| |
National Campaign
for Firework Safety
Parliament in
1998
Part 1, January
12 1998 - 21 April 1998
House of Lords
where stated, otherwise House of Commons
12th January
1998
APPENDIX VII
Memorandum by
the Department of Trade and Industry
FIREWORKS (SAFETY) REGULATIONS 1997 (S.I.
1997/2294)
1. By letter from
the Clerk to the Committee dated 12
November 1997, the Joint Committee have
asked the Department to submit a
memorandum on the following point -
"Regulation 4(2) prohibits the
supply of -
(e) . . . any banger other than a banger
which is a category 2 firework;
(f) . . . any banger other than a banger
whose supply is prohibited by
subparagraph (e) above.
Explain the respective coverage of these
two subparagraphs.".
2. Subparagraph (e) covers bangers
classified as category 3 or category 4
under Part 1 of British Standard 7114,
and came into force on 15 October 1997.
3. Subparagraph (f) covers bangers
classified as category 2 under Part 1 of
British Standard 7114, and comes into
force on 31 December 1997.
4. It was considered whether subparagraph
(e) might refer expressly to category 3
and 4 bangers, and whether subparagraph (f)
might refer expressly to category 2
bangers. However, there were apparent
difficulties with this. British Standard
7114 classifies fireworks into categories
1, 2, 3 and 4. The principal criterion
for classifying a firework as category 4
is that it is not intended for sale to,
or use by, the general public. This
implies that the other categories of
fireworks are suitable for those purposes.
Regulation 4(2) effectively prohibits the
supply of specified fireworks to the
public. An express prohibition on the
supply of category 2 and category 3
bangers to the public risked appearing
inherently contradictory. Regulation 4(2)
clearly indicates that such fireworks are
not suitable for the public, yet the
Standard implies that they are. If
subparagraphs (e) and (f) had been framed
as express prohibitions on the supply of
category 2 and category 3 bangers, doubts
might have been raised about whether such
bangers could still be regarded as
falling within those categories.
5. The Department appreciates that, as a
result of the drafting, the coverage of
the two subparagraphs in question is not
transparent, but the issue has been
clearly dealt with in guidance.
17th November 1997
29 Jan 1998
Fireworks Bill
[Money]
Queen's
recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question proposed:
That, for the
purposes of any Act resulting from the
Fireworks Bill, it is expedient to
authorise--
(1) the payment out of money provided by
Parliament of--
(a) any expenses incurred by a Minister
of the Crown or government department in
consequence of any provision of the Act,
and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act
in the sums payable out of money so
provided under any other Act, and
(2) the making of payments into the
Consolidated Fund.--[Mr. McFall.]
10.6 pm
Mr. Eric Forth
(Bromley and Chislehurst): I hope
that it will by no means be controversial
if I say that money resolutions attaching
to private Members' Bills if anything
deserve more consideration than those
attaching to Government or public Bills;
that is because of their origin and
contents. I hope that we shall be treated
to an explanation of the implications of
the money resolution before us, and of
those that we are to discuss later
tonight. I say that especially with
regard to the Fireworks Bill, because
several elements in the Bill would give
rise to expenditure about which the House
should be told before we are asked to
proceed further with these measures.
For example, clause 5 refers to
prohibition of the supply, purchase and
possession of fireworks of a specified
description. I assume, although I confess
that I am not acquainted with the details
of the Bill, that that provision refers
to functions of the type usually carried
out by a trading standards officer--I can
think of no one else who would perform
them. Immediately, there is the clear
implication that the number of trading
standards officers would need to be
increased to implement that part of the
Bill.
The Bill also refers to prohibiting
persons who are not satisfactorily
trained or experienced in the use of
fireworks, and are not covered by
accident insurance, from purchasing or
possessing fireworks. That also causes us
to consider who would be in a position to
police the Bill. It may indeed be the
police, if not trading standards officers.
Clause 7 mentions licensed premises. The
implication is that, if fireworks can be
supplied or used only in licensed
premises, someone, somewhere, must be
policing--in the broadest sense of the
word--the premises that are to be used.
Throughout the Bill runs the assumption
that its rather tight regulatory
provisions will be policed--I know not
whether by trading standards officers, as
I have suggested, or by Customs and
Excise officers. If that is the case, and
depending on the extent to which it is
the case, the Bill clearly has
substantial spending implications.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent):
As my right hon. Friend will have seen,
considerable penalties are to be levied
on people who contravene the provisions
of the Bill, which implies some public
education or training programme for the
citizen. No doubt, for example, there
will be an increase in the
number of people working in the citizens
advice bureaux so that advice may be
given before Guy Fawkes; that will end up
as a charge on local authority finance.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon.
Friend for making that point. Not only is
he right to point out a possible increase
in the number of people, say, in the
advice bureaux, but he implies that there
would have to be an advertising effort.
This Government, like the previous
Government, are keen to inform people
about the implications of legislation of
this kind, especially if people will be
subject to a financial penalty or
something worse. Therefore, there is an
implication in the Bill of a likely
expenditure on informing the public of
its provisions and possible penalties.
That would be bad enough, but there is
still the matter of compensation.
However, I can find no reference to it in
the Bill. I assume that we will get a
detailed explanation of the matter before
the House is asked to approve the money
Resolution. Will the Government tell us
what compensation is envisaged for small
retailers carrying stocks of fireworks in
good faith, that may overnight be
rendered illegal by the provisions of the
Bill?
Those are the smallest of businesses,
family businesses and community
businesses, which have stocked up with
fireworks. Those are perfectly in order
within the existing regulations, but may
be quickly rendered illegal and subject
to penalties by the Bill. Before we can
contemplate approving the money
resolution, we need to know how much
money might be involved in the payment of
compensation to those small retailers as
a direct result of the Bill.
I am merely sketching out the
possibilities. Goodness knows what would
be involved, were I to go into detail,
which I suspect that the House may not
want at this stage. I simply wanted to
give a flavour of the difficulties that I
see arising from the Bill, however well-intentioned
it may be. Numbers of police, trading
standards officers and staff in citizens
advice bureaux may have to be increased,
and there will be expenditure on
informing the public. As if to rub salt
in the wound, under the heading "Financial
effects of the Bill", we are told:
"The
financial effects of the Bill will depend
on the content of such regulations and
cannot at this stage be predicted."
That is not good
enough. It is not good enough for
legislation, particularly private
Members' Bills, to be brought before the
House and for us to be asked to give a
blank cheque or a rubber stamp. When we
come to the next items on the agenda--after
we have thoroughly considered this one--hon.
Members will see that the same argument
applies with even more force. Time and
again, under the heading money
resolutions, the House is asked to vote
indeterminate or unspecified sums for
unspecified purposes contained in private
Members' Bills.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At this
stage we are debating a money resolution--singular.
We are not dealing with money
resolutions, just the money resolution
before us, relating to the Fireworks Bill.
Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Martin. I am
grateful for that guidance. I had strayed
a little because I wanted to reinforce
the point about the additional
importance, as I saw it, in private
Members' Bills generally for us to be
fully aware of and properly to scrutinise
the money implications.
Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend is
right to consider general matters, but
there is a particular matter that
requires comment. Under the heading,
"Effect of the Bill on public
service manpower", it is stated:
"The Bill
will have no effect on central government
staff numbers."
However, clause 10
includes provision
"for the
Secretary of State to recognise or
license bodies for the purpose of
providing training in the use of
fireworks."
Unless--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must be
firm. We are discussing the money
resolution, not the Bill.
