Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

First, it was great that my hon. Friend and other MPs brought individual constituency businesses along, because one of the things I want to do as Minister for Trade is try to persuade all 650 colleagues to come along with individual businesses so we can work out where there are barriers to export and try to encourage export growth. If we could release all the MPs, who probably know the businesses in their constituencies far better than the Department does, we would drive forward export growth. She is absolutely right that there are issues with visas and business mobility that we need to address. It is one of the things that the Home Office and the Department are discussing with our European allies. We need to do better on this, and we also need to get to a place where we have mutual recognition of professional qualifications so that people can simply transact their business more effectively.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

With reference to what the Minister said earlier about trade and investment envoys, I remind him that I was a trade and investment envoy to Georgia and Armenia some years ago. The problem is that the trade and investment envoys are now pretty much all Labour, whereas previously, under all Prime Ministers, they were cross-party. Can I suggest that the Government revisit the strength of having a cross-party approach? That might help business exports. I think he publicly offered—unless I misheard—for me to become a trade envoy again; if I was approached, I might do that. On a serious point, on UK Export Finance in high-risk investment areas, such as rebuilding Syria by getting jobs and investment into that country quickly, can I ask that UK Export Finance underwrites with insurance those high-risk investments?

[Chris Bryant]

I noted that there was another application, but just because the right hon. Gentleman has applied for the job, it does not necessarily mean that he will get it. He makes a good point about UK Export Finance, particularly in war-torn and other difficult areas. It is why we set aside a specific amount of money for Ukraine. I was delighted to be in Kyiv the best part of 10 days ago, where the Russian Government are, I would argue, engaging in war crimes by deliberately targeting the heating systems in the city—many elderly and vulnerable people have no heating, electricity or access to water. I was very proud to see Scottish steel and British architects designing the bridges that are helping Ukrainians to get to work again after the original bridges were blown up when the Russians tried to invade as part of their full-scale invasion. He makes a good point about export finance. I have also had discussions about how we can roll that out in relation to Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; it is great that she is a Member of this House because we hear her unambiguous support for small businesses up and down her constituency—not just in the big towns, but in the small villages, as she says. She is right that Wales is a good place for high tech. I am delighted that £1.4 billion of additional investment was announced at the Welsh investment summit in December, taking the total linked investment since the summit was launched to £16 billion. I am sure that that is going to deliver more jobs across south Wales in precisely the way that my hon. Friend asks for.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

While I always enjoy the soliloquies of the Minister of State, it might be an opportunity for the Minister who has responsibility for Royal Mail and postal services to answer this question, given that I wrote to his office about the catastrophic failure of the letter delivery service throughout Shropshire. Would he agree to meet with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) to discuss resolving that issue?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

I am very happy to do so. The right hon. Member will understand that Royal Mail is a private company regulated by Ofcom, but it is also a critical part of our national economic and social infrastructure. It is not acceptable if people are not getting their post, which is a message that I will deliver to Royal Mail in person next week.

Sale of Fireworks

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. In my constituency, many people have written to me about the impact of fireworks on dogs. Two people in particular, Marianne and Rosleen, wrote about how excessive fireworks around fireworks night cause their dogs to tremble uncontrollably and run desperately away from their owners. Does he share my concern about the impact on animals, and does he agree with the petitioners that the Government must do more to regulate and control the amount of fireworks we see throughout the year?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Some hon. Members are standing. It is only convention that Members sit on a particular side of the room. Perhaps there will be a cross-party love-in today; we have started to see one already. If Members want to move to the other side of the Chamber where there are seats, they are able to do so. I will recognise your individual parties, so do not panic.

[Robbie Moore]

For a moment there, I thought there were some defections to the Conservative party coming across—we can live in hope.

In Riddlesden just before Christmas, fireworks led to the tragic death of a family’s foal, known as King. I know we cannot use images in the debate, but I have an image of King on my desk. It is believed that King, terrified by fireworks, bolted in the night. He was found by local farmer Hannah the next morning, impaled on a piece of farm machinery. Hannah said:

“We had to lift the machinery off him and drag him out, but he sadly died from his injuries. It was just awful, like something out of a horror film.”

