Alex Ballinger
Main Page: Alex Ballinger (Labour - Halesowen)(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to be the promoter of this Bill, on a subject that not only matters deeply to my constituency, but is dear to my own heart. I know that for many colleagues, escaping Westminster to head back to their constituencies is usually the highlight of the week, so to see hon. Members forgo a Friday in their home patches to be here is deeply encouraging, and I thank all those who have taken the time to attend today.
As we have seen over the past few months, private Members’ Bills can come in all shapes and sizes—some extremely contentious, and others narrow and technical. When I was fortunate enough to come third in the private Member’s Bill ballot earlier this year, I was very briefly more popular than I can remember being in some time. I received all manner of helpful advice; some suggested that I take on grand, sweeping constitutional reform, while others suggested fixing something rather closer to home and entirely uncontentious, like dog grooming standards. I decided, however, that I wanted a Bill that could bring people together, and I think there is little that can bring people together more than the importance of our historic pubs.
As a past chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on beer, I confess that I have spent a little time inside our nation’s public houses over the years, conducting what I can only describe as exhaustive, selfless and entirely public-spirited research, if not a constitutional duty. But while I take my beer seriously, I take the future of our historic pubs even more seriously. Behind the warmth, conviviality and the familiar clinking of glasses lies a sobering reality. Today’s debate is not about party politics, because there is far more that unites us than divides us about this subject. It is about whether this Parliament is willing to step in and stop the wanton destruction of our shared history.
For centuries, the British pub has been the beating heart of our communities. Pubs are the social glue that binds our villages, towns, cities and suburbs together. They are places where friendships are forged, birthdays are toasted, wakes are held and where older, perhaps isolated, residents may have their only regular conversation of the week. Yet all too often the planning system treats these irreplaceable institutions as nothing more than convenient plots of land waiting to be cleared for speculative development.
We cannot pretend that this is an abstract, theoretical debate. We know the brutal reality because we saw it happen before our very eyes in Himley, which I now have the honour of representing in Parliament. Just over three years ago, an unbelievable act of destruction shocked the community, and the wider Black Country and Staffordshire, to its core. On the evening of 5 August 2023, flames engulfed the Crooked House. Built in 1765 as a farmhouse before becoming a pub, it had stood for over 250 years, rather longer than the present Palace of Westminster in which we are having this debate today.
Thanks to intense 19th-century coal-mining subsidence, the building settled at a bonkers 15° tilt—three times the lean of the leaning tower of Pisa. It was world famous as “Britain’s wonkiest pub”. A coin could be rolled uphill across the bar counter. Bottles appeared to defy gravity. First-time visitors would take one step inside and swear that the beer had gone straight to their heads. It was an extraordinary monument to the Black Country’s industrial heritage.
The fire was devastating enough, but what followed was an absolute outrage. Barely 48 hours later, before the ashes were cold and before investigators could properly inspect the scene, heavy diggers rolled on to the site. In a matter of hours, more than two-and-a-half centuries of history were flattened into a pile of crushed rubble without planning permission. The perpetrators thought that they could crush a building, fence off the land and wait for the world to move on, but they underestimated the local community.
More than 40,000 people signed petitions that demanded that the Crooked House be rebuilt. South Staffordshire council moved swiftly to serve a binding enforcement notice, ordering the owners to rebuild it brick by brick. That enforcement notice is currently being appealed. Staffordshire police completed an exhaustive criminal investigation and the file now sits with the Crown Prosecution Service, so the appeal against the enforcement notice cannot be heard until the criminal proceedings have been concluded one way or another.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. I remember the outrage from communities all across the Black Country after the pub was demolished in 2023. I share his outrage and that of the communities he mentioned. I notice that there have been difficulties with the process of getting it rebuilt. Does he have an estimate of when the fantastic heritage asset might be rebuilt and when the community can see the crooked pub again?
Mike Wood
As I said, it all depends on how long the Crown Prosecution Service takes to decide whether there is evidence to proceed. The last update I had was about six weeks ago when it said that it was still working on the file and was unable to provide a timeframe. Of course, the community is impatient, and the longer that this drags on the more cynical and frustrated people will be. While clearly the investigation cannot be rushed, we also cannot have any unnecessary delays. I say today, as I said on day one, that the local community is not going to let that go. The enforcement notice that the hon. Gentleman spoke of is legally binding, and the Crooked House must and will rise again from the ashes.
