It is a great pleasure to respond to this excellent debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), whom I call a friend. We have shared a number of pints in a number of pubs while attending a variety of events. I know that he speaks with passion on the issue. It is not just something that has come up today; he has been consistent over his many years in Parliament about the role of the pub, and has been a loyal member of the all-party beer group, many members of which are here today. I congratulate the all-party group on its work.

One thing that this Government cannot be accused of is not having, listening to and responding to a number of debates about pubs and their future. The passion of many of the hon. Members who have contributed to this debate does not hide the context of the issues facing pubs. Anybody who stood up and said that every pub in the land could be saved would be completely wrong. The pub industry is facing great change, and many of the issues must be seen within that context. It must also be accepted that people's drinking habits have changed dramatically, which has had an impact on the number of pubs that have closed. I will try to respond to the issues raised that are Government issues, but some are for local government, some are for Europe and some are for the industry itself.

I understand what the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) said about the tie. It is a competition issue. I have been closely involved with it not only as licensing Minister but previously, as consumer Minister and competition Minister. There are problems that must be addressed. I think that the route that the Campaign for Real Ale has taken is the right one, and I know that colleagues in other Departments have concerns. We need to ensure that we address the issues.

It is right that the British Beer and Pub Association has a view on tied pubs. The BBPA was trying to say that that is not an issue, and it has claimed the same thing in deliberations with me. We need to get to the core. The fact that the Office of Fair Trading is considering what CAMRA said is a step in the right direction.

There are more than 58,000 pubs in the UK, directly employing 600,000 people. The sector contributes approximately £28 billion to the UK economy. In addition to their economic importance, as the hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh), for Selby (Mr. Grogan), for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said in their own ways, pubs are often the centre of their communities. A third of UK adults socialise in a pub at least once a week and following the wholesale closure of our post offices in the past decade they are sometimes the last remaining amenity in small communities. All in all, the pub trade is very valuable to our country, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport on obtaining the debate.

In spite of the facts that I have just outlined, as the hon. Member for Selby and other hon. Members said, the number of operational pubs in the UK is in steep decline. The British Beer and Pub Association estimates that 39 close each week. If that trend continues, more than 7,500 pubs will shut by the end of 2012. That is one in eight British pubs. In the past 12 months alone more than 2,000 pubs have closed, with the loss of 20,000 jobs. Unsurprisingly the brewing industry is suffering too. Since 1997 there have been 37 major brewery closures and more than 5,000 job losses. That amounts to more than 25 per cent. of all brewing sector employees. I have just heard that in the last quarter beer sales were 8 per cent. down overall. That is 6.3 per cent. down in pubs and 11 per cent. down in supermarkets. In recent months the Conservatives have launched a campaign in support of the great British pub. Responsible pubs and considerate, informed, socially aware drinkers have a positive role to play in communities throughout the country, and our nation would be a great deal worse off without them.

Landlords, brewers and beer drinkers each have a slightly different view of what is driving the decline, but common issues frequently crop up. One of the most controversial, as the hon. Member for Southport pointed out, is the supply tie or beer tie. Approximately 30,000 British pubs are subject to some form of tie, and a further 9,000 are directly managed by, for instance, a retail chain. The remaining 18,000 are free houses. Pubcos and the BBPA are adamant that supply ties are fit for purpose. They argue that rents are often lower for tied tenants than for those operating a free house; that property maintenance usually remains the responsibility of the freeholder; and that taking on a tied pub offers a low-cost entry to a self-employed business. They also state that when a tie is in operation the pubco has a vested interest in the success of the pub.

Many tenants and campaigning organisations such as the Campaign for Real Ale argue the opposite, however. They believe that the large pubcos are so saddled with debt from freehold acquisitions of the past two decades that simply servicing it dictates that they place tremendous burdens on their tied tenants. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West made that point very well in his call for more community holding of pubs. I should appreciate the Minister's view on the anti-competitive practice of imposing restrictive covenants on pubs when the freehold is disposed of.

As several hon. Members stated in the debate, in 2004 the then Select Committee on Trade and Industry recommended that exclusive purchasing agreements—ties—are desirable only if, in broad terms, the benefits equal or outweigh the costs. To me that seems a sensible business proposition, but one that is very much determined by the individual tenant and lease. The hon. Member for Southport does a significant disservice to the innovation and competition brought into the sector by the previous Conservative Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire explained. In 2000 the Office of Fair Trading undertook a review of the pub and brewing industry and decided that the market had undergone significant structural changes, with only about 15 per cent. of pubs now owned by brewers and large independent owners making substantial inroads into the market.

It is easy to become sentimental and emotional about the British pub—indeed, it is easy to become sentimental and emotional in the British pub—and get wrapped up in the images and clichés beloved of producers of soaps: the Rover's Return, the Queen Vic, "Heartbeat", the traditional village pub, and so on. Reality, though, is sometimes different. There are pubs and pubs: good pubs and others.

I recall a particularly sobering visit to a pub when out campaigning during a by-election in a constituency that shall remain nameless, but which, for the sake of argument, we will call Hodge Hill. Such was the intense demand for Lib-Dem literature on a hot day, my team felt it necessary to repair to a hostelry, parched and in need of refreshment. We identified a nearby pub, but we should have inferred something from the fact that the entrance had two swing doors, one with hardboard instead of glass and the other with neither glass nor hardboard. Our suspicions should have been confirmed by the sticking grip of the floorboards as we approached the bar and the baleful glance of the locals, which was somewhat reminiscent of "The League of Gentlemen". The barmaid smoking behind the bar dismissed the thought of food ever being present as ridiculous and we sat on rickety chairs at a less than clean table with a chipped ashtray on it. We will draw a veil over the state of the toilets.

Reality is more diverse than we tend to recognise. It is said sometimes that the pub is a community asset, which is certainly true and, in many places, that is exactly what it functions as. But I visited, with the Select Committee, a part of Manchester where the pub was moved, with regeneration money, from the heart of a difficult sink estate to a nearby main road, simply to catch the passing trade and ensure a more varied mix of customer, so that not all of them were from the community. We Campaign for Real Ale types praise the controlled drinking atmosphere of the pub, particularly when criticising supermarket cut-price sales. I know of pubs in some particularly tough urban environments where the controlled environment is less than obvious.

I say all this as a preamble, because I accept that the pub economy is in dire trouble and that we need action and progress, but any debate will achieve nothing unless it is grounded in hard reality and is truly engaged with all the interests, including the owners of the pubs, and is not simply a rehearsal of mantras, slogans and received wisdom. We have to get real about the state of pubs, because despite Select Committee and all-party reports, industry studies and previous debates and despite some wise, sensible recommendations, from the industry's point of view matters have got worse still. Pubs are continuing to close and sales are declining, whereas alcohol consumption is rocketing. The suggested causes are multiple and include supermarket competition, inappropriate taxation—there has been an emphasis on that recently in the run-up to the Budget—the smoking ban, which is mentioned by many publicans and the pub owners, the effects of economic recession and changing social habits. However, I want to concentrate primarily in my contribution on the industry's self-inflicted wounds, which are a major cause of decline.

The area that is the easiest to address, but also the thing that the industry is least inclined to talk about is the tie: the economic model of the British pub, or at any rate 50 per cent. of them. Most publicans that I have surveyed bring that up as the big issue. It is what the Fair Pint Campaign and the Save the Pub group were set up to address, and they make a considerable amount of noise about it. It is a big issue across the piece.

Let us look at some stats. Some 40 pubs a week are closing: the figures change and it might not be precisely 40, but that is the latest figure that I have seen. A current figures shows that, annually, 32 per cent. of the tenants working for the biggest companies give up doing that. Beer on-sales are down by 10 per cent. Some 50 per cent. of pubs are owned by the biggest companies that have their roots in private equity. That has severe consequences, because it means that they run with £20 billion of debt to service, quite apart from any dividends or generous salaries that they may wish to pay their chief executive officers. For the two biggest companies, the debt is equivalent to a repayment of £750 million a year or having to find £50,000 per pub per year. That is the situation that the owners of 50 per cent. of British pubs are in.

I begin, perhaps unusually, by congratulating you, Mr. Jones, on being able to stay in the Chair so long in this stifling heat. I wonder whether it is some kind of dastardly plan by Government and Opposition Whips to encourage Members not to be here but to be in Crewe instead. However, we will struggle on. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this debate. Such debates are very important for the rail industry, and it is the kind of debate that I enjoy. Despite the heat, I am glad to be here.

However, I begin by disagreeing with something that the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his comments. I assure him that the future of the railways is still the subject of intense discussion by men with beards and glasses of real ale, as much as it was in the pre-Beeching days, but perhaps with less effect. I am delighted that he acknowledges, albeit with some reservations, that the British railway system is a successful enterprise, in stark contrast with previous years. I thank him for his generally positive analysis. He reminded us that he was a member of the Crossrail Bill Committee. I should have known that, of course, by his pallor after having been hidden away for 21 months looking at the Bill. The House and the Government are grateful to all the Members who served on the Committee. He mentioned that every MP has a pet scheme, and mine is Crossrail.

The majority of the hon. Gentleman's comments focused on the lack of reopening of new lines, and I want to address that before I come to my prepared comments. He takes a positive and genuine interest in the railways, and I know that he will be familiar with the White Paper that was published last July, "Towards a sustainable railway". We made it clear in that publication that although we want to grow the railways—they are growing—we did not anticipate the opening of new lines in any kind of planned way at all.

The reasoning behind that is sound, and I have said this to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) who speaks on transport for the Liberal Democrats. On one level, the opening of a line, of itself, creates no extra capacity unless there are train carriages to operate on it. The priority of the high level output specification that formed part of the White Paper is a massive step change in capacity on our railways; namely, the 1,300 new carriages that we are committed to procuring through the franchise process between 2009 and 2014. In essence, those carriages are already spoken for.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the allocation for Northern Rail, and I shall return to that later. A new railway line would not have any extra carriages if the carriages are already spoken for, so it is far too simplistic to say that growing the railway network in that way would result in any major benefit in terms of capacity to hard-pressed—literally, in many cases—commuters.

The hon. Gentleman said that there is no real method for progressing schemes. He may not remember this, but, as a Back Bencher, I too was a member of the Standing Committee that looked at the Railways Bill, which later became the Railways Act 2005. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing was the Transport Minister in charge. I remember the exchange to which the hon. Gentleman referred, when he asked my right hon. Friend about the clauses for closing railways and noted the absence of any for reopening lines.

That is an entirely valid point to make, but I think, having been in this post for nearly two years and having seen for myself some of the processes that exist—in some cases, as a result of the 2005 Act—that processes for reopening lines do exist, although they are not particularly transparent and obvious. The fact that no authority or investor has taken up the challenge so far is less down to the lack of process and more down to the fact that no private company in partnership with the local sponsoring authority has yet been able to come up with a business case robust enough to justify the fairly significant levels of investment that would be required for such schemes.

The hon. Gentleman said that several schemes have had a robust business case attached to them, but it is not enough for there to be a robust business case attached to the construction of a new piece of track. That alone is not enough to justify the investment. What also has to be considered is which train operating company will provide services on the new piece of track, and whether those services will require extra public subsidy. The public subsidy that is almost always required in such circumstances must be taken into account in drawing up a cost-benefit ratio for any particular scheme.

