Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Floating Offshore Wind
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered floating offshore wind.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I will start by welcoming the work of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and, in particular, that of my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State in developing floating offshore wind—which I will refer to as FLOW for the rest of the debate—right here in the UK.
FLOW represents a huge opportunity for the UK as a whole, but especially for coastal communities such as my own in North Devon. I particularly thank the new Secretary of State for her engagement following the results of the contracts for difference allocation round 5. Indeed, in her own maiden speech, she celebrated the role of her constituency in pioneering renewable energy and celebrated our being a world leader in offshore wind.
Yesterday’s announcement that the Government have halved inflation since the start of the year was very welcome, as is the reduction of energy bills. As we all know, the price jump was caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but it demonstrated just why we need to accelerate the development of sustainable British energy generation. We live on a very windy, very tidal and sometimes even sunny island, and my North Devon constituency is particularly blessed with all three. If we can increase the amount of energy that we generate from these renewable sources, British households will be better insulated from global energy price shocks and able to rely on secure, clean energy.
We have already seen the potential that onshore wind and fixed offshore wind has, and it is fantastic to see it generating more and more of our energy mix. FLOW can potentially take that even further. A common criticism of our continued development of wind turbines is that they only work when the wind blows the right way. Traditionally, our offshore wind farms are situated off our north-east coastline, where the waters are shallower and the current is less temperamental—conditions that work for fixed offshore wind. In the Celtic sea, the wind blows the other way around, but the Atlantic Array was unable to go ahead because of the deeper waters and the strong currents coming in off the Atlantic. FLOW will open up areas such as the Celtic sea, so that we can generate energy no matter which way the wind blows. As it can be deployed in waters deeper than 60 metres, this technology opens up 80% of our offshore wind resource.
FLOW is set to make up to 5 GW of our energy generation by 2030, and 50 GW by 2050. It has the potential to bring in 29,000 jobs and £43.5 billion in gross value added to the UK by 2050, but we must ensure that we are ahead of the curve by not just deploying this technology for energy generation but harnessing its full potential by developing the manufacturing element as well.
The lack of bids in AR5 was incredibly disappointing for developers across the industry. Missing out on a year of development has increased uncertainty in the market at a time when both the EU and United States are offering more support to develop FLOW. It also put at risk £20 billion of short-term investment into the UK, which will be crucial for developing not just FLOW itself but the associated manufacturing and supply chain.
We are currently a global leader. Of the 200 MW of FLOW deployed worldwide, 70 MW can be found here in the UK. However, to maintain our position, we must provide developers with certainty and get this technology off the ground and out to sea. There is concern about FLOW being treated the same as fixed offshore wind in AR5. When fixed offshore wind was at a similar point in its development, it had access to final investment decision enabling for renewables and renewables obligations certificates. FIDER and ROC both provided revenue and business-case certainty, reduced competition and created the conditions for much-needed investment, and we are now reaping those benefits. Fixed-bottom wind farms were able to trial different cutting-edge technologies and take higher risks, where they could accurately model best-case and worst-case scenarios.
FLOW is currently in a similar situation. Pre-commercial projects in the UK need to be able to trial different approaches. FLOW will reach price parity with fixed, but with this new complex technology, it cannot be all about price at this stage in its development journey. As one industry expert observed at our last meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea:
“We have to stop obsessing about cost reduction for a technology that has not yet been deployed at scale, that if we support it to get it going like we did for fixed wind, costs will fall. Cost reduction occurs by deployment of technology, not the passing of time.”
The administrative strike price offered today for AR6, alongside the announcement that offshore wind will get its own pot, provides the Government with the potential to unlock a record level of investment in FLOW. To ensure we achieve that potential, I ask that the budget for offshore wind in AR6 is large enough that it is not consumed by one project, so that we can see as many eligible projects as possible get afloat.
That is counterbalanced by the need to ensure that the budget, to be announced next March, is not set so tightly that it forces violent competition during this fledgling stage of FLOW’s development. Today’s AR6 announcement is warmly welcomed by the industry and means we still have the opportunity to hit 5 GW by 2030, to safeguard those stepping-stone projects, and to cement our position as a global leader. It is also crucial to rebuilding confidence in the existing FLOW development pipeline. Now that we have the administrative strike price, I would welcome the bringing forward of AR6 for FLOW technology so that we can keep pressing to get FLOW afloat and minimise the delays caused by AR5.
Developing FLOW turbines and substructures is a considerable engineering endeavour, as substructures alone can be up to 80 metres across and weigh thousands of tonnes, with turbine heights expected to reach as high as 300 metres, as tall as the Shard. The manufacture and assembly of components will therefore need significant port requirements if the UK is to seize the first mover advantage. The £160 million floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, known as FLOWMIS, which opened for bids this spring, is welcome, and the industry looks forward to seeing a fair share coming to key Celtic sea ports. However, funding decisions should be made on FLOWMIS as quickly as possible to allow our ports and supply chain to gear up for this huge opportunity, along with a strategic overview to ensure that ports work collaboratively to optimise supply chain expertise.
