February 28 2003
Mr. Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robathan: I will not, as I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and a great many hon. Members wish to speak.
The third reason, as has been mentioned, is the larger white van trade, as I shall call it, for want of a better term--the black market that has sprung up in fireworks, which can be bought and distributed through unscrupulous retailers, car boot sales or wherever. The boxes, I understand, are split up from containers in lay-bys, which is illegal under the 1997 regulations. I suppose we have become a more antisocial society. When I was young, I do not think people threw bangers at old people and guide dogs. Perhaps I am being naive or showing my middle age.
The problems associated with fireworks are compounded, as we heard from several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), by the lack of enforcement. Bangers are illegal, as we know. Throwing fireworks in the street has been illegal since the Explosives Act 1875, yet, notwithstanding all the letters of complaint that we have had, only 64 cases were brought in England and Wales in 2000. I hope that the Bill will make enforcement easier for the police, which is what we all want.
I shall deal with improvements that are already on the way. Like the Minister who ruled out a ban on fireworks in the Westminster Hall debate on 30 October, we do not favour a ban. I commend the Government--very unusually--on the voluntary measures that they have been instrumental in introducing, which came into force on 1 January.
The industry, with the assistance of the DTI, has banned the import and sale of air bombs. That will turn out to be the key. People have told me that they believe that it will produce the quietest 5 November and surrounding period for years and that it will remove 10 million bangs from the market, and we all welcome that.
After eight years' discussion, the CEN, the Comité Européen de Normalisation, or the European Standards Committee--I have A-level French, although it is a little bit rusty--has agreed on a European standard of 120 dB. I understand that the DTI, the industry and most animal welfare groups are happy with that agreement and standard, and it could be introduced--I am sure that the Minister will tell us--this year.
The industry will also support a ban on displays after 11 pm--except, of course, on 31 December, although licensing may be needed for that day. Of course, displays after 11 pm are already illegal under the Noise Act 1996. I do not know, but I am pretty sure, whether there have been almost no prosecutions under that Act. The Government are trying out a sort of curfew after 11 pm, which would give the police a greater chance to act, but they are also trying out fixed penalties. They started trying out £40 on-the-spot fines in four areas last August. I hope that the Minister will tell us how those trials are working and how many fines there have been.

Richard Ottaway : May I assist my hon. Friend on that point? My constituency has one of the pilot schemes for fixed penalty notices, and precisely none has been issued against people for throwing fireworks in the street, mainly because those people are under the age of 18 and fixed penalty notices cannot be given to people under that age.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I hope that he may say more about it in his speech. The good wishes of the House are commendable, but the actions that follow our legislation are perhaps more important, and my point about enforcement relates very much to that.
Most of the things that we have heard about break the law already, and a lot of them come from unscrupulous importers and retailers selling to yobs, as the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned. The biggest problem of all is the white van trade, selling broken up boxes of fireworks to small retailers, who sell them on to teenagers.
I now wish to turn to the Bill itself. Conservatives generally are pretty wary of enabling legislation. We certainly do not like extra unnecessary regulations, but we generally support the spirit of the Bill, as I have said already. It is very much a last-minute Bill; the explanatory notes and the Library document for this debate were only published on Wednesday and the Bill was only agreed and published on 13 February, and I understand why. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South is being extremely sensible because, as we know, the Bill will be passed only if the Government give it a fair wind. That is why we have an enabling Bill, which was decided only on 13 February, so let us be in no doubt about that.
The Bill has been hugely watered down to get Government support, as the House is aware. I shall quote the Government's position, as explained by the Minister. [Interruption.] Well, I trust that she has not changed her position since 30 October, when she said:

The Government do not believe that a case has been made for banning the sale of fireworks and limiting their use to organised public displays. Such a ban could lead to the development of an illegal firework market and might encourage people to produce home-made devices. Sensible and considerate use of fireworks is a popular family entertainment.--[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 272WH.]

We agree.
Of course, as a result of being watered down, there is very little substance in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South talked about what is in the clauses. Well, actually, there is nothing in them, except the opportunity for the Government to act, and we all need to be aware of that. The Bill gives the Government--I quote the title of clause 2--"Power to make regulations", and the explanatory notes, which I received only yesterday, summarise the Bill as follows:

"The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations . . . which will regulate the supply and use of fireworks."

That is all that it will do. I have concerns about the Bill, and I should like to mention two of them. The first relates to clause 10 on training courses. As I said and as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), I think--

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Wherever.

Mr. Robathan: I am glad to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to the Chamber.
I have blown up a lot of explosives in my time, but the easy thing with fireworks is that we light the blue touch paper and retire--that is just about all the training that people need--and I was able to do that as a boy. I am not against training courses, but I am concerned because when I was younger I went on something called a mountain leadership course. It was an excellent course in many ways, but I vividly remember being taught, in the shadow of Ben Nevis, to light a little gas stove. It was just like lighting a gas stove at home: I turned it on and put a match to it, and then I switched it off. I was taught that as part of the course and, as a result, I left the course because I thought that it was such nonsense. If there are to be training courses, they should be short, apposite, inexpensive and as unregulatory as possible. It may sound great to have training courses, but it is the substance of the course that is the test.
My second concern relates to clause 3 on the supply to children. Of course, it is already illegal to sell fireworks to children. I understand that that clause is designed to stop unscrupulous people buying fireworks and passing them on to teenagers below the age of 18, who cannot be given on-the-stop fines, unfortunately. I am not against that provision, but is it likely--I hope that the Minister will put my mind at rest--that it will extend to giving sparklers to my six-year-old? The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) winces, but where does the Bill state that it will not do that? He has no answer because there is nothing in the Bill about it.

Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South): We can rely on the good sense of the Minister.

Mr. Robathan: The good sense of the Minister--ha, ha, ha--what good sense have we seen so far from the Government? Let us leave it at that.

Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): Has the hon. Gentleman ever thought about taking up pantomime?