Mr. Forth: I imagine that my hon.
Friend was implying that the provision of
additional training personnel would have
financial implications. [Interruption.]
We need guidance on whether and how far
the increased numbers of personnel--police,
trading standards officers, training
personnel or whatever--have financial
implications. It is no good implying--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must
appeal to Members on the Treasury Bench
to be quiet when an hon. Member is
addressing the House.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. I assume that Members on the
Treasury Bench are discussing the
detailed response to the questions that
my hon. Friends and I have raised. I look
forward, therefore, to a more detailed
and comprehensive reply as a result of
their discussions, which I forgive.
I hope that I have persuaded the House
that it is a key part of the Opposition's
responsibilities properly to scrutinise
such measures and to seek an explanation
at this stage of what is in the
Government's mind when they are asking us
to vote this money before we proceed to
approve it. That is what I am asking for
in order that I may make my own judgement.
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole): I have
similar concerns. If this measure has a
monetary effect, will the Government
compensate Poole borough council, which
has a capping limit?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises an
important point--the implication for
local authorities of this measure. After
all, trading standards officers are
employees of local authorities, and many
of the other enforcement mechanisms
hinted at in the Bill will also fall to
local authorities. In so far as they are
capped, that suggests that at the very
least there would have to be a reordering
of priorities within local authorities.
Which of the other local authorities'
activities will have to be curtailed in
order for them to implement the Bill?
There may not be an increase in
expenditure--I am grateful to my hon.
Friend for pointing that out: it may
simply be that schools will have to be
closed or refuse not to be collected in
order for the legislation to be enforced.
There, in brief terms, are some of the
questions that occur to me about which I
want to be satisfied before I even
consider giving the money resolution my
consent.
10.18 pm
The Minister
for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr.
Nigel Griffiths): People who know the
Conservative Government's record on
fireworks will know that the right hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr.
Forth) should hang his head in shame.
Some five years ago, he stood at this
Dispatch Box in my job and did absolutely
nothing to promote firework safety.
The right hon. Gentleman and his
predecessors presided over a doubling of
the number of fireworks injuries. The sad
fact is that even in 1998 the Opposition
have not learnt that money is not
everything. We have had a tirade from the
right hon. Gentleman, sadly supported by
the new hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms),
who I hope will learn better--
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I understand from your ruling that we are
discussing the money aspect of the Bill,
not the merits of the Bill. May we ask
that the Minister addresses the money
aspect?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a valid
point. The Minister should keep his
remarks to the money resolution.
Mr. Griffiths: All my remarks were
concentrated on money--on an Opposition
who know the price of everything and the
value of nothing.
If the right hon. Gentleman, when he was
adding up the so-called costs of the
measure, had done as I did in the last
firework campaign and visited people in
hospital who had lost their fingers
through firework injuries, he would not
be talking now of the burdens of money.
No amount of money will compensate the
young man whom I visited in the midlands
who has lost his fingers. He lost his
fingers because the right hon. Gentleman
and his colleagues not only did nothing
but did not care. They counted the
pennies on everything and did not mind
the fact that people were at risk because
of their abysmal policies. The right hon.
Gentleman has made it clear that the
Opposition simply do not care about
safety. They care only about the cost.
They should hang their heads in shame.
We, as the Government, are proud of the
measures that we have taken.
Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
That, for the
purposes of any Act resulting from the
Fireworks Bill, it is expedient to
authorise--
(1) the payment out of money provided by
Parliament of--
(a) any expenses incurred by a Minister
of the Crown or government department in
consequence of any provision of the Act,
and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act
in the sums payable out of money so
provided under any other Act, and
(2) the making of payments into the
Consolidated Fund.
16 February 1998
Fireworks
Mr. Baker: To
ask the President of the Board of Trade
what advice she has offered to traders
holding stocks of fireworks which have
become illegal to sell. [29443]
16 Feb 1998 : Column: 513
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On the few
occasions the DTI has been approached by
retailers they have been advised to
discuss the issue of unsold stocks of
prohibited fireworks with their suppliers.
In some cases it is open to suppliers to
re-export such fireworks to countries
where national traditions mean that they
are still acceptable and I understand
that some suppliers are exploring this
option.
Mr. Baker: To ask the President of
the Board of Trade what Government
assistance is available to (a)
firework manufacturers and (b)
firework retailers to help them dispose
of recently banned firework stocks. [29444]
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Following
discussions between the DTI and the
Health and Safety Executive the latter
has issued an exemption certificate to
facilitate the return to suppliers of
stocks of the prohibited fireworks which
have been taken out of their original
transport packaging. My Department has
been in contact with the National
Federation of Retail Newsagents to make
sure retailers are informed and the
information is being given to others who
inquire about this issue. The trade
association representing the firework
industry is also aware that an exemption
certificate has been issued.
9 March 1998
TRADE AND
INDUSTRY
Fireworks
Ms Hewitt: To
ask the President of the Board of Trade
if she will publish the report of her
Department's firework injury survey for
1997; and if she will make a statement. [33695]
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The number of
persons injured by fireworks during the
1997 firework season was 908. This
represents a fall of 26% compared with
the previous year. This significant fall
is I believe due to the fireworks safety
Regulations introduced in October and the
very effective firework safety campaign
run by my Department in the run-up to
Bonfire Night.
Copies of the DTI's Firework Injury
Survey are being placed in the Libraries
of both Houses.
11th March 1998
Fireworks Bill
Standing
Committee A
Wednesday 11
March 1998
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]
10.30 am
The Chairman:
I remind members of the Committee that
there is a financial resolution to the
Bill, copies of which are available in
the Room. I also remind the Committee
that adequate notice should be given of
amendments and, as a general rule, I
shall not call starred amendments.
Clause 1
Introduction
Question proposed,
That the clause stand part of the Bill.
10.31 am
Mrs. Linda
Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): I welcome
you, Mr. Atkinson, to the Chair. In my
first year as a Member of Parliament, it
is a great responsibility to be
presenting a Bill that has the support of
so many hon. Members, who have campaigned
for firework safety over many years. This
is my first Standing Committee and I
should appreciate your guidance and
indulgence, Mr. Atkinson, should I not
understand the procedures.
I welcome the Minister to the Committee;
he is a doughty consumer champion on many
issues and his decisive action in
bringing forward the 1997 regulations
under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
has resulted in a 26 per cent. reduction
in the number of injuries, as reported in
the fireworks injury survey data that was
published earlier this week. That shows
what can be done by focusing action on
trouble hot spots, but at 908-25 of which
were in Devon and Cornwall-the number of
injuries is still too high. My Bill will,
I hope, help to target such action, which
will result in further reductions.
I welcome Opposition Members to the
debate and I am sure that we shall
benefit from the experience of the former
Minister with responsibility for consumer
affairs, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr.
Taylor) who, I am sure, will soon take
his place in Committee. Other members of
the Committee have significant experience
of campaigning for firework safety and I
welcome, in particular, the presence in
Committee of my hon. Friends the Members
for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden)
and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon).
They have assisted me greatly in the
consultations with interested parties
that we have had during the past six
months. I am pleased to see the hon.
Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) in Committee.
I know that his constituents greatly
enjoy fireworks and that he cares equally
greatly about their safety.
As there was no debate about the Bill on
Second Reading, it may help the Committee
if I outline briefly its intentions.
Fireworks provide an enjoyable form of
entertainment when they are used as
intended and in the right circumstances.