Developers also need certainty on leasing rounds to secure the sites they need to develop a full business case and make applications for future allocation round auctions. The recent update from the Crown Estate on the steps it is taking to increase transparency through the auction process was welcome. However, there remains uncertainty on the timelines for the leasing round, and it now appears leases will not be awarded until later in 2024. At this stage of technology development, it is essential that innovation projects start their journey now, if they are to succeed and help grow a flourishing UK supply chain. Initial opportunities need to be maximised to develop the capabilities to secure the economic benefits of the subsequent large-scale FLOW projects so that we can maximise exports to the growing global market in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee. He could not join us today, but he has done a huge amount of work to support FLOW and the projects potentially coming onshore in south Wales, where community engagement has ensured that they are now hopefully ready to bid straight into AR6 and proceed. The Committee recently released “Floating Offshore Wind in Wales”, which is a relevant document for this debate. I was glad to see its recommendation for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to work with the Crown Estate to provide visibility beyond the current leasing round and to bring out a strategy as to how it will be delivered.
Although I welcome the Government’s response to the report that the “Powering Up Britain” energy security plan already sets out the steps that they are taking, it would be good to see a more strategic lead on the development of FLOW, especially in the Celtic sea, where it is a brand-new technology. We need to look at the development of FLOW strategically, particularly in the Celtic sea and at a national level. We must work on the main prize, which is the gigawatt arrays and getting the demonstrators that are ready to proceed afloat.
Far too much time and energy is being spent in my constituency on the distraction of the seven turbines of White Cross. The time it takes to get these projects afloat means that early decisions are out of date by the time we get to crucial decisions. Indeed, the controversial White Cross project due to come ashore in my North Devon constituency may have only been able to secure a plug-in point at Yelland when it applied back in 2021, but National Grid seems to think now that it would be possible to connect at Alverdiscott, where the majority of the other projects coming into England will plug in. However, I suggest that this hugely unpopular project at White Cross, which has now attracted more than 500 objections from across North Devon, including from our Biosphere, Natural England and an energy expert, will never get through planning. Community consultation and engagement are vital for such projects to succeed. This project is being bulldozed through my community, taking up vital local authority planning time when planning is the No. 1 reason that development of all types is delayed in North Devon.
In its objection to the development, Natural England said it still has fundamental concerns about the application as currently submitted. It also asks that the application is put on hold until further information and evidence are provided. I hope that someone can look more strategically at the Celtic sea, incorporate White Cross into the main projects and consider the whole Celtic sea project as one national infrastructure project, rather than subjecting small planning authorities to this amount of additional work. Indeed, we should learn from what happened down the east coast and secure one cable corridor in the Celtic sea, probably a split into Pembroke and Alverdiscott. We do not need one into Yelland as well. We should recognise that areas that rely on tourism are potentially less receptive to cables landing in beach car parks and to reduced income for multiple businesses in the area. I hope the Minister can bring whatever powers his Department has to bear to ensure that White Cross, if it goes ahead, delivers proper community benefits, fully recompenses the community for the inevitable damage to our core current industry, and shows more respect to the community of North Devon that I represent than its engagement programme has to date.
I set up the APPG for the Celtic sea to bring a strategic overview to the development of FLOW. That is not only about the process of getting the turbines afloat, which is obviously the priority, but looking further down the line to the supply chain, where cabling will land, the use of our marine areas, the environmental concerns, the operation and maintenance of the turbines once they are afloat, and how we service what should be an enormous industry in our region.
As has been seen with the proposed White Cross development in my constituency, many people who are otherwise supportive of the development of FLOW are concerned when it has an outsized and unnecessary impact on the local environment and businesses. It is crucial as we move forward that cabling routes are planned for the 250 turbines to minimise the disruption of blue carbon locked into the seabed, and we need to continue to focus on that long-term objective of getting the 250 turbines afloat.
Similarly, consideration needs to be taken for local industries, such as fishing, and of the effect that turbines will have on marine wildlife, such as seabirds. It is certainly not the case of supporting one of those things over the other, but by considering the development as a whole, we can minimise the impact the turbines and associated activities will have and can ensure that we develop clean green energy with community support.
As I have laid out, FLOW will be key to our secure and sustainable energy future. While I welcome today’s AR6 administrative strike price, I reiterate my ask that the AR6 for FLOW specifically—if at all possible—is brought forward. There is a concern that even the one- year delay may cause a far greater delay to these projects due to international supply chain pressures. We cannot lose our first mover advantage and watch development of this exciting technology float overseas. I ask the Government to consider the Celtic sea development as a national infrastructure project so that we can consider it as a whole and bring the benefits to all our communities in the south-west and in Wales as swiftly as possible. Clear long-term plans are the best thing for the industry and the other industries that rely on our beautiful coastal areas.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on not only securing the debate, but all her work on raising the issue of offshore wind and floating offshore wind.
It was shocking and disappointing that the Government were not nimble and responsive enough with the industry to attract any bids for floating offshore wind in the last round, AR5, thus losing a year in the race to tackle climate change and to get ahead in the worldwide race to develop renewables. The Irish made the necessary adjustments, and they had a successful bid. I am not saying that we should always be in hock to manufacturers, but we need to listen to the people who will develop the renewable forms of energy, and co-operate, getting clear messages out so that they feel that the Government have a clear strategy and want manufacturers to be here, or they will be off somewhere else, as we saw clearly with Ireland on the border.
I will not dwell on that now; I would rather look to the future to see what needs to be done for us as the UK to get the most out of the development of floating offshore wind. We in the UK are well placed to grasp the opportunities and to reap the rewards that the development of floating offshore wind offers. Furthermore, it offers us a real opportunity to reinvigorate areas of the country where industry has declined in recent years, the very areas where we have deep ports and industrial base, and have for a long time been concerned about the decline of traditional industries. They are well suited to be leading the way on floating offshore wind.
