Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) I beg to move, That this House
has considered heritage pubs. It is a real pleasure to serve under
your guidance, Mr Vickers, on a topic that I know you care about,
particularly when it comes to those edifices that might be willing
to serve you a rum baba, which I know you are keen on. I am
grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting my
debate, even if it is on a Thursday when we know most MPs travel
back to their...Request free trial
(Dudley North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered heritage pubs.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Vickers,
on a topic that I know you care about, particularly when it comes
to those edifices that might be willing to serve you a rum baba,
which I know you are keen on.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting
my debate, even if it is on a Thursday when we know most MPs
travel back to their constituencies, as indeed I would have done,
so I am grateful to colleagues here today.
There are many people I should be thanking. First and foremost, I
would like to thank the people of predominately Gornal and
Sedgley, but also the wider area of Dudley and south
Staffordshire, whose energy and dedication to the cause is second
to none. I particularly thank the admins of the Facebook page,
“Save The Crooked House (Let’s Get It Re-built)” for their
unstinting voluntary effort at keeping the show on the road and
for moderating the page. Why is that important? We know the
police and the local authority have a painstaking job still to
do, and things could be said that unwittingly militate against
the common cause in a court of law.
I thank a former colleague of this place, though not in my
time—Mr Greg Mulholland—for the part he has been playing
supporting our efforts. Thanks also go to several others,
including Campaign for Real Ale and Historic England. If I have
forgotten to thank any person or institution, I apologise but
many people have offered to help, including from overseas, such
as in Canada, Australia, the US and even South Korea. The
incident around The Crooked House pub has been reported on in
broadsheets on every continent.
The demise of The Crooked House pub, while tragic in and of
itself, has highlighted a much bigger issue nationwide. Put
simply, the framework we have in place to protect our heritage
pubs is simply not winning the war against unscrupulous
developers or even against our changing socioeconomic
environment, which means many establishments that were once
profitable are not today. Our way of managing that decline most
often leads to one outcome: the demise of the pub, often followed
by the demise of the building, too. We need something better to
be done.
There is an issue with councils underappreciating the risks to
heritage pubs. Not enough heritage pubs have any listed
protection, not least because everyone—the system, MPs—presume
that pubs could be listed when, in fact, they are not. That
happened with The Crooked House. Our system does not compel local
authorities to keep a register of heritage pubs; it is voluntary.
Historic England, which as I said earlier has been helpful,
described the selection criteria that covers heritage pubs of
note. It said,
“All medieval commercial buildings will be eligible for
designation since they are exceptionally rare…Most buildings
prior to about 1850 surviving in anything like their original
form will be listable; intact contemporary details and fittings,
both internal and external (like shop fronts, tiled decoration,
counters and back-fittings) may justify a high grade. As with all
buildings after about 1850, rigorous selection is necessary.
Given the high rates of attrition, however, all buildings which
retain claims to special architectural interest, irrespective of
date, deserve careful consideration. Intact modern retail
architecture of note is surprisingly rare, however, so it is
important to identify these examples as well.”
Historic England places significance on the date of 1850. The
Crooked House was built in 1765, and it had no listing
protections whatever. The system as it is failed. It may also be
true that some very old buildings do not merit listing. The date
per se should not be the only criteria, as Historic England makes
clear, but a building such as The Crooked House is the repository
of tens of thousands of individual memories. It is the home of
the collective memories of the communities surrounding it over
centuries. In this case, it saw the birth of the industrial
revolution, coalmining, limestone mining and steelworking. It saw
the trials and tribulations of a people to whom we owe so much.
All that is now burned and pulverised. We need to do more to
prevent that from happening again.
That is why I would like to see local authorities being required
to hold and review, perhaps yearly, a register listing all
heritage pubs. Local authorities should also develop their own
risk register so that any event, such as an advert for sale,
triggers a system for closer monitoring of what happens to the
building. I am also calling for heritage pubs that do not have a
listing status to receive immediate temporary listing protections
upon an application for listing being made. That system works
well in Wales. When it was established—by chance, may I say—that
The Crooked House was for sale, an immediate listing application
was made, but the building was burned and demolished within days.
