(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), is about cutting red tape and unnecessary and time-consuming bureaucracy for the hospitality industry and local authorities when they simply want to open earlier or stay open later on occasions of special importance.
The Bill will amend the Licensing Act 2003 to allow licensing extensions to be made more quickly and simply. Furthermore, it will make it possible to extend licensing hours for noteworthy events at short notice, even when Parliament is not sitting. Such decisions will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and extensions will be used as and when is deemed appropriate by the Government, with the criteria for making such an extension remaining unchanged, and the power resting with the Home Secretary.
The Bill will make a very simple alteration to the Licensing Act 2003, so that the negative procedure is used and the requirement for debate is removed, though Members can still pray against an extension if they wish. That will allow extensions to licensing hours to be processed without using up valuable parliamentary time—something I am certain you would approve of, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is extremely welcome that there has been broad support and consensus across the House for this measure. Whether that says something about parliamentarians and pints, I could not possibly say.
The negative procedure also 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. Following the affirmative procedure is problematic when an order needs to be made at short notice, as we have seen in the past—for example, at the time of the women’s world cup in 2023.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
This summer, the women’s club world cup comes to Northampton. If it was in another country, this legislation would be critical, because I am sure that many want to see the England women’s rugby team play, as they will do at Franklin’s Gardens. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we see more interest in sports, particularly women’s sports, it is critical that the Government have the ability to change licensing hours without the affirmative procedure?
Matt Turmaine
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: this is vital legislation. It is wholly appropriate to make this alteration in order to permit swift changes to licensing hours as necessary.
This move will ensure that there will be no such limitations in the future, and that any hospitality venue will have the option of taking advantage of an extension issued by the Home Secretary. Special occasions such as world cups, European championships and royal weddings live long in all our memories, even if we are enjoying the hospitality so enabled. It is only right that our pubs and hospitality venues are given the opportunity to be a part of the experience on those occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I hope that the Bill will pass today, and will do exactly what it says on the tin, especially on this day of celebration, one year on from the general election.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North, I am proud to speak in support of the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, which is a sensible and necessary reform to support our struggling hospitality sector and, as we have heard, allow communities to come together during moments of national significance. The Bill gives the Government the power to extend licensing hours across the country for key events, such as royal celebrations, national sporting victories and commemorative days, without the need for venues to go through costly and time-consuming individual applications.
For Portsmouth North, this is more than just a technical measure—it is a lifeline. Across areas such as North End, Drayton, Cosham and Hilsea, we have seen much-loved venues close their doors in recent years, yet some still stand strong at the heart of our communities. Pubs such as the Harvest Home in Copnor, the George in Cosham, the Drayton Tavern in Drayton and the Cross Keys in Paulsgrove, where my mum and dad met, have fought to keep going, despite increased pressures from rising costs, staff shortages and regulatory burdens. For many of these venues, the opportunity to stay open later during special events without additional red tape could mean the difference between a profitable night and another loss.
I want to highlight the role of Casemates Studios in Hilsea. Although primarily a creative space, it supports a range of community events, music gigs and social gatherings. More flexible licensing arrangements will allow places like Casemates to better host local talent and public events tied to national occasions, without the financial or bureaucratic strain that often puts them off even trying. This Bill supports exactly that kind of local, community-led vibrancy. Having spoken with business owners across my constituency, I know how hard they have worked to stay afloat. The Licensing Hours Extensions Bill removes an unnecessary hurdle. It simplifies the process, reduces costs, and gives our hospitality businesses a fair shot at success when it matters most—on those big nights when our country is celebrating.
Let me be clear: this is not about handing out licences indiscriminately. The Bill rightly ensures that local authorities and the police are consulted before any national extension is granted, meaning that residents will still be protected from antisocial behaviour and decisions will reflect the needs of the whole community.
Portsmouth North’s pubs and venues are not just businesses—they are places where people gather, celebrate, mark milestones and find connections. This Bill gives them a boost at a time when many are struggling to keep the lights on. I am pleased to support the Bill, and urge colleagues across the House to do the same for the sake of our local economies, our community spirit and the future of our British pub. As our Lionesses begin their Euros campaign, I wish them our very best.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, alongside the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), and I am pleased to confirm that the Conservative party supports the measure. It is legislation that the previous Conservative Government supported, and we welcome its return to the House. The Bill changes section 197 of the Licensing Act 2003, moving licensing hours orders from the affirmative to the negative procedure. As we have heard, this will save precious parliamentary time while maintaining full democratic accountability through the prayer procedure, which allows Members to object within 40 days.
