5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I apologise, but I am specifically interested in those who already maximise their allowance. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact on those individuals, to whom this measure will be detrimental?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate his remarks. I also welcome the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to address the regulations. I will make my remarks in reverse order to the Minister. The concern in the first set of regulations, regarding electrical safety, is broadly technical, and they are uncontentious in terms of legislative change. It is vital that all homes meet the necessary electrical safety requirements that tenants, landlords, registered providers and others rightly expect. However, I do have some questions about the regulations. As one of my noble Friends highlighted in the other place, the legislation requires that such standards be monitored by local authorities. Given all the uncertainty surrounding local government at the moment and the lack of action taken by the Government to allay such concerns, on whom will the monitoring responsibilities fall during the transitional periods? What impact will local government reorganisation have on this and on their innumerable small-scale but vital responsibilities. Secondly, in the other place, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats raised the important point that extra responsibilities for landlords do not always match up with the expected compliance of tenants. What plans does the Minister have to enforce responsibilities and compliance on not just the landlord’s side but the tenant’s side? Turning to the other set of regulations, regarding hazards in social housing, I want to start by acknowledging the critical importance of ensuring that every tenant has a safe, hygienic and sturdy home in which to live. It was that very concern that led the previous Conservative Government to introduce the original Awaab’s law. As the Minister said, the sad and untimely death in 2020 of Awaab Ishak was a shock to all of us in this place and up and down the country. It showed that there clearly was and still is more to be done to ensure safety for all residents in social housing. These regulations go further than the original Awaab’s law, as the Minister said, by extending the same principles to cover other hazards, such as excessive heat or cold, hygiene hazards, structural hazards and more. Those are real and pressing concerns for some tenants, but the regulations are not a perfect response to the issue in hand. It is important that the valid concerns of industry groups are also noted in this debate, because they highlight that, when considering any new regulatory requirements, we must remember the added financial cost and extra time that must accompany their enforcement. For example, the National Housing Federation has raised concerns about the substantial additional cost to housing associations. We hear in our constituencies up and down the nation that many housing associations are stretched, with some already struggling to cover their costs. New requirements can take away money earmarked for other repairs and maintenance, forcing unwelcome choices on housing associations. Homeless Link has also warned that, at present, no Government funding exists to help providers that find themselves on the brink and operating on tight margins. As the hazards for consideration expand in scope, so do the pressures on cost and time. The Government’s impact assessment shows that that is the case, with an estimated increase in costs of £213.6 million. Importantly, that covers only the administrative costs, so the true figure is likely to be considerably greater. It is important that the Government engage closely and meaningfully with the sector as the regulations come into force. I call on the Minister to commit to that when he sums up, both to ease concerns and to help us understand the true nature of the costs not included in the impact assessment. I hope he will make that promise in this debate, and support tenants, landlords, housing associations and registered providers alike.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I join everyone who has spoken so far in paying particular tribute to Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery. She started the petition, which has now secured an extraordinary more than 105,000 signatures. In my time as a shadow Justice Minister, I have had the privilege of working with several victims of crime, particularly female victims of crime, and they all pay a price for the campaigning they do. It forces people to relive their experiences and to talk about them in a way that can be deeply traumatic. I am deeply grateful to everybody who does that, Paris included. In telling us her story, in which her abuser changed his plea at the very last minute, she described how she felt “silenced again”. She said that “it meant he controlled the narrative again”. It took more than 530 days for Paris’s case to reach trial. That is 530 days of sitting, waiting, reliving, expecting and worrying, just to find at the very last minute that he takes back control by changing his plea and still manages to secure a discount in his sentence. It is worth highlighting, as others have done, how the system works. A defendant who pleads guilty will normally receive a reduction in their sentence. That principle is long-standing, and the reason often given is one of cost and logistics, but the other reason, which is particularly important to me, is that it potentially spares victims and witnesses having to give evidence and be cross-examined. I have met victims who have found that process very distressing. The detail of exactly how the reduction process works is determined by the Sentencing Council, not by Parliament, and the courts are required to follow its guidelines, under which the maximum reduction is a third. Unusually for me, I congratulate the Government on at least ignoring the plea in the Leveson review to increase the discount even further to 40%, which I think would be wrong and against the interests of justice. After the initial reduction of a third, the discount is a quarter, falling on a sliding scale to a maximum of one tenth for a plea on the first day of trial. If the plea comes during the trial, the reduction should normally be reduced even further, and can even be zero. The court also has to explain whether it has applied a reduction and by how much. It is fair to say that the system already recognises that a late