MPs back plans for ministers to ease pub last orders without Parliament debate
But the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, which has cleared the Commons at third reading, would let ministers effectively bypass a parliamentary debate.
MPs could still 'pray against' the Government's decision-making, if they would like a debate or vote.
Matt Turmaine said the move would allow ministers to process orders 'without using up valuable parliamentary time'.
The Watford MP, speaking in place of Labour MP for Wrexham Andrew Ranger who tabled the Bill, said the move was 'about cutting red tape, red tape that produces unnecessary and time-consuming bureaucracy for the hospitality industry and local authorities for the simple matter of wanting to be able to open earlier or stay open later when occasions of special importance emerge, as they surely do'.
Mr Turmaine, a Labour MP, said the Bill would make a 'very simple alteration' to the Licensing Act 2003.
'It is also extremely welcome that there has been broad support and consensus across the House regarding this,' he added.
'Whether that says something about parliamentarians and pints, I could not possibly say.'
Mr Turmaine said the existing process, known as the affirmative procedure, 'is problematic when an order needs to be made at short notice'.
The Home Office successfully used this procedure last month, when MPs agreed without opposition to let pubs and bars temporarily sell alcohol until 1am, if England or Wales – or both – reach the Uefa Women's Euros semi-finals or finals.
Lionesses Ella Toone (left) and Alessia Russo (Bradley Collyer/PA)
Both teams begin their Championship campaign on Saturday when the Lionesses face France and Wales will play the Netherlands.
The semi-finals take place on July 22 and 23, with the final on July 27.
Mr Turmaine had earlier told MPs: 'The negative procedure has the benefit of allowing licensing extensions to be made in the rare event that they are needed during parliamentary recess or at short notice.'
He said: 'Special occasions such as World Cups, European Championships and royal weddings are times that live long in the memory of us all, even if we are enjoying the hospitality so enabled.
'And it is only right that our pubs and hospitality venues are given the opportunity to be a part of that experience when they do occur.'
Home Office minister Seema Malhotra described a 'high degree of consensus' across the House, and added: 'I'm pleased to say that the Government fully supports it.'
Mr Ranger's Bill was one of five to clear the Commons on Friday, alongside the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill which would pave the way for a ban on imports of puppies and kittens under six months old, dogs and cats which are more than 42 days pregnant, and dogs and cats which have been mutilated.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill would add llamas and alpacas to the list of farm animals which, if attacked by a dog in England and Wales, would see pet owners fined. It would also extend dog attack protections beyond agricultural land to roads and paths, where animals might be herded.
Voters in Scotland and Wales edged closer to being able to apply for a proxy or postal vote online for devolved elections, bringing them in line with English electors, after MPs agreed to back the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill.
The Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill also cleared the Commons, which would see liability caps in the licences granted by the Civil Aviation Authority for spaceflight.
They each face scrutiny in the Lords on later dates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Anas Sarwar urged to 'come clean' on tax changes in Scotland
The SNP have written to the Scottish Labour leader over comments he made last week signalling his party would seek to bring Scotland's income tax system closer in line with the rest of the UK. In an interview with the Scottish Sun, Sarwar accused SNP ministers of "government by performance" as he suggested he would move to end the tax divergence with the rest of the UK if he becomes first minister. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Bigger-picture switch is proving key in tackling tourism issues Currently, a majority of Scottish taxpayers pay less income tax than they would elsewhere in the UK. In Scotland, the top rate of tax (45%) comes in at earnings of £75,001, while those reaching £125,140 face a 48% levy. In the rest of the UK, the top rate of tax is 45% and only comes in when earnings reach £125,140. Figures from the Scottish Fiscal Commission suggest that Scotland's tax system generates up to an additional £1.7 billion each year compared to if it had matched the UK Government's policy. The SNP said Labour's plan would risk reversing this additional income and would mean that lower-income Scots would pay more while the wealthiest pay less, resulting in "billions of pounds worth of cuts" from public services to plug the gap. Kevin Stewart MSP (Image: PA) Kevin Stewart, an SNP MSP who sits on Holyrood's Economy Committee, has written to Sarwar to urge him to outline what services he would cut in order to "balance the books". In his letter, he asked Sarwar to clarify his position that those on "very large salaries" should pay less tax, "while also supporting disability benefits cuts". Stewart wrote: 'As you know, a majority of Scots currently pay less income tax than they would if they lived elsewhere in the UK, and Scottish income tax generates well over a billion pounds additional funding to be spent here in Scotland. 