Mr. Robathan: Unfortunately, I would not be able to get a place in pantomime because I know that the hon. Gentleman is already playing Widow Twankey.
The Bill will give the Minister the enabling power to ban the supply of fireworks to children. That is what it does, and we need to know exactly what that means when we pass a Bill. We should give parents credit for being responsible. I trust that the Government will use their powers wisely and proportionately, but we need to hear an answer on that.
I commend two points in the Bill, and this relates to what the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said. First, at the moment, there is a £13 registration fee. There should be proper licensing, and the possibility of having two tiers of licensing is sensible. There could be a cheap licence, perhaps for three weeks around 5 November, and a more expensive licence for mail order throughout the year, so that there is proper control over how fireworks are bought. Licensing will not answer all the problems, such as stock piling, but it can be useful and it is relatively sensible.
I also commend clause 9 on importation. That is the key to enforcement. The Chinese and other fireworks that are imported legally mostly come through Felixstowe. Although that port has the necessary explosives controls, legal fireworks are imported in containers. Where do they go when they leave Felixstowe? There is no check on them. The Health and Safety Executive does not properly check on them. Do they go to registered or licensed suppliers? We just do not know.
Already it is reckoned that between 10 and 18 per cent. of the fireworks in this country are sold on the black market--off white vans, for want of a better term. What storage do they go to? Storage is not properly enforced or supervised currently, and more kilograms of fireworks are imported than there is licensed or approved storage facilities for them.
The Bill has little substance, so we can only guess what will come in its wake. For that reason, we are not entirely happy. I urge the Minister to concentrate on enforcement more than on anything else. I suspect that she will because, notwithstanding what I have said, what she has done on fireworks until now has been fairly sensible. Praise indeed.
Much remains up to the Home Office and police enforcement. I was pleased to see the Home Secretary here, unusually, on a Friday morning. However, a lot remains the responsibility of the DTI, and I suspect that the storage, licensing and tracking of goods comes under the Minister's Department.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson) indicated dissent.
Mr. Robathan: No? I hope that the Minister will ensure that there is sensible, non-bureaucratic enforcement. Checks should be carried out at Felixstowe so that fireworks go to properly licensed retailers. If those provisions are made and there is proper enforcement, the Bill will work. The enforcement of existing regulations on decibel levels is also the key to improving the lives of our concerned constituents and their pets, as they are genuinely troubled at present.
I am not a killjoy. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Hamilton, South say that he was not a killjoy, and I hope to entertain my children in the future. I appreciate that the situation is worsening. We do not like extra regulation, and I hope that the Bill may help to improve the situation, so, for that reason, we wish it a fair wind.
10.49 am
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his good fortune and on taking forward this Bill. I have had the pleasure of serving with him on a couple of Standing Committees and I know that he has a keen eye for the detail of legislation. He ably demonstrated that in his speech.
In 1997-98, my first year as a Member of Parliament, I was very involved with the work that the my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), the then Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, did in respect of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 that he introduced. We worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who has also done much work on firework safety. Safety was the dominant issue at that time.
Some Members may not have seen the excellent Library briefing that charts the history of the safety issues in which we have all taken an interest. The appendix lays out the fireworks statistics for the years from 1996 to 2001. It shows clearly the impact of the regulations that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South introduced. They succeeded in reducing the number of accidents. However, over the past year or two--and, predominantly, since the turn of the millennium--the number of accidents is, sadly, increasing as fireworks become more available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South pointed out, the statistics reflect only a small amount of what is happening. The period in which fireworks are sold has been extended. They are on sale from September to February and, in some parts of the country, for even longer than that. Therefore, the statistics do not capture the full dimension of the problem.

Helen Jones (Warrington, North): The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) compared the statistics for fireworks accidents with those for other accidents, but does my hon. Friend agree that most fireworks accidents are entirely avoidable with the right regulations? Furthermore, the statistics do not describe the misery caused by the antisocial behaviour that is associated with fireworks. It causes great concern to our constituents.

Linda Gilroy: Absolutely. The fireworks safety campaigns carried out by the consumer safety unit every year target the key problems revealed in the statistics. They have been very successful, and I was about to refer to the hooligan use and noise aspects of fireworks.

Sandra Osborne (Ayr): Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the number of accidents can be measured, the distress caused particularly to elderly people who may have small pets is enormous? Furthermore, the veterinary bills that they have to pay are something that they can ill afford.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was heartened by the initial message of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He appeared to understand the scale and nature of the problem. However, we then heard many mixed messages even on issues such as guide dogs for the blind.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend highlights a very important point. I presented to the House this week a petition signed by more than 2,000 people. A significant majority of the people who have written to me have described the effects on guide dogs. Will those people who express concerns about the Bill accept that fireworks affect not just guide dogs for the blind but hearing dogs for the deaf? As dogs are trained increasingly to help people in a number of different circumstances, the scale of the problem could escalate. If we do not do something about the problem by controlling and restricting fireworks in the way that the Bill suggests--I heartily commend it to the House--we will store up significant problems in other areas.

Linda Gilroy: We certainly will. Hearing dogs for the deaf is a fascinating subject. I have a letter from a constituent called Lillian who owns a guide dog called Callum. She is totally blind and wrote to me on 3 February to say:

"Even last night fireworks were being let off in my street. I know it was Candlemas"--

Lillian has a sense of humour--

"but I was unaware that this was a time for letting off Roman Candles."

She adds:

"However, a few years back whilst walking in the local park area, with a school adjoining, during the morning, I was stopped by a couple of adults who told me not to go further as boys were tossing fireworks across the footpath. As my dog was running free, I called him back to put him on the lead and take a different route. Goodness knows the outcome if I had not done so. I have heard of several guide dog owners who have had to get tranquillisers for their dogs, which of course causes distress to both dog and owner...I trust my letter will add to all the others".

The petition that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) is in addition to the 250,000 signatures on the petition collected by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is a UK-wide problem as reflected by the more than 21,000 signatures on the petition from south Wales presented here a month ago? There are also 250 distressing letters detailing exactly the concerns that were highlighted in the letter from which she has quoted.

Linda Gilroy: The problem is repeated up and down the country. Almost every Member would be able to quote a similar case.

Mr. Robathan: To avoid doubt, let me make it clear that we have enormous sympathy for guide dog owners and the constituent that the hon. Lady has mentioned. Everything that that constituent has written about is currently illegal. Just introducing extra regulations will not necessarily prevent such problems. We wish that guide dog owner to be able to walk her dog safely through the streets.

Linda Gilroy: The hon. Gentlemen's view of regulation is not the view of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association or an impressive of animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The hon. Gentleman should consult page 35 of the Library briefing document.
Deregulation will be an important issue in debate on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South rightly said that the Bill had been considered by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. This Bill is to some extent modelled on my original Bill, which was backed by the CBI's explosive industry group. In fact, the thrust of my Bill came from the industry, which wanted training courses to take place. I spoke to the annual general meeting of the British Pyrotechnists Association that was held in Plymouth where the national fireworks championships are held each year. The association is working closely with the industry to develop training courses, but cowboys can undercut the cost of supporting that training if a standard is not set for the whole industry.

David Hamilton (Midlothian): I wish to emphasise that point. Many of the 1,500 people in Midlothian who signed a petition in just four weeks and the letters that I have received do not argue for a total ban. People like to see public displays and training is required for them. People using large amounts of explosive require training.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend is exactly right.
Finally on deregulation, consultation with the stakeholders and the fireworks industry and organisations is well honed. The hon. Member for Blaby should not be too concerned that the regulations would be implemented without the fullest possible consultation and consideration of the industry's views. This is a sensible Bill and I commend it to the House.
I see that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is no longer is in his place. The House has strong associations with Guy Fawkes. The right hon. Gentleman was the leader of the pack that sabotaged the 1997 Bill and Opposition Members were called to order 38 times when it returned to the House from the House of Lords. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that he may become the "Guy Forth" for those who are interested in this issue. We will not just stick pins in the right hon. Gentleman's photograph, but will try to do some rather more robust things as well.
10.59 am
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): I too congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). My congratulations are heartfelt, because during the last Session I was in charge of a private Member's Bill and I know how much work goes on behind the scenes--the dealing with interest groups as well as the legislative drafting. It was clear from the hon. Gentleman's generosity in responding to interventions and the confidence in which he did so that he had done his homework.
Let me say unequivocally that my colleagues and I support the spirit of the Bill, and will support its Second Reading. It should be noted that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, is a sponsor.
Despite my support, I think it would be rather feeble to come here just to say "Hear, hear". While I think the Bill deserves an airing in Committee, I also think there is a need for constructive criticism at this stage. Many questions need to be asked. We should ask, for instance, to what extent an all-embracing Bill such as this, covering all aspects of production, distribution and use, is required, as opposed to the incremental approach that has been adopted so far. There is also the fact that a "framework" Bill such as this does not address key controversies. Indeed, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman aspires to address them. One of the main controversies concerns whether there should be a ban during the three weeks before Guy Fawkes night--one of the issues in the voluntary code.

Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): Although most retailers have applied the guidance measures, one or two rogue companies have ignored it and have deemed it legitimate to extend sales beyond the three-week period. That is causing problems.

Dr. Cable: That is a good practical point, and we should be discussing precisely such issues. We should be discussing whether a three-week moratorium is a good idea. My point, however, was procedural: I feel that the general nature of the Bill simply defers such arguments until the Minister produces a regulation.
We talk of a fireworks issue, but there are in fact a number of issues. One is the issue of injury. As has been said, fireworks cause about 1,000 injuries a year, many of them serious. That has been the case for some years. The actions it has led to relate to the dangerous nature of some fireworks, many of which are currently illegal, and to how regulation can be enforced.
A second issue, mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), is the antisocial use of fireworks which, although perfectly safe in sensible and mature hands, are dangerous when abused. We are told that 40 per cent. of those injured are teenagers. The Minister has already responded to the problem by introducing regulations that aim to stop the throwing of fireworks.
In fact the antisocial issue is largely dealt with by existing legislation. We have had a lot of legislation on antisocial issues. Indeed, both the issues I have mentioned have already been dealt with in different ways. The major issue--this, I think, is why we are here today--is noise. Loud fireworks distress elderly people and, in particular, the blind.
I echo the tributes already paid to the Home Secretary, who made the effort to come here this morning and show his moral support for the Bill. One of the people who have lobbied me is Julia Schofield, one of the most impressive people in the country. She is a leading information technology electronic government entrepreneur, and she is completely blind. She came to me for help several years ago. As a jet-setting business woman, she had to take guide dogs around the world. Taking a guide dog around the streets of New York, Hong Kong and Frankfurt was not straightforward, she said, but it was simple compared with the process of getting a guide dog through the British quarantine system. She wanted some help with that problem. She has now explained to me, in businesslike terms, the practical problems caused to a blind person by fireworks. Dogs must often be sedated because of the distress that they suffer, and her life is made much more difficult by the thoughtless, excessively noisy and antisocial use of fireworks. That, I think, crystallises the issue for many of us.
What, then, is the best way of dealing with the problem? Should it be dealt with through new legislation, through enforcement or through fireworks standards? I have an open mind, but I wonder how much could be achieved had I the simpler expedient of tough industrial standards. As has been said, it is possible to impose BSSI standards on industry under existing 1997 regulations, which can then be translated into import controls; but perhaps those standards need to be tougher. As has also been said, the European standard prescribes 120 decibels. Guide dog groups tell me that 95 decibels--roughly the volume of a banging door--would be more appropriate, as anything above that level is distressing. I suspect that if the appropriate level were defined and then imposed through BSSI standards, and if that were properly enforced, many of the problems we are discussing would be solved.

Linda Gilroy: The main aim of the Bill is to extend regulations dealing predominantly with the goods themselves to the use of those goods, particularly through possession. That would make enforcement easier.

Dr. Cable: I do not quarrel with that. I am posing a question: would the need for the regulation of use be quite so great if we dealt with the definition issue, and imposed tough standards?
Even if we dealt with the issue of standards, however, the issue of enforcement would remain. Several Labour Members have raised that point. Many of the problems are due to the absence or inadequacy of enforcement procedures. As we know, councils are struggling at present. They have too few consumer protection officers, and their environmental health departments are weak. They have been run down over the years, and often cannot deal with abuses.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: That has been a particular problem in my constituency. As in many other coastal towns, fireworks are sold in shops with either a short-term lease or no lease at all, which has caused difficulties for hard-working trading standards officers.

Dr. Cable: That also applies in my local high street. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend means there should be legislation to deal with the problem, or more resources for enforcement, but I suspect it is the latter, as with many such problems.
We should bear in mind--the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) tried to refer to this, but found himself in various cul de sacs--that there are already a number of legislative prohibitions. There are prohibitions on dangerous fireworks, or bangers. There are restrictions on the storage, public sale and the sale of single fireworks rather than boxes. If all those regulations were properly enforced, many of the current difficulties would not exist. This is an enforcement issue as much as a legislative issue, and we need an assurance from the Minister that there will be enough enforcement back-up. She has a good record on consumer legislation and ensuring that legislation is supported by additional resources for consumer protection officers. Parallel measures are needed in this case.
In the last few minutes of my speech, I shall refer to some aspects of the Bill that will need detailed scrutiny when it passes, as I hope that it will, into Committee.
One of the key bits of the Bill is clause 2, which defines the nature of future offences in terms of not using fireworks safely. It talks about the use of safe fireworks to minimise the risk. I shall read this phrase because it is quite important. Clause 2(2) talks about fireworks causing

"death . . . injury, alarm, distress or anxiety to"

any person, or

"death . . . injury or distress to"

any animal. Setting aside for a moment the quibble as to why animals do not suffer alarm and anxiety, there is a big issue about how these rather subjective measures will be translated into the law. As I understand it, at the moment most of the offences under the regulations are quite specific and easily identified, but the Bill introduces a subjective test. The prosecuting authorities will have to define personal distress, and I am not sure how they will do so in a practical way that will satisfy the courts. That clause requires in-depth examination.

Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a dog required sedation by a veterinary surgeon, that would constitute distress?

Dr. Cable: I would think so, but I am not a defence barrister, who might throw up all kinds of objections to that argument. I am simply suggesting that this definition is not straightforward--I think that I saw the hon. Gentleman nod when I raised this point--and will need a lot of critical scrutiny.
Clause 3 relates to underage sale, which is already illegal. There are problems of enforcement, but I do not understand what clause 3 adds to the existing prohibitions.
Clause 4, a particularly all-embracing clause, relates to restrictions on the time of day and time of year when fireworks can be sold. As I have previously said, that raises the questions of whether it would be sensible to try to impose a moratorium before bonfire night, and how we should deal with Diwali and Chinese new year. My feeling is that perhaps local authorities should be allowed a discretion to allow sale during a festival time; it would not necessarily be 5 November. In an area with a large Asian population, the local authority would probably have a different view from an authority in Cornwall or the highlands of Scotland, but that is perhaps best dealt with at local level.

Mr. Robathan: I am slightly confused, because the hon. Gentleman spoke about a moratorium around bonfire night. I thought that the intention was to allow sale around bonfire night, not impose a moratorium.

