Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gerald Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and agree with her. She talks about the injustice of this, which I will come on to later. I pay tribute to her for the campaigning work that she has done in Swansea East. I also pay tribute to her predecessor.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned some of the disasters that mining communities have faced. I cannot but mention the Gresford disaster in north Wales in which my paternal grandfather lost his life. Clearly, there is a moral case for why the Government need to act on this, but there is also a really good financial case, because we are not talking about that much money. It really is imperative that they act.

[Gerald Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. The history of our coalfields is littered with examples of the sacrifices that our communities and miners made, and it is important that this is recognised.

In more recent years, conditions improved and so did the terms of employment. The Government acting as guarantors for the scheme in 1994 was the right thing to do to make sure that the value of the pension fund did not decrease. That is why it is now essential for the Government to address the injustice and unfairness felt by miners over the pension scheme and the way it has been handled over the past 25 years. As we have heard, the Government have benefited from huge payments over the years. However, we must ask them to reconsider their position and whether it is still appropriate for them to benefit from such huge payments. Miners in areas like mine, and across the country, did so much to support the generation of power for the nation. Indeed, the coal and iron works in my constituency helped to power the country for many years, going way back to the industrial revolution. Those former miners therefore deserve fairness and a guarantee that that they are looked after.

Miners have had to fight injustice before, for compensation for pneumoconiosis and other diseases. Many former miners feel that the way in which the pension fund is currently administered is certainly not fair and equitable. Too often, they have been let down. My first involvement in politics was as a 14-year-old during the miners strike in 1984 when communities like mine were supporting the miners in the year-long fight for jobs against an uncaring Tory Government.

In April, I was pleased to co-sign a letter co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), who has done so much on this issue over a number of years, calling on the Government to review their position on the sharing arrangements with the fund. It seems grossly unfair that miners are receiving an average pension of £84 per week—in some cases, a lot less. If we contrast this with the £4.4 billion the Government have received, it is hard—in fact, nigh-on impossible—to justify. It is indeed, as others have mentioned, a disgrace. It is certainly not fair, as the Government have not had to contribute anything to the scheme. They must have made far more money than was ever forecast to be the case. It is therefore time for a review.

The balance of risk was very different in 1994, when British Coal ended. People are much more informed all these years later. At the very least, the Government should conduct a review to ensure that they treat miners and their families with fairness. That does not appear to be the case at the moment.

The surplus share arrangements of the pension scheme were altered in 1994 from 70-30 to 50-50. Independent legal or financial advice to offer a due diligence approach does not appear to be evident. Was it ever sought or obtained? These were and are huge sums of money belonging to the miners. At the very least, in the apparent absence of such advice, it would be fair and transparent for the Government to undertake a review, so that the evidence and opinions of those affected or involved in the scheme could be taken into account.

Finally, membership of the scheme has decreased over the years and now stands at 160,000. The Government’s financial risk is therefore in decline, yet the 50% ratio is still the same as 25 years ago. There is a sense of urgency. The former miners are not getting any younger, and I am sure we all agree that they should get the benefit from the scheme while they are alive. We need action now, and I hope we will get some answers from the Minister this evening.

Fireworks: Public Sales

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. It is good to see this issue being debated again following another public petition—I think this is the third time it has been debated in one form or another. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on the thoughtful way in which she led the debate. I had the privilege of leading the debate on fireworks in January, when I was a member of the Petitions Committee.

One thing that strikes me, as it did in January, is that no Member who has spoken thinks everything is okay and there should be no change. Although people think that slightly different things should be done, absolutely nobody has backed the status quo. I therefore say to the Minister that, wherever we go next, there must be some sort of Government review of this issue. There is great concern about it in our communities and, clearly, among Members from all political parties.

I was intrigued by the start of the speech by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). All of us who spoke in the debate in January declared an undying love for the informal fireworks gatherings of our childhoods, so it was interesting to hear his case. Indeed, we could not have been more 1970s had we come through the door of the Chamber on space hoppers. We heard all about the Catherine wheels, traffic lights, sparklers and rockets, and about the jacket potatoes and soup. Incidentally, we did not always have a guy on the top of our bonfire, although I have seen the burning of the guy.

