House of Lords where stated, otherwise House of Commons

12 noon, 3rd July 1998
Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real source of knowledge on fireworks is those who manufacture fireworks? Does he think that we could have an unhealthy collusion between those who manufacture fireworks and the Secretary of State in deciding fees and setting up training establishments?

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and useful point. I suspect that he is right, and a significant part of the training that is to be provided--if it is to be provided in a market manner--will be provided at the instigation of manufacturers and in relation to their products.

Mrs. Gilroy: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could name some of the manufacturers he thinks may enter into collusion. My understanding is that there are very few manufacturers left in this country, and that it is mostly a matter of importation.

Mr. Lansley: Heavens, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly did not say that I thought that any manufacturer would collude or enter into collusive agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was talking about that. My point is, in a sense, quite the opposite.
I am perfectly sanguine about the possibility that manufacturers may provide training. I am perfectly happy that, in a training market, one of manufacturers' objectives is to try to promote the use of their product. I have no difficulty with that. I see no reason why the supporters of the Bill should have a difficulty with that, so long as the licensing process is designed to ensure quality and safety in the provision, supply and use of the product.
In a relatively robust marketplace with low barriers to entry, if manufacturers seek by collusion or by abuse of a dominant position--[Interruption.] The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and I have spent many happy hours debating the Competition Bill. He will know exactly what I mean by abuse of a dominant position. If manufacturers seek to do that in a relatively healthy marketplace with low barriers to entry, there will be no difficulty. The manufacturers will be circumvented by other training providers.

Mr. Paterson: It would help if I expanded my earlier comment to include importers. I was referring to those with a commercial interest in the sale of large numbers of fireworks in this country, who may wish to work closely with the Government to the exclusion of others.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right to remind me that I have not pursued that point. It seems to me inherently undesirable that there should be collusion either between manufacturers and importers, or between them and the Government, in setting a fees level designed to carry through some kind of distortion to the marketplace for training.
By introducing the Bill, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and the Minister have assumed that there will not be a free market, as the licensing provision represents a barrier to entry--it is a statutorily determined monopoly on training.

Mrs. Gilroy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the regulations, it is entirely possible--indeed, probable-- that a wide part of the fireworks market will not be subject to training and, therefore, fees? He is straying wide of the mark.

Mr. Lansley: I thought that I was entirely in order in talking about the fees to be charged for attendance at training courses. The hon. Lady should not chide me, as I am not talking about those parts of the industry that will not be subject to fees. Perhaps she is shifting her position. The burden of my argument is that the Secretary of State should not be in the business of setting a structure of fees for attendance at courses. If she is saying that that is almost the case already, she should disagree to amendment No. 3.

Mr. Maclean: I was worried by the intervention of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), which went to the heart of some of the problems in the Bill and the wide-ranging way in which it is written. On fees, she said that it is possible, even probable, that the regulations may not be relevant to large sections of the industry. We have to debate the Bill and the amendment on fees, but we have no idea what regulations the Government will make, whom the regulations will cover and by what judgment the fees will be levied. The Government are asking us to buy a pig in the poke.

Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and gives a more effective riposte to the intervention of the hon. Member for Sutton than I could. If she is minded to intervene again, perhaps she will say what scope she envisages for the licensing system for those who run training courses. The Bill seems to suggest that, for safety reasons, a large proportion of the training of those who use and handle fireworks should be covered by a licensing process. It would be helpful to have the parameters set out.
My argument, as I hope the Minister and the hon. Lady will recognise, is not about scope and how far the licensing process should go; it is about the principle--whether the Secretary of State should determine the structure of fees for training. The statutory barrier to entry set by the Secretary of State is not to limit the numbers entering the training market, but to determine quality. There is no reason why, if enough people are licensed to provide training at the appropriate standard, a fully competitive market for training in the private sector should not be established.
I see no grounds for the setting of fees, or even maximum fees. If we go down that path, there will be many distortions, deliberate or otherwise. One risk, as has been pointed out, is that, although the intention is to increase the number of people who receive training, the number of training providers could be reduced or the quality of the training could be lowered. If the fee is too low, the intended objective may be compromised, and training providers may not be able to offer high-quality courses to meet the standards that the Bill suggests.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has prompted an important line of thought. It seems, prima facie, that the providers of the best training will have an expensive capital outlay for the range that they want. If they attract a large number of people because of the quality of their training, training costs could be driven down. If the Secretary of State has declared the fee that they are allowed to charge, there will not be that beneficial effect.

