(2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
Like many other Members, I have been calling for tougher action on the misuse of fireworks for many years, because this issue is of great concern to many of constituents in Bradford East. Across our community, the inconsiderate and antisocial use of fireworks by a small minority is causing misery—as others emphasised, it is a small minority, as many people use fireworks considerately. As we have heard, families have been kept awake at night, residents are disturbed during the day, and vulnerable groups, such as children with sensory sensitivities and the elderly, have been disproportionately affected.
I have written to Ministers on a number of occasions over the past decade to call for stronger licensing powers, a reduction in noise levels and restrictions on the sale of fireworks, yet they have failed to act. Time and again, they have insisted that the existing laws are sufficient, but that response ignores the reality on the ground. The question we must ask is: if the powers are adequate, why do so many of our communities feel that their concerns are being ignored? Why are so many residents, councils and charities calling for change? Let me be clear: I am not calling for a complete ban on fireworks. Alongside my constituents, I am calling for a sensible and balanced approach to regulation that ensures fireworks can be enjoyed safely without causing undue harm and distress.
Firework misuse is not unique to Bradford, although the impact on our city is clearly felt. Residents have shared their harrowing experiences. Meanwhile, Ban the Menace Fireworks, a local initiative, is supported by 30,000 signatures, and the number continues to rise. That highlights the devastating impact of late-night fireworks on the public. Quite rightly, animal welfare organisations including the RSPCA and Dogs Trust have made it clear that the distress caused to pets, livestock and wildlife is unacceptable. Those charities have called for clear, achievable reforms. It is clear that the current legislation is outdated, not working, and insufficient.
Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent Hayley from Adel, who is woken at 3 o’clock in the morning, that we have to address this antisocial behaviour? As he says, the current legislation is not working. A reduction in the decibel limit would not diminish the joy; in fact, it could increase the joy, because it could increase accessibility for people to attend fireworks displays. It would diminish the terrible impacts we have heard about today, from Roxie to the tragic story of those in the Public Gallery.
My hon. Friend is right. Those who use fireworks responsibly would be little concerned about a reduction in the noise level. It is a sensible call that many people, including my constituents, charity groups and others, have been making for many years now.
While the current laws restrict the hours during which fireworks can be set off and impose age restrictions, they do little to prevent the antisocial behaviour that we see in our communities. Much of the misery is caused by antisocial behaviour. Our local authorities and police forces, including my own Bradford council and West Yorkshire police, have repeatedly stated that their hands are tied by inadequate laws and a lack of resources. Despite the challenges, I take this opportunity to commend Bradford council for its proactive approach in working with venues and other parties to reduce the antisocial use of fireworks, and in calling for stricter laws on noise levels and sales.
I feel that any criticism of local authorities is not warranted, because the reality is that if they had the extra powers they have been requesting for many years—certainly during my time in Parliament—they would deal with the issue differently. We must not forget that over the last decade trading standards and our police force have had their resources massively reduced, which impacts enforcement. I consistently argue that councils need more powers to tackle the issue effectively.
In recent years, we have heard about the issue from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who previously introduced a Bill on the subject. Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is doing fantastic work in this area, and she has my full support. The measures they have brought to Parliament are backed by many public petitions signed by thousands in all our constituencies. That is why I urge the Government to take immediate steps. This is not a call to end fireworks—that is certainly not my call, which I hope is supported by others. Fireworks can and should be a source of joy, community and celebration, but their misuse is causing distress, harm and destruction to too many people.
It is time for the Government to listen to our communities, empower councils and put in place sensible, enforceable regulations that balance enjoyment with responsibility. The Minister and I have worked together for many years and I know he understands this. I therefore urge him to address four points in particular today: stronger licensing and enforcement powers, the reduction of noise levels, restrictions on the sale of fireworks, and giving further enforcement powers not just to local authorities but to trading standards and other enforcement bodies, to allow us to move forward.
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberLet me pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his sustained effort on, and interest in, these issues. It has come at some personal cost; he has received criticism from foreign Governments. He is an example to us all in this Chamber in his willingness to speak up for human rights without fear or favour.
On his point, first, I see the answer as involving enforcement of the current legislation. It is important to reaffirm that legislation is clear about companies’ mandatory obligations, regardless of whether they import from Xinjiang or elsewhere. Secondly, as I have said, we intend to look carefully at whether lessons can be drawn from other jurisdictions, notwithstanding the good efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and many others in this Chamber at the time of the initiation of the Modern Slavery Act.
Earlier this year, the Global Legal Action Network and the World Uyghur Congress filed a legal case against the National Crime Agency’s decision not to investigate suspected forced-labour goods from Xinjiang. That led to a landmark ruling, which established that any goods suspected of being linked to Uyghur forced labour can be considered criminal property when offered for sale in the UK. What measures have the Government taken in the light of that landmark decision? What protection is there, and what accountability measures are in place, in instances where UK businesses are still involved with goods produced from forced labour?
It is important to draw a distinction between the legislative approach taken by some jurisdictions, which have named countries and provinces where there is abuse of human rights, and the statutory foundation for the way that British business is expected to conduct itself, not least in relation to modern slavery and threats to the supply chain. Notwithstanding the ruling of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, the obligations on companies predate that ruling and are set out very clearly in the Modern Slavery Act.