Dr. Cable: I do not explain myself clearly. I meant a moratorium outside that period. I am sorry if I did not use the correct language.
Clause 6 raises interesting and important questions about public display. Many of the provisions contained in it and the associated clause about the need for training, and the need for properly responsible people of the right age group to be in charge of public displays, are helpful and useful, but is it really necessary to superimpose a separate licensing, fee-paying system on the existing obligation on environmental health officers? These people are already under a lot of pressure, but the clause will imply a new regulatory regime, with all the paper filling and bureaucracy involved. One wonders whether they have the resources to cope with it.
Clause 7 deals with the licensing of suppliers. However, there is already considerable legislative control of suppliers in terms of permitted access, storage, and sales in boxes but not single units. We need persuading that there are important loopholes to be filled. In his own private Member's legislation, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) identified some weaknesses here, but the provisions that clause 7 makes possible are very wide indeed.
Finally there is the issue of imports, which is covered by clause 8. There are provisions under existing legislation for import controls on dangerous fireworks and I am not sure what additional requirements are needed.
I raise all these questions in a very preliminary way. They will need to be studied in detail. I support the Second Reading enthusiastically, but although I am not a parliamentary draftsman, as I read the Bill all kinds of questions came to mind.
In conclusion, I pose a couple of questions to the Minister to which I hope that she will give clear answers. Will she explain clearly why she regards framework legislation of this kind as necessary? She has been carrying through a series of incremental steps, adding to the powers that she has. Why does she feel that that process has reached its limits? The other key assurance that we need from her is that the Government will properly support legislation of this kind--which imposes new regulatory obligations on local authorities--by providing the resources that environmental health departments will require. If we have reassurance on those two counts, I will feel completely confident that we are moving into some very secure, worthwhile and welcome legislation.
11.15 am
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): As the Member of Parliament who chairs the all-party group on fireworks, I must say that there has been a marvellous turnout today. The group has about 150 members, most of whom seem to be present today. I am just a little sad that not everyone can contribute to the debate, but I say well done to everyone for being here.
We congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his shrewd move in selecting this subject for his private Member's Bill, because it affects every constituency in England, Scotland and Wales. We have all had letters from people complaining about the noise and disturbance of fireworks, and it is time to toughen the legislation, so I am glad that my hon. Friend has introduced his Bill.
I did not mention Northern Ireland when I referred to all constituencies in this country, because in Northern Ireland the system that the Bill would introduce already exists. I suggest that those who doubt that the system would work look at how it is working in Northern Ireland. Much of the antisocial behaviour that was associated with fireworks--the noise and disturbance--has plummeted since the licensing and regulatory regime was introduced.

Mr. Gardiner: I commend the work that my hon. Friend has done in campaigning on this issue for so long. Is she aware that since 2001, when the new regulations were introduced, the number of injuries in Northern Ireland has dropped from 138 a year to just 36? That is significant in showing the effect that the Bill would have in this country.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend is quite right, which is why I tell people who question whether this enabling Bill would work that they should look at how it has worked in Northern Ireland.
We want this Bill to pass because of the noise, the disturbance, the vandalism, and the hooligan misuse of fireworks. The noise and nuisance have always been around, but they were confined to a few days of the year. The period has extended from a few days to day after day, week after week, and now month after month. I usually get my first letters complaining about the misuse of fireworks in August, but the date is getting earlier every year, which shows that the voluntary code is not working.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): I congratulate my hon. Friend on the marvellous work that she has done, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing an excellent Bill. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) agree that a number of people outside the House--including Councillor Tom Maginnis, who led the task group for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities--are very keen not only that the Bill should be passed but that it should be implemented with all possible speed?

Shona McIsaac: I agree. In fact, I too have held discussions with COSLA. Its research was excellent and it laid good foundations for today's debate. Yes, of course we want the Minister to use the powers that she will be given by the Bill. Some people are saying that she may go too far, but some of us think that she may not go far enough. If we give her the powers, we hope that she will use them.

Mr. Iain Luke (Dundee, East): I congratulate my hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), on doing so much work to bring the Bill before the House. Does she agree that, despite the fact that we hope that it will become law, the all-party group should not be made redundant? The regulations may not satisfy public demand for control and provide the successful conclusion that we are all looking for, and surveys taken throughout the country show that a significant number of people, whose voice is not often heard, want a total ban.

Shona McIsaac: I hope that the all-party group does not cease to exist when the Bill is passed. There is a lot of work yet to be done, including in Committee. We must monitor how the Bill works and see whether it reduces noise and disturbance.

Mr. Marsha Singh (Bradford, West): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on choosing the Bill, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) agree with a ban on the sale and use of fireworks, except around bonfire night and at other licensed events?

Shona McIsaac: The Bill would restrict sales outside certain times of the year, but it also acknowledges the importance of festivals such as Diwali and Chinese new year by providing for the use of fireworks at such times. It would, however, reduce the months of the year in which disturbance would occur.
Thousands of my constituents have been in touch with me to discuss noise and disturbance, which they want to see ended. I shall give a few examples from my area, which I am sure other Members will share.

Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey): Does my hon. Friend share my slight dismay at the attitude of Opposition Front Benchers towards the setting of noise levels? If the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is looking for a pantomime character, Wishee Washee might be the most appropriate.

Shona McIsaac: I will not be drawn into that. We have support from Opposition Front Benchers, and I do not want to reduce it.
An 81-year-old asthmatic woman had to be rescued from her smoke-filled home after louts put lit fireworks through her letter box. In another example, 60 people had to be evacuated from a Grimsby pub, again after lit fireworks were thrown into the building, which filled with smoke. Fire officers said that the incident could have been serious if fires had caught hold.
Post boxes seem to be a target for hooligans. In one incident in our area in which a post box was blown up, the firework used was not a consumer firework; it was meant to be used only in licensed displays. Such fireworks are banned for sale to the consumer, which shows how various types of firework get into circulation and are used by hooligans and louts.
Vandals target plastic wheelie bins time and again because the plastic goes into wonderful shapes when fireworks are put in them. The phone calls of drug dealers in Grimsby and Cleethorpes are monitored, so they use fireworks to let addicts know when new supplies have come in. A woman on an estate in our area says:

"We get fireworks going off all year round here. Even the kids know what a rocket going off means."

We must take such things very seriously.
Apart from the danger, vandalism, noise nuisance and disturbance, there are the safety aspects. What happened in Rhode Island has been mentioned, but we must also remember that, a couple of years ago, 282 people died in a fire in Lima in Peru as a result of fireworks triggering a fire. In Enschede in the Netherlands, more than 20 people died and thousands of people were made homeless when a place in which fireworks were being stored caught fire. That area of Enschede is still devastated.
We should never forget that we are not dealing with toys; we are dealing with lethal incendiary explosive devices. We must toughen up the law because fireworks have become more available. A lot more are being sold and there is a lot more misuse.
This is not just an urban problem, as some people have suggested, owing to the fact that more fireworks are being let off in cities and towns, creating more noise--it is a rural problem, too. A resident from the village of Ulceby in my constituency said to me:

"Why do people have to be so selfish? Would they want to spend eight nights outside checking on their livestock?"

She has to go out to check on her livestock because of firework misuse. A resident from Barton wrote to me:

"Two years ago a horse bolted, got on to the road, caused an accident and had to be put down because of its injuries."

