North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

We have obviously been liaising with the company over quite a long period of time on the restructuring; indeed, the previous Government did as well. We have been looking at this issue and will continue to work very closely with the company to ensure that there is a viable long-term future for the UK part. But it is an in-demand business and, as I said just last month, it expanded some of its contracts, which shows that it is successful. Of course, it has a highly skilled workforce working in a huge range of jobs right across oil and gas.

The wider question about investment into renewables is also one that we should take seriously. We have a huge opportunity in the United Kingdom to capitalise on the economic opportunities that come from offshore and onshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture, but that requires consistency and a view that the UK is a safe place to invest—things that were threatened by the Conservatives.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Anyone who has met businesses in Aberdeen will know that they rely on the oil and gas sector. This Labour Government’s “net zero at all costs” policy is a disaster for high-quality skills and jobs in the north-east and across Scotland. What urgent action will the Government take to restore confidence and stability in the energy sector?

[Michael Shanks]

I reject the hon. Member’s assertion that this Government are somehow following a course without looking at the evidence. Clearly, oil and gas is a crucial part of our energy mix and will be for decades to come—we have been clear on that—but so too is building up what comes next. That means investing in the supply chains that were so often not part of the building of infrastructure that we have in our waters. We towed things in and switched them on, but had none of the jobs that went with them. We are determined to change that, but that comes with having a credible industrial strategy and a long-term plan for the future of the North sea, which we did not have under 14 years of the previous Government.

Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of electricity infrastructure on rural communities.  

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am delighted to have secured this important debate, as it is an issue that affects many communities across our United Kingdom. However, it particularly affects the Scottish Borders and other parts of Scotland, such as the highlands. Frankly, the Borders are being inundated with plans for new energy infrastructure: wind farms, solar farms, battery energy storage units and mega-pylons.

This weekend, I joined other concerned local residents on Lauder Common, near Threepwood. It is a beautiful part of the Scottish Borders, an area of unspoilt landscapes and natural habitats that Scottish Power Energy Networks plans to destroy with a new electricity substation linking giant mega-pylons.

From a vantage point on the southern upland way, we were able to look over the award-winning Threepwood Moss, a special area of conservation and home to curlews. Threepwood Moss is at risk from major construction works for the new electricity substation, a battery energy storage system and a nearby solar farm.

The total site will cover approximately 24 hectares, which is equivalent to around 40 football pitches. This is at the heart of what is called the cross-border connection, which would see more than 75 km of overhead lines installed across the Scottish Borders, looping through the new substation near Lauder—called Gala North by Scottish Power Energy Networks, which I will call SPEN for the rest of this debate—and down to a second proposed substation south of Newcastleton.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[John Lamont]

I will take interventions, but I will make a little more progress. Patience, colleagues!

It means giant mega-pylons running through communities and landscapes across the Scottish Borders. We all understand the need for a modern, resilient electricity network, but there must be a balance. It must be done in a coherent and organised way that does not come at the expense of our rural environment or the wellbeing of our communities. This project is deeply unpopular with local people and will do huge damage.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that it seems strange that the proposed grid upgrade in Scotland does not take into account the future of nuclear power which we understand will be developed right across the UK?

[John Lamont]

I share the hon. Member’s concerns, and I will come on to nuclear a little later.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

In my constituency, pylon proposals are causing huge distress among our rural communities. They will not bring any real benefit to those communities. In fact, developers often bypass the rights of landowners, and the proposed developments will ruin our beautiful landscape. Does the hon. Member agree that electricity infrastructure anywhere must be done with communities, not to them?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point about taking communities with us. We all accept, I believe, the need to invest in our electricity infrastructure, but it must be done in a coherent way that takes local communities with us.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Would the hon. Member agree that transmission line operators should consider the impact on local communities by leaving legacy housing, employing graduate apprentices from the area and not swamping local villages with workers’ camps?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member makes a key point, which I will come to later, that often these projects generate many jobs while the developments are being constructed, but the jobs disappear as soon as they are finished. That is unlike nuclear power, which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, with 300 jobs in Berwickshire alone directly connected to Torness power station. Those are permanent jobs, for people living and working in the local communities. We do not get the same employment opportunities with some of the current proposals for energy infrastructure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention resilience and modern technology. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union. The National Farmers Union and the UFU have indicated that infrastructure needs to be upgraded to ensure that whenever storms come, there will not be loss of electricity or broadband outages. Does he agree that we must ensure the livelihoods of our rural constituents and their businesses when we look to the future?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member makes a key point about the need to invest in the electricity network, but it needs to be done in a coherent and organised way with buy-in from the local communities. That is what is lacking dreadfully with some of the proposals.