Mr. Lansley: That is a good point. Many distortions might result from a fee set at different levels.
My hon. Friend reminds me of another important matter. The fee will not necessarily remain at the initial level at which it is set by the Secretary of State. If she is the price setter, training providers contemplating coming into the market will have to build in a form of risk with which they are not used to dealing. I have worked with many training providers. They have to accept commercial risk within a marketplace, which is well understood.
If I were a provider, I would set out my stall, as it were. I would know roughly the number of people requiring training and the competition, and I would set the price according to what the market would bear. My question for the Minister is this: will the Secretary of State set the price at what the market will bear and how will she determine that when there is not yet a market? Of course she will not do so, because she does not know that price and will therefore set the fee in relation to costs.

Mrs. Gilroy: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I made a similar intervention on the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but the significance of the training scheme under the Bill is that it may confer a statutory right to buy certain dangerous fireworks. Does he not think it right that a limit should be set on charges made for such a right?

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady questioned whether I had been here throughout the debate, and I can confirm that I have--I have left the Chamber only once, for a moment. Also, she was dealing with the wrong point. I have said that I support amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which relate to the charging of a fee for the granting of a licence or its variation. I do not dispute that point, and I do not understand why the hon. Lady should challenge me on it. Of course fees should be charged for attendance at courses People who want to be trained will go to training providers, who will charge a fee.
The question is whether the fee that is to be charged should be determined by the Secretary of State or the provider operating in the marketplace. The hon. Lady's intervention shows that she has not listened to the argument--indeed, she is not even aware of the structure of the argument. My question, which is the essence of the matter, is: will the Secretary of State set the price in a market that she is to control by judging what it will bear? Clearly, she will not do so.
It is in the nature of the beast that the Secretary of State cannot know what price the market will bear--the market has not established such a price. Therefore, she will either set the price too high so that training providers will receive a higher fee than they would if they were operating in a competitive marketplace without fees set by the Government, or she will set it too low. Short-run marginal costs are the normal basis on which Government Departments set such fees. If the fee is set on that basis, it will be below what the market will bear. Either way, there will be adverse consequences.

Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful market-based argument. Does he agree that a further
difficulty with allowing the Secretary of State to set the fees is that training providers will have to club together to hire a lobbyist to make representations to her on a matter that is clearly vital to their commercial survival?

12.15 pm
Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. He illustrates the inherent inefficiency of trying to manage any market through Government intervention rather than market pressures alone.
If the Government set the fees, they will be either too high or too low. If they are too high, the training providers will take an excess profit--I thought that the Government did not like excess profits--and people may be deterred from seeking training. If they are too low, more people may seek training, but there will be fewer providers and they may cut corners.
I am astonished that the hon. Member for Sutton has not said that she is happy for us to disagree with the Lords in amendment No. 3, because having the Secretary of State setting the fees would only introduce inefficiencies and pose a risk that there could be manipulation for extraneous reasons: to impose a deterrent, for example. The Bill will achieve its objectives only by operating through the marketplace. We should support amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4, but oppose amendment No. 3.

Mr. Paterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on doing so well in the ballot and bringing her Bill so near to fruition. At 12.16 pm, it must seem tantalisingly close.
The Bill is extraordinarily ambitious. It strikes me as being like a game of consequences. I whole-heartedly concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that, in considering the fees, we need to go right back to the explanatory and financial memorandum, which gives the Secretary of State extraordinarily wide powers.
The memorandum says:
"The financial effects of the Bill will depend on the content of such regulations and cannot at this stage be predicted the regulations may confer power on the Secretary of State to provide training courses."
Those are extraordinarily broad--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to go down this route. There have been other stages of the Bill at which these matters could be debated. We are now considering Lords amendments concerning the charging of fees for training, and the granting and variation of licences. The other powers have nothing to do with the amendments.