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I told a group of people who came to see me in my office a few months ago. They were campaigning in conjunction with the hon. Member for Lewes for the reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield line in the south of England near Brighton. Basically, they proposed a public-private partnership deal that would mean, in essence, that the Department for Transport would not have to put its hand in its pocket for the capital costs or for revenue costs following resumption of services on the line. I said to them that if they made the figures stack up, if they were willing to put in the investment, and if they could produce a business case that justified their optimism, I would consider that a step forward. I would certainly not stand in the way of such a scheme. At this stage, I have not seen evidence that sufficient progress has been made on that line, although I understand that more work is being done as we speak.

The Government and the Department have no vested interest in standing in the way of such schemes. It is only right and just that we point out that if public money is to be called on to sustain new services on a new line, we have the right and the duty to say that it can be spent only if it will actually produce value for money.

The hon. Gentleman made some points about Northern Rail. He is right, of course: the Department does not claim to be a hidden hand in the railway industry. I am careful to point out that the Department does not write timetables, although we are often accused of doing so, and that we certainly do not specify what type of rolling stock individual franchises must use, except in very unusual circumstances where there is a changeover of franchise, but that, nevertheless, there is a role for it in the management of franchises. The Department has officials whose responsibility is the oversight of individual franchises. That is necessary, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not criticise it. Given the levels of public money involved in the franchises, it would be odd not to have that oversight.

However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, aside from the fact that Northern Rail receives £1 million of subsidy every day of the year and therefore is the recipient of the largest amount of subsidy of any of the rail franchises, it is also due to receive 182 new carriages from the high level output specification commitment. I would be interested to know how he divined the information that there was an intention to offer new carriages to Northern Rail but that subsequently a decision was make to revoke the offer, because my understanding is that Northern Rail actually does particularly well in terms of the number of carriages going to it. As far as I can remember, and off the top of my head, it certainly does better than the majority of the franchises, as it is one of the largest in terms of train movements.

Rural areas face problems with employment, housing, transport and health, but sustaining their communities can present them with particular challenges. Although my constituency is largely urban, it does have rural areas that suffer from all those problems, and I have constituents who want to see further progress made in tackling them.

This Government have done more than any previous Government to invest in sustainable rural development with a range of measures, including help for rural transport, rural post offices and rate relief. I secured this debate to ask the Government to continue that important work with further support for the institution that so often represents the beating heart of rural communities—the rural pub.

As the supermarkets tighten their grip on our shopping habits and as patterns of work and settlement keep changing, increasingly the village pub provides the main, and sometimes the only, focus for social activity in rural areas. Without such a focal point, the sense of community evaporates from rural areas, and that sense of community is essential for regeneration. Yet the rural pub is under threat. Some estimates suggest that six are closing every week. There are many reasons for that: drink driving regulations inhibit many people from driving out into the country for an evening at the pub as they might have done 30 or 40 years ago; the extremely competitive prices charged by supermarkets for beer are encouraging some to drink at home instead of going out to the pub; and the changing composition of villages means that more and more people are commuting in and out of them. All those things challenge the viability of many rural pubs.

Those problems are well known and a lot of good work has gone on to tackle them. The Campaign for Real Ale, for example, has been indefatigable in championing the cause of choice, and small breweries, to make all pubs more attractive to the discerning and committed consumer.

There are good examples of what can be achieved. Some pubs have been making themselves sustainable by diversifying into other areas, including prescription deliveries, DVD rentals, and even delicatessen and broadband facilities. There have been inspiring examples of villagers giving their pub a new sustainable financial basis by buying it as a co-operative.

When, as the Minister with responsibility for small business six years ago, I set up the Small Business Service, I wrote into its remit that it should encourage mutual enterprise as an instrument of regeneration. I believed then, and still do, that such co-operation and mutuality can be an invaluable instrument of community regeneration. It is encouraging to see rural communities putting that into practice by supporting their local pubs in that way, but more needs to be done. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that his officials and those in the Department for Trade and Industry will work with the Small Business Service to ensure everything possible is being done to provide support for villages that might want to form co-operatives to run their local pub.

The Minister will be aware of the role of the Pub is the Hub initiative, originated by Business in the Community, in spreading best practice. Again, I would welcome his reassurance that he and his officials, and those in the DTI, will work with Pub is the Hub to ensure that it receives the funding and other support to enable it to develop its work so all rural pubs can benefit from it. I should be grateful if the Minister could write to me by the end of March about the action that is under way in those areas, so I can reassure my constituents about the good work being done by the Government.

I would welcome reassurance from the Minister about how the fairness, equitability and sustainability of the commercial environment in which rural pubs operate can be ensured. He will know that in recent years ownership of pubs has become increasingly concentrated. The top six so-called pubcos control almost 40 per cent. of UK pubs. He will also know that a year ago the Select Committee on Trade and Industry conducted a thorough investigation of their relationships with their tenants. I do not intend to rehearse all those arguments today, but I have some concerns that I shall raise with the Minister. Before I do so, however, I stress that I have no quarrel with the Select Committee's balanced conclusions about the trade-off between the so-called dry rent and the wet rent charged by the pubcos—the profit they make from contractually exclusively supplying beer to their tenants.

I recognise that some pubcos have moved some way towards addressing concerns about their relationship with tenants. The largest have codes of conduct that stress that tenants should take professional advice before entering into any contract, and their websites offer clear and helpful accounts of different business models available to potential tenants.

However, there are still grounds for concern. Pubcos start from a strong position, first because there remains a strong demand for tenancies, not necessarily because a tenancy offers a viable living but because many people still dream of the rural idyll of running their own business in a pretty village. There are other attractions. The chief executive of Punch Taverns plc said earlier this year that taking on a lease with accommodation

"can appear a very attractive deal when house prices are so expensive".

Such a lease can also seem attractive because the entry costs into the business in that way are lower than taking on a free house.

However, such attractions must not be an excuse for abuse of a dominant position in a contractual relationship, and there is certainly a price to pay for the low cost of entry. For example, I have seen detailed figures prepared by a successful and experienced publican in the Swindon area, who is now a contented tenant of a local brewery, but was previously an unhappy tenant of a pubco. Those figures suggest, among other things, that the percentage of gross profit taken by rent will be less than 10 per cent for a free house but more than 20 per cent. for the lessee of a pubco.

The Trade and Industry Committee rehearsed the main complaints against alleged exploitation by pubcos a year ago, and some of the questions it raised have still not been properly answered. The Select Committee said that pubcos should insist

"as a condition of acceptance that tenants obtained all necessary professional advice. This should be one element of an industrywide code of practice."

The new code of practice is now out for consultation by the British Beer and Pub Association and goes a long way towards meeting that objective. That is important because Morgan Stanley, for example, found that 40 per cent. of prospective tenants took no legal advice before signing lease agreements, 42 per cent. said they were encouraged by the pubco to do so and 63 per cent. were not asked by the pubco whether they had done so.

Obtaining such advice should ensure that tenants understand better what they are getting into, but that does not guarantee that pubcos will alter objectionable clauses. There are often two or three potential tenants pursuing the same lease, which puts them in a difficult position. It is a seller's market and the pubcos hold most of the cards. Some of the clauses that they put in their contracts are worrying. One, from a contract issued by one of the largest pubcos, states:

"the tenant agrees to pay trading accounts and statements . . . on the dates specified by the Landlord".

That is followed in the same agreement, which ties the tenant to buying beer only from the pubco landlord, by the statement that

"the landlord shall on the signing of this lease and from time to time thereafter supply the tenant with a pricelist of beers".

In other words, there is no contractual fetter on the landlords to prevent them from raising prices as often as they want and as high as they want, and demanding payment as frequently as they want. Those clauses are not subject to any test of reasonableness or tied to any increase in the pubcos' charges from the brewery. In this case, the pubco seems able to charge whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

The pubcos frequently claim that their business model depends on their tenants prospering, and the argument is advanced that it would not be in their interest to bleed tenants dry. However, there is a difference between the extreme position of bleeding them dry and simply exploiting them by charging unreasonably high prices for the tied beer, secure in the knowledge that their tenants will often work extremely long hours to make the business pay, and swallow any disproportionate increases in costs.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that such clauses leave pubcos in a position where they can use their dominant economic position to exploit their tenants. That does not mean that the tenants will necessarily go bankrupt. They may survive by working hours, and at a standard of living, that no pubco director would accept, but survival can be consistent with exploitation and nothing in the new code of practice issued by the British Beer and Pub Association will prevent that, as far as I can see.

The so-called wet rent, which is derived from the profit made on the exclusive supply of beer to tenants, is justified by the claim that it is partly offset against the rent charged for the premises so that such rent is competitive. However, I am also concerned about the so-called dry rent. The Trade and Industry Committee report stated:

"The industry could and should establish clear guidelines for the rent valuation process"

with

"new national guidance for rent calculation . . . The profit assessment method of calculating rent should be carried out in accordance with national accounting standards".

However, the British Beer and Pub Association code of practice states that

"company codes of practice should, as far as reasonably practicable and possible, provide for the making available to the lessee of information relating to how the rent will be determined initially",

which is not quite what the Select Committee recommended. It suggests that the fixing of rent and rent reviews will remain contentious, and, in the absence of the national standards suggested by the Select Committee, that there will still be scope for pubcos to exploit their tenants. Apart from anything else, the more vague and opaque the process, the more disputes over unjustifiably high rents and rent increases can be resolved only through litigation. How many tenants can afford to litigate against huge powerful pubcos?

Apart from the operation of the charges for tied beer and rent, I am also worried about the appropriate disclosure of information to tenants and potential tenants, which, again, was called for by the Select Committee. There are disturbing signs that the pubcos are not fully signed up to that. The Select Committee said that

"pubcos should advise their tenants of the average discount they receive"

from brewers, and

"how this compares to the free market discounts available, and how much of this discount pubcos are passing onto their tenants".

Enterprise, which is one of the largest pubcos, said in response that that was

"entirely irrelevant to the tenant's decision-making process".

I am baffled by that response. It hardly suggests that pubcos view their tenants as partners. Of course such information helps tenants understand the business model of their competitors and, indeed, the strength or weakness of their position in relation to their landlords. As such, it seems to be highly relevant to tenants' decision-making processes. Of course, contracts with suppliers are subject to commercial confidentiality, but why could tenants not be bound by such clauses? It is not unreasonable to expect partners to share commercially important information.

At best, tenants will not be able to invest in improving their facilities for the community that they serve if they are squeezed too hard. At worst, they will go out of business. That could be a personal disaster for the tenant and could damage the rural community that they serve, but the pubco faces less risk. For them, there will always be the option of liquidating the asset and turning the pub into, for example, housing. That distorted balance of power must be worrying for rural communities that depend on their pub.

I recognise that the worries that I have expressed today may prove groundless. Pubcos may use the latitude in their contracts to behave fairly towards their tenants over the tied supply of beer, rent and other matters. They may consider that it is in their own interests to do so—but there is often no contractual imperative for them to do so.

There are many reasons why it is hard for tenants to fight their contractual corner. The pub can remain a hub of village life only if it is a sustainable business, but sustainability is damaged by unfair exploitative relationships between pubco and tenant. The survival of the rural pub is too important to village life for the Government to abandon this issue. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is important for pubcos to be aware that public scrutiny of their relationship with their tenants will not disappear with their response to the Trade and Industry Committee report a year ago. I would be grateful if he could confirm that his Department and the DTI will continue to monitor the situation, and, if the problems identified by the Select Committee, some of which I touched on today, persist, that they will take any action necessary, including introducing a statutory code of conduct, if appropriate.

