Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is the first time, but I sincerely hope not the last time, that I have proposed legislation in this House that has not only enjoyed strong cross-party support throughout all stages of its passage, but strong support outside this place. There has not been a single objection to the Bill from the police, local authorities, the public or, which is to be expected, the hospitality industry. In fact, the industry has been asking for this small legislative change for some time now, and It has asked for it because it makes sense.

I want to apologise in advance that this speech is a little dull and technical, but it is important that the details of what I am proposing are made clear to the House, a point I discussed at length with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who I am sorry is not with us in his usual Friday slot today.

Love for our pubs is strong across all our constituencies. If there is one thing guaranteed to unite us, it is sporting and royal events. We tend to gather for these events in our local pubs, because they are the beating heart of our communities. As hon. Members will know, such events do not always take place when our pubs and hospitality venues are open, which is why the Licensing Act 2003 makes two provisions for licence extension. First, individual licensed premises can apply to their local authority for a temporary event notice. Each application costs £21 and takes a minimum of five working days to be approved, although it often takes longer. The provision is not designed for scenarios in which many venues across the country wish to extend their licensing hours at short notice and at the same time, so a second provision, under section 172 of the 2003 Act, enables licensing extensions for

“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.

That allows the Government to make a relaxation order applicable to all premises in England and Wales, specifying the dates and times of the relaxation, which cannot exceed four days.

Such orders, which are made under section 197 of the 2003 Act, are subject to the affirmative procedure and need approval from both Houses of Parliament. Best practice is for the Home Secretary to complete a public consultation, and then for both Houses to debate the order, which can take up to six months to implement. As mentioned on Second Reading, the process has been used for the coronation of His Majesty the King, the 90th birthday and platinum jubilee of Her late Majesty, the 2011 and 2018 royal weddings, the 2014 FIFA World cup, and the Euro 2020 final in 2021.

Last summer, our whole country was immensely proud of our Lionesses reaching the women’s World cup final. As hon. Members will recall, we found out only four days before the match that our Lionesses had made the final. It was taking place on a Sunday in Sydney, and there was an 11-hour time difference. The match kicked off at 11 am, with many venues unable to serve alcohol until 11 am or 12 noon. There was no time left for them to apply to their local authority for a temporary event notice and, because Parliament was in recess, there was no mechanism for the Government to issue an extension. Our communities missed out on all the pre-match excitement and much-needed extra revenue.

Clause 1 will allow the Home Secretary or Ministers to make an extension order in similar situations without going through the costly, overly bureaucratic, time-consuming and restrictive process that exists now. Clause 2 simply states that the Bill will come into force on the day it gains Royal Assent, and will extend to England and Wales only. The Bill does not propose a change to the circumstances with which discretion may be exercised by the Home Secretary. The provisions in section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, which relate to the length, purpose and consultation requirements of any relaxation order, will remain intact.

This is a Bill to simplify the parliamentary process, not to change the substance of the Licensing Act’s provisions. Using the negative procedure instead of the affirmative procedure does not remove parliamentarians’ voices on applications. As Members will know, the majority of statutory instruments are laid before Parliament under the negative procedure, and there is a process for objecting to them or having them annulled, both in this place and in the other place.

Next week, the Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA European Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2021 is due for debate. Like all previous extension orders of this kind, it is very likely that it will pass through both Houses unopposed. Considering the many problems that our constituents and the country are facing right now, it is a waste of precious parliamentary time to debate an uncontentious order that has such cross-party and public support.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I recall spending many hours as a Home Office Minister taking through statutory instruments for exactly this kind of occasion, even though nobody opposed them and everybody could see that they were very good, particularly for the hospitality industry. I declare an interest: my brother is a pub landlord and my father was before him, so I know how much such orders matter. I fully support the hon. Lady’s Bill. Does she agree that these events are exactly the kinds of times when we need to get together in the great British pub?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention, and I hope that her family welcome the Bill as well. Like much of our hospitality industry through covid, pubs were absolutely battered. While this Bill is small and will not apply all the time, when it does apply, the revenue that our local hospitality venues and pubs will gain from it will make a huge difference to them.

Even with my Bill, the Government fully intend to continue to plan ahead so that, wherever possible, licensing hours extension orders can be brought forward with sufficient time for public consultation and notice, as they have been for the upcoming Euros licensing order next week. This Bill has received such support because it is straightforward and sensible. I am sure that we all look forward to joining our constituents down one of our brilliant locals in celebrating the next national, sporting or royal event. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

There have actually been far too many to be able to name them. As my right hon. Friend says, there are so many amazing venues in my constituency. I think that, at my last count, we had 13,000 licensed premises in Westminster alone, and as a former licensing chair of Westminster Council, the largest licensing authority in the country, I can say with some authority that we have amazing licensed premises here.

As the hon. Member for South Shields says, the alternative to this Bill is to go with temporary event notices, which are used for individual businesses looking to extend their hours. I know, from my experience as a licensing chair, that those are a bureaucratic nightmare for licensing authorities—especially for a city centre such as Westminster, central Manchester, Birmingham or wherever—and the £21 charge never matches the cost of the administration of those temporary event notices. This Bill will do away with that time-consuming bureaucracy.

In practice, the blanket extension orders go unopposed, and the public are often in favour of proposed licensing hours extensions. Some 85% of respondents to the consultation were in favour of an extension for this year’s Euros, and 77% were in favour of one during the King’s coronation.

Another important point to make is that there is a massive, vital economic benefit from this Bill. Pubs and late-night venues in my constituency employ more than 22,000 people and turn over £1 billion each year; it is the No. 1 constituency for turnover, and economic value, from the hospitality industry in the UK. That is just in central London, but pubs and other venues play a vital role in the local economy of every part of the United Kingdom. The Bill will support them. We know the hospitality industry has had a tough time over the past five years.