I will make some progress. The issues are clear. First, the proximity of pylons to people’s homes will impact their quality of life and the visual amenity of their community. Secondly, our countryside will be scarred, damaging tourism and leaving businesses that are already badly suffering out of pocket. It will also damage our environment and natural habitats. Agricultural land will be damaged or lost, impacting farms, reducing the amount of produce made in the Borders and harming our drive for food security. We are not saying that we do not want any energy infrastructure—we already have a lot in the Borders. It is about finding the right solution that protects our rural communities.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Although he is speaking about the Borders, we are seeing something similar in the north-east. We have a huge amount of energy infrastructure across our region, whether that be pylons, batteries or substations, and the communities feel like things are being done to them. Our agricultural land is vanishing. Housing are having substations put right outside—I have heard from one household who have a substation right outside their child’s front window. There is no planning or organisation. Things are being imposed on communities who have very little say. The ways in which consultations are done are not up to scratch. It seems that there is nothing communities can do to have a say and actually be heard.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is demonstrating what a doughty campaigner she is for her constituents in the north-east of Scotland. I agree with everything she has said, and I will develop some of those points.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

We have a similar issue in the west midlands, although it is not entirely a rural area. On the edge of Birmingham in my constituency, battery energy storage systems are being imposed upon local communities. What was green belt is now being defined as grey belt. Local communities feel that they get all the pain and no gain, and they have no say at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to sit down and have a real rethink?

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend is right. She has consistently raised this issue in the Commons, and I know how passionately she feels about it on behalf of her constituents. I will come on to battery storage shortly.

It is important that alternatives are considered. For example, rather than overhead cables, why is underground cabling not being considered? That proposal has been simply dismissed on cost. [Interruption.] I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he is dismissing these concerns out of hand. He is laughing and scoffing. These are real concerns that my constituents feel passionately about. I would be grateful if he showed the same respect that I give to him for the concerns that I am raising on behalf of the people of the Scottish Borders, the highlands and the north-east of Scotland. These concerns are legitimate and I would be grateful if he treated them as such.

The proposals for underground cabling have been dismissed by ScottishPower Energy Networks on cost grounds alone. It may be more expensive for the developer, but what is the cost of destroying our natural environment forever? Rather than using the route through the Scottish Borders, why can we not use the route of the existing cross-border electricity infrastructure following the M74 motorway and railway corridor?

Throughout the process, SPEN has not listened to our local communities in the way we would have hoped. It is another example of decision makers in cities with little regard for the people and landscapes affected. I have organised a number of extremely well-attended public meetings about the cross-border connection and some of the other infrastructure projects being proposed. We have set up the Action Against Pylons: Scottish Borders Alliance, a voluntary coalition of 10 independent community action groups made up of people who live along the proposed route of the pylons and the other infrastructure projects being imposed on us—the people whose lives are going to be made a misery if this project goes ahead. Local people are coming together to fight the plans: there are too many people to mention, but I wish to pay tribute to a few of them. Edward Kellow and Rosi Lister put in many hours of hard work to get the group up and running. Campaigners such as Rory Steel and local councillors Leagh Douglas and Julie Pirone have done much to raise public awareness, alongside many others. As a group, we invited SPEN and representatives of the Scottish Government to walk the proposed route of the pylons, to come and see the landscape and communities that will be most impacted by their plans, and to hear the concerns of local residents. It was a perfectly reasonable request but they refused. It seems that the people who live in the areas most affected are secondary to SPEN’s plans.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for securing the debate. I gently remind him that there is an alternative to opposition: participation. In the Western Isles we have the highest level of community-owned wind farms in Britain: 22 MW, alleviating fuel poverty and powering community economics. Our council is ready to take a 20% stake in two big wind farms, leaving the local authority—one of the smallest local authorities in Britain—in charge of 89 MW of power on an island chain with a daily demand of 39 MW. Do the maths: the communities benefit. GB Energy has been set up with substantial sums for community involvement and I ask the hon. Member to consider what my island community and communities across the highlands and rural areas have done: buy in, participate and have a share. People might object to the pylons going past them, but they really object to the profits going past them. By having community participation, and a community share, we can make sure that communities benefit.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

