| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Fireworks
7. Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough): What action her Department is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour and nuisance caused by fireworks. [136680]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): My Department has had discussions with a range of stakeholders, including the fireworks industry, the police and environmental health officers to formulate proposals for regulations under the Fireworks Act 2003 on antisocial behaviour and nuisance matters. Areas covered include the prohibition of air bombs and a curfew.
Mr. Reed : I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that ensuring that we enforce those regulations will be crucial to deciding the future of the firework industry? Constituents continually complain about the noise of fireworks. If we cannot get the issue right in the next 24 months, our constituents will come back time and again to ask for further regulations or even an outright ban on fireworks. Many of us who enjoy peaceful fireworks would not want that to happen. We are not killjoys, but we recognise the real concerns felt by our constituents.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. The firework industry has been very responsible in the work that it undertook alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). A balance
has to be struck between the industry, operating responsibly, and the safety of consumers. The regulations will work and will provide the balance that we need so that people can enjoy the firework season. The regulations will ensure that antisocial behaviour is not accepted.
Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North): I welcome what the Secretary of State and the Minister have done so far, but will they go further? We must face the fact that all fireworks are dangerous. In the wrong hands, some are dangerous weapons. Is it time to introduce a licensing system, so that only responsible organisations would have a licence to use fireworks because they would do so properly?
Mr. Sutcliffe: The licensing regime is important and that is why it is included in the regulations to be made under the Fireworks Act 2003. However, people must make sound judgments. Fireworks are explosives and are dangerous. We need a balance between what people enjoy—safe firework displays around bonfires or for Diwali—and ensuring that people know how to use fireworks. That is why the regulations will say that people must be trained in the safe use of particular fireworks. It is a question of balance and the regulations are appropriate. I hope that they will work and that my hon. Friend will welcome them.
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central): Is my hon. Friend aware that in some situations antisocial behaviour with fireworks borders on acts of terrorism? In an incident in my constituency, a powerful firework, packed with nuts and bolts and other shrapnel, was detonated in a telephone box, parts of which blew into a housing estate. Such fireworks need to be banned before serious injury is caused by those people, not necessarily under-18s, who use them to cause criminal damage.
Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend really does point to a serious issue and the dilemma that we face. If we ban fireworks completely, we will be faced with illegal and home-made fireworks. They could cause all sorts of damage to the individual using them and to others in the community. It is a question of balance, but we hope that the antisocial behaviour orders will stop youngsters under 18—who are the main culprits—misusing fireworks.
Post Office Network
8. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): How many urban post offices have been (a) proposed and (b) approved for closure since the inception of the network reinvention scheme. [136683]
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am understand from Post Office Ltd. that to the end of September, it had entered into public consultation on 886 closure proposals and that 540 branches had closed under the programme.
Mr. Turner : I thank the Minister for his reply and the attention that he has paid to the concerns of my constituents about post office closures in recent days. He told the House yesterday that
- "there is a properly managed process for the Post Office to configure its network to meet the needs of the communities that it serves".—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 909.]
Mr. Timms: It is vital that such a strategic view is taken. Indeed, that is one of the benefits of the new arrangements being put in place, about which the hon. Gentleman knows well. The Post Office will consult on the ultimate configuration of the post office network in a constituency or group of constituencies, instead of consulting on individual closures.
We want to ensure that we have a configuration for the network that is viable and sustainable. Everyone knows that a lot of the traditional business of post offices has been declining. For example, 43 per cent. of benefits recipients now have their money paid into a bank account, compared with 26 per cent. in 1996, before direct payments started. Investment by the Government means that there is now an attractive future based on banking but, to prosper, the urban network needs an appropriate configuration and size, given current demands. It is important to take that strategic view.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Is the Minister aware of the sheer inadequacy of the Post Office's consultation process? When people make representations, they are likely to receive a letter 80 per cent. of which is devoted to the argument about why massive changes must take place, which pre-empts the decision to be made. That happened in Coal Aston in my constituency, where the branch is to close on 6 December. I hope that the matter will be looked at closely before that date, with a view to reconsideration. The considerable number of representations that were made had various unique characteristics, and they must be taken seriously. In that way, I hope that we can still stop the closure.
Mr. Timms: It is important that such representations are taken seriously. That is why we have given Postwatch the funding and resources to do an effective job on behalf of the Post Office's customers. Of just over 1,100 proposals submitted to Postwatch by the end of October, 43 were withdrawn and 60 were modified before public consultation. Of those that went to consultation, 48 were modified and 13 were withdrawn for further consideration. That shows that there is effective protection of the interests of Post Office customers. The role of Postwatch is key in that.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): Will the Minister confirm that Labour's policy of ending the cash payment of pensions and social security benefits at post offices is cutting the income of many sub-post offices by
as much as 40 per cent? Will he also confirm that Labour approves of the policy of paying bonuses to the management of Post Office Network for accelerating the programme of post office closures? Will he further confirm that, once Labour has decimated the urban network, it will set about carving up the rural network as well?
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on all those scores. May I wish him well in the reshuffle that we understand is planned for the Conservative Front Bench this afternoon, and express the hope that he will not be sacked by text message? For far too long, the Post Office has been locked in a declining market. Even now—and persistently under the previous Conservative Government—that market has been based on ration-book technology. Our investment of £500 million has given the network the technology to tackle the much larger, and growing, market for banking services. Those developments open up the prospect of a commercially successful future for the post office network, based on today's needs instead of yesterday's.
Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion): Will the Minister acknowledge that residents in my Brighton and Hove constituency—[Hon. Members: "Brighton and Hove?"]—in the Brighton, Pavilion constituency that I represent are now two weeks into a consultation period on six post office closures? Other offices across the city are also to be closed, but none of the evidence underlying the Post Office's closure proposals has yet been published. That severely undermines people's ability to respond meaningfully to a consultation exercise. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Post Office to publish in full the evidence that underlies all its proposed closures, in my constituency and elsewhere?
Mr. Timms: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the new procedure that he has described, which allows him to see what the ultimate configuration of post offices in his constituency will be, is better than dealing with proposed closures one by one, as used to be the case. I urge my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members concerned about proposals in their areas, to draw their concerns to the attention of Postwatch, a major part of whose work consists of protecting customer interests, in all constituencies. If my hon. Friend does that, I think he will find a ready ear for the concerns he has expressed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |