Heritage Pubs

Debate between Justin Madders and Martin Vickers

Thursday 16th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Minister.

Summerland Fire: 50th Anniversary

Debate between Justin Madders and Martin Vickers

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for the support he has given to the campaign. As I will go on to say, the Apologise for Summerland campaign has made those requests, which I will talk about in more detail later in my speech.

Taking the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, death by misadventure equates to an accidental death caused by a risk that is taken voluntarily. The 50 people who lost their lives did not voluntarily walk into a building comprised of materials that offered limited or no fire resistance. They were on holiday and they trusted that those involved in building Summerland would not knowingly have used dangerous materials. They believed that the building they were entering was safe. I do not think there is anyone who would think that that is not a reasonable position to take. That is why, among many other reasons, death by misadventure is such an inappropriate verdict to find.

The lack of clarity over the fire protections and precautions at Summerland is a huge concern. No schedule of the means of escape existed for Summerland. Enclosed staircases had no ventilation. Openings were not all fire-resisting or self-closing and contained materials that were not fire-resistant. The physical shortcomings of the construction were clear, but the organisation of emergency procedures was also sorely lacking. Some members of staff who were part of the “fire-fighting party” were not aware of their membership of it, demonstrating the absence of satisfactory training.

There had also been unapproved changes to the fire alarm system, creating a delay before the alarms sounded and the fire station was alerted. The automatic fire alarm from Summerland alerted the fire service at 8.05 pm. However, the public alarms at the leisure centre were still yet to sound. The inquiry concluded that

“no organised system of staff training existed....no member of the staff was given any duty or any instruction whatsoever as to his or her actions in the event of a fire”.

It is plain to see why there was mass panic when the fire started.

The lack of training is sadly borne out in the events following the discovery of the fire. One of the most startling and troubling parts of the account I have read—it is a very troubling read—is when the organist, who was playing at the time the fire was discovered, was asked to continue playing to prevent panic breaking out. Only two minutes after he was given that instruction, he reported that the fire was clearly visible at the back of the amusement arcade. Evacuation began only at that point, when the flames had become visible to the visitors, causing mass panic and undoubtedly making matters worse.

Around 20 minutes prior to that, staff had been unsuccessful in dealing with the fire or in notifying the fire service via the automatic alarm system. The inquiry concluded that the building, and by inference the lives of those lost, could have been saved if the fire service had been called shortly after it was found that the firefighting efforts of the staff had failed.

While there was some guidance and a document had been drawn up in 1971 in regard to evacuation, knowledge among managers and staff was limited. There was no evacuation procedure in place and drills had not been carried out. Those in management were unclear as to who was responsible, but failed to make enquiries to clarify that. Staff were not properly trained and there was no one exerting overall control. Had there been, the necessary alerts could have been made and evacuation processes could have been carried out. Instead, some exit doors remained locked, despite the fire service complaining to management about this previously; the escalator remained on, preventing a safe means of escape; and the generators failed to provide the emergency lighting that was needed.

The inquiry concluded that there were failures by the Douglas Corporation and the local government board in terms of providing and scrutinising plans and a lack of inter-communication. The choice of architects was also criticised, with the inquiry exposing their lack of scientific understanding and a failure to focus on fire safety. The inquiry said there was a lack of design management and a continual failure to examine the development of plans. That is important, because that could have highlighted the flaws, resulting in errors being identified.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on bringing forward the debate. As it happens, I was in the Isle of Man last week, as a guest of the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys. One of the official guests was a lady called Ruth McQuillan-Wilson, who has written a number of books about the Summerland fire; she herself was a survivor. I want to put on record a tribute to Ruth, who described the events of the evening to me and the events that have subsequently followed, as the hon. Gentleman has outlined.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I echo the support that he has given to the many campaigners who have fought for more than 50 years to bring this matter to light.

The structure, once it was built, did not have proper technical inspections, which would have been yet another stage at which issues could have been raised. The chief fire officer did not consider issues of firefighting on receiving the original plans and was then not consulted on significant changes to those plans. The certification for the building, and indeed the processes in general, are said not to have been stringent or rigorous, and there was an absence of fire safety and evacuation plans.

It was a litany of failings. Despite that, the inquiry concluded that “there were no villains”. I think we can see, beyond doubt, that that conclusion was wrong. There were clear failures in the plans by the authorities, the fire service and the management of Summerland. The inquiry made 34 recommendations, demonstrating how many flaws there were, yet there remains to this day a lack of accountability.