The Government have repeatedly expressed their commitment to a competitive business society, and I am puzzled by the idea that revoking the beer orders will achieve their aim. In case the Minister should misunderstand me, I am not in favour of regulation for regulation's sake, but those regulations have a purpose, which is to make the economy stronger. The beer orders served, and still serve, an important purpose and I advocate their retention.

The beer orders followed the publication of a Monopoly and Mergers Commission report in 1989, which said in no uncertain terms that the brewing industry was highly uncompetitive and involved in a complex monopoly. The commission was satisfied that action needed to be taken, and perhaps if I explain why that was, my objections to the orders' revocation will be clearer. When it considered the business practices of the large brewing companies, it was alarmed to the extent that it averted integration in the industry. It noted that brewing companies not only owned the majority of pubs, but tied others through business loans.

Brewers compelled their tenants and loan recipients to select drinks from their range of supplies. They were also found guilty of imposing restrictive covenants on pubs when they were sold, with the result that future owners were forced to buy from the former owner's brewery. Smaller independent brewers and wholesalers found it difficult to break into the market. Since the brewers often refused to publish their retail prices, wholesalers could not even hope to compete and offer a competitive service. The result was high prices and less choice for customers.

What impact have the beer orders had? They have not necessarily been an unqualified success. Independent wholesalers are still small and brewing companies continue to control a large share of the market, but beer orders have removed some of the most blatant anti-competitive forces and have granted consumers more purchasing power and choice. However, I accept that the commission would be disappointed by the lack of progress since 1989.

That lack of complete success does not mean that the beer orders should be revoked. It is true that the brewing industry has changed, and perhaps not for the better. There were six major brewing companies in 1989, but there are now only four. Those companies have been able to dominate the market with greater advertising power that strengthens pre-existing brands. How can the smaller micro-breweries compete against that? Such brewers have grown in recent years, and not only in the United Kingdom. I took a trip to the United States a few years ago, and was amazed by the breadth and depth of its micro-brewing industry.

Brewers have been forced to sell their pubs, many of which are now owned by large retail chains that have a countervailing buying power to the brewers. However, I am not sure that that new trend necessarily translates into greater competition and survival chances for the smaller brewers, wholesalers and free houses. I am not the only one who is troubled by that development. When the Office of Fair Trading was asked to report on the beer orders two years ago, it stated that it was

"concerned that the increasing concentration in the market at both brewing and retailing levels may, in the longer term, lead to competition being less intense through the demise of independent wholesaling and thence smaller brewers and truly independent free houses".

I regret that the Minister did not appear to have considered that before reaching her judgment that it was time to reject the beer orders.

I am not opposed to modifying the beer orders to reflect new realities, and I know that some medium-sized brewers are worried and want them to be abolished. However, their worries can be taken into account in a review of the beer orders, and we do not have to go as far as revoking them. The complete removal of the orders could make a bad situation worse, and would fundamentally change the nature of our nation's pubs. We always hear tourists—especially Americans—saying how nice our pubs are, and how they are unlike their bars. We should cherish that as part of our English tradition.

As I mentioned, the Government asked the Office of Fair Trading to review the beer orders, and its findings were published in 2000. It concluded that certain aspects of them were outdated and unnecessary, but equally concluded that other aspects were still needed. It favoured a requirement for brewers to be compelled to publish prices and to allow beer to be resold to support independent brewers and wholesalers. It also advocated that loan-tie agreements should continue to be forbidden. Conversely, it did not support keeping the guest beer provision. I considered that to be a step too far, and I was pleased when the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), decided to support the retention of the guest beer provision, among others. He said:

"The brewing industry has undergone major changes since the Beers Orders were first introduced, but the guest beer rules still help to promote choice and competition—benefiting small brewers, publicans, and their customers."

It is a shame that the Minister has decided to cast those fine words aside quite indiscriminately.

Earlier this year, the Minister said that the Government intended to revoke the beer orders in their entirety. She said:

"The former situation where brewers were able to prevent proper competition between pubs and restrict consumer choice has changed radically."

It is puzzling how she reached such a conclusion, and how she did so against the findings of the Office of Fair Trading and the former Secretary of State is a veritable mystery. Will she explain why she disregarded those thoughts? I realise that the Government have a reputation for not listening to the wider public, but I am surprised that they ignore the findings of their own people and Departments.

Revoking the beer orders will allow brewers to resume their anti-competitive activities. I disagree with the part of the Office of Fair Trading report that assumed that big brewers would not start buying up pubs again. In an industry in which mergers occur all the time, it is easy to imagine one of the big brewers buying one of the large pub chains. There are rumours in the industry about the likes of Scottish & Newcastle bidding for several pub chains.

If the beer orders were revoked, brewers would no longer have to publish wholesale price lists, and the Minister would presumably turn a blind eye when brewers refused to sell individual brands of beer for resale to independent wholesalers. Perhaps more importantly, however, revoking the guest beer provision would allow the brewers to resume their former habit of buying up pubs and tying them to their products. Retail pub chains, whose dominant position in the market is already a cause for concern, might be able to survive that due to their buying power, but what about smaller pub chains and free houses? Any protection that they have would be removed overnight. I fear that that would result in the closure of hundreds of small pubs, especially in rural areas where they already struggle to survive.

The Campaign for Real Ale estimates that 20 pubs close each week. Mike Benner, the head of campaigns and communications for CAMRA, said:

"The revocation of the Beer Orders will send shock waves through the industry as there will be nothing to stop large brewers and pub chains trying to tie up huge chunks of the market restricting access to smaller brewers and smashing consumer choice."

There are many rural pubs in my constituency. I know that the Minister is familiar with Teignbridge and, had she had the opportunity to visit many of those establishments, she would work to ensure their survival. I do not expect them all to survive. I had a long conversation with John Lawton, who runs a small brewery called Teignworthy in Newton Abbot. He is distressed at the revocation of the beer orders. He makes approximately 1,500 barrels a year of an excellent local beer and believes that that will be cut and cut. His small survivable business will end up as a hobby brewery when all he wants is an opportunity to expand. That is the direction in which we ought to move.

I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider the following questions. How will revoking the beer orders enable smaller, regional and independent brewers to access the market on a competitive basis? How will removing the guest provision give consumers more choice? How will new businesses be able to enter the market? How can she ensure that anti-competitive habits—which have been destroyed—will not resurface? The proposals seem akin to the farmer who concludes that, since there have been few deaths recently, it is safe to let the fox back into the hen-house.

A more sensible policy would be to exercise the strongest vigilance over anti-competitive forces and not give them a chance to flourish. Instead of waiting for the fox to attack, we should strengthen our levels of protection. If we fail to exercise vigilance, in a few years' time the big brewers and retail chains will dominate the market. That would kill off the small pubs, which have flourished and we have all enjoyed over recent years. We will lose much local character.

Most importantly, the customer—whom the Minister is attempting to defend—will pay more for less choice. If the Minister responsible for competition, consumers and markets continues with such detrimental policies, she will become the Minister responsible for monopolies, reduced choice and less competition.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am, of course, grateful to you for the opportunity that you give me, terrifying as it is, to make my first contribution to a debate in the House. I confess to hesitating before doing so in a debate that touches so many people so seriously and that is of such a serious nature.

I am naturally sensible of the very great privilege that I enjoy in addressing the House on this occasion-and, no doubt, for the last time-without interruption. Members on both sides of the House will recall their own maiden speeches, and many of them have been kind enough to give their advice about what I should say, whether or not it has been asked for. The principal injunction of course has throughout been to be short. Well, as those who are in the Chamber will observe, that is an injunction with which it will not be difficult for me to comply. Indeed, the entire purpose of my having delayed my speech for this long was to try to avoid the incongruous spectre of appearing in the Chamber at the same time as my new neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), but I see that I have singularly failed to achieve that.

As I rise to address the House, I am conscious of a number of advantages that I enjoy. First and foremost among them is, of course, that I have the honour and privilege to follow in this place a very distinguished parliamentarian indeed. Mr Douglas Hogg, as he was known in the House, was, as Members on both sides of the House will know, respected and beloved throughout his constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham and before that of Grantham. He was generous with his time for those who sent him here to represent their interests, thoughtful in his contributions to the business of the House and unstinting in his support for the rights of this place against any interference from the Executive-something that he addressed in his own maiden speech. All that will be sorely missed. They are big shoes to fill, as Members on both sides of the House have made very clear.

That brings me perhaps to the second advantage that I enjoy as I make my maiden speech-namely, that the electors of Sleaford and North Hykeham, who chose me as a candidate at an open primary even before they had the opportunity to put their crosses in the boxes in May, were evidently satisfied with the make and model that they had returned to the House for the past 30 years, for they have chosen as their new MP another silk-another dinosaur-and another Member with a wife cleverer and more successful than he is. As Douglas himself has put it,

"the old banger must have been pretty sound for them to have chosen the same make and model again."

I caution, though, and certainly add at this juncture that the unoriginal question that has occurred to wags on both sides of the House receives the answer no. I leave that as a puzzle perhaps for my successors, but given that I represent Sleaford and North Hykeham and follow Mr Hogg, many Members will know what question has arisen in their minds.

Before I come to the matter on the Order Paper, let me say that there is, finally, this advantage that I also enjoy: I have the very considerable honour to represent one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country, with some of the very best people one could hope for. From my village of Thorpe on the Hill in the north to Barrowby in the south, Long Bennington in the west to Metheringham in the east, hon. Members on both sides would do well to pay us a visit. It is a great shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) is no longer in his place. He would particularly enjoy some of the real ale and some of the best pub food in the country, but I shall look forward to welcoming him and as many others as possible to the constituency.

The House can expect contributions from me perhaps on the middle east, and I hope to speak in future debates at somewhat greater length than I have time to do today. I hope also to speak about special educational needs. As many in the House will know, I was the chairman of governors at one of the last remaining signed bilingual schools for deaf children in this country. Close to my heart are issues about the education of deaf and autistic children and those who are less able.

I come to the matter that is on the Order Paper, conscious of the fact that I have heard contributions of great weight, not merely from Front Benchers but from Back Benchers, and that many Members on both sides of the House know a great deal more about this than I do. As is evident from those contributions, Members on both sides of the House well know the physical suffering that the continued blockade of Gaza is causing to a civilian population already laid low by the effective destruction of its infrastructure. Members obviously recognise the unsustainable policies that have been pursued in the past by the Government of Israel, of which I count myself a considerable friend, but which have, whether we like it or not, had the effect of entrenching a de facto Government with a vested financial interest in the maintenance of the tunnel economy that has been created by the blockade.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) spoke about building materials. There is no shortage of building materials available to Hamas. The leaders of Hamas, should they wish to, construct villas, as they do, and have no problem getting cement through the tunnels. It is even possible to get a 4x4 through them. The argument that the blockade is based on the security of Israel is, I am afraid, fallacious, and I join other Members in saying that it should quickly be abandoned. Israel should concentrate on its strengths and on the values that it offers and demonstrates to the world.