Those were certainly seen as informal community events. One of the big differences then was that everyone knew when bonfire night was—it happened every year on 5 November. There may have been more such informal displays, but we certainly almost never heard about antisocial behaviour such as arson or attacks on emergency services personnel. That never seemed to happen. It is not surprising that public reaction to this now is different, because I think the nature of the beast at hand is different too.

Many hon. Members today have raised the issue of animal welfare. I am not personally a dog or cat owner, but if I were, I would live in terror, given what it must be like for them every time there is a noise or a bang, or when someone thinks it is funny to have an informal display in the middle of the night. That causes clear distress for animals. I am not surprised that even those who want the most lenient of regulations want a firm commitment on reducing decibel levels. It is not just domestic pets that are affected; in rural areas, it is also livestock. Ten years ago, nobody batted an eyelid if a Chinese lantern went wherever—because it was our inalienable right to send up Chinese lanterns, which seemed to have an inalienable right to burn parts of farms and the like—but then the debate on that changed. In much the same way, what we are seeing with fireworks is a great change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North mentioned North Wales police and antisocial behaviour, and there have been multiple incidents. Often we see fireworks being used not merely in an obstructive, noisy, unpleasant and badly behaved sort of way, but deliberately against firefighters, the police and ambulance staff, as well as members of the general public. It is simply not acceptable. It is sometimes linked to other forms of violence or arson attacks. Clearly, this is not what informal community displays were supposed to be like.

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are clearly issues around enforcement. Our police and firefighters are dealing with many issues that arise from restricted budgets, and the chances are that dealing with people who are being a nuisance with rockets, noise and a bit of fire somewhere is probably not going to come high up the list of priorities.

One of the interesting issues raised when we discussed this last was the international comparisons. Some Members gave interesting examples. I remember hearing about one state in the United States that had extremely liberal gun laws but had banned all fireworks, including the humble sparkler. There may have been a right to bear arms, but there was not a right to bear sparklers. That may be a fairly extreme example, but it is an interesting case. There are many countries with different views on liberties and all the rest of it, but they recognise fireworks for the danger that they can pose.

I urge the Minister to have a proper review of the issue; it really is time for one. Many Members have had letters and emails, and constituents have raised the issue with us. We have seen debates in local and national newspapers and we have seen the strength of feeling with petitions like this one. I cannot remember anyone saying, “It’s great as it is at the moment. We think it’s absolutely fine. We think the law, as it applies to sales, is absolutely fine.” We all know perfectly well that even though one can make a case that the law as it applies to sales is fairly reasonable, what is not reasonable is that there is no limit whatsoever on the days when fireworks can be used. I know that the Minister will say that there are limits on the times, but then we come back to the issue of enforcement.

I hope that the Minister will take on board all the issues that have been raised in the debate and everything that the petitioners have said, as well as the variation of views. Some people may not agree 100% with the petitioners, but practically everyone wants a change in the law. I really hope that the Government will act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her thanks for my suggestion that we should have a meeting. However, as I say, I have been in this role since July, and before I commit to anything, I need to be confident of what we would achieve and how we would achieve it. I am sad to say that I will not use today as an opportunity to confirm what the hon. Lady has asked for, but I have open ears and an open mind on what hon. Members might want to highlight.

[Susan Elan Jones]

If I were to attend the meeting with the Minister, I would say to her that for me, the most important item is restricting to certain dates the use of fireworks outside of organised displays. I think that every Member would have a different view on that, but the reason I am going to push the Minister a bit further about a public consultation is that the more views we have, the more informed the Government will be.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but as I have highlighted, I will not commit to a consultation until I have met hon. Members, spoken with my officials, and worked out with them what the best way forward is. I will be quite frank: I am not for moving on that today. However, as I have highlighted, I have open ears and an open mind, and it is obvious from today’s debate that there is a range of differing views.

To highlight two elements of the debate, I support hon. Members on the question of the problems they have raised, and to pay tribute to our emergency services. We have heard about how our emergency services have been targeted, with people using fireworks in a criminal way against those charged with protecting us. Like anyone listening to the debate and to the stories that hon. Members have recounted, I think it is disgusting that anyone working in the emergency services might be threatened with fireworks, even on a firework night. That is totally disgusting, and I share hon. Members’ concerns about that.

