Sale of Fireworks

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 738192 and 732559 relating to the sale of fireworks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. It is a privilege to introduce the debate on these two petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

It is not the first time we have been here. In December 2024, I was asked by the Petitions Committee to lead a similar debate on fireworks after more than 120,000 people signed two similar petitions for change. Since then, I have met campaigners and organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Anxiety UK, Help for Heroes, the British Horse Society and many more. It is clear that public support for change is overwhelming. In this place, Members of Parliament across the political spectrum support calls for change, yet here we are again, debating this important issue. That should be a clear and loud message to Ministers to act right now.

The petitions we are debating today have received more than 183,000 and 193,000 signatures respectively: more than 376,000 signatures when taken together. I have spoken to the lead petitioners—Helen and Graham, who are in the Public Gallery today—about their deep love for animals and the reasons why they created the petitions. It is undeniable that the inappropriate use of fireworks can have a devastating impact on domestic pets, farm animals and the like.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I want to thank my constituent Robert Branch, who was responsible for starting one of the petitions, and whom I met last week. As a fellow dog owner, I know how important these issues are to local people in High Peak.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank not only Robert Branch but the numerous deeply concerned constituents; I am sure we all, as Members of Parliament, have received plenty of correspondence about how tougher action must be taken on fireworks. In Riddlesden in my constituency, just before Christmas, fireworks had dramatic impacts—

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robbie Moore]

Before I tell that story, I will give way.

[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.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful statement about the impact on animals. I thank the petitioners in Epping Forest who have signed the petition, including the Redwings Horse Sanctuary, which triggered this debate and has its Ada Cole stables in my constituency. As a veterinary surgeon, sadly I have seen at first hand the impact of fireworks: small animals go missing and get injured, and farm animal livestock and horses receive horrific injuries. Does my hon. Friend agree that something has to be done to keep people and animals safe from fireworks?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This issue is about the negative impact on animal welfare—our pets and farm animals—but also the human impacts, which I will come on to.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

As a fellow veterinary surgeon, I reiterate what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) just said. Every vet will have stitched up horses or treated dogs or cats that have been affected. It is not a niche problem or unusual: every vet dreads being on call on fireworks night because they know that they will be busy.

[Robbie Moore]

I agree with the hon. Member, who I know is a vet and has expertise from the number of dealings he had in a previous life before entering this place.

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

I pay tribute to my constituent Julie McMillan, who has emailed me with her concerns about fireworks every year for the 19 years that I have been a Member of this place or of the Scottish Parliament. Many other people have raised the same concern. I urge caution about what has happened in Scotland. The Scottish Government introduced a new licensing regime, much of which does not work, and they have had to pause the whole system. Although we need greater control and consistency across the UK, the Minister should not follow what the SNP Scottish Government have done.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A UK-wide approach needs to be taken on this issue, so I urge the Government to work with the devolved Governments to ensure a strategy that works. We can take those lessons from north of the border.

The death of any animal is upsetting, particularly a family pet, and having grown up on a farm I know all too well that this has an impact on farmed animals too. It is easy to forget that many animals are not just pets. They are much more sensitive to sound than humans, and fireworks can be deafening.

[Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Before this debate, I was contacted by more than 100 constituents who raised concerns about animals. One constituent also raised concerns about the impact on her mental health. Does the hon. Member agree that, while a lot of people use fireworks responsibly, there are concerns about the impact of fireworks on people’s mental health and wellbeing, as well as their impact on animals?

[Robbie Moore]

I agree, and I will talk about that in my speech, as well as the negative implications on veterans and those with anxiety-related issues.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Given so many people write to us about this issue, it is clear that we all feel the impact. On new year’s eve, my constituent Kim reported that fireworks went on in Whalley Range until 4.30 am. The noise was so loud and persistent that it set off their house alarm. Does the hon. Member agree that the use of fireworks in the middle of the night is clearly antisocial behaviour and more must be done to tackle it?

[Robbie Moore]

I completely agree. In my constituency we are seeing the antisocial use of fireworks during the night and early in the morning throughout the year. That causes huge disruption to those hardworking individuals who just want to get a good night’s sleep so they can get up in the morning.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robbie Moore]

I will make a little more progress and then take some more interventions.

Having spoken to Helen, one of the lead petitioners, who represents the UK’s largest horse charity Redwings Horse Sanctuary, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), I know how urgent these calls for change are. It is not just animals that suffer from the antisocial use of fireworks; many veterans can suffer attacks of post-traumatic stress disorder when fireworks are let off, deeply damaging their mental health. Vulnerable children and adults can also be confused and intimated by fireworks. There is nothing more frustrating for a working family than being kept up all night by a constant stream of fireworks. I am seeing that in my own constituency of Keighley.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Brave Derby veterans have contacted me. Those who suffer from mental health or are recovering from PTSD are really concerned about the negative effect that fireworks have on their lives. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that those brave men and women who have put their lives on the line for our country deserve support when they need it the most.

[Robbie Moore]

I agree. For those who have anxiety-related issues, fireworks are an absolute trigger point when they are let off. The noise that they create and the resulting heightened levels of anxiety need to be noted by the Minister, who I hope will respond positively.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robbie Moore]

I will give way one more time; then I will carry on.

[Peter Swallow]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being generous with his time. I have had constituents contact me about this issue. Many of them recognise the importance of fireworks as a great British tradition on fireworks night and other such nights, but they want more regulation around the times of year at which fireworks can be enjoyed—and until what time in the evening—and around their volume, so that people are able to enjoy fireworks on great occasions in a responsible way that reflects that they are not as enjoyable for those with trauma, and those with pets. Does the hon. Member agree that we can get that balance right?

[Robbie Moore]

I agree that it is about making sure that we are not only introducing tougher regulation and enforcement but that those who use fireworks are using them appropriately. This does not necessarily need to be about a ban on fireworks; much tougher measures can be brought in with licensing on the decibels associated with fireworks. I urge the Government to look at that and not just respond, “We are going to take this away and think about it,” because that is the response that we have had for far too long.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robbie Moore]

I will make a little more progress, then take interventions. We get this problem far too often in my constituency, in places such as Riddlesden, Braithwaite, Bracken Bank, Oakworth, Haworth, Ingrow and Silsden. Just this weekend, I put out a call across the UK asking people to contact me with their experiences of fireworks. I put that out only last night as I was coming down on the train and I received well over 900 responses, which just shows the strength of feeling on this issue. I have received much more correspondence on this issue in preparation for this debate. The stories that I have heard are horrifying. One resident wrote,

“I was at a care home caring for the elderly with Alzheimer’s. There is no respite from fireworks for them and it is so unpredictable. I saw three elderly gentlemen walk around for hours a day thinking it was a gas explosion. Some of the residents tried to leave the building and to run away as they didn’t feel safe. Some of the residents were crying and distressed, some sat with their head in their hands. Meal times are disrupted, every aspect of their life is affected.”

Enough is enough.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I, too, have had lots of constituents contact me about this issue with concern for neurodiverse people, people with mental health issues, veterans with PTSD and animal owners. My constituent Helen sent me video footage of her border collie Alf, cowering in fear under a table. I wonder if the hon. Member agrees that in today’s modern age there are lots of beautiful alternatives for displays in the air that do not require fireworks—not to say that fireworks are not marvellous at the right time—and which can actually be silent. Does he agree that more people should be encouraged to use modern technology to deliver awe-inspiring displays?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. There are many other ways of having entertainment in the sky beyond using very loud fireworks. That gets to the detail of what one of the petitions is about: the decibels associated with fireworks going off.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robbie Moore]

I will crack on a bit because I have two more pages, and I want to make sure that hon. Members have enough time to give their own speeches.