The listing process never stood a chance of becoming
effective.
There was extensive debate on this matter during the progress of
the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, with Ministers
concerned by the practical implementation of such a system, since
the listing system operates slightly differently in Wales and
there would be challenges over scale—this is what I have been
told—in England. I respond by saying that those challenges should
be circumvented. They should not be a barrier to doing the right
thing. How many more Crooked Houses do we need? How many more
times do we want to see our own history ripped out of the heart
of our local communities before this challenge over scale becomes
small enough to manage?
(Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this
important issue. He underlines the importance of heritage pubs
and what they can do. I can think of three right away in my
constituency. First, The Auld House in Moneyreagh was an old
building that had to be renovated, and a new building has been
erected, so a lot of the character has been lost, but the history
of the Auld House is still there.
Then there is the history of Roma Hamill’s in Newtownards, which
was blown up by the IRA back in the middle ’80s. Because of the
bomb it had to be rebuilt, but it is a heritage pub in the middle
of the town that has been there for generations.
The oldest one in Newtownards is now called The Parlour, but it
was previously called The Old Cross. It was built in 1735. It is
a heritage pub with real character, real history and real
tradition. Those are the things that the hon. Gentleman is
talking about. I agree with him, and it is important that they
are retained and that, for a generational thing and historically
looking back, we can have them for the next generation who come
forward.
I very much welcome that intervention. When we achieve the
rebuild of The Crooked House perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can
celebrate it over a pint in one of the establishments that he has
just mentioned.
The debate that I referred to earlier about the passage of the
Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 concluded that a building
preservation notice section would be a more appropriate tool than
the Welsh system, and that is now section 105 of the Act.
However, a date for its implementation is still to be confirmed.
I am also unclear as to how we could quickly apply it to
scenarios that can evolve as fast as the one involving The
Crooked House. The timing of how quickly such protections can be
implemented is a key element in making that approach effective.
Therefore, I must conclude that temporary listing protections
would immediately mitigate the risk for pubs that are worthy of
listing even while they remained unlisted. How would a building
preservation notice be quickly applied and be quickly effective?
Perhaps the Minister could assist me by addressing that point in
his remarks.
A clear risk to heritage pubs is when they are being sold, often
at speed, to developers that do not wish to maintain the building
as a pub, thus not allowing enough time for a buyer who might
wish to continue using the building as a pub. That is also why I
am calling the local planning authorities to treat said buildings
with a presumption against change of use, a bit like the way in
which green-belt land has a presumption against residential
development.
I am also calling for the sale of heritage pubs to be restricted
initially, for a period of 12 months, to buyers who intend to
continue running them as pubs. Such a sale would be at a value
predetermined by independent valuers assessing the pub as a going
concern. Such a restriction might seem counterintuitive to
Conservatives such as you and me, Mr Vickers, but it would allow
for time to find a prospective buyer who wishes to continue using
the pub as a pub.
Too often, heritage pubs close needlessly because of these short
timescales and the imbalance between prospective publicans and
property developers, who always have greater purchasing power
when assessing the asset for alternative development. What I am
trying to do today is to give these heritage pubs and these
buildings a better chance. To be clear, however, if the 12-month
period passes and a buyer is not found, the pub would return to
the open market.
Many people I have spoken to often refer to the system of assets
of community value to protect heritage pubs. Yes, there have been
some examples of where that system has worked, but it was
actually designed for the likes of community halls and church
buildings, rather than for commercial buildings and going
concerns, which have different and more complex dynamics. It is a
system that also relies on the local community to find the money
required within a short timeframe of just six months, if, indeed,
authorities even accept that ACV criteria have been met.
Crucially, though, a freeholder can still refuse an offer to
purchase their property under the ACV system.