I will also highlight hon. Members’ concerns about animal welfare. We have heard personal stories about hon. Members’ pets and the disastrous things that have happened to horses, and I can recount stories from years ago. I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) did not have a story about a hamster, and it was nice to hear about her father and his desire to have fireworks in their yard. My father would not, because the Catherine wheels that were available in the 1970s, when I was small, were dangerous: half of them did not finish or go off. Product safety has moved on significantly in the past 30 years, and although we are still targeting people who use fireworks incorrectly, the products have improved vastly. We recognise people’s concerns about their pets and animals, but it is a difficult debate.

We have heard that we should move people to public displays, rather than their having fireworks in their garden. However, we have heard complaints about public displays as well as informal ones, so the question of what people want is complex. There are many differing opinions, and we will have to make judgments about how far we need to go and what the right balance is. Legislation and enforcement always involves a balance: ensuring both that people’s rights are protected and consumers are safe, and that people are able to enjoy the things that I am sure everyone loves about fireworks.

Budget Resolutions

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and to contribute to this Budget debate. I wish to focus my remarks on three main aspects: Brexit, the north Wales economy and the voluntary sector.

The Financial Times has already referred to the Budget as a general election Budget. I do not know whether that is true, but it is most certainly a Brexit Budget, and I am not thinking of the new 50p pieces. Quite frankly, if that were all the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had to do to keep their ideological, hard Brexiteers happy, most of us would not mind too much. We now see more than £4 billion—about £4.2 billion, I think—going towards Brexit preparations. This is from a Government who have categorically refused either to have a general election or to ask the British people in a referendum what we should do next vis-à-vis Brexit. One leading voluntary sector commentator offered a very sobering reflection when he wrote:

“The opportunity cost of spending that money is staggering. It’s equivalent to the total income of the UK’s 136,000 smallest charities for almost two years. Just think what they could do for communities with that.”

Indeed, let us just think about that.

On a more positive note, I welcome the fact that persistent local lobbying has led to the Chancellor announcing money for the north Wales growth deal. This, as I think they say in the wedding banns, is for the third time of asking: the deal has been mentioned twice, but this is the first time we have had any money for it. Members of Parliament from north Wales have worked across party and geography to fight for funding. I want to put on record my thanks for the part that local authority leaders and business people on the North Wales economic ambition board have played. I must, however, say of the funding that Belfast, which has a population of 333,000, has been pledged £350 million for its city deal, but north Wales, with a population of 687,000, has been pledged £120 million. I have nothing against the people of Belfast, but that does not seem to me to be very fair. We in north Wales will do everything we can to work with the Government and whoever else we need to work with to secure prosperity and wellbeing across our region. The North Wales economic ambition board has already stated, in the aftermath of the Budget, that our goal is to increase the value of the north Wales economy from £13.6 billion in 2016 to £26 billion by 2035, with a final deal in place later in 2019. It is an ambitious challenge, but one we are determined to meet.

I will now turn briefly to the voluntary sector. In advance of this year’s Budget, the all-party group on charities and volunteering, of which I am a co-chair, wrote to the Chancellor with some very helpful suggestions. I am pleased to see that our suggestion that the increase in the gift aid small donation scheme maximum from £20 to £30 has been taken up as a proposal. That is good, and it is a sensible measure. I think that all parliamentarians involved with the all-party group, as well as our several hundred affiliate members from the voluntary sector, will welcome the Chancellor’s words about reducing “administrative burdens on charities” by introducing a “package of measures” from April 2019. We await the details but welcome the principle. However, I am rather less enthused by the increasing tendency for Chancellors to pick specific charities and causes. When any charity gets funding in any Budget, I welcome it, but we know that, in all likelihood, such charities will not get this on a year-on-year basis. That approach can raise serious problems of financial stability for charities, and it goes against the Government’s own—largely, very thoughtful—civil society strategy.

If the Government are serious about the voluntary sector in the long term, we cannot have another Budget that does not seriously examine dormant assets. The voluntary sector has waited a long time to hear how the Government intend to further spend up to £2 billion in dormant assets. Voluntary sector leaders are absolutely right to call, as they did in a letter to the Chancellor, for that funding to be designated for the purposes of strategic long-term investment in civil society organisations. It is also time for the Government to add to that funding £500 million from the national fund, to be released for the purpose of investing in communities. There is no greater role, no higher calling, than for us to invest in our communities.