In south-west Wales, for example, we have not only the potential in the Celtic sea, but the two ports, Milford Haven and Port Talbot, offering deep waters, plenty of space and a strong industrial base. Between them, we have my constituency of Llanelli, with its strong traditions of engineering firms and metal industries producing a huge range of components, from cables and bearings to complex equipment for the automotive and other sectors.
If the Government get this right, there is much potential for jobs in FLOW—the abbreviation the hon. Member for North Devon used for floating offshore wind—and the supply chain. Indeed, the floating offshore wind taskforce said that FLOW might support 30,000 jobs by the end of the decade. A report by Opergy in 2022 highlighted that with the right strategy, that could be as many as 67,000 by 2040. The report also noted that to get that jobs bonus, the Government will need to be proactive in addressing the skills gaps. To grasp the opportunities, we need a grim determination and a coherent industrial strategy from Government.
Here in the UK, we have this tremendous potential for floating offshore wind, as we are surrounded by sea, with plenty of strong winds. Floating offshore wind has the advantage of being able to be deployed further out, in deeper waters, where there are stronger and more consistent winds, and where it is too deep for fixed turbines. Furthermore, away from these islands, 80% of the world’s potential offshore wind energy is in fact in deeper waters. Therefore, the potential for export of FLOW technology and components is significant.
The fact that we have several demonstration projects operational, such as Kincardine and Hywind, also puts the UK in a good position to be a world leader. The UK can only grasp the full benefits of developing FLOW, however, if we get ahead of the game and become the country that is exporting the turbine technology and the components, rather than letting other countries get ahead, offering greater certainty and incentives to lure investors. Otherwise, we will find ourselves importing the very components that we could have been manufacturing here.
Unfortunately, the UK invests a lower percentage of GDP than our competitors, such as France, Germany and the US, and we spend a lower percentage of GDP on research and development. What we need to attract investment, and research and development is certainty, along with a clear strategy from Government. First, we need that strong commitment by Government to ramp up investment in FLOW at scale. For that, we need a generous budget in AR6 to allow a number of projects to go ahead. We need the scale so that companies see that it is worth while to invest in component factories in the UK. Scale will bring prices down and make investment economically viable. Companies need to see that more projects are definitely on the horizon. We need certainty, enthusiasm and commitment now, before those companies go elsewhere. We also need long-term clarity on the Celtic sea seabed leasing.
We need investment in our ports now. There is real concern in the industry that the ports are not being developed quickly enough and that investment needs to be much greater. We must recognise that they need huge capital expenditure now and that the revenue will not come until later through the FLOW projects. Although £160 million in grant funding is available through the FLOW manufacturing investment scheme, the FLOW taskforce has identified that some £4 billion will be needed for FLOW ports, so there needs to be a support mechanism for ports to manage that. There need to be interim measures now to ensure progress at pace and the development of a revenue support scheme to give long-term certainty and create assets that will attract investors.
Turning to the national grid, it is estimated that we will need to build some six times as much capacity in the next 10 years as we have in the last 10. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the challenges, but perhaps he could outline what steps he is taking to ensure that we have the capacity and skills for that vital development to take place. It is crazy to continue with a situation where companies are being paid to turn onshore wind turbines off simply because the capacity is not there to transport the cheap electricity to the densely populated areas where it is needed. The challenge to the grid capacity posed by FLOW is enormous, so I would be pleased to hear what the Government are doing in this respect.
Then, sadly, we come to our steel industry. If it were not so tragic, would be farcical. We have had the devastating news from Tata that it wants to close the blast furnaces in Port Talbot, followed a few days later by the news from Scunthorpe that British Steel have also proposed closing the blast furnace. Just when we want to invest in manufacturing the components for FLOW, we are losing the capacity to produce our own steel, and we will have to import more. It is no good saying that this is a green measure, as we know that iron ore will be being smelted with the same blast furnace process elsewhere in the world, quite likely with lower environmental standards. We lose jobs, there is no environmental benefit, it is a threat to our security, and we are more vulnerable to price fluctuations in the steel market, which will have an impact on our ability to manufacture the components for FLOW. Yes, we welcome investment in the electric arc furnaces, but that capacity is needed simply to try to mop up some of the 800 million tonnes of used steel that we export for recycling. Some grades of steel can only be produced in the blast furnace process at present. We need the investment in the technologies of the future to green those processes so that we can produce all the grades of steel that we need in the UK.
Then we come to the railway. The Government have a sorry record on the railway west of Cardiff. When Labour left office in 2010, we had committed to electrify the railway west of Cardiff at least as far as Swansea. Then the Conservative Government cancelled it west of Cardiff. After lobbying by MPs, the Government then relented and agreed to electrify to Swansea, but then they cancelled it again. Contrary to what the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), said one day at the Dispatch Box—that it is not worth doing because it would not save time—it absolutely is worth doing to help reach net zero by using electricity from renewables, including FLOW, instead of dirty diesel. That will offer an opportunity to upgrade the line not just to Port Talbot, which is now clearly urgent, but on through Llanelli to Pembrokeshire.
To sum up, we have a unique opportunity now to become a world leader in floating offshore wind, bringing down energy costs, cutting emissions, and creating jobs in places like Llanelli. But it needs clear commitment and strategy from Government. I would be very grateful if the Minister could set out in detail what his Government are doing to ensure a sufficient scale of development to attract investment in the UK supply chain, enable rapid enough development of the port infrastructure in Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire, retain primary steelmaking in the UK, ensure the timely development of grid capacity and ensure that we have the skilled workforce we need for the green jobs of the future.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate and allowing us to have the opportunity to talk about floating offshore wind.
