Fireworks: Public Sales

Debate between Ged Killen and Bill Grant

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

We nurture and protect our children as they grow up, testing the temperature of the bath water, ensuring fireguards are in situ, and teaching them not to play with matches and lighters, so why do we permit them fireworks, despite the law? In my youth, the content of a box of fireworks was usually a rocket to be launched from an empty milk bottle, a Catherine wheel to be pinned to a tree trunk or the shed door, a banger, a sparkler or even a jumping jack—I understand that they have wisely been banned. They were fun; I should not really say that, but that was when I was a kid. It was quite some time ago that I had access to fireworks as a child. Nowadays, the pyrotechnics are powerful. The colourful and dynamic packaging and posters are clearly aimed at enticing people to purchase fireworks. I appreciate that there is an age limit on purchases, but regrettably, in many instances, they still fall into younger, inexperienced hands.

All emergency services, including accident and emergency, view 5 November with trepidation, not so much because it is one of the busiest days of the year, but because of the casualties—in the main young people, who are injured or maimed for life. Jack Kirkland, in his book “Blue lights and bandages”, in which he recounts his experiences as a member of the Scottish Ambulance Service, speaks graphically of many bonfire night injuries, including that of a boy who had been carrying fireworks in his pockets when they went off, causing serious burns and injuries, which he carries to this day.

I was a fire officer for 31 years, and I have seen for myself horrific injuries from stray or thrown fireworks. The problem relates not just to the visible, physical injuries, but to the hidden acoustic stress to humans, pets and other animals, and there is the potential to cause further mental trauma for those with post-traumatic stress disorder. As was said earlier, fire crews can be set up: a 999 call is made, but when the crew arrive they receive an onslaught of fireworks, which have been lawfully and legally bought—often from reputable retailers, but more often from pop-up shops that appear over towns for that occasion. Just as worrying is the fact that Police Scotland recently identified the misuse of fireworks and smoke bombs in sports stadiums as a growing issue.

If hon. Members need evidence to convince them, the website of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents states:

“Injury figures support the advice that the safest place to enjoy fireworks is at a large public display—far fewer people are injured here than at smaller family or private parties”

where there is no control over the fireworks that are ignited or detonated. The British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons said that

“in 2017-18, 4,435 people”

—a phenomenal figure—

“were admitted to A&E due to firework injuries; the majorities of these patients were boys under the age of 18”,

who had clearly accessed and possibly misused fireworks.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I vividly remember being at school and having to dodge my way along the path to the front gates in the run-up to 5 November and afterwards to avoid the fireworks flying overhead. Fireworks are clearly getting into the wrong hands. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if they were invented tomorrow, we would never allow them to be on sale so freely?

[Bill Grant]

I wholeheartedly agree. Despite the law and the regulations, fireworks are so easy to purchase. Pop-up shops that come to our towns sell them to whoever has the money. Perhaps the reputable retailers do that less so, but we have to ask ourselves, as parliamentarians and parents, why should fireworks be on sale on our high streets?

I support a ban on the sale of fireworks to the public. I would prefer organised events by certified, competent persons, who would carry out risk assessments and put in place control zones to ensure public safety. That would be a sensible thing to do, and it would allow people still to enjoy organised events. I do not want to ban fireworks entirely, but they should be used at proper organised events.

If the Government will not ban fireworks, and I think that is their position, we should at least consider applying standards similar to those used for other items that have the potential adversely to affect public health. For example, in recent years, the packaging, display and advertising of cigarettes have been muted. Should it not be the same for fireworks?

It has been suggested that graphics depicting horrendous injuries would deter some from purchasing fireworks, but if we think of the many graphic games that young people play on their computer consoles, which show scenes of terror and horror, might we not just be whetting their appetite with such packaging? I would prefer plain, unattractive packaging. I am also fearful that graphic packaging could cause distress to those suffering from PTSD.

I spoke in a fireworks debate earlier in the year, and I recently hosted a drop-in session in Westminster for MPs that was co-organised by the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Kennel Club. About 40 MPs signed up and undertook to consider introducing further restrictions around the sale of fireworks, such as limiting them to licensed public occasions and organised events. One recommendation was that local authorities should pay attention to the location for which a licence was sought, and that if one was granted, pet owners within a given radius should receive adequate notification so that they could make the necessary preparations—almost like neighbour notification.

I would thought have that, although individual fireworks in categories F1 to F3 may contain only small quantities of explosive, we should, in the interest of security, be eliminating the potential for someone to amass fireworks for illicit purposes by placing a ban on their sale to the general public.

If the UK Government do not back legislation introducing an outright ban on the sale of fireworks to the public, I ask the Minister to consider amendments to plug potential loopholes in the existing legislation. I appreciate that responsibility for fireworks is split between the UK and Scottish Governments: the former regulate their sale as a consumer safety issue, while responsibility for the use of fireworks has been devolved to the latter under the Fireworks (Scotland) Regulations 2004. The Scottish Government will carry out a consultation on the use and regulation of fireworks in Scotland, including on ways to reduce antisocial impact of fireworks, and I, for one, welcome that consultation.