This is a half-hour debate, so interventions should be shorter than that.

[John Lamont]

The Borders already has a significant number of electricity infrastructure projects, including wind farms and battery storage plants that have already been developed. Some are community owned—Berwickshire Housing Association co-owns a wind farm—but it has gone too far. Many people who previously supported those types of projects feel that we have our fair share. We are now tipping the balance into changing the Borders beyond recognition. That is why people who previously consented to such projects now say, “Enough is enough.”

It is about not just the size and scale of the pylons, but the connected electricity infrastructure that comes on the back of the pylons, with the new substations and new projects rushing to get a connection to the upgraded power supply. Barely a week goes by without a new planning application: wind turbines, solar farms, battery energy storage units, data centres. The borders have been expected to take a disproportionate burden in the transition to net zero. As we have heard in this debate, other rural communities across the UK feel much the same. There will be those who say that we need to suck it up. Take for example the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who said he would happily live next to an electricity pylon or a wind turbine. That is very easy to say for someone who lives in north London; it is an entirely different matter for someone who lives in the countryside.

There is a hidden impact of the new electricity infrastructure too. Last week, we heard that data centres in Scotland powering artificial intelligence are using enough water to fill 27 million half-litre bottles of water a year—a shocking statistic. It is made all the more shocking when we discover that it is our precious tap water that is being used. According to Scottish Water, the demand is growing. There is also the agricultural land that is lost to those projects. Rather than filling productive agricultural land with solar panels, why not adopt a rooftop-first approach to protect our farmland and greenfield sites while maximising existing infrastructure?

Community consent and local democracy are vital, and I am afraid that my constituents too often feel that these projects are simply a done deal—that the projects are being done to them rather than with them, without meaningful and constructive engagement between the developer and local communities. We feel that SPEN and other developers will go through the motions of a consultation but ultimately know that they will get their own way because they are pursuing Government policy objectives. That attitude was evidenced when the Information Commissioner’s Office recently ruled that SPEN appears to be seeking to “obfuscate” concerns about major power projects. That is totally unacceptable.

We live in a democracy, and people are supposed to have a say on what happens in their community. We have an alarming situation in which many local residents are saying no and elected councillors are objecting, but the local council is powerless. Members of the Scottish Parliament are saying “Enough is enough,” but the SNP Government will not engage. Members of this Parliament are pressing the alarm bell, but the Labour Government say that it is nothing to do with them, which is utter nonsense.

We live in the United Kingdom, and we should respect local decision making. We do not live in China, but it increasingly feels like that. Whatever the Government want is bulldozed through regardless of local opinion or the impact on our environment, habitats or landscapes. That is not how we do things in this country. My concerns centre not only on the projects affecting the Scottish Borders; they are about the lack of co-ordination and cumulative impact assessments.

I have already highlighted the concerns about the cross-border connection and the process used for that. Separately, there is a rush to get connections to the new, high-voltage power line, which is what is generating the applications for battery storage sites, solar farms, wind farms and data centres. Where is the National Energy System Operator in all this? It should be dictating how many connections it will permit, as well as looking at the cumulative impact of those projects, but it is not. The situation has become a free-for-all, and both the SNP and Labour Governments seem happy to sit back and watch the chaos unfold. Who pays the price? Communities and the environment, such as those in the Scottish Borders.

