Fireworks: Sale and Use

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Paul Scully

Monday 8th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing today’s really important debate and at such a pertinent time, as ever. I algo congratulate him on his considered speech, which framed the debate on the e-petition that has been signed by so many people. I also thank the other hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, and I am grateful to the members of the public who took the time to sign the e-petition that has brought us here to Westminster Hall to discuss this important matter, because it has received more than 300,000 signatures and calls on the Government to limit the sale of fireworks.

Therefore, I will take the time to outline and explain the Government’s position on this matter, and to say, first of all, why we believe—although I understand that it is not the subject of this debate, as has been outlined—an outright ban on fireworks or an outright ban on their sale to the public is not the appropriate course of action.

We have concerns that banning fireworks in that way could have significant adverse and unintended consequences for public safety, particularly in leading to the emergence of a black market in illicit fireworks. There was a reason why there was not a 2019 debate on this issue. Yes, it was the year of a general election, but more importantly in 2019 the Petitions Committee conducted an inquiry on this issue, which I was a part of as a Member of the Committee, and the evidence given by interested parties aligned with the Government’s current view. Those interested parties included both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Fire Chiefs Council.

The petition being debated today also highlights the concerns that some people have—understandably—about the impact of fireworks on vulnerable groups and animals. These are issues that I was only too pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) when we met back in July to discuss the fireworks survey that he had carried out in his constituency; as he said, it went somewhat viral. I really sympathise with those views, and I am always sorry to hear the stories of how some individuals and animals have been affected by fireworks. That is why the Government are committed to promoting the safe and considerate use of fireworks, and why we have been carrying out a programme of action on fireworks to ensure that those who use them do so safely and appropriately.

It is important to say that this is a highly regulated area, with a comprehensive regulatory framework already in place to control the sale, availability and use of fireworks. We believe that this framework strikes the right balance for people to enjoy fireworks while aiming to reduce risks and disturbances to people and animals. For example, current legislation sets an 11 pm curfew on the use of fireworks, with later exceptions only for the traditional firework periods of 5 November, Diwali, new year’s eve and Chinese new year.

[Patricia Gibson]

I interrupt briefly to ask the Minister if he believes that this “highly regulated area” is fit for purpose. Can he still say, given the concerns that have been raised today and in previous debates, that he thinks enough is being done? If not, what more can he do?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and hopefully I will flesh out some more of our thinking, including on enforcement and what other action is being taken.

There is a 120 dB noise limit on fireworks available to consumers. Retailers are restricted to only selling consumer fireworks during a limited period around each of the seasonal celebrations that I just referred to, and retailers may only supply fireworks to the public outside those periods if they obtain a licence from their local licensing authority. However, I fully appreciate that it is just as important to ensure that legislation is enforced effectively. We have heard of some issues where that has fallen short, but I will describe what powers and mechanisms are in place against the illegal sale and use of fireworks.

Local authority trading standards work with retailers to ensure that the fireworks that are sold are safe, and have powers to enforce against those who place non-compliant fireworks on the market. Trading standards and local fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan counties can also enforce against those selling fireworks without an appropriate licence—for example, outside of the normal selling period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I have not had a discussion at ministerial level, but officials look at what is happening in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—and in other countries. Clearly, there is a difference in the law in Northern Ireland, predominantly because of troubles and the historical context there; however, officials from the Office for Product Safety and Standards do look at that.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister is generous with his time. He has clearly set out how he thinks this should be dealt with, but it is not satisfactory for many of us. Will he support devolving power to regulate fireworks to the Scottish Parliament, so that we can choose our own path and solutions that fit our communities, given that his Government are not interested in going down that road for the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Paul Scully]

Scotland has put forward some proposals and there has been a consultation; I am interested in seeing what happens there. I am also aware that the Scottish Government are drafting a Bill on fireworks to be introduced next year; that primary legislation is still at the proposal stage. My officials engage regularly on the matter with officials in the Scottish Government; it will be interesting to reflect on what happens in Scotland as a result of that work.

We are continuing to engage with local authorities to understand the issues they face, and I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the Government provide appropriate support.

Statutory Paid Bereavement Leave: Loss of Family Member

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Paul Scully

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I want to press the Minister on one point and ask for his view on it. If those who are earning a comfortable salary feel that they need to take additional time off, unpaid, they are free to do that, and they are obviously able to absorb that cost. There is a concern about the people in low-paid jobs who cannot take unpaid leave and therefore do not have the choice to take additional time, unless, of course, it is in statute.

[Paul Scully]

It is essentially about getting the balance right. I talked about eligibility for statutory sick pay, which I know is not suitable for long periods of time, and access to universal credit. There is annual leave of 5.6 weeks per year. It is about getting the balance right between what may suit employees suffering different types of bereavement or having different reactions to bereavement, and employers, especially as we have seen the pressure on them at this moment in time. They may be at risk in relation to the future viability of the business. It is getting that balance right, which is why we continue to try to understand the modern-day employer and the things that we might include in the employment Bill as we reflect on the effect of covid.

There is a range of Government support for people who suffer from a bereavement. Employers can, and do, provide significant support to employees without being legally required to do so. We encourage employers to respond with flexibility and compassion. One of the cornerstones of the employment Bill will be to ensure flexible working by default. That will hopefully provide some succour or support to people who, although not necessarily taking full time off, will be able to arrange their working time around their particular current circumstances.

I thank the hon. Lady and the other hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I also thank everybody who has worked hard to raise awareness of the impact of death on the people left behind.

Question put and agreed to.