plea causes additional distress, and therefore secures less of a discount to the sentence. As I read it, Paris’s law, for which the petition asks, would mean that someone charged with controlling or coercive behaviour who pleads not guilty and then changes their plea receives no reduction in any circumstances. I want to lay out my guiding principles. One of the main reasons why I wanted to become an MP was that I felt that our justice system did not provide sufficient punishment for all sorts of offences. Morally, I hate to see any person receiving any kind of reduction whatsoever. However, the Government’s response to the petition makes the important point that even when an offender pleads guilty very late, that can still spare a victim from having to give potentially traumatic evidence. If a is victim spared cross-examination, even at the last minute, that should be worth something. As Paris’s campaign has pointed out, there is a real risk, in these particular types of case, of creating an incentive for a perpetrator who has every intention of ultimately pleading guilty to drag the process out. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, and as others have said, that can also happen as part of an attempt to wear down a potential victim to encourage them to drop their evidence. Both those reasons should cause us to pause when considering discounts. I gave this matter a great deal of thought when considering the petition, because it is a question of how we weigh up two potential public goods, and something done in the interest of victims. Ultimately, how do we decide on the level of distress, discomfort and worse for people who have to wait and then see a discount with a last-minute plea, versus another group of victims who will perhaps benefit from the fact that they have not had to endure a trial? It is not easy to reach a firm conclusion on that. It has certainly given us all a lot to think about, in relation not just to the specific cause the petitioner has brought to our attention but to the general issue of coercive and controlling behaviour and violence against women and girls. As other Members have mentioned, we know that every week women are killed—murdered by men—and we still have an epidemic of violence that should trouble everybody in this country and certainly troubles me. It is helpful to consider how the position has changed over time. The previous Government made coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence for the first time through the Serious Crime Act 2015. They also passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which wrote coercive control into the statutory definition of domestic abuse. In 2023, new guidance was brought forward to protect people who do not live with their abuser from threats and intimidation. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 then introduced the powers that this Government have now used so that offenders who are convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or more are managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which are used to monitor someone’s risk to other people when they are not in prison. I welcome the Government’s use of those powers, but there is clearly more to do. There are several issues that it is important to consider, even if we do not all agree that the proposal in the petition is quite ready to be supported universally. What are the Government seeking to do to encourage earlier guilty pleas through other mechanisms? I have frequently heard that allowing the defendant better access to earlier advice, whereby someone can make it clear to them face to face that their chances of getting away with an offence are pretty slim, can encourage earlier guilty pleas. The Lib Dem spokesperson mentioned pre-trial hearings; I visited Liverpool Crown court, which instituted further preparatory hearings to encourage earlier pleas in either direction. Those are things that could be done without interfering with the existing arrangements in respect of early guilty pleas. I am sure I am right in saying that even if the perpetrator in Paris’s case had got the full sentence, Paris, like many victims, would still not have been satisfied that it was anywhere near long enough, given the impact of these crimes on women. That is what I have drawn most strongly from my work with victims across the board, which is why I was particularly vociferous in my opposition to the Government’s reduction in jail time for a sweeping range of offenders. As has been mentioned already, the vast majority of domestic abusers who have been convicted for common assault will now serve just a third of their sentence, whether it was reduced or not. It was only because of vociferous campaigning from victims like Paris that a whole range of rapists, paedophiles and terrible abusers of women and girls will not be released after a third of their sentence instead of two fifths. Is the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour excluded alongside the exclusions that we managed to secure from the Government for rape and other offences? One of the reasons the Gauke review was such a travesty in terms of dictating sentencing policy in this country is that it gave almost no thought whatsoever to what victims want to see or whether they think sentences are sufficiently just. My former Justice Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), talked about concurrent sentences; they are the norm in our judicial system, yet I do not think I have ever met a victim who thinks they makes sense in the vast majority of circumstances. Some people are convicted for hundreds of offences, but even though sentences are ramped up when someone has that many convictions, they are still nothing like what they should be if they were not served concurrently. We are committed to recognising that we did not do enough in government to ensure sufficient prison capacity so that we can actually engage with these issues. We want to undo all the damaging shortening of sentences we have seen under this Government and go further. On discounts, there might be better acceptance of them if victims at least felt that the ultimate sentences, even with a discount, were closer to what they consider justice, which in my experience they do not at the moment. Even if we are not quite there on this issue, as Paris says on her website, “Paris’s Law was never about one petition, one debate or one event. It’s about creating lasting change.” There are many ways in which we can do that across the board when it comes to the abuse of women in all its forms.
