Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 33 of 170.
“(4) Condition C is met where the functions referred to in subsection (3)(a) are, or are expected to be, performed by individuals (“transferring workers”) who— (a) in performing the functions, are employed by the supplier or a sub-contractor under a worker’s contract, and (b) were employed by the contracting authority under a worker’s contract in performing functions of the same kind.”
“(3) Condition B is met where the contract— (a) is a contract for the supply of services that include the performance of functions that are or have previously been performed by the contracting authority, or (b) is— (i) in the case of a public contract, a framework for the future award of a contract referred to in paragraph (a), or (ii) in the case of a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, a framework agreement the purpose of which is to establish the terms governing a contract referred to in paragraph (a).”
“(7) For the purposes of this section, procurement under a procurement arrangement is “joint or centralised” if as part of that procurement arrangement a contract is to be awarded following a procedure or other selection process carried out— (a) jointly by a devolved Scottish authority and another contracting authority which is not a devolved Scottish authority, or (b) by a centralised procurement authority or equivalent body. 83B Relevant outsourcing contracts (1) In this Part, “relevant outsourcing contract” means a contract in relation to which conditions A to C are met. (2) Condition A is met where the contract— (a) is a public contract under this Act, or (b) is a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation.”
“2016/49); (c) a devolved Welsh authority listed in Schedule 1 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 (asc 1); (d) procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement, except to the extent that the procurement— (i) is carried out by a devolved Scottish authority, and (ii) is not joint or centralised; (e) a transferred Northern Ireland authority, except in relation to— (i) procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement, (ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement, or (iii) procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.”
“(5) In addition to the restrictions in section 111, the Welsh Ministers— (a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement; (b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement. (6) This Part does not apply in relation to— (a) a private utility; (b) a person referred to in regulation 4(1)(b) of the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (S.S.I.”
“(4) The Scottish Ministers— (a) may only exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating— (i) devolved Scottish authorities, or (ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement; (b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating— (i) joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement, or (ii) joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.”
“(3) In addition to the restrictions in section 113, a Minister of the Crown— (a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement; (b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement.”
“I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 25, page 36, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(2) After Part 5 insert— ‘Part 5A Outsourcing: protection of workers 83A Application of this Part (1) This Part provides for a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make provision for the protection of workers in relation to relevant outsourcing contracts (see section 83B). (2) Accordingly, in this Part, “appropriate authority”— (a) means— (i) a Minister of the Crown, (ii) the Scottish Ministers, or (iii) the Welsh Ministers, and (b) does not include a Northern Ireland department.”
“They are necessary because to get the benefits of a consistent approach to fair and equitable employment terms and conditions on relevant outsourced contracts, it is essential that a reinstated two-tier code applies throughout the UK. We continue to engage with our counterparts in Northern Ireland about whether the powers should also extend to Ministers there. The regulations and code of practice created in our provisions will apply to reserved Northern Irish authorities. I commend the amendments to the Committee.”
“Amendment 59 will expand and restructure the provisions in clause 25, which amends the Procurement Act 2023, to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code for relevant outsourced contracts for public services so that the powers and duties in clause 25 extend to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Amendments 60 to 64 make changes that are consequential on those made by amendment 59, including by updating various definitions in the Procurement Act 2023 and by providing that regulations made by Scottish and Welsh Ministers must be made using the affirmative procedure of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. We are making the amendments at the request of the Scottish and Welsh Governments.”
“I gently correct the shadow Minister: we did not forget to engage with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We were making sure that we had agreement before we tabled amendments, which is why they have appeared as they have today.”
“Amendment 63, in clause 25, page 38, line 6, at end insert— “(4A) In section 123 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of ‘appropriate authority’, at the end insert— ‘(but see section 83A(2) for a different meaning of “appropriate authority” in Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers));’. (4B) In section 124 (index of defined expressions), for the entry for ‘appropriate authority’ substitute— “appropriate authority (except in Part 5A) section 123 appropriate authority (in Part 5A) section 83A” See the explanatory statement to amendment 59. Amendment 64, in clause 25, page 38, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert— “Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)”.— (Justin Madders.) See the explanatory statement to amendment 59. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)”
“Amendment 62, in clause 25, page 38, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert— “(4) In section 122 (regulations)— (a) in subsection (4) (regulations by Ministers of the Crown subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (i) insert— ‘(ia) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’ (b) in subsection (10) (regulations by Welsh Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (g) insert— ‘(ga) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’ (c) in subsection (14) (regulations by Scottish Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), before paragraph (a) insert— ‘(za) section 83C (provision to be included in relevant outsourcing contracts); (zb) section 83F (power to amend section 83A, 83B or 83E);’”. See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.”