In a distressing number of cases, emergency services are also targeted, particularly in Keighley. They come under attack by those showing antisocial behaviour, with fireworks used as weapons. Yet fireworks do not seem to get the same attention as the illegal use of knives; they get a free pass. The time for talk is over and we need action now. Both today’s petitions provide sensible ideas that would dramatically improve the situation for communities facing the inappropriate use of fireworks.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robbie Moore]

I will take two more interventions.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, pay tribute to Redwings Horse Sanctuary, which is headquartered in Norfolk. Norwich North was among the top five constituencies for the number of signatories to the petition. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as Redwings has pointed out, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not provide sufficient protection? That is why we need to consider measures such as reducing the decibel level of fireworks, to ensure that protection is there for both animals and people.

[Robbie Moore]

Following on from the hon. Member’s intervention, there is an opportunity in the animal welfare strategy announced by the Government over the Christmas period. I feel that it does not go far enough in detailing what could be put in place specifically to deal with fireworks in the context of animal welfare over the rest of this Parliament.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber, I find it difficult to listen to the hon. Member saying what could and should be done now, given that for 14 years a lot of this stuff could have been done but was not. However, my point is this: he has talked about domestic animals, farm animals, veterans and the elderly, but one group that has not been mentioned also needs to be considered—wild animals. Does he agree that we must also consider the perhaps unseen impact of these very loud fireworks on wildlife?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because a lot of this issue is about data collection. It is very easy to collect data and to demonstrate the impact of fireworks on pets and farm animals; it is much more difficult—almost impossible—to demonstrate the impact on wild animals. Even the data about pets and other kept animals is few and far between so it is less easy to demonstrate to the Government that action needs to be taken. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister to consider the impact on all animals of fireworks being let off.

The current legal limit for loudness of fireworks is 120 dB, which is equivalent to being at a rock concert or standing next to a police siren. By contrast, 90 dB, although still not quiet, is equivalent to a busy restaurant or a hairdryer. It is completely reasonable to suggest reducing noise levels to something more considerate—indeed, 85 dB is the threshold at which humans experience hearing damage. Reducing noise would mean that private fireworks displays could continue, but with be a reduced risk of distressing animals or inconveniencing neighbours.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

In my constituency, over 300 people have contacted me about this issue—100 just this year. I have also been aware of my own dog’s trauma over fireworks. However, there is another issue. What the hon. Gentleman is saying about reducing the decibel limit is the right way to go, but there is also the issue of safety. I witnessed the house opposite mine being set alight on new year’s eve as a result of its close proximity to fireworks; the people involved were made homeless for a time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should also consider restricting the use of fireworks to public displays, rather than letting them be used in private residences?

[Robbie Moore]

That brings me on nicely to the next petition. Another option is for people to require the approval of their local council to hold firework displays. That would allow the council to control the number and the timing of firework displays, ensuring that they are more considerate of the whole community. In addition, it is safe to assume that no council would approve a display deemed unsafe; hopefully, requiring a permit for a fireworks display would reduce the number of firework-related injuries.

In addition to the two solutions proposed by the petitions today, I make one further observation.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his great speech and for the excellent way in which he is taking all the interventions. As someone who lives with a cat—I hesitate to say that I own one; it usually seems the other way round—I can see for myself, and from the emails I have had from Dartford residents concerned about their pets, that the disturbance caused by loud fireworks is hugely traumatising for them. Does he agree that we need not only to reduce the maximum noise level for consumer fireworks, as he has already said, but to seek further restrictions on the dates when fireworks can be purchased from both licensed and unlicensed sellers?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. As the hon. Member says, the issue is about tougher licensing as well. I have seen fireworks for sale in pop-up shops in my own constituency of Keighley; it cannot be right that no regulation is associated with that. The pop-up shops could be below residential flats or units and there could be a risk to life if a hazard is associated with that environment. I take the hon. Member’s points on board; these are options that the Minister should explore.

The biggest problem with fireworks is enforcement. Until a firework is lit illegally, no crime has been committed. By the time the police spot and respond to a firework in the sky, those responsible have had plenty of time to flee the scene or to dispose of what little evidence there was to begin with. It is incredibly difficult to enforce laws that regulate firework use, so it is right that today’s petitions—and wider reform—should focus on wider supply regulations. If permits were required by individuals, as opposed to on an event-by-event basis, that added hurdle when purchasing fireworks would deter a larger number of people who are looking for a cheap thrill.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. On his last point, there has been no new legislation to deal with antisocial firework use for over two decades. Some 557 of my constituents signed these petitions. Since being elected I have dealt with 150 separate cases in my constituency of Wolverhampton West; constituents have raised a number of issues, including fireworks going off at midnight or at 6 o’clock in the morning. Does the hon. Member agree that, as a start, the least this Government could do is what the first petition asked for—reduce maximum noise levels from 120 dB to 90 dB? Decreasing the volume of fireworks is one step forward to take now.

[Robbie Moore]

I have spoken about this issue for the last six years, so if the Government take any action after today’s debate, I will welcome it. I want both the recommendations put forward by the two petitions, which have been signed by over 376,000 people, to be listened to, acted on and enforced.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will, for the final intervention.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous. A mother in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead was chased down the high street by some children firing fireworks at her and her kids. Her children spent the evening cowering under a table, suffering trauma. None of them was able to identify the perpetrators of what is clearly a crime. That is a police matter, but does the hon. Member agree that stronger restrictions are necessary to deal with situations where it is difficult to identify the perpetrators of firework crime?

[Robbie Moore]

I agree. Although enforcement is challenging, those carrying it out can be helped by tougher legislation. We need to learn the lessons from north of the border, up in Scotland, and what the SNP Government have rolled out. However, recommendations upon recommendations have been put forward to Governments of all colours over a period of time. I hope that now we will see action from the Minister.

I say it again: enough is enough. Public support for national change on fireworks is overwhelming. They disturb the peace of entire neighbourhoods, terrify pets and leave vulnerable people trapped in their homes throughout the year. If we choose to continue to ignore the issue, I fear the inevitable: there will be more unnecessary deaths, injuries and traumas for victims of fireworks in the future. In the face of such concern, there must be action, and that cannot occur until we have the full weight of the Government behind us. The Government have the power to end this nightmare for all, and they should do so without delay. I thank hon. Members for giving me the time to take as many interventions as possible. Let us have a good debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for leading today’s important debate, which is based on two petitions, one calling for a reduction in the noise limit for consumer fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB and another for limiting the sales of fireworks to local authority-approved displays. I have only just over 10 minutes to respond, so I might not be able to take as many interventions as the hon. Gentleman did. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for putting on record her thanks to everyone who has spoken today—she shaved a good minute off my speech. I thank her for that contribution.

I thank all hon. Members for their brilliant contributions. It has been an interesting debate. It is one of the longest and most well attended debates that I have been to, not only since I was appointed to this role but since I was elected. That shows the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. I thank hon. Members for representing their constituents.

Like other hon. Members, I am regularly contacted by residents who have been impacted by the antisocial use of fireworks, and I thank constituents for continuing to raise the matter with me. I assure them, hon. Members, campaigners and those in the Gallery, who have been with us through this afternoon’s debate, that I recognise the challenges that our communities face, and recognise the direct personal experiences that colleagues and constituents have shared.