Three young boys appeared before the juvenile court for damage to a kiosk, but apart from that nobody took responsibility or blame—whatever you want to call it—for the failings. I do not know whether it was because there were so many people and organisations that could have been found to be at fault. Perhaps it was the grossly inappropriate finding of misadventure that led to that lack of accountability. Perhaps, given the times that we were in then, accountability was just a little bit harder to find. Whatever it was, once the inquiry finished that was more or less it. Perhaps this failure to hold the authorities or individuals to account is why recognition of the disaster is so limited.

My constituent describes the memorial near to the Summerland site as “insignificant and insulting”, drawing comparisons with a stone bought from a garden centre. She has recently discovered that it is only her family who are mentioned in the remembrance book at the crematorium on the island, and that is only because they paid for their entry in it. I find that disappointing. In fact, I find it appalling and disrespectful. The families lost so much on that day, and recognition of such should not be reliant on payment. That is something that we expect and hope will change.

The original memorial was replaced with something more fitting in 2013, on the 40th anniversary, but we must question why, for the preceding 40 years, those in charge felt that the loss of 50 people did not warrant a proper memorial that would offer a space for reflection and solace. Heather tells me that even at the memorial event in 2013, the dignitaries who attended failed to approach any of the family members present, which she describes as incredibly hurtful for those visiting the place where their loved ones had perished.

After speaking to Heather and Reg and learning more about the disaster, I approached the Isle of Man Government to ask them whether they would commit to a full inquiry, similar in structure to the Hillsborough inquiry—we have a blueprint that could be followed. I accept that, perhaps, given the length of time that has passed it might be a little bit unrealistic to expect that, but I still expected more than the response I received, which simply directed me to the inquiry of 1973. However, the impending anniversary, and perhaps the publicity surrounding this debate, has perhaps focused minds a little more, as I have this morning received from the Chief Minister an email indicating that there will be a national service of remembrance on 30 July, and that he will be holding a private reception prior to that where he has indicated his wish to hear directly from the survivors and victims’ families. That certainly feels as if he has heard the concerns about what happened at the 40th anniversary. He has also indicated that he will be holding an event to thank those from the emergency services who responded to the fire.

The Chief Minister has also said that he will be making a formal statement about the disaster to the Isle of Man’s Parliament next week. Although we do not know what he will say in that statement, I want to use this debate to encourage the Minister to formally write on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to indicate their support for the requests made by the Apologise for Summerland campaign, which, as we have heard, are a public apology from the Isle of Man Government for the

“disregard for basic fire safety in favour of saving money and speedy construction;

a public apology for

“the pain and suffering for the last 50 years”;

and a public admission that the death by misadventure verdict was inappropriate.

I appreciate that this Parliament cannot tell another Parliament what to do, but I hope that the Minister will be able, diplomatically and sincerely, to make those requests and convey the feelings expressed by Members in the House tonight. It is clear that the conclusions of the inquiry fell short of the standards that we would expect, and fell short of providing genuine accountability. There is a need for an apology from the Isle of Man Government for their role in the disaster.

I hope that the Minister will be able to convey on our behalf that, as we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the disaster, an apology is long overdue. The knowledge of the bereaved families that the loss of their loved ones could have been avoided is still incredibly painful, but the fact that their deaths are still legally categorised as misadventure only exacerbates that pain. I pay tribute to the bereaved families, who have never given up their fight for justice; to the Apologise for Summerland campaign for all that it has done to give a voice to the families; and to Grenfell United, which is standing side by side with the Summerland families. Grenfell United has said:

“The similarities between Summerland and Grenfell are chilling”.

We will never know whether true accountability for Summerland might have prevented the Grenfell tragedy from happening. Sadly, there are far too many what ifs, which must torment all involved. I will finish with a few words from Heather, which echo that point. She says:

“We don’t feel that it’s ever been recognised that 50 people lost their lives. I’ve lost 50 years of having my sister…It was a fire that should never have happened. I feel so sorry for the people of Grenfell. If the reports had been acted upon from the Summerland fire, Grenfell probably wouldn’t have happened. You can’t brush something like that under the carpet anymore.”

I hope that following today’s debate we can build on the cross-party support that we have had to date, and that through the advocacy of the UK Government, families will receive the recognition, apology and accountability that they deserve. I appreciate that the passage of time makes true accountability difficult, but I am certain that they deserve better than they have had so far.