The last thing that I want to see is
fireworks so tightly regulated that they
are effectively no longer available to
the public-with the danger of a black
market developing or people being tempted
to make their own. As I am sure hon.
Members will be only too aware from their
postbags, firework issues are of great
concern to the public and to those of us
who want to improve safety and reduce the
distress that fireworks can cause.
My Bill is an enabling measure; it is
based on existing consumer safety
legislation and will enable the Secretary
of State to make regulations on issues
relating to the safe use of fireworks,
which cannot be dealt with under the
powers of the Consumer Protection Act
1987. In line with existing consumer
safety legislation, the Bill specifies
that permanent regulations cannot be made
without appropriate consultation with
consumer bodies, trade associations and
enforcement organisations. It also allows
for emergency action in exceptional
circumstances and makes provision for the
enforcement of regulations and for
penalties relating to their infringement.
It is important that the provisions align
closely with those in the Consumer
Protection Act, because it is likely that
any future controls on fireworks will be
introduced by way of regulations made
under mixed powers-that is, under the
regulation-making powers in my Bill and
those in the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Hon. Members will note that the Bill
incorporates references to various
sections of that Act.
I shall not bore hon. Members by reading
a list of all the powers to be given
under the Bill, but I shall highlight
some of them. First-I believe that a
number of hon. Members and others share
this view-there is an urgent need to
establish a statutory national training
scheme for firework display operators.
The Bill will allow that to be addressed.
Secondly, enforcement authorities and
trade bodies representing fireworks
suppliers are worried that there is no
system for tracing fireworks once they
have entered the distribution chain. The
Bill will therefore allow regulations to
be made to require manufacturers and
importers to notify enforcement bodies of
fireworks long before they are made
available for distribution to end users.
That will allow enforcement authorities
to carry out checks and, when necessary,
to suspend the distribution of unsafe
fireworks at source.
Thirdly, the obvious danger is that
unqualified individuals or organisations
might attempt to obtain from elsewhere in
Europe fireworks that have been
completely prohibited or are restricted
for sale only to suitably trained persons.
That would clearly not be acceptable; the
Bill therefore includes a power to
control the possession of specified
fireworks should it be necessary.
Fourthly, if used with complete disregard
for the safety and well being of others,
fireworks can be a source of great
distress and nuisance. The Bill therefore
includes powers to limit the times when
fireworks may be sold or used. It is
envisaged that those powers would be
exercised by the Secretary of State. Such
measures would help prevent the nuisance
and distress caused by fireworks being
used at inappropriate and unreasonable
times. For example, it could prove
necessary to invoke those powers if it
became evident that the number and scale
of firework displays and the general use
of fireworks was getting out of hand in
the run up to the millennium.
Also included in the Bill are powers to
allow local authorities to regulate
public firework displays, to ensure that
they are safely operated. Regulations
made under the Bill may apply in Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Bill is based on the advice and
recommendations of local authorities,
enforcement authorities, safety
organisations and the fireworks industry.
I believe that its provisions command
widespread support. I therefore commend
the Bill to the Committee.
The Chairman: We are having a wide-ranging
debate on clause 1 stand part. That is in
order, as there was no Second Reading
debate. I remind hon. Members that if
they wish to raise detailed points, they
should not do so until we reach the
appropriate clauses. We can then keep
some order to our debates.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): I
congratulate you, Mr. Atkinson, on your
appointment as Chairman of the Committee.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for
Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on
introducing the Bill, which I and the
Liberal Democrats support. Given some of
the awful accidents that have occurred in
recent years, who could argue with a Bill
designed to improve firework safety?
I shall dwell for a moment on the special
nature of my constituency interest in the
matter, which I draw to the attention of
the Minister for Competition and Consumer
Affairs, the hon. Member for Edinburgh,
South (Mr. Griffiths), and of the hon.
Member for Plymouth, Sutton. I do so to
ensure that the provisions of the Bill do
not adversely impact on the special
nature of firework celebrations in Lewes
and Sussex generally.
For those not familiar with what happens
in Lewes, I should explain that it is, in
many ways, the firework capital of the
country on 5 November. In some years, as
many as 50,000 or 60,000 people arrive in
Lewes, mostly from Sussex but some from
further afield, including some from
overseas. The town's normal population is
15,000, but it is five times higher in
November.
Extensive bonfire celebrations involving
fireworks have occurred in Lewes for
centuries. It is a strong tradition in my
constituency and in Sussex generally.
There are six bonfire societies in Lewes,
and others in my constituency at
Newhaven, Newick, Chailey and elsewhere.
There are other bonfire societies
elsewhere in east Sussex, which have long
been involved in the celebrations on 5
November. The bonfire societies in Lewes
have tremendous expertise, as I told the
Minister when he kindly met me and the
bonfire societies in June or July last
year.
I seek assurance from the hon. Member
from Sutton or the Minister that the Bill
will take account of the special nature
of the bonfire celebrations in Lewes.
When I met the Minister I was concerned
not by his response which was helpful-but
by the advice he was given on that
occasion, which did not recognise the
need for flexibility in regard to the
special celebrations in Lewes. There are
two sorts of people involved in firework
displays: those who pick up fireworks
once a year and who are liable to injury
unless they are properly, and rightly,
protected, and experienced,
professionally-trained companies that
need less protection. The legislation
must cover that. I am concerned that the
Bill may not recognise the special nature
of bonfire societies, which have
considerable expertise but are not
classified as professionals. They spend
the whole year fund-raising and have
considerable experience gained over many
years, but they would not be classified
as professional in traditional civil
service terms. The training scheme, which
I fully support, should therefore
recognise not "professionals"
but, for example, "competent display
operators", a term that would allow
those who do not gain financial reward
from fireworks to demonstrate their
competence to handle them.
Up to 60,000 people watch the firework
displays in Lewes and the number of
accidents is, happily, very small. That
is a testament to the professional, not
haphazard, organisation of the
celebrations. Discussions are held at an
early stage with the police and police
explosives experts, the fire service, the
ambulance service, the local authority,
trading standards officers: everyone one
can think of is involved in the planning
for 5 November. I therefore challenge any
hon. Member to say that our celebrations
are not run competently or
professionally, even though they are run
by the bonfire societies. The societies
are not professionals in the legal sense,
but their attitude is professional. Some
of my comments come from the bonfire
societies, some from Rodney Ash and Brian
Ellis, the firearms and explosives
experts of Sussex police who regularly
deal with the bonfire celebrations in
Lewes.
I seek confirmation that the Bill will
recognise bonfire societies, which
demonstrate expertise and safety, and
will not curb their activities. The
emergency regulations that were
introduced in December 1996 made the
serious omission of not recognising the
special needs of bonfire societies; they
recognised professional companies and
local authorities on the one hand and
individuals on the other. Local
authorities were enabled to undertake
firework displays when they had no
competence to do so. In the case of
Lewes, that was ludicrous; Lewes district
council-of which I was leader at the time-had
no such knowledge or expertise. It could
presumably get the head gardener to
handle the fireworks-when the highly
skilled bonfire societies were excluded.
So the record of recognising the
particular situation in Lewes is not a
happy one.
This is an enabling Bill and some of the
detail will be dealt with by regulation.
The devil may be in the detail and it is
therefore difficult to object to parts of
the Bill. However, will the Minister
assure us that there will be proper
consultation with bonfire societies and
others on future regulations to ensure
that their anxieties are taken into
account?
Firework experts and the Sussex police
service have drawn to my attention two
matters about which I would welcome
comments from the Minister or the hon.
