Fireworks

Debate between Chris Williamson and Susan Elan Jones

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones]

My hon. Friend from Wales makes a strong case.

I mentioned earlier the 5,700-plus comments reflecting different views on the Facebook page. I cannot talk about all of them but I will quote one: Facebook user Stephanie Daisy shared a moving video about her daughter, Maisie, who suffered serious injuries after a small home firework display went wrong on 5 November 2016. A stray flare became stuck in her scarf before exploding. She suffered full thickness burns to her head, neck and shoulders, and had five separate operations. In response to the post on Facebook, Stephanie said:

“My thoughts are, and always will be, that fireworks can be devastatingly dangerous even when used safely and as such should only be allowed at organised displays”.

Stephanie is not alone in her views. In fact, many others seem to share them, including veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

For such veterans, fireworks can be an unwelcome trigger for upsetting and frightening memories of conflict. The veterans’ charity, Shoulder to Soldier, runs a campaign to raise awareness of the negative effect that random fireworks can have on veterans who live with PTSD. That can be a particular problem nowadays as we do not only “Remember, remember the fifth of November”, but scores of other days throughout the year, with much random letting off of fireworks.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on a scenario that happened in my constituency? The home of Mr and Mrs Bagshaw was destroyed after a random firework entered the roof space and caused a fire which devastated their home. I asked if any consideration was being given by Ministers to lowering the explosive content of fireworks available to the general public, but the response was that there was no such plan. Will my hon. Friend comment on that aspect of this debate?

[Susan Elan Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and there are similar examples in other constituencies, although the one he refers to is especially serious.

People who wear hearing aids have concerns, too. According to The Independent, the petition organisers claim that random fireworks can be a nuisance to those who wear hearing aids. Individuals with those devices can turn the volume down or remove the hearing aid completely if they have prior notice of fireworks events. However, when fireworks are not expected, the noise they produce can cause significant pain and discomfort to hearing aid users.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

I had not heard of that particular custom but it sounds as if that is the case.

Having said all that, many would argue that fireworks are pretty well regulated across the UK. There are separate, stricter regulations for Northern Ireland, but even for the rest of us, there are a good number of statutes that relate to firework use—I will not go into all of them.

The Fireworks (Amendment) Regulations 2004 are designed to tackle the antisocial use of fireworks. Since January 2005, the sale of fireworks to the public has been prohibited except by licensed traders. However, fireworks can be sold by unlicensed traders on Chinese new year and the preceding three days, on Diwali and the preceding three days, for bonfire night celebrations between 15 October and 10 November—I assume those buying them at the end are having a late bonfire night—and new year celebrations between 26 and 31 December. A licence costs £500 and is issued by a local authority, subject to strict criteria. The penalty for operating without a licence is an unlimited fine and/or up to six months in jail. Under the 2004 regulations, it is an offence to use fireworks after 11 pm and before 7 am without permission, except on bonfire night, when the cut-off is midnight—it certainly was not in the case of the child in north Wales I mentioned—and on new year’s eve, Chinese new year and Diwali, when the cut-off is 1 am.

Fireworks are categorised from F1 to F4. Category F1 fireworks are

“fireworks which present a very low hazard and negligible noise level and which are intended for use in confined areas, including fireworks which are intended for use inside domestic buildings.”

Category F4 fireworks are

“fireworks which present a high hazard, which are intended for use only by persons with specialist knowledge and whose noise level is not harmful to human health.”

In other words, they are professional fireworks for use in large open spaces.

Regulation 8 of the 2004 regulations prohibits the supply to the public of category F3 fireworks whose noise exceeds 120 dB. According to Age UK, damage to hearing can be caused by noise of 85 dB. The illegal use of fireworks can result in prosecution and a fine of up to £5,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to six months. A £90 on-the-spot fine may also be levied. The penalty for committing an offence of supplying a category F2 or F3 firework to any person under 18, or supplying a category F1 firework to any person under 16, is a fine of up to £5,000 and up to six months’ imprisonment.

In addition, under section 31 of the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015, an “economic operator” —a retailer—must not sell: a Christmas cracker to anyone under 12; F1 category fireworks to anyone under 16, or F2 and F3 category fireworks to anyone under 18. They also must not sell F4 category fireworks to members of the public, as those may be supplied only to a person with specialist knowledge.

Fireworks, including sparklers—those were my favourite—can be bought for private use only between 15 October and 10 November, between 26 and 31 December, and in the three days before Diwali and Chinese new year. Storage of fireworks of less than 2 tonnes requires a licence from the local authority; storage of more than 2 tonnes of fireworks requires a licence from the Health and Safety Executive. Both bodies may inspect storage facilities if they wish. The Explosives Regulations 2014 state that a licence is required to store fireworks except where their quantity is less than 5 kg. That strikes me as pretty extensive.

At the start of the debate, I spoke about my positive childhood experiences of local community bonfire nights, so it is both instinctive and subjective for me to say that I am cautious about a total ban. Others with less positive experiences will of course take a different view.

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend went through the extensive regulatory safeguards in detail, but they are only as good as their enforcement. We hear every bonfire night, and on other occasions, of examples such as the appalling incident in my constituency where two vile sadists strapped two rockets to a cat and set them on fire. We clearly need better enforcement. I wonder whether she will comment on the fact that cuts to local authorities, to police services and so on make it difficult to enforce the regulations, which should provide safety to the general public.