Sainsbury and Asda Merger

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

Let me say again that, as the Small business Minister, I am particularly attuned to that issue. I think that all of us, as consumers and as parliamentarians, want those small food producers—those artisanal businesses—to grow and thrive. Both Asda and Sainsbury’s have given assurances that they want to continue those important relationships. However, the Competition and Markets Authority, within its powers, will consider the impact on the supply chain.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that this is a good deal or a bad deal for British farming?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think the hon. Lady will understand that it is a deal that must be considered by the shareholders of both Asda and Sainsbury’s. It would be inappropriate for me as the Minister, given my role, to pass judgment on its validity or veracity.

Fireworks

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 201947 relating to fireworks.

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

I discovered that a past Member of the House of the Lords from my area was the first peer to smoke in the House of Lords. I assure you, Mr Walker, and other Members present that I have no plans to become the first Member of either House of Parliament to light a firework in the course of the debate, not even a sparkler.

The petition is a serious one. It wants to

“Change the laws governing the use of fireworks to include a ban on public use”,

and states:

“Fireworks cause alarm, distress and anxiety to many people and animals. We call on the Secretary of State to make appropriate provision to secure that the risk of public use is the MINIMUM that is compatible with fireworks being used, as stated in Fireworks Act 2003 sect 2.

Noted in debate of firework petition 109702 statistics are not recorded. We ask government to collect statistics. We ask the Sec. of State to issue a full regulatory impact assessment in accordance with section 2(4) Act; 2004, consider statistics gathered by FireworkABatement (FAB) as stated in Fireworks Act 2003 sect 3b., ‘as an organisation which appears to the Sec. of State to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal’, Shown by this petition and past petitions.”

As of today, 111,717, a very large number of people, have signed the petition. On behalf of the House of Commons Petitions Committee, I thank Julie Doorne, creator of the petition, and all its signatories. I also thank the 5,700-plus members of the public who left a range of thoughtful comments reflecting a diverse range of views on the Committee’s Facebook page.

I like fireworks. I mean, I really like fireworks, and I grew up with little, informal community firework displays on bonfire night. We had rockets, Roman candles, Catherine wheels, snowflakes and traffic lights, as well as those magical sparklers to scribble away with in the night air. There was the big bonfire in which the jacket potatoes were cooked, and there was hot soup, cakes and sweets, and of course a crowd of people.

I appreciate that all that is starting to sound like a cross between Laurie Lee’s “Cider with Rosie” and Dylan Thomas’s “A Child’s Christmas in Wales”, or a child’s bonfire night in this case. Idyllic—a happy community coming together across the age divide to enjoy a joyful time together, with pets firmly kept indoors enjoying tracks from the Bay City Rollers, or whatever else was listened to in the’70s that was enough of a noise to minimise the sound of the bangs outside. After all, it was only on one night of the year.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree with the view of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that private use should be restricted to certain key dates, such as 5 November, new year’s eve, Diwali and Chinese new year? Does that make sense to her, because of concern about the fear caused to animals?

[Susan Elan Jones]

There is a very strong case for that. At the very least, the Government should launch a public consultation on the issue.

In June 2016 a Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), stated that the fireworks industry is worth £180 million and directly employs 250 people, and that thousands of others in the supply chain would be affected by new legislation. So there we have it, a Conservative Minister making the economic case for the status quo, and a Back-Bench Labour MP waxing lyrical about bonfire nights in north Wales.

Should that not be the end of the debate, especially when we consider how important fireworks are in bringing people together and in their use across a whole range of multicultural festivals? Can we not just agree that spontaneous communal gatherings with fireworks are such a nice phenomenon and bring such local joy that the only problem is that we do not have more of them? Should we not just recognise that, with the first documented use of fireworks in this country being way back in 1486, it is simply something that we do at local spontaneous gatherings as well as large organised displays? The answer to that is no—the movers of the petition and others have a very valid case to make, and it is supported by a range of people across society.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I should declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the horse. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not only the when, to which the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) just referred, but the where? Given the proliferation she is talking about, the proximity of fireworks to horses has cost 15 horses being killed and 60 injured since 2010, and those are just the ones we know about, not to speak of the humans involved, such as when a horse crashes through a fence and into the windscreen of a car. The location of firework displays becomes very important, not only the extended period during which fireworks are let off.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree with the right hon. Lady. For those of us who represent rural or semi-rural seats, that is a particular issue.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I noted my hon. Friend’s words, including about spontaneous gatherings. Following on from talk of horses, for five years, my constituent Fiona Hohmann owned a horse, Solo, which died on the night of the fireworks. The vet informed her that the horse had twisted his gut in the panic caused by the noise and distress. Given the unnecessary distress and pain to all animals, we should limit the private use of fireworks and, as the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) said, not just the when but the where.

