Summer Jobs

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I want to be absolutely clear. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect in the nation and that we are in a version of nirvana; I am not saying that at all. I have friends and relatives who work in the hospitality industry, and I know that these last few years—not just the last two, but the last 15—have been really tough for hospitality. I think we lost something like 6,800 pubs from 2010 to 2024, and we have been losing more since then.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am still trying to answer the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me.

We have faced significant headwinds this year. We are keen to pursue the work that Alan Milburn has done, and, if I am allowed, I will come to some of the ways in which we are trying to address the specific problem we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I recognise that the Minister wants to come to what the Government are going to do, but does he not accept that the decisions already made in the last two years—with respect to the price of employment and the national living wage, the cost of employment with regard to legislation, and business rates—have depressed the appetite of many small businesses to employ more people? Regardless of the strategic changes around the Milburn review, which I accept need to be evidence based, those decisions have had a chilling effect on the capacity of the economy to employ young people.

[Chris Bryant]

Let me say two things. On the national living wage, it must surely be wrong that somebody who works 40 hours a week cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the week. If they have been a diligent worker, played by the rules and done everything properly, but they still cannot afford to put food on the table for themselves and their children, pay the electricity bill and all the rest of it, that must surely be wrong. That is why we introduced the whole idea of a minimum wage in the first place, and then the national living wage.

This issue applies only to young people older than school age—those aged 18 and above. I know that there are some people who have an impression that all those young people are living at home and do not need to earn in the same way as others, but that is simply not true for lots of 19, 20 and 21-year-olds in my constituency. They are earning their living, and they need to pay the bills, just like anybody else. There is a difficult balance to be struck there.

Similarly, I would argue, there is a balancing act around national insurance contributions. As the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) will know, we have tried to ensure that the sectors of the economy that are smaller and have less ability to absorb the additional costs do not have to meet them. I think something like 50% of businesses do not have to pay any more at all—I will correct the record if I have got that number wrong. In the end, I do not hear people frequently calling for us to slash expenditure on defence, education, the health service and so on. I sometimes want to say to hon. Members that it is all very well to denounce the national insurance contributions increase, but they would have to find the money from other budgets. It is all very well to say, “Let’s cut it from welfare,” but a lot of welfare projects are designed to make sure that people have an opportunity to put food on the table and pay the bills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

As I am an accountant, it will come as no surprise to Members from across the House that I take a keen interest in numbers. Unfortunately for this Government, the numbers do not make for pleasant reading.

Labour Members have been busy crowning their messiah from the north—a coronation conducted with little scrutiny and even less debate—but I wonder whether they are aware that youth unemployment now stands at 16.2%, which is close to its highest level since 2015, and already above the pandemic peak. I wonder whether they know that 735,000 young people are out of work—up by 109,000 on the year. I wonder too whether they know that, for the first time since 2013, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has passed 1 million. Whatever is happening in the labour market is landing hardest, and first, on our young people. It is the plain, measurable consequence of decisions taken by this Government, including the introduction of higher national insurance contributions.

As we have heard today, the Employment Rights Act has added costs and burdens to employers large and small. I ask Labour Members to think like an employer for a moment—not a large firm with a human resources department, but the owner of a farm, a hotel or a shop on the high street, who has to decide whether to take someone on for the first time, perhaps over the summer. Under the Act, that decision now carries real legal risk within six months, rather than two years, so the rational choice is perhaps not to take the risk at all. The farm does not hire an extra hand for the harvest, the guesthouse does not take on extra staff for the holiday season, and the high-street shop does not offer the Saturday job that may lead to a summer job and permanent employment. Let us be honest about the cost: by the Government’s top-end estimate, the Act lands over £1 billion on employers. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy and a key gateway into work for young people, yet the uncertainty has left too many high-street businesses reluctant to invest, expand or hire.

These are not merely statistics to be traded across the House. Behind every percentage point and every headline figure is a young person searching for a first job, eager to build skills, gain experience and achieve independence. Too many are growing up believing that hard work is no longer rewarded, and that aspiration is no longer valued.

