| |
National Campaign
for Firework Safety
Parliament
in 1996
House of Lords
where stated, otherwise house of commons
Part 2, 10.31
am 20 November 1996 - 4 December 1996
10.31 am
Mr. Nigel
Griffiths (Edinburgh, South): This
has been a debate of high calibre,
probably because the only contributors
have been Opposition Members of
Parliament. The debate is the culmination
of a campaign by Labour in Parliament,
which has sought for five years to
restore controls on dangerous fireworks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,
Northfield (Mr. Burden) has been at the
forefront of that campaign, but others
have supported him for many years--my hon.
Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr.
Sheerman), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)
and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). I
welcome the comments of the hon. Member
for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr.
Davies).
It is important to examine the
Government's record in action. Indeed, if
it had only been in action, we might not
be talking about the deaths today. From
the questions that I tabled in 1989 to
the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr.
Forth) to my private Member's Bill to
restrict the sale of dangerous fireworks
in 1994, and in Labour's calls in
November 1995 and June 1996 for the
banning of aerial shell fireworks, we
have been outspoken in the cause of
firework safety. In contrast, today, not
one Conservative Back Bencher has been
present to listen to us or the Minister,
let alone to speak.
It was a Labour Government who, in 1975,
secured strict controls on the type and
power of fireworks, limited who had
access to them and imposed a code of
practice to regulate firework safety.
Labour slashed the power of bangers and
ensured that unpredictable jumping
fireworks were abolished; both had high
accident rates. As a result, for more
than a decade, injuries plummeted to an
historic low. For years, far fewer people
suffered firework injuries and no one
lost their life.
All that was changed when the new Tory
right took over and decided to deregulate
fireworks legislation. It destroyed the
essential protection enjoyed by the
public. The Tory ideologues covered three
areas of public safety--the Department of
Trade and Industry, the Department of
Health, and health and safety. They are
guilty of scrapping legislation that was
the culmination of 100 years of firework
safety controls.
In 1988, the Tory ideologues weakened the
system of importation controls. Until
that time, from 1875, the importation of
fireworks was controlled by the
Explosives Act 1875 Order in Council 10A.
In 1988, Conservative Ministers repealed
the tough mandatory checks on each type
of imported firework by the Health and
Safety Executive and replaced them with
another system--self verification.
Fortunately, importers still had to
comply with strict safety rules.
In 1991, firework injuries had been cut
to 723--too many, but far fewer than in
countries with lax controls. The
reduction in injuries did not last long.
When at the DTI, the right hon. Member
for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), the hon.
Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for
Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)
and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr.
Redwood) all ignored warnings from the
industry and from safety experts.
In 1992, the chief inspector of
explosives, Mr. G. Williamson, wrote to
inform the DTI that some suppliers were
selling category 4 fireworks to the
general public. In a prophetic sentence,
he warned:
"The chance
of a major incident clearly increases"--
but the then
Minister, the right hon. Member for
Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), did nothing.
In 1991, the United Kingdom firework
industry lobbied the DTI for mandatory
legal sanctions on the sale of dangerous
fireworks. On 21 August 1990, in a letter
to the DTI, our leading company, Standard
Brock, said:
"There is
such a huge performance gap in the
present Category 3 range as to confuse
the public entirely and to put proper
safety in jeopardy . . . I would move"
aerial shells
"into
Category 4".
Still nothing was
done.
The Minister will doubtless tell us that
he has a consultation exercise in hand.
Sadly, it will be the third consultation
exercise that the Government have
launched in the 1990s, as they have
sought to push responsibility for
firework safety on to Europe, the
enforcement agencies, the fire service,
the police and the trading standards
service--everyone but themselves. The
Government conducted a consultation
exercise in June 1993, and another in
December 1994. They received a robust
response from the Association of Chief
Police Officers which, on 27 January 1995,
wrote to the DTI, saying:
"Under the
Fireworks (Safety) Regulations it is
necessary to prove only the offer to
supply or the agreement to supply
fireworks whereas the Explosive Act 1875
requires proof of the sale which can on
occasion be more difficult to prove.
Both" police "forces
feel that it is inappropriate to repeal
this legislation and would seek to retain
it".
In spite of that
advice--that the Fireworks (Safety)
Regulations were performing a valuable
service protecting the public--Ministers
went ahead and abolished them. The
assurances that the Minister gave us
earlier--that that made no difference and
that safety was still in hand--are
patently untrue.
In our previous debate on fireworks, also
secured by my hon. Friend the Member for
Northfield, the Minister for Competition
and Consumer Affairs at the time, the hon.
Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans),
when questioned about the impact of
imported fireworks, said:
"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."--[Official Report, 1
November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 272.]
Is it not tragic
that the evidence was to come exactly a
year later because that Minister failed
to take action?
In the mean time, on 3 January 1996, as
my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield
said, the coroner who looked into the
death of his constituent Roger Robinson
sent a damning letter to the Minister,
communicating his findings. He said:
"From the
evidence recorded at this Inquest it
became apparent that legislative controls
are required for the sale of Aerial
Shells . . . The likelihood of an
accident involving a shell resulting in
fatal injuries is unusually high."
The Minister
present in the Chamber today, who
acknowledged the letter, did absolutely
nothing about it. When pressed by my hon.
Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church)
on 17 July this year on the Floor of the
House of Commons to impose a ban on
aerial shell sales to the public, he
again declined to take any action. It was
of course only a few months later that
two people were killed by that very type
of shell.
The warnings to the Government have been
legion. In 1994, the chairman of the
National Fire Safety Technical Committee
stated:
"It would
seem that if the current proposals go
ahead, consumer safeguards will be
lowered in an area where dangers are very
well known and understood".
I asked for a
meeting on 3 November 1994 with the then
President of the Board of Trade, now the
Deputy Prime Minister, to discuss the
import and sale of category 4 fireworks
following the removal of licences. The
relevant Minister replied:
"We have been
assured by the Health and Safety
Executive that this should not have any
real effect on the safety of imported
fireworks . . . I do not think that there
would be much to be gained from a meeting."
The Association of
Metropolitan Authorities begged Ministers
for a meeting with its officials in
October 1995. It took six months for DTI
officials to meet representatives of the
association and key enforcement officers.
The sad fact is that neither we nor the
general public have any grounds for
believing a word that Ministers say on
this subject. We know that they are lying
through their teeth on tax; they are also
lying through their teeth on the control
of fireworks--the deaths and horrific
injuries clearly show that.
The abolition of import controls has been
a deregulation disaster. My colleagues
have clearly spelled out what now needs
to be done. First, we must ensure that
those who sell fireworks over the counter
are held responsible for their actions--if
over-the-counter sales are to continue.
There must be some doubt about that. If
the injuries continue at the current
horrific rate and the public have to put
up with the tremendous strain of bangers
and other fireworks being let off in
unrecorded public incidents, the future
of such sales must be in doubt.
Furthermore, we must ensure that those
responsible for firework displays are
properly trained and licensed, and that
dangerous fireworks such as aerial shells
are not available to members of the
public but are restricted solely to those
who run professional firework displays.
On 16 October last year, the DTI issued a
press notice to the public. It read:
"Jonathan
Evans warns: the best don't mess with
fireworks".
The truth is that
the best do not mess with firework
regulations, which is precisely what the
Government have done. The best do not sit
on the Government Benches. The
Opposition, on the other hand, intend to
ensure that the British public get the
best, safest firework legislation
available anywhere.
10.43 am
The Minister
for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr.
John M. Taylor): I congratulate the
hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr.
Burden) on securing this debate on an
important subject. We are all aware that
today's debate takes place in the
aftermath of tragic deaths from fireworks
this year. I know that the whole House is
of the same mind in expressing
condolences to the family and friends of
young Dale Mitchell, Mr. David Hattersley
and Mr. Steve Timcke. That serves to
underline the serious issues that the
Government have to consider.
As has been pointed out, there have been
three deaths from aerial shells since
1994. Investigations are still continuing
into the deaths of Mr. David Hattersley
and Mr. Steve Timcke, and details are
still emerging. It appears, however, that
a significant factor in the two deaths
was human error. Hon. Members will also
recall the death in similar circumstances
of Mr. Roger Robinson of Wakefield in
1994. In that case, no fault was found
with the firework which killed him. I
recognise and accept that this raises
serious questions about the availability
to the public of such powerful devices.
Nine-year-old Dale Mitchell died as a
result of a fire started by a firework
being put through the letterbox of the
family home. I understand that the
incident is subject to court proceedings.
I have asked my officials to liaise
closely with the authorities
investigating the very different
circumstances of each case so that we can
learn the lessons from them.
The hon. Member for Northfield will be
well aware that many of the matters he
raised are already being considered as
part of the Department's review of
fireworks, and that I am giving these
issues the serious attention that they
deserve. As far as I am concerned, one
person injured on bonfire night is too
many. The answers that I have already
given the House should leave the hon.