I acknowledge the important work of Helen Whitelegg, from Redwings Horse Sanctuary, for beginning this petition as part of her organisation’s work to safeguard horses and advocate for their welfare, and I thank Robert Branch for starting his petition. Animal welfare charities such as Redwings and my local RSPCA branch in Halifax have been calling for a reduction in firework decibel levels for some time. The strength of feeling among the public is clear from the number of signatures that the petitions have received, as many hon. Members have mentioned.

I pay tribute to the family of Josephine Smith, who sadly passed away in October 2021 after a firework was placed through her letterbox. I express my condolences to Josephine’s family, and I am very grateful to her son Alan, whom I met earlier today, for his continued advocacy on this matter.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her dedicated campaigning and advocacy on this issue. I also thank her and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for their recent private Members’ Bills on fireworks misuse and on fireworks noise control.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for their advocacy and engagement with me since my appointment. I know how important tackling antisocial firework use is to them and their constituents.

I also want to express my gratitude to the emergency services. Our firefighters, paramedics and police officers work tirelessly to keep our communities safe during the firework season.

As we have heard from hon. Members, this time of year, and the past couple of months, can be particularly challenging for pets, veteran communities, those with PTSD, those with mental health conditions, those with autism and those who are vulnerable. Members have raised many important ideas to consider: restricting the number of days of fireworks per year; controls on volume and evening hours; date restrictions on sale, purchase and types; further promoting advance notice of firework use; and a ban on indoor fireworks.

On that point, I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I was so saddened to hear about the tragic fire that claimed 40 lives at new year in Switzerland. My condolences go to the families and friends of all who lost their lives in that devastating event. I understand that the investigation into the cause of the fire is ongoing; it has been reported that the authorities have banned the use of indoor pyrotechnics, which my hon. Friend spoke about.

Those suggestions were in addition to the support demonstrated here today for the topics of the e-petitions: noise level and limiting the sale of fireworks to organised displays. That strength of feeling has absolutely been heard and recognised today, and I thank Members for all their contributions.

My aim is to minimise the negative impact of fireworks and to ensure that they are used responsibly and can continue to play a role in celebrations and festivities across our country. There is no doubt that fireworks are a popular feature of community and family events and bring people together. A lot of Members have brought examples of those events to the Floor of the House today. They range from bonfire night and new year to birthdays, Eid and Diwali, among many others. Although many—77%—of our constituents enjoy using fireworks, only 15% believe that the existing regulatory framework is sufficient. Research from the Social Market Foundation found that one solution would be to reduce the noise limit for consumer fireworks. That, of course, is one of the subjects of today’s debate.

The research also highlighted the potential for alternative kinds of light displays, using drones or lasers. The recent new year’s eve fireworks display in London showcased an alternative, pairing fireworks with Hologauze technology. The highly reflective, silver-coated gauze reflects projected images while remaining transparent, allowing viewers to see fireworks behind the visuals. This and the use of drones show how technology is changing our experience of the traditional fireworks season and offering a more sustainable, visually rich alternative for large-scale events. We of course encourage attendance at those organised public displays.

I will touch on current legislation and safe use, and then respond to colleagues’ points. Members will know that, as they are explosives, the sale and use of fireworks is extensively regulated, with controls placed on their import, storage, supply, possession and use. In Great Britain, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a package of measures to reduce the nuisance and injuries caused by the misuse of fireworks. A lot of colleagues have referred to the 11 pm to 7 am curfew on the use of fireworks. Use later in the night—to 1 am—is permitted only on the traditional firework days, which I have already mentioned. I am grateful that many councils—including Calderdale council, which covers my constituency —have hard-working community safety teams in place to collect intelligence and allocate enforcement officers to hotspots of antisocial usage.

The Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 contain provisions about the manufacture, import and distribution of pyrotechnics across the UK. That includes labelling, conformity assessment testing and other requirements to ensure the products’ safety. The legislation also sets out the requirement for manufacturers to ensure that their products do not exceed the 120 dB noise limit.

[Robbie Moore]

The Minister need not panic, because we have this room until 7.30 pm and so there is plenty of time for her to carry on speaking and to take interventions. She is kindly outlining the legislation that is currently in place, but it is not working. We know that there is a threshold of 11 pm on most nights, but across Keighley, Silsden and the Worth valley, I have constituents who experience fireworks going off throughout the night and throughout the year. Could the Minister explain what action the Government will be taking in response to the petitions that have been debated today?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for the reassurance about time. I absolutely recognise the need for enforcement—colleagues have mentioned the existing framework and the regulations that are in place. I will get to the consideration that we are making as a Department of further legislation and regulations, as suggested in the e-petitions, when I focus on antisocial behaviour and the comments that colleagues have made today.

Hon. Members will be aware that retailers storing fireworks must be licensed to do so and are able to sell them to consumers only for a limited period around seasonal celebrations. Retailers who wish to sell fireworks to the public outside those periods must obtain an additional selling licence from their local licensing authority. The brilliant local trading standards and fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan counties like West Yorkshire can take action against those storing or selling fireworks without an appropriate licence. They work closely with retailers to ensure that the fireworks being sold are safe, and they have powers to enforce against those who place non-compliant fireworks on the market.

I am grateful to have met with the Calderdale district fire service to understand the role they play in reducing risk and engaging with my local community. As a Minister, I will also continue to engage with colleagues, stakeholders and organisations on a national level to ensure that this Labour Government continue to work with the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, including Border Force and trading standards, to take action against anyone who imports or sells fireworks illegally in the UK. That enforcement is important, as is providing them with the resources they need to do their jobs.

As many colleagues have said, among those most impacted by the illegal and antisocial use of fireworks are our pets and veteran community. Colleagues have given some real, personal examples; my labrador Bruno is one of the many dogs that have been deeply impacted by fireworks in recent months. Since October, I have been contacted by hundreds of colleagues from across this House, by charities and campaigners, and by more than 100 constituents who have shared their experiences, including one who had to move away from their home during peak firework periods to protect their family pet. That engagement as a constituency MP, and the stories of colleagues here today, drives my work as a Minister to minimise the negative impact of fireworks.

Following my appointment, I have continued to build on the brilliant work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), in engaging with groups, organisations, charities and businesses to gather evidence on the year-round impact of fireworks, as we have heard today. I have been continuing that engagement with a wide range of consumer groups and charities. I have also met Members of this House—I thank them for those meetings—and of the other place, and the devolved Governments: I recently met the Scottish Government to understand the recent implications of their policies to build that evidence base. We will consider the effectiveness that further legislation may have in reducing antisocial and illegal firework use, and I will continue to build on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

What discussions has the Minister had with Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the animal welfare strategy that has been launched? I have read that strategy, and it does not really address the issue of fireworks. Given that so many animal welfare concerns have been raised, what conversations is she having with DEFRA colleagues?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for raising animal welfare, which has come up time and again in this debate. I am proud of the strategy we launched as a Government, and work with my colleagues across Departments on a range of issues in my brief. It is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic animal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I understand the hon. Member’s reflections and those of colleagues from across the House today on the strategy and where we might be able to go further; we will continue to engage with colleagues on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned the impact of the campaign, with a total reach of around 130,000; there is always more that we can do. I thank colleagues who shared those social media posts and the guidance that we provided with their constituents. I am keen that we always continue to build on that, regulation aside. As we promote safe and responsible usage, I will continue to work with national charities such as Combat Stress, the RSPCA, the Firework Impact Coalition, Help for Heroes and so many more to ensure that our messaging reaches the general public.