While I welcome making the process to extend opening hours easier, it is important to remember that such extensions will see an increase in the consumption of alcohol. Sadly, often, that will result in an increase in antisocial behaviour and disturbances for residents. The extension order for the 2020 Euros final allowed for an extra 45 minutes of serving time. However, for the 2024 Euros, the Government consultation proposed extending licensing hours by two hours, meaning many pubs will close at 1 am.

I am sure everyone in the House agrees that we do not want to see a repeat of what happened during the 2020 Euros, when Trafalgar Square, in my constituency, was the scene of some very unruly behaviour, including excess drinking and revellers climbing on buildings and buses. It was an absolute nightmare. I am aware of residents’ concerns about the current licensing application for the fanzone for this year’s Champions League final, which will allow up to 20,000 people to gather in Trafalgar Square and a further 30,000 in Victoria Embankment Gardens.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Member for her fulsome support for my Bill. I stress to her and to the House that there will be continued consultation with the police and local authorities, even when the regulations in the Bill are in play. We are simply changing the parliamentary process, not the process that happens outside this place. I want to give her that assurance.

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely accept that point. I just want to take the opportunity to ensure we do not forget that, in my constituency in central London, we have a massive and vital hospitality industry, which employs tens of thousands of people, but we also have residents living cheek by jowl with those premises, many of them in social housing. I visited a social housing block in Mayfair last week. People do not expect to see social housing in places like that, but we have social housing in Mayfair, Belgravia, Soho and Marylebone, and it is important we do not forget that.

The UK should take pride in hosting internationally renowned competitions, such as the Euros and the Champions League final, and make provision for those seeking to celebrate them. I understand why the Government and the Greater London Authority want to have fanzones, but I am also aware that local councillors, businesses and residents in the St James’s ward object to the licensing application for the fanzone on the basis that the venue and location are wholly unsuitable. Local residents are particularly sad because they feel that there has been a lack of consultation in the process.

I note what the hon. Member for South Shields says about the Bill being about the parliamentary process, which is why I support it. In this day and age, it is ridiculous that we have had to have the House of Commons and the other place agree to extending licensing hours for an hour, or whatever, just for one day, so I appreciate and support the changes in the Bill. However, we have to remember the knock-on effect of extended licensing on the police and local councils.

When the licensing hours were extended for the 2020 Euros, we saw huge amounts of waste and litter across the west end. Westminster City Council collected 20 tonnes of waste over 19 hours during and after the historic England versus Italy final, with the use of 20 vehicles. As ever, I take my hat off to the cleansing services of Westminster City Council: they deliver every time we have a major celebration or protest. They clean up and people would never think anything had happened. However, such events put a strain on local authority spending, particularly in Westminster, where we are not provided with extra Government funding to undertake the cleansing after those special events. Again, I know that the Metropolitan police spend a lot of time and resources putting in extra police officers to police these events.

I note what the hon. Member for South Shields said. It is crucial that police and local authorities are provided with the guidance and support they need during national celebrations and moments of national significance when licensing hours are extended. For my long-term goal, we need to make sure that residents living close to hospitality venues and those within licensed hours are considered in any extension. I absolutely accept that the consultation system is not changing under the Bill, which I welcome.

I welcome the Bill, which I see as a move to simplify the process of extending licensing hours within the parliamentary process when needed. I look forward to seeing the Bill complete its journey through this and the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

As I said on Second Reading, I get my love of the pub from my dad, who knows a good pint when he sees one, and from my mam, whose footsteps I followed in as an excellent barmaid. People who work in this industry deserve our support, and our communities deserve every opportunity they can get to come together for important events. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has long championed our capital’s pubs and nightlife, and to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who served on the Bill Committee. I also wish that my locals would all toast me, but as she was here on Second Reading, when I listed all the cracking local pubs in South Shields, she will know that that would result in a very sore head the next day.

I have many more people to thank: the Minister, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), Home Office officials, the Public Bill Office, in particular Anne-Marie Griffiths, and my invaluable senior researcher, Rebecca Natton. I also thank the British Beer and Pub Association, the Night Time Industries Association, along with its chair and hospitality champion Sacha Lord, and on the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark). Finally, I wish to say a big “cheers” to the Government for supporting my Bill, and in commending it to the House, I say to the Minister, as I said to his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris), that I definitely owe him, and a lot more people, a drink.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Cheers to you, Emma Lewell-Buck.

Criminal Justice Bill

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller]

The speech from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has served to demonstrate the extraordinary breadth of the Bill. I have sat heard this afternoon about the incredible work done by my colleagues, on both sides of the House, on an immense range of issues, and I think that that must underline to our constituents how hard many Members work on very, very difficult matters. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has called on us to be persistent. She will think that I am a very persistent Member of Parliament when it comes to the issue of intimate image abuse, which I have been talking about for nigh on a decade. She is right: we have to be persistent, because it pays off.

I want to touch briefly on some of the amendments and new clauses that have been discussed today before I turn to new clause 86. Let me first reiterate my support for new clause 2—tabled by the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)—which deals with the question of parental responsibility after rape. It is an important new clause, and I hope that Ministers have listened closely to what has been said. Let me also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton), who has spoken out movingly on this issue.

The amendments on spiking tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) are a testament to persistence, and he deserves all our gratitude not only for the work he has done in getting his proposals to this stage, but for keeping us all so well informed about the work that he is still doing. Amendment 160, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)—the Chair of the Select Committee—has picked up some of the issues that I shall be talking about, namely the way in which we treat non-consensual sexual images. The Government need to do more work on this: “must try harder” is my suggestion.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), whose name is attached to new clause 62, made an extremely moving speech about his proposal for legislation to deal with that most appalling of crimes, the sexual abuse of people who have died and are in the safety of a mortuary. New clauses 25 and 26 were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and I hope that Ministers listened carefully to the compelling case that she made about the rapidity with which the online world is moving and the need for us to keep the law up to date.