Members on all sides have also been appalled, as have I, by the inability of the Palestinian Government, of whatever colour, to offer security to Israel. There is only one way forward-the two-state solution. Change has to come to Gaza and to the entirety of Israel and the Palestinian territories established under the Oslo accords. Change is something that we all talked about during the election, but this is a change that is desired by the vast majority of the civilian population throughout the middle east, and indeed in Palestine and in Israel, and is supported by the Government here as well as by our allies, as resolution 1860 demonstrates. It is that resolution with which Israel would do well to comply, as long as, of course, its security is guaranteed, and for that reason I hope that in this Parliament we will have the opportunity of seeing some form of lasting peace-the lasting peace that has for so long evaded previous Administrations in this House and indeed across the world.

I clearly declare an interest: I am a long-time supporter of the Campaign for Real Ale, and I was the chairman of CAMRA (Real Ale) Investments, a little company that CAMRA formed. Why, despite all the evidence that pubs are closing and brewers are finding it increasingly difficult to survive, are the Government further increasing the tax on beer, a traditional British drink that is already highly taxed? In doing so, they are phasing out pubs which is where responsible drinking takes place. I hope that those on my own Front Bench will hear my request that, in the next Budget, the new Government will not continue to increase the tax on beer, which is used as a milch cow to raise funds.

As I understand it, any worthwhile system of minimum pricing must apply the minimum price to units of alcohol, whatever their origin. This debate must clearly be had in the Scottish Parliament and I am impressed, as an outside but interested observer, that in Scotland-although they might disagree on the detail-not only people from the medical profession but tenants, a number of police chiefs and the Campaign for Real Ale have come out in favour of minimum pricing. There is potential for a broad alliance.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I have great pleasure in presenting this Bill which, as the House will note, is a short amendment to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. That Act, and therefore this amendment to it, is the product of an extraordinary grass-roots movement that brought together two significant forces, both of which are as relevant today as they were three years ago: a concern that the sustainability of town and country life was being imperilled by myriad changes, gradually leading to a loss of facilities, large and small; and a sense of frustration that people were powerless to do anything to change the situation. This short Bill builds on both those sentiments.

I wish to outline briefly what the Bill is about and then remind the House of the forces that brought the 2007 Act into being. I hope to demonstrate what has happened since then: how early progress in implementing the provisions is encouraging and why, therefore, this short amending Bill is helpful and timely. I then propose to look in rather more detail at this Bill's provisions and I shall, of course, be pleased to respond to concerns or queries from the House about them.

My first task is to acknowledge that I stand on the shoulders of a number of giants who were responsible for the passing of the original legislation and who remain in close contact with the process of carrying out its intentions. At grass-roots level, Local Works remains the driving force of the campaign to revitalise local community through this effort in what might be termed "the new democracy". The House should acknowledge an extraordinary coalition of interests that has come together to support Local Works. The coalition includes the Federation of Small Businesses, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, Age Concern, Help the Aged, the Woodland Trust, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the Campaign for Real Ale, to name just a few. Any idea or concept that can bring together so many people, not simply to pursue an abstract ideal, but to make something work in practice, has to be worthy of serious recognition.

Local Works sees its manifestation around the parliamentary estate mostly in the person of Ron Bailey, who is known to many of us. His hard work and his knowledge of parliamentary procedure are of immense benefit to us all, and I am very grateful for his help in putting together the background work for today's Second Reading debate. May I also acknowledge the help and support that some of the original parliamentary drivers of the legislation have given? In particular, I should mention my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), and the hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew). That powerful all-party coalition has also sponsored my Bill-their names are among others-so the House can see instantly that the Bill has attracted the all-party backing that was crucial to the passage of the Sustainable Communities Bill.

Once again, the leadership and efforts of Local Works have inspired an early-day motion. Early-day motion 143 has attracted some 348 signatures, which constitutes more than 50 per cent. of the Members of the House and a significantly higher proportion of Back Benchers, as can be seen once Government Members who are not able to sign such early-day motions are taken out of the equation. The motion reads as follows:

"That this House notes the success of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 as the first step towards building a bottom up democracy; further notes the enthusiasm shown by local authorities across England in deciding to use the Act, with 100 councils having already used that process and a further 50 councils having stated their intention to do so at the next available opportunity, showing that nearly half of all councils wish to use the Act's process in the future; notes also the genuine cross-party support that the original Act commanded; and so supports the provisions of the Sustainable Communities Act Amendment Bill introduced in Session 2008-09 which would extend the 2007 Act by ensuring that the process of involvement established by the Act becomes an on-going process rather than a one-off event, by involving parish and town councils and their county associations in the process and by empowering citizens to petition their councils to use the Act if they are not already doing so."

This Bill builds on that early-day motion, which is well supported by Members of all parties.

The 2007 Act, which the Bill seeks to amend, had its Second Reading debate in this House on 19 January 2007. In moving that the Bill be read a Second time, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said:

"The Bill will make the Government more responsive to an issue that arouses genuine passion and concern-the problem of community decline in Britain. It will push the Government to go further in giving real power to local authorities and the people whom they serve. That is the only path to delivering sustainable communities that will stand the test of time."-[ Official Report, 19 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1037.]

As the House of Commons Library research paper helpfully reminds us:

"The driving force behind the Bill was Local Works, a pressure group representing a sizeable coalition of organisations. The campaign began following the publication of studies by the New Economics Foundation entitled Ghost Town Britain. These highlighted, in particular, the decline in numbers of corner shops, grocers, banks, post offices and pubs which meant that communities and neighbourhoods no longer had easy access to 'such essential elements of both the economy and the social fabric of the country.'"

That brief précis can do little justice to an extraordinary series of meetings that had taken place around the country and engaged the interest of Members of Parliament of all parties. They found a vibrancy in both defending local communities and challenging the forces that had changed them, in some cases radically, which people feared they were powerless to stand against. While recognising the institutions of democracy in this country upon which we all rely, particularly local and national Government, the campaign expressed an unease that the modern working of these institutions seemed to leave communities and people behind. What was needed was a new way of engaging with them, which would not circumvent their democratic powers or those of local authorities, but would complement them by suggesting a radical process for the presentation and consideration of ideas.

On 12 July 2007, Lord Marlesford said in moving that the Bill be read a Second time in the other place that

"the campaign had to take a view on what we were seeking to achieve in place of ghost town Britain. The answer must be sustainable communities. Bearing in mind our starting point, that clearly meant the reversal of the decline in local economies, services and communities highlighted in the reports that I mentioned. But sustainable, healthy communities should also be environmentally sustainable. They should be inclusive and encourage citizen participation; otherwise they will not be sustainable as communities. Hence, the four limbs were: promoting local economic activity, the environment, social inclusion, and citizen involvement. What is certain is that this problem will continue unless action is taken to stop it."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2007; Vol. 693, c. 1565.]

The principal aim of the Act therefore was to promote the sustainability of local communities, which meant encouraging the improvement of economic, social or environmental well-being. The mechanism of delivery would be for local communities to work with their local authorities, following the invitation of the Secretary of State, to make proposals that would contribute to promoting local community sustainability. These proposals, which, by definition, would be drawn from a wide range of groups and organisations interacting with their local councils in an innovative way that is typically described by many of us who are involved as bottom-up rather than top-down, would go on to be evaluated by a selector. That selector became the Local Government Association, which would use its skills, expertise and experience to draw up a shortlist of proposals to offer to the Secretary of State. It would then be the Secretary of State's job to come back to explain what he or she would like done with the proposals and how they might be implemented.

A further radical part of the Act was to require transparency in detailing what public money came into a local area through the publication of local spending reports. That would enable the public to see at a glance exactly what was being spent in an area, what was committed and what might be deemed to be discretionary and could therefore be transferred to a different area of community priority. We will return to these local spending reports, perhaps, a little later.

It was a considerable success for my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood to get that Bill passed. It had initially met with some scepticism from the Government, but through the honest and patient work of the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), when he was at the Department for Communities and Local Government and, in particular, of his then Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)-I am delighted to see her in her new place as a Whip on the Government Front Bench-a constructive relationship was formed that enabled the Government eventually to support that Bill once it had been through Committee and the process of refinement that that involves.

The practical impact of all that was that the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), then the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, issued an invitation on 14 October 2008 to local authorities inviting them to make such proposals as were suggested in the Act. The process was thereby triggered and 100 local authorities submitted proposals in the first round. All in all, 301 proposals were submitted and of these 199 were shortlisted by the LGA in its role as selector. They are being considered by DCLG, but no decisions have yet been made.

The bare figures are only one part of the story, however. A number of different sources provide testimony to the impact not only of the original campaign but of the Act on local communities that have been stimulated to take part in the process that originated in the legislation. I shall quote from some of them.

Councillor Keith Mitchell, chairman of the LGA selector panel, said after the first round:

"It is great to see so much enthusiasm from councils, ready to expand their responsibilities to do everything they can to make life better for their residents and we would expect nothing less.

The proposals which have been submitted are practical responses to specific local conditions, plans which councils are uniquely placed to be able to generate and upon which they can act. Unsurprisingly the recession is a strong theme as councils look to continue their efforts to offer support to local businesses and vital assistance to local people...Innovative projects will be created in many parts of the country as a result of these ideas and some will no doubt be rolled out more widely where they are shown to have the potential to improve things on a larger scale."

Let me give one or two particular examples.

A Hackney resident was delighted to find, after he had worked with local residents groups and made a suggestion to Hackney council, that his proposal had been submitted to the LGA and shortlisted, and that it is now before the Secretary of State. His idea was subtly to change the planning rules for betting shops-Hackney currently has the highest concentration of betting shops in the country. A Wiltshire librarian, Mr. Brian Purvis, suggested increasing the tax on chewing gum to help to cover the expense of clearing it from the pavement. His proposal, one of 20 shortlisted by his county following the introduction of the Act, has reached the LGA's shortlist.

Evidence also shows that councils have made positive efforts in the first round to involve under-represented groups. For example, in Islington the proposals went to a newly formed panel for consideration. The panel included residents from groups with which councils had traditionally struggled to engage as well as forum members of such groups. It included a blind resident, a resident with learning disabilities and a resident- with an interpreter-who spoke English as a second language. Another example was the "Making Chorley Smile" panel, which included a range of people of varying ages, gender, ethnicities, residence and employment status. Paul Scriven, the leader of Sheffield city council, said of the first draft proposals from Sheffield's citizens panel:

"This is the first time anything has been endorsed by the council's cabinet that has been drawn up by local people rather than the other way around. It's so refreshing."

Let me give two or three more examples from different parts of the country. South Hams district council suggested that Government and local authority housing and planning requirements should be amended to allow private individuals and non-profit groups to build affordable homes for their own use. Teignbridge district council suggested that the Government should acknowledge the role of community land bank trusts and ensure involvement at a local level in future housing development. Liverpool city council suggested that post offices not be closed until the local co-operative development office has been given the time and training budget to see whether an increase in capacity could result in local people taking over the management of the premises. Bearing in mind what my Front-Bench colleagues were saying last week about the co-operative principle, which I am delighted to see is alive and well on these Benches, the idea that groups of people can come together and put forward such a proposal seems a good thing.

What is the Treasury's attitude to proposals by the Campaign for Real Ale and the British Beer and Pub Association to the European Commission that countries should be allowed to levy a lower rate of duty on draught beer, thus helping pubs in the same way as a lower rate of duty on small brewers has helped them?

The OFT has made a decision on the super-complaint made by the Campaign for Real Ale about that issue. We are studying carefully the detail of the findings and are quite encouraged by some of the industry activity over the summer following the Business and Enterprise Committee's report on the matter. It is too early to decide whether the Government should intervene, but we are encouraging parties to work closely together and to deliver on their commitments. We will be monitoring the situation closely.

The all-party save the pub group has received evidence to show that the Office of Fair Trading decision to ignore the super-complaint from the Campaign for Real Ale is deeply flawed and represents a dereliction of duty by this public body. May we have an investigation and an urgent debate in the House about this very serious matter?

Sir Michael, your guidance is invaluable. The only thing that I would say is that I visited Andy Fordham's pub when he won the world darts championship a few years ago. It was fantastic to see the world darts trophy behind the bar, next to the crisps and peanuts on sale there. Darts, right up to the highest level, is intrinsic to people's enjoyment of pubs.

That takes me neatly—and conveniently in terms of not incurring your wrath, Sir Michael—back to the representations that I have had from my constituents on this matter. I have received an enormous volume of correspondence from people in my constituency and from institutions. They are extremely upset that the Government's policies are likely to make it far harder for pubs and other entertainment retailers to stay in business. Indeed, in the past few weeks alone I have received representations from "The Westgate Inn" in Taunton; the "Allerford Inn" in Norton Fitzwarren; "The Blagdon Inn" in Blagdon Hill, just outside Taunton; "The Bear Inn" in Wiveliscombe, which was Somerset Campaign for Real Ale pub of the year last year and has, I think, a very good skittles alley; "The Crown Hotel" in Exford; "The Holywell Inn" in Taunton Deane; and many others, including "The Swan", "The Bell Inn", "The Cottage Inn", "The Bridge Inn" and "The Waggon Inn". I list those institutions only because those who are less familiar with Taunton Deane than I am—a large number of Conservative MPs visit my constituency, however, so perhaps I will take the opportunity to show them some of these institutions—will not know that that list contains a wide range of different pubs. Some are in Taunton, which is a reasonably sizeable town, and others are in quite isolated villages, but they all share the concern held by me and many other hon. Members that the Government's proposals will impact adversely on their businesses.

We know about that issue; if things were made automatic, everybody would get the benefit. The Local Government Association estimates that small business rate relief can save businesses in Britain up to £2,500 annually. Many small businesses will save at least £1,000 if my hon. Friend's Bill is passed, and that money is significant. Each of us can probably think of businesses in our constituencies that are struggling or that have failed over the past few months. Sadly, the Kaydee bookshop in Clitheroe, which I have mentioned before in the House, has closed—it was an old business that had survived many downturns in the economy. That makes many local people unemployed, and all the ties that people have had over the years, through buying books for their children from the shop or going there as a child themselves, are lost. People have a romantic association with some of these smaller shops and smaller businesses, and this situation is a crying shame.

The supermarkets, which have been mentioned, do what they do. People support them and that is why they do so well, but it is a shame that all the small butchers shops, fishmongers and ironmongers, which added character to towns around the country, have, sadly, closed their doors for the last time. That process detracts from the character of places and we lose the characters who ran a lot of the places. This sort of Bill just might make the difference and mean those businesses surviving through this recession and into the future.

We know that a lot of these small businesses are social services. An accountant who sat down with them would say, "Are you barmy? Why are you spending all these hours doing that? You would be far better off closing the business and going to work for Tesco, because you would make more money out of that." The labour of love that a lot of these small business people have for these businesses, which perhaps their father or grandfather started, is the reason why they carry on with them; it is a tradition—it is in their blood—but there is no economic sense in it at all.

The Federation of Small Businesses supports the Bill and has highlighted the fact that 85 small businesses close every day. We know that a lot of small businesses are struggling with cash flow, so we must ensure that the banks are doing what they should be doing to support these businesses. The Bill is supported by a veritable who's who of the small business world, including the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the LGA, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Country Land and Business Association, the Institute of Directors, the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and the Campaign for Real Ale. I am a member of at least three of those bodies—I shall leave it to the House to guess which ones, but I am going to mention CAMRA. I am not only a member of CAMRA, but vice-chair of the all-party group on beer.

As has been mentioned, an important and significant meeting took place in the House just this week, when five Ministers got together to answer some of the questions from MPs of all persuasions about what can be done to support the British pub. As we know, 40 pubs close each week in this country—that works out at more than 2,000 a year. What are communities? We have seen our post offices go, our rural schools close and our rural bus services being attacked—even rural churches are closing. In some places the rural pub is the only thing that is left. If it goes, that would tear the heart out of the local community. We must all start to consider what we can possibly do to support an iconic British institution. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) rightly said that it is a brave man who takes on CAMRA. I think that is why the five Ministers turned up together; they were afraid to go on their own, so they had to turn up in fives just for their own protection.

The sort of measure before us will give some support to help pubs to survive this recession while we try to work out all the other things that could happen to give the pubs some relief. I know that one of the Ministers looked at ways of giving recognition in the ratings system for the community use of pubs. A pub could be given some support if it had a football club or a darts or dominoes team, if the pub was being used as a local post office or if it was being used by a luncheon club or by a number of other groups that might meet in it. There should be some recognition if locals are able to use the pub's car park or its toilets—public toilets may not be available in some villages—when they are not using the pub. All those things could be recognised in the ratings system, and that should go on top of the measure that my hon. Friend is proposing.

The Bill deals with money to which these businesses are entitled—it is their money; we are not talking about giving extra gifts. The businesses in Wales are getting it, but businesses in England are not. We must ask why they are not getting the same sort of support from our Government, when the Welsh Assembly Government are supporting businesses in Wales.

If I were to be critical—I did mention this to colleagues when my hon. Friend was speaking—I would say that it is a great shame that we cannot make this measure retrospective for a period of five years. What a great boost that would be to many struggling local businesses. We could say, "Listen, you've been eligible for this for a few years." Why should we deny those businesses the money to which they were entitled last year and the year before? I can understand the complications, because he mentioned a few of them, even with this Bill becoming enacted. We are supposedly looking at ways of supporting businesses and injecting money directly into local communities, so that that money gets out straight away into the community—this is one way of doing that. Small businesses have cash-flow problems, so that money will be circulating as quickly as possible. The great thing about small businesses is that when they need anything done they tend to use other small businesses—people take the Yellow Pages out or they use the local knowledge in their head, because a lot of their customers are trades people. They will thus start to support the local businesses that are around them. It is a self-help scheme, and it is long overdue.

I am looking forward to the Minister's speech, because I hope that he can give some hope that the Government will support this measure in one form or another. Kicking it into the long grass is not an option, because a lot of these small businesses cannot wait. They simply do not have the option, because every time the postman comes they fear opening a letter just in case it is a final demand, or another bill from a supplier that they did not expect or that they feared would come.

The Bill needs to be introduced as a matter of urgency. The Budget is coming up in just a few weeks' time, and I hope that we are talking about that sort of time scale for this measure, because if it is not treated as a matter of urgency—such a scheme is operating in Wales, so there is no good reason why it should not operate in England too—we will be putting further nails into the coffins of a lot of small businesses up and down the country. Running a business is a very hard struggle these days, under all the pressures that exist. Small businesses need all the help that they can get, and this Bill will give them just that.

We are always looking at what we can do to reduce bureaucracy, and the DCMS has a proud record of reducing it across the piece. There is an issue for pubs, however, and I know the hon. Gentleman cares about that as he is a member of the all-party beer group and signed an early-day motion on the issues raised. He will be pleased to learn that the Government are providing real help for businesses, and particularly for pubs that are tied houses. We have made sure that the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, whereby 75 per cent. of the loan is met by the Government, will be applied to tied houses so that such pubs can benefit from real help from the Government and banks. There are a number of other measures: we are supporting organisations such as CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—and making sure we take steps to ensure that pubs are an integral part of our communities.

I am grateful for the opportunity to mention the importance of Burton's brewing museum not only to local people but nationally and internationally. Burton on Trent grew out of the brewing industry, which developed because of the quality of the area's water, and it still produces splendid beer.

In 1977, centuries of brewing in Burton were recognised when the Bass museum was opened to celebrate the bicentenary of Bass. At that time, the museum was housed in the grade II three-storey building known as the joiner's shop. In the 30 years since then, the museum has grown and it now occupies several buildings on the site. There is not only a large gallery that describes the brewing process, but a library, archive and educational facilities, paddocks and stables for the shire horses, a Robey steam engine and vintage road and rail vehicles.

In 2002, Coors Brewers acquired the museum following the company's purchase of the Bass brewery from Interbrew. However, the Bass name remained with Interbrew and, in 2003, the museum was renamed the Coors visitor centre and museum of brewing. Sadly, in March, Coors announced that it could no longer continue to fund the museum and that it would close at the end of June. That announcement was met with great sadness, some anger and a demand for a way forward to be found to save the museum.

The messages of support for the museum that I received came from throughout the UK and from other countries, including France, Canada and America. Both local and national organisations contacted me. I was grateful that the local paper, the Burton Mail , launched a petition, which gathered thousands of signatures and was presented to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who is the Minister responsible for culture, creative industries and tourism.

I have received e-mails from relatives of those who established the museum, and from those who just wished me good luck or asked me to save the museum. I also received messages reflecting the museum's importance, saying that it enables local people to find a sense of their own history and connect it with their heritage. Another e-mail referred to the museum by describing the history of brewing in Burton as the foundation on which the town was built and the museum's closure as damaging to the local economy. A former Burtonian living in New Jersey referred to having brought small groups of Americans to Burton to visit both Marston's Brewery, with its unique Burton Union system, and the museum of brewing, which was described as the highlight of the trip.

Given so many messages of support for the museum, I felt that it was important to draw together the many organisations that had contacted me, so I organised a meeting at the Coors visitor centre at the end of March. I expected there to be about 20 people at that meeting, but, in fact, 36 attended, including representatives of the following: Coors; Museums, Libraries and Archives West Midlands; Advantage West Midlands; Staffordshire county council, East Staffordshire borough council; the Campaign for Real Ale—CAMRA; the British Guild of Beer Writers, the chamber of commerce; Burton rotary club; local businesses; and local newspapers.

From that meeting, a steering group was formed to take forward the development of an options appraisal. One of the key issues raised at the first meeting was the proposed date for closure of the museum and the lack of time to secure a rescue. There was also concern that the artefacts might be dispersed. Therefore, following that meeting, I wrote to Coors asking whether the closure could be delayed and whether Coors would be prepared to make a financial commitment to the museum's future operation. I was pleased that before the first steering group meeting, I received a response from Coors saying that it would be willing to contribute ongoing costs of up to £100,000 per year, as well as the lease of the museum buildings at a peppercorn rent. On top of that, Coors would also be prepared to donate a one-off, match-funded payment of up to £200,000 to a new organisation running the museum. Although Coors could not delay the closure of the museum beyond the end of June, it agreed to keep the museum's artefacts and contents intact until the end of the year, so that a plan could be developed to re-open the centre to the public. Coors also agreed to continue to provide curatorial support until the end of the year to ensure the preservation of the collections, and the shire horses would also be retained during that time.