Member for Plymouth, Sutton. First, they
believe that clause 1(1)(a) should refer
to a United Nations number rather than
simply a British standard specification.
10.45 am
Secondly, Sussex
police are worried that the definition of
fireworks in clause 1 does not include
agricultural bird scarers, which are on
sale at various outlets and are not
controlled in the same way as fireworks.
They can act as bangers. Their omission
from the definition of fireworks is
unfortunate.
I have not tabled any amendments, because
I want to be constructive.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): I draw on
my experience of agriculture. Bird
scarers are used temporarily for pest
scaring. Therefore, I hope that if
regulations imposed time constraints on
the sale of bird scarers, there would be
exemptions to ensure that bird scarers
could be bought when they were genuinely
needed.
Mr. Baker: That is a fair point with
which I concur. We should not make life
more difficult for farmers. However, the
public safety aspect of bird scarers has
to be tackled. In an attempt to be
constructive, I have not tabled any
amendments. However, I shall do that
later if the Minister's assurances do not
satisfy me or the Lewes bonfire societies.
The Minister for Competition and
Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths):
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Atkinson.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
for Plymouth, Sutton on piloting the Bill
this far. It has broad support and will
be beneficial. It is a pleasure to attend
the Committee with so many people who are
committed to firework safety: those who
have, over the years, devoted a great
deal of time to it in Parliament, and
those who have worked outside Parliament.
I add my personal thanks to the hon.
Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin
Smyth), who has been very helpful and has
taken a particular interest in the matter.
I am pleased to see him here. We
want to ensure that the provisions in the
Consumer Protection Act 1987 allow for
firework safety to be tackled and that
the Bill deals with other outstanding
issues that cannot be tackled under
existing powers. The Bill covers the need
for training display operators and
provides for the establishment of a
statutory national training scheme.
The hon. Member for Lewes rightly pointed
out that some people who run firework
displays have considerable expertise.
That is important. It is disturbing that,
on last bonfire night, which showed the
biggest decrease in accidents for 23
years-the number of injuries is now below
1,000- several injuries still occurred. I
do not have to remind the Committee that
three people were killed by aerial shells
in 1994, but several people were also
injured by aerial shells at various
organised displays last year. Six people
were injured in Eastbourne; 11 people
were injured in Plymouth. Therefore, it
is important to ensure that those who
organise displays are competent to do so.
That is especially so for those who, by
virtue of organising displays, have
access to larger, more dangerous
fireworks, which are not now available to
the public. I am especially keen to
ensure that bonfire societies and other
experienced users have no difficulty in
obtaining training. I am sure that they
accept the need for training, and I know
that they want to set an example for
others to follow. It is vital that any
national training scheme is based on
similar criteria and sets the same
standards for training providers. I hope
that that addresses the valid points made
by the hon. Member for Lewes. I
commend other aspects of the Bill to the
Committee. At present, there is no system
for tracing fireworks, especially those
that are imported. My predecessors and I
have been informed of several incidents
in which people have imported truckloads
of fireworks of dubious quality, which
did not appear to meet British standards,
and in which the enforcement bodies have
had problems. I welcome the opportunity
that the Bill provides to examine how
those matters might best be tackled and
what checks can be made to ensure that
unsafe fireworks are stopped at source.
Mr. Boswell: The Minister might
enlighten the Committee about a
difficulty that has just occurred to me.
Given the Excise difficulties that have
arisen with trade through the channel
ports under the single market, what is
the position on private imports? I
suspect that such matters are dealt with
under the rules of shipping, but informal
imports might make the regime more
difficult. We might not be so concerned
about those imports if the fireworks are
for personal use, although we might have
to be occasionally. However, if it were
to become an organised trade, it might
well subvert the intentions of the Bill.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman
makes a valid point. Some of us were
concerned when the import controls were
lifted, I believe, in 1988. Ten years on,
we recognise that the free flow of trade
between Britain and the continent means
that there are fewer checks on materials.
It is to address that specific point that
my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth,
Sutton has included in the Bill powers to
enable enforcement officers to stop
dangerous fireworks, which do not meet
British or other European standards,
being brought into the country. On
the designation of fireworks, I assure
the hon. Member for Lewes that there is
no need for the United Nations number, to
which he referred, to appear in the Bill.
We are satisfied that the definition of
fireworks covers all the devices that we
might want to regulate and that that will
be beyond challenge. If we had thought
otherwise, we would have taken the
necessary steps to advise my hon. Friend
the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, or moved
amendments ourselves, to ensure that that
intention was carried out. Our
concern is to ensure that the organisers
of displays do not bypass training and
the mechanisms we are putting in place,
evade their responsibilities and put the
public at risk. We all know of tragic
cases in which people have under existing
law obtained larger fireworks, set them
off and imperilled their own health and
safety and that of others. That must be
tackled; import controls must be
effective. Finally, we need the
powers in the Bill more strictly to
control the sale of fireworks outwith the
period leading up to bonfire night and
shortly thereafter-and during certain
religious festivals. The Bill creates
powers to limit the period during which
fireworks can be sold. I welcome that.
For all those reasons, I commend the Bill
to the Committee.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
I appreciate the opportunity to
contribute to the Committee's debate, and
welcome the hon. Member for Plymouth,
Sutton to her task. She talked about her
thrill at this moment. I remember that
when my late right hon. Friend Enoch
Powell came top in a private Member's
Bill ballot after having been in the
House for many years, he was like a child
with a new toy. He suddenly realised what
a thrill that was, and I can understand
how the hon. Lady feels as a new Member.
The Bill is important, and I appreciate
the kind words of the Minister. I shall
not oppose the Bill, but I should like to
make one or two general comments. I
welcome the fact that, as the Minister
has just said, the Bill will allow
restrictions to be placed on the sale of
fireworks outwith certain periods of the
year. Even with those periods, it will be
important to keep reasonable control of
fireworks, because I am aware of many
people in my constituency who have been
terrified, even in a period of peace.
People who live on their own know
something of the fear that loud bangs
going off constantly can cause. I am glad
that those powers are in the Bill.
While welcoming the Bill's provisions for
Northern Ireland, I wonder whether it is
right that in legislating we place more
and more responsibilities on local
authorities. I note that the police will
not have the same role in Northern
Ireland as elsewhere, and I understand
that. However, outwith the city of
Belfast, most of our local authorities
are rather small, and I wonder whether
they will say that they are unable to
enforce the Bill because they are crying
out for money. I wonder whether that
problem has been sufficiently thought
through. I welcome the Bill and
wish it all speed. I have one or two
simple questions-they may not be as
simple as they appear to me. The Minister
has kindly let me have a copy of the
fireworks injury data. They are
admittedly limited to Great Britain, but
I know that there have been injuries in
Northern Ireland even among professionals.
We must face the harsh reality that when
humans deal with things they are fallible
and, sooner or later, accidents will
occur. Is the Minister satisfied
that procedures are in place to deal with
the more dangerous fireworks, such as
Chinese crackers? People have devised
means to get round any law. The hon.
Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made a
point about informal importation. I
wonder whether Customs and Excise has its
act together to protect the community
from those who will try to make their
fortune through people who like to
subvert law and take their pleasures
without considering the consequences.
Laws are important, but we must be
satisfied that procedures are in place to
enforce the law.
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham,
Northfield): I also welcome you to the
Chair, Mr. Atkinson, and congratulate my
hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth,
Sutton not only on becoming an expert on
firework safety in a short time, but on
her preparations for the Bill, including
consultation with the relevant parties.
