MPs grant pubs extra time to open if England or Wales reach Women's Euros semis
Policing minister Dame Diana Johnson said venues 'stand to benefit' from the temporary later closing time, pushed back from the usual 11pm cut-off, and Conservative MP Andrew Snowden warned his father might 'disown' him, had his party not backed the Government's proposal.
But if neither team manages to reach the final stages, pubs will have to stick to their ordinary licence conditions.
The semi-finals take place on July 22 and 23, with the final on July 27.
Dame Diana said this year's championship in Switzerland, which kicks off on July 2, was a 'prestigious tournament'.
She said a Government order paved the way for a 'temporary extension of licensing hours across England and Wales should either England or Wales or both progress to the semi-finals or the final of the competition'.
MPs laughed when she added: 'I have to say, from my limited following of football, it seems like the women's teams have a reputation for doing far better than our male teams.'
A Home Office consultation found 87% of respondents backed the proposed extension of licensing hours for the semi-finals, dropping to 84% for the final, Dame Diana told the Commons.
Publicans 'stand to benefit from this modest extension which would allow them to accommodate increased demand during these high-profile fixtures', she said, and added: 'I fully accept that the hospitality sector has had a difficult time over the last few years and this is a helpful measure.
'It is right to acknowledge as well that police representatives have expressed some concerns regarding the potential for increased crime and disorder.
'Now, whilst operational decisions on deployment and resourcing are a matter for individual forces, I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate any risks, as has happened in similar cases.
'Notably, there have been no significant incidents of large-scale disorder linked to previous licensing extensions, which I think is testament to the professionalism of our police service, to whom we owe our thanks.'
The move to extend licensing hours applies only to alcohol, and does not apply to off licences and supermarkets.
'If neither England nor Wales reach the semi-finals, the proposed extension will not apply on July 22 or 23. Similarly, if one or both teams reach the semi-finals but do not progress to the final, normal licensing hours will apply on July 27,' Dame Diana warned.
Mr Snowden, the MP for Fylde, said his party was 'delighted to support these temporary licensing changes'.
He added: 'To be fair, I don't think I would have much choice on this matter, as if I ever stood at this despatch box and opposed more time in the pub to watch football, my dad would probably disown me.'
Mr Snowden told MPs there was 'no reason why we should doubt' that the reigning champions, England, will reach the semi-finals.
'We are the defending champions of the Women's Uefa cup after England's magnificent performance at the 2022 tournament hosted here in the UK at Wembley,' he told MPs.
'The final saw a 2-1 victory, and of course in football, it was made all the sweeter by beating the Germans.
'So this is a fantastic time to support your local as well as your national.'
MPs called 'aye' to approve the extension.
Ministers can extend licences for events 'of exceptional international, national, or local significance', but must ask for MPs' permission.
Labour MP for Wrexham Andrew Ranger has called for a tweak in the law, so that ministers can extend licensing hours without the need for a vote in Parliament.
Dame Diana said the Government has supported his Licensing Hours Extension Bill, but added it would not clear both the Commons and the Lords in time for the Women's Euros.
She said agreeing to Thursday's order – originally laid on May 15 – without a division reinforced 'the argument that debating such measures may not represent the most effective use of parliamentary time'.
England and Wales face each other on July 13, with both home nations in Group D alongside France and the Netherlands.
The Lionesses will face France on July 5 when Wales will play the Netherlands.
On July 9, England will play the Netherlands while Wales face France.
Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate licensing rules.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
5 minutes ago
- Times
How an inheritance tax raid could work — and what you can do about it
Rachel Reeves has already shown that she is not afraid to use inheritance tax as a revenue raiser. In her first budget, in October, the chancellor declared that from April 2027 pension savings would for the first time be pulled into the scope of inheritance tax — a change expected to raise billions for the Treasury. Now, with an ever deepening fiscal shortfall ahead of the next autumn budget, the Treasury is again rumoured to be targeting inheritance tax. On the table are said to be plans to tighten the rules around lifetime transfers of wealth and to end many widely used exemptions. It wouldn't be the first time that a government has gone further than simply taxing estates after death. The capital transfer tax introduced by the Labour government in 1974 applied to lifetime gifts and inheritances, and was generally unpopular. It was replaced by today's inheritance tax system in 1986. But with more estates falling into the inheritance net because of frozen tax-free allowances and decades of rising property values, the political calculation has changed. • We all should worry about this underhand attack on wealth Ian Dyall from the wealth manager Evelyn Partners said: 'Many households could regard this as a rather intrusive tactic, aimed at raising revenue from the very basic desire to pass on to one's own family hard-earned wealth that has usually already been taxed in some form or other.' Here's what could be on the cards, and what you can do to prepare for it. The Treasury has several levers it could pull to increase inheritance tax receipts, and one involves extending or scrapping the well-used seven-year rule. At the moment, if you away an asset — whether cash, property or shares — and live for seven years or more after making the gift, it will be exempt from inheritance tax. If you die before then, the value of the gift will be counted as part of your estate, the rate of tax due on it falling on a sliding scale after three years. Officials are reportedly considering extending the seven years to ten, or abolishing the rule entirely. Ollie Saiman, a co-founder of the advice firm Six Degrees, said that while a ten-year period would make planning more complicated, it may not be catastrophic 'as long as taper relief continued to exist'. But if all gifts made within the window could be taxed at the full 40 per cent inheritance tax rate it could have a huge impact on families. The Office of Tax Simplification previously recommended scrapping the taper relief on gifts made within four years of death and cutting the seven-year rule to five years, to make the rules simpler. A new time limit would be unlikely to be applied retrospectively. A gift made five years ago, for example, should fall under the old rules. But you would need to live for the remaining years of the original period for it to be inheritance tax-free. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts This little-known but highly valuable rule allows you to make regular gifts out of surplus income without them being counted as part of your estate for inheritance tax purposes. The amount you can give is unlimited as long as the gifts are genuinely from income (not savings or the sale of assets) and do not affect your standard of living. You need to keep records of everything you give, and your income. Dyall said that many families who had taken out insurance to cover potential inheritance tax bills could be caught out if the gifts from income rule was scrapped. He said: 'Regular gifts from income are a small part of the system, and scrapping the relief wouldn't raise much but could cause problems for families who have planned around the system as it is.' Saiman said that while the relief was not widely used compared with other inheritance tax strategies, it could be in the government's sights as part of a general clampdown. The biggest change the chancellor could make would be to introduce a value cap on all gifts made during your lifetime, regardless of when they were given. Rachael Griffin, a tax and financial planning expert at the wealth manager Quilter, said: 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into the scope of inheritance tax and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members. The UK has never had such a limit, and if it were set too low it could affect a large number of middle-class estates, particularly in areas where property wealth alone can easily breach the frozen tax-free allowances.' She said that a lifetime cap could lead to 'unintended behavioural shifts', with families rushing to make large transfers earlier in life, potentially before they were financially ready. It would require HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to track gifts over decades, adding complexity and cost and increasing disputes. Saiman said that if the cap were set at US-style levels (around $14 million) 'it would only affect a small proportion of the population', while a lower cap would have huge political and practical impacts. • A ham-fisted inheritance tax grab on the