It seems that the Minister has moved on from responding to my questions, one of which was whether coercive and controlling behaviour is excluded from the early release programme.
Will the Secretary of State consider extending the remit of the commission to include September 1998, and thus the Omagh bombing? He will know that the Irish agencies, and the Irish Government specifically, will have quite a lot to say on the subject, given the events of September 1998, but as things stand, there will be no way for victims and families to get the answers that he has mentioned in his preamble.
The Secretary of State is characteristically generous in giving way. Clauses 4 and 5 govern the appointment of members of the commission and directors of investigations, and mandate that some of those should be drawn from people with experience outside Northern Ireland. Can he explain why that is, who these people will be and of which countries he believes they will have experience? I assume that means the Republic of Ireland.
We have heard some extraordinarily powerful speeches this afternoon. They have all been first rate, up to this point. I will start by laying out what I am. I am the Member of Parliament for a part of Wiltshire that has, I suspect, as many servicemen and ex-servicemen as any other part of the south of England—probably rather more so. I am proud to represent them. It is important I say that, because my perspective is probably very different from that of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), given the people he talks to and the people I talk to, and we will differ. But that in no way takes anything away from my respect for the hon. Gentleman and the thoughts and sympathies that he has expressed.
I accept that point and I appreciate the way in which the Secretary of State framed Mrs Jones, and it is perfectly reasonable that he does so. My point is that we do ourselves and Mrs Jones a great disservice if we suggest that this process will bring answers, when answers there may very well come none—because of the passage of time, because of fading memories, because of people who have passed away, or because of evidence that has degraded or been deliberately or unwittingly destroyed.
That is not what I am saying at all, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. What I am saying is that with the passage of time, undoubtedly, memories fade, material is not available, and people, unfortunately, decease. Trying to recreate reality 50 years on is extremely difficult. When you do so, you need to ensure you have a margin of error. You have to admit that what you have come up with may not actually have more than a fleeting reality with what actually happened at the time. That is all I am saying.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is reasonable. I would say the 2023 Act was perhaps imperfect in the eyes of the lawyers and the ECHR, but I regret very much that it was set to be repealed by the incoming Government, since it was the basis of a measure that would bring solace and would also protect those who might otherwise find their collar felt—well represented today here and in other places. I think that was a mistake, if I may say. It was a mistake, but we move on. Our purpose today is to make this Bill a better Bill. I hope very much that in the other place they will pick up on many of the comments that have been made today and be able to improve it. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) bemoaned the fact that Committees of the whole House are basically a re-run of Second Reading debates—I think that was the essence of what he was saying—and rarely deal with the specifics, so I will touch on one or two specific amendments. But before I do so, may I make a brief comment about immunity? The Government appear to be allergic, in bringing forward the remedial order, to the issue of immunity. Really, it is not a new concept. The Good Friday agreement itself was pretty much founded on establishing immunity. I remember it very well—I was intimately involved with the events in Northern Ireland at the time. It was through gritted teeth. It was extremely difficult for people on both sides of this great divide, but the idea of immunity was very much at the heart of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Since then, we had Peter Hain with his 2005 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which tried to establish immunity for one side of the divide—not for soldiers and not for police. I am very pleased that at that time the Opposition, with others, knocked that back and it was withdrawn. In contrast, immunity in the 2023 Act was highly conditional on information being handed over that might help to deal with some of the concerns of people like Mrs Jones. It was important that that immunity was conditional. I think that is where the difference is—in the idea that we cannot give immunity. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) has said before that his concern was that he did not want to have immunity. I understand that; it is a noble concept. However, the fact of the matter is that 1998 was built on immunity, Peter Hain tried it in 2005 and in 2023 the immunity that was being talked about was highly conditional.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. When I intervened on the Secretary of State, he said that the commissioners and directors of investigation who are not from Northern Ireland and are not used to investigating matters in Northern Ireland will probably be taken from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The question is how we can best recover the information—how we can extract it—even at this late date, so that we can give some solace and comfort to those who have been wrapped up in these terrible events, from whatever side of the divide they hail. In the spirit of the comments of the right hon. Member for Belfast East, I would like to address one or two specifics on clauses 4 and 5, relating to the appointment of the commissioners and the directors of investigations. Clause 4(2) states specifically: “In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must so far as practicable ensure that one or more of the Commissioners have experience gained outside the United Kingdom”. That was not what the Secretary of State told me. He is quite right that, under clause 5, one director of investigations should have “experience of conducting criminal investigations outside Northern Ireland”, so it is perfectly reasonable to infer that they may be drawn from people operating in the rest of the United Kingdom, but that appears not to be the case in relation to the commissioners. I would be very grateful if the Secretary of State, when he makes his winding-up remarks, was able to clarify that for me—or now, if he wants to.