I really enjoy coming to Westminster Hall, where we can have a conversation in which we largely agree. In the main Chamber, it is not often that Conservative Members will stand up and I will agree entirely with the content of the speeches they make, but I think we are all pointing in the same direction on floating offshore wind; we all have the same ambitions for it.
Currently, two out of four of the floating wind groups in the world are in Scotland. That is a pretty amazing statistic, and it is amazing how much better it could be. With the calls on AR6, the more we ensure that that happens as quickly as possible, so that we do not lose any more of the time that has been lost because of the farcical issues with AR5 and so that these projects have the confidence, ability and agreements with Government in place to go ahead, the more likely we are to be able to capitalise on this technology.
There are an awful lot of moving pieces—that was not meant to be a pun—in relation to this. An awful lot of things have to come together to ensure that it is as successful as possible. We have heard mention of grid connections: I would push the Minister again to ensure that, whatever happens with floating offshore wind, or, in fact, offshore wind in general, as much pressure as possible is put on to ensure that those grid connections are delivered timeously. Having spoken to a number of organisations that are leading the way on renewables, I think that not being able to get those grid connections is genuinely putting a number of the projects at risk. In some cases, the issue is communication, rather than the length of time. The length of time is not ideal—in fact, it is pretty bad—but if they will not even come back to say when the connection could be made, that causes problems. Even an increase in the communication on that would help investor confidence and would help with some of the final decision making needed in order for the project to go ahead.
Mention was made of some of the work being done here, and I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon that the budget needs to be large enough for multiple projects to go ahead. We have done incredibly well with ScotWind. Some of the clauses and requirements that were put in by the Scottish Government related to local content and developers having to ensure that they proved the work that they were doing with it. It is incredibly important: most people do not see Aberdeen as some sort of manufacturing hub, but the Minister will know very well that an awful lot of manufacturing goes on in and around Aberdeen. People see us as an oil and gas capital—an energy capital—but we make plenty of widgets, often for offshore work. A lot of that work is incredibly transferable as an awful lot of the incredibly precise instruments that are used for managing and measuring offshore oil and gas installations can be used for offshore wind, particularly once we get far away from the coastline.
On the transferability of skills, I understand that there has been something of an agreement between OPITO and the Global Wind Organisation, and a reset around passporting the offshore skills, and accreditations that are available. The relationship has been somewhat fraught in the past, particularly between some of the unions and organisations such as GWO. Anything the Minister could do to ensure that these organisations keep collaborating and working together would be in the interests of his and my constituents and all those around the UK who work in the offshore industry, so that they can use the skills they have already and so that new entrants can join the offshore industry without the need to go through multiple different, yet incredibly similar, training courses. Helicopter ditching training is the same whether someone is working in an offshore wind installation or working on an offshore oil and gas installation. There is very little difference. Anything that can be done to ensure that the passporting of those skills is allowed between the two industries will ensure that we have a better, more flexible workforce. The reality is that there is an awful lot of companies currently working in both spheres. They are working in offshore oil and gas, and they are working in offshore wind and other renewables. Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas will particularly ensure that those two things are incredibly integrated. Just as the companies are working in those spheres, we need the individuals to be able to work in both of those spheres too.
I also urge the Minister to support—I am sure he does—Developing the Young Workforce to ensure that young people in school, particularly in our area of the north-east of Scotland, are not saying, “I’m not going into engineering, because my uncle was made redundant in the oil and gas industry.” I do not want young people to have that concern stopping them pursuing careers in science and technology, which I am quite concerned will happen. I do have a huge amount of confidence in DYW; I do not want to try and take away from that, and I am glad about what it has done. DYW was created as a Sir Ian Wood project, and it has put a link person in each of the secondary schools in the local area to ensure that businesses and secondary schools are linked and that we are creating a workforce for the future. But we need to ensure that science and technology jobs are sold to young people, who should not be scared away by previous family experiences.
In terms of science and technology and development of things, there is the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, and I was on the Bill Committee for the related Bill. I asked for ARIA to focus on renewable technology and on technology that would ensure we are moving towards meeting our climate change objectives, and towards net zero. The Government refused that. I do not imagine the Minister could tell me now, but at some point it would be useful to know whether ARIA has been directed in any sort of way to focus on green technology. It is important that with those cool, new inventions coming out as a result of that Government funding going to ARIA, we consider tackling the most important issue facing the planet today, and ensure that we meet our objectives in relation to that.
I have one last thing to say on jobs and on the transferability of skills. When we are building floating offshore wind, the likelihood is that if you are building a very large floating offshore wind platform, there will be people living out there to take part in the building. It will not be dissimilar to the kinds of routines that people undertake working on an offshore oil and gas installation. They will be doing three weeks on, three weeks off, they will be travelling in helicopters and they will be spending a significant length of time offshore. My constituents and other people working in the offshore industries have transferability of skills. They have a lifestyle set up to work on a three-and-three basis, so they will find it easier to transfer.
We have probably not spoken enough about how— I did make this point to Offshore Energies UK this week—that workforce has got the mindset and the lifestyle. It is not ideal that in Aberdeen we have a lot of women at home looking after the kids while the guy works offshore, but if your husband is working three weeks on, three weeks off, there is very little you can do other than have a part-time job. When we are trying to find that workforce, we need to think about the lifestyle choices that people are making, and realise that there is a workforce in Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire, and there is actually a workforce in a lot of places in, for example, the north of England. People who work offshore will be able to go and do it pretty easily.
