Labour MPs have been accused of preventing a proposed law to protect historic pubs from progressing after a House of Commons debate ended without a vote on Friday 16 October 2026.
The Heritage Public Houses Bill, introduced by Conservative MP Mike Wood, was intended to strengthen safeguards for pubs of historic and community significance. Its proposals were prompted in part by the destruction of the Crooked House in Himley, Staffordshire, in 2023.
The Bill was debated at second reading but ran out of parliamentary time at the Friday sitting's 2.30pm cut-off. MPs did not vote to reject it. Wood and campaigners accused Labour MPs of prolonging proceedings to stop the legislation advancing, an allegation rather than an established parliamentary finding.
What would the Bill have changed?
According to the House of Commons Library and Wood's speech, the legislation proposed a register of heritage public houses maintained by local authorities, additional protection while applications for statutory listing were considered, and stronger safeguards against demolition or conversion to other uses.
It also sought to improve community opportunities to buy historic pubs. Wood argued that communities often discover a pub is under threat too late to organise a bid or secure heritage protections. The measures were designed to supplement existing planning rules and assets-of-community-value arrangements.
Campaigners criticise the outcome
Wood criticised Labour's approach following the debate, arguing that the party had failed to back stronger protection for pubs despite expressing support for the industry. The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), which backed the legislation, described the alleged obstruction as an “absolute disgrace” and called for tougher protections against demolition and redevelopment.
The proposals had also received backing from the Countryside Alliance and campaigners seeking to preserve the Crooked House's legacy.
Labour MPs raised questions about existing protections
The official parliamentary record shows that Labour MPs did not simply reject the importance of historic pubs. Several praised the aim of preservation while questioning how the proposals would interact with existing planning powers and community-asset protections.
Labour MP Anna Dixon noted that local authorities already have powers to list buildings of local historical importance, including pubs. Wood responded that such measures did not necessarily protect historic interiors or offer sufficient safeguards before a building was threatened. Other MPs discussed community purchase arrangements and the financial pressures facing pubs.
Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier spoke positively about the Bill's underlying concerns and said she would support it if it came to a vote. That makes it important not to suggest that every Labour MP opposed the measure.
What happens next?
Friday's proceedings ended without the Bill securing its second reading. As a private Member's Bill, its prospects depend on obtaining further parliamentary time and completing the remaining legislative stages. It has not become law, and its failure to advance on Friday should not be reported as a defeat in a recorded vote.
The dispute puts renewed attention on whether the government will support further statutory protections for heritage pubs, particularly in cases involving sudden closure, redevelopment or demolition.