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In responding to me, the Minister pointed out that it was necessary to increase the national living wage so that everyone had enough money, which is obviously a reasonable point to make. Does my hon. Friend feel that the pace at which that was done—it increased faster than the rate of inflation—has caused a situation in which some young people will no longer have the jobs that they could have otherwise expected?

[Mr Bedford]

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I think the pace at which this was brought in has had a massive impact on businesses, particularly smaller businesses, and their ability to adapt to a changing labour market.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for his continued engagement—I know how important the issue of market access for our breweries is to him. I was delighted to meet him and colleagues across this House recently, and I look forward to continuing to engage and work with them as the Government consider the evidence ahead of any announcements.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of trends in employment levels in the hospitality sector.

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

The hospitality sector remains a major UK employer. It supported around 2.1 million jobs last year, or around 6% of total employment. Employment has grown by over 18% in the past decade, and although growth has stabilised more recently, that follows a period of strong expansion, reflecting the sector’s continued importance to local economies and youth employment. I know myself how vital the sector is for first jobs—my first job was in a café, and that opportunity gave me the skills to go on and succeed in my career. We are supporting jobs through skills investment, including new hospitality apprenticeships, incentives for SMEs to recruit young people, and sector-based work academy programmes to help people into work.

[John Glen]

I thank the Minister for her answer and the positive news about the sector apprenticeships. Hospitality is critical in Salisbury as we move towards our 800-year celebration next year, but last summer there was a 25% drop in temporary work in the sector, and the cost of employer national insurance contributions for part-time workers in the sector—those working 15 hours—increased by 73%. I say respectfully to the Minister that I recognise that tough decisions have to be made in the Treasury; I was there for seven years, and was part of those decisions. However, this sector is under real strain, and part-time jobs for the youngest workers are not there at the moment. Something quite significant needs to change in the Government’s approach.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising the vital role that the hospitality sector plays in providing those first jobs and opportunities for people. I work closely with hospitality businesses, and I am really keen to continue to listen to them, to understand the challenges they face. I know that the right hon. Member will welcome our youth jobs grant, which was launched this week and is open for applications—that was welcomed by the chief executive of UKHospitality. We want to keep working with those businesses, and I thank them for their engagement so far on how we can continue to support them to crack on with the brilliant opportunities they provide in communities across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. With the issues around Morrisons Daily and TGJones, a lot of people across the country are worried about the future of their local post offices. Under the decision we made to maintain the current size of the post office network, I have been talking to the Post Office, and it is clear that where there is a risk of disruption that does not mean the service will disappear. Around the country, where there is the potential for a closure, it is advertising for alternative sub-postmasters to take over the businesses.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the appointment of Parminder Kohli as the chief executive officer of the Office for Investment. He is a personal friend of mine, and he will bring 30 years of experience in the oil industry. Will the Secretary of State set out what measures of success Parminder will face, so we can judge what impact the Office for Investment makes and what role he will play?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his informed question. I, too, celebrate this important appointment and the Office for Investment is doing great work. The criteria for success that I see are how Britain can get more scale-up investment into companies, so they do not have to go elsewhere around the world to find the capital they need to grow, and how more people can start, build and scale right here in the UK. I often ask myself why the continent of Europe does not have a single trillion-dollar company. The Office for Investment, working with the Government, can start to answer that question.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point out that, in my Department, the overall net regulatory burden is reducing, not expanding. I will not stand in front of the Tories and apologise for giving new rights to workers that are fit for the age we are living in. Over their entire 14 years in office the Tories failed to make sure that people have protections and rights at work that are fit for the age we are living in. We can move forward with growth in the economy that takes forward businesses and the people who work in them. That is to be celebrated, not condemned like the Tories are doing.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is, quite reasonably, setting out his assertions about where he wants the Government to go, but does he not see the irony? After all the events of last week, the cost of borrowing in the UK is higher than that of many of our competitors, and all business leaders say they feel the instability. The right hon. Gentleman’s words will not ring very true for people who seriously wonder about the Government’s future direction, with putative leadership contenders talking about fundamental changes in direction and different fiscal rules.

[Peter Kyle]

The right hon. Member mentions irony; this is from the party that gave us the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which wreaked havoc on our economy. Mortgage rates went up for every mortgage holder across the country, with inflation peaking at 12%, yet the Conservatives talk about instability. The country still lives with the instability that they wreaked on it.