The hospitality sector is vital to local economies throughout the United Kingdom. From rural pubs to city centre hotels, these businesses need the flexibility to serve their communities during national celebrations. When His Majesty the King was crowned in 2023, establishments across the country wanted to mark that historic occasion. The current process makes it unnecessarily difficult to respond to such moments of national significance. Since 2003, this power has been used sparingly for national events; every single order has had to pass through Parliament, and has done so unopposed. Public consultation also shows strong support, with 77% backing the coronation extensions to licences in 2023.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When this Bill had its Second Reading, I put it to the Minister who was responding then, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), that this was a rather puny measure, and that there is a strong case for deregulating this whole area, and for getting Parliament and the Government out of the hospitality sector’s hair in relation to licensing hours. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill is far too limited a measure?
Harriet Cross
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course, we should all strive for deregulation, and would like more of it all the time. That is probably a bit too much to take on within the very small confines of this private Member’s Bill, but it is certainly something we should strive for, in order to help businesses across the country, and definitely something I would look at.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Will she also include within her inquiries, and her thoughts about ambition, some more control over the negative procedure? The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), who introduced the Bill today, asserted that anybody who was against an order passed under the negative procedure would be able to pray against it, but the opportunity to ensure that a prayer results in a debate is almost non-existent. That is a theoretical, rather than practical, constraint. One of the issues I have been trying to raise is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Sir Christopher is a parliamentarian with enough experience to know that that is a very, very long intervention. He has been here from the start; he could have chosen to contribute in the debate.
Harriet Cross
I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. This is clearly an area that he is very passionate about. If these proposals progress, I am sure that he will be able to feed into them well.
We have been hearing about the affirmative procedure versus the negative procedure. The affirmative procedure has proven particularly cumbersome when unexpected events arise. When our Lionesses reached the world cup final with just four days’ notice, as we have heard, the parliamentary process nearly prevented communities from coming together to celebrate. Even my communities in Scotland would have had the opportunity to do so, if they had been in the same situation. Moving to the negative procedure would allow the Government to respond swiftly to such moments, while maintaining parliamentary oversight.
This change does not weaken democratic oversight at all; it simply makes the process more efficient. The Secretary of State must still consult appropriately under section 172, and public consultation will continue. As we have heard, any Member of either House retains the right to table a prayer motion for the annulment of the order, and judicial review remains available.
The benefits are clear. Parliamentary time spent on uncontested orders can be reallocated to generally contentious matters. By making small, sensible changes like this, we free up valuable time to debate critical issues facing our country, such as securing our energy supply, supporting rural and coastal communities, tackling neighbourhood crime and holding this Government to account.
The Conservative party is and always will be the party of business. We understand that the ability to open for longer during national celebrations can provide a significant and welcome boost of energy and income to our pubs, bars, restaurants and high streets. This Bill facilitates that in a more efficient manner. We support the Bill because it is a common-sense, practical measure that continues to champion the work we did in government, and because it will help businesses and communities across all our constituencies.
In conclusion, as this is a thoroughly logical piece of legislation, which removes unnecessary procedural steps and allows the House to better focus on its primary responsibilities, we support it and commend it to the House.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I rise to speak only because I was not able to complete my intervention; as you rightly said, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was getting very long.
The point I want to make in my short contribution to this debate is that it is because of the lack of flexibility in the negative procedure that we find ourselves having to discuss the matter on Third Reading today. If the House had the ability to amend statutory instruments, and had a guarantee, more or less, that if there was an objection to an order made under the negative procedure, it could be the subject of debate, there would be less concern about orders being subject to the negative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure.
This Bill has been dragged through this House at great length. I do not quite understand the explanation for that. Under the Bill, in the narrow context of a sporting event taking place that resulted in the need for a celebration that there had not been notice of at a time when the House was sitting—according to the Bill’s sponsors, it would be relevant only in such circumstances—the Government could allow a licensing extension.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As we have not yet heard from the Minister, I am not prepared to take a closure motion at this time.
Sir Christopher Chope
In the light of the number of people who voted at 9.35 am, I think it is highly unlikely that any closure motion could be carried, because it would need 100 Members to support it. I have been speaking for only two or three minutes. I know the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) is keen to get on and discuss his Bill, which I know the Government wish to talk out—I am a little bit perplexed about that.
The negative resolution procedure would be necessary only in an emergency. I was quite tempted to extend my remarks, because the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) tried to link the contents of the Bill with today’s first anniversary of the election of what I think is undeniably the worst Government this country has ever experienced. Would we really have wanted to celebrate that in the pubs? Last night, I was commiserating with a group of Conservatives in a London constituency about what had happened over the last year, and explaining to them that they should take courage from the fact that at least we are 20% of the way through this ghastly Government.
