Fireworks
Debate between Philip Hollobone and Alan MealeWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman brings to this debate the enormous benefit of his long service with the London fire brigade. He probably came across pretty dramatic fireworks instances, and he will know that the risk to people and property from the improper use of fireworks is a common complaint among firefighters. In a poll of firefighters I would be surprised if there were not a big majority in favour of banning them because they are simply too risky. The fireworks industry in this country would benefit from a ban on the domestic sale of fireworks because we could then develop the very good reputation that a lot of the licensed operators have for fantastic displays. If people knew that they could see fireworks only at a licensed display, I think fireworks would become more popular.
Sir Alan Meale
The hon. Gentleman’s analogies are interesting. He talks about amateur backyard ventures by parents and huge displays at community events such as we have had at Westminster. Back-garden displays are likely to keep children up and not going to school the following day, as indeed are the very large bangs from organised professional displays. The one thing we all know, which is why we are having this debate, is that they all scare the living daylights out of animals, whether pets or wildlife. How can he justify saying that we should organise regular and larger professional events? We should ban them.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in his own way, but I would not go as far as him in banning them altogether. I do not believe that a complete ban on firework displays would enjoy popular support in this country. I do not think that that would get a majority of votes in a referendum. However, there could be a majority of votes for banning the domestic sale of fireworks. I can reconcile the question he asks by saying that there would be more fantastic licensed displays on the specific days when they were allowed throughout the year: for example, on Guy Fawkes night, Chinese new year, Diwali and the Queen’s birthday. Whatever the event, I envisage more displays of better quality just on those days. Most pet owners in this country would recognise that as a reasonable solution, so they would need to worry about this issue only on certain days during the year.
Sir Alan Meale
It is bizarre that we are here in the Palace of Westminster discussing whether we should have large bangs and firework displays when we all know that they came about only because of a guy called Guy Fawkes who initiated it all.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Of course, this is where the original Gunpowder Plot took place, so perhaps it is apposite that we should be having this debate here. I readily agree with him.
I hope that the Government do not dismiss the petition as simply another House of Commons petition signed by just over 100,000 people who have a particular bee in their bonnet. I think that the issue is bigger than the petition suggests it is.
Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)
Debate between Philip Hollobone and Alan Meale(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Hollobone
I will be happy to give way to all hon. Members, but I want to finish this point. If someone of Jewish faith wants to buy shechita products and products are labelled as such, that is helpful information. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, more meat is being slaughtered by non-stun methods in this country than is required by the Muslim and Jewish communities, and that is of great concern to those members of our society who are neither Muslim nor Jewish. There are three experienced and distinguished Members whom I will happily give way to, the first being the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale).
Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his very good approach to this issue. To reiterate, the point he has been trying to make is that this debate is not about religions, but about the non-stunning of animals for slaughter. As he pointed out, one of the reasons why we need labelling is to show the scale of this in Britain today—at least 4 million to 5 million beasts. That is before we get to the question of poultry: 900 million such birds are slaughtered in the UK every year, 90 million without any stunning whatsoever. This is a big issue, but it is not about differences with religions or anything else; it is about stunning and non-stunning.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The wording of the e-petition refers to stunning versus non-stunning, but we cannot have a complete debate about this subject unless we tackle the religious dimension because that is the elephant in the room. I have been led down that path in the first few minutes of the debate because that is the understandable concern of Muslim and Jewish communities. He is correct that the wording of the e-petition and the purpose of the debate is about stunned versus non-stunned, but we soon come on to other issues.