I want to focus for a moment on the ownership of the wind that we have. I have been to visit the Kincardine wind farm—I went on a boat, and I was incredibly, unbelievably sick. I have not been on a boat since, and I will not be going on a boat ever again as a result, but it was an amazing thing to see up close—it was really cool. The flexibility of those wind turbines is immensely cool: they are able to turn and tip, and they are remotely controlled. I thought that wind farm was ginormous—the turbines are absolutely huge—but I was told that the ones that we are likely to have further offshore are something like three times the size; they will be huge pieces of engineering equipment, and it is really important that we have as much local content as possible.
Ports have been mentioned, and we need to work collaboratively with them. It is difficult to do that, particularly because ports have different ownership methods. In Aberdeen, we have a trust port that works on a different basis from some of the commercial ports. I do not envy the Government’s job of having to ensure those collaborations, but I encourage them to do that and ensure that, where a differential offer is needed for different ownership of port models, that is in place so that ports can speak to each other, and so they understand the impetus and the structure that drives and creates them.
Selaine Saxby
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and her speech. Does she agree that, because we do not have the same learned past and piecemeal development, the Celtic sea is like a blank canvas, so there is an opportunity to take learning from elsewhere? We do not want ports to replicate each other, but they should work collaboratively to get momentum behind these projects.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. That is exactly what needs to happen: one port should focus on one thing and another port should focus on another thing. I know the Government do not like to pick winners, but encouraging ports to work together collaboratively is not about squashing competition; it is about ensuring that these projects happen. I completely agree with the hon. Lady on that.
We previously called for tax relief or a subsidy scheme, like the US and the EU have, to encourage green energy companies to invest. It is pretty shocking that the Government of Malaysia own more of the UK’s offshore wind capacity than UK public bodies. I think UK public bodies should own it, but one of the issues is that pension funds have not had the flexibility to invest in a lot of renewable technology. Anything the Minister can do to push the Chancellor to ensure that pension funds have the extra flexibility to invest in green tech would be incredibly important. We know that these things will make money; they are technologies of the future.
In the North sea, we have the gold standard for offshore health and safety. We have been through incredible tragedies such as Piper Alpha, and therefore have incredibly high health and safety standards in the North sea. I would like much more floating wind to be developed in the UK, not just because it would be great for jobs and tax revenue, but because those incredibly high safety standards would be embedded at the very beginning of the expansion of this technology. When we sell it around the world, people will look at what we have done here and, hopefully, embed the highest possible safety standards in all floating offshore wind anywhere around the world. Floating offshore wind does not have exactly the same issues as offshore oil and gas, but it is still very important that we have the best possible safety standards.
On consistency and certainty for companies, I am concerned that the UK Government’s direction of travel on things such as AR5, and the Prime Minister’s statements about cutting back climate change targets, including on net zero, have affected investor confidence. Since I became an MP, all that the energy companies have asked of me is that they have certainty, particularly on things such as tax regimes. Companies are genuinely finding it difficult to convince investors to invest in the United Kingdom, because investors are concerned that the Government will stop backing these things. The more positive statements the Government can make about things such as floating offshore wind, the more confidence they will give the industry to make final investment decisions and ensure that as many of these projects as possible go ahead, whether in the North sea or the Celtic sea.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela.
We have had a short but very good debate, and the enthusiasm for floating offshore wind has come across loud and clear. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), was right to say that there is a lot of agreement across the board about what we should be doing.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate and on her very good speech. All the speakers so far have made a really good case for why we need a national industrial strategy that pulls together all these different levers so that we can get jobs, skills, infrastructure and energy all working in the right way and in the right places. Labour would certainly do that in government, and I ask the Minister to consider doing it as well.
The hon. Member for North Devon talked very politely about AR5—indeed, we will all talk very politely about it—but it was clearly a catastrophe. I would be interested in the Minister’s views about the hon. Member’s suggestion that we try to speed up the next process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) also made an excellent speech—my grandfather was from Llanelli, where he worked in a tinplate factory all his career. She talked about all the issues to do with floating offshore wind, as well as about steel, which was very interesting, and about the need for primary steel to remain in this country. Again, I would be interested in the Minister’s views on that.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North talked enthusiastically, as she always does, about a range of issues, and she made some good points. The passporting of skills from oil and gas to renewables is really important. Somewhere in the mix, there is a big piece of work to do on that. We also need to look at things such as apprenticeships and how they work, because they are not flexible enough for today’s environment.
At the end of her speech, the hon. Member said that the industry in general just is not confident about investing in the UK, and that is absolutely at the core of all this. Even though I have been in this role for only eight weeks, the sense I have is that every single person needs stability—we need stability, we need certainty and we need things not to chop and change. When the Prime Minister changes a target, as he did for the automotive sector, it sends a message to wider industry, prompting it to ask, “Why would we invest here when we’re not really sure what is going to happen?”
Going back to floating offshore wind, moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewables is a huge opportunity, and floating offshore wind is at the absolute cutting edge of that change. As has been said, the technology represents a once-in-a-generation chance to create good, skilled jobs, bring down energy bills and put the UK at the forefront of the world.
The hon. Member for North Devon made the point that the price jump in energy was caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but of course the UK was worst affected because of our dependence on fossil fuels. So this is an opportunity to tackle that problem.