“I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendment 59 agreed to. Amendments made: 60, in clause 25, page 37, line 33, at end insert— “(2A) In section 2 (contracting authorities), after subsection (1) insert— ‘(1A) But see also section 83B(5)(b)(i) (which provides for “contracting authority” to have an extended meaning in relation to certain contracts regulated under Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)).’” See the explanatory statement to amendment 59. Amendment 61, in clause 25, page 37, line 34, leave out subsection (3). See the explanatory statement to amendment 59 - because the new provisions are now being inserted as a new Part of the Procurement Act 2023, there is no longer any need to amend section 100 of that Act.”
“We recognise the vital role that kinship carers play in caring for vulnerable children, and the challenges that many face in balancing that care with employment. We recently announced the largest ever investment in support for kinship carers: £40 million to trial a kinship allowance in up to 10 local authorities. We will also review the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families, and work is already under way to plan for that delivery.”
“I met a kinship carer in my constituency recently who told me about the challenges the hon. Lady has articulated. The carer said that the most important thing to her was getting respite care—a point that we can all recognise. We are looking at how the trial pans out. I have spoken in detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the proposals coming forward, but we think it is best to see how the trial works, and to look at the wider review of the parental leave system.”
“The parental rights survey 2019 found that 89% of employee mothers took maternity leave and 70% of employee fathers took paternity leave, but take-up of shared parental leave is much lower. In fact, it is disappointingly low, which is why we are committed to a review of the parental leave system. Work is under way to deliver on that, and I will provide an update in due course.”
“The hon. Member makes a number of points, which I am sure we will consider as part of the review we are undertaking. The Employment Rights Bill has a number of important measures to support working families, bringing 1.5 million parents into scope for parental leave and another 32,000 into scope for paternity leave. We are keen to build on that and we want to support families who are in work.”
“As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, the regulation comes into force tomorrow. Actually, it covers things that most businesses are doing already, but we have provided guidance for businesses, including online marketplaces, on how the regulation will apply in Northern Ireland. We will continue to engage with businesses and online marketplaces to ensure that we are supporting them in dealing with this new regulation.”
“That is an interesting question. There is a great interplay with rights for self-employed people. We are committing to a review on that in due course, together with a wider look at the parental leave system. We will get back to the hon. Lady on that.”
“Following Royal Assent, we will consult widely and properly with stakeholders to determine what changes should be made to the existing statutory code of practice. We are determined to ensure that guidance is as helpful as possible, ensuring that tips are allocated fairly and that worker consultation is carried out properly. These measures will be enforced via the employment tribunal system. If an employer fails to consult their workers properly or to distribute tips in a fair and transparent manner, workers will be able to bring a claim to an employment tribunal. The tribunal will be able to order an employer to compensate workers up to £5,000 for financial loss. I think that Members can see what we are trying to achieve with the clause, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.”
“It will also mandate that employers review their tipping policy and maintain records of the consultation they have carried out, as well as giving workers the right to request and review records related to the tipping policy consultation. The consultation will be required to take place at the formative stage, before the policy is finalised or updated, and should be carried out, where possible, by engaging with representatives of recognised trade unions or other chosen representatives. If neither are available, the consultation will be required to be with workers likely to be affected. We will continue to engage with unions and worker representatives in hospitality and other impacted industries to ensure that the measures in the Bill and in the statutory guidance deliver fully on our aims.”
“Although the Act requires employers to allocate tips fairly to workers, the existing statutory code of practice only encourages consultation with workers in deciding that allocation. The Government were clear in their commitment to going further—indeed, I took part in a debate earlier this year in which I said that the legislation did not go far enough. We will therefore make it mandatory for employers to consult workers in developing or updating their tipping policies, including how tips are allocated. The clause will support worker participation in the allocation and distribution of tips that they have earned, by mandating that employers consult workers during the development or revision of their written tipping policies.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. As Members will be aware, clause 10 introduces new requirements on tipping, namely the requirements for employers to consult workers about the allocation of the tips they have earned, and to review their tipping policy. These new requirements will build on the measures introduced by the previous Government in the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. The Act came fully into effect on 1 October this year and ensured that an estimated £200 million-worth of tips each year are no longer retained by employers. The Act is accompanied by a statutory code of practice on the fair and transparent distribution of tips.”