Let that be a message to anyone who still says that fireworks are merely a matter of harmless fun—they are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak—I think that is happening right now, so thank you. Given the popularity and importance of this debate, there will be an informal limit of four and a half minutes on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree that the impact on all groups, including businesses, must be considered.

As time moves on, I hope that more organised displays use moving drones, which are quiet and absolutely spectacular.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I call Gagan Mohindra, let me say that, while the screen on my left is not showing the time, the screens behind me and on my right are. Members should be conscious of others when speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, as have others in the debate, that we have passed the point where we used to watch fireworks safely in our back gardens. Fireworks are being let off all the time, every day—all day, sometimes—and I too have seen the terrible effect on animals, particularly dogs that, despite being sedated or whatever the vets recommend, are terrified out of their skins.

The time for talking is over. The evidence is clear. The current guidance and legislation need to be urgently reviewed. The maximum decibel level must be reduced immediately to 90 dB, and I call on the Government to review fireworks regulation in England and Wales urgently with a view to limiting the dangerous and antisocial use of fireworks in private and public spaces.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will call Sarah Dyke, then Juliet Campbell, and then Gideon Amos.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

I absolutely agree that the priority with any changes in policy or legislation must be to take into account all those who are impacted, including animals, as well as the behaviour of people making things dangerous for others.

Any policy put forward on this issue must strike a clear balance between appreciating the events I spoke of earlier and ensuring a long-term reduction in the potential harm of fireworks and in the noise they create. We could learn from our international counterparts, such as the Netherlands, Poland and parts of Italy, where low-noise fireworks have been mandated in certain places and people have felt the benefits.

In conclusion, I hope the debate results in practical, beneficial changes, and that consideration will be given to the valuable contributions made today.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call Gideon Amos. I will then call Amanda Hack.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for leading this petition debate.

As the MP proudly representing semi-rural North West Leicestershire—a beautiful constituency at the heart of the national forest, surrounded by countryside and farmland, with an abundance of wildlife and livestock, as well as the main home base for Canine Partners—it is unsurprising that I have been emailed by hundreds of constituents about the need to further regulate fireworks, and that more than 650 constituents have put their signatures to both petitions.

Neither petition calls for the banning of fireworks, which is a common misconception around this debate. We are here to discuss minimising the impact they have on people, livestock, neighbours and pets, and it is important that we focus on that. Most people use fireworks in a responsible, safe and appropriate manner, and laws are already in place to address the misuse of fireworks, limiting their sale to licensed traders and making it an offence to use them after 11 pm and before 7 am without express permission.

However, as a dog owner, I know that that does not go quite far enough. Just yesterday, some loud fireworks went off at 5 pm next to my home, which meant no walk for the dog. Unusually, the cats were also frightened. The issue is not just that animals are scared by the noise, but that horses and livestock are caused distress and harm when fireworks go off. Animals are at risk of injuring themselves on fencing or farm equipment or on fixtures and fittings in housing if startled.

Of course, this issue impacts not just animals, but veterans and vulnerable people. For those suffering from PTSD, the loud bangs are huge triggers. Last year, PTSD UK did a study on the effects of fireworks on those with PTSD; 85% of respondents said that fireworks made them feel unsafe in their homes, and 27.2% had sought medical or therapeutic support due to firework-related stress. Surely this cannot continue.

It is not difficult to be a little more thoughtful and kind to our neighbours—to collectively take a step back to think about those loud noises and the impact they have on so many people. Firework displays can be enjoyed without fear, but we must recognise the volume of fireworks, particularly in Leicestershire, where fireworks seem to go on for weeks. After the last fireworks night, when I was back in London in early November, I realised just how quiet it is here compared with my constituency. That is why I supported the Fireworks Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I thank her for all her hard work, and share her hope for action going forward.

Reducing the maximum noise level for consumer fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB, as called for in the Bill and as suggested in one of the petitions, seems such a sensible step forward, and could have real, positive impacts on our communities, veterans, vulnerable people, pets, livestock and wildlife. It would also limit the impact of home firework displays, although I agree that we need to look again at the regulations on the sale of fireworks. Ultimately, we must make sure that people are safe.