She is also to be congratulated on the
Bill itself.
11 am
During the
previous Parliament I secured two
Adjournment debates on firework safety.
Many matters that were raised then are
covered by the Bill. I first became
interested in the matter almost by
accident a few years ago, when I received
a telephone call from my colleague who is
now the Minister for Competition and
Consumer Affairs. He was shadow consumer
affairs spokesman at the time and was
booked to appear on television to discuss
firework safety. He had to drop out at
the last minute and asked whether I could
take his place. I said that I knew
nothing about the issue. As hon. Members
know, in this place one needs to pick
things up at the last minute. He said,
"Don't worry. We will give you a
briefing and get you all set up."
That was it. After the programme I
received phone calls and letters, and had
no option but to become involved. I do
not regret that-even though I said some
unprintable things about my hon. Friend
when I received his phone calls-because
the issue is important. The more I
studied firework safety, the more obvious
it became what needed to be done.
That was in the mid-1990s. The first
Adjournment debate that I secure was in
November 1995. It concerned the matter
raised by my hon. Friend the Minister and
the hon. Member for Belfast, South-imports.
At that time fireworks were being
imported from China, containing
substances that were unlawful, and some
of which were so unstable that they could
explode even if they were dropped. After
the abolition of import licences there
were no controls to allow monitoring of
imports. Since that time, matters
have improved. Authorisation and
classification procedures have been
handled more diligently. However, there
remained a need for awareness of what was
entering the country, how to trace it and
how it would find its way into the shops.
There was no procedure established for
that, and when I secured my second
Adjournment debate, I and those working
with me were still trying to discover the
whereabouts in Britain of one of the
consignments of dangerous fireworks that
I had been discussing the year before.
I am pleased that the Bill sets out
procedures for provision of information
and checking. Those do not apply only to
imports. Nothing in the Bill is more
onerous for firework importers than for
domestic manufacturers. However, a
procedure would be established under the
Bill to ensure that in the interest of
public safety the transport of fireworks
into or around the country would be known
about. It would enable their whereabouts
and type to be known-as well as the fact
that they were safe. The second of
my two Adjournment debates followed the
tragedies of 1996 that my hon. Friend the
Minister mentioned-the deaths of David
Hattersley and Stephen Timcke, both
caused by aerial shells. I pay tribute to
Mr. Hattersley's widow, who has played a
prominent role in firework safety
campaigning since that time. David
Hattersley was not inexperienced. He was
not operating aerial shells or other
fireworks for the first time. He had used
fireworks at school bonfire parties for
some time, but that tragic accident still
happened, and he lost his life. The
incident not only tragically highlighted
the need to do something about aerial
shells and prevent their sale to the
general public, but it provided evidence,
if more was needed, of the need for a
proper national training scheme. Many
firework safety organisations had
campaigned for that for some time.
Responsible members of the firework
industry-and that is the vast majority of
manufacturers and importers in this
country-accepted the need for a proper
training scheme. I am pleased that the
Bill provides enabling legislation for
that. Many people have helped us to
reach this stage. My hon. Friend the
Minister has played a huge role, in
Government and when we were in
opposition, in improving firework safety.
Since we came into government he has
approached the issue of firework safety
with laudable and admirable zeal. It is a
tribute to his work, and that of his team
at the Department of Trade and Industry,
that last year's extremely hard-hitting
successful firework safety campaign
brought about a 26 per cent. reduction in
firework injuries-the highest for many
years. I am not complacent, because
injury statistics rise and fall. But we
should be pleased, should welcome the
effort that has been put into it, and
redouble our efforts next year. I
pay tribute also to the hon. Member for
Solihull, who is not in his place. He was
the Minister with responsibility for
consumer affairs and will recall the
Adjournment debates of that time. I had
to cross swords with him several times
about firework safety, and I had major
differences with him about many of his
Government's policies. But the hon.
Gentleman was always committed to the
cause of firework safety, and he brought
about improvements as part of a
successful safety campaign. I pay tribute
to him for responding to requests in 1996
to use his power to introduce a temporary
ban on aerial shells, which my hon.
Friend the Minister has made permanent.
Mr. Boswell: In the absence of my
hon. Friend for Solihull, may I give the
Committee the good news? He will be here
as soon as he can be after another
commitment and wishes to speak to the
amendment tabled in his name. I am most
grateful for the hon. Gentleman's
generous remarks. I know of my hon.
Friend's commitment to the issue and will
make sure, if he does not read the full
transcript, that it is drawn to his
attention.
Mr. Burden: I thank the hon.
Gentleman. I shall be brief because time
is short. The Bill is important. When
enacted, it will be enabling legislation.
That is the right way to do things,
because many of the issues are
complicated and if we tried to tackle
them through primary legislation the Bill
would be huge.
What has emerged so far-this may answer
in part the points made by the hon.
Member for Lewes about bonfire displays-is
a spirit of partnership. Not only Members
of the House and the other place were
involved in drafting the Bill.
Representatives of the firework industry
discussed it and made an input. All sorts
of safeguards have been built into it.
Firework safety organisations were
involved and I know that the National
Campaign for Firework Safety is taking a
close interest. Safety organisations such
as the Royal Society for the Prevention
of Accidents were consulted, as were
trading standards officers and other
organisations which, under current
legislation, are charged with enforcing
safety rules. That spirit of partnership
has been extremely successful. The
practical result was a welcome fall in
firework injuries in 1997. In addition to
a highly successful campaign-for which I
pay tribute to the work of the fire
service-we were able to draft these
legislative proposals and begin
discussions, which we shall continue, to
lay the foundation for regulations that
will make firework safety in Britain the
envy of the world. We also want to keep
the fun in fireworks-they can, and do,
provide great fun-while, as far as
possible, taking out the danger. That has
been the Government's goal.
Mrs. Gilroy: I was brought up in
Ottery St. Mary, where, as in the
constituency of the hon. Member for
Lewes, bonfire night is celebrated in
considerable style. As I said earlier, I
do not want to regulate matters so
tightly that people are prevented from
enjoying fireworks or are driven to
produce their own.
The powers in clause 5 are wide and
flexible; they will enable proficiency
and experience to be the determining
factor in establishing who can be
supplied with fireworks, and,
importantly, they provide for training in
the use of fireworks. We hope that that
will make possible regulations to define
precisely those who can be supplied with
dangerous fireworks. I hope that when my
Bill is on the statute book, those of us
with an interest in fireworks and
firework safety will continue to meet to
discuss accident statistics such as those
that were published this week, and to
focus on the further use of the Bill's
powers to ensure that those statistics
continue to show a decline in accidents
involving fireworks.
Mr. Baker: May I just clarify that
the hon. Lady intends the determining
factor to be the confidence to use
fireworks rather than the professional
status of those who may be involved?
Mrs. Gilroy: Yes, I believe that the
powers in clause 5 are flexible in that
respect. The Hon Gentleman asked for
flexibility rather than exceptions, and
we are confident that there is such
flexibility in clause 5.
I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry
that it is entirely unacceptable that
people should be able to circumvent the
provisions by importing products. That
would be unacceptable in safety terms and
the Bill has powers to control the
possession of specified fireworks, should
that be necessary.
I welcome the hon. Member for Belfast,
South to the Committee and thank him for
his contribution. Northern Ireland has
its own regulations and legislation, and
my Bill will enable that to continue. Its
full powers will be exercisable with, or
separately from, their exercise elsewhere
in Great Britain. I understand that the
Royal Ulster Constabulary does not
consider that it will need a long- term
interest in day-to-day issues relating to
fireworks. The making of regulations for
Northern Ireland is a matter for the
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
We would welcome the hon. Gentleman's
participation in any future all-party
meetings on firework safety.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of
the Bill.