Our major expansion of DRIVE35 is channelling investment into batteries, electric motors and power electronics—part of the biggest Government investment in the British car industry since the second world war. “Invest”, “modernise” and “protect” are the watchwords for the new industrialisation of Britain through our biggest industries, our biggest sectors and our boldest companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her elevation to her new position. The subject that I want to focus on—the enhancing financial services Bill—makes me reflect on the fact that I was in office as Economic Secretary for 1,640 days and, since then, we have had seven Economic Secretaries. I fully concede that several were from my party, but it is regrettable that there is not a degree of continuity in that role, because one of the most fundamental challenges facing the financial services sector, which is so important to securing enduring growth, is having Ministers who are able to maintain a relationship with the regulators and work through what, contrary to the way our politics is conducted these days, are quite complicated and delicate changes to regulation, capital requirements, and the way in which the consumer interacts with banks and financial services. I think it is deeply regrettable that that has come to pass.

However, I welcome some of the legislative measures put before us in the King’s Speech, such as the changes to the senior managers regime, removing the degree of certification necessary; the streamlining, essentially, of the functions of the Payment Systems Regulator into the Financial Conduct Authority; the re-anchoring of the Financial Ombudsman Service into the FCA, removing a degree of arbitrage existing in the marketplace; and adjustments to the ringfencing regime. Those are good things, and I am sure that we on the Treasury Committee and across this House will examine the detail of them.

I want to make three other points, if I may, about some of the challenges we face in the economy and financial services. First, we have to own the trade-offs that exist between financial stability and lending capacity. Post 2008, we made a number of decisions as a country to secure stability on an enduring basis, and we have now become too reluctant to recognise that the world is a completely different place. The question this House needs to answer in 2026 is whether the same calibration remains appropriate, and whether the proposals in the enhancing financial services Bill—for example, on ringfencing—go far enough. Are we used to holding on to a framework that protects and apparently gives stability, but which is in fact stopping significant tranches of capital being available to grow businesses and grow the economy?

The second area with which I am very preoccupied is the consumer duty. In the other place, the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee published a report last year, called “Growing pains”, which explicitly identified the consumer duty’s lack of clarity as a source of

“regulatory penalty on investment in UK businesses”.

We must ask whether the time has come when responsibility for where to invest and how to invest should lie more with the individual consumer. We are advancing this notion that somehow we in this place can define all the checks and balances, which we delegate to the regulator, and the moment something goes wrong, we expect that regulator to step in and to offer compensation. The emphasis should now be on reforming the Consumer Credit Act 1974—I think the Government are announcing that today—but that has been taking too long. It was first mooted when I was a Minister several years ago, and we have to be real about the reset that needs to happen as we redefine the level of responsibility that individuals take when investing.

Thirdly, I welcome the regulating for growth Bill’s sandbox measures. They are welcome as a concept in bringing in innovative businesses, in which this country continues to be very strong in financial services. However, we must be real about the fact that the area is dominated by large firms, and the new Economic Secretary will need to work with the regulators to see how we can bring firms in at an earlier stage, so that smaller firms, which may have achieved only a few million in seed round investment, can access the acceleration through that considerable regulatory burden.

Let me finish by making a few other observations about the state of the economy. All Governments intend to do the right thing. The narrative of this Government in their first year was, “We need to reset and bring stability, and from that growth can come.” But when I speak to businesses in my constituency and beyond, I hear that the burdens of the increases in national insurance and the national living wage, the uncertainty around fiscal events, and what happened with regulation have had a material impact. It is not enough to suggest that somehow small retail and hospitality businesses are not where future growth in the economy as a whole is going to come from. That says something about the level of confidence the man on the high street feels about where the Government and the economy are going.

I fear, from widespread reports—notwithstanding today’s welcome news from the IMF, if it proves to be true—that the overall consensus is that the burden of taxation on business and wealth creators has reached a level where people will not invest in this country. Unless the Government grasp that fundamental truth, we will be in a spiral. Every few months there might be a little bit of hope with the adjustment of a prediction, but the fundamental trajectory of confidence in the British economy is just not there. That is reflected in the cost of borrowing which, whether we like it or not, is the markets’ fundamental measure of confidence in the economy’s future, at a time of high borrowing.