It is not just people in the Borders who have been left dismayed by the way SPEN has behaved. In the highlands, my Scottish Parliament colleague Douglas Ross MSP and Highland councillor Helen Crawford have been leading the battle, and I am pleased they have joined us in the Gallery today. Councillor Crawford organised two conventions with community councils to issue a unified statement on the importance of local democracy to new energy infrastructure. That was backed by politicians from the Scottish Conservatives, Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and independents—strong, cross-party backing—because the issue is above party politics, and because people deserve a real say in what happens in their community.

In the highlands, local communities are grappling with more than 1,300 major electricity infrastructure projects. Despite these concerns, the Scottish Government refuse to engage or meet local residents. I have a letter from Gillian Martin MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, in which she refuses to meet the affected residents, hiding behind the ministerial code.

This summer, I visited Torness power station. Some might call it a blot on the landscape, but it has been there for decades, generating vast amounts of electricity. It is a key source of high-quality jobs and an essential part of the energy network. Many of my constituents work there, as have generations of their families. Nuclear power is cleaner and greener than most alternatives. Frankly, it is the best way to produce more renewable energy while protecting our environment. Nuclear energy uses 3,000 times less land than wind does, and it can safely and reliably produce far more power than other alternatives. However, unbelievably, the SNP Government in Scotland have an ideological obsession against any form of nuclear-generated power. That means that in a few years’ time, Torness will close, jobs will be lost and our energy security will be weakened.

We should be increasing the use of nuclear power, not pursuing developments that will ruin our countryside and communities. New electricity infrastructure simply does not provide jobs and opportunities in the same way. Yes, jobs are created while the projects are built—although often for those outside the area—but then they disappear. The developers pack up and local communities pay the price for generations to come.

The issue matters to my community and to millions of people across the United Kingdom who are affected by new electricity infrastructure. Some of the most beautiful parts of our great country are at risk of permanent destruction. It is nonsensical for anyone to say that they want to protect our natural world while they simultaneously destroy it. We need a better deal for our rural communities when it comes to new energy infrastructure. The Government should urgently look at how developers engage with local people, consider options such as underground cables to protect our environment, and consider alternatives such as investing in nuclear, which is one of the most underused energy resources. If we do not do that, our rural communities will pay the price for generations to come.

I have one ask of the Minister today: will he meet me in the Scottish Borders, together with local residents who are raising concerns about this, so that he can see and hear at first hand what is at stake?

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. There was no real progress on a federal level with the US under the previous Government. The former President made the decision that he would not pursue trade deals, so there was perhaps not much they could do on that, but I do sometimes reflect that the Conservative Government broke our relationship with our nearest and most important trading partner, which is the European Union; they then fell out with countries in the Gulf and could not do that deal; they could not do the deal with India; and they would not engage with China. For a global Britain policy, there is not much of the globe left if we find ourselves in that position. That is not best practice for us to follow, but we welcome Conservative Members’ support for our approach if it exists and continue to say that this is surely the right way forward for all our constituents.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Farming, textiles and whisky are all important parts of the economy in the Scottish Borders and across Scotland more broadly, and they will be affected by these tariffs. There are also real concerns in Scotland that products currently heading to the United States market from other countries will be redirected and dumped into the UK market, which will impact the domestic market. What action are the Government taking to address that? Will the Secretary of State undertake to engage with the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scotch Whisky Association and other representatives of industry in Scotland to ensure that this problem is tackled head-on?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree: this is one of the principal issues that we have to address. Whether it is on farming, textiles or whisky, what is going on in the rest of the world and other countries’ relationship to the US have a direct impact, even though that does not relate directly to the conversation about tariffs and our own trade deal with the US. I am meeting the chair and chief executive of the Trade Remedies Authority imminently. This is a crucial part of the work that we have to get right. We have some measures in place for steel and aluminium, but we have to ensure that we are ready for other sectors of the economy, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. Around 140,000 workers in north-east England will feel the benefits of this direct pay rise. I know his North Durham constituency well—I am no stranger to Chester-le-Street—and not only will his constituents get a pay rise, but his local shops, his restaurants, his pubs and more will get what they need most of all: customers who have got a bit of money to spend.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Last Friday, I spent the day visiting local shopkeepers in Kelso, many of whom employ their staff on the national minimum wage and the national living wage. Their biggest pressure just now is dealing with this Labour Government’s national insurance hike. They are facing a very difficult choice about whether they continue to employ people. What is the message from the Minister to those hard-working local shopkeepers?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The thing I would cite most of all to the hon. Member’s constituents is the doubling of the employment allowance in the Budget and the threshold being removed, which means that some smaller businesses will actually be paying lower national insurance contributions than they would have paid before the Budget. However, I never shy away from the fact that the choices we had to make in the Budget were out of necessity, due to the black hole that was left behind. I am yet to hear any offer from Conservative Members as to how they would fill it.

