group’s British pub week event a few weeks ago. That appointment is very positive, and it is handy that the Minister is also a Planning Minister. I therefore say to him that although we are looking forward to the upcoming decentralisation and localism Bill, it must give communities the right to have a say, through the planning process, in the future of community pubs, which we all say are so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and many people support his suggestion. The danger is that if we lose sight of the real problems facing pubs and focus on reintroducing smoking in them, we may lose our focus on the more pressing problems that lead to pubs closing.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I apologise, Mr Benton, that I did not explain earlier that at the request of the Speaker I must return to the main Chamber after his speech.

The save the pub group does not have a position on the smoking ban, but we called for a review of its impact on pubs and clubs. That was promised by the previous Government, and it is disappointing that the response by the Department of Health to the save the pub group was that it would not go ahead with that review. We believe that it should take place.