“It is a significant step in continuing the welcome, transformational moves that we have seen on tips, and it gives workers an absolute right to be consulted, which I think is important. There is evidence, such as the research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, that certain sections of the workforce, including agency workers and people working in certain parts of a business, feel that they do not have a voice. This provision will give them that voice and the real teeth they need to ensure that tips are fairly distributed. As the shadow Minister said, this is all about them. It is about ensuring that everyone who contributes to the service that we all enjoy gets those tips, which the customer clearly wants to ensure are spread among the workforce. On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.”
“Of course, that is an argument for greater organisation in the workplace so that employers can consult collectively with the workforce. Those smaller employers—the Great British café, for example—would not always have an easy route to consult with their workforce, but in that kind of informal setting, where there is only a handful of employees, it should be fairly straightforward. Everyone will know their role and what goes on, and the existing code of practice deals with the guidance for smaller employers in that sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield asked whether this measure meets our commitments under “Make Work Pay”, and I believe it does.”
“First, I will acknowledge, as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the work in this area by previous Members of this place, including the former Member for Ynys Môn. I think it was seven years after the announcement that there was to be legislation that we finally got action, but it is welcome. I note the shadow Minister’s comment that the legislation has transformed attitudes, and that is what we are trying to do with this Bill in general: transform the workplace so that workers have better security and a better voice. The shadow Minister raised some important questions, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, about what this measure means for smaller businesses where there may not be a trade union.”
“It is also possible to imagine people becoming professional whistleblowers by having something that they could rely on in perpetuity; again, we have to balance that against the need to ensure that people are properly protected. I am happy to work with colleagues across the House to ensure that if we introduce any legislation in this area, we get it right and recognise modern relationships. The hon. Lady is also right to refer to worker status: we are keen to look at that in our “Next Steps” document, because we know that a whole range of issues arise.”
“Because of the plethora of unintended consequences and knock-on effects, some of which I have touched on, we cannot accept the amendment as drafted, but I assure the hon. Lady that I intend to meet Protect next month to discuss the issues on which it is campaigning. We are aware of the long-overdue requirement to look at whistleblowing law. The previous Government undertook a small exercise and we need to understand its findings, but we will be taking into account some of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. We cannot pretend that such an amendment would not bring very large numbers of additional people into scope, so we would want to work with stakeholders to understand what that would mean for them.”
“I have represented many people who have found that to be an issue, and there are already blacklisting laws for certain types of protection. However, the tribunal can award compensation and take into account the difficulty that an individual might have in finding suitable employment at a similar level as a result of having blown the whistle. There is a wider question about how we treat people who blow the whistle, which is not necessarily going to be resolved by the amendment. I agree that we should protect those who speak up and that we should ensure that our legal framework takes account of modern working relationships. I recognise that, particularly for trade unions, there is a benefit to having these groups within scope, and there are issues here that I think bear further scrutiny.”
“The remedies are based on detrimental treatment and on dismissal, but a lot of those to whom she seeks to extend protection are people who by definition cannot be dismissed, because they are not employees or workers. It is quite a job to understand exactly where to take the issue of people who acquire information during a recruitment process, which is the final limb of the amendment, paragraph (cg). That is potentially extremely broad in application. In legislation like this, it would be difficult to pin down exactly who it would apply to. Would it apply to someone casually undertaking a job search on the internet? Where do we draw the line? On the point about job applicants, I take the point that blowing the whistle can have a huge impact on a person’s career prospects.”
“Lady says, would extend the scope of whistleblowing protections to a huge range of other groups, including the self-employed, contractors, office holders including members of the judiciary, non-executive directors, trustees—including personal trustees—and trade union representatives and job applicants, as well as those who acquire information during a recruitment process. I can see the hon. Lady’s intentions and what she is trying to achieve. However, there are questions that the amendment does not address, particularly given how our current employment law framework is structured, because a lot of the people it covers are not in an employment relationship or a worker relationship.”
