| |
26 October 1995
Fireworks
Mr. Chris Davies:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what
representations he has received following the
revocation of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations
1986. [39348]
Mr. Jonathan Evans: My Department has
received a number of inquiries about the
implications of the revocation of the 1986
regulations. My officials have held discussions
with representatives of the trading standards
service and explained that the supply of
fireworks to children under 16 remains an offence
both under section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875
(as amended) and under the General Product Safety
Regulations 1994.
Mr. Davies: To ask the President of the Board
of Trade whether he will reintroduce the
Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1986. [39347]
Mr. Evans: I am satisfied that the
requirements currently in place are adequate to
prevent the sale of fireworks to children under
16 years of age. I do not believe there is any
need for changes in the legislation.
1 November 1995
Fireworks
1.30 pm
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield):
I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about
firework safety. I am sure that we all want to
see this year's bonfire night celebrations go
ahead safely and enjoyably. We do not want to
wake up on Monday to learn that the number of
firework injuries has risen for the third year
running. Last year, more than 1,500 people were
injured in firework-related accidents. That was a
48 per cent. increase on the previous year. Over
half of those affected were children. There have
already been alarming reports this year of
firework-related injuries.
I am sure that the House would think that the
Government should be tightening laws on firework
safety. I have no doubt that Ministers will say
that they are doing so, but I dispute that. As
time is short, I shall bring to the attention of
the House only two considerations that illustrate
my argument. What I have to say will show that
Ministers' zeal for what they call deregulation
has made a bonfire of essential firework safety
measures and has increased red tape rather than
reducing it in enforcing the regulations that
remain. First, I want to draw attention to the
sale of fireworks to children under the age of 16
years. Secondly, I shall draw attention to the
importing of dangerous fireworks into the United
Kingdom. The seriousness of selling fireworks to
children under 16 will be clear to anyone who has
noted the increased number of "here today,
gone tomorrow" shops that open to sell
fireworks shortly before bonfire night, only to
close soon after.
In Birmingham, an operation planned by one of the
local newspapers, the Birmingham Evening Mail ,
and the trading standards department found last
week that nine out of 10 shops visited proved
themselves to be willing and prepared to sell
fireworks to a girl under the age of 16 years.
Until this year, the firework safety regulations
that were introduced in 1986 gave clear
responsibility to trading standards departments
to prosecute shops selling fireworks to under-16s.
The regulations were swept away, however, because
the Government said that they duplicated other
provisions, and specifically those set out in the
Explosives Act 1875. When the Government swept
away the regulations, they also did away with the
enforcement mechanism. Confusion now reigns over
who is meant to be enforcing the law.
Some trading standards departments, especially in
metropolitan areas, do not believe themselves to
be authorised to enforce the law.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs
(Mr. Jonathan Evans) indicated dissent.
Mr. Burden: I note the Minister's response.
Ministers insist that the law is much clearer
than I believe it to be. That being so, why, on
15 May, in answer to a written question that I
tabled, did the Minister inform me that the
police constituted the enforcing authority for
the Explosives Act? When I asked a virtually
identical question on 24 October, why did he
present a different answer, to the effect that
responsibility was sort of with the police, sort
of with trading standards officers and sort of
with fire authorities? If the Minister cannot
make up his mind who is responsible for enforcing
the law, how does he expect the law to be
enforced?
Recent events suggest that the deregulation of
import controls on fireworks from abroad is an
even more worrying issue. In 1993, the Government
scrapped the requirement that there should be
specific licences for imported fireworks.
Ministers and the Health and Safety Executive's
chief inspector of explosives assured everyone
that that would not mean that controls would
slacken. A letter from Mr. G. E. Williamson, the
chief inspector, to my hon. Friend the Member for
Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) of 30 November
1993 specifically stated:
"Importers will still have to make
application to HSE, but now for classification
and authorisation. They will still need to
provide evidence that the HSE has classified and
authorised the fireworks before the importation
takes place, if challenged. Appropriate
documentation will be provided. And the importer
will need to ensure that the firework meets the
British Standard or its equivalent at all times."
Those sentiments echoed the ones in a letter from
the Minister to my hon. Friend of 14 November
1993. I think that the letter was written by the
Minister's predecessor.
