Fireworks

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsten Oswald

Monday 6th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I was not expecting to be called to speak so soon, but it is a pleasure to contribute. Back home, some of my constituents have been on to me about the issue and I did an interview with Radio Ulster when the petition came about, so I have some knowledge of the subject. I wish to contribute from a Northern Ireland perspective, as always, and I hope to add some helpful points to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) on the way in which he presented the case, as well as the 104,000 people who took the time to sign the e-petition, bringing forward something that they feel is constructive. I want to say, at the outset, that I will put forward a balanced point of view.

My boys are all grown up now—they are young men—but when they were young we had lots of cats, dogs and animals, as we live on a farm. The one thing that we could always enjoy together was the fireworks, and there were usually plenty going off in the middle of countryside. We had very few neighbours so, as well as having spectacular lights in the sky, the noise did not really affect many other houses round about, as they were spaced far apart.

When it came to my dogs and cats, I made sure that they were in the house and away from the fireworks. For the other animals and the stock, I made sure that the barns were noise-proofed as much as possible. The dogs that we had at that time were quite nervous and, although they were shooting dogs, the noise of the fireworks upset them. It is important for us all to be accountable and respectful, and there should be a balance. That balance should be between the enjoyment of fireworks by children and others, and ensuring that there are controls in place for those who do not have the respect that any of us in this room have. Every one of us here, including those in the audience, has respect for others.

We have all experienced fireworks and we take great pleasure in them. When used properly and safely, fireworks have been part of the greatest spectacles and moments not only in our personal lives, but in marking world events and truly historic moments. The hon. Member for Northampton South mentioned Guy Fawkes night. In Northern Ireland we have had our own fireworks of different degrees. When we were small and much younger, perhaps the things that we did with fireworks were not acceptable. We probably all went through that process of learning, but we always made sure that there was a level of enjoyment as well.

We now live in a world where, almost seamlessly, the use of fireworks has expanded to become a commonplace occurrence. They are used at all times of the day and of the year. That said, when fireworks go wrong, they can be devastating, and we all know of examples of that. In extreme circumstances, there can be significant casualties and injuries, and of course—this is why we are here today—animals are too often the innocent victims of fireworks.

We do not seek to be the fun police or to extend Big Brother into people’s lives further, but the facts make it clear that there needs to be a change in how we regulate fireworks so that everyone can continue not only to enjoy them, but to enjoy them safely. When we think of the potential risk, we automatically think about the potential for maiming and physical injury. It is far too easy to forget that, for animals especially, fireworks can have a psychological and mental impact. We have to do something about that and we have to get it right.

I was a councillor for 26 years before I came here, and I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for 12 years, concurrently at the end. I remember the old restrictions on fireworks in Northern Ireland, and then the new legislation came in. The legislation came in directly but we had at least a consultative role and an input into it, although perhaps no direction on how it was finally agreed. However, the changes we brought in in Northern Ireland were for the best.

There are already restrictions in place across the UK regarding the domestic use of fireworks. In Northern Ireland, that process has constantly changed, adapted and moved forward with the times, and it continues to be manageable. We are looking at how we can improve the process again by preserving the enjoyment while ensuring that animals are not hurt in any way. Restrictions are in place to ensure that illegal fireworks are well and truly on the way out, and it takes a lot of legislative clout to make that happen.

In Northern Ireland, we have had years to look at such matters—for instance, the Explosives Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. Maybe that has helped us a wee bit better to come up with legislation that makes the right important changes. It is important to educate people from the outset. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I know he will respond to that point clearly. Educational programmes in schools are important. Starting at that very early stage is about teaching children to have fun, but to do so in a controlled, legislative and regulated way.

In Northern Ireland, the number of incidents involving fireworks have consistently fallen. We have done something that might enable us all to move forward. Although the importance of taking animals into account has been impressed upon us, it is clear that more needs to be done, especially through education and awareness about the impact of fireworks on animals.