A rich local community might more easily use ACVs, but many areas
of the country cannot do so, and neither would the use of ACVs
solve the revenue sustainability question, which is often
unanswered even if the capital can be raised. Nevertheless, there
is merit to ACVs, which is why I am also calling for local
authorities to adopt a presumption in favour of ACV status being
granted, and I ask that the ACV process be applied only after the
12-month sale restriction that I referred to earlier has ended.
That would have the effect of offering local communities an
18-month window in which they could try to save their local
heritage pubs, rather than having to work within the narrow
six-month period under the ACV system.
I turn again to our much-loved Crooked House. There are questions
arising from the event about the effectiveness of decisions taken
by the fire service, the police service and the local authority,
particularly on the management of risk. When the fire service
attends and establishes suspicion of arson, that is communicated
to the police, but the mechanism for that and how quickly it
happens is unclear. While the site is still under a public
service entity—if I may use that language a little loosely—the
police attend and carry out their forensic work, at which point
arson or otherwise is established. Crucially, even when arson is
established—after which one might infer greater risk—the site by
law is returned to the control of the freeholder.
There are clear questions for me on risk. Everybody in my local
community was commenting that as soon as the fire had taken
place, the building would be demolished. Notwithstanding specific
instructions from the local authority not to do so, the building
was immediately demolished. I must ask, therefore: is there a
role here for legislation to step in and help prevent what was
seemingly obvious to most from happening again?
To conclude, I will ask the Minister to reflect on the
opportunities for substantially increasing remedies against
breaches of existing and, perhaps, future law. What also seems
apparent to most is that unscrupulous individuals simply factor
in any of the current remedies, which are not particularly
exacting, into their business plans. Thank you, Mr Vickers, and
hon. Members for listening to me today. I look forward to the
Minister’s considerations and, I hope, his support when I bring
forward legislative proposals.
(in the Chair)
I call .
3.17pm
(Uxbridge and South
Ruislip) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Vickers. Fresh from my
maiden speech earlier this week, when I got to name-drop my
local, The Middlesex Arms, I swiftly realised that I could not
miss today’s debate and in doing so pass up the opportunity to
mention a few more gems in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, although
colleagues have highlighted already that this debate is about
more than just Members getting to name-check some of their local
pubs.
Regardless of their location, whether in the city centre or down
a winding country lane, pubs are central to our communities. They
act as an anchor for local residents and the community as a
whole. They are more than just somewhere to sup a pint, whether
it be something alcoholic or otherwise; there are pubs that now
offer food as well. We are not talking about things like a
traditional pack of pork scratchings or roasted peanuts but an
extensive range of catering offering a variety of tastes. Pubs
are community hubs, offering tea and coffee mornings for the
lonely in our communities, mother and toddler sessions and so
much more.
Our pubs have adapted and made changes in order to survive. I
believe that pubs play an essential role in many people’s lives
and in their communities, and in Uxbridge and South Ruislip we
have some great pubs. Through the trials and tribulations of
covid, the lockdowns and the subsequent reopenings, we have seen
pubs come under incredible strain, even more so in the light of
the cost of living. However, in no area is there more strain felt
than our heritage pubs.
Uxbridge and South Ruislip has a number of heritage pubs, which
are long-standing historic centres of the community. The Three
Tuns on Uxbridge High Street is a former coaching inn that is now
a grade 2 listed pub, and was built between the 16th and 17th
centuries. The Red Lion on Hillingdon Hill was built in the
1500s. Inside the historic building, visitors can find original
Tudor fireplaces, original beams and even a vaulted cellar. The
Malt Shovel, a 19th-century listed pub, was an important stop for
those working and travelling along the country’s canals during
the golden years of the UK’s waterways. It now provides fantastic
canal-side drinking and dining.