Mr. Paterson: I totally take on board your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely the fees are set according to the regulations, which are decided by--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a question of taking on board not my advice but my instructions. The hon. Gentleman has had other opportunities to debate these matters. The other place has sent us these specific amendments, and we must confine ourselves to considering them.

Mr. Paterson: I will do my best to follow your instructions to the letter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Bill requires a high level of training, in which there is no risk and no animal can be injured. That--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. If he will talk about fees, he will be all right--and I shall be happy.

Mr. Paterson: I will try.
I am concerned about the practical consequences of the Bill and the ability to set fees at a realistic level. I have tried in my preamble to demonstrate that the Bill is so extraordinarily ambitious that it will be beyond the powers of the Secretary of State to set satisfactory fees. As I understand it, no fireworks will be sold by anyone who has not been on a training course and--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the Bill. I do not want him to talk about the Bill in general terms. I do not want him to talk about any clause. He should talk only about the amendments before us. That is the difficulty in which he finds himself, and if he is unable to speak to the amendments, perhaps he will allow another hon. Member to speak. He cannot decide to go somewhere else in the Bill just because he cannot speak to the amendments.

Mr. Paterson: I apologise once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My concern is that the Secretary of State must set fees, but I do not see how he can do that under the Bill's requirements. He has four options. He may set fees without consultation, or he may palm the setting of them on to the industry so that it can make its own arrangements, or he may go to local authorities, or he may set up a quango. Surely, even allowing for the broadness of the Bill, the Secretary of State will not be allowed to set fees without consulting anyone.
My fear, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), is that the Secretary of State will, by working closely with the industry, distort the market in fireworks and the training of those who use them. The only people qualified to conduct training, and the only people with the space for training grounds in open areas in which there is no danger of hurting livestock, will be importers or manufacturers already involved in the industry. They have a vested interest in shutting other people out of the market, and their interest lies in setting extremely high fees. They will work with the Secretary of State to distort a market that they alone will be able to provide. That will make it difficult for new importers to enter the market or for people to set up new businesses to manufacture fireworks.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Sutton aims to stop fireworks, even though they are hugely popular on 5 November and at other celebrations. She shakes her head at that suggestion, but I fear that that will be the consequence of working with the industry. Unhealthy collusion will set up a cartel to decide how fees are set.

Mr. Collins: The Lords amendments would be even more beneficial if the word "affordable" were inserted before "fees".

Mr. Paterson: I agree entirely. The point is that the industry will want the fees not to be affordable. There will be a lock-out, with the collusion of the Secretary of State. The Bill requires good training and requires the Secretary of State to set training fees. The interest of those already established in the market lies in shutting out anyone else. There will be a smaller number of huge public displays, with safer organisation. Perhaps that is what the hon. Member for Sutton wants. I, however, favour private activity, more choice and more independence, which is precisely what the Bill would stop. It will not be in the interests of those who are established in the industry to set the fees too low.
The Secretary of State should not be involved in setting fees. I am sure that enforcement will be deputed to local government, although local government is not mentioned in the Bill. Local government already has huge burdens. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) so wisely said, there is huge variation in the characteristics of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I come from rural areas in which there is plenty of room. It would probably be cheaper to set up fireworks use training establishments in a rural area where there are country spaces in which fireworks can land without hurting anyone.

Mr. Collins: I would not want my hon. Friend to think that our debate on the amendments implies any degree of support for large-scale fireworks training courses across the Lake District national park.

Mr. Paterson: No. I am sure that my hon. Friend's sheep farmers concur and will be cheering as they listen to the radio or watch on television. It is easier to provide training--and fees would be cheaper--in the country. There will be demands for lower fees from local government. Bromley and Chislehurst is a heavily populated, built-up area which may have considerable problems. People may have to travel. They may have to go all the way to the national park at Lonsdale to find a nice wide open space to do the training, and the fees may be greater. The Secretary of State is being given powers to set fees right across the country, regardless of local circumstances. That is unworkable. If fees are to be set, there must be flexibility to work with those with the extraordinarily difficult job of enforcing the regulations.
There is no acknowledgement of how training is to be checked and enforced. In an intervention, I asked whether some security force will whiz around the country on 5 November checking that every fireworks party is being run by people who have paid the fees and been to a course with which the Secretary of State is content. That appears not to have been thought of at all. With respect to the Bill's promoter, that is not practical.