middle class would end in tears A decade ago inheritance tax was seen as an almost voluntary tax because the wealthy and financial astute could avoid it through planning. That is becoming harder to do as more middle-class families face being caught in the net. All estates get a £325,000 inheritance tax-free allowance known as the nil-rate band. If you leave your main home to a direct descendant, and your estate is worth less than £2 million, you also get a £175,000 residence nil-rate band. Anything left to a spouse or civil partner is inheritance tax-free, and they also inherit each other's allowances, meaning that a couple can pass on £1 million between them. The nil-rate band, however, has been the same since 2009, while the residence band is unchanged since 2020. As a result, the number of families liable for inheritance tax is projected to double by 2030. Further pressure is on the way: from April 2027 the value of your pension pot will be included in your estate for inheritance tax purposes, while Labour's recent tightening of agricultural and business property reliefs is expected to draw more family enterprises into the tax net. The so-called great wealth transfer, in which an estimated £5 trillion is set to pass from baby boomers to younger generations over the next 30 years, is also in full swing. A government looking for extra revenue will be tempted to take a slice. Financial planners emphasise two golden rules when it comes to inheritance tax planning: avoid making irreversible decisions based on speculation, and never give away more than you can afford. This is particularly important given that the wealth manager Charles Stanley advises budgeting for costs of £100,000 a year for the last three years of your life. So, make the most of the rules now, and use up your annual allowances. You can give away up to £3,000 a year inheritance tax-free, plus carry over one year's unused allowance. You can make unlimited £250 gifts to different people, and wedding gifts of up to £5,000 for a child, £2,500 for a grandchild. These may sound small, but over time they add up significantly. If you have more income than you spend, consider setting up a pattern of regular gifts — while you still can. Keep meticulous records, including a note of intent and evidence of your annual income and expenditure to satisfy HMRC. Trusts are becoming more popular for passing on wealth while retaining some control over your assets. Discretionary trusts in particular allow assets to be distributed at the trustees' discretion, helping to protect against divorce or bankruptcy in the family. Trusts can be used in combination with life insurance policies to ensure that your family can cover inheritance tax bills. Life cover, including whole of life or gift inter vivos policies can provide lump sums to avoid your heirs having to sell assets to pay tax. Demand for such policies spiked after the chancellor announced her plan to tax pension pots. Saiman said they are a 'simple and highly effective' hedge against a 'disaster scenario'. Whatever changes come in the budget, clear documentation will be key. Keep receipts, bank statements and formal letters for significant transfers. If you have made gifts in the past few years, note the date and terms so it's clear that they should fall under existing rules.
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Government is a living organism, not a machine
Martin Kettle is right to call for leaders who can operate the machinery of government (Opinion, 7 August). However, it should be made clear that the machinery of government – in which I work as a senior civil servant – is not a 'machine', as many current leaders assume. In his 2024 book On Leadership, Tony Blair says leaders often make the mistake of believing that the machinery of government is 'like an instrument in their hands' that they can learn how to use. It is not an instrument, he points out, but 'a living organism [with] a mind and a temperament'. This common misunderstanding of the nature of the system underpins the government's consistent inability to deliver. Anne Owers' independent prison capacity review is just the latest example. Machines can be mastered with manuals, precise plans and predictable cause-and-effect levers, but living organisms behave differently. As anyone who has raised a toddler or a teenager can attest: predictability and cause-and-effect do not apply. Linear approaches suitable for the 'machine', such as plans and targets, are ineffective, serving only to increase bureaucracy. Meanwhile, all remains quiet on the delivery front. Owers' review evidences this, describing the prisons-capacity response as bureaucratic and repetitive, with too much discussion and too little action. Treating the machinery of government like a complex organism, rather than a machine, is the only way it will be effectively deployed. The UK government's own guidance on 'systems thinking for civil servants', as well as research by the Institute for Government, acknowledges this, with the latter noting that the machinery of government cannot be 'controlled through plans and 'levers''. Yet time and again, leaders fall back on the same familiar levers, expecting different results. They deploy tools suitable