Probably the most significant of these pubs locally is The Crown
and Treaty. This 16th-century pub gets its name from a moment in
history, at the time of the civil war, which intertwined it with
Parliament, for it was at this pub, which counts for only a third
of the former manor on the estate, that the royalists and
parliamentarians came together to discuss a document that would
become known as the treaty of Uxbridge. The meetings that took
place at this pub formed a significant attempt at negotiated
peace between the warring factions, three years into the English
civil war. Demands from the parliamentarians that were deemed
assertive, including the establishment of Presbyterianism in
England and parliamentary control over military matters, combined
with a royalist cause energised by recent military victories,
ultimately doomed the treaty to failure. However, while the
treaty may have ended up lasting just a few weeks, The Crown and
Treaty itself has lasted for over 400 years, and is still going
strong. In fact, it had its wood panelling returned to coincide
with the late Queen’s coronation in 1953, after it was sold to
fit out offices in the Empire State Building in the 1920s.
The Crown and Treaty, The Three Tuns, The Malt Shovel and The Red
Lion are not just heritage pubs; they are our heritage. They are
more than just community hubs; they are the community. Within
their walls—literally within their fibre—is the history of our
communities: an unwritten, unspoken record. That is why the
scenes and events surrounding The Crooked House pub were so
tragic, and yet also so bewildering. Much has been done,
especially the welcome changes in planning laws, so that pubs in
England can no longer be converted or demolished without planning
permission. I welcome the suggestion from my hon. Friend the
Member for Dudley North () about heritage listing and
the need to be documented. This also falls alongside the
introduction of enforcement powers. However, The Crooked House
pub episode demonstrates that there is more that can and must be
done to protect our heritage pubs. They are not just pubs. They
are our communities; they are our history.
It is important that existing inspection processes are
strengthened, and that enforcement teams are well resourced and
empowered to act on the concerns around heritage pubs. As such, I
join colleagues in asking the Minister about what more the
Government are doing as the pressures on all pubs, but acutely
heritage pubs, continue. In the light of The Crooked House
tragedy, we need to ensure we can safeguard and protect our
heritage pubs so that they survive for generations to come.
3.22pm
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. First, I
congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North () on securing the debate, and
I commend him on his work campaigning on this issue after a pub
in his constituency, The Crooked House, was demolished in a fire.
That act sparked outrage not just across the country, but,
apparently, internationally as well. His analysis of some of the
difficulties and challenges that the sector faces were very much
in line with our own. Certainly, some of the proposals deserve
further consideration, and I look forward to hearing from the
Minister on those specific points.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South
Ruislip () on following up a splendid
maiden speech on Monday with another excellent speech. He
articulated how important pubs are to the community and how they
really encapsulate the history of a particular area. That is
something we will no doubt be reflecting on today.
One of the main problems we face in this discussion is the lack
of a clear definition of what a heritage pub actually is. We know
that once they have that status, they are afforded protections to
prevent them being demolished or having their character altered,
but a very small number of pubs are afforded that most stringent
grade I listed status. As recently as 2015, there were just 11 in
England. Many historic buildings become non-designated heritage
assets, which do not have statutory protections as designated
heritage assets. They are therefore easier to alter or demolish.
That means that many local pubs, including The Crooked House, are
vulnerable to the wishes of developers or, indeed, vandalism.
As we know, there are some laws in place to protect pubs. Since
2017, planning permission has been a requirement for a change of
use or demolition, meaning that there should be at least some
chance for local communities to have a say. Of course, if
planning permission was not sought, enforcement action is
available, but, as we have heard, the issue with The Crooked
House clearly showed that these laws are not always adhered to to
the degree that we would like. CAMRA follows such issues closely,
and it investigated 30 potentially unlawful conversions or
demolitions between January and June this year. Although some had
the relevant permissions, CAMRA reports that there are eight
outstanding cases in England in which enforcement investigations
are under way or local authorities have not yet confirmed that a
planning permission exists.
CAMRA registered its concern that local authorities have not been
able to take robust enforcement action, which allows developers
to flout the protections in place. I want to be clear: I do not
believe that that is a result of indifference from or neglect by
local authorities but simply a reflection of the financial
pressures they have faced since 2010, which have meant that
undertaking some of these very time-consuming and technically
detailed investigations has become more of a challenge.