Matt Turmaine
My remarks were entirely oriented around the suggestion that those wishing to celebrate would be able to do so. No compulsion to do so was intended.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am so relieved to hear that. As a believer in freedom and choice, I think people should have the chance to go to the pub either to celebrate or to commiserate. I share the desire of the hon. Gentleman and many others in this House to promote the hospitality industry. There seems to be some evidence that a lot more young people are coming back to drink and celebrate in pubs, and long may that continue. In my constituency, as in many others, far too many good pubs and other hospitality venues have closed down, not least because of the Government’s imposition of extra employers’ national insurance and increases in the national minimum wage.
Although the Government will probably take credit for allowing this Bill—this very modest measure—to go through, it needs to be put in perspective. At the same time, they have been the author of a whole lot of measures that have been very bad news for the hospitality industry across the country, and in Christchurch in particular.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and to others who spoke in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford for speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), who introduced the Bill, and I am grateful to be speaking on behalf of the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson).
Throughout proceedings on the Bill, there has been a high degree of consensus on the measures it contains, and I am pleased to say that the Government fully support it. I recognise the depth of experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham brings to it, with his 25-plus years in the hospitality sector. Rightly, the Bill supports the sector, which is responsible for around 2.6 million jobs in our country and is an important part of our local and national economy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford explained, section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 makes provision for the Secretary of State to make an order that relaxes licensing hours in England and Wales on an occasion of exceptional international, national or local significance. In practice, the Home Secretary determines whether an occasion meets the criteria on a case-by-case basis, and any orders that are brought forward must specify the dates and times of the relaxations. Such orders benefit businesses, which can stay open for longer; communities, which can come together to celebrate important events; and licensing authorities, which do not have to process a large number of individual licence extensions. Of course, it is still for individual businesses to decide whether they wish to take advantage of any extension, but if businesses do wish to stay open, a blanket licensing extension means that individual businesses do not have to give a temporary event notice to their local authority, saving them time as well as the associated fee.
The Bill will amend the Licensing Act 2003 so that relaxation orders can be made via the negative resolution procedure, rather than the current affirmative procedure. In the past, we have relaxed licensing hours for high-profile royal events, such as Her late Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee and the coronation of His Majesty the King; other events of significant national importance, such as the recent celebrations on the 80th anniversary of VE Day; and major sporting events, including the finals of the men’s European championship football tournaments in 2020 and 2024, and the women’s European championship this summer.
Let me summarise the benefits of changing the procedure. First, by removing the need for businesses to submit individual temporary event notices and, subsequently, for local authorities to work tirelessly in processing them, we will reduce the burden placed on those organisations. Hospitality venues will also have one fewer administrative task to process as they prepare for events.
Secondly, as I have previously mentioned, a more practical reason for making this change is that, as well as being used for royal occasions—for which there is plenty of notice—licensing extensions can be used when one of our national football teams makes it to the final of a tournament. Given the nature of how these competitions play out, there is very little time between the team qualifying for a key match and the match taking place.
In the summer of 2021, the England men’s team made it to the final of the delayed Euro 2020 tournament; thankfully, with the help of colleagues of different parties, we were able to swiftly put an order in place in the three days between the semi-final and the final. In the summer of 2023, however, the England women’s team reached the final of the World cup, which took place when Parliament was in recess. As such, it was not possible to extend licensing hours. Changing the process to the negative procedure will mean that an order can be made when Parliament is in recess, so that we can avoid such a situation arising again. History has shown that there is clearly cross-party support for this measure, which is important to colleagues on both sides of the House.
Having outlined the benefits of being able to make orders swiftly, I will briefly make some remarks about how the Government will consider what needs to be in place when using the powers. We are clear that the Government must continue to plan ahead so that, wherever possible, licensing hours extension orders can be made in time for prior public consultation. It is also important to make it clear that the police have generally been supportive of extensions for royal events, and that no noticeable issues have been attributed to extended drinking hours. Indeed, many people might like to drink non-alcoholic beverages, which are available in almost all pubs and restaurants across the country.
The Government recognise the importance of providing the police with ample time to put in place any additional policing measures that may be necessary to prevent an increase in crime or disorder in our communities, and we make sure that their views on these matters are heard in advance. To that end, the Government remain firmly committed to continuing to plan in advance wherever possible.
The power in section 172 of the Licensing Act has been used sparingly, and rightly so. As the statutory guidance that accompanies the Licensing Act sets out, it should normally be possible for those applying for premises licences to anticipate special occasions. The change will apply to England and Wales only. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and others who have spoken in support of this important new measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.