If all that is the case, how is it that seven
container loads of fireworks bearing the label
"Red Lion" came into the country at
Southampton in the past few months? They were
produced in China and imported by a firm called
Kanash, which is based in Northern Ireland. Once
they were on sale, Liverpool trading standards
officers received a tip-off about the fireworks
and seized some for tests. The found that,
despite the fact that the fireworks had British
standard labels, virtually none of them complied
with the relevant standard. Indeed, some were not
even eligible for it. The officers found also
that six different lines of the fireworks
contained sulphur chlorate, which has been
illegal in this country since 1894. It can
explode if dropped even if the firework has not
been lighted. The address that was shown on the
label for the fireworks, which was in Liverpool 6,
did not exist.
First, why was the problem with Red Lion
fireworks picked up only when they were on the
market? Secondly, is it true that Kanash, the
importers, contacted the HSE in early 1995 and
that the executive gave advice about how the firm
could bring in fireworks before the HSE had
conducted any tests on the products of that firm?
Thirdly, why did the HSE not bother to monitor a
brand new company, apparently with a non-existent
address in Liverpool and a Belfast connection?
Fourthly, is it true that the fireworks were held
for several weeks, perhaps even months, at the
Royal Ordnance factory at Chorley? Were any tests
carried out there?
Fifthly, has the HSE seen records of tests
carried out on the consignment of Red Lion
fireworks? If so, where and when were the tests
carried out, what were the results and what was
done subsequently? Sixthly, seven containers came
into the country and only three have been located.
What steps are being taken to find the remaining
four, which we know arrived in Southampton?
Seventhly, what attempts has the HSE made to
trace customers and what records has Kanash
provided to assist it? Eighthly, will anybody be
prosecuting Kanash or the Royal Ordnance factory
for importing or storing the fireworks? Ninthly,
have any assurances been given to either
organisation about immunity from prosecution?
There are serious questions about Kanash and Red
Lion, but the matter does not end there. Last
Friday, Cleveland trading standards department
informed Her Majesty's inspector of explosives at
the Health and Safety Executive of the presence
of sulphur chlorate in the Thunderstorm firework
produced by Black Cat Fireworks. That led to the
HSE contacting the local radio station and, I
understand, issuing a press release saying that
Thunderstorm should be withdrawn from sale. Some
important questions still remain about that.
First, is it true that the HSE was informed of
the presence of sulphur chlorate in Thunderstorm
fireworks as long ago as the summer of this year
by the managing director of Standard Fireworks?
Secondly, what action has been taken on the basis
of the information that was supplied? As far as I
know, no action was taken. Thirdly, what action,
beyond a call to the local radio station and
issuing a press release, has the HSE taken to
ensure the withdrawal of Thunderstorm fireworks
from sale? Fourthly, is it true that Cleveland
trading standards department has now found
sulphur chlorate in a number of other fireworks
produced by Black Cat, and that it has informed
the HSE about that? What is the HSE doing about
that?
Is the Minister satisfied that Her Majesty's
inspector of explosives in particular, and the
HSE in general, are doing the job properly? If
the Minister is satisfied on that, will he tell
me today how many companies' products the HSE
tested for sulphur chlorate before 1995, as it
has had that responsibility all the way through?
In the light of all of that, I invite the
Minister to agree with me that several things
need to be done urgently. First, the firework
safety regulations of 1986, which were swept away
by Ministers, should now been reinstated.
Secondly, import licences for fireworks should be
reinstated. Thirdly, there should be, for the
first time, mandatory compliance with British
standard 7114 for categories 1, 2 and 3, for all
fireworks that are made available for sale to the
public. Fourthly, all other fireworks should be
regarded as category 4 and therefore available
only for public displays.
Does the Minister agree that there should now be
proper vetting, by a licensing system, of all
those seeking to import fireworks, and that it
should include clear assurances about storage
requirements and mandatory sample testing for
sulphur chlorate, and that fireworks should
comply with British standard 7114 before they are
distributed? Does he agree that such testing
should take place on licensed explosives sites,
with proper independent monitoring and with
trading standards officers being involved? Does
he further agree that, where a container is
shared by more than one importer, trading
standards departments should be informed of the
destination of all consignments, and not just be
given a broad-brush generalisation?
In the light of what has happened with Black Cat,
Red Lion and so on over the past few months, I
hope that the Minister will be able to give me
those assurances today. If he is not able to do
so, not only can we not be assured that Her
Majesty's inspector of explosives is doing his
job properly, but it may be the case that the
Minister may not be doing his job properly either.
1.43 pm
Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South):
The Minister has allowed me a minute, for which I
am grateful. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend
the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden)
for taking up this cause.