Firework displays can still be beautiful and fun if they are a little quieter. It is about being that bit more respectful to those around us. Imagine if people who are frightened of fireworks could go and enjoy them because they are that bit quieter. That would mean that more people could enjoy what fireworks displays can offer.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Scott Arthur, Sarah Hall, Kirsteen Sullivan and Elsie Blundell, and then I will vacate the Chair for my replacement. I call Dr Scott Arthur.

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

Thank you, Mr Pritchard; surely you are irreplaceable.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

You have 10 minutes—that is a joke.

[Dr Arthur]

A change in this domain is inevitable. The Government can choose to be proactive, or they will end up reacting to events—perhaps when someone is killed. It is really important to remember that.

When we had this debate last year, I spoke about the lawlessness we saw in my constituency and in Edinburgh more widely in 2024. Across the city, police officers and firefighters were attacked with fireworks, bricks and bottles, our public transport system was heavily targeted, and a red panda in Edinburgh zoo died. In my constituency, disorder in areas that included Sighthill, Oxgangs, Calder Road and Broomhouse left my constituents terrified and afraid to leave their houses, and a care home, petrol station and care dealership were attacked. It is shameful that disorder of that level took place, and that it was in large part fuelled by easy access to large stocks of fireworks.

In 2024, after that disorder, I visited the police. They issued me with photographs of fireworks they had confiscated from a gentleman who had them in the back of his van, and who was selling them to young people for a profit. In 2025, an individual was caught with £42,000-worth of fireworks that he intended to sell to people on the street. Since then, firework exclusion zones have been set up in Scotland, and those are important, but they are ultimately difficult to enforce.

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

As I have said in a number of answers, the UK arm of Petrofac is a successful and growing business. Its holding company went into administration today due to a number of factors, including the loss of an international contract. It is nothing to do with our policy in the North sea.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I say to our colleagues on the Green green Benches that of course climate change exists. We need green investment, green jobs and the green transition, but is there not a fundamental flaw at the heart of the Government’s policy, which is that it is ideologically driven? Have we not learned anything from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine about energy security, energy sovereignty and energy independence? I put it to the Minister, with the greatest respect, that in the medium to long term, if we continue down this track too quickly, without a stable transition for workers and the energy sector, the Government could end up undermining the UK’s national security.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for how he has put the question. Energy security is at the heart of what we are trying to do, because our exposure to fossil fuels is what led to some of the most significant price spikes in all our constituents’ bills—spikes that they still face today. Our continued exposure to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—even though none of that Russian gas now reaches us—is because of the international markets; they drive this forward. The only way to take back control of our energy is by building the clean power system of the future, and the pace of that transition is absolutely right. We are driving forward momentum, to make sure that the investment comes forward to create jobs in the economy right now. That has been successful; there has been £50 billion of private investment just in the past year. My view is that 10 or 20 years ago, both under the previous Labour Government and under the Conservative Government, we should have recognised that a transition was under way and put in place a credible plan for protecting the jobs. That was not done, but we are determined to do it, so that the transition for oil and gas workers is into good, well-paid jobs in renewables, carbon capture, hydrogen and other technologies, and we have a genuinely just and prosperous transition.

Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

We are obviously keen to do what we can to support the Scottish whisky industry. I have been to see it and understand how important it is. The definitions of energy-intensive industries were developed under the previous Government, and we have no immediate plans to change those, but I will take away the right hon. Gentleman’s point and look into it.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On net zero, I think there is a national consensus on making the environment better, creating green jobs and improving energy security, but will the Minister recognise that for many people, consumers and companies out there—particularly small businesses, by the way; it is not all about large ones—there is too much happening, too soon and too fast? Rather than having regressive and punitive taxes on industry and small businesses, there should be more education and more incentives to change consumer and company behaviour.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. We have a national consensus that we need to act, and I think the population are with us on that. They understand that we need to make sure we have a planet for our children and our grandchildren and that we need to do everything we can. As was said this week, we want to tread lightly on people’s lives, and of course we do not want to inflict regressive and punitive taxation. We want to make sure we are supporting industry and business, and we are looking at how we can help to incentivise the changes that we need to see.

