Sarah Hall
MP for Warrington South · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“It was the middle of the night when Jane, who was back home in Warrington, received the call that no parent should ever receive—that Lucy had been shot by her father and had not survived.”
“I want to use my contribution today to talk about my constituent Lucy Harrison. I warn Members that what follows will be painful to hear—painful because Lucy was deeply loved, because Lucy’s life was taken in circumstances that should never have happened, and because Lucy’s family and loved ones have had to carry the truth of that day eve…”
“The senior coroner found that Lucy had been unlawfully killed. The senior coroner for Cheshire told the court that Lucy’s father’s actions on the day of her death were “truly, exceptionally bad and reprehensible” so as to amount to her death. She rejected the account that the gun had simply gone off.”
“She was building a life with her partner Sam. Sam has described Lucy as the joy of his life. She meant everything to him. Boxing Day 2024 would be the last time that Jane saw her daughter alive. On 27 December 2024, Lucy and Sam travelled to Texas to visit Lucy’s father and his family—her father, a British citizen, now lives in Texas.”
“I implore the Government to use every channel that they have to press the relevant authorities in Texas to reopen or formally reconsider Lucy’s case and to stand alongside a British family and ensure that the findings of a British court are properly considered.”
“The senior coroner’s findings directly challenge the description of Lucy’s death as a tragic accident, and they raise serious questions about whether the original investigation followed the evidence with the rigour that the case demanded.”
The complete record
Every one of 198 lines we hold for Sarah Hall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Year 6 McKellen pupils at St Philip Westbrook primary school in my constituency are campaigning against hostile architecture, such as spikes and divided benches, which makes life harder for people experiencing homelessness. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising their courageous advocacy and make time for a debate on ensuring that our public spaces are designed with dignity and compassion in mind?”
“I implore the Government to use every channel that they have to press the relevant authorities in Texas to reopen or formally reconsider Lucy’s case and to stand alongside a British family and ensure that the findings of a British court are properly considered. As a matter of urgency, can the Government ensure that the FCDO does more in future to support the families of constituents who have been murdered abroad? Jane has said that those who knew Lucy know what she would want them to do now: to make change, do better and be better. That is exactly what they are trying to do. They are carrying on the fight for Lucy.”
“The senior coroner’s findings directly challenge the description of Lucy’s death as a tragic accident, and they raise serious questions about whether the original investigation followed the evidence with the rigour that the case demanded. Lucy’s family recognise that the legal systems in England and Texas are different and are not asking for the Government to interfere in another country’s justice system. They are asking for the findings of a British coroner—reached after a full examination of the evidence —to be taken seriously. They are asking for Lucy’s case to be reconsidered by US authorities.”
“The senior coroner found that Lucy had been unlawfully killed. The senior coroner for Cheshire told the court that Lucy’s father’s actions on the day of her death were “truly, exceptionally bad and reprehensible” so as to amount to her death. She rejected the account that the gun had simply gone off. The coroner found that for Lucy to have suffered the injury that she did, her father must have pointed the firearm in her direction, failed to check whether it was loaded, and then pulled the trigger. She described those actions as reckless and concluded that that amounted to gross negligence manslaughter. An officer detected alcohol on his breath, and he initially denied having consumed any. Despite that, no breathalyser or blood alcohol tests were ever carried out.”
“It was the middle of the night when Jane, who was back home in Warrington, received the call that no parent should ever receive—that Lucy had been shot by her father and had not survived. Jane and Sam immediately found themselves trying to understand how Lucy’s death was being investigated, what evidence was being considered, and whether anyone would ever be held accountable. They were left trying to understand a legal system without adequate support from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The Prosper police department investigated Lucy’s death as a possible criminally negligent homicide, but the case was later considered by a grand jury in Texas, and no criminal charges were brought. The gun had “simply gone off”. When the evidence was later examined at Lucy’s inquest in Cheshire, the conclusion was very different.”
“She was building a life with her partner Sam. Sam has described Lucy as the joy of his life. She meant everything to him. Boxing Day 2024 would be the last time that Jane saw her daughter alive. On 27 December 2024, Lucy and Sam travelled to Texas to visit Lucy’s father and his family—her father, a British citizen, now lives in Texas. They were due to return home on 10 January 2025. However, on the day that they were due to return home, just before leaving for the airport, Lucy went into a bedroom with her father. Sam waited for Lucy in the living room. A short time later, Sam heard a loud bang. Lucy had been shot by her father. She was in her father’s home—somewhere she should have been safe.”