Mrs. Gilroy: Has the hon. Gentleman read the "Firework Injuries. Data Year 1997" survey? It has an illustration of a girl badly defaced with the caption:
"Face by boyfriend showing off with a firework."
Boys behaving badly. What price would the hon. Gentleman put on such injuries?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that these matters are not before us at the moment.

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will take your line and not take up that point. I am as concerned as anyone about injuries. I do not see that the setting of fees by the Secretary of State will reduce the number of fireworks injuries. Believing that passing a huge, blunderbuss Bill and giving the Secretary of State power to set fees and insist on training will make this hideous problem go away shows extraordinary faith. Dreadful injuries occur to a small number of people. The number involved is small compared with accidents at home or on the road. I do not believe that the problem will be washed away by giving such powers to the Secretary of State and setting fees.
Much worse, I foresee a black market in the sale of fireworks and, if necessary, in training. Fly-by-night companies will operate outside the legal domain. In contrast to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) sought during the Conservative years, when he worked closely with industry and sought consent, the Bill will split the consensus. It all comes back to the fact that the Secretary of State is being given far too wide powers. The powers to set fees are unrealistic and unworkable. Sadly, that will not achieve the laudable aims sought by the hon. Member for Sutton.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I shall explain why the Government support the Lords amendments and the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). The heart of the issue is how we can introduce a regime to provide for training that can cut the number of injuries that occur every fireworks season.
Labour Members can speak with some satisfaction in the knowledge that the action that we have taken since the general election has led to a record decrease in the number of fireworks injuries--the largest fall for 23 years. That gives us a unique position to speak with some authority; in contrast to the position of some Conservative Members and the record of the Conservative party.
We support the Lords amendments to clause 10 because they give the powers needed to ensure that display and larger fireworks are used by properly trained people. In that desire, we have the support of everyone from those representing the industry to the Confederation of British Industry, which represents all industries, to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and organisations which represent the safety interests of the public.
Two things have come out of the debate. None of the Conservative Members who have spoken today contributed to previous debates. Perhaps that is why they are so ill-informed. The speech made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) beggared belief. He stated that everyone who sells or uses fireworks will have to pay some sort of licence fee. In fact, the vast majority of fireworks sold will not be subject to the Bill, and nor will people who let off fireworks in back gardens or anywhere else.

Mr. Rowe: Will the Minister give way?

12.30 pm
Mr. Griffiths: No. The hon. Gentleman also made a grave error; he belittled the number of injuries and compared them unfavourably with deaths in other sectors as if a large number of deaths in one sector means that we should not pay attention to the deaths and, more important, injuries from fireworks.

Mr. Rowe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Griffiths: No. The hon. Gentleman had a chance to participate in previous debates on this issue and he failed to do so.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is not relevant whether a Member has participated previously? This debate is free standing. If the Minister is too afraid to give way to take proper questions from the Chamber, that is a matter for him, but it is nothing to do with an hon. Member's previous participation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I can also confirm that that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister to decide whether to give way to another hon. Member.

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not normal that, if a Front Bencher misinterprets something that an hon. Member says, he should give way to have it explained?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a normal point of order, either.

Mr. Griffiths: There was no misinterpretation of what the hon. Member said.
I come to my second point, which relates to fees. We are giving the Secretary of State the back-up power to set fees if there is not agreement on them by those who run the courses. There are two sets of fees. First, there are fees for licensing. It is interesting that Opposition Members now say that those who are licensed should set their fees. I did not notice them advance that argument for taxi drivers, publicans, builders or developers. That is a red herring. The second set of fees is course fees. Everyone in the House of Commons agrees that, if agreement can be reached on course fees, that is fine. We want a lot of providers to come forward and run courses. If a number of people are running courses, it is likely that the level of fees will reflect the market. That is what we all hope for, and it is exactly what is in the Bill.
What the other place has wisely suggested in its amendments, and in backing up the essence of clause 10, is that, if there is not agreement on fees or, if someone should, as hon. Members have suggested, have a monopoly of the market, the Secretary of State should have the backstop powers to set the fees herself.