Is the Minister aware that Lyn Williams, the
general secretary of the Police Federation, wrote
to him less than three months ago, saying that
previous legislation
"seemed to work well in practice ensuring
that the law was well enforced and that many
youngsters were, no doubt, prevented from
injuring themselves"?
He continues:
"I doubt whether any Chief Officer will have
the resources available to deal with this problem
in the way it has been dealt with over the last
fewer years . . . At the present time it seems
that there are attempts to `plug the gap' by
seeing if powers under the General Product Safety
Regulations 1994 can be used . . . We do not
consider this satisfactory."
Is the Minister further aware that the Home
Office wrote to the Association of Metropolitan
Authorities last week, saying:
"We have not been able to establish whether
the DTI consulted the Home Office before revoking
the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1986 and we
are . . . unaware of any consideration which may
have been given to the implications of the
revocation for enforcement. The present position
is that we are consulting the DTI and they are
now looking into the question of enforcement
responsibility"? That was written less than
two weeks before fireworks were put on sale.
It is quite clear to some of us that the right
wing of the Conservative party seems to want to
sweep away any laws. They do not care which laws,
as long as they can reduce the number. In this
case, the victims are likely to be the children
and those who have previously had the enjoyment
of fireworks, whom the Minister and his party are
now putting at risk.
1.45 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer
Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I congratulate
the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr.
Burden) on his choice of subject, as it gives me
the opportunity to draw attention to the
Government's efforts to highlight the issue of
firework safety--an issue with which, in
fairness, the hon. Gentleman began his speech--and
there are many important messages there. It also
gives me the opportunity to respond to a great
deal of the misinformation that there has been
concerning the controls that apply, some of which
we have heard in this debate.
For the Government, there are two important
matters, the first of which is the misuse of
fireworks. The vast majority of injuries--the hon.
Gentleman rightly said that more than 1,500
injuries require hospital treatment-- result from
carelessness and stupidity rather than from the
composition of the fireworks themselves. That
does not mean, of course, that the Government do
not also take seriously ensuring the safest
possible structure for fireworks. Indeed, we take
measures to ensure that unsafe fireworks do not
find their way on to the market. If they have
done, we warn the public, in circumstances that
have come to the public's attention in recent
days, as the hon. Gentleman has already outlined.
It is true that there has been a rising trend in
relation to firework injuries. Having said that,
that trend may well reflect an increase in the
number of fireworks that are sold. The retail
value of fireworks sold has increased by more
than 30 per cent. in three years to £43.5
million in 1994. Well over 100 million individual
fireworks are sold on to the market, so in those
circumstances, the accidents, when taken as a
proportion of the number of fireworks on the
market, pale to a figure in which there is just
about one accident for every 65,000 fireworks
that are let off. It is very important that the
Government take action to try to reduce that
still further. However, it is also important that
we should set that matter in context.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): Will the
Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Evans: I shall do so, but very briefly,
because I have already allowed the hon. Member
for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to speak.
Mr. Sheerman: What proportion of those
fireworks are made by the one remaining British
firework manufacturer, Standard Fireworks, which
operates a plant near my constituency; and what
proportion come from places such as China, whose
standards many of us are worried about?
Mr. Evans: We have looked at whether imported
fireworks have any role to play in terms of the
increase in figures. We have no evidence of that
at all. Our evidence is that most of the
injuries, sadly, are down to complacency,
foolishness and stupidity, the illegal use of
fireworks and not following the instructions that
have been given. That is why I am pleased that Mr.
John Woodhead, the public relations director of
Standard Fireworks, joined me for the launch of
the firework safety campaign a couple of weeks
ago and, in fact, endorsed the remarks that I
made.
Let me deal with the important point that the hon.
Gentleman made about the sale of fireworks to
those who are under the age of 16. Let me make it
clear that the retail sale of fireworks to under-16s
is prohibited in law today. It has been
prohibited ever since 1875 by section 31 of the
Explosives Act.
The supply of fireworks to the general public is
also subject to the requirements of the General
Product Safety Regulations 1994. Although both
Opposition Members and some trading standards
officers have expressed doubt, when I spoke to
Warwickshire trading standards officers earlier
today, they were in no doubt that they had power
to act under the regulations. Moreover, it has
been stated on national television today that
they have decided to do precisely that.
Mr. Burden: The issue is section 31 of the
Explosives Act 1875, not the General Product
Safety Regulations. What authorises trading
standards officers in metropolitan areas to
enforce that legislation?
