Heritage Public Houses Bill

Debate between Chris Murray and Linsey Farnsworth

Friday 16th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Murray]

I do not know if that is possible, but I assure my hon. Friend that I am putting my shoulder to the wheel and doing my best.

While I support pubs as a patron, I am afraid I cannot claim to have supported them behind the bar. As a young man, I got a job in a pub and managed to last one day before being sacked because I was completely incompetent.

Pubs in Scotland and the rest of the UK face pressures, but issues like upkeep costs, building maintenance and the higher bills associated with an historic site can result in extra pressures for heritage pubs. Although the Bill applies only in England and Wales, let me be the voice of heritage pubs in Scotland in this debate, because I think the perspective from Scotland will be instructive for Members in understanding the shared challenges our pubs face on both sides of the border. As a passionate believer in the United Kingdom, I passionately believe that while we have different ecosystems and face different challenges, what unites us is far stronger than what divides us. We can learn so much from and support each other.

The pubs in Edinburgh East and Musselburgh tell the story of the challenges that historic pubs face. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who is no longer in his place, suggested that by mentioning a pub, an MP is hoping to get a free pint when they visit—he underestimates what it takes to get a free pint out of an Edinburgh publican! I think the Sheep Heid Inn in Duddingston in my constituency, which opened in 1360, is the oldest pub in Scotland and potentially the oldest pub referenced in the Chamber today. It lies between Edinburgh castle, in one part of my constituency, and Craigmillar castle, in the other, and was famously a stopping point for King James VI as he travelled between them. There is no better way to spend a day in Edinburgh than climbing Arthur’s Seat and then descending to the Sheep Heid for a pint.

I have already told Members about the Tolbooth Tavern on Canongate in the Royal Mile, which was used as a council chamber, a prison and later a pub.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

As a former Crown prosecutor, I cannot resist the opportunity to talk about the law or prisons whenever they are mentioned, but on this occasion I wanted to ask my hon. Friend if he would like to join me at some point in the future for a cocktail at the Moot bar in Alfreton, in my constituency? It does great cocktails and it is on the site of a moot hall, from which jury trials are thought to originate.

[Chris Murray]

I would very much enjoy visiting that pub with my hon. Friend, but only on condition that she comes with me to another pub in my constituency connected with the criminal justice system: the White Hart inn on the Grassmarket, where I spent Saturday night. That pub was founded in 1510, although the current building dates from early Georgian times, when there was no better day out in Edinburgh than to go and watch a public execution on the Grassmarket, followed by a drink in the White Hart inn. We do not do that any more, although during the Edinburgh festival it is fun to go and see some comedians get murdered, then go to the White Hart for a pint afterwards!

In these historic pubs, one feels a connection not just with the whole community, but with the history of the place. I think of the Ensign Ewart, just outside the gates of Edinburgh castle, which is named after a hero of Waterloo and still contains memorabilia from that battle.

In Edinburgh, these pubs in the Old Town have made an outstanding contribution to world history. The Scottish enlightenment took place in the Old Town of Edinburgh. Everybody lived in that crowded area, in flats—piled up on top of each other. At the top were the aristocrats, in the middle were the merchants and in the lower flats were the working classes and the urban poor. Because they were all living side by side, cheek by jowl, they would congregate in the pubs of Edinburgh, and people would talk not to those from their own social class, but to those from other social classes; they would talk about the ideas of politics, reform, religion and philosophy that were going around the continent. It is because everybody in Edinburgh had to get together in the pubs like that that they were able to exchange ideas and the enlightenment took hold in our city. We underestimate the power of pubs at our peril. Although many hon. Members have extolled the virtues of the pubs in their constituencies, I think I have one-upped everyone by claiming that western civilisation actually developed in mine.

It is not just in the medieval Old Town of Edinburgh where we can find the value of historic pubs. The Espy in Portobello is a seafront staple. Owner Amanda Caygill, who has been a long-serving part of the Portobello scene, has recently left after 19 years serving the community. I am looking forward to seeing what happens and who takes over. In Musselburgh, we have the Volunteer Arms, known to locals as Staggs. It is one of CAMRA’s real ale pubs of the year and has a beautiful Victorian interior. It recently featured in “Dept. Q” on Netflix. The owners, Katie McKenzie, Nigel Finlay and Hayley Finlay make a massive contribution to Musselburgh life. I am particularly indebted to them because when I was last there I left my keys on the bench, and they kindly put them in a taxi and sent them across Edinburgh for me.