Mr. Maclean: I merely wish to take the Minister up on his statement that the fees charged by companies will reflect the level of the market and that that is in the Bill. I cannot see what provision he has made in the Bill to ensure that the fees he will set will reflect costs or the market.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to what I said, but that is hardly surprising. If several people provide courses, they will set the fees. As for the level at which fees should be set, it was made clear in the evidence that the other place took from Mr. Mason--and repeated by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) as a general principle of government--that the fees should reflect the general costs incurred and not higher costs, and should not be intended to produce a profit. I wholly endorse that principle. I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is reassured on that point.

Mr. Lansley: My point was made in relation to the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in granting or varying a licence. Where fees for attendance at a training course are involved, they can be set by the market. It would be helpful if the Minister explained in what circumstances he thinks the Secretary of State would or would not intervene to set fees that were different from those determined by the market in the normal way.

Mr. Griffiths: If there was one provider of training courses and a complaint was made that it had a monopoly on provision and that the fees it charged were unfair, my right hon. Friend might well hear representations on the matter and, after discussions, seek to make alterations. However, I do not believe that those circumstances will arise, because several groups--people who have taken a great interest in the industry over many years--are already interested in running courses. One is the CBI explosives industry group, which has considerable knowledge of the subject and is especially keen to develop and run a training course. Other organisations might also want to run training courses, but if they are to be able to do so and to set the fees that we have debated today, we have to pass the Bill.
I am sorry to say that the worst sort of filibuster appears to be going on. The British Pyrotechnists Association has been following our proceedings today; it was so concerned about the delays and filibustering that it took the opportunity offered by the private notice question to send a letter to me deploring the attempt being made by the Opposition--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister himself is now in danger of going outside the scope of the Lords amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Griffiths: The letter makes it clear that, in the Lords amendments and in accepting the need for fees, the BPA is able and willing to run training courses and wants the Bill to be passed quickly. The letter is signed not only by the chairman of the BPA, but by members of the CBI explosives industry group.
This morning, we have heard hon. Members who do not know the scope of the Bill and who do not care that the current arrangements mean that there is a higher than necessary number of injuries. I invite the House to accept the Lords amendments and the whole Bill, because it has the support of the whole country, with the exception of the Conservative party.

Mr. Waterson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, even though the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for substantial parts of the debate.

Mr. Waterson: That is wholly untrue, as was the Minister's previous assertion. As he spent much of my speech chuntering under his breath instead of listening to what I had to say, he probably did not hear me wish the Bill a fair wind--

Mr. Forth: Oh!

Mr. Waterson: I said that the official Opposition would not be voting against the Bill. Does the Minister remember my saying that?

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) saying, "Oh!" and groaning when the hon. Gentleman said that he wished the Bill a fair wind. It is the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the real Conservatives, not the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench--and that is the problem.
The House should accept the Government's view that the Lords amendment is acceptable and reject all the arguments against it made by Conservative Members because our record on this matter does us a great deal of credit. The record of certain Conservative Members does not do them credit.

Mr. Leigh: Why?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman asks why. When he was at the Dispatch Box doing this job between 1990 and 1993, the number of people injured by fireworks rose by 46.3 per cent., which means that up to an extra 335 people ended up in hospital because of his incompetent handling of his brief. I ask the House to accept the amendment, because our record of stewardship on the matter has shown a dramatic decline in the number of fireworks injuries and we want to ensure that the trend continues.

Mr. Lansley: The Minister is not responding to the carefully argued points made on the amendments. As he knows, I said that I was perfectly happy to support the Bill and, indeed, most of the amendments, but not the one relating to charging fees for training. The Minister is not responding to that argument, which is the subject of the debate.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not accepting the hon. Gentleman's rejection of the amendment, because it would hobble the Bill and ensure that there was an unworkable regime because of the innate hostility to fees. I am sorry that he has taken part in the filibustering.