for the 'machine', including endless plans and committees. Bureaucracy begets bureaucracy, while delivery is missing in action. Breaking this cycle will remain unsuccessful for as long as leaders continue to treat government as a 'machine'.Name and address supplied Martin Kettle correctly identifies the stranglehold that Treasury orthodoxy has on government, but does not go far enough in identifying the source. Supply-side theory claims that growth comes when entrepreneurs are given incentives such as tax breaks or subsidies. Private businesses will employ people and the wealth they create, the taxes they pay, will allow government to improve public services. Forty years of failure has not dented faith in this flawed doctrine. Perhaps because those who administer the policies do not suffer the effects. Instead of giving money to rich businessmen, much of which finds its way into tax havens, why not try using it productively through existing channels? Public spending is not a dirty word. Creating a safe, healthy and prosperous society is the essence of government. Local authorities, especially in poor areas, are desperate for funds to keep their communities in a half-decent state: give them money to rebuild and repair, perhaps with encouragement to source locally. Bring in a local income tax instead of rates. Reverse the increase in employer's national insurance contributions, which is a tax on jobs. When demand increases, supply will follow. In this way the economy will grow organically, sustainably and all around the DaviesNewton-le-Willows, Merseyside Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Western Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Sturgeon's ‘Stalinist' approach disastrous for SNP, claims Joanna Cherry
Speaking at an on-stage conversation with Matt Forde on Wednesday, the lawyer said Ms Sturgeon's top-down approach lay behind the party failing to recognise concerns around gender self-identification, and its failure to achieve Scottish independence post-Brexit. She said that unlike her predecessor Alex Salmond, Ms Sturgeon had shut down debate within the party on strategy and policy discussions, and that 'it was her way or the highway', and dissenters were viewed with 'deep suspicion'. The former Edinburgh South West MP added that she had never been friends with Ms Sturgeon, but that their differences were political rather than personal. 'I've never been close to her. This is not a personality clash. This is a clash based on the way that we do politics,' she said. 'I believe in open debates and discussion. And I don't think she does. I think she was Stalinist in the way in which she ran the party and the country.' She also criticised Ms Sturgeon's strategy for securing a Scottish independence in the post-Brexit period, when she said she 'repeatedly' pursued a mandate for a second referendum from the UK Government without considering a plan B. 'The ideal thing would have been to get a second referendum, but it was unwise to close down other options, and we needed to discuss other options,' Ms Cherry said. 'She never wanted to discuss a plan B, and she never wanted to discuss the possibility of treating an election as a de facto referendum. 'And when she eventually decided to do that, it was only because she'd run out of options, and she did it without any debate or discussion.' She added: 'The reason that I feel that her strategy failed and was so wrong was it was very narrow, and she repeatedly banged her head off the brick wall of the British Government's refusal to grant a section 30 order, rather than having a multi-faceted strategy to put pressure on them to do so, whilst also having a back-up plan if they said no. 'A more skilled politician of the sort of person that Alex Salmond was would have had that kind of a plan, and she didn't have it.' Ms Cherry also described the independence referendum in 2014 as a 'flowering of ideas' that had come about from the 'grassroots up'. She said: 'I think Nicola and her husband, as chief executive of the party, set out to undermine that grassroots power because it scared them, and to make everything imposed in the top-down, and that has had disastrous results for the SNP and for the independence movement.' Ms Cherry also said it was 'irritating' that in her recent autobiography Ms Sturgeon conceded some of the problems with gender self-identification were valid, given, she said, there had been multiple attempts to get her to 'press pause' on the policy at the time. These included, she said, an open letter in the Scotsman newspaper in 2019 by herself and 'quite a few other SNP MPs, MSPs and councillors', and separate calls from herself for a citizens' assembly to examine the issue. She said of Ms Sturgeon's response: 'Not only did she close her ears to them, she demonised those of us who raised concerns. 'She said first of all that our concerns weren't valid. And then she actually compared us to the far-right, said we're misogynist, racist, homophobes.' Joanna Cherry was first elected to the UK Parliament in 2015, and was her party's spokesperson for justice and home affairs until 2021. She lost her seat to Labour in the 2024 general election. The Scottish Government and the SNP have been asked for comment.