I do not expect the Secretary of State to comment on special forces, but I do suggest that he look at special forces specifically, which is what I was talking about earlier. If he wants to heap laurels on me, as a former Minister for defence people, since these things take a very long time, I am perfectly happy to take some of the credit. I am grateful to him for that, but I do not think that it was the intent of his remarks. My question to him was about clause 4(2). He satisfied me in relation to the directors of investigations, but it is the commissioners about whom I am concerned. I think that, unwittingly, he may have conflated the two, and I should be grateful if he could clarify that for me at some point. Government amendment 259 and new clause 34 concern, respectively, commissioners and members of the victims and survivors advisory group. There is a mandate that commissioners cannot have been convicted of an offence “anywhere in the world”. That needs a bit of further thought, because in some parts of our benighted world today, people are convicted by jurisdictions for which I do not think we would have a great deal of respect. When I was a Minister in the Foreign Office, I dealt with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was convicted and imprisoned falsely—but convicted nevertheless—in such a jurisdiction. I feel that we may need to revise the wording, either here or in the other place, to be clear about the Government’s intent. Neither is there any mention of the rehabilitation of offenders. New clause 34 does at least place a limit of three months on a custodial sentence for members of the advisory group, but I think that this part of the Bill needs a bit of redrafting so that it makes more sense. Government amendment 162 touches on the provision of information via a remote link, which is a positive, but it also provides a get-out for inquisitors in the form of an impracticability test. What I am not sure about, and what I seek clarification on, is what circumstances would make it “impracticable” for a person to provide information through live audio or video links. Comments have been made about the part that the Irish Government play in all this through the framework agreement. There is a lingering suspicion that Dublin has had an undue influence on the Bill, and we have heard—particularly in relation to Omagh—why that should be. I entirely accept the Secretary of State’s assertion that the Irish Government have not been involved in the drafting of the Bill, and, indeed, had not seen the amendments before their publication, which is reassuring. However, it would be useful to know when the Secretary of State expects the Irish Government to implement, through their legislative channels, the reciprocal arrangements that are necessary to provide some chance of recovering information that may be sequestered in the Republic. As the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) has pointed out, that repository is likely to be vast. Up to this point it has been untapped, and until it is tapped, questions will be asked about the candour of Dublin in trying to provide answers to many of the problems about which we have heard today. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was right to say that this is all about victims. It is also about veterans, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent. There must be a way through this that will satisfy both parties, even through the prism of so many years. There is a wall of misery associated with the troubles, and it is our job to do what we can to remedy that, difficult and imperfect though the process may be. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s endeavours—he approaches this matter in good faith, as did his predecessor —but I fear that what we have at the moment simply will not do.
Would the hon. Member agree that the SNP Government need to play a role in this? So far, they have been silent on the subject.
I was pleased to see the Defence Readiness and Industry Minister welcoming HMS Protector home to Devonport, although judging by the three tugboats, I suspect she was rather less enthusiastic about the reunion than he was. With growing Russian activity in the High North and renewed chest beating from Argentina over the Falklands, Britain’s only naval ice patrol ship faces an uncertain future. How can a single replacement sustain a credible presence at both poles, while allowing for maintenance and refits, and how will the Minister prevent a gap in capability?