I would, however, ask both Governments to consider the following scenario, which my constituents have drawn to my attention fairly recently. In my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, there are many stunning venues for special events such as weddings, and a growing tendency—strangely—for fireworks to feature as part of those celebrations. Such events are more frequent than the annual Guy Fawkes night and, as some venues are situated in residential areas or near livestock facilities, neighbour nuisance is a very real issue.

Constituents advise me that some venues devolve responsibility for the fireworks display to the customer, who engages a private company that sets up the system and lets off the fireworks from nearby private land, which makes it extremely difficult for local authority officers to police events and take any follow-up action. If the existing legislation does not catch such creative arrangements, surely Governments need to be equally creative to protect the wider public, taking account of proportionality and balance of convenience.

I say to the Minister that it strikes me as strange that, given the innovation and the availability of silent fireworks and light shows, we have not moved on as a nation and, as has been mentioned, are still repeatedly debating the contentious matter of fireworks and the distress and the injury they cause not only to humans, but to pets, livestock and wild animals. Years later, we are still dealing with the issue of fireworks—do we really need them? Let us give due consideration to introducing regulation to reflect a modern approach to fireworks, reduce injuries and prevent unnecessary trauma to humans, pets and domestic animals.

Scottish Welfare Powers

Debate between Ged Killen and Bill Grant

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Grant]

I think I have indicated in the debate today that flexibility is a good thing. I welcome such things for people until they, for want of a more elegant phrase, get on to an even keel. It is a support system; it is not a permanent system. Where the system would benefit from flexibility, I welcome that.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the flexibility now afforded to the Scottish Government in the payment of universal credit. Does he not agree that it is regrettable that his party and his favourite sparring partners the SNP voted down the Labour amendment to ensure that women in particular can be protected from financial abuse by being able to split universal credit?

[Bill Grant]

I support that. I think discussions are going on between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to resolve that. It is a serious issue, particularly in terms of abusive relationships and so on. I respect and support that point.

I am conscious of time. It is not clear how Scottish flexibility and the UK-wide alternative payment arrangements system will work together in the future, and both Governments must provide further clarity on that. Universal credit is an area where the Scottish Government have already exercised their devolved powers. While it is rightly a reserved benefit, it is also right and correct that it should be tailored to Scottish needs, but these flexibilities throw up issues that must be worked out between the two Governments. People in Scotland who opt for the flexibility of two-weekly payment may not be able to access things such as direct debits to secure lower utilities prices. Will the Minister commit to working with the Scottish Government to resolve such issues in the devolved system?

Providing welfare is one of the most important and complex tasks a Government delivers. As we move into the 2020s, the Scottish Government will rightly take on more and more responsibility in this area. By 2021, the leadership of the Scottish Government might look rather different—it might look much the same—but it must be ready regardless. We simply cannot afford for the SNP not to be ready. We know that it is a party that prefers complaining to governing, but that has to end now—the stakes for these individuals are far too high.

The UK Government promised devolved welfare and have kept up that end of the bargain. The SNP Government now need to get on with the work to secure a welfare system in Scotland. They need to be 100% focused on what to do with the powers. They need to ensure that Scotland is ready for this significant and important change. We are not there yet, but there is still time. Let us all hope that, for once, they rise to the occasion. Finally, I thank the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions, in offices around Scotland and the United Kingdom, for their continuing commitment to the needs of their clients on a daily basis, and for embracing change and digital technology.

Male Suicide

Debate between Ged Killen and Bill Grant

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In those deprived areas people are on average two or three times more likely to experience suicidal behaviour. Socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals are more at risk and less likely to seek help for mental health problems than the more affluent. It bears repeating that, although each person’s suicide is complex and individual, this is a fact that cannot be ignored: a man living in the most deprived area of our country is 10 times more likely to take his own life than a man in the most affluent area. In no uncertain terms, I am saying that for men in deprived areas, inequality kills.

We cannot conclusively draw links between all Government policies and suicide—I would not seek to do so—but I have a growing fear that the Government’s roll-out of universal credit in its current form will exacerbate inequality and could present an increased risk of suicide in deprived areas.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on deprived areas, but does he agree that there are areas in which people successful in business or agriculture—third or fourth generation—might have a business that slips away from them? They are not necessarily on a journey of deprivation, but they are losing something that the family had built up over the years. They may see the way out as taking their own life. That is the burden of a family business and its loss—does he agree that suicide includes a broad range of unfortunate individuals?

[Ged Killen]

As I said, there are a lot of complex issues that might affect suicidal behaviour. I am identifying specific areas that research shows are more likely to increase the risk of suicide. Living in a deprived area is one of those.

Sadly, many Members have said in the Chamber that they hear from increasing numbers of people showing signs of suicidal behaviour, as do I in my own office. I could not speak in the debate without acknowledging that. But I bring the debate in a spirit of collaboration. I am certain that every Member in this room wants a reduction in male suicides and wants strategies to be devised and implemented to achieve that aim.