Harland & Wolff

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her expertise and insight on this matter. I understand the point that she makes, but it is perhaps one for my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I will ask them to engage with her on those ambitions to remedy the absence of capability, but I believe that that would be challenging.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, and particularly the protection of the fleet solid support programme, but I join my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), in saying that we will have to wait to see the details. In principle, however, the deal sounds very encouraging indeed, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and all his team and officials for getting it over the line. He mentions world-class shipbuilding in the UK. He said from the Dispatch Box that national security is the foundation of the plan for change, and his Department’s online statement talked about sovereign capability, but does he accept that without steel, ships cannot be built? Will he take this opportunity to say what more can be done, in a dangerous world, to reduce the UK’s increasing reliance on imports from elsewhere, including from Sweden and Asia, so that ships can be delivered in times of conflict or war?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much share the right hon. Gentleman’s aspirations. He will know that most defence steels are higher end—they are specialised and tend to come from electric arc furnaces—and one challenge that we have inherited relates to the two remaining blast furnace sites in the UK. We have improved the situation in Port Talbot, but we could not change direction, with the blast furnaces going offline before the arc furnace was installed. We have inherited an even more challenging position in relation to Scunthorpe, but we are working closely with the company to find a solution.

I believe that we are missing real capabilities in the UK. I can see the economic and business case for plate mill, for instance, and for the long-term question of direct reduced iron in steel production. The steel strategy is part of delivering on that. A whole range of horizontal policies, particularly on energy prices, would have to be in a corresponding position for us to do that. The fact that the UK has such a small steel sector relative to the size of our economy makes us an outlier among developed nations and suggests that there is a real evidence base for improving it, and I will work with any Member of the House to deliver that.

Paternity Leave and Pay

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Alistair Strathern, I have to impose a two-minute time limit because of the interest in this debate. It may be adjusted later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that I will have to restrict speeches to one minute because we have a lot of speakers and are running out of time. I remind colleagues that if they intervene on someone, that person gets an extra minute, which eats into the time available. If Members need or want to intervene, and the intervention is accepted, so be it, but just be aware of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The introduction of paternity leave by the last Labour Government in 2003 was one of those bold, progressive changes that was opposed by some at the time, like the minimum wage that, years down the line, has become a much-valued right. The policy’s opponents said that it would harm business, but actually it supports new dads to manage change and support their child, which means that employers benefit from staff who are ultimately more engaged with their jobs and able to do their work. Although we must not be complacent—I note that one of the Tory leadership contenders commented that maternity pay has gone too far—I hope that paternity leave remains a right that is never taken away. That is why I am pleased that the Government’s Employment Rights Bill ensures that all new fathers can take paternity leave. An extra 30,000 fathers or partners across the country will benefit from that, with rights from day one. It is not just good for new mums and dads, and the children who they support, but essential in helping those children to have the best start in life.

Becoming a parent, especially for the first time, is a daunting prospect, with many new parents reporting poor mental health or even post-natal depression in the period shortly after. Not only is that bad for the adults concerned, but it has an impact on their children. Depression or anxiety is often exacerbated by the fact—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but there are two or three speakers whom I cannot get in because of the time. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for five minutes, followed by the shadow Minister for five minutes, and then the Minister for eight or nine minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Davies]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point on small businesses. It is interesting that since this debate was secured, a number of employers have come forward to talk about the steps they are taking and their appetite for taking further steps—they see it as an opportunity to address recruitment and retention issues, too.

I look forward to working with the Minister and thank him for his contribution. I know that there will be further such conversations over the course of this Parliament.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for being very helpful. It was very difficult for you to speak for just one minute, and pretty much everybody did. I congratulate you, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), who I sadly was not able to call, but who seized his opportunity to speak by intervening on the mover of the motion in the last minute. I also congratulate my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies), on his first Westminster Hall debate, which I am sure will be the first of many over the coming years.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered paternity leave and pay.

Children’s Mental Health Week 2024

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

May I apologise to colleagues for being a minute late? I was informed about two minutes ago, so that was the best workout I have had in a while.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Children’s Mental Health Week 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Pritchard—a breathless Mr Pritchard.