Yet as we pursue justice through the courts, we must ask ourselves the fundamental question: how on earth did the system allow this to happen in the first place? Fighting drawn-out legal battles after the wrecking ball has done its worst is nowhere near good enough. When an irreplaceable 18th-century landmark is destroyed, no amount of enforcement notices can properly recreate the original historic fabric of a building that has grown organically. We have a duty to fix the law so that no other community is robbed of its heritage in that appalling manner.
That is why I have introduced the Bill, which is backed by the Campaign for Real Ale and its 145,000 members as well as the Countryside Alliance and the “Save the Crooked House” campaign. Every single clause of the Bill is designed to close some of the legal loopholes so blatantly exposed in Himley.
Had the Bill been on the statute book in 2023, the Crooked House may still be standing today. It would have made a difference in four specific and possibly decisive ways. First, the Bill would put an end to secret sales. In 2023, the local community had no idea that Marston’s had put the Crooked House on the market until contracts had already been exchanged. It was sold off to buyers who clearly had no intention of running it as a pub. By the time the community found out and tried to do something about it, it was already too late. Clauses 1 to 4 would place a statutory duty on each local planning authority in England to compile and maintain a register of heritage public houses, covering venues that are at least 150 years old or which possess recognised local heritage significance, including heritage interiors.
Mike Wood
That provision is helpful but insufficient, partly because it relies on proactive actions by local authorities, which, as in the case of registering assets of community value, are often taken only once there is a clear threat, by which time it may be too late. Those local listings also do not offer the full protection that heritage pubs need. In particular, they offer little to no protection for heritage interiors.
We are finding that some pub interiors—particularly those from the interwar period and immediately after the second world war—are becoming rarer and rarer. Many of the things that people identify as typical of British pubs are being replaced by, shall we say, more generic dining layouts? It is really important to preserve those features of local heritage, but local listing does not typically help with that, nor does it offer the criminal penalties for unlawful demolition that I think are appropriate.
Clause 9 would provide that at the moment an owner intends to sell a registered pub, they must formally notify the council, which must in turn notify local Members of Parliament, ward councillors and the public so that secret backroom deals behind closed doors would become impossible.
Secondly, the Bill would introduce a genuine community right to buy, extending the positive changes the Government have introduced through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. Because the sale of the Crooked House was shrouded in secrecy, neither the community nor responsible pub operators had any real opportunity to put together a viable bid to keep it trading before it was sold. Under the powers of clauses 9 and 10, during the first 12 months on the market a registered heritage pub could be sold only if the buyer were to enter into a legally binding covenant guaranteeing that it would operate as a pub, or if it were sold to a community group. Community buyers would be granted up to 18 months to complete the purchase.
Alex Ballinger
That is a sensible suggestion. I like the hon. Gentleman’s proposal that the public should be informed about a potential sale—or, indeed, about any other changes listed in the Bill. How does he see such communication happening with the public so that those who are not on the internet can find out about a potential sale and stand up for their pub?
Mike Wood
Local representatives have an important role. Obviously, there are established methods for communicating public notices, but I do not think that anything will replace a good, well organised local campaign by the local Member of Parliament or the local councillors engaging their local communities.
Crucially, adopting the framework of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, if a community group cannot reach an agreement on price with the seller because the seller is demanding an unrealistic, exorbitant price, the price will be determined by an independent valuer. That means that rogue owners would no longer be able to price out local people with inflated asking prices designed purely to force a dereliction narrative.
Thirdly, the Bill establishes immediate interim protection against demolition. When local residents discovered that Crooked House had been sold, local councillor Victoria Wilson moved with great speed to submit an application for statutory listing—but the pub was torched and bulldozed before that application could even be considered. Clauses 5 to 7 resolve such situations by adopting a proven system that has operated successfully in Wales for years; I understand that the Welsh Labour Government introduced it 20 years ago. Under this Bill, the moment an application to list a registered heritage pub is submitted, it automatically receives interim listed building status. Overnight, it is treated in planning law as a listed building, stopping bulldozers in their tracks and stopping the interiors from being ripped out, while the experts do their work.
Mike Wood
The Bill is very much designed to complement and work alongside the measures in the Localism Act 2011. I am proud that the then coalition Government introduced the system of assets of community value in the Act; this Government then extended some of those provisions in their English devolution Act. The Bill will not replace or supplant any of those measures, but it will recognise that communities have that power—they have generally gone through what is still not an easy process to navigate only when they have been aware of a clear and direct threat, by which time, as we saw with the Crooked House, it can be far too late for that to matter. The Bill therefore extends some of the provisions to cover all the heritage pubs on the heritage pub register.