Mr. Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Griffiths: As I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I shall. Perhaps he would like to apologise to the House and the country for his stewardship on this issue.

Mr. Leigh: The point that the Minister made, which attacked me personally, was outrageous rubbish. He virtually said that I rape nuns and eat babies and that I was personally responsible for people dying because of fireworks injuries. That is an outrageous suggestion, and he should withdraw it. The Minister should reply to the serious concerns that we have raised in the debate. If he thinks the amendment so important, why did he not include it in the Bill in the first place?

Mr. Griffiths: One of the great advantages of a parliamentary democracy is that one listens to the informed views of others. We listened to the views on the amendment. It will improve the Bill, and we accept it for that reason. I fear that Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate and not taken the opportunity to contribute to the constructive framing of the Bill will succeed only in talking it out, which would deprive us of a valuable tool further to tackle fireworks injuries. I commend the amendment and the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: As the last Opposition Member to speak on the amendment, I want to say a few words. In view of the Minister's provocative attacks on some of my hon. Friends, I could be tempted to speak longer than my wont, but I shall keep my remarks relatively brief.
The Minister made a general attack, suggesting that some of my hon. Friends did not fully understand the Bill's scope. No one can understand its full extent because, in almost every clause, the Minister has taken to himself general powers to make regulations on any matter under the sun, including fees. I regret that the Minister did not confine his remarks to the amendments before us or deal with the particular questions raised by my hon. Friends.
I wish to make another point absolutely clear. It is some time since I was on the Front Bench. What my Front-Bench colleagues in the official Opposition think of the Bill is their concern. I speak individually, and the Lords amendments trouble me. The other place was no doubt concerned to build more safeguards into the Bill, and probably considered the amendments to be safeguards. I am troubled by them because they seem to arise from a misunderstanding of what the Government have the power to do sensibly and wisely. Governments often make the great mistake of believing that they can read the market and fix a price that the market will bear. The Government will have great difficulty in making a judgment on what fees should be charged for training.
The amendment contains no criteria for the level of fees, so the other place has not been up to its usual drafting standard. It has sent us an amendment giving the Secretary of State the power to set fees, but it has not done what it usually does--set criteria by which the Secretary of State may come to a conclusion on the fee to be set. If the criterion is the average or maximum price that the market will bear, or the level that would enable all the high-quality training that the Bill envisages to be carried out, that would give us some guidance on the level of fees that the Secretary of State has in mind and the criteria that she and her officials would use when determining the price to be fixed.

12.45 pm
When one reads the Bill, one sees the quality of training that must be given and the proficiency required. Training fees are referred to in clause 10, but they relate to every part of the Bill where training is stipulated. It is also stipulated in clause 5, under which people must show that they are proficient and qualified. I presume, therefore, that it is not merely a matter of the Secretary of State fixing fees in accordance with the cheapest course on the market.
I have experience--admittedly, many years ago--of training in industry. We would have had incredible difficulty had the then Government fixed the fees for the training courses that we provided. If I thought that the Government were fixing the fees, I would lay on the gold-plated, six-week residential course. When companies paid the fees themselves, we started with a five-day course and whittled it down to a two-day or highly intensive 10-hour course, and the fee structure was radically different.
Obviously, the Secretary of State will not want to set the fees prohibitively high. She will set them at a level of full cost recovery, as I presume that her administrative costs must also be added to the fees collected. If so, there will be a Government charge for administering the fee structure, and the Secretary of State will then pick a level of fees that she considers reasonable. If it were not reasonable, it would be subject to judicial review, but what is reasonable in terms of the Bill? If it came to judicial review, their Lordships would have to study all the requirements in the Bill and the quality standards that have been set. I shall not go down the route of discussing quality standards, because that would be outside the scope of the amendment. Nevertheless, the fees that the Secretary of State sets must take into account what people are supposed to know and prove that they are proficient in, under clause 5.
When one looks at the regulations that the Secretary of State has the power to make and the classes of people to whom they can apply, one assumes that only big organisations laying on big, commercial firework displays will be affected. However, according to my reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations stipulating that training may apply to anyone who lets off fireworks, even in small village displays. The Bill does not exempt those people.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths indicated dissent.