“I want to use my contribution today to talk about my constituent Lucy Harrison. I warn Members that what follows will be painful to hear—painful because Lucy was deeply loved, because Lucy’s life was taken in circumstances that should never have happened, and because Lucy’s family and loved ones have had to carry the truth of that day ever since. They have shown extraordinary courage in allowing her story to be told. Lucy was just 23 when she died. She was from Great Sankey in Warrington. She had her whole life ahead of her. She was not simply a name in the news. She was Jane’s daughter, and she was Sam’s partner. She was deeply loved, and she should still be here. Lucy had already achieved so much. She had earned a first-class degree in fashion buying and merchandising, and she had begun a career that she was passionate about.”
“As Trish said to me, “You should know your breasts as well as you know your face.” I welcome the engagement that Ministers have already had with campaigners and researchers, and I hope that today’s debate marks another step forward.”
“For Trish, six mammograms over more than a decade failed to detect her cancer. That is why the work of the Lobular Moon Shot Project matters. Campaigners are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for research into lobular breast cancer that reflects the scale of the challenge. They are asking for earlier diagnosis, better understanding of how the disease behaves, improved imaging and more effective treatments. Above all, they are asking that women with lobular breast cancer are no longer overlooked because their cancer behaves differently. Awareness of lobular breast cancer must improve. For many years, the message has quite rightly been, “Check for lumps,” but breast cancer is not always a lump; women also need to know about dimpling, puckering, changes in breast shape, thickening of the breast tissue and changes to the skin.”
“Trish’s treatment changed completely: she needed a mastectomy with immediate reconstruction, followed by 15 rounds of radiotherapy. She is currently undergoing 10 years of hormone therapy. She certainly was not back at work after a month. Trish’s experience raises important questions. Lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer, yet many women have never even heard of it. Unlike the breast cancers many of us are more familiar with, lobular breast cancer often does not form a distinct lump. Instead, it grows in strand-like tumours, making it much harder to detect on mammograms and feel during examination. That is why women with lobular breast cancer are so often diagnosed later, when tumours are much larger and treatment becomes far more extensive.”
“Thankfully, her GP listened and referred her urgently under the two-week-wait pathway. I place on the record my thanks to that GP, because despite there being no obvious lump, they recognised that something was not right. At the breast clinic, Trish underwent mammograms, ultrasounds and biopsies. Initially, she was reassured that there was no lump to feel. She was then told that there was a small area of concern. The plan was for a lumpectomy and a short course of radiotherapy, and she recalls being told that she would likely be back at work in a month. She underwent an MRI, which is when everything changed. It showed that the tumour measured approximately 72 millimetres. Following surgery, it was confirmed to be 75 millimetres.”
“Today, I want to share the story of my constituent, Trish. She has kindly given me permission to share her story because she hopes that by doing so, another woman may recognise the signs of lobular breast cancer sooner. Trish did everything that we ask women to do. Between 2014 and 2025, she attended six mammograms—six opportunities for cancer to be found, and six occasions when she believed that if something was wrong, it would be detected. But none of those mammograms picked up any signs. Like many women, Trish believed that cancer meant finding a lump. It was not a lump that led to her diagnosis; it was a shadow. After getting out of the shower one morning, while putting her hair up, she noticed a shadow underneath her breast. She took a photograph and could clearly see dimpling in her skin.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this hugely important debate and for his powerful speech. Just a few weeks ago, I stood outside Downing Street alongside women living with invasive lobular breast cancer, their families and campaigners for the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s 22-minute silence. Those 22 minutes represented the 22 women who lose their lives to lobular breast cancer every day. It was a deeply moving experience. Standing in silence with women who are living with the disease alongside those who have lost loved ones brought home why today’s debate really matters. They were not asking for sympathy; they were asking to be seen. They were asking for better research, earlier diagnosis and better outcomes for women diagnosed in the future.”
“Behind every statistic is someone like Trish, a woman who did everything that she was supposed to and who wants her experience to help somebody else. Next week, many of the women I stood with outside Downing Street will gather once again. My hope is that one day, they will no longer need to, and that through better research, greater awareness and earlier diagnosis, fewer women will hear the words that Trish heard. I hope that colleagues from across will continue to stand with those women until that becomes a reality.”