[Chris Murray]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Bannerman’s is a fantastic Edinburgh pub. I support the principles of protecting historic pubs, and in my remarks I am underlining my support for historic pubs in my constituency. We have pubs like Bennets in Tollcross, which is a beautiful pub with dark wood and brass taps, right beside the newly reopened King’s Theatre—the Old Lady of Leven Street. The Ormelie tavern in Joppa has a historic tenement lounge. It is one of those great tenement pubs that we get in Edinburgh. I really recommend it after a day campaigning in the cold winds of Edinburgh and Portobello.

Another of my favourites is the Regent in Abbeyhill. The Regent would not qualify for the 150-year rule set out in the Bill, because it is a gay bar, and 150 years ago homosexuality was criminalised. The Regent opened in 2003—which, shockingly, was only 22 years after homosexuality was decriminalised in Scotland. That underlines the point that pubs are not just bricks and mortar, places we go or local phenomena. Look at gay bars: they are places for a community who come from far and wide, seeking people like them.

The Regent is in central Edinburgh, and I last visited after the Holyrood garden party. I walked from Holyrood palace, having seen the King and Queen, up to the Regent, where I saw some of my other fellow queens. That is the role that gay pubs can play: they bring communities together, allowing people a safe space where they do not fear attack. They are also places to which we can bring along friends from the straight community so that they can see, understand and acclimatise to our culture.

We have been talking about the closure of pubs in this country, which is a problem that we have to face, but gay pubs and LGBT venues have been closing disproportionately faster than ordinary pubs. A study by University College London found that between 2006 and 2017, 25% of all pubs had closed, but 58% of LGBT venues had closed. Pubs are not just about bricks and mortar or a geographic community but about identity, and community is not always geographic; it can go further. The Minister is the Member of Parliament for Vauxhall, so I am sure she understands well the role of LGBT venues in protecting our pubs, but I would be happy to take her to the Royal Vauxhall Tavern or the Cock Tavern in her constituency should she need any further convincing.

While my constituency is home to amazing pubs, sadly in Scotland we are governed by a Scottish National party Government. As a result of their policies, we are seeing pubs closing fast. For example, last year the Willow in Jock’s Lodge closed its doors. It was demolished just a few weeks ago to make room for student flats. Jock’s Lodge is a historical part of Edinburgh, but its character has been changing rapidly as our city grows. It has served the communities of Restalrig and Meadowbank since at least 1650, where it was the last stop on the London to Edinburgh stagecoach—those same people probably stopped at Stevenage on their way. With the Bill, the challenge is preserving the character and identity of a district as it changes. In Scotland, under SNP legislation, that is not happening. For Jock’s Lodge, Edinburgh council intervened and blocked the decision, but the Scottish Government—centralising, as always—called it in and vetoed the objections of 1,000 residents.

That comes on top of 50% of pubs in Scotland closing—a faster rate than in England. Since 2021, 293 Scottish pubs have closed permanently, with 4.1% of pubs in England having closed compared with 6.4% of pubs in Scotland. That is due to Government decisions. I counsel hon. Members to look over the border to see the mistakes that the SNP is making.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I am troubled by what my hon. Friend is saying. I am not familiar with Scotland in great detail; clearly, he is an expert in the area. I visited and had a lovely time there last summer, although I am not sure it counted as summer if the weather is anything to go by. With whisky being such an important part of the economy in Scotland, does he have any thoughts about the link between pubs closing and the impact on the economy?

[Chris Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Scotland is the world capital of whisky. On the one hand, the spirits industry and the whisky industry are a crucial part of keeping pubs open. In my constituency, we often go into pubs and see people drinking a dram; it is not the beers and wines that keep pubs open in England. On the other hand, the challenges facing the whisky industry are the same as the ones that close pubs down south of the border. The big challenge is cost. It is much cheaper for someone to buy a bottle of whisky or gin and drink it at home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) said in relation to beer. That is one of the big challenges we have.

It is not just that; it is also challenges such as business rates and planning. Members have been discussing what they see as the flaws in the English planning system to protect pubs. I listened with envy, because the rules to protect pubs are much stronger here than they are in Scotland. Free-standing pubs can still, shamefully, be demolished without planning permission in Scotland, and CAMRA has long called for that loophole to be closed. In England, demolishing a pub or changing its use needs a planning application, because pubs are deliberately excluded from the relevant development rights. That allows councils a chance to weigh up any impact. In Scotland, that is not the case. Pubs are better protected in England, and I would like us to follow suit in Scotland.