I very much commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward, because Glasgow School of Art is a national institution and Charles Rennie Mackintosh was a national figure across the United Kingdom. That is why, when I was in the Scotland Office, I argued that the UK Government should intervene after the first fire, which they did. I had the opportunity to see some of the renovations that took place after 2014, which were so tragically lost in the fire of 2018. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, given the national significance of the Glasgow School of Art, the UK Government have a role to play in its renovation.
Our exchanges on fondness will get the Secretary of State into trouble. He talks about balance; who has that balance or who governs that balance is important. Will he tell the Committee how many of the substantive amendments were either shown to or discussed with the Irish Government before they were brought to the Committee?
The Secretary of State, with every good intention, talks about preventing “rinse and repeat”, yet the moment we introduce this situation into a coroner’s inquest, the opportunity for judicial review arises—multiple stages of judicial review. As we have already seen with inquests, “rinse and repeat” cannot be stopped, so a soldier may be going through three or four judicial processes, all of them painful, whatever the Government say.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Boxer is vital to defence procurement across the west midlands, including for those constituents in Dudley who work at Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land. The MOD has now confirmed that earlier this year it cut nearly £2 billion from the £7 billion allocated to the mechanised infantry programme—a cut that included three new variants for the Army, including the critical repair and recovery variant. What will the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers light aid detachments be equipped with, given that there is no longer a plan to procure those vehicles, and how will the Army repair and recover damaged Boxer vehicles without a repair and recovery variant?
The Secretary of State talks about protections for those who served our country. One key achievement of the legacy Act was stopping new inquests that could threaten to expose those who served our country to vexatious claims, particularly in the case of Loughgall, which is one of the best known cases. Do his amendments definitively stop any such vexatious claims coming forward again?
I promise not to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I think it is important to put on record the Opposition’s unhappiness with how Committee stage is being handled. Although we of course welcome a Committee of the whole House, which allows hon. Members from Northern Irish parties to contribute, the amount of time set aside is wholly inadequate for the task. This is one of the most complex and controversial pieces of legislation that the House will debate during this Parliament. It is a 98-clause Bill to which over 300 amendments—including, I think, 144 Government amendments—have been tabled, and the amendment paper is now longer than the legislation itself. The consequence of the scheduling is that this House will have very little time to spend on detailed scrutiny, or indeed on detailed discussion of the amendments tabled. Most concerningly, the programme motion makes it clear that we will have only about an hour for Report, and that hour will almost certainly be entirely ridden over by overrun.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Member. It looks as though we will get no Report stage at all. The idea that there is not time available to the House to debate this Bill properly is laughable. On Wednesday the House is confining itself to the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill. On Thursday we have a general debate. This House will not get to vote on any of the Government’s 144 amendments directly, or on any of the Government’s 98 clauses individually. The new Administration have done one good thing here, for which they should take credit: they have rolled the remedial order into this legislation. We strongly support that. It is something that those on the Conservative Benches have been calling for throughout the progress of the Bill, but we think that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said during the carry-over debate, it would have been far better for the Government to have adopted their own amendments and created a new Bill, and brought that to Second Reading. It would have presented a far more coherent picture of what the Government are now up to. The extremely messy way in which this legislation has evolved means that that would have presented the House with a clearer picture of what was going on, and there could have been greater time to consider the new Bill in its entirety. As it is, and as the right hon. Member for Belfast East has pointed out, the main scrutiny will have to be done by the upper House. Although their lordships excel at such work, this practice is becoming far too common.