Unfortunately, The Crooked House is just one of a number of
historic pubs that, in recent times, have suffered from a
devastating blaze. The Leopard in Stoke-on-Trent, which had
already submitted plans for redevelopment, was another recent
example, and Hardy’s Well pub in Manchester was another that
suffered a similar fate. The former was frequented by Josiah
Wedgwood, and the latter dated back to the 1830s, nearly two
centuries ago.
Albeit to a much lesser degree, I have in my constituency an
example of a historic, derelict pub that, I think, is on the
danger list. It has been subject to fires in recent years—twice
last December—as well as being vandalised and subject to
fly-tipping. It is the Station Hotel in Ellesmere Port, and it is
on the main route into the town centre so it is in a very
noticeable part of our town. It is emblematic of the problems
that our town centre and many town centres face. It was a
magnificent building when it was first built; I was not alive at
the time, but it boasted of having one of the longest bars in the
country, if not the longest. That, in itself, is of historical
note, but the pub is listed only locally and is not designated as
a grade II listed building, so it does not have the degree of
protection that I think the local community would like to see.
Since the pub closed down, there have been a number of attempts
to demolish it and redevelop the site, none of which have come to
fruition. The worry is that, sadly, the next fire could be the
last one, and a major part of our town’s history will be lost for
ever.
It is not all doom and gloom, though. A more positive local
example is The Grace Arms on the other side of the town centre.
It is another iconic and historic local building that was
earmarked for closing six years ago, but, after campaigning by
local residents and me, the owners, Greene King, decided to keep
it open. They have put significant investment into the pub,
changing the offer but ensuring the building continues to be a
significant landmark in the local area. That is something local
residents have been very pleased to see.
More broadly, there is concern about the future of pubs as a
whole. The numbers and characters of pubs have changed rather
dramatically since the start of this century. Statistics
collected by the British Beer and Pub Association show that there
has been a steady decline in the number of pubs since 2000, from
about 61,000 then to about 46,000 last year. Indeed, reports
suggest that the number of pubs in England and Wales in June this
year stood as low as 40,000.
We know that financial pressures have played a large role in
that. Office for National Statistics data shows a correlation
between pubs closing and general difficulties in the economy, and
we know that there has been quite a squeeze in the cost of living
in recent years. That, I am afraid, has accelerated the closure
of pubs. Recent reports suggest that as many as two a day are
closing. Figures recently published show that the number of pubs
to have been either demolished or converted to other uses this
year stood at 383 by the end of the second quarter of this
year—almost the same number as closed in the entirety of
2022.
Hopes that there would be a recovery in pubs in 2019 were dashed
by the covid crisis—we know the history—and now, the increase in
the cost of living has made life much more difficult for people
who want to run pubs. In general, those pubs that have thrived
have changed in character—which probably should not be a surprise
to us. One of the biggest changes has been to the size of pubs.
There has been a large increase in the number of pubs that employ
more than 25 staff, from 2,500 in 2001 to 4,600 in 2019. Given
the overall reduction in pub numbers, that means we are certainly
seeing a growth in the number of those larger pubs that we have
never seen before.
It could be argued that the larger, ubiquitous national chains
that we see in the pub sector possibly reflect wider changes in
the hospitality sector. We should be mindful that these can
create difficulty in the protection of the heritage status of
pubs that we want to see. As hon. Members have mentioned, there
has been a significant change in the number of pubs offering
food. Indeed, the number of staff employed in pubs to serve food,
compared with working behind the bar, has changed dramatically in
recent years. That does not mean that the fabric and heritage of
the pub needs to change; I think we can find a nice balance.
Overall, it is clear that the trends of decline we have witnessed
are symptomatic of wider problems on our high streets. In many
ways, they have been neglected: high streets are boarded up, and
access to them is getting worse. Pubs are a major part of our
local community. Many memories are formed there, and they are of
course an important part of the local economy.