Mr. Maclean: The Minister shakes his head as if to say, "Oh no, we won't go that far. We are only trying to catch the big events organised by municipalities. We don't intend to go after the little fellow who has bought some fireworks to set off for his children." On the other hand, if the Minister is to be as successful as everyone wants him to be in reducing the number of accidents and injuries resulting from fireworks, should he not acknowledge that most of those injuries occur because some individuals behave stupidly with fireworks, not because big organised public displays go wrong?
I return to the fees issue. If the Minister wants to meet his safety objectives in the Bill, he must encompass in the training courses a range of people--not only the big Brocks, ICIs and CBIs of this world. He must get the training courses to the small punters who lay on little bonfire displays, and let off fireworks, on every village green. If those people are not caught by the training requirement, there is not much point in the training provisions, because such small displays probably make up the majority of firework displays in the country and, probably, the majority of accidents happen at small firework displays--but I shall happily be corrected.
If those one-off punters who have some fireworks on bonfire night are to be trained and fees are to be set, what sort of training courses will be necessary for them, and what level of fees will they be charged? The Minister has given us no hint of the criteria that he will apply when setting fees. I believe that he tried to argue that he would base the fee level entirely on market forces. I do not know how a Government Department can make a judgment on the right level of fees. Will it choose the average price in the market? Alternatively, will it choose the price that the market will bear, and how will it do so?
I had hoped that the Minister would categorically rule out using the fee mechanism to produce further policing. Some of my colleagues hinted that it could be done. The Bill would allow the Minister to do so because it does not set criteria to tie his judgment in setting the level of fees. The Minister did not answer my hon. Friends' argument that he could use the pricing mechanism to fund adequately only the gold-plated courses, forcing others out of the market. If he introduced regulations to outlaw firework displays by the little punters, he could force through the complete municipalisation--indeed, almost nationalisation--of firework displays.
It may be the view in some quarters that the only fireworks that people should be allowed to see are those that are laid on by big organisations and councils. That aspect of the Bill worries me, because it means that it can be used to get at individuals who want to set off fireworks themselves. I deplore all those foolish individuals who do not use fireworks safely; I wish that the Bill had been a small Bill, dealing exclusively with tightening safety rules relating to children, especially sales to children. However, the Minister has in the Bill a huge blunderbuss measure, with lots of powers in every clause. In my view, the power that he is taking for the Government to set fees will do nothing to reduce accidents.
The Minister may say that training will reduce accidents. It could do so if the right people were trained--which they may not be--but I do not, for the life of me, understand how giving the Minister the power to set fees will help to reduce accidents. The fees to be set by future Ministers are irrelevant to the safety arguments that the Minister put.
The Minister ranged widely in his speech and made some blatantly political points. I shall not take that route; I confine my remarks to the Lords amendment. The Minister has not dealt with the points raised, including the point that I and my hon. Friends have made that the level of fees set by the Minister does not enhance the safety case one iota.
I regret that the Minister replied as he did, and that he did not specifically address any of the points raised by my hon. Friends. On Fridays, when we debate private Members' business, my hon. Friends have a perfect right to scrutinise legislation. The Lords amendments have not previously been seen. It is irrelevant for the Minister to say that some hon. Members present have not participated in earlier debates on the Bill. None of us had seen the Lords amendments relating to fees previously, and it is valid for any of us to participate in that argument today.
I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who will probably reply briefly, will pick up some of the points raised by my hon. Friends. I am still disturbed not just by large parts of the Bill, but by the suggestion that the Government must set the level of fees because that will somehow improve safety, and lead to fewer accidents and fewer children being blinded. That is nonsense. No one wants to see children blinded or fools messing about with fireworks, but there is nothing in the Bill that will prevent people from misbehaving badly with fireworks--in the same way that no legislation can stop footballers misbehaving badly on the pitch.
The Minister is trying to create the false argument that, if hon. Members do not vote for the Bill, it will result in many more accidents involving young people. If the Minister wanted to reduce the number of fireworks accidents involving young people, he should have introduced a measure that was specifically targeted at that objective rather than introducing Henry VIII powers regarding regulations for everything under the sun, including training courses and fee setting by the Government

Mrs. Gilroy: Before turning to the amendments, I point out to the House that my Bill was considered carefully by the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, in addition to being debated in another place and in Standing Committee. Opposition Members have expressed concern about not having had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. However, we welcomed the contribution by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and accepted an amendment. That showed, from an early stage, that we were prepared to take account of points raised by hon. Members in an attempt to improve the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: Is this the hon. Lady's Bill or was it given to her by the Government?