The challenges facing the mental health of our young people have never been greater. One in five children have a mental illness, and half of all mental illnesses develop by the age of 14. In the coming years, as many as 1.5 million children will need support for their mental health needs. Amid this escalating crisis, we need bold action to support our young people, but the Government too often lack the ambition, funding and attention that are needed. Meanwhile, the human cost of their inaction only grows.

In A&E, I see children coming in younger and younger. I will never forget their emaciated faces when attending having self-harmed, living with eating disorders or having attempted to take their own lives. I will never forget the faces of parents agonised by their children’s suffering, exhausted from being on suicide watch and fighting tooth and nail for their child, or pushing to access vital services that their child needs, and frequently finding their children being turned away and left to languish for months or even years on waiting lists while their condition deteriorates exponentially.

Pretty much every year we have a debate like this in Westminster Hall and we have many debates in the main Chamber. Every year, we all agree that this has to end, that we must do better and that our children deserve better, but year on year there is simply inaction. Parents are having to give up work to stay at home to be on suicide watch, because they fear what their child will do if they go to work. This affects families in a way that no one can ever possibly understand. A lack of investment in that one young person goes on to affect their parents, their siblings and their future, as well as their and their family’s ability to contribute to the economy and, most importantly, their ability to have a quality, healthy and happy life.

In calling for this debate I am labouring under the hope that we can actually move forward and do something. It is simple: poor mental health is carried through childhood into adulthood. The failures to address the mental health crisis in our young people will leave them ill-equipped as they grow older. We know all too well that prevention is better than cure, yet we ignore that wisdom when it comes to children’s mental health. That is something I simply do not understand. We have the ability collectively within the House positively to impact the lives of millions of children yet, somehow, remarkably, we fail to do so. The Government should invest in early intervention, working to improve child and adolescent mental health services and ensuring prompt access to vital support. Instead, children are being let down and left behind.

Despite young people making up a quarter of all contacts with mental health services, only 8% of funding goes towards children’s mental health services. There are almost half a million children on CAMHS waiting lists. That is a record figure that should be a badge of shame for this Government. Let me remind everybody that, when we talk about half a million children, we are talking about wider families who are affected, people who will never see their children again because those children felt they had no choice but to take their own lives. There are families begging their children to eat that one extra morsel of food because they have not been able to get the services they need for eating disorders.

We are talking about pain and anguish of epic proportions, and on a scale that we have to take seriously. Forgive my passion, but I care deeply about this. We must all care deeply, because this crosses the socioeconomic divide. Regardless of the size of house someone lives in or the amount of money their parents earn, if this pain is known to a family, it does not matter who they are or where they live—it is crippling. A parent loves their child just as much if they live in a £5-million house or a one-bedroom flat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid I will have to impose a time limit of five minutes for each speech—we have about three left. We will move on to the Front-Bench speakers just before half-past, so that will be 10 minutes each. I call Yasmin Qureshi.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

Again, I am sorry to hear hon. Members conflate different points. We have left the European Union—that was a democratic decision—and we have a good free trade agreement with the European Union that will continue. CPTPP creates opportunities in areas of the world with considerable growth where we did not previously have deals. Surely the hon. Member must recognise that that is a positive thing right across the country, including for his constituents?

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

This is good news. I am delighted that the Government have signed up to this huge trade partnership. We are the first non-founding member to have done so. While it may not be in the convenient party political interests of some Opposition Members, it is very much in the national interest and, dare I say it, in the interest of Shropshire businesses—small, medium and large—who will now be able to export tariff-free or towards tariff-free to places such as Malaysia and Vietnam. What progress, if any, has the Minister heard about the United States potentially joining the partnership as well? That, of course, would be a huge boon to everybody.

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the role that small and medium-sized enterprises can play. We are working to encourage even more SMEs to export through export support services and the trade advisers network given the opportunities that this and other deals will present to them. He will be aware that the US is not entering into free trade agreements with anybody at the moment. I have spoken to congressmen and women in the US, and there are mixed views, but many have great enthusiasm for the CPTPP.