Mr. Evans: The law was clarified to spell out
the fact that the police, in conjunction with the
Crown Prosecution Service, have the clearest role
in enforcement of the Explosives Act. However,
there is also a well-established responsibility
for safeguarding the safety of consumers, and
that has been vested with trading standards
officers over many years. The penalty for
breaches of section 31 and the General Product
Safety Regulations is already there, and is
enforceable.
Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Evans: I have given way a number of
times, and the hon. Member for Northfield has
asked me a number of important questions to which
I must respond in the short time that remains.
My point is that the legislation is there to
govern the sale of fireworks to those under 16.
The hon. Member for Northfield said that
fireworks had been sold to people under 16 in
nine out of 10 shops; I hope that that
information will be given to the police and
trading standards officers so that action can be
taken.
Implicit in the hon. Gentleman's remarks was the
suggestion that such shops mushroom overnight.
Trading standards officers have requirements in
relation to the licensing of shops that sell
fireworks, primarily because of the requirements
for storage of those fireworks. I know from
contact with my trading standards office that it
is enforcing those measures, and my discussions
earlier today with Warwickshire trading standards
officers suggested that they were enforcing them
as well. If there is evidence that shops have
started up without the knowledge of trading
standards officers, they should be drawn to the
attention of both trading standards officers and
the police.
Let me deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's
specific points about import controls. More than
100 million fireworks are sold in this country
each year, and it is clearly not practicable for
each firework to be checked. Apart from anything
else, the ultimate test is to let the firework
off. In the circumstances, it is simply not
logical to expect such a degree of control.
Much has been made of the fact that the position
in relation to the licensing of imported
fireworks changed in December 1993. Those changes
were made to comply with our obligations under
the single market, and had nothing to do with the
Government's more general deregulation
initiatives. However, much misinformation has
been disseminated about the changes. Before
December 1993, fireworks could be imported only
under an import licence that served as a means of
authorisation and required fireworks for consumer
use to meet British standard 7114. That system
has been replaced by an alternative system based
on controlling the supply of fireworks, together
with reinforced legal provisions for their
authorisation.
The essential point, however, is that under both
systems there are tight import controls. Imported
fireworks supplied in the United Kingdom must
meet the same safety standards as those produced
domestically: all fireworks must comply with
British standard 7114. Under the new system, as
under the old, the applicant must apply to the
Health and Safety Executive supplying information
about the items that he wishes to import; the
onus is on the importer to ensure that safety
standards are met. The HSE requires fireworks to
meet British standard 7114, and, if satisfied,
subsequently authorises them. The HSE continues
to enforce the requirements for authorisation of
fireworks under the Explosives Act 1875.
I was asked some specific questions about the
position regarding Red Lion fireworks. I have
been in touch with the HSE. Three applications
were made, dated 21 and 27 April and 22 May, in
relation to seeking classification and
authorisation of samples for importation. On 25
May, an authorisation was issued; but its purpose
was to limit importation for evaluation and test
purposes only. Furthermore, it required evidence
of compliance with the conditions for
authorisation of explosives in Great Britain
before the fireworks could be released to the
market.
On importation, the importer arranged for samples
to be tested by an independent laboratory. I
understand that the laboratory in question, which
is known as Hayley and Weller, is established as
an independent laboratory. The HSE received the
first test results from the laboratory on 28
September.
Subsequently, the HSE raised further questions
specifically in relation to an issue that later
came to public attention, concerning the possible
presence of any sort of prohibited mixture such
as sulphur chlorate in the samples. There was an
initial response; a certificate was provided from
China. The HSE, however, required a certificate
from an independent source. Following the
provision of independent documentary evidence,
authorisation was given for the fireworks to be
released for retail sale.
The hon. Member for Northfield suggested that
action taken by Liverpool's trading standards
office brought the matter to public attention. A
public statement was certainly issued by the
office, but the HSE had been undertaking a range
of tests relating to fireworks that had reached
the retail market--quite apart from the
mechanisms to which I referred earlier. As part
of that process, some 70 samples were received by
the HSE, and two relating to Red Lion were found
to contain prohibited substances.
The action of which we have heard subsequently
was initiated because that information was
brought to the HSE's attention. It is certainly
also true that the Liverpool trading standards
office, acting on information from another
manufacturer, conducted its own tests. That
suggests that the system contains many more
import control elements than the hon. Member for
Northfield suggested. Mr. Burden rose --
Mr. Evans: I hope that the hon. Gentleman
will excuse me if I do not give way. I am running
out of time, and during the three minutes that
remain I want to concentrate on what the
Government consider to be important messages.