Analysis from the Global Wind Energy Council suggests that 80% of the world’s potential offshore wind resources are in deeper waters, which fixed turbines simply cannot reach, as the hon. Member said. Floating offshore wind allows us to capture the power of the stronger, more consistent winds that blow further out at sea, to harness the unique advantages that our island status affords us and to breathe new life into economies and communities around the Celtic and North seas.
With innovation, the cost of FLOW could be below the Government’s low wholesale price forecast as soon as 2032. There are loads of innovations in this space, such as artificial reefs, which can potentially help to enhance the marine environment as well. So there is a lot to be positive about.
We have already touched on the contracts for difference, which really was an energy security disaster: there was not a single offshore wind project bid, and two viable offshore projects missed out on long-term funding, adding to the cost of energy bills for families up and down the country. Of course, that catastrophe was avoidable. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said that the Irish Government managed to navigate their way through this. Recently, at a conference, I talked with the energy Minister in Ireland, who explained what they did. Basically, they are more agile and more responsive to the needs of industry, and the Government have hopefully learned lessons from that. Of course, we welcomed the news yesterday that the Government have set the strike price for the next round of bidding, but what will matter for the success of AR6 are the as yet undecided elements of the framework: how big the pot will be, and how the Government will support the floating offshore supply chain in the meantime. It would be helpful if the Minister responded to some of those issues.
As we have said, new floating offshore wind projects are vital to our move away from fossil fuels, and they can and should be the source of good British jobs. However, the Government’s neglect of Britain’s infra- structure and industry means that much of the benefit of projects that do manage to secure funding is likely to be felt elsewhere. Their allergy to strategic industrial direction has meant that the largest floating offshore project in the UK had its foundations made in Spain and its turbines made and assembled in Rotterdam, and that the finished project was simply towed into Scottish waters. Jobs that could and should come to Britain are being held back by the fact that our critical infrastructure is not fit to support them. In the UK, we lack a clear route from project design to plugging into the grid—the grid has been mentioned before and will be mentioned again, and it is mentioned by every single industry representative I meet.
Our ports need major investment and upgrading to allow the manufacture and assembly of turbine components and their bases at the required size. Floating offshore turbines are mammoth structures, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North knows from her perilous trip to see one, and we need to be making them in the UK. There is great potential to revitalise port infrastructure in this country, and in Scotland and the Celtic sea, for fixed and floating offshore wind. The floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, which closed for applications at the end of the summer, and which represents £160 million to be spent across the whole UK, will not make the difference we need without serious strategic investment in our ports alongside it. We need our ports to be advanced for the most cutting-edge technologies to make the strongest difference to jobs and to power generation.
The Conservatives have had 13 years to show they can get a grip on the move to clean energy. Labour’s strategy is to drive this country’s floating offshore wind industry forward. Labour’s national mission for clean power by 2030 has set ambitious targets to rapidly expand the offshore wind industry as a whole, giving us 5 GW of floating wind power by 2030. We recognise the leading role that Britain can and should play in pioneering this technology, which is why we will help to accelerate floating offshore wind deployment and manufacturing. The national wealth fund will deliver renewable-ready ports, alongside good, well-paid jobs, hand in hand with the private sector.
Industry is still waiting for the Government to spend £160 million on ports; Labour will invest £1.8 billion over the Parliament to make sure our ports are renewable-ready and fit for the future, and we will use Great British Energy—a new, publicly owned energy company—to invest in floating offshore wind, so that Britain can lead the world. The market for floating wind is very new, meaning that Great British Energy can drive the sector forward, where the Conservatives have sat and left it alone. That will help to finally overturn the stagnation and offshoring of British jobs and manufacturing that has been caused by the neglect of the British wind power industry.
I hope the Minister can answer a few questions. Can he outline how the floating offshore wind supply chain is being supported in the absence of new projects in the past year? Can he update us on FLOWMIS? When will the allocations be given out? Can he ensure that the funding will be allocated fairly across the country, including in Wales, where there is such huge potential?
We talked about skills, and I would like the Minister to suggest that the Government might consider—perhaps in the autumn statement—some changes to the apprenticeship scheme, which would be helpful, and which Labour has called for. The grid is the single biggest obstacle we need to remove, and Labour has set out plans for how we will speed up the removal of barriers. We will need four times as much grid infrastructure to be built in the next seven years as has been built in the last 30. It would be good if the Minister could tell us how he will do that.
Where the Conservatives have cast floating offshore wind off to drift, Labour will drive it forward. Where the Conservatives are letting global leadership on FLOW technology slip through our fingers, Labour will pick up the ball. Where the Conservatives have left critical infrastructure such as ports gather dust, Labour will see them renewable-ready at long last. People around the country, and across all political parties, want to see the potential of the British people and of our island’s unique geography realised. I would very much appreciate hearing from the Minister how he will do that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair this afternoon, Dame Angela. After quite an exciting political week, it is a pleasure to end with such an—on the whole—agreeable and positive debate in Westminster Hall. I think we all agree on the potential of floating offshore wind and the huge contribution it makes to the United Kingdom, our economy and our drive towards net zero, energy security and independence.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby)—she is a friend—on securing this important debate. She has been a vocal champion of floating offshore wind at all levels—from her constituency through to the wider Celtic sea region—in her role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea. She rightly highlighted the benefits that this new technology could bring to the United Kingdom as a whole.