The UK Labour Government have brought in business rates relief that will help pubs, but in Scotland those have not properly and fairly been passed to pubs in the community. As always in Scotland under the SNP, while the proposal from the Scottish Government may sound generous on paper, the reality is—and the pub industry argues—that the way they have structured the relief leaves many businesses worse off. On average, a pub in my constituency would have been paying £36,000 extra in rates had the SNP not been forced to backtrack.

It is important to hear the cross-party and cross-country support in the Chamber for heritage pubs. I am happy to work with any Member from any party who wants to build them up. I welcome many aspects of the Bill. Community ownership, bringing people together and allowing our local economy to thrive are crucial roles that historic pubs have been playing in our constituencies for literally centuries. Long may they continue to do so.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Chris Murray and Linsey Farnsworth

3rd reading & Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Murray]

I welcome the fact that the discussion in the House today shows real cross-party support for the aims, principles and objectives of the Bill, and that the amendments focus only on nuances and more technical aspects. That shows that we are all united in trying to achieve this goal and in preventing tragedies such as that which happened in Manchester from happening again.

In trying to understand those nuances and where the more technical sides should be drawn, it is useful to reflect on the legislation’s key dimensions and advantages. First, obviously, it makes terrorist attacks less likely. The terrorist threat is substantial and we know that it is changing. It has gone from large-scale infrastructure and iconic sites to much more workaday, normal locations.

The most recent terrorist attack that we tragically saw in this country was an attack on a children’s dance class. It is clear that the terror threat is evolving and we must evolve with it, which is why the Bill is important, but it is also important because it minimises the death and destruction that result from a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks may still happen despite our best efforts, and it is important for us to plan for that eventuality and make the right decisions in order to be ready when they do happen.

The former President Obama’s Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, the Harvard professor Juliette Kayyem, has talked of the “boom” of a terror moment or crisis, and divides planning into “pre-boom” and “post-boom”. Pre-boom is what must be done to prevent an event from taking place, but it is equally important to plan for the post-boom moment. We must ensure that even those running small venues have done some thinking in advance of an attack. What are the escape routes? Who needs to have the keys? What happens if they send people in this direction rather than that direction?

The Bill incorporates a distinction between enhanced and non-enhanced tiers, and that too is important. In my constituency we put on some of the biggest and best events in the world. I am utterly confident that those in the football and rugby stadiums and theatres who are in charge of security planning do all this thinking anyway, but there are many smaller venues where it has not occurred to people that that is necessarily their role, but which are now in the line of fire. It is important for people to recognise that responsibility, because the public have a right to expect it. The Bill codifies what should be happening anyway. We must bear that in mind as we decide where to set the thresholds, who falls in or outside scope, and what level of burden we expect organisations and venues to face.

In Committee, it was reassuring to hear several of my concerns being allayed. One of them has already been discussed, namely the impact on business and the potential for a burden. There is no denying that something of a burden will be placed on some organisations where no one has done any thinking or preparation for a potential terrorist or other attack, but the Bill contains very proportionate elements that do not impose much of an extra burden. Its requirements are intuitive, they are not onerous, they are straightforward and they are commonsensical. As I said in an intervention earlier, they are essentially prompts for organisations to do the kind of thinking that we would hope they were doing already to avoid an attack. That not only avoids attacks, but mitigates their impact.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the proportionality of the Bill, which we discussed in Committee. The word “burden” has been used a great deal this afternoon. In his evidence to the Committee, Andy Burnham said:

“I just think that we cannot talk ourselves into a sort of thing where it is all too big a burden. I can tell you from experience: a terrorist attack is a massive burden on a city and what it does challenges everybody at every level—and that is ongoing. Like Figen said, Manchester will never be the same again after what happened. It has changed us but it has strengthened us and made us more united, and as I say, I do not want any other city to go through that.”––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 16, Q11.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a proportionate Bill, and that the burden of a terrorist attack far outweighs any burden caused by its provisions?

[Chris Murray]

Absolutely. There is a small element of burden in the Bill, but it is light-touch and proportionate, and the alternative scenario is significantly more burdensome. In my own city of Edinburgh, the impact of a terrorist attack and of people not feeling secure in the aftermath could be destructive not just to the lives affected by the attack, but to the whole economy on which our city is based, which is event-focused. It is right for us to draw that distinction, and to seek to get the balance exactly right.