I always try to take a constructive view, as I have today. I pointed to the significant positive things in the enhancing financial services Bill, and I welcome other elements in the regulatory growth legislation. But let us have some fundamental honesty about where we are now, notwithstanding all the mistakes that the Governments I was part of may have made. We are where we are now, and we have to be real about the challenges we face to secure enduring confidence and growth in this country.

Seasonal Work

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

Again, I will talk about the transitional relief that we have brought in. Under the plans for valuation that we inherited, pubs were looking at rates increasing by about 45%; because of the relief we have introduced, they will face about a tenth of that. So we are acting.

I have to say, the Conservatives knew that this revaluation was coming; they knew that the temporary covid relief was coming to an end. How much did they have in their financial plans to help businesses with this revaluation? Nothing. They did not allocate a single penny for it, and now they criticise us for having brought in a £4 billion package to help businesses with it. Worse than that, they oppose the higher business rates that we have brought in for the warehouses of online giants, which is exactly what is paying for the structural change allowing for permanently lower business rates on retail and hospitality.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Governments have to make choices—we all understand that—but the choice that this Government made was not to cut spending on welfare, which has limited their choices elsewhere. There is a real choice. If the Conservatives had been in power, we would not have made those choices over the summer, and the hospitality sector would have been in a very different place in the Budget.

[Blair McDougall]

That is exactly my point—the Conservatives were not going to make those choices. Those choices were not in their financial plans, but they are in ours.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I gently say to the hon. Member that he did not do that in 14 years in government. Indeed, the Conservatives were set to remove the reliefs on small businesses. Rather than repeating the mistakes of the Liz Truss Budget with unfunded tax commitments, we are giving real support to businesses now, including by increasing the employment allowance so that more and more of the small businesses that he describes do not pay national insurance contributions at all.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I recently met with Discover Adventure, a small business in Coombe Bissett which is genuinely struggling to engage with Government over the recent package travel regulations. It sits ambiguously between DBT, the Department for Transport and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; indeed, a question was thrown back today, having been tabled in the Table Office. May I sincerely ask the Minister to help me locate the correct Minister to deal with the Association of Independent Tour Operators? This is a vital small business sector in this country, and it needs someone to engage with in Government over these regulations.

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive question; I am very happy to pursue that within Government. The wider point is that both the small business strategy and the industrial strategy are important because they are cross-Government strategies, as lots of sectors and individual businesses are facing challenges that are not just the responsibility of one Minister. I will certainly follow up on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am always grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for his helpful and pragmatic work and engagement. I recognise the issue that he has highlighted. A lot of small businesses were locked into uncompetitive contracts after covid, and the legacy of that has been very difficult. Of course, we will always look at measures to address that. Fundamentally, we must break the link that means that gas sets the price of electricity in the UK. There are no shortcuts to that; we have to get enough clean energy on to the system to make that possible, which is exactly what the Government are doing.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T3. On Monday, Tina McKenzie, the policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “For the first time in the history of the Small Business Index more small businesses are predicting they will shrink than expand, meaning that as a country we are potentially facing a very dangerous situation.” I have listened carefully to what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has said about the concierge service, which I welcome, and have seen the Leeds reforms this week, much of which I welcome. However, will the Minister respond to that stark warning from a very credible source of information?

[Gareth Thomas]

I have a high regard for Tina McKenzie and the Federation of Small Businesses more generally, and we have been working extremely closely with them on thinking through what measures should be in the small business strategy to help businesses start up, scale up and thrive more generally. I gently point the right hon. Gentleman to the slightly more positive picture painted by the fact that the bosses of small and medium-sized enterprises have more confidence. We will continue to talk to the Federation of Small Businesses, and will do so in a lot more detail.