[Susan Elan Jones]

My hon. Friend from Wales makes a strong case.

I mentioned earlier the 5,700-plus comments reflecting different views on the Facebook page. I cannot talk about all of them but I will quote one: Facebook user Stephanie Daisy shared a moving video about her daughter, Maisie, who suffered serious injuries after a small home firework display went wrong on 5 November 2016. A stray flare became stuck in her scarf before exploding. She suffered full thickness burns to her head, neck and shoulders, and had five separate operations. In response to the post on Facebook, Stephanie said:

“My thoughts are, and always will be, that fireworks can be devastatingly dangerous even when used safely and as such should only be allowed at organised displays”.

Stephanie is not alone in her views. In fact, many others seem to share them, including veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

For such veterans, fireworks can be an unwelcome trigger for upsetting and frightening memories of conflict. The veterans’ charity, Shoulder to Soldier, runs a campaign to raise awareness of the negative effect that random fireworks can have on veterans who live with PTSD. That can be a particular problem nowadays as we do not only “Remember, remember the fifth of November”, but scores of other days throughout the year, with much random letting off of fireworks.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on a scenario that happened in my constituency? The home of Mr and Mrs Bagshaw was destroyed after a random firework entered the roof space and caused a fire which devastated their home. I asked if any consideration was being given by Ministers to lowering the explosive content of fireworks available to the general public, but the response was that there was no such plan. Will my hon. Friend comment on that aspect of this debate?

[Susan Elan Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and there are similar examples in other constituencies, although the one he refers to is especially serious.

People who wear hearing aids have concerns, too. According to The Independent, the petition organisers claim that random fireworks can be a nuisance to those who wear hearing aids. Individuals with those devices can turn the volume down or remove the hearing aid completely if they have prior notice of fireworks events. However, when fireworks are not expected, the noise they produce can cause significant pain and discomfort to hearing aid users.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very fine argument. I was approached by a constituent who went to an organised event and she and her husband were subjected to an attack by young people with fireworks. Although there is a £5,000 fine for selling fireworks to under-18s, it would be good to collate the numbers, to find out how many people have been fined for selling fireworks to underage people. Does she agree that people should be able to enjoy a community event without having to worry about being under attack when they leave?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The petitioners refer to the lack of proper statistics as an issue.

Unorganised, spontaneous firework displays are worrying for many children and adults with health concerns. Many of those who care for children know that the loud noises generated by random firework displays can distress children who live with autism, hearing difficulties and certain mental health conditions. Some families can—and do—find it difficult to explain to affected children why the displays occur so often and without warning, especially throughout the winter months and not just on bonfire night and new year’s eve, and during the spring and summer, when it seems that any event can be marked with a sudden loud volley of firework sounds. For some people, that can be very disconcerting.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is probably horrified, as I am, that there is a shop in my constituency that is open virtually every day of the year, which advertises Gloucestershire’s cheapest fireworks. I do not know the limitations on that shop’s selling fireworks, but at the moment it appears that anyone can go in and buy fireworks whenever they want to. Does she agree that that needs to be looked into?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I suspect that trading standards may like to pay them a visit, as that may not be entirely in keeping with current legislation, let alone any future plans that the debate may bring.

There are many concerns about domestic animals. The 2005 report by the RSPCA, “Firework fears and phobias in the domestic dog”, which was based on extensive research, informs us that almost half the owners questioned—49%—reported that their dog was frightened of loud noises. Forty five per cent. of owners reported that their dog showed fearful behaviour when it heard fireworks. It is widely accepted that cats and other domestic animals can be significantly affected by firework noises. The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) mentioned the issues concerning horses: reported incidents in 2017 rose by 243% compared with 2016, and 15 horses died and 60 were injured according to reported statistics—clearly not all incidents are reported to the British Horse Society.

Let us not forget farm animals. Farm animals and livestock can also suffer from distress injury. That can mean livestock bolting in distress, which may cause danger to humans and vehicles if the livestock are near a public highway. Fowl have been known to smother each other in their attempts to hide from the noise in their environment. Animals have been known to go into premature labour and lose their offspring. Similar distress to animals from jet engine noises has previously been noted, too.