The steering group agreed to appoint consultants to produce an options analysis and their final report was released this week. I want to express my thanks to East Staffordshire borough council and Advantage West Midlands for agreeing jointly to fund the consultants, and to Staffordshire county council for agreeing to provide administrative and communications support for the steering group, as well as providing the Coors visitor centre and museum of brewing with staff time to catalogue the extensive archives held on site. I would particularly like to thank Jon Finch, chief executive of Museums, Libraries and Archives West Midlands, for his tremendous support and guidance over the last few weeks. I feel sure we would not have made the progress that we have without him on board.

The report from Jura Consultants provided a way forward for the museum, and at the last meeting of the steering group, we agreed to ask the key stakeholders—Coors, East Staffordshire borough council and Staffordshire county council—to meet to endeavour to produce a business plan. The consultants' report examined the aims and objectives for the future operation of the centre, which include the future contribution the museum can make to tourism and to the regeneration of Burton, finding a financially viable future for the centre, and the necessity to protect the collections, both the objects and the archives.

The consultants' report describes the collection by saying:

"The collections held at the Coors Visitor Centre are the most significant collection of brewing related objects in Britain. Furthermore, the archive, which comprises the core administrative, financial, production and employment records of Bass and of the many companies from all over the UK absorbed by Bass over decades, is of national significance. It is therefore important that any future of the Coors Visitor Centre should ensure the collections are protected. The value of the collections could also be diminished if they were to be split up".

The museum's collection includes not only brewing and malting equipment, brewery transport and specialist items, such as coopering tools, but packaging and historic advertising items—ceramics, glassware, artwork and mirrors. It is also a repository for the Burton town museum, which closed several years ago. It therefore reflects both our local and national heritage.

The importance of the brewing museum in Burton to our national heritage is reflected in articles that have appeared in national publications. In The Guardian, Roger Protz, editor of the Campaign for Real Ale's "Good Beer Guide" wrote an article entitled "A Beery Past Imperilled". He said:

"Great brewing nations celebrate the contribution beer has made to their development as civilised societies with dedicated museums. The Czech Republic has two; Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland have one each. Even tiny Slovenia has a brewing museum...while the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin attracts a million visitors a year."

He went on:

"But Britain stands to lose its sole major brewery museum in June when Coors closes its visitors centre in Burton-on-Trent...Brewing is one of the last major British industries. It makes a sizable contribution to the wealth of the nation."

The article described the history of Burton, saying:

"Burton-on-Trent became an important brewing centre as early as the 11th century, when the monks of Burton Abbey were encouraged to make ale for the Earl of Mercia—aided by a constant supply of pure hard spring water from the Trent valley. It was this water, allied to new technologies of the industrial revolution, that enabled brewers in the town to fashion a groundbreaking, globally exported style of beer: pale ale."

The article continued:

"The small town of Burton heaved with breweries and their armies of workers. The brewers developed their own private railways to feed into the new national network. When St. Pancras station was built in London in the 1860s, its cellars were designed to take great wooden hogsheads of Burton ale..

All this history is brilliantly depicted in the Museum in Burton and shows how beer and brewing are part of the warp and weft of British society."

I should like to thank Roger Protz for his outspoken support for the museum in Burton and for his vision of its development into a truly national museum of brewing. The chair of the British Guild of Beer Writers, Tim Hampson, wrote a letter to The Guardian in support of the museum. He said:

"Burton-on-Trent is quite simply one of the greatest brewing towns the world has ever seen... If it closes, we would lose an invaluable, unique resource and be denied the only real large-scale beer tourist attraction in the country. The collection is priceless and inimitable."

He added:

"The collection of artefacts should be kept with the archives. Nothing on its scale exists anywhere else in Britain. And Burton is the natural place to keep it. Burton and the museum are intertwined and it is essential that we try to preserve the heritage, not only of the brewing industry, but of the town. Coors must give the project to create a National Museum of Brewing something almost as valuable as the collection itself—time."

Although the museum closed its doors to the general public on 30 June, I welcome Coors' commitment to keeping everything intact until the end of 2008. I understand that, if significant progress can be made towards finding a new operator for the museum, then an extension to the company's commitment could be forthcoming. However, we need to make speedy progress.

The steering group asked the key stakeholders to consider three options put forward by Jura Consultants. All the options would involve using the whole site, and would therefore be able to secure the £100,000 per year financial commitment from Coors, but all would need an operating subsidy of between £140,000 to £256,000 per annum. Each of the options would provide the potential to develop the museum and to seek national status. The consultants' report says:

"Even without national status, the museum would be the premier brewing museum in the UK and an important facility for those wanting to understand, research and enjoy the UK's brewing heritage."

The report continues:

"One further issue regarding national status is that this could lead to the Coors visitor centre attracting significant collections leading to exciting new displays, which in turn would have the potential to attract additional visitors."

I very much hope that the many messages of support for the museum, locally and nationally, can now be messages of financial commitment in order to take forward the new operation of the museum, possibly as an independent charitable trust. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State met a delegation at my request, she offered to contact brewers who might be willing to support the museum. She also mentioned the possibility of support through the Heritage Lottery Fund and Renaissance funding. Local people have suggested voluntary fund raising and at this point I should like to thank all the volunteers who have supported the museum over the years. All those forms of funding can help to sustain and improve it in future years, but a secure stream of revenue of funding is needed to take the project forward. For that, I believe that we must look to both local government and industry. East Staffordshire borough council has, as one of its priorities, the encouragement and development of local prosperity and Staffordshire county council includes in its priorities economic development and enterprise and sustainable development. Advantage West Midland's strategic objectives include attracting more visitors from outside the region. I feel that all these priorities could be helped by support for the brewing museum.

I also urge the brewing and pub industry to come forward with offers of financial support. I know that these are not easy times for the industry, but this is a golden opportunity to have a museum that reflects the industry as a whole. When the museum was run by only one brewer, it could not be a national museum, nor could it draw down financial support from the lottery and other bodies. The opportunity is now there to develop a national museum of brewing. This is a one-off opportunity, and one that we cannot afford to miss.

I urge any local and national organisations linked with the brewing industry, or in the case of local bodies, concerned for the future of the town of Burton on Trent, to come forward and make a long-term commitment to the financial support of the museum, subject of course to its becoming an independent museum. If all the disparate organisations—business, local government and other groups—can join together, both the financial burden and, in a sense, ownership of the museum can be shared.

I have tried to involve all those organisations that contacted me to support the museum in discussions about its future. I hope that we now can see a united effort to secure the funding to take the museum forward as a national museum of brewing. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about any further help or advice he can give us.

May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 2113?

That this House is concerned at the changes to the guidance on business rates for public houses; notes that changes to the Non-Domestic Rating Reference Manual will mean the levy will be raised for pubs with quizzes, televisions, pool tables, dart boards or a football team; believes this could result in an increase of £440 a year in their business rates which for some remote pubs paying £1,000 a year in rates could see their tax bill increase by almost half under new rules; further believes that this would have a devastating impact for some pubs with the Campaign for Real Ale already estimating that 56 pubs are already closing permanently each month; and calls on the Government to amend the guidance for inspectors so that business rates do not rise further for pubs in 2010 but instead they are allowed to remain thriving at the heart of many communities.

Even by the standards of this Government's stealth taxes, hammering pubs that organise quizzes or have a football team with extra business rates seems pretty crazy. Many villages have lost their shops or are threatened with losing their post offices. For them, the village pub is very often the most important community facility left, so hammering the ones that are successful and doing community work with higher business rates is crazy.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.

I would like to place on the record my thanks to a few people. Taking a private Member's Bill through this place is an enormous privilege but, as the Minister has said, it is also a daunting task for a new Member, and I simply would not have been able to do it without the help of a number of people, starting with the Clerks in the Public Bill Office, who have shown extraordinary patience with me. I should also like to thank those hon. Members who served on the Committee, many of whom are here today, not least my sponsors, the hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who have given me great support throughout the process.

I should particularly like to place on the record my respect for and gratitude to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who has educated me as to what a Parliamentary Private Secretary can achieve—I had always wondered—and set a benchmark for loyalty, tenacity and the power to persuade when one has no power to do so. I know that she has enjoyed the process. We would not be where we are without her support, and our friends at Local Works would also like to place on record their thanks to her.

I certainly thank the Minister. He had to juggle a number of balls throughout this complicated process, but he always argued his case clearly and was open and extremely constructive. He was kind about my political prospects and I have no doubt that his star will continue to rise and that he will grace shadow Cabinets for many years to come.

Last but not least, I am sure that my sponsors would want to join me in expressing thanks to Local Works, for which the Bill is the culmination of a four-year campaign. Without the group's tenacity and its success in building coalitions, which spanned organisations from the women's institute to the Campaign for Real Ale, to put pressure on the Government, I doubt that we should have reached this stage today.

The Bill is an honest attempt to help communities address the social problems that arise from community decline and the loss of local services. To some degree, the debate today has been technical and wrapped in an envelope of questions about localism, governance and the devolution of power, but the Bill's starting point was the need to respond to the clear social problems of community decline, which is, as we realise, market-driven. However, we should not forget that loss of local services inspired the coalition, rather than questions about localism or how we govern ourselves. The starting point for the Bill was a desire for a policy response to the problems—that is the passion outside this place.

One could say that if people want to support the high street they should just get their wallets out and walk down it, but we need a policy response from this place. That is the driver of the Bill. Part of that response must be central Government's responsibility to pull strategy together in a coherent framework—what we call a national action plan. The point of the Bill was not to be prescriptive but to create the mechanics to do something important—to make sure that the strategy was driven from the bottom up with the full engagement of the communities we represent. We have made considerable progress in achieving that aim.

The main point of the Bill is to give communities real influence in shaping their future. The Bill gives greater transparency to the spending of public money in local areas, which is important, but we intend to pursue the real prize—to give people the opportunity to influence how that money is spent. We had a useful debate about new clause 6 and the Minister has given us assurances from which we can take comfort, so we will consider them.

We have made real progress today. The Bill is more workable than the version we debated on 19 January, although we still need some clarification about money issues and new clause 6. The Bill is not an end; it is only the start—the first ratchet in a process that will empower people to be more engaged in building and sustaining their communities. We have started an irreversible process and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Woollard has also contacted me and I have replied to her. We cannot claim to be doing as much as Hull, but perhaps the resources of Fenland district council and Wisbech town council are not of comparable magnitude. However, there is a programme ably run, mainly by the Wisbech Society. There are church services, including one a week on Sunday, and there will be other events throughout the year.

I thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for his congratulations to the Wisbech and Fenland museum on the loan of Clarkson's chest, which he used to transport his artefacts and visual aids around the country. Perhaps he had another horse to carry that—it must be huge. That chest will form the centrepiece of the exhibition in Westminster Hall, which opens on 23 May. It might also interest the House and my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) to know that the renowned brewery in Wisbech, Elgoods brewery, which brews an extremely palatable real ale, will brew a special ale to be known as the Brookes ale, named after Clarkson's ship which he drew and took round to show people how the slaves were packed into such vessels. The ale will be launched at the same exhibition opening on 23 May and will be available to all quaffers of such ale in the bars of the Palace of Westminster from 23 May till the end of our summer term. I am afraid we have not got as far as brewing something for the lady Members who do not drink beer. I will mention that to Elgoods— [Interruption.]