While the majority of people who use fireworks do so appropriately and have a sensible and responsible attitude towards them, as many colleagues have said, a minority of people use fireworks in a dangerous, inconsiderate and antisocial manner. We have heard some horrendous stories today highlighting examples of that. I understand the impact that inconsiderate and antisocial use can have: loud bangs are disturbing communities, particularly those with elderly residents, young children and pets, and in far too many places fireworks are set off late at night, disturbing hard-working parents, waking up children and causing terror to our most vulnerable constituents.

Dangerous misuse is a serious concern. Reports of fireworks being thrown at people—colleagues have mentioned that they have been thrown at prams—vehicles or buildings are completely unacceptable. We will continue to support the work of our council officers and police community support officers who work tirelessly to ensure that the vast majority of those who use fireworks for celebrations—

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

It has been a thought-provoking debate in which we have heard from Members from across the House. There are very few petitions debates where the whole Chamber is full, so I once again thank Helen Whitelegg and Robert Branch for bringing forward two really good petitions—signed by 376,000 people—that enabled us all to discuss this issue. I thank all the charities that have continuously engaged with Members from across the House, and also the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her consistent work raising this important issue for as long as I have been lucky enough to be a Member of Parliament.

We know the impact fireworks have on our animals—our pets and livestock—as well as on veterans, those with anxiety issues, our elderly, our children and hard-working people who just want a decent night’s sleep. This issue consistently comes back to this House, year after year, at every opportunity. The points that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made about indoor fireworks are noted and, dare I say, will control the nature of future debate.

I will end by reiterating some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), by saying that time is of the essence. I have a lot of respect for my neighbour, the Minister, who represents a constituency next door to my own. I am sure that she gets similar types of correspondence in her inbox. Her speech felt a little bit like it was brought off the shelf, dusted off from Ministers who have come and gone. I say that with the greatest respect to Conservative Ministers, too, who have delivered the same type of speech. I am getting very frustrated that this issue keeps coming back time and again, and I am sure many others in this House are, too. The Minister has not outlined any timeframes or strategy. Is it the Government’s ambition to bring forward a strategy that deals with the licensing and noise reduction of fireworks? I sincerely hope, on behalf of the 376,000 petitioners, that there will be some sort of a positive announcement from the Government—more than just the Minister’s warm words. I say that with the most respect for the Minister, who I know and who has been kind enough to reach out and speak to me many times on this issue. I thank her on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 738192 and 732559 relating to the sale of fireworks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

First, I am sure the whole House would echo my hon. Friend’s comments about her constituents in Monmouthshire. Our thanks go to the emergency services, who have done an incredibly diligent job in difficult circumstances. She is right that it is yet another example of where the climate crisis is not some theoretical future threat, but a present reality. We have to tackle the climate crisis as quickly as possible. That is why this Government are doing everything we can to get off of fossil fuels, while also investing in flood defences across the country.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

T7. The Minister will know that our peatlands are a vital store of carbon, storing 26 times more carbon than UK forests. Would he therefore agree that green energy projects built on peatland must prove that they will mitigate more carbon than they will release through construction and disturbance of the underlying peat? Will he commit to refuse any nationally significant infrastructure project that fails that test?

[Martin McCluskey]

While I cannot comment on specific planning decisions, I can reassure the hon. Member that the planning regime considers the importance of peat for biodiversity, water and carbon storage in decisions about renewable infrastructure, and there are existing protections for peatland habitats and deep peat in the national planning policy framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I know that Northamptonshire has a thriving retail and wholesale sector, and I commend my hon. Friend for championing the jobs and businesses in his constituency. He rightly says that the Conservatives promised to reform business rates. What he did not say was that they promised many times to reform business rates and never did so. We have committed to permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The Government are committed to publishing soon an interim report that sets out further details on the direction of travel, and confirmation of our plans will come at the autumn Budget.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I recently met the owners of Bababing in my constituency, who have opened up new premises in Keighley. They want to grow and expand as quickly as possible, but they told me that this Government are stifling business growth for not only Bababing but many other SMEs across the country due to the decisions they made in the Budget last year to increase employer national insurance and the minimum wage, and the Employment Rights Bill, which is coming down the line. Do the Government recognise that they are stifling growth, and if so, what are they doing about it?

[Gareth Thomas]

I welcome the establishment of Bababing in the hon. Member’s constituency. I recognise that difficult decisions had to be taken in the Budget. I am sure he has pointed out to the owners of Bababing that those difficult decisions were taken as a direct result of the £22 billion black hole that his party left us to tackle. Our small business strategy will set out a range of measures we are taking to support businesses, which I hope will help Bababing and other businesses in his constituency.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. Who better to open this debate than a Lincolnshire representative from a county that I know very well and which produces 30% of our vegetables, 20% of our sugar beet and, collectively, 12% of all of the food that we find on our shelves?

We have heard contributions from Members from all four nations of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. I represent the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley in God’s own county of Yorkshire, and we also have many producers and growers who have a relationship with supermarkets, and have been expressing their concern to me in advance of this debate.

The Groceries Code Adjudicator is hugely important in addressing some of the systematic issues within our food supply chain that have been referenced in the debate. It was set up under the coalition Government, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted. It manages only 14 retailers, which cover a vast swathe of the food market, but that does not go far enough. Competition puts huge pressures on our suppliers and growers further down the chain, which is why it is vital that the Groceries Code Adjudicator addresses unfair practices. The questions that have been raised in this debate are those of power, funding and resource.

In 2024, a survey run by the GCA reported a reduction in the number of groceries code issues and an increase in supplier satisfaction with retailers, where issues were raised. I question that report. All Members speaking in this debate have picked up on the fear among growers and producers of being blacklisted if concerns are raised, and a reluctance to even report, because of the huge pressure that can be put on them by the retailers.

The 14 retailers included in the scope of the GCA and the code of practice cover a significant proportion of the UK market. However, it misses a number of smaller but significant retailers. That is the point I want to build on, as mentioned by other Members today. Has the Minister considered reducing the £1 billion turnover threshold that marks the point where businesses must be compliant? If that threshold were removed, many more retailers would be brought into the fold of the GCA. Members have advocated for that in today’s debate.

The work of the GCA is important in maintaining the health of our supply chains. An unfair contract between a retailer and a producer or grower can be devastating. We have heard the points made in the debate—the challenges are huge. That can result in growers and producers being locked into unfair contracts. Orders can be cancelled unnecessarily. The Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), made a point early on in the debate about potatoes—they were of sufficient quality for any consumer to eat, and yet, because they did not meet the exact specification from the retailer, the order was not taken.

[Sir John Hayes]

I forgot to say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. My hon. Friend identifies a fundamental issue. In commercial transactions, there is always risk, and that risk needs to be balanced. At the moment, all the risk is taken by the farmer or grower and none of the risk is absorbed by the retailer. We need to adjust that balance to ensure fairness, in the way that has been articulated by so many Members across the Chamber.

[Robbie Moore]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. At the moment, the risk is all sitting on the shoulders of the growers and producers. That is unfair, because there is a certain expectation of the food they are preparing, whether in quantity or quality, but some of the risk factors are completely out of their control, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) noted. Those factors include weather conditions, which impact many of our farmers and growers. The lack of flexibility in the contracts is another.

That is why the GCA must have the teeth that many have talked about in this debate, because these issues go beyond the impacts of the unfair contract. At a time when pressures on our agricultural sector are mounting, additional budgetary pressures were announced by the Government in last year’s Budget. The hike in employer’s national insurance, the family farm tax, which has created a huge amount of uncertainty, the cuts to the sustainable farming incentives, and the drastic reduction in the delinked payments to a cap of £7,200 are all additional cash-flow pressures, exposing our farmers and growers to long-term uncertainty, beyond the challenges associated with the contracts they are entering into with retailers.