Let me now turn to new clause 86. I am pleased that the Government tabled it, although they knew that this matter needed to be addressed following the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. The new clause shows that they continue to understand the importance of classifying the making of intimate images without the permission of the person in the picture as a sex crime. Yet again, however, we are trying to tackle it as though it were more about why the pictures were taken, rather than about the fact that they were taken in the first place. That is the wrong approach, and it is as wrong now as it was when we debated this issue in the Online Safety Bill. I thought that we had dealt with that argument, but clearly we have not.

It was out of scope of the Online Safety Bill to make the making and taking of an intimate image without consent a crime, so I really welcome the fact that the issue is being dealt with now. The Online Safety Bill tackled the distribution of those images, but we argued successfully during the passage of that Bill that when it comes to sexual offences—new clause 86 creates a sexual offence—our law needs, first and foremost, to be about consent. It must be about whether there is consent or not, not about whether the perpetrator intended to cause distress or alarm. Despite the response to my intervention earlier, it remains unclear to me why new clause 86 is not constructed in the same way as the provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023, given that it will work hand in hand with them.

So, what are we talking about? We are talking particularly about whether it should be a crime for somebody to take or make an intimate sexual image of another person without their consent. At the moment, the Bill says that it will be a crime only if the Crown Prosecution Service can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person taking or making the picture had the intention to cause the victim alarm, distress or humiliation. Mention was made earlier of online rape, and that is the terminology that many of the victims use. The victims I have spoken to are still a victim of that crime, whether or not the perpetrator had the intention to cause them alarm, distress or humiliation.

Even more concerning is the fact that the Government already know from evidence that many of the people who create these images do so not to do harm, cause distress or alarm their victims; they do it for money. Oddly, they sometimes do it for fun. They do it for their mates. They do it because they have a collection of similar pictures. All those people who have had nude images created or taken are no longer victims if a good lawyer can prove that the person taking the image had no intention to cause alarm, distress or humiliation. That has to be wrong, and I call on the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is sitting on the Front Bench, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), to think again. They have not got this right.

The harm lies in creating the sexually explicit image without consent. The Bill sets out that that is not the way the law will treat this, and that someone will have to prove an intention. There needs to be a motive of the perpetrator proving sexual gratification. As all the lawyers in this room know—I am not one of them—that is incredibly difficult. A consent-based approach would focus on the core wrong of non-consensual sexual conduct. Motives are not required in most sexual offences.

Mention was made earlier about the way in which some organisations have removed nudification apps from their websites. I am concerned that they might work out that if they stated that their motive was just to make money, they would not be breaking the law if they allowed those nudification apps to continue to be available. I am also concerned as to whether the Government have talked to Ofcom, the regulator, about how it will be able to limit the appearance of these images, given the way in which the law is currently framed.

So, there are two questions from me. Will the Minister urgently reconsider new clause 86 and bring it into line with the Online Safety Act? I have a simple idea for her, which is to amend the amendment so that it is consistent with the Online Safety Act in having a base offence that includes production of a sexual image, which can include the taking or creating of an image. Or, the Government could amend their proposed creation offence to make it consent-based, not intention-based. The former I think, is straightforward.

Secondly, I welcome the fact that some companies are taking pre-emptive action to remove their nudification apps, which I called for in the 2021 International Women’s Day debate, but they will quickly see that this incredible loophole means that, so long as they have the right legal defence, such nudification apps are entirely within the law. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government are going to make these nudification apps unlawful, and get rid of them once and for all, as people across the nation want?

I thank Professor Clare McGlynn again for assisting me in interpreting the intention of Government amendment 86. It was published on Thursday, so I apologise to the House for not being able to give a more detailed analysis—I have had it for only the past three days. I hope that, at some stage, Ministers will be in a position to explain their thinking and, I hope, change their mind. I know the safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has put in writing that she wants to send a “crystal clear message” that making intimate image material is “immoral” and “a crime.” She needs to try harder to make sure the Bill does just that.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I rise to make a short speech in support of new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). I thank her for her kind words about my friends and constituents Maxine and Tony.

Maxine Thompson-Curl lost her son, Kristian David Thompson, in 2011. He was just 19 years old, and his life was taken by one punch. One punch can and does kill. To lose a loved one at a young age in such a senseless way, when they were simply on a night out, is a pain that I cannot imagine.

Since Kristian’s passing, Maxine has devoted her life to raising awareness, supporting others and campaigning for stronger sentencing. She has done this via her charity One Punch UK, which she runs with her husband Anthony Curl. Using her pain, love and grief, Maxine has always been relentless in educating people to stop, think and walk away instead of using their fists.

Although it is generally accepted that there is a concerning rise in one-punch attacks across the UK, there are no official figures on the lives lost and devastated by a single punch. What we do know is that, almost every time a precious life is taken in this way, it is reported that the perpetrator was intoxicated, and their sentence for taking the life of another is almost always extremely lenient. The average sentence is four years, and some walk away after just four months in prison. That is four months for taking somebody else’s life. Justice is an important cornerstone of our legal system. Although nothing at all can bring back a loved one, for many people an important part of being able to grieve is knowing that there are consequences for the person who took their loved one away from them.

New clause 9 would put an end to lenient sentences and would hopefully act as a deterrent, so that people think and walk away before using their fists. It would also mean that we have reliable data on the prevalence of one-punch attacks. In the first four years after similar legislation was passed in Australia, the number of one-punch deaths halved. One Australian attorney general has reported a massive reduction in violence since the legislation was introduced.