I begin by congratulating the Bill's sponsors. As has been pointed out, an impressive cross-party coalition has apparently been assembled, and that is complemented by the fact that an early-day motion on the subject has been tabled, and has attracted a large body of support. That is not surprising, because many of us—even those of us who will not support the Bill this morning and have not signed the early-day motion—have a great deal of sympathy with the sound principles in the Bill.

When any of us think about the problems facing our constituencies, we recognise the danger presented by the scenario of ghost town Britain. Like many hon. Members present, I have been impressed by the written representations that I have received, both from within and outside my constituency. I refer in particular to the letter from the National Pensioners Convention, the letter from Help the Aged, which has been circulated to all Members, and the letter circulated by the Campaign for Real Ale—a campaign that is close to many Members' hearts, as I know only too well. In addition, expert material has been circulated by Local Works, the campaign for the Sustainable Communities Bill.

Many of the arguments that have been put forward are powerful, but to gain a true appreciation of the legislation before us, it is necessary to go beyond the pamphlets and the good intentions of the letters, and to study the Bill in detail. Before I do so, I point out that when I leave the Chamber today, I will go back to my constituency, like all Members. I will return to Caerphilly to chair a public meeting on the regeneration of Caerphilly town. Caerphilly is one of the communities that has benefited from the general improvement in the prosperity of the country; for example, it has a relatively good record on job creation. However, the town—an old, former mining community—is in need of regeneration. As is the case for so many communities in Britain, in Caerphilly, there have been out-of-town developments, and estates have grown up outside it, but not in the heart of the town. I am pleased to say that the local authority has mobilised private and public money, and a plan is being put forward by the local authority, with the support of the local community, to regenerate the town, but although work is going on, regeneration is still a concern for many of us.

It may indeed be a difficult offence to investigate and bring charges, which is clearly why the Government have made it so much easier by giving us the new offence of doing it three times. Of course, that will ease the position, and the hon. Lady's undoubtedly sincere doubts about the ability to enforce the law will be eased by the fact that, now that it is an offence to do it three times, it will be a matter of great simplicity for the police force.

I merely wonder in amendment No. 12 whether a custodial sentence for that very serious offence should be inserted in the Bill. I shall bring my remarks to a close by saying that those who are engaged in the wine, spirit and pub world are universally worried—very properly so—about the whole concept of alcohol disorder zones and would undoubtedly support my proposition that the charges should be imposed only where there is an element of guilt.

The Campaign for Real Ale was one of the first to write to me saying that the zones might

"inhibit moves towards a more responsible drinking environment by treating",

as the Bill does,

"all licensees the same regardless of steps taken to encourage responsible drinking."

CAMRA, like many others, believes that there should be discounts for well-run community public houses.

Justice, which is a very respected organisation, is again

"concerned that these zones discriminate insufficiently between premises that are a cause of alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder and other premises that merely happen to be in the same locality."

It is concerned about clause 12(7)(b), which provides that

"premises whose main purpose is the sale of alcohol may not be exempted from charges."

It believes that

"those premises that are not contributing to offending behaviour should be exempt from charges.

It is also right in saying that

"premises for which exemptions are allowed by clause 12(7) may include those that are contributing substantially to disorder—there may even be legal argument as to whether nightclubs are included."

I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

I had a long meeting with Tesco, which represents several people interested in the supermarket trade. It, like many others, is extremely responsible in its approach to the sale of alcohol. There is a strong argument that such supermarkets should be excluded from the provisions altogether, because the main purpose of entering them is not to buy alcohol. The Government's assertion that off-licence shops and supermarkets are a significant cause of alcohol-fuelled disorder is not good because their consultation in January conceded that any causal link between the behaviour of an individual and off-sales of alcohol was "tenuous".

The British Retail Consortium is among other bodies that have added their objections to the concept. It talks about its attitude towards responsible retailing and expresses concern about the absence of an appeal. Interestingly, it points out that

"this legislation applies to all retailers who hold a licence to sell alcohol. This would include shops such as John Lewis, Boots and Next who sell alcohol at promotional times of the year but are in no way connected with the problem of alcohol fuelled violence."

Will the Minister confirm whether such premises would be exempt?

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association, which is a responsible body, says:

"We are concerned that the introduction of alcohol disorder zones . . . will have unintended consequences."

It says that the zones will

"penalise small businesses on the basis of their location and will levy charges on responsible business to pay for less-conscientious retailers."

It feels strongly about the matter. Apparently, Home Office officials have made it absolutely clear that

"all restaurants and hotel bars will be exempt from charges".

Will the Minister confirm whether the Home Office has said that? If so, is it wise?

A principal objection is the catch-all and unjust nature of alcohol disorder zone provisions. I repeat again that the Association of Chief Police Officers opposes the concept. The British Hospitality Association is worried on behalf of restaurants, cinemas and gyms. It is concerned about the unfairness of many of the provisions that face it.

Amendment No. 18, which addresses charges in alcohol disorder zones, would ensure that we include in the Bill at least a reference to the fact that payment should be made by those who are culpable, rather than those who are not. The rest of my amendments draw the House's attention to the fact, which must by now be absolutely plain, that clauses 12 and 13 are riddled with uncertainty and vagueness. The Minister has a duty to the House to put us straight on exactly what she means.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate.

I should make a few declarations of interest. First, I am a member of the Campaign for Real Ale, was a judge at the great British beer festival this year, and opened the festival, which was superb. Secondly, I am a long-standing member of the all-party beer group and have been vice-chairman ever since it was formed. Thirdly, I own an off-licence in Swansea—[Laughter.] That is half my speech gone. And finally, I live next door to a pub in Pendleton in my constituency, which I frequent regularly.

I am one of the few Members who has had a look at one of these application forms. My sister received it, because we have an off-licence, and she got frightened and sent it to me. I looked at it, got frightened, and sent it back to her. We then employed a solicitor. What other Members have said about the cost is true—it has cost us well over £1,000 in solicitor's fees and to get an architect in to measure the shop, as well as various other costs. That is a heavy cost for us to bear, but I can only imagine the burden on many small rural businesses that do not sell much alcohol. One small business in my constituency has already let its licence lapse because it cannot afford to renew it and does not sell enough alcohol. Other smaller businesses and village halls will be affected, and it has come as a heavy burden.

We have been accused of scaremongering and opportunism. We have certainly not been scaremongering, and Esther McVeigh was not scaremongering in Wirral, West: she was absolutely right. What we have not been doing, unlike the Government, is pandering to people. I am thinking particularly of the message that the Government sent at the time of the general election, to the effect that if people voted for them they would be able to drink all day. I know that the Government regret that now, but the fact is that they did it. They were targeting younger people with mobile telephones.

The Government say that they want a café society. We, too, want to see more small wine bars opening. We are worried about the larger, urban pubs, which will contain several hundred people on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. That is where the drink problems will arise.

The Secretary of State herself admitted that there is a problem with binge drinking in this country. The front page of today's edition of The Sun spoke of an alcoholic aged 12. One lady is so petrified of her 16-year-old daughter getting smashed on her birthday that she has taken a photograph of her daughter to 30 pubs so that she will not be served. The Secretary of State tries to pretend that the new laws will protect all those young people and their parents, but many of the laws are already in place. Moreover, many of the laws that she mentioned could have been introduced in splendid isolation, separately from the Act.

If there is currently a problem with binge drinking, is it not logical to expect that if many more pubs can stay open until 2 am, 3 am, 4 am and 5 am, the problem will become worse? That is what frightens us. We are not worried about the staggering of closing times, which will have many benefits for the police. Many businesses, however, will start closing at the same time—4 am. Once one of them starts staying open until 4 am, there will be huge pressure on all the others in the vicinity to do the same.

The Government have gone so far down the road that they will have to proceed with their plans just to save face, irrespective of the effects on the United Kingdom. It was the same when cannabis was reclassified from a class B to a class C drug. After the Government had spent £1 million on telling people that, actually, cannabis was still illegal, they set up a committee to look into the mistake that they had made and the impact that the change in the law had had. I suspect that the same will happen in this case. Binge drinking will get worse.

We saw the front page of The Observer yesterday. The head of all the licensed landlords in the country said that landlords were being offered incentives to keep people on their premises after 11 pm. They might be on the receiving end of as much as £20,000 in return for encouraging people to drink more—to drink shorts or doubles. To reach the targets that they have been set, landlords will have to persuade more people to stay longer and drink more alcohol. That will be a real problem, especially for those living nearby.

We were told that councillors would be able to object to noise, but the fact is that they will not. Councillors have been told that they cannot object to licence extensions unless they live in the vicinity, because otherwise they are not interested parties. The code of conduct, however, states that councillors living in the vicinity cannot object because that would be prejudicial. They are caught: whatever happens, they cannot object to extensions, and that prevents them from doing the job that they were elected to do.

I shall end my speech early, because I know that the Minister will want to respond to many of the points that have been made. We are not saying no to any change at all. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) reminded the House that we changed the law to allow drinking in the afternoons, which I would describe as a sensible licensing extension. The Government's allowing drinking until as late as 5 o'clock in the morning is a sea change in comparison. We introduced that sensible change 20 years ago, but since then binge drinking has got much worse. More people are drinking more alcohol at a younger age, and this change to the law will make matters worse. The Government have made a mistake. It is still not too late to change it, but for goodness' sake, do it now.

We were looking at that in the Department only today. We are trying to secure the final piece of legal advice that we need to send the letter, but we shall do so as soon as possible.

Thanks to the Act, we can finally look forward to longer pub opening hours, which will boost tourism and help to stamp out binge drinking through a more relaxed and responsible approach to the enjoyment of alcohol. The current laws are based on laws introduced during the first world war and have no place in today's society. That is the view of the Campaign for Real Ale, which is right. The current law is full of anomalies. The "two in a bar" rule, for example means that the White Stripes,—as the House knows, one of the most successful bands in the world but which has only two members—could turn up in a local pub and put on a concert for thousands of people. Our very own MP4—a band with growing support in all our constituencies—would not be able to perform unless the pub had obtained a special licence for them. The band has a slightly smaller fan base than the White Stripes. [Interruption.] At the moment—perhaps one day it will be headlining at Glastonbury. [Interruption.] Unfortunately, I wrote it.

Uniquely in Europe, we have an 11 pm closing time, which means that people neck two or three pints before being thrown out on the streets at the same time, fighting for a taxi and sometimes even fighting one another. There is a loophole in a law that allows people to sell alcohol after 11 pm, as long as they serve food and provide music and dancing. That means that the one group of people to whom we allow alcohol to be served after 11 pm are those whom our constituents are most worried will be a source of nuisance. The regime clearly needs to be updated, and Members on both sides of the House will agree that the change in the law is overdue.

The greater flexibility that we are introducing will save the industry money. At the moment, any pub that wants to stay open late, to open early on Christmas eve or to show the Lions test, must go to a magistrate to secure special permission at a cost of £10 a time. There are about 1.7 million such applications a year. The Licensing Act will sweep away anomalies as well as the need for people to go to a magistrate every time that they wish to apply for a special permission. It replaces that requirement with a system in which people apply for a licence once without further need for form filling. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead was stretching the point when she said that because people have to send off a cheque they are making an application. We have front-loaded the application process—people apply up front, then they need never apply again for a premises licence.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and to have listened to the eight previous maiden speeches this afternoon.