While the GCA has made hugely important steps, many producers and growers are still unaware of its role and powers. There is absolutely more work to be done within the industry to build awareness and trust of the GCA and its powers, and that is exactly what the nub of this debate is about. We know that pressures are mounting on the agricultural supply chains that run right the way through the system, from farm to fork. One of the shortcomings of the GCA in its current set-up is that it only handles the relationship between the retailer, the supplier and some farmers and growers, missing out many farmers, growers and other intermediaries in the supply chain. That has to be addressed, as has been referenced by many Members in their contributions.

That has to be addressed if we want to restore a level of trust in the system, and work to do so has been started. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 were introduced recently, which have a specific focus on milk, and regulations for other products are on their way. But I ask the Minister: what are we doing to address this disjointed approach? It seems that multiple regulators are managing different elements of the supply chain, which is creating more friction and uncertainty for businesses.

The experience of the last decade shows the growing case for better lines of communication between the GCA, DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. What conversations has the Minister, in his role representing the Department, had with DEFRA and the GCA? That was a point made by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; I congratulate him on the work he did in introducing his ten-minute rule Bill, which had the support of the Opposition.

Going forward, I hope that the Government will be able to pick up where the last Government left off and not only expand on the fair dealing regulations, but tie in the GCA and its operation to the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, providing a joined-up approach to the full supply chain. Although I welcome the increasing scope of regulatory framework on the agricultural supply chain, does the Minister plan to include other products, such as ornamentals, as part of an expanded GCA remit? Ornamentals, like food, are perishable and suffer with the same challenges that many Members have outlined in this debate.

What are the Government’s intentions when it comes to increasing the GCA’s powers, funding, resource and people power, so that it has the ability to enact the requests of both sides of this House? I reiterate that trust absolutely needs to be restored into the system, which can only be done by re-establishing better supply chain relationships throughout the system. That relies on giving the GCA more power, more finance and better lines of communication with DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Whether it be the increase in the minimum wage, the increase in employer national insurance, the increase in business rates, or indeed the changes made to the Employment Rights Bill, all of these measures collectively are negatively penalising many businesses across my constituency, whether in Keighley, Ilkley or further afield. As a result, redundancies are having to be made, or the price of products and services are having to increase, and these businesses cannot absorb the additional increase that this Labour Government are putting on them. Did the Government undertake any economic impact assessment of what all of these measures collectively would have on hard-working businesses across my constituency?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

As I have said to Conservative Members before, of course we are very sensitive to the aggregate impact of Government policy, because, frankly, having observed the Conservative Governments of the previous 14 years, I thought they completely missed this point and at many times had different Departments doing completely opposing things.

I want to say something specific on business rates. No business rates relief was planned had the Conservative party won the election. The reduction to 40% was an increase in what was in the national accounts—again, short-term decisions for short-term, partisan, political benefit; no serious plan for the future.

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the figures from the Insolvency Service this week, which are very interesting. They show that fewer people have been made redundant over the past 12 months than in the year before, so I am afraid that the doom-mongers of the Conservative party have been proved absolutely wrong by the statistics that we have.

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 638449 relating to career breaks for parents of seriously ill children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. No parent should have to go through the upset and anguish of seeing their child diagnosed or suffering with a serious illness. Sadly, it is not within our power to prevent these terrible situations, but what is within our power as legislators is to provide support and reassurance to parents who end up in those traumatic situations. We can help ease not only the process, but the parents’ return to work at the end of their child’s treatment, or throughout the child’s treatment, should the individual circumstances permit.

We should remember that the workplace and being in work is often about more than just money, although of course money is very important. Work gives us a sense of purpose, belonging and normality. It can therefore be a terrible situation for a parent if they rather unexpectedly find themselves in the position of not only losing their job, but fearing for their child’s health. Sometimes, with care treatment plans being longer than expected, additional complexities may arise if the child is particularly unwell. Depending on the child’s illness, they may need to attend regular appointments at the hospital, sometimes more often than was originally envisaged, or there may be a dedicated treatment centre that is further than one may have initially realised. Therefore, the treatment and care that has to be provided by the parent is sometimes not known at the outset and can be particularly onerous.

Some children may need around-the-clock care and attention, with no other family member or friend to provide that additional care, or the parent may simply be the only person the child has to care for them. At the end of the treatment, whether it is successful or not, it can sometimes be incredibly difficult for the parent to return to the workplace. Indeed, the job may not be waiting for them at the end, ready for them to return to. The parent may struggle to get back into the jobs market at a cost to them, their children and the state.

Let us take the situation of Christina Harris, who started this petition and who, I am honoured to say, is with us in the Public Gallery. Indeed, I was honoured to meet Christina before the debate, and it is great to see her, her friends and her child, Skye, here. Skye was diagnosed during a Christmas period, and on the first day back to work, Christina was told that she would not be paid and was shocked to discover that she had no statutory protection to fall back on. Skye’s treatment, once diagnosed, was to take approximately two years. Although Christina’s employer could not provide her wages during the time that Christina was caring for Skye, her employer at least kept the role open to Christina while she was initially absent from work.

Six months in, Christina was asked to attend a meeting with her employer in which she felt that she was put in a very difficult position, and her employer was completely unwilling at the start to discuss the flexible working options. After another six months, Christina’s employment contract was terminated, despite her having provided 19 years’ of service to the same company, and obviously she still had to deal with Skye’s care. It is great to see that Skye is on the mend and returning to a good state of health. After a year of uncertainty, Christina was left taking part-time work to make ends meet while struggling with providing the care for Skye.

This situation is unlike any other regarding parenthood and work. Let us take the example of a parent having an accident; parents have access to bereavement leave. One of the better parts of the Employment Rights Bill that is going through this House includes a right to neonatal leave and pay, easing this exact issue for newborns, but not for older children. Even in the classic case of unplanned pregnancy affecting a career, parents still have nine months to prepare, but a child can become ill at a moment’s notice and through no fault of the parents or the child. Despite that, however, the options for support are incredibly limited, which is why the petition is before the House.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The hon. Member pointed out some of the increased employment rights that we should see under the Employment Rights Bill. In the previous Parliament, there was no employment rights Bill, but private Members’ Bills did improve the situation in part: the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 on flexible, working promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), and my Carer’s Leave Act 2023. That suggests we need more support for parents—paid carer’s leave—so that people like Christina do not suffer in the way that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has outlined.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. That absolutely highlights the importance of why the petition needs to be considered by the Government and the Minister of the day. The Employment Rights Bill that is working its way through the House includes some positive measures. Potentially, this petition is an additional thought that the Minister should consider, given the strength of feeling shown through the number of people who have signed it.