Clause 4
Prohibition of supply etc. in certain
circumstances.
Mr. Nigel
Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No.
3, in page 2, line 44, at end insert 'or'.
The Chairman: With this we may take
amendments Nos. 4 to 6 and 9 to 13.
Mr. Griffiths: The amendments relate
to clauses 4 and 15. They are grouped
together because they are linked by a
common purpose: to repeal sections 30, 32
and 80 of the Explosives Act 1875 and to
allow for the remaking in updated form of
the provisions of those sections in due
course.
The sections relate in particular to
public safety. Section 30 of the 1875 Act
prohibits the hawking, sale and exposure
for sale of explosives, including
fireworks, in public places. Section 32
deals with the packaging and labelling of
explosives sold to the public and section
80 prohibits the letting off of fireworks
in public places.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 amend clause 4 so
as to allow for the re-enacting in
fireworks regulations of the equivalent
provisions in section 30 of the 1875 Act.
Amendment No. 9 amends clause 15 to
provide that regulations made under
clause 4 (1)(a) may extend to explosives
as well as to fireworks. That is
necessary so that any prohibition
equivalent to those in section 30 of the
1875 Act can cover all explosives, not
just fireworks. It would, of course,
include bird scarers, about which the hon.
Member for Lewes asked, if they were
being misused. there is no intention at
present to discriminate against bird
scarers or to take action gainst those
who use them for perfectly legitimate and
necessary purposes. If they were to be
misused, we would want powers to close
that loophole in specific circumstances,
but that would not include general use in
fields by farmers.
Amendment No. 10 amends clause 15 to
provide a power for the Secretary of
State to amend the definition of
explosives. Amendment No. 11 changes
clause 16 because of the change to the
contents of the schedule made by
amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
11.15 am
Amendments 12 and
13 specify the extent of the repeals to
the 1875 Act and other legislation that
is no longer necessary, and provide for
consequential amendments to the Consumer
Protection Act 1987 and a statutory
instrument which refers to section 32 of
the 1875 Act. The amendments are
technical; they will repeal Victorian
legislation which, together with the
legislation on explosives that the Health
and Safety Executive intends to
introduce, will ensure that we have
comprehensive provisions to take us into
the next century.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 1,
leave out from 'day,; to end of line 2.
No 5, in page 3, line 3, at end insert-
'1(A) Fireworks
regulations may include provision
prohibiting persons from supplying,
exposing for supply, purchasing,
possessing or using fireworks, or
fireworks of a description specified in
the regulations-
(a) in places or places of a description,
or
(b) in circumstances,
specified in the regulations.'.
No. 6, in page 3,
line 4, leave out 'subsection (1) and
insert 'this section'.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Prohibition of supply etc. of certain
fireworks
Question proposed,
That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Baker: I have a quick question.
Do the terms of clause 5 mean that
possession of prohibited fireworks will
be an absolute offence, except for
professionals?
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: We will
endeavour to help the hon. Gentleman if
he will give us a moment to consider his
question.
Mr. Boswell: Occasionally, the US
cavalry is of service when further
reinforcements are required. Is not it
also important, if there is to be a
strict liability, that some thought
should be given to the need for a
safeguard if fireworks inadvertently came
into someone's possession? For example,
they may have been put into a trunk by a
malicious person without the owner's
consent. There should be a safeguard if
the owner could show that that had been
done without his knowledge or consent,
albeit that the fireworks were in his
possession. Those are the sort of
practical difficulties that must be
teased out if the regulations are not to
be discredited.
Mr. Griffiths: I am advised that the
short answer to the question asked by the
hon. Member for Lewes is yes. The powers
in clause 5 allow for regulations to
prohibit the
"possession
of fireworks of a description specified
in the regulations"
either generally or by persons of a
description specified in the regulations.
Question put and
agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 7
Licensing of suppliers
Question proposed,
That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Baker: Clause 7(1)
"prohibits
persons from-
(a) supplying,
(b) exposing for supply, or
(c) possessing for supply".
I wonder why the
word "offering", which appears
in clause 3, is not mentioned in clause 7.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I can again help
the hon. Gentleman and the Committee.
Given that provisions pertaining to
supplying, the exposing for supply or
possessing for supply are covered by the
clause, it was not considered necessary
to include the word "offering".
We believe that the other three
provisions cover every contingency.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 8
Information about fireworks
Question proposed,
That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Baker: I am concerned about a
small matter which the Minister may say
can be dealt with by regulation. I seek
clarification on distance. It is germane
to the safety of fireworks displays and I
should prefer a provision covering safety
distances to be written into the Bill.
The distance between members of the
public and fireworks being set off is a
major contributory factor to accidents.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Currently, clause 8
provides for the inclusion in regulations
of requirements that relate to
information with, or in relation to,
fireworks and that information can
specify distance limits. I shall ensure
that the hon. Gentleman's specific point
is given further consideration and I
undertake to return to him about the
matter before the Bill is discussed on
Report. Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 9
Prohibition of placing of fireworks on
the market
Mrs. Gilroy: I beg to move amendment
No. 14, in page 5, line 15, leave out
from beginning to second 'fireworks' and
insert 'from- (a)
importing, (b) completing the
manufacture of, or (c) placing on
the market,'.
The Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to take
amendment No. 15, in page 5, leave out
lines 19 to 23 and insert- '( ) If
fireworks regulations impose any
prohibition by virtue of subsection (1)(b)
or (c), they shall specify the
circumstances in which- (a) (if the
prohibition is imposed by virtue of
subsection (1)(b)) a person completes the
manufacture of fireworks, or (b) (if
the prohibition is imposed by virtue of
subsection (1)(c)) a person places
fireworks on the market.'.
Mrs. Gilroy:
Amendment No. 14 would provide greater
flexibility to require information about
fireworks. In particular, regulations may
be made under which it would be criminal
offence for importers to import fireworks
and for manufacturers to complete the
manufacture of fireworks without first
complying with a requirement to notify
information. I recognise that our
international trade obligations prevent
the actual blocking of imports until
information is provided and great care
will also be needed when drafting
regulations under the clause-not least to
ensure that they do not impose
requirements that are more onerous than
those imposed on home manufacturers.
Amendment No. 15 allows for the terms
"completes the manufacture" and
"places
fireworks on the market" to be
defined in the regulations made under the
clause although, as I have said, great
care will have to be taken in the
drafting to ensure that we comply with
our obligations.
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and
South Downs): I congratulate the hon.
Member for Plymouth, Sutton on her Bill.
Clause 9 is the most important clause in
the Bill. The biggest risk of all is
dangerous fireworks and the tragedy of
aerial shells demonstrates that. I
support the amendments, but I am not
clear who will decide under the
regulations which fireworks are dangerous
and should be kept off the market,
whether manufactured in this country or
imported. There will always be the risk
of schoolchildren getting hold off
fireworks-it is in their nature-and if we
are to be effective, the biggest
objective of all is to keep away from
supply fireworks that pose a real danger
to life.
Mrs. Gilroy: The regulations are
enabling provisions and there will be
wide consultation, which will
include who should be responsible for
their implementation. As a member of the
Institute of Trading Standards
Administration, I have consulted
enforcement agencies. Such matters will
be decided by the Secretary of State, but
they will be subject to the consultation
process. Practicality of enforcement is
essential to the value of any legislation.