At these questions, we will talk about tripling compensation for victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal only because the money is there. It was not there under the Conservative party. We will talk about money for the steel industry, standing behind that industry. Again, money was promised but not delivered. If promises are made, the resources to do those things have to be there. They were not there under the Conservative party. They are under Labour.

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. That highlights the associated challenges for parents, and not only the financial ones that can unexpectedly be put on them, but the emotional challenges and anxiety-related issues. Whether the scenario involves a short-term care plan being put in place or something much longer, that anxiety is absolutely there and needs to be recognised.

As I was saying, a diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue, and a parent, of course, has to deal with it. They have no other choice but to make the situation work, and that can be incredibly difficult. Complexities will arise in the care programme of the child, no doubt, and it will be emotionally draining for all involved, but the parent has to get on with it. This injustice certainly resonates across the country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the challenges and issues. It was great to meet Christina and Skye before the debate started. Does my hon. Friend recognise that many employers follow good practice, paying parents during a time of care and keeping jobs open, but the petitioner and I are concerned about those employers who are not following good practice? That, I hope, is what the Government will address.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not all employers sing from the same hymn sheet by providing that good level of support and care to their employees while they are going through very traumatic situations. Some employers are very good, but not all carry out the same level of care for their employees during such difficult situations.

That is why Christina’s petition has been so well recognised in the amount of support that it gained, gathering 102,316 signatures. In my Keighley and Ilkley constituency, I have received many pieces of correspondence on this issue, and it can be harrowing—as a Member of Parliament, as I am sure all of us have done this—listening to some of the very real challenges that parents face in such situations, including the financial, support and emotional challenges.

In support, the Petitions Committee carried out its survey on the back of Christina’s petition, asking people who had signed it how the severe illness of children affects them as parents. I am thankful to the 9,609 people who submitted a response to the Petitions Committee as part of our review of the petition. The huge response rate to not only the petition, but the follow-up demonstrates just how much of an issue this is, and I hope that the Government will respond accordingly to some of the concerns that have been raised. The survey suggests that the majority of parents affected do manage to cope with the challenge, but crucially, this is only possible for those who have understanding and accommodating employers, as has been mentioned.

Royal Mail Takeover

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

We hope that the deal will lead to an improvement in service. Specific investment commitments are being made as part of the deal, which we hope will be used to drive up standards. I think that everyone is committed to seeing an improvement on where we are at the moment.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I have eight Royal Mail delivery offices in my constituency, staffed by a team of hard-working posties who cover a vast rural area around the Scottish Borders. Will the Minister tell them, and me, what commitment the new owner has given to maintaining those offices and staff levels?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member must be busy at Christmas time if he has eight offices to visit. He makes an important point about the Royal Mail’s vital role in rural constituencies. We have got commitments to improve standards, and hopefully the deal will deliver on that through the increased investment that has been agreed.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioners for raising this important issue, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for setting out the issues behind the petitions so well. I know from my own mailbag that many people are concerned about the unintended impact that fireworks have.