Rural and urban constituencies alike are affected by firework misuse.
I am also grateful to a constituent from Barcroft street in Cleethorpes who sent me leaflets that were put under the windscreen of her car and which show the problem that we are dealing with. We should consider the prices of those fireworks. One is called a devil rocket and the price is only £1.25 for five. That is why these things are getting into the hands of hooligans--they are very, very cheap. Another leaflet refers to

"mega loud coloured air bombs only £1.50"

for five. The flyers also refer to rockets at £1.25 for five, making loud screeches and bangs, to £25 monster fireworks

"that would scare the SAS".

That says it all. These fireworks are not toys; they are designed to disturb and to create noise--that is all they do.
Some of the other firework names are air raid, air torpedo, cruise missile, mega scud, nuclear warhead and 100-shot ack-ack barrage. Those retailers also offer free alcohol with the sale of fireworks, which I deplore. Yesterday, a resident phoned me to say that retailers were still selling, although we are outside the time of year laid down by the voluntary code for selling fireworks. He went into a shop and noticed that a firework being sold there was called missile attack, a 150-shot screeching missile at only £8. That is still being sold at this time of year in Grimsby town centre.
We are not discussing pretty little stars in the sky with nice sparkles and fizzes; these fireworks are noisy, and I hope that the Bill halts their sale. Such fireworks are creating all the antisocial behaviour, noise and nuisance that our constituents want to see ended. I wish the Bill well and the all-party firework group supports it, so let us have all the fizz and none of the bangs.
11.28 am
Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup): I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who made many valid points and has done a sterling job behind the scenes in co-ordinating the all-party group. It is good to know that the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) has managed to obtain all-party support for the Bill. This is a challenging Bill for him to steer through the House and I hope that the usual channels, as well as Front Benchers, assist him to get it on to the statute book.
Like many Members, I have received lots of representations and petitions from my constituents. I shall not follow the example of Liberal Democrat Members by listing them all so that I can put them in my newsletters, but those in Old Bexley and Sidcup have made their views clearly known to me, and I have passed them to the Minister. I am grateful to her for her typically courteous and speedy reply. It is good that the Government have taken notice of the depth of concern in constituencies across the United Kingdom. The Minister was most prompt in dealing with that, for which I am grateful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), in an admirably early and thoughtful contribution, made it clear that those who have some concerns about the drafting of legislation are not party poopers. Sadly, most of us in this Chamber are not that young any more, but we remember with joy the time when we were children and watched fireworks go off. I seem to recall--I do not know whether it is age or not--that in those days they did not seem quite as effective. Most of our fathers had some difficulty getting Catherine wheels to spin, whereas now one could tie a human to them and they would work, so there is a difference between the fireworks that most of us and many of our more elderly constituents remember and the whiz-bang things that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes was right to mention. There is a problem with the type of firework, not just the abuse of the firework.
I am glad that some concern has been expressed about the period of use. The population in my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup is slightly more elderly than in many parts of the country. They know when Guy Fawkes night is coming and they are prepared for it, but they are not prepared for it starting in September. The same seems to happen to everything we do: summer time hardly changes and everyone is shopping for Christmas. It is not a problem just for the fireworks industry, and it results from a general impatience to get to periods of celebration. There is, however, a particular problem with fireworks and the length of time during which they appear, despite the voluntary code, to be readily available.
Fireworks are undoubtedly frightening. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby mentioned the impact that they were having on his children. Their experience is widely felt, even among those who have taken their children to fireworks displays or used fireworks in the garden. Most families enjoy the spectacle rather than the volume of noise from fireworks.
One of the things that worry me is not the display aspect of fireworks but the use to which they are put. If fireworks were used just for observation and amusement, perhaps we would not all need to be here. It is the abuse of fireworks that is the cause of the Bill. There is no need in a debate such as this to go into detail about injuries to children because everyone sees them every year in hospital casualty units. Damage is done to children who are unaware of the danger of fireworks but who have managed to get hold of fireworks.

John Robertson: May I add to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about children having accidents? When I was 12, a friend of mine thought that fireworks did not make a loud enough noise, so he decided to make his own from the fireworks he had. As a result, he blew his hand off. That happened 50 years ago. Is it not sad that we are talking about these things today instead of when I was 12?

Derek Conway: The hon. Gentleman, as he always does when he contributes to this debate, makes a telling and thought-provoking response. The consequences of the misuse of fireworks are considerable and often damaging for life.
I perhaps should at this point declare an interest because of what I am about to say. In the Register of Members' Interests, I declare that I am the chief executive of the Cats Protection League, or Cats Protection as we prefer to be known these days, so I should like to make some observations about animal cruelty, which the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned. Guide Dogs for the Blind has taken a leading role as an animal welfare charity, and everyone is impressed by the way in which it has done so.
The animal welfare charity world can be like the world of political parties. We all know what we are doing and we all do it for the best possible reasons, but there is often a degree of in-fighting and spats. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South will be glad to know, however, that on this occasion the animal welfare charities have come together. For once, they agree on something, which does not happen often, so it is quite a triumph for him. Guide Dogs for the Blind has led the way, with everyone's support, especially that of an excellent organisation called the National Canine Defence League, which takes stray dogs and abandoned dogs, re-homes them, cares for them and does a splendid job across the country.
Not far from this House, the dogs home at Battersea is another superb organisation. Many people do not realise that for more than 100 years it has been helping cats, too. There is the Blue Cross centre, the Wood Green centre and an organisation much maligned in this place, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has a high political profile in campaigning, which in itself can be controversial. However, I think that all hon. Members would congratulate it on the excellent document that it has produced highlighting the difficulties faced by all species. I am particularly glad to see in his place the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), one of the patrons of Cats Protection. He has a wide interest and reputation in animal welfare matters. It is helpful that organisations such as the RSPCA and those that support it have managed to brief the House this morning so effectively. Action unquestionably is overdue.
Cats Protection helps about 170,000 cats year, which is more than all the other animal welfare charities put together, through a network of 300 groups across the UK and 30 permanent shelters. I could keep the House going for hours, which of course I do not intend to do, discussing the difficulty with cruelty cases. What we find, particularly in the 30 permanent shelters, is that around Guy Fawkes time there is a phenomenal increase in the number of strays. I refer not to feral cats but to domestic cats that have been scared from family gardens and arrive at our shelter needing help and, often, veterinary support.
I will give the House one example of cruelty that explains what is happening. It is from Belfast, where we have a shelter in Dundonald on the outskirts of the city. Callous thugs tied to the tail of a 10-week-old kitten a firework that blew its tail off. The distressed animal was brought to our shelter, where the manager, Janice Watts, who is a superb girl with a wonderful crew, cared for the cat and gave it veterinary treatment. It was subsequently re-homed but, not surprisingly, it was a bit suspicious of humans for a very long time.
The fact remains that cats scare easily. They do not react well to quick movement or to loud noises. They certainly do not react well to having their tails tied. These are not family displays or organised charity events to try to raise money and please everyone. As we know, sadly, on the whole, the cruelty is by very young men who are clearly stupid and who think it is a bit of a giggle and a kick to do something unspeakably horrible to an animal. If they were doing it to one another, I would perhaps have less concern, but they like to use animals to vent their stupidity.