The Minister is doing her best in very difficult circumstances. Does she agree that one of the problems is that over recent years the Government have given insufficient subsidy and support for adaptation measures and been obsessed with subsidising windmills and solar panels, which will not do anything to deal with the real problems on the ground that we are experiencing?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order arises from the written statement issued by the Government today about the covid-19 inquiry module 4 report. That report was issued exactly six months ago, so the Government have presented their response on the very last day when that could be done. But instead of being a specific answer to the recommendations in the report, the response merely says that the Government want more time. I am particularly concerned about Baroness Hallett’s recommendations for specific changes that she thought should be made to the vaccine damage payments scheme. Today the Government are saying that they note those and recognise “the trauma and distress caused to families facing long waits for the processing of their claims. We take these concerns very seriously and will look further at what needs to be done”—
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Today’s update reinforces what farmers, rural communities and households have known for months: England is in the grip of a drought, and the Government have been slow to react. Eleven areas are now in drought, with Yorkshire the latest to be declared. Ten water companies have hosepipe bans in force. Drought-related environmental incidents have already overtaken the totals of 2022 and 2025. This is the third drought in five years. It should not have caught the Government off guard, but here we are on a sitting Friday, listening to the Water Minister roll out an emergency statement, effectively saying she has been busy having meetings. On 31 July, two and a half months ago, the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), wrote to the Environment Agency setting out six practical steps. Ministers have since said that they will adopt some of them, which is welcome, but it is highly surprising that in this statement from a Minister in the Department that represents food policy, there was not one mention of the impact the drought is having on our farmers and our growers. Why was that? The key questions remain. The Government talk a big game about their new water Bill and taking back public control, yet the primary action announced today is instructing water companies to conduct daily monitoring. Does that mean they have not been doing that to date? If the national drought group has been meeting regularly since August, why are water companies only now being told to step up their drought planning? Why is the Minister willing to relax strict environmental regulations for water companies when they have failed to protect customer supplies through not undertaking significant investment in dealing with leakage and enhancing water storage? What does this say to the many households that are facing increased water bills? The Minister highlights upgrades in investment and promises to build nine new major reservoirs, but she has also admitted that this is a decade-long journey. Our communities, our farmers and our businesses are facing severe challenges today. When exactly will the first reservoir be built, and will she release a timeframe for each? Some on-farm reservoirs are reporting being a fifth full or less heading into winter, yet farmers are still waiting for the reopened water management grant, and planning and licensing hurdles to building water storage remain far too high. The Government announced a £65 million drought package, but what has happened to it? It was money already sitting unallocated in the farming budget. Most of it was poured into the sustainable farming incentive, and look what happened to that. Will the Minister update us on how she is making it easier for farmers to have on-farm reservoirs? The Opposition will work constructively with anyone serious about protecting our food and water security, but we will hold this Government to account when they fall short, and right now they are falling short—significantly short—of what farmers, rural communities and our households expect.
It is a privilege to be able to speak in the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) has secured on the important topic of heritage public houses. I am very privileged to have 64 pubs in my constituency—there are a couple of Conservative clubs included in that number, which is worth mentioning. That is quite a few compared with some Members, who I know only have a handful. In particular, the more urban constituencies are not always fortunate enough to have as many pubs as constituencies that, like mine, are a nice mix of urban and rural. Given the nature of my constituency, which in large part is made up of historic villages that have either merged into the city of Plymouth or have remained as very sweet South Hams or Dartmoor villages, we have a large number of historic pubs. They would have been stopping points for travellers, potentially travelling up from Cornwall through Devon and on to London, and a key part of the community, including in fishing and rural communities. Villages such as Noss Mayo and Newton Ferrers have four or five pubs between them. They are very small, and people would be shocked at how many there are, but I can reassure Members that they maintain a healthy trade. The Mussel Inn in Down Thomas is another key country pub that serves excellent food. Plympton and Plymstock were villages before they were absorbed into the city of Plymouth. They have some very historic pubs, and I will touch on a couple of them shortly, but it is worth mentioning the village of Turnchapel. We proudly still refer to it as a village, but it is now an important part of the city of Plymouth. Turnchapel has both the Boringdon Arms and the Clovelly Bay, which are key parts of the community. Fortunately, they are being kept going by the marine autonomy work that is happening at a former Royal Marine base next door. There is the historic Drake Manor in Buckland