It is a great honour to be elected to Parliament at all, but representing Dudley, North is particularly special for me because I represent my home town and the community in which I grew up, went to school, got married and started a family. Dudley, North contains the historic town of Dudley surrounded by a number of smaller towns and villages, such as Gornal, Sedgley and Coseley, which it was my great privilege to represent on Dudley council.

Few places can match our history, stretching from our internationally recognised geological heritage with unique prehistoric fossils found only on the Wren's Nest. The name of the town is of Saxon origin, and the town and its castle, which watches over the town to this day, are both listed in the Domesday Book. The castle was held for the king during the civil war. Parliamentary troops laid siege, and its fortifications were subsequently largely demolished by order of Parliament, but hon. Members can rest assured that local people have pretty much forgiven Parliament by now.

The first Labour MP for Dudley was Colonel George Wigg, who was elected in 1945 after a distinguished military career. He was an early advocate of measures to address the problems of lack of respect in society, which have dominated the headlines this week. Politicised in the Army, he discussed in his memoirs ways of ensuring that young people lived

"in obedience to the rules that civilised life in a community requires",

which is a major theme of today's debate. He left the Commons in 1968 and Donald Williams represented Dudley for two years before Labour won the seat back in 1970. I remember as a child in the very early '70s our home being visited by his successor, now the right hon. Lord Gilbert, who came to discuss plans for the Dudley community relations council, which my Dad helped set up. It was a moment of great excitement in the Austin household, and I can still remember being warned by my parents to be on my best behaviour.

John Gilbert served the town with distinction for 27 years. He must be the only person to have held the same ministerial job 20 years apart as a Member first of the Commons then as a peer, serving as Minister of State for Defence in 1976 to 1979 and in 1997 to 1999. However, I want to pay particular tribute to my immediate predecessor, Ross Cranston. He also served in Government, as Solicitor-General, and served Parliament as a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Many hon. Members will know Ross, as I do, for his dedication and hard work, and for his kindness and commitment to his constituents, which won him the respect and affection of his colleagues here and of the people of Dudley. He set high standards, and I will do everything that I can to live up to them as I represent such a great town.

Dudley is the capital of the black country, the birthplace of the industrial revolution and the home of manufacturing. Dudley's success and prosperity was based on the traditional black country traits of hard work, high skills, ingenuity, enterprise and innovation. However, our community has still not fully recovered from the devastating industrial and economic upheaval of the early 1980s. Those recessions sent the traditional industries on which Dudley's prosperity had been based to the wall. Factories and foundries closed and we lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. That experience had a profound effect on me. When I left school, Dudley was a high-unemployment area. At its peak, 3,300 young people had been out of work for more than six months. Today, the figure is just 220. Unemployment is down 40 per cent. and more than 1,000 local young people are in work through the new deal.

Nowadays, most people in Britain come into contact with manufacturing only as consumers, and status is too often determined by what one owns and consumes rather than what one makes. However, a quarter of the black country's economy relies on manufacturing, and 30 per cent. of the work force works in manufacturing compared with 18 per cent. nationally. In Dudley, manufacturers such as Thomas Dudley Ltd, Federal Welder Ltd and Boss Design Ltd are investing in new technologies, developing new products, opening up new markets, winning new business around the world and creating new jobs. Our problem is that we need more such world-beating firms because we suffer from lower than average wages, and although business start-ups are in line with the national average, survival rates are lower. We also need to improve skills, which is why I want to work with local schools, colleges, the work force, trade unions, employers and business organisations to make boosting skills our No. 1 priority. We will attract the high-wage high-skill jobs on which our future prosperity depends only if we have the skills that those firms need.

Among the other challenges that we face are how to reverse the fortunes of our town centre, and the priority must again be to work with the council and the private sector to regenerate the area by bringing in new housing, new investment, businesses and jobs into the town. I recently met tenants' and residents' organisations and community groups across the constituency, particularly in the Castle and Priory and St. Thomas's wards, which are the constituency's most deprived areas. I am pressing for new community facilities and a new community pharmacy on the Priory estate. Despite additional investment, there are still housing and environmental problems in many areas, and there is a need for additional community facilities particularly for young people.

I shall touch briefly on the rules that govern children's homes. A company called Green Corns is buying up homes in the black country to open new children's homes. Everyone knows that provision must be made for such children; no one is in any doubt about that. It may be that the company's approach has worked elsewhere, but its secretive behaviour in the black country and its failure to establish good relations with its neighbours and work with the local community has caused huge local concern. Local authorities should require planning approval so that local people know what is happening and can have their voices heard, as they would with any other building being turned from a family home into a commercial venture. Can we use the current review of regulatory organisations, which I am told covers the Commission for Social Care Inspection, to bring such homes under the planning process and require companies to work properly with the local community?

My constituency is extremely well served by three campaigning newspapers, the Express and Star, its sister paper the Dudley Chronicle and the Dudley News. However, instead of working with the community, Green Corns has disgracefully put its efforts into obtaining an injunction against the Express and Star, which is merely reporting the concerns caused by its approach.

On Friday I met Chief Superintendent Green from Dudley police, and I congratulate him and his officers on the fall in crime that they have achieved through proper partnership working between the police, the local community, businesses and other organisations. In particular, I want to tell my colleagues on the Front Bench of the difference made by the extra police and new community support officers that we have on the streets, and of my hope that we will see more CSOs patrolling our streets in the future. Chief Superintendent Green told me of the tough stance that he has taken with irresponsible licensees, so I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Queen's Speech proposals to clamp down on pubs and clubs persistently selling alcohol to under-18s.

In conclusion, I hope that I have managed to convey my great pride in the wonderful place that I represent. I commend to anybody who would like further details the local websites yampy.co.uk and sedgleylocalhistory.org.uk. Alternatively, I extend to Members an invitation to visit the town, when I will personally escort them on a tour of its most important places, including the castle and the world-renowned Black Country Living museum, where they could see the skill and enterprise that made our region great. They can watch metalworking and glasscutting and, afterwards, I will buy them a pint of black country real ale in the Bottle and Glass inn, or we could go to Woodsetton for a pint of Golden Glow, or one of the other delicious beers brewed by the award-winning Holden's brewery in my constituency.

It is an enormous privilege to be elected to Parliament, but it is also a huge responsibility. It is not one that I take lightly, and I will do everything that I can to live up to the trust that the people in Dudley, North have placed in me. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening, and I thank the House for listening to me.

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who clearly had a couple of informative nights out in Southampton and Andover. I learned a great deal from listening to his account of good practice in his area.

I support the Government. My Whip would probably say, "About time, too." I support them on this occasion for several reasons. First, although I share views with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on a range of issues, such as gambling and broadcasting, I was surprised that he committed himself to drinking in pubs by 16-year-olds. Whatever the differences between the parties, I believed that there was a fair consensus that the law on under-age drinking had not been properly enforced, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said at the beginning of the debate.

It was announced last week that, for the first time, it may become an offence for someone who is under 18 to try to purchase alcohol at a bar. Many people in the industry and in government have put much effort into the pass scheme, which will permit the use of a commonly recognised proof-of-age card throughout the country. That will be popular with many 18-year-olds who experience social embarrassment if they have to prove their age. As a friendly gesture towards the hon. Member for Bath, I ask him to reflect on his view because I have seen what some of my Whips and perhaps less scrupulous friends have done with Liberal promises in the past. I fear that the hon. Gentleman has given a hostage to fortune on 16-year-olds drinking.

I want to put the subject of the debate in context. At the weekend, I looked at a picture the like of which we have all become familiar with in recent weeks on television and in newspapers. It depicts several young men fighting in the background, an older man falling over with a drink still in his hand and some young women who are clearly inebriated. It was an engraving by Hogarth in 1761 entitled "Gin Lane". I do not say that to diminish the current problem—we clearly have a problem with binge drinking, which has been graphically described—but to illustrate the fact that the problem has occupied the House many times over the years.

I contend that we have had a century-long experiment in fixed opening hours and closing times for pubs, ever since Lloyd George proclaimed when he introduced the liquor licensing laws that we were fighting three enemies: the Hun, the Austrians and the drink, and that the greatest was the drink. Since then, our licensing laws have been framed in that context. I believe that they encourage binge drinking. The various early-day motions that support the Government were not generally inspired by big pub companies or civil servants with links to such companies. I shall not embarrass hon. Members by reading out the names of some who signed the early-day motions in the previous Session and the previous Parliament.

The early-day motions were largely inspired by CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale. It is unfair to characterise its members as middle-aged men with beards. Its current president is a woman and it represents beer drinkers of all ages. However, it does not represent the cutting-edge youth drinking market yet it supports more flexible opening hours. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned the phrase "the night-time economy." He is probably right that it is a bit of a new Labour phrase but the words have tripped off my lips occasionally.

The problem with the night-time economy is, as many hon. Members have pointed out, that it is often the province of the young. The only places that can stay open after 11 pm are those with entertainment licences. A bar or a club can stay open after 11 pm only if it makes noise. An ordinary pub cannot stay open except in special circumstances. That is nonsense and distorts the evening economy. It stops people who come out of cinemas and theatres going for that last drink.

Some chief constables have latterly said that they are against the new measures and my chief constable in North Yorkshire has made such signals. However, when I asked her local police whether that means that they will clamp down on all the lock-ins in villages and suburban areas about which they know, they say that they will not because they do not cause problems. The situation should be regularised, because the law should not be flouted in that way. If a well managed pub in a village or suburb is not causing a nuisance to anyone, why should it not stay open later if that meets a demand? Such regularisation would have a civilising effect, as it has in Scotland and in the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man is perhaps not the most socially liberal part of Europe, but it reformed its licensing hours two or three years ago in much the same way as we are doing. That resulted in a decrease in violent crime in the capital, Douglas, which had been having problems until then.

My Lords, I have been increasing my knowledge of the beer market with enthusiasm in anticipation of this Question, and the noble Lord is right to point out that since the so-called beer orders were revoked, the market has changed significantly. The noble Lord rightly points to the Business and Enterprise Committee report, which raises a number of general issues along with that of the beer tie. As he knows, my department is due to respond to the report within 60 days, subject to further developments on this matter.

I suspect that he is also aware that the Campaign for Real Ale, known as CAMRA, is for the purposes of this discussion a designated body under the Enterprise Act 2002 and is therefore qualified to submit a super-complaint to the Office of Fair Trading. It has indicated that it intends to do so shortly on issues related to the beer tie. That would result in the Office of Fair Trading having to consider the complaint very carefully and respond within 90 days. On the specific point about an organisation being able to look at the matter again in an open-minded fashion, I have every confidence in the ability of the OFT in that regard.

I believe that this is a worthwhile amendment, although possibly not for the same reasons advanced by the noble Baroness. Most pubs nowadays are family friendly. That is a good thing and as it should be. But a significant minority of pubs are very much for adults only. There is surely room for both types.

About eight months ago my wife and I visited Chester for the first time. We walked along the length of the famous city walls on two or three occasions and were amused to see a pub with an enormous bold-type sign stating, "Children not welcome". There was an additional adjacent sign stating something like, "No fancy foreign food here. British bangers only". That suggested it was not precisely my cup of tea or my pint of real ale, one might say, but there was definitely a fairly boisterous clientele in the city that weekend for whom it was ideally suited. I think there should be room for both types of pub. I hope that it is not the Government's intention to force all pubs to cater for children because I think that that would not be good for children or for the general community.