Mr. Luke: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about that atrocious incident in Northern Ireland gives strength to the movement towards regulation and control of fireworks throughout the United Kingdom. Does he accept that there is a quite strict regime on control of fireworks in Northern Ireland, and that we need police forces and the authorities to take stronger action against individuals such as the ones who perpetrated the attack on that poor cat to ensure that they face the full rigour of the law? That is the best deterrent we have.

Derek Conway: The hon. Gentleman is right. Obviously, Northern Ireland, if anywhere in the United Kingdom, has a greater awareness of what explosives can do and the danger and fright that they can cause, yet still we have examples such as that. In many ways, one of the frustrations of being in Parliament, and an even greater frustration of being in the police service, is that one cannot outlaw human stupidity. That is what we are talking about in such cases. It is wanton, mindless cruelty. However, we must still try to encourage those who are less ridiculous along a law-abiding route. That is why I hope that the Bill will make progress this morning.
Charities such as Cats Protection are more interested in finding homes for cats than in paying vet bills for animals damaged by fireworks displays, although sadly that is a large part of our expenditure at that time of the year. It is mindless cruelty. Certainly, the animal welfare sector, as well as my constituents, who are irritated by the human consequences of fireworks, will wish the hon. Member for Hamilton, South God speed with his Bill. I am glad that it is getting support from all parts of House.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): I shall begin by paying tribute to a man called Malcolm Armstrong, who taught me what little more than most people I know about pyrotechnics in one hour of a moving morning. Mr. Armstrong follows in a fine tradition of firework manufacturing in Thanet, which used to host the Astra fireworks factory. I visited Mr. Armstrong's business some years ago; it looks like a collection of garden sheds in a field, but he manufactures some of the finest pyrotechnic fireworks produced in this country, and over the years he has given pleasure to very many people.
All visitors to Malcolm Armstrong's establishment are taken to one particular shed, which contains a workbench on which there is a photograph of his son, who worked in the business and was blown apart. Because of the care that everyone was required to take, and the careful separation, only one person--the proprietor's son--died in that accident. If I ever needed to learn, I learned then how very dangerous fireworks can be, even when they are properly handled.
Malcolm Armstrong went on; others might not have been big enough. He did not give in; he continued to manufacture superb displays that gave pleasure to thousands of people. He manufactured the displays for the Quex park promenade concerts in my constituency, which attracted thousands of people and raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for charity--but he has never forgotten, and never forgets to tell anybody handling fireworks, or anybody operating for him or running a display, that those explosives can kill.
All constituency Members of Parliament will have had the privilege and pleasure of attending firework displays held for charity. Any constituency Member representing a rural area will have been to village fêtes, the culmination of which, in the evening when the sun has gone down, is often a firework display. Anybody with a school in their constituency--and that means everybody--knows that schools too have displays. Everybody knows that a balance has to be struck between the hazards and the pleasure that fireworks give to many people.
About 30 per cent. of the population of my constituency are over retirement age. Many of those elderly people are widowed, and many of them have pets. I shall not rehearse again the arguments so well deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway); suffice it to say that double distress is caused by the irresponsible use of items primarily designed for enjoyment. The constant use of fireworks throughout the year by irresponsible hooligans, often late at night, causes distress for the elderly and a second distress to their family--because their families are their animals.
What I want to say to the Minister and the promoter of the Bill is simply this: what is being done here today is necessary, and it has my fullest support--but as one who has the privilege of scrutinising legislation from time to time, I think that another concern needs to be expressed too. The Bill is fairly loosely drafted, and has deliberately been designed to give the Secretary of State powers to introduce regulations. I hope that those regulations will strike the balance needed to control the irresponsible use of fireworks while at the same time permitting public enjoyment, not only on bonfire night but on other proper occasions throughout the year. I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) to consider that. When he takes his Bill into Committee, will he carefully consider discussing with his colleagues in Government the possibility of introducing amendments that, at the very least, make the regulations subject to the affirmative statutory instrument procedure, so that we in the House can be sure that we are doing what we intend to do?
11.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I join all the other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his success in winning the lottery and bringing forward this important Bill. I can give the House the reassurance that the Government support it. I am also pleased to hear from Members on both sides of the House about how my hon. Friend has gained the support of organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the RSPCA, the Blue Cross and many others, such as Cats Protection, which we have just heard about.
The British Fireworks Association, which represents the fireworks industry, also broadly supports the Bill. That is important, and represents a recognition on its part that there is a growing impatience in the community about the difficulties that people are experiencing with fireworks, and that these issues need to be addressed.
As hon. Members have said, many people have concerns about fireworks. All our postbags contain many complaints from our constituents about their misuse, and the noise and nuisance that they cause. I believe that there has been a sea change in those concerns over the past few years. At one time public concern was principally focused on injuries, and although we and the public continue to be concerned about the number of injuries, the vast majority of the letters, many of which I have received via other Members for my attention, and which I study carefully, highlight the problems that Members have already mentioned--the noise and nuisance, and all their consequences.

Mr. Luke: I am one of those Members, and I have received no letters back from the Minister. I congratulate her on being instrumental in bringing about her Government colleagues' acceptance of the need for the Bill, but does she accept that this is simply one stage, and that if the Bill is not strong enough, stronger measures may be needed to deal with the problems of noise and nuisance that she is talking about, and which our constituents experience?

Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend alludes to other possibilities. I could construe him, perhaps wrongly, to mean that fireworks should be banned from general public use.

Mr. Luke indicated assent.

Miss Johnson: That is one thing that some people have argued for. Indeed, the fireworks industry recognises that if the concerns that are preoccupying us today are not properly addressed in terms of both legislative powers and the enforcement to back them up, there may be growing support for a ban. Hon. Members have accurately expressed the balance of views. Fireworks still give enormous pleasure and many people want their use to continue within a better framework.

Mr. Singh: When it comes to regulation, will the Minister consider banning exceptionally loud and dangerous fireworks to the general public?

Miss Johnson: I will consider that. I can also assure my hon. Friend that the European Union is turning its mind to the problem and a European standard may also be set.

Mr. Truswell: Does my hon. Friend accept that people fear that the European Union may introduce a noise level that is far too high? Although the Bill contains a raft of desirable measures, does she accept that noise is at the core of the problems with fireworks? Is she attracted to the approach that we should set our own level, perhaps along the lines suggested by the RSPCA, and if not, why not?