“Workers have the right not to be subject to detriment on the grounds of making a protected disclosure and not to be dismissed for making a protected disclosure: that would be treated as an automatically unfair reason for dismissal. These are day one rights for workers and employees who have recourse to an employment tribunal. The standard employment law definition of “worker” has been extended in recent years to whistleblowing protections. It includes a range of employment relationships, such as agency workers, individuals undertaking training or work experience, certain self-employed staff in the NHS, police officers and student nurses and midwives. Amendment 163, as the hon.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. As always, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for raising these important issues, which we need to explore. She is coming from a good place. We all know that whistleblowers play an important role in shining a light on wrongdoing. The fear, and often the reality, of retaliation is a barrier to people coming forward with concerns. Before I turn to the substance of amendment 163, I will recap the existing protections for whistleblowers.”
“Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. We will ensure that businesses can hire with confidence. We will ensure that employers can operate contractual probation periods, which are separate from the new statutory probationary periods. During the statutory probationary periods, employers will have a lighter-touch standard to meet when they need to dismiss an employee who is not suitable for the job. Our changes will ensure that newly hired workers are not arbitrarily dismissed. We believe that that will help to drive up standards in the workplace. It will ensure that there is greater fairness and greater understanding between employees and businesses. It will drive up standards, quality and security—all things that we believe will improve our economy. We do not intend to bring in these measures in until autumn 2026 at the earliest.”
“Unless there are automatically unfair grounds, an employer can lawfully sack a worker just by giving them their statutory or contractual notice pay and telling them not to come back to work. There is no entitlement to a fair process, nor even a right to a written statement explaining why they have been sacked. Think about what you can do with two years in your life, Mr Stringer—well, maybe we should not think too much about it. Someone can make an awful lot of commitments, including financial commitments. They can get married, buy a house, start a family and take out loans of all descriptions, but they have no protection at work and nothing to stop them being arbitrarily dismissed in that two-year period. We think that that is wrong: it creates a great deal of insecurity in the workplace, and it has to change.”
“I will not speak for long on clause 19, because it is a fairly straightforward clause and there are more detailed clauses and amendments that may generate further debate. Clause 19 introduces schedule 2, which will repeal section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal. An estimated 9 million employees have been working for their employer for less than two years and therefore have very limited protection against unfair dismissal. By removing the qualifying period, the Government will make basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring a baseline of security and predictability. It is about tackling insecurity.”
“We seem to have lost a few colleagues during the votes; hopefully, they are coming back. It seems a while since they were made, but I will pick up on comments and questions of —[Interruption.]”
“He said that, over the sweep of history in the past 50 years, increased employment protections have not led to increased unemployment. Of course, all Members will be aware of the messages of doom that we heard during the national minimum wage debate about what implementing that measure would mean for employment rates. History demonstrates that there is nothing to fear in this legislation, and nothing to fear in giving people greater job security from day one. By providing for a statutory probationary period, we are getting the balance right between security at work and giving employers the opportunity to take a chance on new hires. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered , That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Anna McMorrin.)”
“Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, there is an international context to this: the UK is the fifth least regulated of the 38 OECD countries in terms of the dismissal of individual workers. We should look to correct that, and the Bill will go a long way towards doing so. The shadow Minister asked about the risk to jobs. The impact assessment states: “There is limited evidence to suggest that protecting employees from unfair dismissal is associated with lower employment rates.” Evidence from our OECD counterparts across Europe supports that. The Resolution Foundation gave evidence to the effect that the measure is unlikely to have an impact on employment rates. Professor Deakin’s historical context was important.”
“In written evidence presented to the Committee, USDAW noted that “Being dismissed on spurious…grounds, without a fair investigation can have devastating consequences for an employee” in terms of morale, confidence and living standards. Having worked for employers that had quite a gung-ho approach to employment rights, I welcomed the security of a qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Before that, it really did feel that you were one wrong conversation away from seeing your job go. Of course, there is significant evidence to suggest that there are advantages for the wider economy. I think there is an acceptance that job insecurity can have a cooling effect on job mobility. The Resolution Foundation noted that the job mobility rate in 2019 was 25% lower than in 2000. As my hon.”