Fireworks should be a symbol of joy and happiness, with everyone in awe as they light up the sky. People often use them to celebrate and mark special occasions while surrounded by friends and family. Whether it is bonfire night, new year’s eve or just a simple get together, there is no doubt that fireworks make for a fun time and bring people together. However, we should not forget that that is not always the case.

As we have heard, fireworks can have unintended consequences. People suffering from PTSD and trauma are at a particular risk, as are those with severe mental health issues. Pets and animals often get frightened by fireworks, abandoning their owners to find safety. Others become extremely anxious and, in the worst cases, tragically pass away. As Members have heard, a baby red panda called Roxie died of distress at Edinburgh Zoo on bonfire night this year. For some of my constituents in the Scottish Borders, that is the reason they contacted me and encouraged me to participate in this debate.

A report by the Office of Product Safety and Standards in 2020 stated that noise blasts resulting from fireworks can be particularly stressful to dogs. The report highlighted that some farm animals, such as pigs, should not be exposed to the kind of noise levels that fireworks make. Fireworks can also trigger significant behavioural changes in cattle. In the last 13 years, there have been at least 98 horse injuries, and 20 fatalities. When it comes to the effects on people, the report states that there were 990 injuries due to the misuse of fireworks in 2005, and there is evidence that they can exacerbate stress and anxiety. The report raises legitimate questions about how and where fireworks are used, and whether they do more harm than good.

Over the years, greater restrictions have been enacted in Scotland. The Fireworks (Scotland) Regulations 2004 restrict the times of day when fireworks can be used by the general public, and the times of day that they can be supplied to the general public. However, the most significant piece of legislation affecting fireworks regulation in Scotland is the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022. Although part of it is still to come into force, that Act will significantly toughen up the law in this area. It is now an offence to supply and distribute fireworks to persons under the age of 18. Anyone found guilty faces a maximum fine of £5,000 or a six-month prison sentence. Local authorities in Scotland now have the power to designate firework control zones, which are areas where fireworks are prohibited and cannot be used. In some cities, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, additional control zones are coming into force.

Despite the increased regulation of the use of fireworks, concerns remain. I very much sympathise with those who have been affected by the misuse of fireworks, particularly those who have been directly affected by some terrible acts and brought forward these petitions. The offenders committing those serious criminal acts should be punished. However, I am very reluctant to ban anything, and I am worried that, as a society and a country, we are moving into an extreme nanny state where we rush to ban everything and anything that poses some level of risk.

Home Office data shows that there were seven fatalities from fireworks between 2010 and 2020. Meanwhile, the World Animal Foundation claims that 27 people die in the UK every year from accidents involving cows. Does that mean we need to ban the keeping of cows because they pose a risk? If we are to strike the right balance between fun and safety, the starting point must surely be to ensure that the existing rules and regulations for fireworks are always followed and enforced. The data suggests that misuse is the biggest issue, not the fireworks themselves. Instead of talking about banning, let us talk about personal responsibility. If an individual is irresponsible or commits a crime with a firework, they should face the full force of the law. Let us give local authorities and the police the powers and resources they need to properly enforce it. Let us learn from different parts of the UK, such as the different rules that we have in Scotland compared with England, to understand which interventions are effective and which need to be reformed.

In conclusion, I do not support a ban on fireworks altogether, but I support their proper regulation and their being used safely at all times. I hope that is where we can take this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing the debate.

In the days running up to 5 November this year, I met by chance at an event in Edinburgh an off-duty police officer who lives in my constituency, and he explained to me that he had been injured on Guy Fawkes night in 2023 and had still not made a full recovery. He was just one of 62 police officers injured after being targeted with fireworks and other projectiles as part of a significant outbreak of antisocial behaviour around Guy Fawkes night that year. I stress “other projectiles” because it is not just fireworks, but fireworks are a catalyst for antisocial behaviour and they are also, obviously, extremely dangerous. I talk about “antisocial behaviour”, but we all know that that is just a euphemism; it is outright lawlessness that we are confronted with at times in Edinburgh in relation to fireworks.