'Any changes to the Scottish income tax system puts this at risk – meaning Labour's plans could see the poorest being taxed more, or cutting up to well over a billion pounds from Scottish public services in order to fund these tax cuts. 'Is it really your position that people on very large salaries should pay less income tax in Scotland, while also supporting cuts to disability benefits? 'I am therefore writing to you to ask what spending cuts Labour plan to implement in Scotland in order to bring Scotland's income tax system more in line with the rest of the UK.' Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar (right) pictured with Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Image: Jane Barlow/PA) Sarwar previously backed the UK Government's decision to cut disability benefits, before Labour conceded to rebels and watered down such plans in a last-minute climbdown. Commenting, Stewart told The National that since Labour took office last year, "they have made it their business to balance the books on the backs of the poor, disabled and older people". 'For a Labour politician to claim there is no money to pay for disability benefits while also arguing that very rich people are being taxed too much frankly beggars belief – and shows how out of touch Mr Sarwar is with traditional Labour voters," he said. READ MORE: Protesters stage demonstration inside Reform UK's headquarters 'Mr Sarwar needs to come clean with people in Scotland – if Labour are in power in Scotland, what services would he cut to fund tax cuts for the rich? Will it be free tuition, prescriptions, childcare, bus passes, the baby box – or will he cut ADP [Adult Disability Payment] – Scotland's equivalent of PIP [Personal Independence Payment] - just like his bosses in London wanted to?" Stewart continued: 'The SNP are proud to have introduced progressive taxation in Scotland which ensures those on lower incomes pay a bit less while people on higher incomes pay more – and everybody benefits from the extra investment in public services. 'The truth is, Scottish Labour just want to bring Scotland in line with the rest of the UK regardless of the cost to the Scottish people – only the SNP can be trusted to stand up for a fairer Scotland that the vast majority of people want to live in.' Stewart's comments came as Scottish Government Finance Secretary Shona Robison urged Starmer to look north of the Border for a more progressive tax system to protect public spending. (Image: PA) Robison said that if Labour had followed the Scottish model, they would not be in the "complete fiscal mess that they are in now". She said: 'When Keir Starmer took office, he could have chosen to ask people on higher incomes to pay a little more in tax in order to protect public spending. 'Choosing instead to target the vulnerable is not leadership – frankly, it is political cowardice. READ MORE: More than 20 people arrested at protest in support of Palestine Action 'If Keir Starmer had done in England what the SNP have done in Scotland with taxation, Labour would not be in the complete fiscal mess that they are in now." Robison added that Labour need "a new direction – and they should look to Scotland". She continued: 'Labour used to tell Scotland that we didn't need independence and we just needed to get rid of the Tory government – but the last year has completely demolished that argument. 'No Westminster government will ever deliver the truly fair society which I believe the vast majority of people in Scotland want to live in – and that is why independence is the best future for Scotland.' Scottish Labour's spokesperson for economy, business and fair work, Daniel Johnson MSP, said: "Unlike the SNP, Scottish Labour won't use higher taxes on workers like nurses and firefighters as a substitute for economic growth. 'A Scottish Labour government will grow our economy, end the SNP's addiction to wasting our money and reform our public services so they are fit for the future. 'Next year Scots have the chance to kick out an SNP Government that can't be trusted with our money and take a new direction with Scottish Labour.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Keir Starmer told not to 'punish' children by keeping two-child cap