Business and the Economy

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

One is tempted to say that we should try to remove this wretched Government as quickly as possible. That, of course, is part of the answer. We need a Government who listen to the points my hon. Friend makes so eloquently on behalf of her constituents and the industry; a Government who understand the reality of the energy situation and the high cost of energy for business, rather than pursuing a failed dogma and ideology that is not being pursued by the rest of the world; and a Government who listen to enterprise and businesses, many of which I have met. We could take that approach from a perspective of trying to grow the economy, in order to reduce energy costs to a competitive level, or because one believes in the climate transition but understands that special skills in dealing with the harsh offshore environment need to be nurtured, rather than squandered in a way that results in people with those skills fleeing elsewhere.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The shadow Minister is making a forensic case against the Government. May I ask him to focus on an issue that he will be familiar with from his prior ministerial experience? We had the banks before the Treasury Committee yesterday. The imminent outcome of the advice guidance boundary review will require the Government to work closely with the regulator to ensure absolute clarity, so that investors across the country can invest in the future of this country through equities, rather than just leaving their investments in cash. That will require action and direction from the Government. It is an issue on which there is probably consensus, but the Government need to step up to the mark.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my right hon. Friend and predecessor in the role of City Minister. This is an important point: where we can, we will support the Government in continuing the work, which he and I started, of trying improve the investment outcomes for our economy. We want to increase equity investment to mobilise pension funds and, most importantly, deliver good returns for our investors: the constituents who send us here, and who want the best possible outcome for their pension. It is really important that the Treasury leans into that, and that we have abundant capital markets that are well regulated but not over-regulated. We must create the right culture when it comes to the advice guidance boundary, our tolerance of risk, and our financial literacy and education in our schools. That is a really big point. I hope we continue to work collaboratively and supportively with the Government, along with the excellent Select Committee of which my right hon. Friend is a Member.

None of that helps if wealth creators and global investors have left these shores due to vindictive measures that simply will not raise anything like the money needed. It is perfectly okay to admit when one makes a mistake, and in this case Treasury Ministers have made a mistake. The amount raised will be nothing like the amount expected. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has done important research on that, and found that the cost will be significant. Far from raising money for the Treasury, the country will, I am afraid, lose money.

It is a truism—one that we Conservative Members have to continually teach Labour Members, I regret to say—that we do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Like all socialists, Labour Members are attracted to superficial measures that will ultimately make all of us poorer. Those of us who are left behind will have to pay more, or endure less well-funded public services, as a result of this Government shepherding the golden geese into a pen and then exiling them.

The Deputy Prime Minister was right in her memo, which we saw today: this Government are indeed coming for your job, your business, your pension and your savings. It is all very clear in black and white. Whether Members are Team Rayner or Team Reeves, when it comes to decisions on the economy, it is all bad for business. When the Minister responds, perhaps he will share with us whether he believes that the tax measures advocated by the Deputy Prime Minister, which will have a chilling effect on business, are the right way to proceed.

Whether they are stabbed by employment red tape or shot by higher taxes, the outcome for businesses is the same. The Government duck the difficult questions while the Chancellor fiddles the fiscal rules, making it up as she goes along. Families know that the cost of living is getting higher under Labour. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is so animated that I feel I should keep going, rather than disappoint him. He should listen, rather than chunter.

The Conservative party has a clear vision. It understands business from first principles—[Interruption.] Conservative Members could usefully listen and learn. This could be an exercise in understanding what a proper strategy that is on the side of business looks like. We back the millions of entrepreneurs and businesses who create wealth and jobs across this country. We are unafraid to talk about the need for business, and celebrate private capital, international investors and risk taking.

It was the Conservatives who delivered the single biggest tax cut for business in modern history through the move to full expensing, and the Conservatives who slashed business rates when we introduced retail, hospitality and leisure relief, and during that terrible covid pandemic, it was the Conservatives who provided billions in finance to keep business and the economy going. That is what leadership looks like. That is what a party that is truly on the side of business looks like. I urge Government Members to do a little less talking and a little more listening. They should think of every business owner and employee whom they told, during the election campaign, that the Government would have their back, and ask themselves whether their actions, rather than their words, have proved that to be anything like the case. With employment falling, wealth creators leaving this country at a rate never before seen, businesses closing, investment crashing and inflation rising today, the Conservatives certainly do not believe so. I commend this motion to the House.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[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.