Gentleman in no doubt that we intend to
do what is sensible and appropriate. My
priority is to arrive at a balanced
judgment of what measures would be
appropriate.
I hope that the House will bear with me
when I say that fireworks give rise to a
wide range of worries. I refer to
hooligan behaviour, the purchase and use
of fireworks by children, anti-social use
late at night or over an extended period--all
these have been mentioned. The hon.
Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth
(Mr. Davies) mentioned the link with
alcohol, and I agreed with him about that.
Then there is the question of training
for the organisers of displays;
carelessness on the part of non-professional
users; the availability of certain shells
which may be dangerous in the hands of
the inexperienced; and badly made
fireworks or those containing illegal
mixtures. I should point out that import
controls are relevant only to the last of
those issues. All the evidence shows that
badly made fireworks are a far smaller
issue than most of the others I have
mentioned.
Against this background, it can be seen
that there is no quick fix, but I will
instigate a thoroughgoing root-and-branch
review of the regulations--I give the
House that commitment.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister
appears to be committing himself to a
further review. Why, then, after he
received the letter from David Hinchliff,
the West Yorkshire coroner, dated January
of this year and specifically calling on
the Minister to re-classify all aerial
shells as category 4 so that they cannot
be sold to the general public--because
the deceased in question was an "adult
mature sensible person" who died as
a result of human error--did the Minister
not accept that advice and act on it in
January, before bonfire night, thereby
perhaps avoiding the subsequent two
fatalities?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is
aware of the letter that the coroner
wrote to me and, I think, of my reply.
The coroner's letter was a contributory
factor in launching the review. The basis
and framework of the review were laid
down earlier this year, and it went
public in July.
There are no quick fixes. Simply
shuffling one kind of firework from
category 3 into category 4 will not
overcome all the problems that we face. I
am not in the business of quick fixes; I
want to be thorough. There have been
changes in the market, with which I shall
deal shortly.
At risk of saying it twice or three
times, I do not intend to rush into knee-jerk
measures that might be effective for a
short period and attract congratulatory
headlines, but encourage an uncontrolled
black market in fireworks in the longer
term, as has been the case in some
countries that have strict legal controls.
Mr. Burden: I know that the Minister
is short of time, so I will not detain
him long. No one is asking for a quick
fix, or saying that he should not carry
out a review, but after three deaths in a
three-year period, what more evidence
does he need to ban aerial shells from
public sale for a temporary period under
the powers available to him, while a
thorough review is carried out? Let us
get them off the market and make sure
that people are safe. The Minister can
have his review and, if it is proved that
such fireworks are safe, let him bring
them back, but for goodness sake let us
not have any more deaths in the meantime.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman
returns to the point that he made when he
opened the debate. I will reflect on it,
but I shall not oblige him here and now
in the Chamber. I want to press on, as I
have only nine minutes left to reply on
behalf of the Government to what I
consider to be one of the most important
Adjournment debates for a long time. I
hope that the House will allow me the
opportunity to reply.
Let me assure the House that the
Government take the matter very seriously
indeed, as I have made clear by
undertaking the comprehensive review,
which I will see through. My reasons for
instigating it are well documented--and
shared by a number of hon. Members. The
review was initiated earlier this year,
well before 5 November. The reasons
behind it are manifold: growing concern
about the great variety and power of
fireworks available to the general
public; the increasing number of
fireworks sold and the way in which they
are used; the changed structure of the
market in fireworks; the nuisance that
they can cause to people, especially the
elderly and, as the hon. Member for
Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) rightly
said, to animals; and the elevated level
of injuries over the past two years.
The consultation document issued by my
Department was, I believe, the most
detailed explanation of the controls on
fireworks and the most comprehensive
attempt to seek views on a range of
important firework issues since the
review undertaken in 1975, to which the
hon. Member for Northfield referred. The
1975 review resulted in the endorsement
of a set of voluntary controls instituted
by the firework industry. I took the
view, shared by others, including many in
the firework industry, that the time was
past when those measures could be
considered sufficient to offer adequate
safeguards to the public.
A number of issues were raised today.
Much has been made of the removal of
import controls. I shall deal with that
once and for all, before turning to other
matters. The change to the authorisation
system was not rampant deregulation, as
the Opposition claim, but a sensible bid
to establish a more thorough and
equitable system that applied to both
domestic and imported explosives.
In 1993, the combined effect of changes
to border controls arising from the
completion of the single European market,
and the need to implement the explosives
for civil uses directive, necessitated
some change in the existing system. That
directive did not apply to fireworks.