In the vast majority of cases, these situations are completely unexpected. As I said, who knows when a child is going to become seriously ill? A diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue and a parent has to deal with it.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

The hon. Member has brought to mind the occasion when my youngest son, after playing rugby, was diagnosed with a suspected brain tumour. As I live in the middle of nowhere, in Somerset and Devon, the flashing-blue ambulance took two and a half hours to get to the nearest children’s specialist unit. This is not just about losing a job or the wages; it is the enormous stress and anxiety it puts on parents, particularly in rural areas such as mine. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I recently spoke to my constituent Kat from Hassocks, whose son Teddy has battled life-threatening neuroblastoma since July 2022. Kat told me that although her employer went above and beyond to support her, she is the exception and not the rule. With many employers either not able or not willing to do so, does the hon. Member agree that it is unacceptable for there to be—in Kat’s words—“a total lottery” regarding whether parents of seriously ill children receive employment support?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member’s intervention gets to the nub of the why this petition is so important: not all employers are doing the right thing by their employees. That parent may be a single parent or have no support around them, and they can end up in a very difficult situation, having to deal quite immediately with the challenge that they face. A lack of reassurance in the workplace can add to their anxiety.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene a second time. It is right that we acknowledge employers who are doing this well. I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of Carers UK. That organisation runs an important network that shares good practice among employers, and I urge any constituents who have signed the petition to get their employers linked in with it.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member must have read my speech, because I will come later to the importance of all employers and employees being aware of the rights that already exist. There are a number of protection measures out there. The challenge is that employers and employees do not necessarily know what support is available.

Through the survey conducted by the Petitions Committee, we can see, as in Christina’s case, that when an employer is less flexible—or outright unhelpful, as we have seen in certain circumstances—things quickly get worse. Some 99% of respondents believed that employers should be required to provide career breaks for parents of terminally ill children. What Christina and thousands of other people are calling out for is statutory reassurance that, as soon as they are able to go back to work, the job will be available for them, at least for a limited period.

That reassurance—that as soon as treatment is complete, life can go back to normal—is hugely important for the parents’ mental health and to help them plan their future financial situation. Many families can afford to take a short-term hit to care for their child, although not all can, and they cannot do so without a guaranteed time period within which they can get back into the workplace at the end of that employment break. That is why I reiterate the importance of the petition.

The key point about reassurance was raised with me by It’s Never You, a charity run by two individuals who care deeply about the issue because they suffered the tragic loss of their own child from the terrible illness of cancer in 2021. When I met them, they passionately explained that getting support in place from day one is a major issue. For the first 90 days after a child has been diagnosed with a terrible illness, parents have to go through an incredible amount of restructuring in their life, so having their employer’s support from day one is vital. As employers themselves, those individuals are all too aware of the burden that a statutory requirement for a career break would have on smaller businesses, but they correctly highlighted to me that the lack of any Government-directed standard or benchmark is a recipe for chaos—and, as has already been indicated, many employers and employees do not necessarily know what level of support is available when a child is diagnosed with a serious illness.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

We have heard so many stories of individuals who lost their jobs as a result of taking time off due to having seriously ill children, adding stress to an already unbearable situation. We have heard stories of good employers and not-so-good employers. Does the hon. Member agree that it is vital that we understand the extent of the situation, and that the Government should commission research into the number of families impacted each year? If we had more information, that would help us to determine the best solution.

[Robbie Moore]

I always agree that it is fine in this place for us to be designing guidance, regulations or indeed other legislation, but unless it practically works and has the positive impact it was designed to have, it benefits no one. More datasets and data collected and available to Government to help them make the right decisions is always welcome. I endorse the hon. Lady’s point.

Employers and their employees often struggle to come to an acceptable arrangement, as the group It’s Never You has indicated, so it is important that the Government outline the support that is already available to those employees and employers, whether that is a break or flexible working. We should also be encouraging businesses to think outside the box, as highlighted to me by the Rainbow Trust and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development when I was preparing for this debate. They told me that flexible working is vital; for the parent of a sick child with complex needs, it is so important that flexible working, or part-time work, can be put in place. But, as many employers said to me during my preparation for this debate, although good employers do as much as they can to facilitate the needs of a parent with a seriously ill child, not every job environment allows flexible working to take place. That has to be recognised.

One problem that was raised by all the parties I spoke to about this issue was just how long it can take for support, such as carer’s allowance, to kick in. Again, we come back to the crucial first 90 days, a period that is in part defined by how long it takes state aid to arrive. In those 90 days, parents can feel completely lost when it comes to knowing their rights and how they can use those rights to ease their situation. Businesses may be just as ignorant of the rights and support mechanisms actually available, and time spent researching that, once a challenge has been put to them by a parent with a seriously ill child, can delay support being put in place. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that, through the best means possible, employers are well equipped with the right amount of support, and that their rights and those of employees are laid out.

My first question, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer today, is: how will the Government ensure that employees are aware of their rights before a crisis is put before them; and how often are employers made aware of the obligations on them? Secondly, what work are the Government undertaking to ensure that support such as carer’s allowance is delivered as quickly as possible? For many families, their income can drop to zero overnight, and reaching the end of the first month can be the greatest challenge. With a doctor’s note or an employment record, it should not be difficult to determine the truth of an applicant’s status.

Finally, the key point, which has been reiterated throughout the evidence given to me in preparation for this debate, is that the most important change is about giving certainty to struggling families, to allow them to get through and recover quickly from these terrible ordeals. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are looking at providing some clarity through statutory requirements for the provision of career breaks for parents of seriously ill children. We know from the work undertaken on neonatal complications that the Government are open to the concept, so what logical reason can there be for this support to end with an arbitrary cut-off, based on the age of the child?

I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the contributions that are made in this debate. I thank Christina and the more than 100,000 signatories who have provided support for this debate to happen in this House. I also thank everyone who contributed to the work of the Petitions Committee in preparation for this debate and those who responded to the survey undertaken by the Petitions Committee. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

To sum up, I first want to thank Christina, because without her and the circumstances she has brought to our attention, we would not have had the petition, the over 100,000 signatures that have attached themselves to it and therefore this debate. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank not only Christina but Skye for their absolute courage and endeavour throughout the incredibly difficult challenges that they and their family have had, and for enabling us to bring this debate forward.

This has been a really robust debate—in the politest of senses—in terms of the subjects that have been covered. There has been real recognition of the fact that more data needs to be collected so that we can ensure that the legislation being introduced by Government is practically workable on the ground. We have also covered off the fact that not every employer is necessarily doing the right thing in terms of their own obligations. It is good to see that the Government have recognised that more work needs to be done to make sure that each employer and employee knows their obligations to one another so that, should the difficult circumstances arise where a child is ill, the employer will put out the best protection as quickly as possible to meet their employee’s needs.

I reiterate that there is space potentially to improve the Employment Rights Bill, based on the concerns raised throughout the debate. It is good to hear that the Minister—through my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—has guaranteed a meeting. Let all those who signed the petition be well aware that a meeting will follow this debate, and we can only hope that there will be good outcomes from it.

My final point is that, where carers are permitted to have carer’s allowance, they should not have to wait for an end-of-life prognosis for the payment to be fast-tracked. The Government machinery should be able to operate much more quickly, so that the carer of any child who is ill can get the allowance as quickly as possible—certainly within the 90-day period, and not at the last minute.

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed, and I thank those in the Gallery—Christina, Skye and their friend—for attending the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 638449 relating to career breaks for parents of seriously ill children.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 639319 and 700013 relating to the sale and use of fireworks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce the two e-petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Like me, many colleagues will have received countless pieces of correspondence regarding fireworks, so it is no surprise that both e-petitions received significant numbers of signatures. The first received more than 50,000 signatures in the first six months. I particularly thank Chloe Brindley for creating the petition, and for her elegant arguments for banning the sale of fireworks to the general public. Chloe outlines many of the negative impacts of firework use, including animal stress and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as the impact on our A&E services. Chloe is in the Public Gallery today.