More than five years ago, the then Minister said that he was happy to look at my proposal in relation to one-punch sentencing, and I am pleased that the Government have looked at this new clause and agreed with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, but my constituents remain of the view that stronger sentencing is needed. It is indeed what they have campaigned on for many years. With that in mind, I carefully considered the Minister’s response to the new clause in Committee, and I am not fully convinced of her argument. She stated that one-punch attacks are already covered under manslaughter, but there is no mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter and therefore no minimum sentence for one-punch attacks. That is why we ask for that in the new clause. She stated that the Government wished to avoid “anomalies in the law”, and gave the example of someone being killed by a punch to their abdomen. She will know, as will other hon. Members, that a single punch to the head is likely to be more catastrophic than a single punch to the abdomen, as it can cause fatal damage to the brain; it can stop breathing, starving the brain of oxygen, and cause the victim to collapse and strike their head on a hard surface.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I am interested in the comments of the hon. and learned Member. As the Bill goes to the House of Lords, will he work with me and others who are concerned about one-punch attacks to draft something that he thinks would do what it is supposed to, and be more legally sound?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am always happy to talk about it. It is my conviction that a single piece of legislation purely on one-punch manslaughter is not the answer. If there were to be legislation, it should be a wholesale reform of the law of homicide. The Law Commission recommended a reform of the law of homicide as long ago as 2006, but that was not acted on. That would deal with not just the issue of unlawful act manslaughter, but the other forms of manslaughter, including gross negligence manslaughter, reckless manslaughter and the interplay between murder and manslaughter; manslaughter is often an alternative verdict. Then of course we have the special defences in relation to diminished responsibility, which reduce, under certain circumstances, murder down to manslaughter. That is a slightly complicated field. The law is difficult for juries to follow, and we oftentimes use law that goes back to almost the 17th and 18th century. As for the right way forward, we should do two things. First, all the work being done around the information campaigns, including one-punch awareness and the “walk away” message, takes exactly the right approach. Secondly, we should look again, cross party, at a wholesale reform of the law of homicide, which could pick up those issues.

Joint enterprise remains a problem. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for the work that she has done, and for her amendment. I am not convinced that its wording is right, but we have to return to this matter, for the very important reason that many families of those who have been convicted under joint enterprise had hoped that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Jogee, which reversed what it described as the wrong turn taken in the case of Chan Wing-Siu in 1985, would see a number of people’s convictions quashed. In reality, subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal have tended to narrow the approach in Jogee, very often because of the factual situations, which vary greatly. We do therefore need to look at this issue. I am not sure that the wording in the amendment is the answer, but I hope that we can work constructively on that. There are certain circumstances in which there is a role for joint enterprise, but the expansion of it beyond what most people regard as reasonable is a matter of real concern. I hope we can continue to work cross party to find a better solution.

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st February 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray, and to bring the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill to Committee.

Clause 1 will amend section 197 of the Licensing Act 2003, “Regulations and orders”, by deleting subsec-tion (3)(d), deleting the cross-reference to subsection (3)(d) in subsection (4) and deleting subsection (5). The effect of those deletions will be to change from affirmative to negative the parliamentary procedure for a licensing hours extension order, meaning that the Home Secretary and Ministers will have powers to make licensing hours extension orders without the long parliamentary approval process that is currently in place.

Love for our pubs is strong across all our constituencies. If there is one thing guaranteed to unite us, it is sporting and royal events. We tend to gather for those events in our local pubs, because they are the beating heart of our communities. As hon. Members will know, such events do not always take place when our pubs and hospitality venues are open, which is why the 2003 Act makes two provisions for licence extension.

First, individual licensed premises can apply to their local authority for a temporary event notice. Each application costs £21 and takes a minimum of five working days to be approved. That provision is not designed for scenarios in which a large number of venues across the country wish to extend their licensing hours at short notice and at the same time, so the 2003 Act makes a second provision under section 172, which enables licensing extensions for

“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.

That allows the Government to make a blanket relaxation order applicable to all premises in England and Wales, specifying the dates and times of the relaxation and not exceeding four days.

Such orders, which are made under section 197 of the Act, are subject to the affirmative procedure and need approval from both Houses of Parliament. Best practice is for the Home Secretary to complete a public consultation and then for both Houses to debate the order, but that can take up to six months to implement. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the process has been used for the coronation of His Majesty the King, the 90th birthday and platinum jubilee of Her late Majesty, the 2011 and 2018 royal weddings, the 2014 FIFA World cup and the Euro 2020 final in 2021.

Last summer, our whole country was immensely proud of our Lionesses reaching the women’s World cup final. As hon. Members will recall, we found out only four days before the match that the Lionesses had made the final, which was taking place on a Sunday in Sydney with an 11-hour time difference. The match kicked off at 11 am, when many pubs were just opening their doors. There was no time for them to apply to their local authority for a TEN and, because Parliament was in recess, there was no mechanism for the Government to issue a blanket extension. Our communities and pubs missed out on all that pre-match excitement and much-needed extra revenue.

Clause 1 will allow the Home Secretary or Ministers to make an extension order in similar situations without going through the costly, overly bureaucratic, time-consuming and restrictive process that exists now. Clause 2 simply states that the Bill will come into force on the day of Royal Assent and will extend to England and Wales only. As no amendments have been tabled, I hope and am confident that Committee members will agree to clauses 1 and 2.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I rise to add a few words of support for the Bill from the Liberal Democrats and myself.

In Bath we love our pubs as much as anybody else. I am sure that we have all heard from the hospitality sector in our constituencies about how tough the past few years have been. We are lucky to have a thriving hospitality sector in Bath, but businesses still face many challenges.

Clause 1 is integral to preventing pubs from missing out again on opening early, as happened when the Lionesses reached the World cup final last summer. In Bath we have Bath Rugby and Bath City football club, of which I am a fan. Our women’s team is doing very well, too; it is always good to have an opportunity to praise them and to repeat our admiration for what all our women’s teams achieve.