Horizon: Sub-Postmaster Convictions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Paul Scully

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

We can all agree with the Minister that the reputations, mental health and lives of the victims of this scandal have been ruined. Alan Bates, the former sub-postmaster who led the legal case against the Post Office, has been clear that the Post Office has not changed. It is six months since judges found major issues, including an excessive culture of secrecy and confidentiality generally in the Post Office, but specifically relating to Horizon, so can the Minister explain why we still are not getting a public inquiry into the scandal? The Prime Minister told the House on 26 February that such an inquiry would be established, but the proposals set out by the Minister today fall short of that. We welcome the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry into this issue, but we really need a full independent public inquiry.

Does the Minister understand the anger and disappointment at the length of time it is taking to get the truth about one of the largest miscarriages of justice in the UK’s history, amidst very serious allegations of perjury levelled against employees of Fujitsu, the company behind the system, and will he apologise to the hundreds of postmasters whose lives have been ruined—who have lost their homes, their livelihoods and their reputations as a result of inaction by this Government?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those questions. The review that we are putting in train covers the areas that a public inquiry would achieve. We want to find out exactly what is going on. We do not want to duplicate the effort, and we already have a number of words from Justice Fraser that point to exactly where the chairman of the independent review needs to look.

This situation has been going on for some 20-odd years. It is disgraceful that it has taken this time for Alan Bates and his fellow group-litigants to actually get to a settlement and that so many people have had to suffer as a result. What I am keen to do now—my tenure in this role has been brief—is push on and make sure that they can get the answers that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I keep hearing that. I keep hearing the words “judge-led inquiry” and then I keep hearing that we need to move this on as quickly as possible. The point is that the terms of reference within this review are the same as a judge-led inquiry.

[Patricia Gibson]

Why not just have one?

[Paul Scully]

Because I do not want an inquiry that will last 13 years, with sub-postmasters coming back time and again with no justice. I have been pushing on this from the moment that I found out the details about it as postal affairs Minister. That is why I will drive this through to make sure that the answers are heard and that the independent chairman, who is independent of Government and independent of the Post Office, gets to the bottom of the case and gets some answers.

House of Lords: Abolition

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Paul Scully

Monday 18th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 209433 relating to a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. As I normally do, I will read the text of the petition for the Official Report:

“Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords. The House of Lords is a place of patronage where unelected and unaccountable individuals hold a disproportionate amount of influence and power which can be used to frustrate the elected representatives of the people”.

As of a couple of hours ago, 169,215 people had signed the petition. The timing of the debate is apt because at the other end of Parliament, the Lords are currently exercising an incredible amount of influence and power over the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as they debate the amendments that have been rejected by this place. We will see what comes back to us later.

I congratulate the petitioner, Rob McBride, who is in the Gallery today with his wife. I just had a snatched conversation with him—I hope to catch up with him after the debate—about what motivated him to start the petition. I was told it was purely the argument, applicable before the EU withdrawal Bill came to the Lords, that in this day and age there is no place for appointed members of a legislative body. I hope to talk about the options, and about the discussions that we have had, that the Lords themselves have had, and that I have had with a number of university and school students regarding the issues and practicalities of Lords reform.

I suspect that many of the 169,000 people who followed Rob’s lead and signed the petition were specifically motivated by the Lords’ consideration of the EU withdrawal Bill, because many signatures came quickly after it. I suspect that a lot of people were concerned about how the Lords had started to overstep their remit—a view I share. I believe that some of the amendments to the Bill sent to the Commons, such as those relating to the European economic area and the customs union, were not in the scope of the original Bill; such matters are properly considered in other legislation, not least the Trade Bill, which is coming before us again in a few weeks’ time. However, considering and voting on provisions such as so-called Henry VIII clauses is well within the Lords’ remit. That may be uncomfortable for the Government and for Members who, like me, voted to leave the EU and want to get on with it, but the House of Lords exists not for my comfort or for the Government’s, but to scrutinise legislation and to return it to the Commons, hopefully in a better state.

That the House of Lords has overstepped the mark in throwing back certain amendments is evidenced by some of the comments made during the debate. Lord Bilimoria said, when considering amendment 49, that

“Thanks to this amendment, Parliament would have the ability to stop the train crash that is Brexit.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2018; Vol. 790, c. 1854.]

It is not appropriate for the upper House to thwart the will of the people and to get us to consider what are effectively wrecking amendments to a Bill that was clearly in our manifesto and that we need to get passed in a timely fashion if we are to leave the EU in an orderly way. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb said in the same debate that she had intended to vote for an amendment, but the speeches in favour of it had turned her against it, as there was clearly “more of an agenda” than just allowing more oversight of the process.

Oversight of the process is what the House of Lords is for. The Lords do many different things, but in the Chamber itself about 40% of their work involves scrutiny—debating, asking questions, and responding to ministerial statements and such things. The other 60% of their time is spent improving draft legislation—primary legislation and statutory instruments. From speaking to a number of Members of the House of Lords, it is clear to me that they spend a lot of time on, and take a lot of interest in, statutory instruments—probably more so than the Commons does, where we typically rely on a Government majority to get them through. The Lords take their role of scrutiny and adding their expert view very seriously.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that regardless of the legislation being considered, in a country that I would hope considers itself to be a democracy, it is an affront that we have more than 800 unelected peers, with 13 new appointments recently, while we face the prospect of the democratic Chamber being further reduced?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I will talk about the need to reduce numbers later. I will also talk about the practicalities of whether we have an elected or appointed upper Chamber, how we could reform an appointed Chamber, and the need for an upper Chamber in the first place. Should we go unicameral as New Zealand has? I will consider whether there is scope for doing that.