With the many challenges that the high street faces, we do not
want to see any more loss than we have. We want to put local
people in the driving seat. That is why Labour will be proposing
a new community right to buy, giving local communities the
opportunity to take control of pubs, community venues and,
indeed, football clubs that come up for sale or fall into
disrepair. That will go further than the current right to bid,
and it will give communities first refusal on such assets when
they come up to sell, including the right to buy them without
competition. This is about allowing our communities to take back
control of their environments, restoring civic pride, and
ensuring that those iconic buildings, that we all know and love,
can survive.
I absolutely understand this is part of a wider economic debate,
and that there are real challenges. I hope the Minister will
respond to some of my points. On that note, I welcome him to the
Front Bench; I think this must be his first outing in the
role.
(in the Chair)
Minister.
3.32pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities ()
If only you had known, Mr Vickers, how long I have waited to hear
that word, and then find myself rising to speak. It is about
eight and a half years since I was elected in 2015, so it really
is a pleasure for me to say “It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship” this afternoon. First, I thank my hon. Friend the
Member for Dudley North () for raising this issue,
which is important for him, his constituents and the wider
community, and I compliment him on the measured way in which he
did it. There is an irony in a teetotaller replying to a debate
on heritage pubs and, having filled out quite a few forms with on
ethics over the last few days as part of the ministerial process,
finding the word “crooked” in the title of my first Westminster
Hall debate did make me a little apprehensive.
To start, my hon. Friend suggested some potential legislative
changes, or, certainly, those that may require investigation. My
door, and the door of the Department, is open for him to come in
at any time, and we can further those conversations. As the
debate has shown, the issue is important on many levels. I was
struck when my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South
Ruislip () said—I hope I quote him
correctly—that these “are not just community hubs, they are the
community”. How right he is. His rightness was, I suppose, only
echoed by the rectitude of his constituents in returning him in
the recent by-election, on which I congratulate him as a
Conservative to a Conservative by-election winner. We have had
not had many opportunities to say that in recent times, a trend
that I believe will change pretty quickly.
Of course, no Westminster Hall debate would be complete without
my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (), who I thought would have been so relieved to have
seen me out of the chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Affairs
Committee that he would not have wanted to hear my voice again.
But here he is, and it is always a pleasure to see him. It is
little bit like Christmas cake, I suppose—even if one does not
like it, you do not really feel that Christmas is complete
without a Christmas cake on the tea table. No debate in this
place is complete without my friend the hon. Member for
Strangford.
Before I forget, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North asked
for the date for the implementation of the building preservation
notice. That falls within the bailiwick of the Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. We will inquire of ministerial
colleagues about that, and I will write to my hon. Friend to make
sure that he has an answer as to when that will come into
effect.
I join my hon. Friend in thanking those campaigners, who are
feeling such a huge sense of loss at this tragedy. It is a
tragedy to lose such an important local asset. For many, it will
feel like a bereavement: a loved building in a community has been
suddenly taken away in circumstances that one can only describe
as suspicious. They will be feeling that locally, so I join my
hon. Friend in congratulating them for all their efforts, and I
also congratulate him for corralling them in making those efforts
to ensure that, although there is no way to turn the clock back,
we try to identify ways whereby the opportunities for these sorts
of events to happen—because one can never say that they will
never happen—is militated against. My hon. Friend will understand
that a live investigation is ongoing, and it would be remiss of
me to say anything that may in any way prejudice that
investigation—campaigners would be furious with me were I to do
so. I think that the debate has reflected that.
The building preservation notice is, of course, part of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,
which provides opportunities for councils to issue notices. Those
preservation notices are in place for six months, and that is an
important protection, particularly if a listing application is
run alongside or in tandem with the notice. Like a lot of these
things, they exist, but we often forget that they exist. I am
grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to place on the
record, once again, that the preservation notice exists.
The point about demolition is important. The demolition of a pub
has a very particular status within the planning process. The
demolition of a pub without planning permission so to do is
considered, for the purposes of the planning system, to be
development, and councils have an existing power to enforce a
total rebuild. There is also the opportunity for fining if they
refuse to comply with the enforcement notice, and that fining is
unlimited. Certainly, my ministerial colleague, the Minister of
State, pointed out to me that a building in the City of
Westminster was demolished without the relevant consents, and the
city council successfully enforced that it should be rebuilt
brick for brick. So, in the case of that developer and those who
seek to circumvent or circumnavigate our rules, undermining them
for sharp practice, there are powers that can be used, and I
would urge all local authorities to use them.