“I do not think that is something that we can model, because we do not know exactly how many claims would have continued anyway, but it is a fair point that when people are dismissed before two years, without any discussion or explanation, they seek answers, and sometimes they might seek those answers by hanging their hat on a statutory peg that may not always fit the case. My hon. Friends all spoke eloquently about how that can be counterproductive not just for the businesses, but for the employees’ general wellbeing. Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% said that their mental health and wellbeing was affected by their personal job insecurity.”
“Research quoted in the impact assessment suggests that having a job is significant to physical health and personal relationships, as a determinant of one’s wellbeing. The quality of that job and how secure it is are clearly a key part of that. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, and by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Gloucester, about employees who get dismissed before the qualifying period sometimes looking for a protected characteristic to base a claim on is an interesting one.”
“At this point, I quote Professor Dominic Regan, an eminent professor of employment law, who used to quip somewhat tongue in cheek that he could decide whether he liked someone within 10 minutes of meeting them on a train. That was his way of arguing that the two-year time limit for unfair dismissal was set far too high. It is certainly a sentiment that I agree with, although we will not be going as far as to introduce a 10-minutes-on-a-train test. We are seeking to give employees the security of knowing that they will not be arbitrarily dismissed in the early days of their employment, but to give employers the confidence to hire and the opportunity to use a light-touch process to deal with issues of performance and capability. We believe that will be a positive for employees.”
“One of the many issues that have come up is the question of day one rights, and how we balance the risk for employers—giving them the confidence to hire but ensuring that we deliver our policy aim of giving people more certainty and security at work. That is where the statutory probationary period comes in. We believe that that will help businesses focus on their hiring practices, but it should also increase the dialogue between employer and employee in those early days of the employment relationship. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that an employer can work out pretty quickly whether someone will be suitable for the workplace.”
“Let me sum up the debate. The shadow Minister asked some questions, and there were other contributions to the debate, which I hope to come on to. I think that the shadow Minister’s general position was that he accepted that there should be a reduction in the qualifying period. I am not entirely clear whether that was the case, but certainly his colleague, the hon. Member for Bridgwater, threw out a number of proposals. The question that the shadow Minister asked was, “Why day one?” I will come to that shortly, but I think the other main thrust of his argument was that we are not listening to businesses. Of course we are, and that is why we came up with the concept of a statutory probationary period. For the information of the Committee, about 140 stakeholders have engaged with us about the Bill since we came into office in July.”
“Retailers are restricted to selling consumer fireworks during a limited period around each of the seasonal celebrations that I have mentioned. Retailers may supply fireworks to the public outside of those periods only if they obtain a licence from their local licensing authority, so fireworks are less available to purchase outside those seasons. There are storage limits and strict rules around how and where fireworks are stored in business premises—the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth is not an example of how they should be adhered to.”
“It is worth setting out the fact that retailers must not sell low or medium-hazard fireworks, known as F2 and F3 fireworks, to anyone under the age of 18. Category F1, classed as very low hazard, cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 16. F4 fireworks are the most hazardous and can be sold only to those with specialist knowledge who have undertaken training recognised in the fireworks business and who hold a valid liability insurance. It is also an offence for anyone under the age of 18 to possess an F2, F3 or F4 firework in a public place, or for anyone to possess an F4 firework unless it is for specified professional reasons. Those offences can attract a £90 on-the-spot fine or, on summary conviction, up to six months’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.”
“It should be said that the majority of people who use fireworks do so appropriately and have a sensible and responsible attitude to them, but, as we have heard this afternoon, too many people use them in a dangerous, inconsiderate or antisocial manner. The police, local authorities and other local agencies have a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond to antisocial behaviour, including the antisocial use of fireworks offence through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Going even further back, the Explosives Act 1875 made it an offence to throw, cast or fire a firework into a highway, street, thoroughfare or public place, demonstrating that it is sadly not a new problem. Members have referred to the different categories of fireworks.”
“Under the Fireworks Act 2003, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a package of measures to reduce the nuisance and injuries caused by the misuse of fireworks, which forms part of the broader public concern with the problems of antisocial behaviour. As we know, there is an 11 pm curfew for the use of fireworks, with later exceptions only for the traditional firework periods of 5 November, Diwali, new year’s eve and Chinese new year, as well as for local authority displays, celebrations and events. In addition, the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 include a 120 dB noise limit on the fireworks available to consumers.”