In 2016, just before a parliamentary debate on fireworks, the National Farmers Union issued the following statement:

“Farmers care deeply about the welfare of their animals, and are rightly concerned about anything that could jeopardise their wellbeing. Fireworks, especially when used at unpredictable times of year, have the possibility to frighten livestock, which can lead to lower production and even stock loss. Poultry especially are at risk of a ‘smother’, where birds huddle together which can result in some birds dying. In addition fireworks can pose a fire risk if hot embers land on barns or in fields of standing crops. This is particularly an issue during the summer when crops are more likely to be dry.

While the NFU does not have a position on when it is appropriate for fireworks to be let off we would call on everyone using fireworks to consider the safety and wellbeing of their neighbours and neighbours’ animals.”

The statement continues:

“It is important to let farmers know beforehand that you are planning on letting off fireworks so they can take necessary precautions to protect their animals. Fireworks should always be used safely, and pointed away from buildings, standing crops, and fields with animals in them.”

I know that hon. Members representing rural or semi-rural constituencies will join me in agreeing with every word expressed by the NFU in that statement. Many of us will also have heard local horror stories about fireworks. Last autumn in my constituency, a kitchen was destroyed within minutes when a young child set off a firework. After the incident, which could have been much worse, the child’s mother said:

“We were lucky to escape from the property unharmed this morning and my advice to everyone would be never store fireworks in the house.”

Those words are well worth sharing in our debate today.

On a totally different note, there are also those who feel that, at a time when we are constantly reminded to be more vigilant about the ever-present threat of terrorism, loud explosions from fireworks at random times of the year can be unsettling for a lot of people. One example that comes to mind is from November 2017, when an altercation between two men in Oxford Circus tube station caused a mass panic that resulted in several injuries. There are examples every year that show that bonfire night seems to be an opportunity for a special and criminal night of arson and disorder, with its own very real dangers for emergency service personnel. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who is present, will mention that if she speaks in the debate.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that note, in Yorkshire, prior to bonfire night we have mischief night, when young people in particular misuse fireworks, throw them at other people—I have had a firework thrown at me—put them through people’s doors and attack firefighters in west Yorkshire. We need action, not just around bonfire night but mischief night.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I had not heard of that particular custom but it sounds as if that is the case.

Having said all that, many would argue that fireworks are pretty well regulated across the UK. There are separate, stricter regulations for Northern Ireland, but even for the rest of us, there are a good number of statutes that relate to firework use—I will not go into all of them.

The Fireworks (Amendment) Regulations 2004 are designed to tackle the antisocial use of fireworks. Since January 2005, the sale of fireworks to the public has been prohibited except by licensed traders. However, fireworks can be sold by unlicensed traders on Chinese new year and the preceding three days, on Diwali and the preceding three days, for bonfire night celebrations between 15 October and 10 November—I assume those buying them at the end are having a late bonfire night—and new year celebrations between 26 and 31 December. A licence costs £500 and is issued by a local authority, subject to strict criteria. The penalty for operating without a licence is an unlimited fine and/or up to six months in jail. Under the 2004 regulations, it is an offence to use fireworks after 11 pm and before 7 am without permission, except on bonfire night, when the cut-off is midnight—it certainly was not in the case of the child in north Wales I mentioned—and on new year’s eve, Chinese new year and Diwali, when the cut-off is 1 am.

Fireworks are categorised from F1 to F4. Category F1 fireworks are

“fireworks which present a very low hazard and negligible noise level and which are intended for use in confined areas, including fireworks which are intended for use inside domestic buildings.”

Category F4 fireworks are

“fireworks which present a high hazard, which are intended for use only by persons with specialist knowledge and whose noise level is not harmful to human health.”

In other words, they are professional fireworks for use in large open spaces.

Regulation 8 of the 2004 regulations prohibits the supply to the public of category F3 fireworks whose noise exceeds 120 dB. According to Age UK, damage to hearing can be caused by noise of 85 dB. The illegal use of fireworks can result in prosecution and a fine of up to £5,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to six months. A £90 on-the-spot fine may also be levied. The penalty for committing an offence of supplying a category F2 or F3 firework to any person under 18, or supplying a category F1 firework to any person under 16, is a fine of up to £5,000 and up to six months’ imprisonment.

