University Tuition Fees

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Monday 27th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Joseph Johnson]

Indeed they would, but it is also important that they make a direct contribution that relates to the benefit they have received, which has been provided for them by a public funding contribution.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). In response to the Minister’s challenge to me, he is right: I do not support full abolition, but neither do I support the £9,000 level. I think there is a balance to be struck. On his comment that the Treasury presses hard, I know it does. I have been in government; the Treasury always presses hard. The political choice that one makes, and that the Treasury and the Cabinet make, is how far it is allowed to press, and where the trade-offs are. The hon. Lady says that there should be contributions from elsewhere. The health service has suggested that we have golden handcuffs for those who want to qualify as doctors, and free them from their tuition fees to get them into the NHS and keep them there for the rest of their professional lives. Those choices and judgments have to be made.

[Joseph Johnson]

I would just note that higher education is a devolved policy responsibility in the United Kingdom. Those parts of the United Kingdom that have the present level of fees that we have in England have been able to lift student number controls. Other Administrations, which have made their own policy choices, have not been able to lift student number controls. As a result, under those Administrations we have seen far lower levels of widening participation than we currently see in England. We genuinely think that returning to a cap on student numbers would be absolutely disastrous for young people from lower income backgrounds.

Fireworks

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Monday 6th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) and the petitioners on bringing about this debate.

The Chinese may be able to claim the credit for inventing the tradition of fireworks, but fireworks are a big part of the UK’s history. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) reminded us, they have been in use in this country since Elizabethan times and are now very much part of our multicultural traditions. They have been used for celebrations by many different faith groups—Christians, Hindus and Muslims—for many years, and they bring communities together to celebrate significant dates and events and to raise funds for good causes.

The majority of people who enjoy fireworks do so responsibly with consideration for others and in accordance with the law. None the less, I completely understand the distress caused to animals and their owners by the unexpected noise that fireworks produce. Of course, not only animals are affected by noisy fireworks. I also sympathise with those who suffer from mental health issues, autism and post-traumatic stress disorder, for whom the noise from fireworks can be very upsetting.

As a Minister in the Department responsible, my challenge is to find the right balance between the enjoyment of fireworks by consumers and the impact of those fireworks on vulnerable groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South, in his excellent opening speech, and other hon. Members have asked several pertinent questions, which I will attempt to answer.

I will take animal welfare and enforcement measures together—namely the adequacy and effectiveness of the existing framework and the various measures with respect to animal welfare. Considerable legislation is already in place on the use, sale and production of fireworks—as hon. Members have noted, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 and the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015—and is enforced by trading standards officials, in partnership with the police. Elements of the Explosives Act 1875 also set certain restrictions on fireworks, again enforced by the police.

Fireworks must be produced to high standards. As mentioned, the 2015 regulations require that all fireworks and other pyrotechnic articles must comply with essential safety requirements, which control how the fireworks are manufactured, tested and labelled with use and safety messages. They are designed to ensure that the risks of injury to users, onlookers and the public in general, and of damage to property, are minimised.

The requirements vary by category of how powerful the firework is, and cover design and construction, labelling, and the need for full product testing. They also include restrictions on, for example, safety distances, explosive content and means of ignition. My hon. Friend also expressed concern about fireworks debris, which is restricted by the relevant British and European standards.

The 2004 regulations set an 11 pm curfew on the use of fireworks, with later exceptions for seasonal celebrations such as 5 November, new year, Chinese new year and Diwali. The curfew is enforced by the police, with any breach subject to an unlimited fine and/or six months in prison. The police can also issue on-the-spot fines of £90 to persons aged 18 or over committing that offence.

Furthermore, sale of fireworks is limited to seasonal periods, unless a retailer is licensed. 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 prison. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) asked about trends in recent sales, and I offer him some statistics in response. I will happily write to him with further information in due course. The industry estimates that about 15% of sales are by those with a year-round retail licence.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about stockpiling, as did the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). Stockpiling and the storage of fireworks are governed by robust regimes. The storage of fireworks of less than two tonnes in weight needs a licence from the local authority; storage of more than two tonnes of fireworks requires a licence from the Health and Safety Executive. Both bodies may inspect storage facilities, if they so wish.

The hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) mentioned online sales. Online sales are regulated in the same way as conventional sales. The trading standards body is doing specific work on national trading standards for online sales. Funding for that body continues at last year’s level of £14.8 million.

Fireworks cannot be set off in a public space, and the noise caused by them may constitute a statutory nuisance. Local authority environmental health officers may judge whether the noise constitutes a statutory nuisance and act accordingly. Finally, it is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to cause any unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal. Fireworks must not be set off near livestock or horses in fields, or close to buildings that house livestock.

In my view, those existing laws, which are robustly enforced, and the penalties for breaching them are appropriate to ensure that animal welfare is protected.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am listening to the Minister’s response with great interest and, kindly, he is dealing with points made by colleagues. I am not sure whether I am anticipating something he might be going on to answer, but a number of us asked about enforcement because of the clear interest in whether we have the balance right. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said that we should ban anything but organised displays; most of us say, “Let’s get the balance right.” On the enforcement of the regulations, does the Minister have the statistics on how many prosecutions there have been, what the trend is, and whether it is improving or deteriorating? Those could give confidence to people that trading standards officers, for sales, and the police, for enforcement, are working on this and are doing all they can to protect exposed communities and animals.

[Joseph Johnson]

No centrally available data are with the Department; the data are not separated out to show specific fireworks offences. The basis on which data are collected and given to the Home Office has changed, so we are unable to identify fireworks offences specifically or data of the kind the hon. Gentleman is interested in.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

Markets can turn on a dime if they detect backsliding. Recovering lost confidence would require much bigger cuts to public spending than the credible ones that the Government have outlined. Evidence for that is in abundant supply in countries on the periphery of the eurozone. Despite the agreement on the post-2013 European stability mechanism, concerns about the underlying solvency of the most vulnerable countries—Portugal, Ireland and Greece—are growing.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am terribly sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will he respond later in his speech to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked him?

[Joseph Johnson]

I did not touch on it directly because the reply is obvious. Yes, other countries have large debts, but that does not mean that we do not have an urgent need to reduce the scope of our borrowing and our national interest payments.