“Trish is a phenomenal campaigner—a lot like Susan—and she wants to work together to create an awareness campaign so that women understand that there is a difference between types of breast cancer. We are looking to establish a support group for women who have lobular breast cancer; that is in the works. On training, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: recognition and training forms part of research, understanding and detection—what it is and what causes it—but also what we need to do in the training required by people in the profession. I hope that the Government will continue working with researchers, clinicians and the Lobular Moon Shot Project to improve understanding of lobular breast cancer, support further research and ensure that women receive the earliest and most accurate diagnosis possible.”
“Those figures are deeply concerning, and it would be wrong of me to pretend otherwise, but if we only talk about A&E waiting times, we miss the bigger picture. Corridor care does not begin in a corridor: it begins when patients are medically fit to leave hospital but the care or support that they need at home is not yet in place. It begins when patient flow slows down, leaving emergency departments carrying pressures that they were never designed to absorb. It begins when a town like Warrington grows significantly without its infrastructure keeping up.”
“Let us be clear from the beginning: corridor care is unacceptable. No patient should be treated in a corridor. No family should watch a loved one receive care without the privacy and dignity that they deserve. No member of our brilliant NHS staff should be put in the impossible position of delivering care in an environment that they know is not right. I know how deeply my constituents feel about this, and hardly a week goes by without someone contacting me about their experience of Warrington hospital. They tell me about the kindness of the staff despite incredibly difficult circumstances; others tell me about the length of time that their loved ones have waited to be seen, and those experiences are reflected in the figures. In May this year, Warrington hospital recorded the second-worst 12-hour A&E performance in the entire country.”
“I absolutely agree; the NHS system as a whole is very fragmented, and the lack of connectivity is a big issue. Social care is a core component and it needs to be a priority going forward.”
“I will keep challenging where challenge is needed, keep working with our local NHS where partnership is needed, and keep putting Warrington South first until we get this right, because my residents in their time of need and our excellent NHS staff deserve better.”
“That brings me on to the third part of my plan: modernising and replacing outdated hospital facilities, built in phases while vital services continue to run. When I was elected, I said that I would be honest about the challenges before us. Yes, Warrington needs a new hospital, but it also needs a proper plan and funding behind it, not just empty promises. My approach is a pragmatic one: we must ease the immediate pressures today, build better services around the hospital tomorrow, and put Warrington in the strongest possible position for investment in the years ahead. That is what I am fighting for.”
“Part 2 of my plan is about moving routine appointments, diagnostics and planned care into the community so that people can be treated closer to home, and the hospital can focus on the patients who need the most specialist care. However, there is one issue that none of us can ignore, and that is the hospital itself. People back home know that we need a new hospital. They see it when they go to A&E and when they visit relatives in hospital, and staff feel it every day. Much of the site was built in a different century for a different population and a very different NHS. We urgently need a new hospital—there is absolutely no question about that. Much to our deep disappointment, Warrington was never included in the previous Government’s so-called new hospital programme, despite warm words hinting to the contrary.”
“Since then, the proposal has moved forward again, and detailed design and site survey work is now under way. An urgent treatment centre in Warrington means that families would not have to travel out of borough for things like minor injuries, sprains, cuts, burns or infections, or for a child with a fever who needs checking over. Such conditions can still be serious, but they do not need the full resources of an emergency department set up for life-threatening situations like heart attacks, strokes and major trauma. An urgent treatment centre would help to free up space in A&E for the sickest patients and improve the experience for others by helping them to get the right care in the right place. Easing pressure in A&E is the first step, but it is not the whole answer.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend and will touch on that point in a second, using Warrington as an example. I am pleased that our local trust has already taken steps and is rightly treating corridor care and waiting times as a priority, but there is more to do. That is why I have been working closely with our local NHS, Ministers, and Cheshire and Merseyside ICB to move beyond talking about the problem, and to start changing how urgent and emergency care works in Warrington. Together with our local trust, I have developed a three-part pragmatic plan to improve health services for our town. Given the pressure on A&E and waiting times, the first priority is clear: a new urgent treatment centre for Warrington. In April, I was pleased to announce that proposals had moved forwards, with architects beginning the initial design work.”