The issue is most common in the private home, which makes it difficult, and potentially invasive, to monitor. We know that there is an issue and that, more often than not, harm to animals is completely unintentional, but some unintended consequences have repercussions. In the past, people would have considered sedating the animal—we have heard of people doing that—to reduce the stress caused by the sudden explosive bangs of fireworks, but such actions were few and far between. When people are educated about alternative ways of calming their pets, they can and will use them. Currently, there is not enough information out there, and the information that is out there is not easily accessible or widely available. It is about re-educating people on how they use fireworks, but it is also about re-educating people on how they look after their animals as best they can.

[Kirsten Oswald]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many and varied ways in which people can help their pets to deal with the situation, which can cause pets such distress, but that if people are not aware that fireworks will be let off in their area, it is wholly impossible for them to do so?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is right, and I agree with her wholeheartedly. We need the regulation that we have in Northern Ireland, where fireworks are controlled. If something will be taking place, the police and the council have to be notified, and councils have the authority to respond. On re-education, she is right that people have to know that fireworks will be let off, which is an issue.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsten Oswald

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her speech today on the conclusion of our consideration of the Bill. I thank her for the leadership she has provided and thank all those who have supported the Bill. We very much appreciate the House’s commitment and dedication to our soldiers, sailors and airmen.

I will make one quick point and do not intend to delay the House. It is gratifying to see that the centrality of the role of the commanding officer is still recognised in the Bill. That they are being offered assistance and legal clarification through the Lords amendments should be welcomed by everyone in this House. However, we must never lose sight of the fact the relationship between soldiers, sailors and airmen and their commanding officers must remain sacrosanct and must not be eroded by litigious shifts towards independent judicial oversight. I appreciate that the Minister has included that in her amendments.

We must continue to trust the men and women who are in command of their units in peacetime and on operations. That lies at the heart of the bond between them and the service personnel under their command, whether aboard their ships, in their regiments or on their air stations. We tinker with that at our peril. I thank the Minister for her commitment.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I join the Minister in congratulating those who are participating in the Invictus games.

The SNP has a strong focus on supporting the work of the service personnel who make up our armed forces. We have made constructive and positive progress in Committee and in the Chamber. It is important that we use every available opportunity to examine and assess both the structures and the outcomes for members of our armed services.

We were pleased about the Government’s concession in the other place last month, when they agreed to a review to consider removing the discretion of the commanding officer to investigate allegations of sexual assault. The accuser and the accused would both benefit from any added transparency in such challenging situations.

The SNP supports Lords amendment 1. There was significant discussion in Committee about the most appropriate way to modernise the mechanics that lie behind the matters that are dealt with in clause 10, namely the review of a sentence following an offer of assistance. A person who has been sentenced by court martial may have their sentence reviewed to take account of assistance they have given or offered. The reviewing court may reduce the sentence in return for the offer of assistance. Additionally, subsection (8) allows a person whose sentence is reviewed to appeal against a court martial decision. The director of service prosecutions may also appeal against the decision. It is appropriate that fairness, transparency and good practice are central to service discipline proposals. Clause 10 appears to be a positive move in that regard.

In addition, we support Lords amendment 2, which relates to the provision that allows a sentence to be reviewed to take account of the failure by a person who has been sentenced to give the assistance that they had offered to an investigator or prosecutor in return for a discounted sentence. Again, clause 11 reflects the importance of additional transparency and clarity for service personnel, which we welcome.

We have a duty of care to our service personnel under the armed forces covenant, so it is vital that all measures relating to service justice are dealt with in terms of continual improvement, fairness and transparency. In relation to transparency and positive progress, it is worth noting that the SNP supports the Government’s promise that statistics on sexual assault and rape will be published before the summer recess. That is a topic to which I have returned several times in Committee and in the Chamber. It is vital that the statistics are published regularly in a consistent format and that the reporting includes all appropriate metrics, so that there is an opportunity to scrutinise the information properly and assess progress. If we do not have the regular opportunity to examine these statistics fully and consistently, many of the fine words spoken in this place are in the end simply words. I am encouraged that the publication of these statistics suggests that we appear to be making a positive step in the right direction towards greater transparency in service justice.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendment 2 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Sittings of the house (today)

Ordered,

That, at today’s sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

National Defence Medal

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsten Oswald

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald]

The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. There are many people in a similar position. They feel that they are being missed out, and that people do not understand or recognise what they have done.