[David Mundell in the Chair]

In the days running up to Guy Fawkes night—I keep wanting to call it Guy Fireworks night—this year, I met with two community police officers to support a local shopkeeper who was concerned about shoplifting. Both were set to be on duty on 5 November, and both had been through so-called public order training. I had to wish them both good luck. It is shameful that we know such violence is coming on 5 November, but all we can really do as MPs is wish the police officers good luck. We should be empowering them and also protecting them.

When the night came in Edinburgh South West, we saw disorder in Sighthill, Oxgangs, Calder Road and Broomview. Thankfully, we only saw one injury, which was to a female police officer. Nevertheless, the police were clear:

“The levels of violence and aggression police officers, fire service and ambulance service personnel faced in some areas was wholly unacceptable”.

They said that residents were left

“terrified as serious disorder took place in their communities and vital bus services that allow safe travel across our city were violently attacked”.

I know that Members will not know Edinburgh well, but I will list the bus services affected just to give the scale of what happened. They included Lothian Buses services 2, 12, 14, 21, 30, 46, 48 and 400. There are many jobs where people’s partners worry about them when they go to work, but driving a bus should not be one of them. We really have to take steps to tackle that.

The police are still hunting down those responsible, and so far several houses have been searched under warrant and several vehicles seized. There have been 27 people arrested in Edinburgh and they have been charged with 64 offences. The police showed me a huge stash of fireworks that they took out of one car on 5 November. The driver had set himself up as a mobile fireworks delivery service, and he was cautioned and charged accordingly. I do not understand how one person was able to buy that volume of fireworks.

My office is engaging with communities impacted by the disorder to ask what they think needs to change. There is fantastic community partnership work going on to try to tackle the causes of antisocial behaviour of all types, but people are saying that, where fireworks are concerned, we have to do more to tackle both their supply and their use. We already have a mix of dispersal zones and firework control zones across Scotland, particularly in Edinburgh, to try to control the problem.

Firework control zones are designed to reduce the negative effects of fireworks on the environment and vulnerable groups, as well as to support animal welfare. They essentially make it illegal to set off fireworks, including within private property. However, imagine the job of the police in trying to identify who is letting a firework off in their back garden. How are they supposed to enforce that? Israel’s Iron Dome comes to mind, but perhaps it is not applicable in that setting. The Scottish Government said that the control zones were

“a key milestone in the journey towards a cultural change in Scotland’s relationship with fireworks.”

This is not a criticism, because the legislation is well intentioned, but so far there is little evidence that it is having an impact. A senior police officer told me that the orders were “mildly preventative at best.”

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is making an excellent point, but does he agree that, in Scotland, the issue is about resources as well? The local authorities and police authorities of Scotland just do not have the resources to police this. He is making the point that the legislation and rules are there, but, if he reads some of their responses, he will see that the police are concerned about their ability to enforce them effectively. It comes down to the money from the Scottish Government for the police and local authorities.

[Dr Arthur]

I support the police, both north and south of the border, having more resources. I am one of those people who is quite happy to pose next to the police at a community event and share those pictures on my Facebook page, but the price I pay for that is to support them in their calls. What resources do they need to deal with fireworks? Do they need helicopters to see where they are being launched from? We need to tackle the import and sale of these devices, and we have to be honest about that.

The police officer was clear with me that more could be done to restrict the import and sale of fireworks, which was the point I just made, and I think we have to listen to the police on this issue. The chaos in my constituency and what I hear from police officers is why I am here today. We have known that fireworks are dangerous all my life. I can remember warnings on “Blue Peter”, when we used to get told to keep our fireworks in metal biscuit tins—remember those dangerous days? We knew back then about the impact of fireworks on animals too. At this point, I have to mention my cat, Millie—other people have mentioned dogs, but there have been no cats yet. Since then, fireworks have only got bigger and their misuse has become an increasingly significant driver of antisocial behaviour.

The British Fireworks Association wrote to me—I am sure it wrote to others—to say that fireworks-related injuries account for less than 0.03% of all A&E attendances.