“This is about every family, in Warrington South and across the country, who are living with unimaginable loss and deserve better from the system around them. We cannot change what has happened to them, but we can change what happens next. On behalf of my constituents, and on behalf of every family who has endured the unimaginable agony of losing a child suddenly and without explanation, I urge the Minister to act now.”
“After hearing about my constituent’s experience, I met with the Royal College of Pathologists, and I continue to support its work on recruitment, training and retention. The truth is that families should not face further trauma because the system does not have the capacity to respond, so I ask the Minister to take four steps: to develop a national plan for SUDC, formulated by Ministers working with officials and scientific experts, as a matter of urgency; to commit to regular reporting at a minimum of every two years, so that we can track progress and hold ourselves accountable; to ensure that clear, accessible information for families is available through the NHS website and other portals, including the NHS knowledge and library hub for professionals; and to move quickly on implementing the recommendations of the paediatric and perinatal pathology workforce report, so that we can achieve quicker post-mortem times and safeguard genetic information and other data to support further research.”
“At its heart, this points to a wider issue. SUDC remains one of the most unrecognised medical tragedies we face. Awareness is low, research is limited, and without understanding there can be no prevention. We cannot accept that. Families deserve answers, consistency and to be treated with care at every step. That means a system that is joined up, where knowledge is shared, professionals are trained and support is not dependent on postcode or circumstance. It also means addressing the workforce challenges we face. There is a severe shortage of paediatric pathologists in this country, and in some regions there are none at all. That is a key reason why families are waiting for months, and sometimes more than a year, for answers.”
“Families across the country report similar patterns: long periods of silence followed by a sudden, distressing and poorly timed communication. They find themselves chasing answers when they should be supported, and in some cases having to explain SUDC to professionals. At a time of profound trauma, families are left to carry the burden alone. As is so often the case, those with less financial resources face even greater barriers, whether in accessing counselling, navigating systems or challenging poor care. Traumatic grief demands trauma-informed care, but too often it is missing. Organisations such as SUDC UK are stepping in to support families, raise awareness and push for answers, but the reality is that they are doing so in the absence of a clear, co-ordinated national approach. That gap should concern us all.”
“Alongside the shock and grief came something else: the cruelty of not knowing why. That uncertainty compounded their trauma, and the emotional toll became so overwhelming that it caused severe mental health challenges. At the very point the family needed care, clarity and compassion, the system repeatedly let them down. They endured 13 months of pain awaiting a post-mortem. They received phone calls from medical professionals without warning, the day after their child died. Professionals used insensitive language, causing further harm. They were given inconsistent and incorrect information. At one stage, they were told the post-mortem had been completed while the child was still in the hospital’s care. This is not just about delay; it is about dignity. Sadly, that family’s experience is far from unique.”
“Yet despite that, we still do not know why it happens. We cannot predict it, we cannot prevent it and we do not understand it. I first came to this issue through a family in my constituency. At one of my surgeries, I met a grandmother whose 13-month-old grandson had died suddenly. The family asked me to share their story in the hope that no other family would have to go through what they have gone through. I pay tribute to the grandmother and her daughter for that courage. At their request, I will not use their names today. It was an ordinary morning like any other day. Mum put her toddler down for his nap. He was well, and there were no signs of illness—no warning—but he never woke up. That is the reality of SUDC: there is no build-up or explanation, just a moment that changes everything. The impact on that family has been devastating.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. The death of a child is something that no parent should ever have to endure. It is every parent’s worst nightmare. There are no words that can make sense of it, and no pain more unimaginable. For many families, understanding why their child died is an important part of beginning to process their grief. It does not take the pain away, but it can bring some sense of clarity. For families affected by sudden unexplained death in childhood, the answers never come, and that absence—that not knowing; that lack of clarity—brings its own trauma. SUDC is the sudden and unexpected death of a child between the ages of one and 18, where no cause can be found, even after investigation. It is one of the leading categories of death for children aged one to four in England and Wales.”
“At a time when families are already under pressure from high energy bills, what assessment has the Minister made of the risk that, without action before April 2027, declining landfill gas generation will undermine energy security and increase costs for consumers?”
“I urge the Minister to work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to strengthen the role of the co-operative development unit in providing the practical support that communities need to take on assets and to work across Government, including with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to support governance structures that enable community and fan-led ownership to succeed. Community ownership is not just a model. It is a great way of making sure that when places grow, our communities grow with them. If we get this right, we will not only protect and improve the green spaces that matter to our constituents, but empower the clubs and people who make them such a vital part of our towns and villages.”