Clause 8 includes a fair compensation mechanism for owners if listing is ultimately refused, ensuring proper balance and property safeguards—again, copying the system introduced in Wales.
Finally, clause 11 would kill speculative development at source. It creates a strict presumption against planning permission for change of use of any registered pub. Clearly, the national planning policy framework has raised the bar for change of use for heritage buildings and many pubs, but having the protection in primary legislation—clearly in an Act of Parliament—will be more effective. We have all seen cases in which our own local councils and planning authorities have looked at some of the provisions of the NPPF that we thought were safeguards against inappropriate development and decided that those were not as strong as we had imagined or as we had thought they were intended to be when introduced. The Bill overcomes that by putting the presumption into primary legislation so that permission cannot be granted unless the owner can prove that the property has been marketed at an independent and fair price and no pub operator or community bid has emerged. If the buyers of the Crooked House had known that they could never convert the site into an alternative development or waste depot, I do not think they would have touched it, and it would have remained in hands dedicated to pulling pints.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member is being very generous with interventions; I do appreciate that. I thank him for recognising that the national policy planning framework has made positive changes to the heritage pub standards and allowed them to stay open. Before he finishes, will he tell me if he has considered anywhere in his Bill upwards-only rent reviews—whereby landlords, potentially of heritage and other pubs, are able only to increase rents even if market conditions make it more difficult for pubs, putting a real financial pressure on the managers and operators of those pubs?
Mike Wood
That is not directly part of the Bill, but it is an issue that affects a large number of tenanted pubs across the country, whether heritage or more modern, and is certainly something the Pubs Code Adjudicator needs to look at. The Government may wish to consider whether that needs to change at the next review of the pubs code.
The hon. Gentleman may have been optimistic in suggesting that I was drawing to a close. Turning to the Treasury Bench and the Minister, let me say that I know how the machinery of Government works. I know that somewhere in the departmental briefcase today is a neatly typed briefing folder with the word “resist” stamped across the top. Civil servants and officials are famously ingenious at finding 27 procedural reasons why a sensible idea cannot possibly be enacted on a Friday from a private Member’s Bill that they did not think of. They will agonise over definitions and claim that existing powers are entirely sufficient, even when the rubble of our heritage proves that they are not.
I say in all sincerity to the Minister, who I know cares deeply about this issue, that she does not need to resist the Bill. This issue should be above narrow party divides. I do not want to panic our Liberal Democrat colleagues, but I make an open, unreserved—one may even call it comprehensive—offer to the Government and colleagues on all sides of the House to support the Bill on Second Reading today and let us work collaboratively ahead of Committee stage. If hon. Members across the House agree on the central premise that our historic pubs are precious, that there are gaps in the current protections and that we should act to close those gaps before even more valued heritage pubs are lost forever, then the right and proper course today is to grant the Bill its Second Reading and work with me to make it the best Bill it can be.
The Second Reading debate is when we discuss the principle of the Bill; the detailed scrutiny belongs in Committee. Let us be entirely realistic about the parliamentary arithmetic: under the Standing Orders, the Government will have a clear, 11 to six majority on the Public Bill Committee. They will have complete control. If Ministers feel that certain definitions in clause 12 need refinement, that the timelines in clause 9 need tweaking or that the council duties in clause 1 need streamlining, the Government have the votes to agree those amendments with ease. I stand ready to work with the Minister, line by line, clause by clause, to agree amendments that give the Government the comfort they need while giving our heritage pubs the protection the public demands. What we cannot do, and what our constituents will not forgive us for doing, is to walk away, hide behind procedural excuses and leave the door wide open for the next historic pub to be bulldozed on a Sunday night.
Nothing we do today can undo the heartbreak felt across my constituency and the wider region when the Crooked House fell, but by passing this Bill we can ensure that its enduring legacy is a legal shield that protects every beloved historic pub across England for generations to come.
Adam Jogee
The hon. Gentleman talks about custard pies—that was a very watery custard intervention. We like full-throated creamy custard here. [Interruption.] He says that I have spoken too long; I have not spoken long enough. You gave me an early Christmas present by calling me first, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall use the opportunity provided by you, and by my constituents in sending me here. If the hon. Gentleman sits back and relaxes for a little longer, he will hear a little more about what I think and how we should proceed. Whether we agree may be a different matter, but I am sure he will enjoy it none the less.