Many of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley
North raised in his speech are, of course, slightly tripartite in
nature. Very often, we feel that life would be much easier if one
Department had sole responsibility. Many of the issues that my
hon. Friend mentioned obviously touch on policies within my
Department, but also touch on policies within the Home Office,
and he referenced the police, and on what I suppose many
campaigners would say is the slightly—let me put it
diplomatically—eccentric requirement that, once initial
investigations have been undertaken, the site that has been
investigated has to be handed back to the freeholder. I hope that
I will not prejudice the investigation when I say that it would
not take Hercule Poirot to raise an eyebrow with regards to the
rapidity of the arrival on site of bulldozers, almost before the
last embers of the fire had died out; I believe in serendipity,
sometimes, but even that belief can be stretched beyond breaking
point.
I have spoken to ministerial colleagues in my Department, and it
is the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North
East Derbyshire () who will lead on this; I am replying to today’s
debate because he had previous duties. We are happy to take the
lead as a Department and to organise a tripartite discussion
between us, the Home Office and DCMS to try to work out whether
we can iron out any wrinkles or make any tweaks to make the
process a little easier to understand and implement.
I will say a few words on pubs and change of use. The shadow
Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (), was right and sensible to
talk about the change in our high streets, and the change in
demand for pubs and how and where we spend our leisure time. When
people seek a change of use for a public house, it is to be
expected that most local authorities, certainly in my experience,
will ask for a number of reports to justify a positive
determination of that application. They will certainly take into
account the number of operational pubs in the area. They will
seek verified reports of a sincere marketing campaign, where that
pub asset has been advertised—has it been in the trade press or
the local press, and so on? Were they seeking realistic offers,
or were they trying to price it so far outside the market to
effectively arrive at a position where they could not sell it as
a going concern because they had been asking such a grossly
inflated price?
If the applicant for the change of use does not satisfy any of
those key tests—which, of themselves, provide a certain degree of
comfort to residents and safeguards for those who use the
assets—by definition, the presumption of a change of use is not
to be given. As we know, no system is perfect, and it depends
upon thorough analysis and the potential for buying in
professional third-party advice to peer review those marketing
documents. However, it is not an easy thing to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North has made a number of
policy suggestions, and we will reflect on them. It is important
to note, however, that there is always a temptation for Ministers
to promise the Earth, as though with a stroke of a ministerial
pen all problems will be erased and nothing bad will happen. Will
buildings burn down? Yes, of course. We are not going to be able
to eradicate that, but we need to make sure that the
investigatory powers are there.
We also need to be careful, because there is a fine balance to
strike—sometimes it would require the judgment of Solomon to do
it—in the operation of the market. A freeholder can legitimately
dispose of an asset, for a continuation of use within the
prescribed use class or for a change of use, or to move it on to
a further use if that building is deemed redundant. At the heart
of what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley North
and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and indeed the shadow
Minister, is that the community’s requirements and desires need
to be taken into account as part of the evaluation process. As we
know, so much of our high street and leisure time is changing.
However, I suggest—I hope uncontroversially—that nobody wants to
see, merely for the sake of retention, buildings retained that
will fall into a state of disrepair and decay, and which are of
no asset whatsoever to our high streets and communities and will
often have a negative societal impact during that period of
degradation.
I will be careful on listing because that falls within the
purview of DCMS. It is an important point. It involves a process,
and there are always going to be ways of speeding up that process
to give greater clarity and certainty. I take the shadow
Minister’s point on the need for a clearer definition of what we
actually mean by a heritage pub. We have made great progress in
the creation of assets of community value. They have made a
significant contribution since they were introduced in 2011. Are
they perfect? Is the mechanism un-clunky in all respects? Of
course not. Could it be reformed or improved? Most definitely.