The change from the affirmative to the negative procedure is important because sporting events often happen in the summer when Parliament is not sitting. A change in licensing procedure would have enabled many pubs in Bath to open earlier during the women’s World cup final, allowing fans to take in the atmosphere before the game and allowing the pubs to take in more profits. However, the Bill will fix only a small part of the inadequate statutory framework, the basic flaws of which have, if anything, been compounded by subsequent piecemeal amendments. The House of Lords Liaison Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny follow-up report in 2022 found that flaws in the licensing system remained unresolved and that significant reform was required.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for this Bill, which will go some way towards improving the law. However, we need to take another look at the licensing system and consider whether it is fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

It will depend on the circumstances. My hon. Friend mentions the time zone. I am trying to think this through on my feet. If the games are taking place during the day in Los Angeles, they would be likely to take place during the afternoon, the evening and the early hours of the morning in the UK. The Olympics last for two or three weeks. Whether it would be appropriate to have all pubs, working men’s clubs—everything—open until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning for two or three weeks is a question that would have to be carefully considered at the time and viewed through the prism of public order and so on.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister clarify that the power is to be used at exceptional times and for exceptional events, and that forward planning will not be dispensed with? For events that are already known about, the usual consultation will take place with licensed premises, the police and local authorities, and they will be planned for in the usual way. Will the Minister clarify that this power is for exceptional circumstances that cannot be forward-planned?

[Chris Philp]

I am happy to confirm that the hon. Member has put it correctly. As she says, the power is designed for exceptional circumstances where at short notice—I stress “at short notice”—something happens like a team getting into a final that takes place only four or five days later. Obviously there can be more thorough planning for things like the Olympics, which we know about five or 10 years in advance. The Bill is for exceptional circumstances. I completely agree with the hon. Member’s characterisation of the position.

[Chris Philp]

I am not sure I agree. When there is plenty of notice, as with the Olympics, there is plenty of time to plan and make arrangements if appropriate. The Los Angeles Olympics are a number of years away. As I say, I am not convinced that having all the pubs and bars open until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning for three or four weeks over the summer would be a good idea.

There is plenty of time to make such arrangements under the current licensing regime. The only problem that we have found is with very short-notice situations, particularly when Parliament is not sitting. With the men’s Euros semi-final, Parliament was sitting and it was possible to make an arrangement at short notice. In my view, the circumstances that arise when Parliament is not sitting are the only lacuna. All other circumstances can be accommodated within the current licensing regime.

I have spoken for rather longer than I had intended, as I wanted to take interventions, but my voice is now getting a bit croaky. I conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for South Shields again on taking the initiative and shepherding the Bill with such charm and aplomb.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for his words of support, and I thank all members of the Committee. It might be worth noting, even though it has not come up in the discussion today, that we are not removing Parliament’s say on these matters. Under the negative statutory instrument procedure, hon. Members can pray against an order once it is made. Will the Minister confirm that that is correct? [Interruption.] The officials are nodding. I thank them for their support with drafting the Bill and getting it to this stage.

This is a small, technical piece of legislation, but it will give a massive boost to our hospitality venues and to our communities coming together at times of national celebration. I very much look forward to joining my constituents in one of our many locals to celebrate the next important national event.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

For those in the Chamber who do not know what my constituents know already, I love the pub—especially the pubs we have in South Shields. My locals—the Marine, the Harbour Lights, the Criterion, the Steamboat, the Alum Ale House, the New Sundial, the Riverside, the Grotto and the Stags Head—are all not just places where people go to drink; they are where we come to meet our neighbours, friends, family and work colleagues, to celebrate important events or just to sit and relax with a nice cold one.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

It sounds like my hon. Friend is incredibly busy, with so many locals to get around. We are going through Dry January, which is a fantastic opportunity for people to reflect on their relationship with alcohol, but that does not necessarily mean they do not go to the pub, because obviously there are a range of low and no-alcohol beverages out there. Will she join me in paying tribute to all those who put the work into those products, but also join me in saying that people can still go to the pub and socialise while being responsible?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I could not agree more. My own mam is a teetotaller, yet she often comes to the pub to spend time with family and friends, because it is part of the community.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who has had to leave the Chamber, reminded me earlier, my love of our local pubs is strong, but it is strong across all our constituencies. If there is one thing that unites us across this country, it is sporting or royal events, and the place we tend to gather is our local pub, because they are the beating hearts of our communities. As the House will know, such events do not always take place at the same time as our pubs and hospitality venues are open. That is why the Labour Government’s Licensing Act 2003 made provision for licence extension.

At present, an application for extension would be done by individual licensed premises applying for a temporary event notice. These terms need to be applied for by individual premises to their local authorities. Each application costs them £21 and it can take up to five working days as a minimum to be approved. A premises is allowed to apply for only between two and 10 short-notice TENs in any given year.

My Bill will in no way alter TENs, but it intends to alter the other option for licensing extensions, which is for the Government to make an order under section 172 of the 2003 Act applicable to all premises in England and Wales, specifying the dates and times of the relaxations and not exceeding four days. Such orders are subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning they need approval in both Houses of Parliament.

Best practice is for the Home Secretary to complete a public consultation and for Parliament to debate the order in both Houses. That full process can take up to six months to implement. In practice, these orders have never been opposed and have been used only for important events, such as the coronation of His Majesty the King, Her late Majesty the Queen’s 90th birthday and platinum jubilee, the 2011 and 2018 royal weddings, the 2014 FIFA world cup and the Euro 2020 final, which happened eventually in 2021 due to the pandemic.

Last summer, we were all so proud—and we remain proud—of our Lionesses reaching the women’s world cup final. At last, we hoped, it was coming home, and it would be the women bringing it. As Members will recall, we only knew we had made the final on the Wednesday before the match, which was on a Sunday in Sydney, with an 11-hour time difference. The match kicked off at 11 am, with many pubs just opening their doors, meaning that spectators missed out on all that pre-match excitement and venues lost out on the extra revenue. There was no time for our pubs to apply to their local authorities for an extension, and, because Parliament was in recess, there was no mechanism for the Government to issue a blanket extension.

The British Beer and Pub Association predicts that, over the course of one game, pub goers can buy up to 6.8 million pints. Had the licensing laws not been relaxed, pubs would have sold an estimated 1.7 million fewer pints, costing them more than £6 million in lost revenue. Under my Bill, that would change, as would the overly bureaucratic, costly and time-consuming process for blanket registrations. My Bill would amend section 197 of the 2003 Act so that future orders for the relaxation of licensing hours would instead be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That would give the Home Secretary and Ministers the power to legislate without the long parliamentary approval process.