Monachorum—hopefully, Sir Francis Drake would have been pleased to be its namesake. Milton Combe has the Who’d Have Thought It, a classic thatched pub at the bottom of a hill in a tiny little village, which serves the most wonderful food. I always make sure to go there with friends just before Christmas. We have a fantastic community-led pub in Cornwood that was recently shortlisted for one of the Countryside Alliance’s rural prizes and came all the way to the House of Commons. Although it was not a winner that day, we are very proud that it was nominated. The Old Smithy, which is not named after me, is a very good pub in Ivybridge. Those are just a few of my pubs. Like others in the Chamber this morning, I will not name all of them, but I think it is was worth putting those ones on the record. It is also worth mentioning the names of such pubs. We have heard of Woolsacks and all sorts of historic names, and we know that even the bars in Parliament are named for specific historic reasons. I particularly want to mention the Skylark in the little village of Clearbrook. If anybody is ever on Dartmoor, they will hear the skylark tweeting away across the moors. What is so wonderful about historic pubs is that their names reflect something that is either historic or specifically tied to the culture of the local community. Such names draw young people into connecting with the history. I want to make special mention of the community groups all over the country that help pubs to survive by sending people on walking routes around them, or by highlighting them through competitions. There is a thriving Facebook page called Plymouth on Tap, which runs a comprehensive competition for pubs in different communities and chooses winners. It is worth mentioning the volunteers behind such Facebook pages and websites, who do so much. Plymouth on Tap says that it is about: “Mapping Plymouth’s pub history & fighting for the ones we’ve still got.” I pay particular tribute to the organisers of that group this morning. That leads me to the value of Members of Parliament running competitions. Like many others, I have run a pub of the year competition. I am delighted that the winner over the last two years has been a historic heritage pub in my constituency, the London Inn in Plympton St Maurice, which is an old village. It is a 16th-century grade II listed building, but can still muster enough votes to have won for two years in a row. I am adding some extra categories for the year ahead to make sure that other pubs can win, but Simon, the landlord, knows that I am doing that. Hopefully, he will push for the best pub in Plympton award, and maybe—who knows?—he will win overall best pub as well. I come back to my point about the importance of heritage pubs and the stories they tell. As I have alluded to, the village of St Maurice was along a major route to London. Who would have thought that little old Plympton St Maurice was a stopping point on the way? It has an incredible history that I will not go into fully, but perhaps I should apply for an Adjournment debate on it at some point. Plympton St Maurice was the home of many fine 17th and 18th-century artists, so if anybody is waiting to speak and wishes to look up the history of Charles Eastlake or Joshua Reynolds, they will see that the London Inn may well have been frequented by them, as they were schoolboys at Plympton grammar school and then went on to be leading figures at the Royal Academy and the National Gallery. If anyone is bored this morning, they can have a look while they are listening. The London Inn sits below a ninth-century castle. Such pubs are historic not just for the buildings themselves, but for their heritage, because of the communities that they sit in. The fact that a pub is so old usually means that the community around it has been there for that long as well. That leads me to another heritage pub, the Union Inn, which is also in Plympton—as the House can tell, Plympton is a very old part of my constituency. What I love is that these buildings do not get hindered by the listings that they might have, and the fact that they are not allowed to make changes to their interiors. In the Union Inn’s case, it creatively uses its garden space, which is now the home of the Plympton Royal British Legion branch. I have attended several ceremonies with the RBL in the garden of that historic pub. Although the rooms are small and it is incredibly cosy inside, it does have land around it. I was privileged to attend a D-Day event and a VE Day commemoration event, and I know the pub will appreciate that mention this morning. Those are two clear examples of the strong community roles that these heritage buildings—by nature often constricted because of their physicality—can play in their neighbourhoods. It is worth just touching on why these heritage pubs need saving in the first place and why we need to look at this legislation today. Given the nature of their fabric, it can be harder to bring in the numbers or to diversify into serving a carvery or a particularly complicated food menu. For these heritage buildings with tiny little rooms and steps everywhere, serving food in the way that a lot of modern, purpose-built pubs do will be particularly difficult. We know that pubs are facing considerable challenges, given the economic climate and the tax increases that the Government have levelled on them, whether it is the increases in national insurance, the minimum wage for young people or business rates. Government Members will say, “We’ve done some work on business rates for pubs,” but the damage has already been done in many cases. That is yet another reason why we must protect these heritage pubs by enabling them to maintain their roles within the community and by ensuring that they cannot be turned into houses. I recently met a constituent who is starting on the journey towards securing a community asset certification for a local pub that has been sold. Ultimately, the hoops that have to be jumped through are incredibly difficult. I will not name the pub, because I do not want to ruin what my constituent plans to do and the work going on in that community to do things properly, but it has highlighted the concern in communities where these pubs exist that they could lose their public house designation and see a change of use. What my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) is doing through this legislation, which builds on what is already there, is important. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has highlighted the legislation that exists already. Ultimately, nobody wants to see what is often a large building in a village turned into flats or the equivalent. I grew up in the city centre in Plymouth in a community called Greenbank, which is not in my constituency, but is just outside. It is historic. It was once fields, and it has seen a lot of building over the years. I am not sure we could say it was famous for this, but on pretty much every corner was a pub. If I walked to school, I would walk past probably four or five small neighbourhood community pubs in among the terraced houses. One reason for that was that the neighbouring communities were owned by Brethren family, who would not allow any pubs in their area. That meant that Greenbank, where I grew up, made up for it in numbers, and there were plenty of pubs for anybody who lived in St Judes, Hyde Park or Mannamead in the constituency of the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). However, because those pubs were not assets of community value, but were just neighbourhood pubs, they have, pretty much without exception, been turned into student accommodation—I think the Providence Inn, around the corner from where I grew up, is effectively somebody’s living room. There is nothing worse than seeing historic pubs that were part of a Victorian neighbourhood turned into student accommodation. Indeed, the one at the end of the road that I grew up on—it would have been built as an inn on the corner of a crescent—is now student accommodation. What was once a lounge bar and a place where people could play darts or pool, or pop in and have a drink with community—people used to have friends in these pubs that they would go and see—have all been turned into properties that people are now living in. Students are great, but they do not live there the whole year, and instead we have lost that community asset. That is why this legislation for heritage public houses would be so helpful. It would ensure some control over the changes within a community that might affect the very fabric of what is going on in that area. I am not going to speak for much longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire is well known for his love of a good ale and is a big supporter of the APPG for ale—is it ale? I am not an ale drinker, so I never quite know the name. I drink the odd beer, but I am not a big warm ale fan. I would rather be in a nice country pub drinking a glass of wine.
My brother’s Labrador is yellow, so I did not quite get the joke, but I like the value of it. I believe that my hon. Friend has raised some valuable points, and his Bill offers some smart safeguards. This is an important debate, because one of the things that makes the United Kingdom so special is the culture we have of community and historic pubs. We know that they were the coaching inns of the past—places of refuge and safety that people could stop at if they were travelling on long journeys—and they are a particularly British institution. I am very grateful to have been able to contribute to this debate. For those Members who have not yet clocked it, I obviously love a bit of history, so it has been wonderful to be able to talk this morning.
Order. Just to remind Mr Jopp: there are many more colleagues in the Chamber than Mr Adam Jogee.
Mr Jogee, I am not sure that that is a good use of a point of order, but you have indeed corrected the record yourself. We will not continue this in the overall debate, so there is no need for a point of order from Mr Jopp.
Order. Before you get to your feet, Dr Prinsley, I remind you that you are speaking through the Chair. I must not be staring at your back.
Order. Before Dr Prinsley gets to his feet, I remind Members that there should be no “you” or “yours”, because they are speaking through the Chair.
Order. Sir Christopher, this is not a matter for the Chair, who is not responsible for the content of statements put out by the Government. You have most definitely made your point; no doubt Treasury Benchers have been making a note of it. Either the Government will respond or you can take further advice from the Clerks about how you can pursue your point further.
I had a delightful soggy drive in this morning, so hallelujah: it has rained a small amount in my constituency. However, as the Minister knows, we are now in severe drought because of the low rainfall, record-breaking temperatures this summer and the impact of El Niño. It has now been announced that we are likely to get standpipes. Constituents with water-dependent businesses are already very worried and at their wits’ end. The fixing of leaks has been too slow. Under the Secretary of State’s guidance, there is the possibility of emergency pipes between Weir Wood and Ardingly reservoir, which is now under 20% full, but that is not a long-term answer. I know the Minister is doing a huge amount of work and having meetings on this, but can she help to arrange aligning infrastructure investment plans between Southern Water and South East Water to deliver effective change and real peace of mind for my constituents, for whom the situation is of deep worry?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thank the hon. Lady for the point she is making. She will see in clause 12 that one of the criteria given for what makes up a heritage pub is it having been around for 150 years, but the other part of the definition is if “the local planning authority deems its building or interior to have a degree of heritage significance”. It has been well established that “heritage significance” includes links to events and famous people in the past, so it will cover the type of event she was speaking about earlier. If she thinks that that definition needs to be broadened, will she work with me to find the right amendment in Committee to improve the Bill, so that it does what she and I want it to do?