[Susan Elan Jones]

That is probably true, and I know what I would quite like to do to some perpetrators, but it is worth noting that some countries have far tougher rules for spontaneous local firework displays. Last November, a fascinating piece on the BBC website noted how, in the American state of Delaware, someone can get a shotgun without a licence but it is totally illegal for an individual to buy a firework. It struck me as interesting that the right to bear sparklers is governed by tougher laws than the right to bear arms. Some other states relent on sparklers—I am conscious that my emphasis on sparklers reflects a certain subjectivity—but ban all other fireworks. In all seriousness, that is an interesting comparison.

I give that example because I think we need more objective evidence—and not primarily from other countries. The petitioners refer to the need for proper statistics about firework-related incidents. A related newspaper article states that petitioners found it impossible to get the relevant information through freedom of information requests. I agree with the petitioners that to debate this issue properly and to consider the extent of the problem we need full and accurate data. We do not have that at the moment, and I believe that the Government should provide it.

It is also time that the Government launched a proper, comprehensive consultation on this issue. We cannot discuss all this by anecdote alone. We cannot seriously have a grown-up discussion about what the law should be when all we have to go on is the subjectivity of lawmakers who have happy childhood memories of small informal firework displays and those who, for equally personal reasons, do not. We need evidence, statistics and a proper debate, and we need the Government to launch a formal consultation on this issue.

Construction Industry

Debate between Chris Williamson and Susan Elan Jones

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

That is another valid point and the Government need to consider it; it is a source of some concern. As I say, we are in a fortunate position at the moment, in that 80% of construction materials used in the UK are procured within the borders of the UK, but that might not always be the case. As my hon. Friend suggests, the Government need to be alive to the potential for change as the ownership of firms passes to multinational conglomerates. If that trend continues, the percentage of construction materials procured within the UK could diminish quite rapidly and quite significantly, and we need to be vigilant about that.

[Susan Elan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another important factor in this debate is the employment of young men in the construction industry? If we are to accept—as I think, at times, the Government seem to be accepting—a high level of young male unemployment, there are serious social consequences to that as well.

[Chris Williamson]

Yes, there most certainly are. My hon. Friend puts her finger on another important element of the construction industry. Clearly, it is a very labour-intensive industry. A vibrant, thriving and growing construction sector provides plenty of training opportunities, as she points out. That has significant social implications, because we all know the detrimental consequences—both for individuals personally and for the wider community—of large-scale unemployment. When we consider some of the Government’s other targets, supporting the construction industry and creating training opportunities in the industry would have huge beneficial impacts well beyond the obvious impacts, which I think are clear for all to see.

I wanted to make a point about housing and the importance of having a vibrant housing sector. In particular, I wanted to say why I am so disappointed with the decision to get rid of the housing targets. I have already mentioned the procurement of construction materials from within the UK, but a vibrant housing market also has much wider beneficial impacts, in that people are moving house and buying new carpets, curtains, furnishings and so on, which also benefits all the people employed in those sectors. At the moment, all those sectors are in significant decline.

I would like to talk again parochially for a moment, this time about the commercial sector. In Derby, we have 1.25 million square feet of office space that has planning permission. Those development sites are now standing empty; some have been cleared and some are just a dilapidated eyesore. We were looking forward to those sites being developed, possibly with a view to civil servants moving into them as part of the Lyons review. At the time of that review, developers were talking about building speculatively, but that will not happen at the moment. Derby is not the only example of a town or city where there is a plentiful supply of commercial space available. In the current climate, no developer will build speculatively; they need end-users and certainty. In fact, they need certainty to get a development funded for a start.

I will be interested in hearing the Minister’s response to that point, because I plead with him to say what assistance the Government are prepared to provide to give that stimulus to the construction sector. There is one very simple thing the Government could do that would achieve another one of their targets, which is reducing public spending. That simple thing is to move civil servants from extremely expensive central London locations and out into the regions. When the Government are looking at the relocation of civil servants, I hope that they will consider Derby, because developing a prestigious site in Derby could be achieved at around £20 to £25 per square foot and I know for a fact that in central London some of the prices that some of the Government agencies are paying are in excess of £100 per square foot; indeed, they might be up towards £150 per square foot. Clearly, relocating those agencies and staff to Derby would be hugely beneficial, not only to Derby and the construction sector but to the Government’s own target of reducing public spending. In fact, it will reduce public spending in a way that will not hit front-line services. However, it seems that that relocation process has stalled. I do not know why that is and I would be interested to hear the Government’s thoughts on that.

I am pleased that the Minister is here today for this debate and I know that he is considering locations for the green bank. I have written to him to say that Derby would make a perfect location for the green bank and I hope that he will consider Derby, particularly as Barclaycard has moved out of significant premises in the city. Derby would be an ideal location for the green bank and I hope that he will bear that in mind when he makes his final decision on that issue.

The Government are going in the wrong direction at the moment—the opposite direction to the one they need to go in. What they need to do is to create an economic virtuous circle and construction can play a really important role in delivering that virtuous circle. That means investing in the economy to create the growth that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton referred to, which will have a knock-on impact. I think that he said that growth begets growth, or growth generates more growth, and clearly it does.

My hon. Friend and I are not the only ones saying that. I myself am a humble bricklayer—what do I know about economics? But I just look at my history books. I look at what President Roosevelt did in the 1930s, when there was 25% unemployment in the US during the great depression. A lot of the recovery from the depression was built on the back of construction, including huge construction projects such as dams, roads and housing. We saw that happen again in 1945 in this country, with the efforts of the post-war Labour Government.