Miss Johnson: I am attracted to the approach that people should no longer experience undue noise from fireworks. We have to bear in mind a number of considerations. A certain explosive charge is necessary to put something into the sky which is, obviously, the minimum requirement. Beyond that, we must consider the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) rightly outlined in considerable detail. It is often the availability of cheap and noisy fireworks--how they are sold and marketed, and to whom they are sold--that is the cause of the problem. As we have heard from many constituencies, it is the way in which fireworks are used by hooligans in communities and their availability throughout the year that cause the problems experienced by the public.
Hon. Members raised the same points in a variety of ways and we all know that we must address them. The protections necessary for humans, animals and property are major concerns. Our powers are limited at the moment and we cannot introduce those protections now. The Bill's main purpose is to provide the capability to use regulations to address the problems associated with fireworks. As hon. Members recognised, it will give us enabling powers to make regulations that control, among other things, the times of the day when fireworks can be used. We will also be able to set a maximum noise limit on all fireworks sold to the public, to require suppliers of fireworks to be licensed, to ensure that public firework display operators meet requirements before giving displays and to control the importation of fireworks. All those measures will play a role in solving the problem. So a package of measures will resolve the difficulties that many people face.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned the framework legislation. We are interested in a Bill of this nature because the problem requires a package of measures. It is also clear that it may need to be flexibly implemented to address problems as and when they occur. The main problem is not in going too far or not far enough--although both of those have been suggested to me, and it would, of course, be for the House to consider any regulations--but in making things as effective as possible. That requires us to ensure that legislation is flexible enough to respond to problems as they occur. Indeed, some of the problems arise from the fact that legislation principally focuses on product safety. There is no longer such a large issue about firework product safety because they are mostly safe when used "as it says on the tin". Unfortunately, that is not how they are being used and we do not have the legislative support to deal with the problems that are arising.
I know that for many people the period of sale is a big issue. The voluntary agreement worked in recent years, but we have had to press the industry to hold to it. Trading standards officers have also had to work hard to sign up retailers. Unfortunately, growing evidence last November showed that a number of retailers-- mostly individual shopkeepers, but also one or two well known chains--were openly flouting the voluntary agreement. The Bill gives us the power to enforce the code, and I accept entirely the point--made by several Members--about the multicultural nature of our society, and that we must enable fireworks to continue to be used in the cultural festivals of which they are traditionally a part. The Bill will give us powers to regulate any traditional firework-using festival, and we anticipate that no group will be disadvantaged as a result of these measures.
On enforcement, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) mentioned the use of penalty notices. Fixed penalty notices have indeed been used in some pilot areas--of which there are only a few--but not in Croydon, according to his account. It would be worth while exploring with the local authorities what the difficulties are, but I can assure him that such notices have been used in other areas. We should turn our minds to the fact that we need more complex powers not simply to provide better enforcement. We are talking about young people--mainly, young males--acquiring fireworks with hooligan intentions and using them in what are essentially hit-and-run crimes. As hon. Members well recognise, that creates a continual difficulty for the enforcement authorities. What we must do is to crack down on the source of the trouble, as well as to tackle it with more effective enforcement, and that is exactly what this Bill will enable us to do.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has correctly pointed to the central issue. Enforcement will necessarily be dealt with if the supply is cut off. Such people do not wander around the streets throwing sparklers at each other. They use exploding fireworks; we need to attack them and ban their sale. I hope that the Government will introduce regulations to that end.

Miss Johnson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it is for just that reason that we need to implement strong measures to deal with the hooligan element. It is a great sadness that the hooligan element in our society has terrorised our communities, and I trust that this time sense will prevail in the House on the new powers that are needed to address the problem. I believe that the last time such legislation was debated, a few spoiled things for the many. I hope that the existing consensus and the difficulties reported by many today, all of which point in the same direction, will make Members determined to take the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South has provided, and--while continuing to make key and constructive criticisms--to support his Bill's passage through the House. Its passage is absolutely crucial if we are to achieve any diminution in the difficulties that all of our constituents are affected by.
I am determined that we strike the right balance by regulating only where necessary, and I want to ensure that the Bill introduces no extraneous or unnecessary regulation. As I said, we must consider its effectiveness and its implications, and I am studying carefully the speech of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) as an exemplar of the avoidance of extraneous material. The Bill will undoubtedly be considered at much greater length if the House decides to commit it to Standing Committee. Assuming that it does progress, much of its detail would need to be thrashed out not only in Committee, but when regulations are introduced, and in the light of the way in which such regulations should be constructed. Given the great public concern that exists about this issue, and given that many support the Bill and want it to make progress, I hope that Members will continue to support it as it progresses--as I trust it will--to Standing Committee for more detailed consideration.
11.59 am
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I am delighted to support this Bill as a sponsor. My hon. Friend and co-sponsor the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I can demonstrate that both London and Cornwall have a considerable interest in this Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) not only on his luck in the draw, but on the assiduous way in which he has consulted on the details of the Bill, which has been a model for all who wish to take private Members' Bills through the House. I give credit to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry--she and her Department are already heavily involved in discussions on how to make regulations effective.
We must emphasise that this Bill does not put us on the slippery slope to prohibition. It is precisely to prevent the need for prohibition that we should introduce effective regulations that will deal not only with supply--which has been the main concern in the past--but with possession and use. I entirely endorse the concerns that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about making the Bill sufficiently robust and ensuring that sufficient resources are available for the enforcement of regulations. However, I am sure that everybody in the House will wish to ensure that this Bill is given all the support possible today.
I wish to pick up on one or two points that have not been raised so far. Most of us have wondered, "Why now?" Indeed, the rather lacklustre speech from the Conservative Front Bench was all about misgivings over whether we should go any further than we have gone already and whether existing legislation is sufficient. Most of us feel that it is not sufficient. A number of hon. Members have worked on this issue and I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for the work that they have done to draw attention to the inadequacies of existing legislation, making them all too clear.
The increased availability of fireworks is a problem and reference has been made to the incredible products that are now available cheaply. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes read out a list that sounded like an inventory that might be sent by President G.W. Bush to any country in the middle east that was trying to buy arms. It was extraordinary. Other problems include the length of period during which fireworks are now used, the scale of displays and the simple power of the explosives that are now used, even for private displays.
Another problem that I wish to highlight is that of confusion. At a time when we are all alert to the dangers of terrorism, there is a particular reason for ensuring that regulations are robust. I can recall sitting in the Members' Tearoom just a few days after 11 September. Suddenly, there was an almighty explosion. From the Tearoom we could not see what it was. It turned out to be a fireworks display on the south bank but--believe me, Madam Deputy Speaker--some elderly Members leapt out of their seats.
The threat of confusion is important. Hon. Members will appreciate that in Cornwall and Devon it is extremely important that the emergency services can immediately recognise a distress maroon signal from a boat or ship anywhere along the coast. The confusion that can arise because of expensive fireworks can be very dangerous indeed.
North Cornwall has a large number of elderly people and people who live in remote rural areas. I entirely endorse the point that was made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes: this is not just an urban problem. Indeed, in a way, fireworks can be more dangerous in rural areas because the explosion is much more dramatic when there is not a lot of background noise. That can be dangerous for livestock and pets--and we know that some 8,000 pets a year may be affected--and can also be very disruptive for elderly people in remote communities.
One particular issue has rightly diverted this morning's debate. Fireworks can cause permanent damage to guide dogs, but they can also cause the disorientation of the dogs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who was here earlier, mentioned that the Royal National College for the Blind in his constituency is very concerned about such disorientation. It can not only be disruptive to a dog, but can lead a person into a dangerous situation.
North Cornwall has, in the past, been somewhat notorious for attracting holidaying snob yobs to beach parties. In addition to burning boat equipment for their barbecues and bonfires, they let off fireworks at various times through the night, which is terribly disruptive in comparatively quiet neighbourhoods.
Like other Members, I want to speak briefly so that we can bring the debate to a successful conclusion. In cold print, the explanatory notes set out excellent justification for the measure. Existing powers are limited to the supply rather than the use of consumer goods. We must deal with use, possession and irresponsible attitudes. Yes, powers are available to the Minister for dealing with supply, although they may not be sufficiently well enforced. I understand the point about imports; it was made strongly in the debate and is extremely important.
It is demonstrable not only from what our constituents tell us but from the big turnout in the Chamber that the Bill is extremely important and timely and should be supported this morning.
12.5 pm
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South): Time presses so I shall not dwell on the niceties, other than to congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing the Bill.
The problem with legislation of this type lies in finding a balance: we want to deal with a nuisance without interfering in people's reasonable enjoyment of fireworks in appropriate circumstances. There is no doubt about the inappropriate growth in the use of fireworks in recent years. It affects elderly people and, above all, pets and animals. It is no surprise that many Members referred to cases involving animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) made a powerful speech in which he drew attention to the effects on animals. That is the engine room for reform.
We all have horror stories about the distress caused to animals by inappropriate use of fireworks. Recently, a constituent wrote to me to say that she had had to have her dog put down because it had bitten her child after it was distressed by a firework display. An excellent briefing document from the RSPCA draws attention to the problems for horses, cats, small mammals and nocturnal wildlife such as badgers and foxes.
If pet owners receive notice that there is to be a firework display, they can take action to lessen the distress that could be caused to their pet. They can sedate animals or move horses. It is distressing to witness the anxiety caused to animals by fireworks. Dogs often shake and shiver from head to foot; they whimper and hide under beds to try to get away from the noise. Owners feel helpless in such situations because we cannot explain what is going on.
In recent years, there has been a growth of municipal displays, such as the large ones held on the other side of the river. They have taken over from the family, domestic type of event held in the back garden, with sausage rolls and dad trying to light a pathetic small fire, after which everyone retires early. There is real growth in the use of fireworks, especially in the London boroughs, so it is no surprise that many London MPs are in the Chamber.
The types of fireworks used are on the up. In an excellent speech, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) set out the wide range of fireworks on display. There are shops that appear in the weeks leading up to 5 November where one can buy a huge container with just one fuse. It costs about 70 or 80 quid and is a complete, self-contained display. I admit that my constituency is fairly affluent and many young people buy such things; they give them to their younger brothers and off they go.
Unsurprisingly, many injuries are caused by fireworks--a point that has not been much mentioned today. The DTI briefing noted that 1,300 people were injured by fireworks last year, a quarter of the number of people injured in road traffic accidents, which was about 5,000. Given the amount of money devoted to the prevention of road traffic accidents, the Bill's proposals are modest by comparison.
As many Members have pointed out, the regulations are not working. The Minister dealt with the point that I raised in an intervention: no notices have been issued under the fixed penalty pilot scheme in Croydon because, as has been said, the offenders are mainly young kids aged under-18 who cannot be issued with such penalties. That is one of the problems that the Minister said she would address.