That is not to say that consultation or forward planning will be dispensed with. The Government would need to continue to plan for such exceptional events far in advance, and relevant bodies such as the police, venues, licensing authorities, members of the public, those who live near those licensed premises and trade associations would still be consulted.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)]

I put on record my thanks to the hon. Lady for her extremely common-sense Bill. I know pubs like those that she celebrated in the Black Country—in Wolverhampton, in Willenhall, and all around our fabulous region. Our pubs are the lifeblood of the community. I want to pass on the gratitude of my fantastic pubs and my constituents. It is so important that we can come together for these big national events, so I know that she will have broad support across the Chamber for this very common-sense Bill.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I do not think that I have been to any of the pubs in the hon. Member’s patch, so if that is an invitation, I will join her at some point.

There is currently a consultation open on extending the licensing hours for the UEFA Euro 2024 semi-final and final if England, Wales or Scotland are playing.

[Christian Wakeford]

I am more than happy to extend an invite to my hon. Friend to come to any of the pubs in Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich as well, although I get the feeling she will become incredibly busy at this rate—and perhaps not that healthy either. Obviously, we have a World cup in the USA in 2026, and we hope we will bring it home then. There are so many events regularly taking place in the US—tennis, or even WrestleMania or the Super Bowl—that people will want to view. Will the Bill extend as far as them?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank my hon. Friend for that invite. Of course, if the Bill passes it would apply to those events as well. Members would also have the right to object. However, that has not happened in the past and it is unlikely to happen in the future. It is not often that I would be happy to propose more powers for a Conservative Secretary of State, but the powers would not only ensure that we can come together in our local for special events; they would also give a much-needed boost to our hospitality industry.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

The point the hon. Member has just made is extremely significant. Section 172 of the 2003 Act refers to exceptional international, national or local significance. I truly hope that there is a South Shields day, and I am sure that great events happen throughout the year in South Shields. Would this process be an easier way for local areas to celebrate things that would be specific to the locality, whether they are in Bury, South Shields or wherever else? Or are we still talking about big events such as the World cup?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It would apply to local events as well; each one would be at the discretion of the Home Secretary, in consultation with all the relevant authorities. I hope we do use this in South Shields, because we love a good party there and we love coming together to celebrate.

Our hospitality industry struggled during the pandemic. It is estimated that in 2020 it lost a total of £200 million every day. The industry has more than 220,000 premises licensed to sell alcohol in England and Wales. It employs about 500,000 people in pubs and bars across our towns and communities. Across the UK more generally, the industry contributes £14.3 billion in wages, £26.2 billion to the national economy, £15 billion in tax revenues and £2 billion in net capital expenditure. In addition, it has a strong domestic supply chain, with more than 80% of the beer sold in the UK being produced here in the UK. Clearly, what benefits our pubs benefits all of us. We should never underestimate their contribution or how hard those in the industry work.

I know that probably more than most others in this place. I get the love of the pub from my mam and dad. My dad always knows a good pint when he sees one, and my mam was a well-respected and brilliant barmaid. It should come as no surprise that I followed in her footsteps, ending up working in many pubs and hospitality venues. In my younger and more glamorous days, I was even a promotions girl for our very famous Tuxedo Royale nightclub in Newcastle, with its legendary revolving dancefloor. When I was a local councillor, I chaired our licensing committee and gained my level 2 BIIAB personal licence. In honour of Her late Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee, I created, mixed and served cocktails in my constituency at my friend’s popular café and bar, Sea Change. So it is clear that I am familiar with, and happy at, both sides of the bar.

I am in no doubt about the value that this industry brings, not just to my constituency, but to our economy and our country overall. This is a simple, impactful Bill. The pub is a great British institution and it is right that pubs are able to welcome us through their doors for events of national and local significance. Under my Bill, they will now be able to do so, and I remain hopeful that the Minister agrees wholeheartedly with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

With the leave of the House, I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their wholehearted support. I look forward very much to my pub constituency tour, but I have to tell the Minister that, sadly, the revolving dancefloor got old and tired—a bit like me—and is no more. I urge some caution around the comments made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey); I am not now suddenly a fan of mass deregulation, and think these matters should always be considered on a case-by-case basis.

I have many more people to thank: on the Government Benches, the Minister and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris); Home Office officials; the Public Bill Office; and my invaluable senior researcher Rebecca Natton. I also thank the British Beer and Pub Association, the Night Time Industries Association, along with its chair and hospitality champion Sacha Lord, and my hon. Friend on the Front Bench the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark). Most of all, I want to thank all those who work in our hospitality industry, because without their hard work and contribution, our communities and local economies would not be what they are today. Finally, I would just like to say “Cheers!” to the Government for supporting my Bill and, in commending it to the House, I add that I definitely owe the Minister, among many more people, a good drink.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

1. What steps she is taking to reduce antisocial behaviour.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle antisocial behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his doughty campaigning in his constituency. Durham has received £3.4 million through four rounds of the safer streets fund, including just under £1.5 million in the current round. This is funding projects such as youth diversionary activity, ASB education programmes and target hardening measures. This Government are putting more police on the streets and engaging with communities to enable them to prevent crime.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Driving without care or consideration is described as one of the worst forms of antisocial behaviour, as the consequences can be fatal. If caught speeding, does the Home Secretary agree that no one should be above the law?

[Suella Braverman]

As I said earlier, last summer I was speeding. I regret that. I paid the fine and I took the penalty. At no point did I attempt to evade sanction. What I am focused on is working for more police officers, so I am proud that this Conservative Government have secured a record number in the history of policing. This side of the House is focused on the people’s priorities.