The SNP urged the Prime Minister to end the limit amid reports it could stay as a result of Labour watering down most of its welfare reforms. KEIR Starmer has been urged not to 'punish' children by keeping the two-child cap following Labour's partial U-turn on benefit cuts. The UK Government had attempted to save around £5 billion a year by cutting welfare, mostly for those claiming disability and health benefits, but made concessions following a revolt from MPs. READ MORE: At least 42 Palestinians killed by Israel as doctors warn babies facing death The move means the Treasury may not see any savings at all as the welfare budget is still set to rapidly rise in the coming years. Media reports suggest the move could see ministers keep the cap in order to save money. The Prime Minister previously indicated the Government would only abolish the two-child cap, which prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for more than two children, when it had the money to do so. Asked in May whether he would scrap the policy, he said: 'We'll look at all options of driving down child poverty.' The SNP, which will mitigate the limit in Scotland by 2026, has urged the UK Government to scrap the cap, which it says is pushing thousands of children into poverty. The party said analysis from the House of Commons Library found that 2.3 million families could be lifted out of poverty if the UK Government matched Scottish Government policies. These included the Scottish Child Payment, abolishing the two-child benefit cap and scrapping the so-called bedroom tax. According to the House of Commons Library, these measures would lift 96,000 families in Scotland out of poverty. The analysis also shows that over the past decade the number of children living in poverty in the UK has risen from 3.7 million (27%) in 2013/14 to 4.5 million (31%) in 2023/24. That number is expected to rise to 4.6 million (33%) by 2029-30, according to the data. SNP deputy Westminster leader Pete Wishart urged the Prime Minister to have a rethink on his welfare plans. Pete Wishart MP (Image: PA) He said: 'Keir Starmer must not punish children for his disastrous mistakes over the Labour Party's cuts to disabled people. 'It is utterly shameful that as a direct result of Labour Party austerity cuts, child poverty is rising to record levels in the UK – and the Prime Minister is failing to lift a finger to tackle it. 'Scrapping the two-child benefit cap is the absolute bare minimum – and it should have been done on the Labour Government's first day in power. READ MORE: Here's why banning Orange marches would be a bad idea 'It's pathetic that senior Labour Party figures now want to keep this punitive welfare cut just to show rebel MPs who's in charge. 'Saving Keir Starmer embarrassment is not more important than tackling child poverty.' Wishart urged Starmer not to 'drag his feet' on the two-child cap and to instead match the SNP's Scottish Child Payment with a similar policy for the entire UK. He added: 'Thanks to SNP action, Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling. 'Unless Keir Starmer urgently follow's Scotland's lead, his lasting legacy will be pushing millions of children into destitution.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We are determined to bring down child poverty. We've just announced a new £1 billion package to reform crisis support, including funding to ensure the poorest children do not go hungry outside of term time. 'This comes alongside the expansion to free breakfast clubs and the move to make over half-a-million more children eligible for free school meals. 'We have also increased the national minimum wage and are supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. 'We will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy later this year to ensure we deliver fully funded measures that tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty across the country.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
John Curtice gives verdict on Labour's first year in power
Reflecting on Keir Starmer's first year in office, the top pollster said Labour's problems in government have largely come from them failing to set out their stall and communicate their 'story' before being handed the keys to Number 10. After winning a huge majority last July, Labour's first year in power ended in chaos this week as they were forced into several U-turns on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Bill – one of which was made during the parliamentary debate - with one Labour MP calling the episode 'crazy' and 'outrageous'. Even with those concessions made, nearly 50 Labour MPs still voted against the government, with one backbencher having now put forward a fresh amendment to the legislation to prevent the cut to the health component of Universal Credit. It was hardly Labour's first rocky moment in the Commons, with unpopular policies such as the Winter Fuel Payment cut and the refusal to lift the two-child benefit cap causing them headaches over the course of the last 12 months. READ MORE: Jeremy Corbyn confirms launch of new party - read the full statement Speaking exclusively to the Sunday National, Professor Curtice said Labour are now paying for the 'lack of vision' they failed to present to the public in the run-up to the General Election. 'The complaint the public had before the election was 'well, we don't really know what they stand for, what is Starmer's vision?'' said Curtice. 'Once you hit the problems of government, if you don't have a story, it's much easier for you to be seen to be buffeted by events. 