Far be it from me to disagree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), but the United Kingdom is actually one of the world leaders in floating offshore wind. The world’s first floating offshore wind farm was built in UK waters. Since then, we have built a strong base of new projects and development to grow our industry still further. Indeed, in the oil and gas industry, which has already been referenced by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)— my constituency neighbour—and which surrounds our constituencies, there are opportunities for floating wind to play a crucial role in decarbonising North sea production, by accessing deeper waters and providing electricity to those platforms.
Our 80 MW of currently installed floating wind capacity builds on our world-leading status in fixed-bottom offshore wind deployment—not that anyone would know it, listening to the Labour party. We have over 14 GW of installed capacity—the most in Europe—with the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest offshore wind farms in the world generating power right now. Contrary to the Labour party’s castigation of this Government’s record, we have gone from only 7% of renewable electricity on the grid in 2010—when Labour left office—to 48% in quarter 1 of last year. We have decarbonised faster than any other G7 nation, at the same time as growing the economy.
The opportunity for floating offshore wind is significant. The Global Wind Energy Council has said:
“The market is nascent, but could be huge: 80% of the world’s offshore wind resource potential lies in waters deeper than 60m.”
That is too deep for fixed-bottom wind. The UK’s Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult’s Floating Offshore Wind Centre of Excellence has estimated that floating offshore wind has
“the potential to deliver £43.6bn in UK gross value add…by 2050, creating more than 29,000 jobs in the process.”
Our 5 GW ambition recognises that and the potential for floating wind to play a key role in our energy mix as we move steadily towards net zero. We are committed to building on the UK’s position and to placing the UK at the forefront of the development of this exciting new sector. However, we know that 5 GW is a stretching ambition, and we are working hard to create the right environment for investment and to address barriers to deployment.
First, we recognise the crucial importance—raised today by every Member who contributed—of port infra- structure to floating offshore wind. That is why we launched the £160 million floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—or FLOWMIS for short. That funding will help leverage the vital investment needed in port infrastructure to deploy floating offshore wind at large scale. FLOWMIS closed for applications on 27 August, and I can reassure Members that we are assessing all the bids we received.
Secondly, we recognise the importance of the right support mechanisms through the world-leading and envied contracts for difference scheme. The scheme is looked to worldwide as the model for how to support the deployment of renewables, and CfD auctions have so far awarded contracts totalling over 30 GW of new renewable capacity across all technologies, including around 20 GW of offshore wind. Last year’s allocation round, AR5, was a success story for many technologies, including marine energy and the first three geothermal projects.
However, we recognise the shortfall in fixed-bottom and floating offshore wind, and I acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and others raised at the time and this afternoon. We reflected carefully on the results of AR5, and I trust that today’s announcement detailing the parameters for next year’s allocation round, AR6, demonstrates that we have listened and responded to concerns. The administrative strike price for floating offshore wind has increased from £116 to £176 per MWh—an increase of 52% in real terms from AR5—recognising the unprecedented upward pressure on project costs, which, as we have seen, have affected the industry worldwide. We hope today’s announcement will bring forward viable floating wind projects as we look to boost investment in the industry.
Thirdly, we recognise the importance of a long-term pipeline of projects to give investors the confidence that they need to take long-term decisions. The UK has the largest floating wind pipeline in the world, based on confirmed seabed exclusivity, with around 25 GW already agreed, including through the ScotWind leasing round referenced today and the INTOG process.
Selaine Saxby
Could my hon. Friend clarify something in today’s AR6 announcement? We all know that there were two projects ready to bid in AR5, and at this point there are two projects ready to bid. Now that the strike price seems to be acceptable to all concerned, is there any opportunity for us to accelerate the decision for these two projects and then effectively to have an AR7 for all the projects in the next pipeline, so that we can get these ones afloat?
Andrew Bowie
I understand very much why my hon. Friend wants that to be the case, but we must recognise that one reason for the success of renewables, including in this country, has been the predictable options we have had. Developers are already planning for AR6 in March next year, and bringing the round forward any further could jeopardise it, not amplify it, so we are reluctant to do that. However, I hope the confidence the industry will receive from today’s announcement means that AR6 will be a huge success. We all need it to be, and that is why we took that decision.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Crown Estate is also moving forward with its plans to launch leasing round 5, making available areas of seabed capable of supporting up to 4.5 GW of capacity in the Celtic sea. The Government fully support those plans, which represent the first opportunity for commercial-scale floating offshore wind projects in the region. We also recognise the importance of a long-term pipeline in the Celtic sea beyond leasing round 5. We will continue to work closely with the Crown Estate on that as we seek to realise the full potential and opportunities represented by floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. The Crown Estate is due to make further announcements on its plans before the end of the year.
We recognise the importance of dialogue between industry and Government in driving progress. The floating offshore wind taskforce is co-chaired by industry and Government. Its first report, in March this year—“Industry Roadmap 2040”—has been highly informative in shaping our understanding of the specific demands on port infrastructure needed to support floating wind at scale. The taskforce is currently working on a vision to 2050, due for publication in quarter 2 next year, which will set out the potential prize that floating offshore wind could offer the UK.
We will continue to work closely with industry, through RenewableUK and the Offshore Wind Industry Council, to assess supply chain needs and opportunities for the UK and to develop an industrial growth plan—an IGP—to support the growth of sustainable supply chains.