Our pubs play an important role in our international relations. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is a shadow Foreign Office Minister, so I hope he will listen to this part of my speech with the attention he is known for. On Australia Day 2025, alongside members of Silverdale parish council, I welcomed the then Australian high commissioner, the hon. Stephen Smith, to the Bush Inn in Silverdale. As the House will know—because I suspect that, like the hon. Member for Spelthorne, it pays attention to everything I say in this House—our town was the birthplace of the sixth Prime Minister of Australia, Joseph Cook.
When Cook returned to the United Kingdom as Australia’s high commissioner here in the 1920s, he celebrated in the very same pub that we took Mr Smith to. My team and I and many other local people, not least the parish council, have traced Cook’s local story—rather unsurprisingly, he was a miner down the pit—and we raised a toast to his legacy. The only problem with Cook is that he started off in the Labour party and ended up as a Tory, but nobody is beyond redemption.
Another much-loved pub is the Gresley Arms on Alsagers Bank, which is known for having the best views in Staffordshire. The fantastic beer garden is an excellent way to spend a summer evening or, as my crew is used to, a final stop after a long day of pounding the pavements, as we get to enjoy one of our heritage public houses. The Albert first opened as a beer house in 1861—I hope this is enough heritage for the hon. Member for Spelthorne. It is run by Emma, and it is a great community pub. In fact, I took another Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, the hon. George Brandis, there on his visit to Newcastle-under-Lyme. I look forward to taking you to both pubs when you come to see us, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is just another example of how our pubs play such an important role in all that we do. I should say that the secretary of my constituency Labour party, Alderman Sylvia Butler, is a loyal and devoted champion of the Albert—long may that continue.
There are so many pubs that mean so much to our community. I would happily spend all day speaking about all of them, but I do not want to upset the hon. Member for Spelthorne any more. I welcome all my colleagues from all parties to come and join us for a pint back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme—it could also be a soda and lime, or anything else. Whether it is the Archer in Wolstanton or the Westbury Tavern—
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech. He has talked about the many excellent beers available in his constituency. Does he know that elsewhere in the west midlands, he can find fantastic cider in Roberto’s bar, which is right in the heart of Halesowen? Can he talk about the other alcohol options that are available not just in heritage pubs, but in pubs all across the country? It is quite a surprise that the third-best cider pub in the country is found in Halesowen.
Adam Jogee
I am enjoying this, as I think has been said by others before. My hon. Friend makes a very important intervention, and he is right.
People can get all manner of refreshments at heritage public houses in all parts of the country. I am not sure what refreshments you would choose if you were having some of the Spelthorne watery custard, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you can certainly get a good, cold pint. You could also get a bitter lemon, which I know was ordered by the former Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, when she was at the Rovers Return. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) has gone, but we have talked about Emmerdale. I remember a clip of Baroness Thatcher at the Rovers Return in which she ordered a bitter lemon. That is just one example of the things people could drink there.
My observation of Mrs Thatcher does not go much further than that—I saw that quizzical look from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge)—do not worry. There is certainly a range of things. I am surprised that the Conservative party does not want to take a moment to talk about this, because it supposedly believes in choice. The great thing about our heritage pubs is that not only are there so many up and down the country that we can choose to go to, but, when we get there, the choices are infinite.
I am not a cider fan myself, but I wish cider drinkers in Halesowen and other parts of the west midlands very well indeed.
Let me take us back to the Archer in Wolstanton, the Westbury Tavern, the Swan in Betley, the Boat and Horses, and the Sneyd Arms on Higherland—the list goes on and on, as my speech is doing this morning, unfortunately for the hon. Member for Spelthorne. At the end of the day, our pubs are about so much more than somewhere to have a pint, a cuppa, a Coke, a juice, or the many other options that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) has allowed me to reference this morning. They provide an opportunity to see familiar faces and catch up. In other words, they make us feel like we are part of something—a neighbourhood, a village—and it is so important to our collective and individual happiness and wellbeing that that is so. We will all have heard stories from our communities of people who notice that someone has not been at the bar or has not been in recently, and that person is often checked up on. Most of the time, it is for a positive reason, but some of the time it is not, and without the connection and sense of community that pubs provide, people would not be able to do that.
I would like to say a couple more things about how we can support and protect our heritage pubs. The first is by ensuring that our town centres are safe and secure places to travel, to walk and to be in. Local people in Newcastle-under-Lyme are rightly furious that in recent times, antisocial behaviour and criminality have emerged far too frequently around the sunken roundabout and particular hotspots in town. I hope that all the relevant authorities, from borough and county councils to Staffordshire police, get a grip of this situation and ensure that all measures—including those introduced by this Government—are used and used quickly. Our town is a wonderful place to live, learn and work, and we cannot allow it to be blighted by crime and antisocial behaviour, not now and not ever. I am sick and tired of women in Newcastle-under-Lyme telling me that they do not feel safe going into our town; I do not want any woman in my family, or who I represent, to feel that way. We will not successfully protect and defend our heritage pubs if people are not going to spend their money there because they do not feel safe. I hope the relevant authorities have heard me loud and clear.