'It's very striking I think, if you listen or read any of the speeches ministers have made recently about 'our successes', and they come up with this enormously long list of things they've achieved. What they don't come up with is a two- or three-point summary that says, 'this is the big picture of what we have done'.' Failure to do the groundwork On Friday, Labour's problems mounted as former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he would be launching a new left-wing party which he described as a "real alternative", backed by former Labour MP Zarah Sultana. Corbyn said the Labour Government had "refused to deliver the change people expected" adding that "poverty, inequality and war are not inevitable". Reflecting on difficulties Labour faced in getting the welfare bill through Parliament – mainly because of unpopular proposals to change the eligibility criteria for PIP - Curtice said it was clear in the run-up to the General Election that Labour 'campaigned to win' but 'did not campaign for office' in their failure to prepare the public for their policy agenda. 'This is not the first Labour government to try to reduce the welfare bill,' Curtice went on. 'It was very much what New Labour were about. Now, they hit some parliamentary trouble, but the crucial difference was this – before 1997 Blair was attacking [Margaret] Thatcher for wasting money on unemployment benefit. 'Blair prepared the ground and although people didn't necessarily entirely believe it beforehand, once they [Labour] did it, you saw voters falling behind the message. (Image: Jack Hill/The Times/PA Wire) 'The problem for this government is they didn't prepare the ground and because there wasn't a broader synoptic message about what this government is about, in so far as people had expectations of this government, then there were the kind of standard expectations of a Labour government – they want to reduce inequality etc.' He added: 'A lot of this is the result of how Labour positioned themselves beforehand or the things they didn't do beforehand, then those weaknesses then become evident as you have to make tough decisions in government.' Curtice said despite the difficulties Starmer has faced, he has managed to carve an image of himself as 'unflappable' when it comes to dealing with bad news, but that has also come with problems. 'Because he is in some senses so bland, Starmer still comes across as completely unflappable,' he said. 'The problem is what he doesn't do is jump up and down and say 'hooray, this is brilliant, this is what we're trying to achieve'. It's the lack of a positive direction [that's the issue]. It's that lack of a broad vision.' Welfare cuts 'an absolute travesty' For Dr Ciara Fitzpatrick, a social security expert at Ulster University, Labour's failure to communicate that broad vision has seen her feelings of 'hope' last year turn to 'despair'. She said the policy-making process around the welfare bill had been 'diabolical and shameful', as she criticised how it was going to be 'rammed through Parliament' next week with little scrutiny from experts or the disabled and sick people it is going to impact. READ MORE: Word cloud exposes what people really think of Labour after 1 year While the changes to PIP eligibility criteria have been parked for now pending a review, the health top-up of Universal Credit is still being cut for new claimants from £97 per week to £50 per week from April – a reduction to £217.26 per month. Fitzpatrick said there was nothing in Labour's manifesto to suggest 'brutal' cuts would be made to social security benefits, as she criticised the party for 'belittling' people it has 'blindsided'. 'I think that is an absolute travesty that this hugely important legislation has not been given sufficient time for scrutiny, for expert input, for the input of those people who are going to be impacted,' she said. 'They are going to ram it through parliament next week and I just think that is immoral. 'It keeps me up at night. It's beyond anything I thought was in the realms of possibility from a Labour government.' MPs will continue to scrutinise the bill when it returns to the House of Commons on Wednesday. Richard Burgon's amendment would reverse the Universal Credit cut, keeping the health element at its current rate of £423.27. Fitzpatrick went on: 'I had hope when Labour were elected that we would see change. There was nothing in the manifesto to suggest they were going to make the most brutal cuts to social security since the coalition government in 2010. 'I think a lot of people who put their faith in Labour after 14 years over Conservative government have been blindsided and I think Labour themselves have completely overlooked that and belittled that. They are selling it to us as something they have to do, but we just know it isn't. 'I was full of hope and now I'm full of despair and it's hard to see any hope on the horizon in terms of the government's really hard-line fiscal arrangements that they are not prepared to flex in order to [help] people who have had a really hard time for the last 14 years. 'I speak for a lot of people, I think, that feel an utter sense of betrayal that we have a Labour Party who are not proving they are the party of social justice and they are the party of working-class people.'