The second e-petition was kindly brought to the attention of the House by Alan Smith, whom I was privileged to meet last week, and I am pleased is also in the Gallery. It is a pleasure to welcome him to the House. The petition garnered more than 75,000 signatures, despite being created only a month ago. Alan’s story is particularly harrowing but, given that we are considering the terrible and traumatic damage that fireworks can do, it is an important one, and I hope he will not mind my mentioning it.

On the night of 28 October 2021, two teenagers, who were under age, went to their local fireworks shop and asked, “What are the good ones to let off at people?” They were not refused service, nor did the owner of the shop ask them for identification. Later that evening, they would take the fireworks they had purchased and stuff them, lit, through the letterbox of 88-year-old Josephine Smith, Alan’s mother, starting a fire that went on to kill her. Not only was that a shocking tragedy and an outrageous, harrowing act, but it shows, without a shadow of doubt, that fireworks are not toys and are not risk-free. If used in that manner, they are weapons that can kill.

Whether through accident or malice, 113 people find themselves spending an average of two days in hospital because of fireworks injuries, and research suggests that the total number of injuries is higher. However, fireworks have impacts far wider than those on the users, as the petitions’ signatories will know. Excessively loud bangs and flashes from fireworks can make the surrounding area feel like a warzone. In Keighley, which I am exceptionally proud to represent, fireworks are used throughout the year, often well into the early hours of the morning. There are times when the night sky above Keighley is lit up under the constant thunder of fireworks. The use of fireworks may peak around and in the run-up to bonfire night, but for many of us it is an issue throughout the whole calendar year. In places such as Keighley, and in many other communities right across the country, many are negatively impacted by the antisocial use of fireworks. Working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep cannot, because of the sheer nuisance caused by fireworks.

Unsurprisingly, fireworks have a dramatic effect on those who suffer from PTSD. Our veterans may quite literally fear that they have been thrust back into a life-or-death situation, and can be completely debilitated by their use. Other victims of trauma can be triggered even if the event that led to their condition has no connection to the sounds or sights of fireworks. I heard that at first hand just last week, when I met representatives of Anxiety UK, Help for Heroes, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Firework Campaign to prepare for this debate. I thank them for their time.

As with humans, fireworks can also trigger the fight-or-flight response in animals. Pets and livestock alike are often terrified by fireworks, and unlike us they do not understand the consequences when they are let off. Of course, that leads not only to incredible distress but, in some circumstances, to the injury or death of animals. I have heard in correspondence from across my Keighley and Ilkley constituency of farm animals stampeding as a result of loud bangs, tearing through fences in their panic, injuring themselves and others, and being at risk of causing road accidents. I have also heard much about dogs, cats and rabbits—in fact, almost every single kind of pet—being negatively impacted.

In November, we learned of the tragic death of Roxie, a baby red panda at Edinburgh Zoo. She died on bonfire night due to the stress caused by fireworks being let off throughout the city centre. We must also be conscious of wildlife who do not have a voice but are nevertheless affected. We often forget them but, as those animals are more sensitive to sound than us, they are also impacted considerably. What we hear as a distant rumble can seem to them like a much more threatening, intense experience.

Distressing fireworks are used as tools for crimes in my constituency and throughout the country, as many colleagues have told me. Fireworks are used as weapons against emergency services and as nuisance items in antisocial behaviour by youths. In 2021, firefighters attended an incident in my constituency and came under attack by a group of 15 youths hurling fireworks at them. The fact that the individuals were able to source the fireworks to carry out those acts was incredibly distressing, not only because of those who were impacted but because it shows how easy it is to get hold of fireworks.

Fireworks have many more impacts, not least causing hearing damage, interrupting sleep and affecting those with sensory processing disorders. I hope Members will forgive me when I say that I and others have raised these concerns before. I take this opportunity to stress that I am absolutely still concerned about this issue.

Before I discuss the way forward, it is important to mention the existing body of regulations. The sale of fireworks is banned to anyone under the age of 18, and for the largest fireworks for public use, but that does not stop people buying them, and it does not stop individuals selling them to under-18s. Setting off any firework is also banned after 11 pm, except on certain evenings, but I fear that, as in the case of Josephine Smith, the regulations are not being properly followed, as we all know.

I recognise that e-petition 639319 calls for a ban. Indeed, along with those who signed the petition, some 74% of people more widely who have got involved with the many fireworks petitions to come before the House believe that a ban is the right way forward. I must admit that, personally, I am reluctant to endorse bans when they are not completely necessary, but there is growing evidence, including testimony from the many people I spoke to in the run-up to the debate and from police incidents, that enforcement will never be enough to tackle this issue. Simply put, once those who let off fireworks as part of antisocial behaviour have abandoned the scene, it is extremely difficult to catch the culprits.

Of course, we must recognise the freedom to enjoy fireworks, but above all else we must protect the liberties of those who are so devastatingly affected, because there is certainly no freedom for those who are trapped in their homes throughout the year because of fireworks misuse. If the illegal use of fireworks cannot be curtailed, the only option we are left with is stricter regulation at the point of sale. Although it may be difficult to catch an offender using fireworks, it is surely easier for authorities to ensure that regulations are followed at the point of sale, and to advise fireworks businesses to use discretion when they fear that fireworks may be used improperly.

In a report published this morning, the campaigner Hamza Rehman highlighted the rise in the stockpiling of fireworks across the Bradford district, with fireworks being bought in bulk and stored in private garages to be sold at a later date. I have no doubt that the same is going on in other constituencies throughout the country, and that it could be curtailed if we enforced the laws that are already in place. Even a simple requirement to apply for a permit may be a sufficient barrier to cancel out many nuisance buyers of fireworks, who can currently purchase fireworks as easily as they can a bottle of wine.

Stricter requirements could also be introduced, such as raising the age limit. None the less, we must be careful not to force the sale of fireworks underground and create an even more dangerous situation. I hope that in the debate many other Members will get to the heart of the issue and explore the action we can take, as this issue has been idly discussed for far too long. I know that many Members have raised it in the House time and again.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this really important debate. Like his constituents, mine next door in Shipley have raised concerns about antisocial fireworks. Under the last Labour Government, the Fireworks Act 2003 and the Fireworks Regulations 2004 were introduced to restrict the antisocial use of fireworks; since then, there has been very little action. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a review to tighten up the regulations is long overdue?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my constituency neighbour and friend for raising that issue. The challenge is that although previous Labour Administrations introduced regulations, the stark reality on the ground is that there has been no real change. There is still antisocial behaviour, the misuse of fireworks and people getting away with buying fireworks—in my constituency, and I suspect in the hon. Lady’s—when they are under the age of 18. Having seen the Government’s response to both e-petitions, released earlier today, I do not believe they are willing to go far enough, albeit they have said they are willing to listen. I hope Members will contribute in respect of the actions the Government should take.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this subject. My constituent Annie Riddle has lived in the Harnham district of Salisbury for 34 years, and her four dogs have been left in the state of trembling wrecks as a consequence of the random use of fireworks. Does my hon. Friend agree that better public education on just how destructive the use of fireworks is to the health of many people—he mentioned veterans, for example—and to the animal kingdom is important to changing behaviours on the ground? That must be part of the solution.

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. Better education is critical for the wider public—for not only those behaving antisocially but those organising large events. As part of the evidence taken before this debate, I heard that even big public events have a negative consequence on pets at home, wildlife, farm animals, or veterans living nearby. Education is key but, personally, I would like to see tougher licensing provisions and much more resource put into enforcement.