Manchester Arena Inquiry: Volume 3 Report

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

We want to ensure that all the recommendations of Sir John’s reports are fully reflected upon and make a difference. That is what I am focused on—that we learn the lessons from this tragic incident, and improve our operational responses and our manner of dealing with the risks. We also want to make sure that victims of terrorism receive the support that they deserve, which is why the victims of terrorism unit is conducting an internal review to see how we can improve the package of support available to victims in that terrible situation.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Liam Curry and Chloe Rutherford from South Shields were murdered in the Manchester Arena attack. The Home Secretary will have seen their brave parents in reports outside court last week. She will also know that archaic law in relation to terror attacks is denying them the chance to register their precious children’s deaths. After being told repeatedly that there was a willingness from Government to try to change that law, they recently attended another meeting with Ministers. This time, they were treated with contempt, patronised and insulted. It then became clear that they have been misled by the Government for nearly a year, because despite it being entirely possible to change that law, the Government and, in particular, the Home Secretary’s Department simply do not want to. This is adding to the parents’ anguish and pain. Will the Home Secretary please reconsider and meet with them?

[Suella Braverman]

Of course, I deeply feel for and sympathise with the families who have been so tragically bereaved by the Manchester Arena attack. Any family bereaved in unexpected and tragic circumstances deserve our full support and condolences.

There is no legal flexibility on that requirement, as the death would not otherwise be registered in accordance with the legislation. I know that this is a disappointing situation. This is not an issue that the Ministry of Justice alone can resolve, and the Home Office Minister, Lord Murray of Blidworth, explained to the Manchester Arena families that long-term change would interfere with the coherence of the General Register Office’s registration process. I know that that is disappointing, but I am always willing to consider new approaches.

Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend makes a number of important points. Part of our plan to exit the hotels is to ensure a fair dispersal around the country. That means every local authority in all parts of the United Kingdom stepping up and playing its part. If we do that then no area should be disproportionately affected. My right hon. Friend represents an area that has borne the greatest burden, and it is absolutely right that we work together to find ways to alleviate the pressure on Kent wherever we can. He and I are meeting Kent local authority leaders later in the week to hear their concerns. If there are ways in which we can support them, I will certainly do everything I can to achieve that.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain what discussions have been held with the Children’s Commissioner regarding this Government’s staggering levels of child neglect? Can he also say why the commissioner has not been encouraged to use her statutory powers to visit Manston and the hotels concerned to speak directly with the children there?

[Robert Jenrick]

It is up to the Children’s Commissioner to determine her own schedule. As far as I am aware, she has not requested to visit Manston. I have no objection to her doing so, but that is entirely a matter for her.

I object to the suggestion that the UK Government are being inhumane towards children. These are children who are coming across the channel against our best wishes. They are coming either with their families who are choosing to put them through this uniquely perilous journey, or, in some cases, unaccompanied. We are doing everything we can to support them when they arrive here. Of course it is a difficult challenge—how could it be easy for the Government to help hundreds of unaccompanied children who arrive by sea and who then require foster care and support? It was always going to be a difficult challenge. We see that in our own constituencies when we hear of the shortage of foster care, or concerns about local authority accommodation for young people. This is a national issue that is exacerbated by the sheer quantity of young people who are coming across in this way.

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me this debate on the operation of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. This is not just a debate about the operation of an Act or our campaign to make changes to it; it is a debate about the enduring pain of loss. It is about unimaginable heartbreak and how the Government can inject some humanity and empathy into this decades-old legislation.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate on such a sensitive and important issue, and for the early-day motion that she has tabled. Losing someone, especially a child, is traumatic and can often make someone feel that their life has suddenly spiralled out of control. Does she agree that this is about dignity for the families, and a final opportunity to regain control over their last goodbyes?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I could not agree more. I will be echoing her comments later in my speech.

Last Sunday marked five years since 22 people were murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. My constituents Chloe Ann Rutherford, aged 17, and Liam Thomas Allen Curry, aged 19—a young couple deeply in love, full of hope for their futures—were brutally taken from their families in this attack. Since 2020, Chloe and Liam’s parents have spent days in the public inquiry, listening to every agonising detail of that horrific night. As the inquiry sessions have come to an end, they have been told that, owing to the Births and Deaths Registration Act, they cannot register their own precious children’s deaths.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She is aware, I know, that I too have constituents who lost a child in those events. They have said to me that the lack of ability to register the death of their child has taken from them the last thing they felt they could do for her. Does my hon. Friend agree that reform of this provision would be a blessing for some of the families—although not all—who find themselves caught up in such dreadful public disasters, and feel that they are carried away with no control and no capacity to have an input in the final way in which their child is dealt with by the state?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention. She is, of course, right: families need to be able to grieve, and they cannot grieve if they cannot carry out this final, official act for their children. Instead, the registration will be done on their behalf by a registrar, effectively a stranger, a person who never knew their children. As their mams say,

“Look in the mirror, look in your heart, and you tell me, as a parent, if it was your child, you would be happy with a stranger registering your child's death?

“It’s the last thing we feel we can do as parents. As Chloe’s Mam I want to be the person who gives that information, because it’s personal and she’s my baby”.

We have been told that the rationale for this arrangement is that it would be too distressing for the families to register their children’s deaths, but it is surely not up to Governments or Ministers to decide what is and what is not too distressing for a family. Only a family can know how they feel. My constituents registered their children’s births; they should be able to register their deaths. Being unable to do so is what is causing them distress. We have a two-tier system, in which those whose loved ones died outside such horrific events can register their deaths, yet those who are feeling a pain that most of us will never experience cannot. It is in the gift of the Government to change this legislation, to introduce choice for families and to let them decide whether they wish to register the deaths of their loved ones.

If you will permit me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to share some of Chloe and Liam’s story with the House. Their story, and their family’s pain, should help the Minister and those listening to understand the importance of the small yet very significant legislative change that we are requesting.

As a baby, Chloe was happiest swaddled and wrapped up in the love of her family, and Liam equally loved cuddles and being surrounded by the love of his family. Liam loved sport. He loved cricket, cycling and skiing. At just six years old, he picked up a cricket bat and never looked back, following in his dad’s footsteps as a left-handed batsman. In later years, it was at the cricket club that he made friends with Scott, Chloe’s older brother.