In addition, under section 31 of the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015, an “economic operator” —a retailer—must not sell: a Christmas cracker to anyone under 12; F1 category fireworks to anyone under 16, or F2 and F3 category fireworks to anyone under 18. They also must not sell F4 category fireworks to members of the public, as those may be supplied only to a person with specialist knowledge.

Fireworks, including sparklers—those were my favourite—can be bought for private use only between 15 October and 10 November, between 26 and 31 December, and in the three days before Diwali and Chinese new year. Storage of fireworks of less than 2 tonnes requires a licence from the local authority; storage of more than 2 tonnes of fireworks requires a licence from the Health and Safety Executive. Both bodies may inspect storage facilities if they wish. The Explosives Regulations 2014 state that a licence is required to store fireworks except where their quantity is less than 5 kg. That strikes me as pretty extensive.

At the start of the debate, I spoke about my positive childhood experiences of local community bonfire nights, so it is both instinctive and subjective for me to say that I am cautious about a total ban. Others with less positive experiences will of course take a different view.

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend went through the extensive regulatory safeguards in detail, but they are only as good as their enforcement. We hear every bonfire night, and on other occasions, of examples such as the appalling incident in my constituency where two vile sadists strapped two rockets to a cat and set them on fire. We clearly need better enforcement. I wonder whether she will comment on the fact that cuts to local authorities, to police services and so on make it difficult to enforce the regulations, which should provide safety to the general public.

[Susan Elan Jones]

That is probably true, and I know what I would quite like to do to some perpetrators, but it is worth noting that some countries have far tougher rules for spontaneous local firework displays. Last November, a fascinating piece on the BBC website noted how, in the American state of Delaware, someone can get a shotgun without a licence but it is totally illegal for an individual to buy a firework. It struck me as interesting that the right to bear sparklers is governed by tougher laws than the right to bear arms. Some other states relent on sparklers—I am conscious that my emphasis on sparklers reflects a certain subjectivity—but ban all other fireworks. In all seriousness, that is an interesting comparison.

I give that example because I think we need more objective evidence—and not primarily from other countries. The petitioners refer to the need for proper statistics about firework-related incidents. A related newspaper article states that petitioners found it impossible to get the relevant information through freedom of information requests. I agree with the petitioners that to debate this issue properly and to consider the extent of the problem we need full and accurate data. We do not have that at the moment, and I believe that the Government should provide it.

It is also time that the Government launched a proper, comprehensive consultation on this issue. We cannot discuss all this by anecdote alone. We cannot seriously have a grown-up discussion about what the law should be when all we have to go on is the subjectivity of lawmakers who have happy childhood memories of small informal firework displays and those who, for equally personal reasons, do not. We need evidence, statistics and a proper debate, and we need the Government to launch a formal consultation on this issue.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

We have had a very good and thorough debate, and it is not every day that one gets a Minister making their debut here in Westminster Hall. We will make it especially memorable for him, because we will hold him to account on what he has said about that new body. More action needs to be taken; that is undoubtedly true and has been said by Members from right across the political spectrum.

We also need proper statistics. The talk about “evidence-based” stuff is fantastic, but that has got to mean proper, concrete statistics. There should be a public consultation; we need people’s views out in the open.

Finally, I put on record again my thanks to the creators of the petition, everyone who signed it and everyone in our constituencies, right across the country, who cares as passionately as we do about this very important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 201947 relating to fireworks.

Royal Mail Delivery Office Closures

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. I will come on to data that clearly prove that it is the overwhelming preference of customers to have parcels delivered to their home and not to any other location.

The much longer journeys will clearly be even more challenging for older people, disabled residents and those with very small children. As one of my constituents —a 77-year-old pensioner who cares full-time for her disabled adult daughter—has described in a letter to Moya Greene,

“this journey would be exhausting but since I do not drive and I am unable to afford a taxi, there would be no alternative to it.”

Royal Mail has argued that a need for modernisation is driving the changes, but when I visited the West Norwood delivery office during the very busy Christmas peak period it was clear that it is a modern, efficient working environment. The staff are dedicated and hard-working, and they provide an excellent service to their customers.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She speaks of distance. Does she agree that there will be a massive problem across rural Britain if this goes ahead? Royal Mail is supposed to be here to serve us, but on this it is not doing so.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention. The issue of distance applies in rural areas, but in urban areas congestion and journey time rather than distance are the impediment to accessibility. Her point is well made.