I commend the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for bringing forward a private Member’s Bill aimed at tackling this issue. In my opinion, the next step forward must be a commitment from the Government to undertake proper research into and impact assessments of firework regulation, so that we can reach a cross-party solution to the issue. Findings from the Petitions Committee, the Government and stakeholders have all pointed out that a lack of evidence limits any serious policy changes. We must therefore ensure that the Government have the evidence available as quickly as possible so that they can make further legislative changes, if they so desire.

If a ban or restrictions are necessary, they will take time to implement, so we must also take immediate action. Local councils must be supported to deliver proper enforcement immediately, as must the police to tackle those using fireworks illegally. There is no point in having regulations and laws in place if they are not enforced. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent the Government from delivering that support right now.

E-petition 639319 received a response from the previous Government, and I am glad that the current Government responded this morning to e-petition 700013. But as I said, the Government must go much further than just giving warm words. I hope this debate will be an opportunity for all Members to stress to the Minister the points they wish to make on behalf of their constituents, and that the Minister will be able to expand on that in his response. I am sure he will appreciate that this issue is of deep concern to the many petitioners who signed the petitions.

I am not opposed to fireworks in and of themselves, but I definitely wish to see much tighter licensing provisions, much stronger enforcement and a change so that fireworks can be used only at licensed events. I say to the Government that we simply cannot continue to ignore the growing public demand for change. I hope this debate marks the beginning of real change on fireworks legislation. Fireworks bring joy to many, but their misuse can have devastating effects. When used antisocially, they disturb the peace of an entire neighbourhood, terrify pets and leave vulnerable people trapped in their homes. The culprits terrorise neighbourhoods, as unfortunately I have seen in Keighley.

The petitions are not one-offs—indeed, since May 2022 five other petitions relating to fireworks have been put before Parliament—nor are the concerns of the petitioners without justification. In the face of such concerns, there must be action, and that cannot occur until we have had the weight of a full Government policy assessment to decide the best way forward. I fear that if we choose to continue to ignore this issue, there will inevitably be more unnecessary deaths, injuries and traumas for victims of fireworks in the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, let me say how grateful we are to Chloe Brindley and Alan Smith for very kindly bringing forward the petitions, which gathered so much support in a relatively short period—thank you. I also extend my condolences once again to Alan, who is in the Public Gallery, for the tragic circumstances in which his mother lost her life.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We have heard from Members from across the country—from Glasgow and Edinburgh right the way down to Luton and, of course, from Keighley and Ilkley. Our constituents contact us about this issue because when fireworks are misused, they impact us all—parents with a newborn, working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep, veterans suffering anxiety issues, and pets and wildlife.

Everyone who spoke mentioned the challenging circumstances around antisocial behaviour. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) said eloquently, fireworks are explosives that can be purchased. A common theme of all Members’ speeches was that we must push the Government for stronger licensing, noise reduction and restrictions on sale, and for more enforcement powers to be given to our police and local authorities so that they can properly enforce the existing legislation and anything that comes down the line.

It is my duty, on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the petitioners, to urge the Government to act. We heard very kind words from the Minister—he said the Government are listening and reviewing, and he summarised the existing legislation—but we want the Government to go much further on the five points that have been raised. We urge the Government and the Minister to have further exchanges with the petitioners and Members from throughout the House, and I hope they will listen to the points that Members made very strongly today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 639319 and 700013 relating to the sale and use of fireworks.

Pub and Hospitality Sector

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate.

In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, pubs are a huge part of our local community. They are our meeting place, a place to socialise, and a place to wind down after a busy week or even a busy day, and can also provide a vital place to help to address loneliness, improve mental health and wellbeing, and address socialisation. I aim to recognise the great work of pubs through my own best pub award, drawing positive attention to some of the fantastic pubs from across my constituency.

Previous winners include the Craven Heifer in Addingham, which does a mighty meat pie; The Brown Cow in Keighley, where hon. Members will find one of the best-poured pints of Timothy Taylor’s Landlord; the Goats Head in Steeton, one of the friendliest pubs embedded in the heart of the community; and of course the Haworth Steam Brewery, which always has a fantastic atmosphere and a great vibe, and which is home not only to its own beers but to Howarth gin.

One of the common themes in what all those pubs have told me is that small businesses across our hospitality sector constantly face that battle against Government red tape. That is why the last Government raised the VAT threshold to £90,000, which meant that over 28,000 businesses benefited from not needing to be VAT-registered. I would like a reassurance from the Minister that this Government will not look to reduce that threshold or implement a VAT cut.

I am also concerned by other measures that the Government are rumoured to be looking at, such as employer national insurance or business rates relief— I urge the Government to keep that business rates relief in place—as well as the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday. I cannot stress enough how concerned small businesses are about the challenges that will be created by that Bill. Also, given that the economic analysis was released so late, what are the real unintended consequences to small businesses right across the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I heard the point the hon. Gentleman made, and I want to come to the issue of access to talent to work in pubs and hospitality venues. While we always need to consider issues around visas and the right to work, we can do more to help people in our country to get access to jobs in the pubs and hospitality industry. The point I intend to make in relation to the intervention by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) is pertinent to that.

As I said, we all know that hospitality businesses are struggling to recover from the pandemic, where closures and customer restrictions decimated cash reserves and drove up levels of debt. I say this gently with so many Conservative Members present, but the subsequent cost of living crisis, which was driven in part by the incompetence of previous Governments, has compounded the challenge for hospitality businesses and increased costs, and it has caused real difficulties and challenges for businesses in repaying some of those debts. One thinks in particular of the contribution Liz Truss made to those issues.

[Robbie Moore]

I am sure the Minister will get to it, but I am really keen to understand some of the specifics of what he is doing in his role as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade. What is the nature of his conversations with the Chancellor and the Treasury, specifically around business rates relief, VAT threshold, VAT duty, beer duty and the concerns raised by the likes of UKHospitality with the Employment Rights Bill? I am sure he is getting there, but this side of the House is keen to understand what he is doing in his role in the conversations with the Chancellor on the forthcoming Budget.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the prompt to get on to the issues around the Budget next week. He will understand, as one or two of his colleagues alluded to earlier, that I will not speculate on what will or will not be included in the Chancellor’s Budget. However, I can say that we recognise the very important role that hospitality businesses play in supporting local economies and communities, and we understand the pressures facing those businesses. When we were in Opposition, one of the biggest complaints we heard from high street businesses was the unfairness of the antiquated system of business rates. I apologise to him—I appreciate it is difficult to hear—but I think one of the reasons his party lost the confidence of the business community was because it had made multiple promises to abolish or reform the business rates system, but never actually got to that issue.

Business rates are particularly unfair for hospitality, leisure and tourism businesses which, as others have alluded to, create 5% of the UK’s GDP but pay 15% of all business rates. Not only is the current system of business rates unfair, but we know that it disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our highstreets, and in the context of this debate, on pubs and hospitality and venues. That is why we included in our manifesto a commitment to reform business rates, and it is why the Chancellor has continued to commit to setting out next steps on that at the next Budget.

Post Office Horizon

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

The Horizon IT scandal is without doubt one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our history. While we cannot change what has happened, we must establish what went wrong. Will the Minister assure the House that he will carefully consider the findings of the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry? Does he agree with the shadow Secretary of State that there should be prosecutions of those deemed responsible?

[Justin Madders]

We are taking a close interest, as the hon. Member would expect, in the evidence coming forward in the inquiry. Much of it is shocking. The amount of obfuscation and, shall we say, misinformation put out by a number of individuals is concerning. We think it is right to wait and see what the chair of the inquiry recommends in terms of future action, but we are committed to looking at that closely and ensuring that individuals take responsibility for their actions.