Mr. William Cash (Stone): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Ottaway: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not. He has only just arrived in the Chamber.
As a typical Conservative, I am reluctant to introduce powers if regulations are seen to be working. There is a common consensus, however, that those powers that are currently available are not seen to be working. I am wary about the enabling Bill, and I was comforted by the Minister's speech, when she said that she would consider these matters seriously. What is important is not just what can be sold and when they can be sold, but when they can be let off--we should contain the period within which fireworks can be let off--and to whom they can be sold. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, this problem seems to occur earlier and earlier--fireworks seem to go off throughout the autumn, and often through the night. The House must deal with that situation.
I return to the theme to which many Members have referred--animal welfare. That is desperately important, and I hope that the Bill will be given a fair wind.
12.11 pm
Mr. Michael Weir (Angus): I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing this important Bill, which strikes at a serious problem in all our communities. It is not often that he will receive a compliment from an SNP Member, and I hope that it does not damage his career too much.
I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that this is not just an urban problem. I would cite the example in my constituency of one small village where more than £2,000 worth of damage was caused to a house when a firework was jammed through a letterbox in the early hours of the morning. If that fire had not been discovered quickly, it could have turned out to be fatal to the family sleeping in the house. That is how serious this matter is.
Fireworks are meant for enjoyment and celebration. Unfortunately, however, they are misused by a small minority, which causes huge distress to our constituents and to animals. It is perhaps no coincidence that fireworks are governed by the Explosives Act 1875. Sadly, many of those most at risk in our society are the most vulnerable. It has been noted that the numbers of injuries are increasing. In Scotland alone, in 2000-01, there was an increase of 35 per cent., which is seriously worrying. Last year, I pursued this matter through parliamentary questions to try to ascertain the dates of accidents involving fireworks. The answers showed that the majority of incidents took place before and after 5 November, not on the date itself. Perhaps even more worryingly, the majority of those injured were under 18.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked why this measure was a framework Bill rather than having the incremental approach that has been adopted until now. It is true that after the Government introduced the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which, along with other measures, restricted the sale of fireworks to those over 18, the number of injuries from fireworks decreased. The level of injuries reported in 2001, however, was higher than in 1996, and substantially higher even than in the millennium year, 2000.
If the increase in the number of injuries is worrying, the age distribution of those injuries is even more disturbing, especially when one considers that, under those regulations, youngsters should not be able to buy fireworks. Injuries to under-13s account for 34 per cent. of the total injuries. A further 25 per cent. is made up of 13 to 15-year-olds. In essence, therefore, 59 per cent. of all firework-related injuries are to children under the age of 16--the very people who should not have access to fireworks. It seems clear, therefore, that the age restrictions in the 1997 regulations are not working and that further action is required.
I appreciate that time is short, but I want to raise the issue of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. My constituency has long been associated with guide dogs because of the presence of the Scottish training centre. The training centre is actually in Forfar, which is just across the border, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). Much has been said about the problem for working guide dogs, but it goes further than that. Throughout the boroughs of Angus, many people look after and train puppies for the association. Many of those dogs are affected by fireworks before they even become working guide dogs. The problem is therefore serious and should not be underestimated, as it affects the association's puppies as well as the working guide dogs that assist our blind constituents.
Much has been said about the fact that the Bill is effectively an enabling measure, which is both a strength and a weakness. The weakness is obvious, as we are not entirely certain what the regulations will say, and trust the Minister to be reasonable. However, I was reassured by her speech and I believe that acceptable regulations will be introduced. The strength of such regulations is that they can be adopted more quickly than primary legislation. In an area like this, that is very important and, interestingly, was used by the industry as an argument in favour of the voluntary code. It argued that the code could be quickly amended. However, the code is simply not working because it is voluntary and, as has been noted, several retailers are not sticking to it, which has led to the need for regulation. If the Bill is not successful, there will be calls for a total ban. If there are no improvements, it will become more difficult to resist those calls.
12.16 pm

The debate continues on Next Page