Kirsty Blackman
On that issue, as I said, Scotland encouraged the conversation between developers and the supply chain. Are the Minister’s Government doing everything they can to ensure that those who are bidding, and winning the bids, are working with the supply chains to get them upskilled as quickly as possible, and to ensure that they can make investments in the confidence that they will be able to create widgets for offshore wind farms?
Andrew Bowie
Widgets being one of the specialties of our region. There is always more we could do, and we should absolutely seek to push the boundaries and work as closely as possible with the industry—in lockstep with it—to ensure that the supply chain in the UK grows, creating the jobs of the future and ensuring that the pieces, the widgets and everything else that is required to develop a successful floating offshore wind industry is created here in the UK, bringing benefit to communities up and down this country.
The floating offshore wind taskforce is an important part of that process, and we now have our industry road map as well. We are working closely with industry to deliver that, but of course there is more that we can, and will, do. The Government are open to any suggestions as to how we improve that relationship more to ensure that we get to the place we need to go.
I was about to address the comments the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made regarding skills. I agreed with every single thing she said, which is not very rare, but it is quite rare. Creating a workforce for the future, for all the energy projects we are embarking on right now, is a personal passion of mine. We need to get young people engaging in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects at school. We need to grow the capacity of our further and higher education institutions to deliver the courses and create the apprenticeships with industry that we will need if we are to get people into the growing energy industry in this country. We need to ensure that the right processes are in place, so that those people who want to transfer, upskill and reskill from existing technologies and industries into new and emerging technologies and industries can do so.
The passporting issue the hon. Lady raised is incredibly important to that journey. As the Nuclear Minister, I am delighted to have set up the nuclear skills taskforce between my Department and the Ministry of Defence, to see what we can do to grow that workforce. Similar work is going on in the renewables sphere, and I am keen to see what we can do to work with the existing oil and gas industry, for example, to transfer skills and make that transfer much easier.
We understand that cost is a challenge for nascent sectors such as floating wind. We are supporting the sector with £31 million of funding, matched by £30 million from industry, through the floating offshore wind demonstration programme to explore innovations to help reduce the cost of deploying floating offshore wind technology. As part of its 2050 vision, the floating offshore wind taskforce is also looking to identify the key enablers of cost reduction and recommend specific actions to address them.
Finally, given my role as the Networks Minister, it would be remiss of me not to mention the grid, networks and connections, which have rightly been raised by all Members present—not a day goes past when another connection issue is not brought to my desk in the Department. We know that these issues are a significant barrier to the deployment of many renewables projects, and a challenge for our energy infrastructure more widely. In July 2022, the Government appointed Nick Winser to the role of electricity networks commissioner, to advise the Government on how to reduce the timeline for transmission network delivery by half. The commissioner’s final recommendations were submitted to the Government and published on 4 August. We welcome his report and are committed to the direction of its recommendations. We have committed to publishing our response to those recommendations and an action plan imminently.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon knows, community engagement, respect and thought-through, sympathetic planning of onshore infrastructure is something I take a keen interest in. For all the reasons I have suggested, decarbonising the grid and increasing capacity are important—in fact, they are vital—but they must be done with respect, sympathy and understanding of local communities and businesses. We must be willing to change, adapt and be flexible in those plans. My hon. Friend knows that, given the role of Ministers in the planning system in England and Wales, I cannot comment on specific projects, including the White Cross farm project that she referenced. However, the developers will have heard her loud and clear today and at other times. A response on community benefits, which she asked for, will also be published imminently.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely and important debate.
Kirsty Blackman
I mentioned the fact that communication from the grid is not always up to scratch. Will the Minister ensure that he does what he can to put pressure on? I know he is working on the speed, but we also need to make sure that communication is improved, so that developers know what is happening and when it is happening—even just when they will hear an answer.
Andrew Bowie
Absolutely. I assure the hon. Lady that I am working hard on that.
I hope I have demonstrated that the Government not only understand the challenges faced by this exciting new sector, but that they are taking concrete action to address them. The opportunity is there for the UK to firmly establish itself as a world leader in floating offshore wind, and we are determined to see this vision and opportunity realised.
Selaine Saxby
I thank all hon. Members for taking part in the debate, and particularly the Minister and his team for their ongoing engagement ahead of AR5. I raised the matter of the strike price 22 times in the Chamber, and I think everyone is well aware of my views on AR5. I hope that we can rectify the issue as we move into AR6 and that the voice of my community of North Devon will be heard, because some of the issues we are dealing with locally will be replicated around the coast. We need to get these things right if communities are to welcome these developments, as they have done up until this point.
We also need to recognise some of the issues in AR6. Yes, we can forecast where this development is, but the planning is being rushed so that a bid can be made in AR6—if it cannot be made in AR6, it may not be made at all. That makes you wonder why those involved are bidding at all if they are not in it for the long term, but also whether we are creating some unintended consequences through the processes we are putting in place. I heard the Minister, but I asked 22 times last time, and I have asked a couple more times in this debate, if the Government might reconsider the speed at which we deliver AR6 for floating offshore wind.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered floating offshore wind.
Heritage Pubs
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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?
Jim Shannon (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.
Marco Longhi
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.
Steve Tuckwell (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 (Marco Longhi) 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.
Justin Madders (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 (Marco Longhi) 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 (Steve Tuckwell) 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.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
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 (Marco Longhi) 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 (Steve Tuckwell) 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 (Jim Shannon), 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 (Lee Rowley) 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 (Justin Madders), 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.
Marco Longhi
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 (Jim Shannon) 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 (Steve Tuckwell) 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 (Justin Madders) 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.