The issue is far from unique to my constituency. Between the privatisation of Royal Mail in October 2013 and May 2017, 142 delivery offices—10% of the network—have been closed, and more offices are at risk of closure. Royal Mail has sold more than £200 million-worth of property and it is expected to receive at least a further £500 million of receipts shortly. At the same time, it has paid out more than £800 million in dividends, with an annual dividend now running at more than £220 million. Its chief executive is paid an annual package worth £1.9 million.

Concerns were raised time and time again by Labour MPs during the passage of the Postal Services Act 2011 under the coalition Government that privatisation would place the motive of delivering profits for shareholders at the heart of the organisation and that that would drive down the quality of service for Royal Mail customers and compromise terms and conditions for staff. The Government argued that that would not happen, because the investment funds Royal Mail would be able to access as a consequence of privatisation would be significant, but that is exactly what has happened.

There is no doubt that the postal delivery market is extremely competitive and that Royal Mail is operating in a difficult context, but it is far from clear that Royal Mail’s approach makes good business sense. In addition to providing facilities for mail collection, delivery offices are the depots from which postal workers begin their rounds. Fewer delivery offices mean that postal workers will have further to travel from their base to their rounds, resulting in mail deliveries taking place later in the day.

Among Royal Mail’s customers there is demand for high-quality delivery services, in part fuelled by the continued growth in online shopping, which means that while the number of letters delivered has reduced, the number of parcels delivered is still growing every year. A recent Ofcom survey found that 70% of people still prefer their parcels to be delivered to their home, rather than to work or a click and collect facility. While many competitors offer increasingly short delivery time slots, Royal Mail services in many areas are becoming later, less predictable and therefore less convenient.

Royal Mail was privatised in a shambolic fashion. The coalition Government rushed through the privatisation, with the then Chancellor desperate for funds to prop up his failing austerity agenda. In their rush to sell, the Government grossly underestimated the value of Royal Mail, with its shares jumping 38% on the first day of trading and the taxpayer losing out to the tune of an estimated £1 billion, according to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. The Committee also set out how the Government failed to reap the benefits of the sale of Royal Mail assets included in the privatisation package. The Government ignored National Audit Office advice to remove those assets, notably the network of delivery offices, from the privatisation deal or to add clawback provisions on the future sale of properties. The Government valued three London sites at around £200 million, when the NAO thought they could be worth anywhere between £330 million and £830 million.

Royal Mail continues to sell sites across London at eye-watering prices, to no taxpayer benefit and with no reinvestment in its services to customers. I should be clear, however, that Royal Mail is mistaken if it believes that its site in West Norwood is a potentially lucrative housing site. The site is situated in Lambeth Council’s key industrial and business area, or KIBA, which provides strong protection to employment land uses. There is no possibility that Royal Mail will be able to sell that site for housing.

The Government also failed to define the universal service obligation beyond mail delivery, to secure an appropriate geographical distribution of delivery offices and the time and frequency of deliveries for the future. As a consequence, the social contract at the heart of Royal Mail’s relationship with the communities it serves has been broken. The organisation is orientated only toward profits, while at the same time alienating its workforce with a damaging attack on staff pensions and other terms and conditions. It is not acceptable that pensioners and disabled people in my constituency should have to travel an hour each way to collect their mail while £800 million is distributed to shareholders and the chief executive of Royal Mail is paid almost £2 million a year.

I call on the Government to recognise the scale of the problem, the aggressive approach that Royal Mail is taking to the disposal of its land assets and the total disregard that the organisation is showing for the customers and communities it was created to serve. If no action is taken, our postal delivery service will continue to be decimated and vulnerable residents, disabled people, parents with small children and small business owners will lose out the most. Privatisation is not working for Royal Mail’s customers or for postal workers, and it is time for the Government to take action. A Labour Government would take Royal Mail back into public sector ownership and replace profit with public service at the heart of the organisation.

Will the Minister commit to take action to safeguard delivery offices and the services that communities across the country rely on, and intervene to regulate Royal Mail? Will the Minister also support my urgent call on Royal Mail to scrap its closure plans in West Norwood and East Dulwich, and ensure that its vital services remain accessible to my constituents in SE27 and SE22, and across the country?