The difference between my position and that of the MOD is that I believe we must take account of changes in context. As John Maynard Keynes said:

“If the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue to Westminster Hall for consideration. She will be aware that there are many ex-service personnel who did not receive an operational medal during their service with the armed forces. Some of them were not on the front line: submariners on nuclear deterrent duty, for instance, or those in the Royal Observer Corps. May I make a plug for those in the Ulster Defence Regiment who served in Northern Ireland? Some of them also do not meet the criteria. There are a number of people I feel should be considered. Does she feel that the Minister should refer to them in his review?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I agree. I have been contacted by people who have served in many and various ways but are not entitled to a medal. It is an issue of concern, and I hope that we will hear more about it from the Minister. It does not matter how many independent reviews, staffed largely by people embedded in the status quo, take place; the changing facts provide the challenge facing the Government. The facts have changed. It is time that British medal policy changed to reflect them, and that it followed the example set by Commonwealth and other countries.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsten Oswald

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister referred to the legal protections that are provided. Is insurance protection provided as well? I am conscious that with firefighters’ extra responsibilities come the possibility of someone being hurt as a result. I would like to check that point.

[Kirsten Oswald]

We appreciate the work of MOD and other firefighters. It is important that we have in mind some of the concerns that the Fire Brigades Union has raised about the potential unintended consequences of the Bill. It has concerns about the impact of deploying MOD firefighters at fires and other incidents normally dealt with by local authority firefighters. However, there is clearly a need to deal with the issue that is at hand today and to streamline things. That is dealt with by the clause. We agree that it is important that we take the action suggested to close this loophole, as the clause does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I wish to ask a question about new clause 7. I agree with the shadow Minister, who has very carefully and cautiously outlined the issues. In the past, there have been examples of women who have been abused and raped, which has led to suicide, trauma or depression. These are very important matters. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of an investigation within the existing process, an investigating officer has the power to call any soldiers whatever, male or female, who may have been present when something took place, and that none of them can say, “No, we won’t do that”? I want to make sure that there is a full investigation, and that the person assaulted is given the necessary protection.

[Kirsten Oswald]

It is vital that all matters relating to allegations of or concerns about serious and complex crimes, including sexual assault, rape and murder, are handled with the utmost seriousness, so it is important that such cases are dealt with by the appropriate authorities and with the benefit of the best legal advice. Commanding officers in our armed forces are men and women of skill, professionalism, grit and integrity, but it may simply not be fair to expect them to possess the same level of specialist investigatory skills as those with a professional background in such skills. We would not expect that of any other group. If the victims and alleged perpetrators are dealt with by specialist authorities, everyone will be aware that such matters are handled, as we would all hope, with the appropriate structure, uniformity of approach, transparency and professional best practice.

The maintenance and publication of statistics on sexual assault and rape are key. It is simply not possible or desirable to make assumptions about the level or severity of allegations, prosecutions or convictions. We can only know such details via robust, consistently formatted and regularly produced statistics that are put in the public domain. We would wish to see improvements in the 2017 survey relating to sexual harassment, compared with 2014.

Releasing such statistics is part of our duty of care towards service personnel. It was interesting and heartening to hear in the Select Committee that some of that happens anyway, but it is not approached in a uniform or consistent manner across all services. Without a uniform approach that has the same definitions, frameworks and publication dates, we cannot reasonably keep this matter under review, which we absolutely should do to ensure that we continue to work towards transparency, clarity and improvement for the benefit of all service personnel.