The Chairman: It would be helpful,
particularly when the Chairman is blind,
if the hon. Member for Lewes stood up to
catch my eye.
Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. I
am still getting used to the
peculiarities of Parliament. The
clause prevents people who manufacture or
import prohibited fireworks from placing
them on the market. Does that constitute
an absolute offence of possession? Does
the clause prevent individuals who seek
to use prohibited fireworks privately or
in public displays, without monetary
gain, from importing them? If it does
not, perhaps it should. There is a case
for an absolute offence of possession of
prohibited fireworks.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: In principle,
the prohibition can apply to individuals
and the Bill is clear about that. I am
not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has
the latest copy of the Bill-if he does
not, I apologise. Clause 7 covers the
same ground: if the categories of supply,
exposing for supply and possessing for
supply are included, it is not necessary
to add the category of offering for
supply. The only way in which people can
offer fireworks for supply and be a
threat to the public is by being in
possession or able to gain a supply of
them. The public are at threat if someone
offers for supply a dangerous firework
that he possesses-in the case of a con
merchant, of course they are at threat
from the transaction itself. We
believe that the Bill covers the matter
that concerns the hon. Gentleman. It will
have the practical effect of ensuring
that enforcement officers, including
police and trading standards officers,
can tackle the problem of people offering
items for supply.
Mr. Baker: I am sorry if I am
being dense, but will the Minister
clarify whether it would be an offence
for an individual to go abroad and
purchase fireworks that are legal in that
country and bring them back for private
or public use, without seeking to place
them on the market or gain financially?
Mr. Griffiths: It can be an
offence. The regulations that we shall
make under the clause can specify the
information that would be required not
only from business but, in principle,
from individuals. Provided that that is
covered on the regulations-and I see no
reason why it would not be-it would be an
offence for an individual or a company to
bring dangerous fireworks into the
country.
Mr. Burden: I may be able to go
some way towards answering the points and
allaying the fears of the hon. Member for
Lewes. The definition in clause 1 of
supplying fireworks includes "giving
them as a prize or otherwise making a
gift of them". There is
a danger of considering only one
definition of supply-the bill gives
several definitions. The Bill also
envisages different regulations, some in
relation to people who supply fireworks.
The intention of the Bill's supporters is
to encourage training for people who use
powerful fireworks, in whatever capacity.
That is where the weight of regulation
will be. People who let off powerful
fireworks are a danger to themselves and
others without proper training. The
precise legal mechanism used may vary,
but the intention is to ensure public
safety rather than concentrating on the
trade provisions.
11.30 am
Mr. Griffiths:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I
hope that I have helped to allay the
fears of the hon. Member for Lewes. I
hope that when he sees the regulations he
will be satisfied that we are tackling
all possible loopholes. Amendment
agreed to. Amendment made: No. 15,
in page 5, leave out lines 19 to 23 and
insert- '( ) If fireworks
regulations impose any prohibition by
virtue of subsection (1)(b) or (c), they
shall specify the circumstances in which-
(a) (if the prohibition is imposed by
virtue of subsection (1)(b)) a person
completes the manufacture of fireworks,
or (b) (if the prohibition is
imposed by virtue of subsection (1)(c)) a
person places fireworks on the market.'-[Mrs
. Gilroy.] Clause 9, as
amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Enforcement
Mrs. Gilroy:
I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 7,
line 18, leave out from first 'section'
to end of line 19 and insert '28 (1)(a)
and (2) to (4) (test purchases) apart
from the references to forfeiture and
suspension notices, ( ) section 29(1)
to (5), (6)(a) and (7) and section 30 (powers
of search etc.), apart from the
references to forfeiture and suspension
notices,'. The amendment adds
to the enforcement provisions in the Bill
by incorporating most of section 28 of
the Consumer Protection Act 1987 on
making test purchases. It also
incorporates section 29(3) of that Act,
adding to enforcement officers' powers of
search by enabling them to examine
procedures connected with the production
of fireworks. Consequential amendments
are made to include paragraphs (6), (7)
and (8) of section 30 of the 1987 Act on
test purchases. Amendment No. 16
also makes drafting changes to the
references to sections 28 and 30 of the
Consumer Protection Act 1987, to make it
clear that the references to forfeiture
and suspension notices in those sections
are not relevant for the purposes of the
Bill. The amendments are the result
of advice taken from those who will be
responsible for enforcing the Bill's
provisions. Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move
amendment No. 7, in page 7, line 31,
after '1987' insert '(exceptions
to restrictions on disclosure of
information if disclosure made pursuant
to specified enactments)'. I commend
the amendment. The amendment is-
Mr. Burden: Self-explanatory.
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, it is self-explanatory.
It is a drafting amendment, which is why
my notes are short. It inserts additional
wording to clause 12 to explain the
contents of section 38(3) of the Consumer
Protection Act 1987. Amendment
agreed to Clause 12, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 14
Byelaws about supply etc. of fireworks
Question proposed,
That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this, it
will be convenient to discuss amendment
No. 2, in clause 20, page 9, line 15,
leave out 'Apart from section 14'.
Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull): I
apologise to you, Mr. Atkinson, and to
the Committee for not being here at the
beginning of the sitting. I had some
duties in the Opposition Whip's office-duties
that are supposed not to exist. I
understand that in my absence, the hon.
Member for Birmingham, Northfield made
some rather gracious remarks about me,
for which I thank him. It is my
wish to delete clause 14 from the Bill, I
have discussed the matter with others; I
do not think that I am taking anyone by
surprise. Amendment No. 2 is merely
consequential on the read across to
clause 20. I have acquainted the hon.
Member for Belfast, South with my
intention. I seek through amendment No. 2
to make the law the same throughout
Britain and Northern Ireland, and I doubt
that the hon. Gentleman will take issue
with me on that-I hope not, but if he
does, I will try to deal with the matter.
It is worth asking the reason for the
drafting of clause 14, which I believe
took place a considerable time ago, and
whether it still has any active
supporters. I think that the answer to
the second question is that it has no
supporters. The reason for the clause
takes us back to a time before I was able
to achieve something in this field as a
member of the previous Administration and
before the Minister was in turn able to
achieve something. The world has moved
forward on firework safety across two
consecutive Administrations. Clause
14 represents an historic attempt by
those whose slogan was that if central
Government would not do anything,
municipalities should be empowered to do
so. As central Government have now acted,
we do not need to leave miscellaneous
powers in the hands of local authorities-not
that I have anything against local
authorities; I served in local government
for 15 years and it is a vital part of
our constitution. Mentioning the word
constitution leads me to remark that-as
you, Mr. Atkinson, know better than any
other member of the Committee-we have no
written constitution, we have a series of
conventions. I would defend that state of
affairs, but we are not here today to
discuss that. One of those
conventions is that a citizen of this
country is deemed to know the law. That
is a rather harsh discipline, which has
the important consequence that ignorance
of the law is no defence. That is a tough
discipline on the citizens of this
country-they are deemed to know the law
and to say that one did not know what was
the law is no defence. Given that
that is the position, to have the law
change every time one crosses a borough
boundary appears oppressive. The law
should be consistent across the land, in
fairness to both the citizen, who is
deemed to know the law and the enforcing
authorities. I have it on good authority
that there are five municipalities in
west Yorkshire-speaking without notes, I
believe that they are Leeds, Wakefield,
Bradford, Kirklees and Calderdale. They
have wisely combined to form a single
trading standards authority operating
across five boroughs. As the enforcement
authority, it is entitled to a clear path
to any offences. It would be
perverse to have five different sets of
byelaws for a single trading standards
department to enforce. That would not
merely offend against my first principle,
my making it too hard for the citizen to
know what is the law, it would offend
against my second principle that the law
must be clear and enforceable, and that
enforcing agencies must have a clear path
to the offence. So the removal of
the clause recommends itself on those two
counts, but also for the avoidance of
farce. Most of us who represent urban
constituencies will know of boundaries
with next-door municipalities that are
the centre line of a road. The
parliamentary constituency of Solihull
has a boundary with the constituency of
Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath.