Chloe had always been a natural performer, her modesty making her talent even more striking. Chloe loved singing, dancing, playing the piano, ballet and tap. Being close to her big brother, she would sometimes pop along to the cricket, and it was there that she and Liam must have noticed each other, because it was not long before they started chatting to each other online. Dates followed, they fell in love, and their families were so happy that they had found each other. They said that they

“were made for one another, at their best when they were together”.

Their busy lives with work, study, sports and performing progressed in harmony, with Chloe at college and Liam at university, both also holding down jobs in the Hilton hotel in Gateshead. Liam’s cocktail-making skills earned him the enviable title of “the Tom Cruise of the Tyne”, while Chloe enjoyed the odd porn star martini and singing in her band, TwoNotes.

They also shared a love of travel. Chloe had an apprenticeship lined up at our local travel agent, Westoe Travel, and Liam was planning a future in the police force. Chloe and Liam had so many holidays planned—in fact they had planned their lives together, saving for a flat, marriage and children. It was all on the cards. In the words of Chloe’s dad, Mark, there was

“so much living to be done, all the stories not yet told, all the dreams not yet dreamt.”

Liam’s mam, Caroline, said:

“Two beautiful young people with so much love in their hearts and hope for their life together. The greatest thing we ever learn in life is just to love and be loved in return.”

On 22 May 2017, just eight weeks after Liam’s dad, Andrew, had sadly passed away, Chloe and Liam went to see Ariana Grande at the Manchester Arena and never came home. The lives of their parents Lisa, Mark and Caroline, their brothers Scott, Ryan and Zack and their entire families were shattered forever. These families have had everything taken from them. The whole inquiry process can leave people feeling powerless. As Lisa said, they feel like insignificant cogs in a very big wheel. To find that this one important final official act for their loved ones is denied to them feels cruel and heartless.

I sincerely thank the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), whose constituents also want the legislation to be changed. I also sincerely thank him for our meeting today with Chloe’s and Liam’s mams. I know he is in no doubt about how important this is and that he fully acknowledges how mentally exhausting and painful it is for them to be denied this choice. They and I know that legislative changes can take a long time, but we see no justifiable reason why this small change cannot be expedited, or at least why the families cannot be told whether it is possible. We have previously seen this Government rush through contentious and complex legislation for Brexit and covid, some of it in just one day. This does not seem overly complex or contentious, and I understand that it could be done though secondary legislation amendments to the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. When the will is there, the Government can and do act, and from today’s meeting with the Minister I am reassured that the will is very much there.

Lisa, Mark and Caroline, in the time I have known them, always think of others. It is clear to see where their lovely children got their kindness, drive, intelligence and passion from, so it is not surprising that they used their pain and grief to set up the Together Forever Trust, which gives grants for sports and performance to young people so that their children’s legacy can help others to achieve their dreams. So far, they have handed out 250 bursaries that have changed the lives of hundreds of children. These are families who always give; they have never asked for anything until now.

In our meeting today, Lisa spoke about how at the outset they were told that their children did not belong to them, and that they belonged to the state as a crime scene. She said that, despite the rhetoric we always hear about families coming first, they do not, but by making this change the Government can prove for once that families do come first. Caroline explained that registering Liam’s death will allow her to begin grieving, and that if she cannot do this last thing for him, she will feel like she has failed him. Lisa rightly told her that she will not have failed him, as it is the state who has failed him.

I am convinced that the Minister will come good on his promise to the families that he will urgently look at whether and how these changes can be made, and I know that he will let us know as soon as he possibly can. South Shields is a small town with a big heart, and we are all pleading with the Minister to make this change, because Chloe and Liam will always remain in our hearts and minds, together forever. Their parents will never give up fighting for what is right for their precious children, and as their MP, I won’t either.

Refugees from Ukraine

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

My constituent’s Ukrainian wife, Liudmula Florence, was turned away from the UK visa office in Warsaw and told that she had to book an appointment and make an application online. The UK immigration website repeatedly stated, “Sorry, there is currently a problem with the service. Please try again later.” She eventually was given an appointment, but not until 17 March. What is Liudmula supposed to do while the Home Secretary is getting her act together?

[Priti Patel]

If the hon. Lady had listened to my statement earlier on, she would have heard what the process is. In fact, the application can be done digitally from Tuesday. If she would like to present me with the case, I would be very happy to look at it straight after —[Interruption.] Well, we do have the hub in Portcullis House, which has been working through cases. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been using that service. If she has difficulty with that, she is very welcome to give me the case straight after the urgent question and I will make the calls myself directly.

Serious Criminal Cases Backlog

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I think the Nightingale courts will continue for as long as we need them. My hon. Friend makes a good point: at some point in the relatively near future, we hope that the current restrictions will be eased or even lifted, but that will not be the end of the story as far as the courts are concerned, because we will need to continue working, probably significantly beyond the end of the current coronavirus circumstances, to make sure that the court system is in the shape that we want. This journey will continue; it will not end suddenly in the coming months. We will make sure that the courts and sitting days needed are available so that justice is delivered. He mentioned making sure that criminals get the right sentences. He will have read the sentencing White Paper last September. We will shortly legislate in this area, and that legislation will include longer sentences—more time spent in prison—for the most serious criminals, which I am sure he and his constituents will strongly welcome.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]]

Can the Minister advise how many of the 400,000 lost police records are linked to these backlogged court cases? Will he take this opportunity to apologise to all victims who are being denied justice because of the Justice and Home Secretaries’ incompetence?

[Chris Philp]

My colleague the police Minister gave a full statement on the police records situation a day or two ago, and the Prime Minister answered questions on that topic from this very Dispatch Box just an hour or so ago, which I am sure the hon. Member listened to carefully. The Justice Secretary and Home Secretary and the Government will take no lessons from the Labour party on criminal justice when, according to the British crime survey, crime in the last 10 years under this Government has fallen 41% in comparison to our predecessor.