“Local authorities simply do not have the capacity or resource to move quickly enough on community asset transfers. Good projects are now at risk of stalling. Momentum and good faith are being lost. Opportunities are in danger of slipping through our fingers. Access to funding remains a barrier, because the ambition is there locally but the tools to deliver it are not always in place. If we are serious about community ownership, we need to match ambition with action. That means targeted funding to help communities to take on and improve local assets, especially in grassroots sport where the social return is so clear. It also means giving local authorities the capacity, resource and streamlined processes that they need to move at pace to support communities, not slow them down.”
“In Warrington, we are now exploring a local sports co-operative, bringing clubs together and giving them confidence, structure and support to take the next step into community ownership. When clubs can take ownership of their pitches, it unlocks crucial external investment from organisations such as the Football Foundation, the Football Association and the Rugby Football League, all of which I have met alongside local clubs. They are ready to back grassroots sport and improve facilities back home in Warrington. That means better pitches, improved facilities, more games being played and more young people being involved and getting active. That is what community ownership makes possible. Right now, too many communities are being held back. In Warrington, the will from clubs and partners is there, but the system is not keeping up.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. In Warrington South, I have been working closely with grassroots sports clubs like Cromwell Athletic, Crosfields and Bank Quay Bulls, and people like Ste and Bob: volunteers who give their time week in, week out, not for recognition, but because they care about their community and the sports clubs that are a part of it. They are not asking for much—just decent pitches, facilities that are fit for purpose and a fair chance to grow the game for the next generation. They want to take ownership of the very spaces that they rely on, to secure them for the long term, improve them and open up access so that more people of all ages can take part in sport. When communities have ownership of their assets, they invest in them, protect them and make them work.”
“As chair of the inclusion and nurture in education all-party group, I welcome the Northern Ireland Department of Education’s independent research showing that nurture provision delivers measurable improvements in pupils’ behaviour, attendance and attainment. What discussions are being had to share this good practice in inclusive education with the rest of the UK, including officials in England, as the Government seek to improve inclusion and educational outcomes for all?”
“I recently attended a community meeting at the gurdwara in Warrington, with constituents who arrived in the UK from south Asia—members of the Sikh, Muslim and Hindu communities, all of whom came here in good faith. Every person in that room was at a different stage of the journey, and every single one would be affected by these changes. Some of the concerns that came up were about a single national income threshold that ignores regional pay differences. People working full time in vital jobs in Warrington cannot simply magic their wages up to a national figure. Many described normal career progression in highly skilled roles, with salaries starting lower and growing quickly, while others explained how visa restrictions limit their ability to move into higher-paid work.”
“Parents have asked me how they explain this to their children—children who feel British, because Britain is all they have ever known. These are households already paying more into the system than they take out. I understand the Government’s desire to reward contribution and support integration, but my constituents are struggling with a system that feels increasingly detached from the reality of their lives. Government power comes with responsibility, especially when people have arranged their lives around our decisions. We cannot invite people in on one set of rules, benefit from their labour and commitment, and then rewrite the contract halfway through.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will speak for my constituents who did exactly what this country asked of them. They came here legally, they worked hard, they paid their taxes and they built lives on the clear understanding that after five years they could settle. Now, part-way through that journey, as we have heard time and again in this debate, the goalposts are being moved. I have met and heard from NHS clinicians, care workers, engineers, researchers, academics, teachers and other skilled professionals, some only weeks away from being able to apply for settlement under the current rules. These are people who kept services running through covid and who pay thousands in tax, yet many are now living with anxiety and despair.”
“I ask the Government to match that same sense of fairness, protect those already on the five-year route, recognise real contribution and give families the certainty they deserve.”
“I am going to carry on because of time. I have spoken to highly skilled public sector workers who are being told that their day job is somehow not contribution enough. I have heard from researchers and lecturers who are strengthening our universities and innovation base, yet are falling short of blunt thresholds. To be clear about what fairness looks like, it means no retrospective changes for people already on the route to settlement, clear guaranteed transitional protections, and recognition of regional pay differences. We should manage and control migration, and our constituents rightly expect that, but they also expect fairness. They expect a system that recognises the contribution of hard-working, tax-paying people who now call Warrington their home.”