That may well form the basis of conversations to be had with my
hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North as we move forward.
In conclusion, this is a serious issue. My late father always
used to say, “If you’re going to cheat, cheat fair.” I know that
that sounds like a contradiction in terms, but most of our
communities and constituents shy away from what looks to be sharp
practice—something underhand, something designed specifically to
frustrate and undermine a process of transparency and
accountability. While none of us would resile from the human
desire to generate a profit, sometimes that sharp practice,
merely in the pursuit of profit, falls under that old phrase, the
“unacceptable face of capitalism”, which you and I will remember,
Mr Vickers, from the comments of previous politicians on a number
of points.
I share the concerns, anxiety and upset of my hon. Friend the
Member for Dudley North and his constituents about this serious
issue. I reassert what I said at the start: we stand ready to
help and to do what we can, between the three Departments, to try
to ensure that we can limit, as much as we possibly can, these
circumstances happening again. Unfortunately, however, the
circumstances that he set out at the start of his speech mean
that people will not see the return of the Crooked House as they
knew and loved it. I read history at university; there are some
buildings that speak of history and times, and one could only
envisage the times that a pub from 1765 has seen, the trials and
tribulations that it has survived and the conversations that it
has eavesdropped upon. It is a huge and serious loss. We shall
let the investigatory authorities do their job, but we stand
ready to help my hon. Friend and other communities to ensure that
such important community assets have the strongest protections
that we can possibly derive.
3.47pm
I have been really encouraged by the comments from everybody
today. Of course, a Westminster Hall debate would not be the same
without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford
() and I thank him very much for his words. He
certainly has pubs in his area that reflect the same
characteristics that others have discussed today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip () really captured it well,
as did the Minister. While pubs offer great food and beverages
and can be a point of contact for people coming together—and how
important those points of contact are, especially for people,
perhaps older generations, who have isolated lives, in a
post-covid environment—they are also the community, and they are
our history.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and
Neston () was very kind in his words
towards me. He absolutely hit the nail on the head when he said
that we need to be very clear about the definition of a heritage
pub. I have not been successful in the private Member’s Bill
ballot, so there will be a ten-minute rule Bill, no doubt. That
definition is absolutely central, so the hon. Member was very
perceptive with those comments.
I am really encouraged by what the Minister said. When I saw the
huge community grief, anger and frustration in the hours and days
that followed the burning down of the pub and its demolition, it
was clear to me that I wanted to be visible, and to be almost the
person at whom people could vent their anger. We have had lots of
local community meetings. I have formed a committee to support me
in that, made up of CAMRA and other people, including some admins
of the Facebook group that I mentioned, existing pub landlords
and past ones. I was clear that I will do everything I can,
within the bounds that have been described today, to see justice
served and the pub rebuilt brick by brick. We all know that it
will not be exactly the same, but with today’s technology, and
the support that has been offered by the nearby Black Country
Living Museum, which has special expertise in rebuilding heritage
buildings, I want to see the pub rebuilt.
The third commitment that I made to my community was to pursue
legislative changes in the appropriate way to try to prevent this
from happening again anywhere in the United Kingdom. Clearly,
something needs to be done. On the preservation of building
notice, I thank the Minister for his offer to write to me. When
he does, perhaps he could also explain how quickly something
could be implemented, which is the key issue for me. I mentioned
the interaction between police, local authority and fire service.
If a protection notice is not already there, it needs to be
applied with immediacy. It is time critical, so I would like to
understand that point better.
Everybody understands and accepts that we cannot design risk out
completely, but we can remove the incentives from those who would
want to go about things in the wrong way, and create many more
incentives to stop them doing so. That is our role, and I feel
very encouraged by the Minister’s offer to be the leading
Department on this. I believe that from a planning perspective
the chunk of it is there, but clearly DCMS and perhaps the Home
Office have their part to play as well. I thank him for his
offer, and thank you, Mr Vickers, for leading the way today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered heritage pubs.
|