The dividing line is the mid-line of a
road. My municipality is Solihull
metropolitan borough council; the
authority on the other side of the road
is Birmingham city council. If clause 14
survives, those two authorities could
come to completely different views. One
set of firework regulations could apply
on one side of the road and another set
on the other side. It is not
inconceivable that a rocket set off on
one side of the road could land on the
other side. I believe that in the
counties of California, such problems
have arisen. The clause will create
a potential farce-at worst, a potential
tragedy, at the very least a potential
misunderstanding-that is wholly avoidable.
The Secretary of State will have adequate
powers under the Bill. It is otiose to
deal out a second set of miscellaneous
powers which might become capricious.
That would not serve the best interests
of our citizens or of the Bill.
Therefore, clause 14 should not stand
part of the Bill and, consequently,
amendment No. 2 should be agreed to.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I very much
welcome the hon. Gentleman to the
Committee. His knowledge of firework
safety issues is invaluable to us all. I
pay tribute to him for his work in
introducing the Firework (Safety)
Regulations 1996, on which I have been
able to build. I think that the Committee
will be moved by the force of his
argument. Last year, the Government
ensured that the minimum age for
purchasing fireworks was raised from 16
to 18. That helps our colleagues in local
authorities better to enforce the
regulations, and makes it much more
difficult for younger teenagers to get
hold of fireworks. It is inconceivable
that we should allow one council to
operate a more lax enforcement regime
under the byelaws than another. Of
course, it would be wrong if any of those
provisions were undermined by one local
authority choosing not to enforce them as
vigorously as another.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Mr. Atkinson,
you will remember that I asked a question
about local authorities and impositions.
In considering such matters, I realised
that I could not oppose the amendment
because I have long argued for such laws.
I have no difficulty with the House
agreeing, as it has in the past, to
diverse laws affecting Scotland and other
parts of the kingdom. Having said
that, while the hon. member for Solihull
was speaking, I remembered a young man
who was in my congregation when I was
active in parish work, not elected to
Parliament. He bought fireworks in
England because he thought it would be
wonderful to have them for his children.
When he was coming off the Stranraer-Larne
ferry, the authorities stopped him for
having fireworks, which was against the
law of Northern Ireland, and he was
convicted. Thank God, that did not
blemish his character-he later became a
member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
and is now in a thriving business. The
point is that, because of ignorance of
the law of Northern Ireland, he bought
fireworks in one part of the kingdom and
thought that he could use them for his
family in another part of the kingdom.
11.45 am
A subsequent
aspect of that story is that the
headmaster of a local school thought that
young people were growing up without
experiencing firework displays. He
approached that lad's mother, who was a
local shopkeeper, to find out whether she
could organise something. She spoke to
me, and the three of us organised a
festival, including firework displays, in
the sports stadium. It was under control,
the security forces participated and it
was a wonderful evening. The point is
that, as the hon. Member for Solihull
said, ignorance of the law did not excuse
that young man's actions. Although he was
thinking of his family and had enjoyed
fireworks as a boy, he could no longer do
so. It is in that context that I support
amendment No. 2. Question put and
negatived. Clause 14 disagreed to.
Clause 15
Prohibition of supply etc. of explosives
to young persons
Amendments made:
No. 9, in page 8, line 33, after '3',
insert- 'or 4(1A).' No. 10,
in page 8, line 37, at end insert- '( ) The
Secretary of State may be regulations and
amend subsection (2). [Mr. Nigel
Griffiths.] Clause 15, as
amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill
Clause 16
Repeals
Amendment made: No.
11, in page 8, line 39, after 'repeals',
insert- 'and revocations,
including repeals of enactments which are
no longer necessary'. [Mr. Nigel
Griffiths.] Clause 16, as
amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses 17 to 19 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.'
Clause 20
Short title and extent
Amendment made: No.
2, in page 9, line 15, leave out 'Apart
from section 14'. [Mr. John M. Taylor.]
Clause 20, as
amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
Repeals
Amendments made:
No. 12, in page 10, column 3, leave out
line 4 and insert- No. 13, in page
10, line 9, at end insert- The
Explosives (Age of Purchase & c.) Act
1976. The whole Act. The Explosives Act
1875 etc. (Metrication and Miscellaneous
Amendment) Regulations 1984. In Schedule
1, the entry relating to section 32 of
the Explosives Act 1875. The Consumer
Protection Act 1987. In Schedule 4,
paragraph 1.'. [Mr. Nigel Griffiths.]
Schedule, as
amended, agreed to. Bill, as
amended, to be reported.
The Chairman: Before we adjourn,
may I compliment the hon. Member for
Plymouth, Sutton on the way in which she
has presented her Bill? All members of
the Committee know that piloting a
private Member's Bill through the House
is a daunting task, especially for a new
Member. A great deal of work had to be
done behind the scenes. I compliment her
on the way that she has done it.
Committee rose at thirteen minutes to
Twelve o'clock.
The Following Members Attended The
Committee: Atkinson, Mr. Peter (Chairman)
Baker, Mr. Boswell, Mr.
Burden, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. Anne
Davidson, Mr. Flight, Mr.
Follett, Barbara Gilroy, Mrs.
Griffiths, Mr. Nigel Hall, Mr.
Patrick Iddon, Dr. Love, Mr.
Mountford, Kali Smyth, Martin
Taylor, Mr. John M. Williams, Mrs.
Betty
18 March 1998
Fireworks
Mr. Hoyle: To
ask the President of the Board of Trade
if she will restrict the sale of
fireworks to the general public to within
a specified period around 5 November each
year. [34595]
Mr. Nigel Griffiths [holding
answer 16 March 1998]: I share the
concerns of my hon. Friend to ensure that
fireworks are sold for only a limited
period round events such as bonfire night
and religious festivals e.g. diwali. The
private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend
the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs.
Gilroy) gives power to restrict the sales
period and we will be discussing this
with representatives of the firework
industry, consumer groups and others.
20 March 1998
Remaining
Private Members' Bills
FIREWORKS BILL
As amended in
the Standing Committee, considered; read
the Third time and passed.
21 April 1998
Fireworks
Mr. Flight: To
ask the President of the Board of Trade
if she will enter into discussions with
the Home Office on the provision of a
scheme for retailers to hand in fireworks
which have become illegal to sell, to be
operated by the fire brigades. [38721]
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Although the
Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997
prohibit the supply of certain fireworks
to the general public, they may continue
to be supplied to persons who are exempt
from the prohibition. As far as we are
aware, industry efforts to date have been
to attempt to find alternative legal
markets for the prohibited fireworks. If
there are signs that a significant number
of retailers want to explore a system of
simply disposing of the fireworks, we
would be prepared to look at this
possibility with the fire service
authorities and anyone else who may be in
a position to offer practical assistance.
Go to Parliament
in 1998 Part 2
Return to
Parliament Site
Go to Menu Page
|
|