“I welcome the statement and the progress that it represents, and I put on record my thanks to the National Leasehold Campaign, which has spent many years campaigning tirelessly on behalf of existing leaseholders, who have been trapped in an unfair and archaic system. For the benefit of Warrington South leaseholders who are trying to understand the 40-year peppercorn cap, will the Minister explain how the 40-year cap was arrived at and whether there is any scope for the transition to be brought forward so that relief is felt sooner?”
“Misdiagnosis, problems in education, workplace breakdowns, mental health crises and families forced into private care, if they can afford it, while others are simply forced to cope until they cannot cope any more. When Ministers point to frameworks and data improvements, I say that those things matter but do not help the child struggling in school today or the adult in crisis being told to wait until the next decade. This is not about ADHD being over-diagnosed; it is about a system that consistently under-treats and under-supports those who have it. We desperately need more specialists, more appointments, more assessments, and waiting lists that are measured in months not years.”
“Parents told me that their children were identified early in nursery or reception, but support stalled because schools are restricted in what they can do without a diagnosis. By the time the referrals are finally made, children are already struggling, falling behind or believing they are lazy or stupid. I heard from women diagnosed in their 40s, 50s and 60s, after a lifetime of being treated for anxiety or depression that never quite made sense. Teachers contacted me too—experienced, committed professionals who want to help but are trying to meet complex needs in classes of 30 or more children, with limited support and resources. They told me that diagnosis means very little if there is no capacity to act on it. In Warrington, concerns about waiting times came up again and again.”
“Thank you, Ms Vaz, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Too many people in Warrington South are being failed by the system that is meant to help them. Demand for ADHD assessments has risen sharply, with waits of up to six years. As someone whose ADHD was diagnosed when I was an adult, I know at first hand how difficult it can be to navigate a system that often does not join up or listen properly. Ahead of this debate, I asked constituents to share their experiences of seeking an ADHD diagnosis. Adults told me that they waited years for assessment, only to be pushed through mental health pathways that did not fit and prescribed medication that made things worse. While waiting, some self-medicated with alcohol or drugs, not to escape but simply to cope. Years of masking, burnout and misdiagnosis have taken their toll.”
“No one who contacted me wants fireworks banned outright; they ask for better regulation that reflects how fireworks are used today. There is strong support for quieter fireworks, including silent options, and for a shift towards organised, licensed displays with clear start and end times. These approaches do not end tradition; they make it safer, more predictable and more considerate of others. We have a strong tradition of celebration and commemoration in this country, from bonfire night at Thelwall parish hall to ringing in the new year with Big Ben and celebrating Diwali and lunar new year. [Christine Jardine in the Chair ]”
“I also heard from parents about their children with autism and other disabilities, for whom the noise is overwhelming and frightening, often leading to meltdowns and heightened anxiety. Many people expressed concerns about the impact on veterans and others living with PTSD. Fireworks are no longer confined to one or two predicable nights. Constituents describe them being set off throughout the year, often late at night and often without notice. That unpredictability makes it almost impossible to prepare—to calm a distressed animal, support a vulnerable child or simply feel settled in one’s own home. Fireworks are explosives, and we already accept that they need regulation, but the clear message from my constituents is that the balance is no longer right.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. When I come to Parliament, I try to bring my constituents with me—not just their names on a petition, but their views, experiences and the reality of life on their streets. In shaping my contribution to this debate, I asked constituents to share their thoughts and experiences of fireworks as they are used today. Many people spoke about animals and their pets: dogs and cats traumatised by loud bangs, hiding for days, injuring themselves in panic or becoming permanently anxious. Other people raised the wider impact on wildlife and livestock, and the distress caused when explosions happen without warning.”
“I agree, and I think this needs to be considered in the round. If regulations are put in place, funding will absolutely be needed to fill the gap. For too many people, fireworks no longer mean celebration; they mean disruption and nights without sleep. This debate is not about banning joy; it is about listening carefully to the people we represent and asking whether our laws still reflect the reality on our streets, in our towns and in our villages. People are not asking us to end fireworks; they are asking us to regulate them better. That is a reasonable request from my constituents and from thousands of others across the country.”
“Many neurodivergent people will qualify as disabled under the Equality Act 2010, which means that they are legally entitled to reasonable adjustments at work.”