My second point is about the impact of incompetent decisions taken by local authorities, and what those can mean for celebrating and maintaining the heritage pubs that our towns are home to. Take the current situation on Brook Lane. Our town has essentially come to a standstill at rush hour in recent weeks because Brook Lane has been closed for several weeks, and is scheduled to be closed for several more. I wrote to Staffordshire county council—I suspect that the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, whose Bill we are debating this morning, shares many of my frustrations with that council. Even if the hon. Member for Spelthorne does not want to hear it, I know that my honourable county colleague will agree with me on this. I wrote to Staffordshire county council on 1 September, and I had to write to it again this week, because no letter has arrived in response to mine.
This is important, because Staffordshire county council has announced that it plans to introduce further road closures on surrounding roads. That is going to compound the situation, and will make it even more difficult for people to get to the Bridge Street Ale House I spoke about earlier, or to the Jug pub, not to mention all the other things that people have to do.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) not only for bringing forward what is a complex, multi-clause Bill—it is quite brave of him as usually only the short ones are successful—but for the passion with which he spoke about the outrageous demolition of the Crooked House pub. I do not know his constituency, but I vividly remember the outrage that I and many people I met in the constituency felt about that being allowed to happen—that people could be that brazen and get rid of a major cultural asset.
The hon. Gentleman also highlighted pubs and planning in his speech. I will touch on that in a moment, but it is worth highlighting that in the City of London, on the edge of my constituency, there are many pubs that have been preserved through planning applications. Sometimes it is quite odd to walk down a major road in the City of London and see a little gap where there is a pub surrounded by high-rise glass-fronted office blocks. Sometimes we need to think about what we mean by heritage. Is it the pub building or the history of the site, and how does that fit in with modern planning applications? I will touch on that in more detail later.
In simple terms, this is quite a long Bill for what it seeks to achieve. I want to cover three areas. What is the Bill adding to the existing landscape to protect our heritage assets? What is the definition of a heritage pub? Although there is a definition outlined in the Bill, I think it is a bit unambitious, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, because, as I have already highlighted a couple of times, heritage is wider than just the physical building. There are new buildings—new entrants to the market, as it were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) eloquently put it—and heritage can mean different things, depending on where we are in the age range. Some of us will remember things because we have been around a long while, but for some people, because of the zeitgeist, the pub of the moment is what will become the heritage venue of the future. I also want to touch on assets of community value, which plays into my first point—why this Bill, when we already have a mechanism?
We already have many mechanisms in the planning system to protect pubs and other heritage buildings. To start with, proposals to demolish or change the use of a pub already require a planning application, and pubs are deliberately excluded from the relevant permitted development rights that various Governments have introduced to make it easier for development to happen. Of course, this Government have been a champion of making it easier to develop, while also trying to maintain protections. That is the challenge, and we have a Prime Minister who rightly wants to see more devolution. When I started as a baby councillor, quite a long time ago—over 30 years ago—I inherited a seat on Islington council from Baroness Hodge, formerly of this place. Under her leadership of the council, there was an excellent councillor called Maurice Barnes, who wanted neighbourhood services—services delivered within pram-pushing distance.
Now our Prime Minister talks about things in every postcode, and with the internet we have moved on from pram-pushing distance, but local devolution to the most appropriate level is right, and it is still a challenge. We want to devolve responsibility, but we want to make sure that planning is not held up unnecessarily. Nevertheless, we have permitted development rights, and proposals to demolish or change the use of a pub are already excluded from that.
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the development of high streets and the new powers that the Prime Minister has given to restrict places such as vape shops and betting shops on the high street, removing “aim to permit” and so on. I am affected in my area—positively—by the number of microbars opening up in empty shops on the high street and by the positive impact they are having on our communities. Will my hon. Friend say a little more about how that is positively affecting her area?
Dame Meg Hillier
Absolutely. I am tempted to get into the second part of my speech, but I will touch on this because our railway arches in Hackney South and Shoreditch are becoming a real hub of diverse businesses. A lot of the breweries in my constituency are based there—I will not go through them all now—brewing on site and providing wonderful venues in a historic environment, but they would not count as heritage pubs under the Bill because they have not been around as a pub for 150 years.