However, the Health and Safety Commission
took the view that a uniform system
covering all explosives, including
fireworks, from all origins, both member
states and third countries, would have
safety benefits. The implementing
regulations were therefore used as a
legislative vehicle to strengthen and
clarify existing authorisation procedures
and remove import controls.
The current authorisation regime has
certain advantages over import licensing
controls. At the time of its removal in
1993, import licensing did not require
checks on every consignment brought into
the country or routine testing, as hon.
Members seem to believe. From 1987,
licences were issued for up to five years
and spot checks were made, as they are
now, under the authorisation system. An
import licence was issued for any
firework that fell into the appropriate
United Nations classification, which was
very broad. The new system uses specific
names which provide more precise
information to enforcement bodies.
The import licensing scheme required only
that a firework complied with British
standard BS 7114 before final
distribution. Accordingly, fireworks
could be imported in a state that did not
comply. There was no distinction between
fireworks intended for the public and
those for professional use. The import
licensing scheme did not specifically
prohibit dangerous admixture, which
authorisation does.
A major advantage of the authorisation
system is that compliance can be checked
at any time, rather than solely at the
time of entry.
Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister saying
that the Government did not deregulate,
and that if anyone is responsible, it is
not the Government but the Health and
Safety Executive? Is he saying that the
flood of cheap and dangerous fireworks
from China that are sold with no
instructions in English are nothing to do
with the Minister? If so, ministerial
responsibility is dead and I, for one,
mourn its passing.
Mr. Taylor: That is a rather
intemperate way of putting a question
that is well worth answering. The issue
of imported explosives is not, so to
speak, black and white. The Chinese--I
say this with the greatest caution--probably
have more experience with fireworks than
any other culture on the planet. The
other factor that does not lend itself to
a black and white interpretation is the
fact that some of the biggest importers
of firework material from China are
domestic manufacturers. The issue is
therefore more complicated than the hon.
Gentleman's question suggests.
There are two other aspects to be taken
into account in considering what the hon.
Gentleman might choose to call
deregulation. The import licensing regime
was replaced in 1993, but the Health and
Safety Executive--I associate myself with
this--says that the single authorisation
scheme, which is much more flexible, and
which replaced it, in no way weakens
safety controls.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It has.
Mr. Taylor: We differ about that.
Mr. Griffiths: Look at the figures.
Mr. Taylor: With two minutes to go, I
am not sure how useful it is for the hon.
Gentleman to intervene on me from a
sedentary position. I have not yet
finished dealing with the question about
deregulation, as the Opposition choose to
call it. I mentioned import licensing and
its replacement. The second aspect is the
revocation of the 1986 firework safety
regulations, which took place in 1995 and
has not weakened the hand of trading
standards officers. Local authorities can
authorise trading standards officers by
simple resolution, and mark their warrant
accordingly in these particular areas of
activity. In those circumstances, trading
standards officers can prosecute
retailers.
The present authorisation system applies
to imported and home manufactured
fireworks alike. Suppliers will be in
breach of the law unless each and every
item that they supply fully meets the
published criteria set by the Health and
Safety Executive's explosives
inspectorate.
I am beaten by the clock, but I would
like to offer to all hon. Members present
a letter that will cover any unanswered
questions.
21 November 1996
House of Lords
Fireworks: Aerial Shells
3.19 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why no action has been taken, despite
warnings from the Leeds Home Safety
Council and others, to ban aerial shells
which have recently caused two fatalities
and serious injury, and what action they
now plan to take.
The Minister of State, Department of
Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of
Carmyllie): My Lords, concern about
some types of firework, including aerial
shells, which are on uncontrolled sale to
the general public was one of the
considerations which led my honourable
friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs
to decide to undertake a comprehensive
review of the controls on fireworks. As
part of this review, he issued a public
consultation document at the end of July.
The closing date for comments was last
month and my honourable friend is now
giving them careful consideration.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is it not
the case that undeniable evidence of
danger from the so-called fireworks was
identified and reported to the Government
by a wide variety of organisations,
including the West Yorkshire coroner and
the Leeds Home Safety Council? Is it not
also the case that controls were not
implemented because of European Union and
DTI procedures, as well as, of course,
consultative processes? In the event,
death and serious injury have followed.