Given that 100 million fireworks are to be set
off during the next few days, it is important for
the general public to be aware that the vast
majority of accidents are caused by carelessness
and complacency. Sadly, we have seen examples of
that in cases that have come to public attention
in the past few days. A child in South Shields
has been injured by a banger which was thrown in
a public place--that was in itself a criminal
offence-- and in Northern Ireland children have
been injured by sparklers.
Last year, 150 adults--I repeat, adults--were
taken to hospital with injuries caused by their
own misuse of sparklers. That underlines my point
that complacency, stupidity and carelessness are
mostly to blame for injuries of this kind. I am
grateful to the BBC's "999 Lifesavers"
programme, which this Friday will highlight such
issues to remind parents of the need for safety
at a time when families will naturally want to
enjoy their firework celebrations, but must be
aware of the accompanying dangers.
The Government are also obliged to Mr. Derek
Thompson, the character Charlie from the BBC's
"Casualty", and the lead character in
the campaign of the Department of Trade and
Industry. During the press conference that I
launched on the firework safety campaign, he said
that, if we were to keep children out of casualty
on 5 November, we had to ensure that we followed
the messages on following the firework code. I
hope that all parents will take that on board.
6 November 1995
Fireworks
Mr. Burden: To ask
the Secretary of State for the Environment where
each of the container loads of Red Lion fireworks
were stored; for how long, and what monitoring
was carried out during storage. [41728]
Sir Paul Beresford: The nominated legal place
of keeping required for Red Lion fireworks was at
Chorley. Samples were taken of the fireworks held
there and submitted to compliance testing at
recognised test houses. Seven container loads
were moved to Chorley on 16 and 17 September and
three of those were subsequently re-exported on
23 September.
Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Environment what reports the Health and
Safety Executive has received from Cleveland
trading standards departments about the number of
fireworks produced by Black Cat which contain
sulphur chlorate, and what response the HSE has
made. [41774]
Sir Paul Beresford: The HSE received
information from Cleveland trading standards
department of first one and then a further eight
fireworks sold by Black Cat that were alleged to
contain sulphur and chlorate admixtures.
Each firework type mentioned was tested by the
health and safety laboratory for the HSE, the
results were evaluated and as a result a general
recall was ordered for the "Thunderstorm".
Results obtained for the remainder were sent in
writing to the Cleveland trading standards
department on 1 November 1995.
Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Environment what consideration the HSE has
given to prosecuting Kanash Ltd. and the Royal
Ordnance factory in respect of Red Lion fireworks
and if he will make a statement. [41778]
Sir Paul Beresford: The HSE issued notices to
Kanash Ltd. to prohibit any further distribution
or sale of those Red Lion fireworks which failed
spot checks. The question of legal proceedings is
under consideration.
Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Environment what information about compliance
with BS 7114 appeared on the "Thunderstorm"
firework produced by Red Lion Fireworks; and what
assessment he has made as to the extent of such
compliance. [41787]
Sir Paul Beresford: The label on the "Thunderstorm"
firework says that is complies with BS7114 2:88.
Tests for compliance are carried out by trading
standard officers.
Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Environment when and by whom the HSE was
informed of the presence of sulphur chlorate in
"Thunderstorm" fireworks, produced by
Black Cat; and what action was taken on the basis
of the information supplied. [41772]
Sir Paul Beresford: Information was received
in two ways. The more comprehensive was provided
by trading standards offices in Cleveland on 26
October and led to the further sampling and
testing by HSE on 27 and 28 and the general
recall then immediately ordered. Earlier
information received from a competitor company on
3 and 17 October was less precise and came only
after HSE had visited Black Cat as part of its
national campaign.
Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Environment where and when were tests carried
out on the consignment of Red Lion fireworks;
what were the results; and when they were
communicated to the HSE. [41776]
Sir Paul Beresford: The sequence of events
was set out by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary
of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs on
1 November 1995, Official Report , columns 273 74
.
Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Environment which companies' firework
products were tested by the Health and Safety
Executive for sulphur chlorate between 1965 and
1995; which products were involved; and what were
the results and dates of the tests. [41790]
Sir Paul Beresford: Due to statutory
restrictions on disclosure of information it is
not possible in the time available to list the
names of the companies involved. Information for
years prior to 1984 would be available only at
disproportionate cost.
|
|