This House should not be able to duck
that fact. It is all very well to have
consultative processes, but death and
destruction will come again next year. I
understand that it is likely to be 1998
before anything is done. Could not the
DTI step in and forbid the sale of these
instruments of death straight away, in
advance of the result of consultative
processes? Could it not do something now,
or next November the same thing will
happen?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords,
as the noble Lord said, regrettably this
year there have been two tragic deaths,
including that of a headmaster, where one
of the aerial shells struck the person
involved. The noble Lord is correct that
there have been indications from both the
coroner in Leeds and the Leeds Home
Safety Council. They expressed their
views to the department. The aerial
shells are very powerful fireworks but
they have a place in organised public
displays. One of the issues is whether
they should be changed from one category
to another, which would take them off
sale to the general public. There are
difficult definition problems as to who
are the "general public" in
this context.
As I sought to indicate to the noble
Lord, my honourable friend the Minister
for Consumer Affairs is looking at the
matter. A simple change from one category
to another might be a way forward.
However, it may be that a rather more
drastic reassessment is necessary. He is
not in any mood to delay the matter any
longer than is necessary.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the
Minister agree that much of the trouble
followed the relaxation of import
controls on fireworks from the Far East?
Will he assure us that there will be an
examination of the question? It is clear
that fireworks made in the Far East are
causing many of the problems, the deaths
and injuries.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I
wish to reassure the noble Lord that he
is correct that no import licence is now
required. However, to consider that the
controls were an effective technique is
an exaggerated view of their efficacy.
Perhaps I may assure him that there is
nothing now authorised by the Health and
Safety Explosives Inspectorate in the
United Kingdom which would previously
have been refused a licence. If it is not
authorised, then it is an offence to sell
such a firework.
3 December 1996
PETITION
Firework Safety
11.31 pm
Mr. John
Heppell (Nottingham, East): I beg
leave to introduce a petition from 20,910
people in Greater Nottingham. The
petition was started by a woman whose dog
was killed but, within a week of the
petition being started, a young man in my
constituency, Dale Mitchell, had died as
a result of the misuse of fireworks. The
petition calls on the House of Commons to
instruct the Department of Trade and
Industry to tighten up on firework
legislation.
The petition on
firework legislation to the House of
Commons, the petition of the following
signatories, declares that the existing
firework legislation is inadequate and is
a danger to public safety. Numerous
incidents have occurred where fireworks
have been thrown at members of the public
or otherwise misused, on occasion leading
to the death of or injury to people and
animals. The petitioners request that the
House of Commons instructs the Department
of Trade and Industry to tighten up
firework legislation. In particular, we
call upon the Secretary of State to
introduce a licensing system for the sale
and display of fireworks so that only
organised groupings who have ensured the
health and safety of the public may
purchase and use fireworks.
To lie upon the
Table.
4 December 1996
Firework Safety
16. Ms Lynne: To
ask the President of the Board of Trade
if he will introduce further proposals to
improve firework safety. [5796]
Mr. John M. Taylor: I place a very
high priority on improving controls on
fireworks. Following the thorough review
that I initiated earlier this year, I am
considering a number of possible measures.
Ms Lynne: Can the Minister at least
guarantee that, by next 5 November, there
will be stricter guidelines on the import
of fireworks, especially from China, as
those were most responsible for the
horrific accidents? Will he also say
whether there are any new proposals for
tougher sentencing or tougher penalties
on shopkeepers who sell fireworks to
children?
Mr. Taylor: I am excluding nothing
from the review that we are carrying out.
In particular, I am considering how
aerial shells can be controlled. These
are, generically, the kind of fireworks
to which the hon. Lady referred. I am
prepared to look at the import licensing
regime, which was replaced in 1993, but I
have to tell the House that the Health
and Safety Executive says that the single
authorisation scheme which replaced that
regime in no way weakens safety controls.
In fact, it makes them more flexible.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why does the
Minister not listen to the British
fireworks business when it tells him that
the abolition of import controls on
fireworks has caused three deaths from
aerial shells and that the Government's
deregulation of firework safety
regulations has caused injuries to soar
to record levels? Does he not realise
that the number of fireworks sold is
likely to rise before new year's day as
people celebrate with fireworks on that
day? Why does he not now invoke section
11(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987
to take immediate action to ban aerial
shells before more people are killed as a
result of Government negligence in this
matter?
Mr. Taylor: I do not accept that
assertion. I do not accept its
attribution either. I am taking this
matter extremely seriously. As far as I
am concerned, one person injured is too
many. There are serious issues here and I
am determined to get this right. Time
spent now will be well spent--I assure
the House of that.
Return to
Parliament Site
Return to
Parliament in 1996 Part 1
Go to Menu Page
|
|