Mrs. Gilroy: Hon. Members may know that I am the first member of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration to be elected to the House, and I have taken a great interest in issues to do with consumer protection and safety.
We have also received assistance from the Confederation of British Industry explosives industry group and the British Pyrotechnists Association. It is clear from the communication that my hon. Friend the Minister received, and to which he referred earlier, that those organisations do not object to the fee-making powers in the amendments.
Amendment Nos. 1 to 4 are related, and I shall discuss them together. They relate to clause 10 of my Bill, which includes powers to make provision for, among other things, fees for the grant or variation of licences for training providers and for attendance at training courses. My Bill currently provides for either the Secretary of State or any body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State to make provision for such fees.
The amendments were prompted by concerns expressed by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation--I should have thought that Opposition Members would have more respect for such a body--when it considered very fully the various regulation-making provisions in my Bill. The Select Committee was concerned to ensure that fee setting remained within the control of the Secretary of State. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of its report--which I imagine that Opposition Members have considered fully--the Select Committee expressed the view that fees should either be approved by the Secretary of State or be subject to a limit specified in the regulations.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gilroy: No, I want to make progress. There is much more to be debated in the Bill, and hon. Members are waiting to consider other legislation.
The report also suggested that the Lords might consider whether a suitable ministerial undertaking would be satisfactory. In the Select Committee's view, that would have been sufficient. In any event, the Lords decided that the issue would be dealt with better by amendment.
The amendments to clause 10 will, therefore, ensure that only the Secretary of State will be able to make provision regarding fees for training licences and fees for attendance at training courses. That would also provide a means of ensuring that fees were not set at excessive levels.

Mr. Paice: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) should make it clear when she is refusing to take an intervention. I understand that she has completed her speech.

Mrs. Gilroy: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not notice the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) attempting to get in. I was in the course of my last sentence, so I was concentrating on finishing.

1 pm
Mr. Paice: In that case, I would like to speak for a moment.
The Minister is right. I have only just come in, but the point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) is making goes close to a matter of great interest to me--training. Having run a private sector training company for years before I came into the House, and having been privileged to be the Minister with responsibility for training, I do not know of any other situation where the Minister is given the power to set the fees for attending a training course.
There are many other examples, including pesticides--the issue that the next Bill is about--driving forklift trucks and driving heavy goods vehicles, where the requirement is for training, rightly, but there is no example, to my knowledge, where the Minister is given such a power. That is why I was seeking to intervene on the hon. Member for Sutton. I wanted to ask whether she could name another piece of legislation in which the Government take on themselves the setting of fees for training courses.
I do not believe that there is any such example. It is a pity that the hon. Lady was not able to give way. Obviously, if she can come back and cite an example, I would be delighted, but, given that Labour says that it understands for the first time how industry and commerce work, I cannot imagine how it could possibly put into legislation the power for a Minister to set training course fees. Unless the hon. Lady or the Minister can give an example of legislation that gives that power to a Minister, I cannot see how the amendment can be acceptable.
ion put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:--
The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 2.

[1.1 pm
AYES
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Austin, John
Bradshaw, Ben
Brinton, Mrs Helen
Buck, Ms Karen
Burnett, John
Caplin, Ivor
Chaytor, David
Cotter, Brian
Darvill, Keith
Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Dean, Mrs Janet
Dowd, Jim
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Efford, Clive
Fearn, Ronnie
Flynn, Paul
Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Hill, Keith
Iddon, Dr Brian
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Kemp, Fraser
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Lepper, David
Livingstone, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
McFall, John
McNulty, Tony
Pickthall, Colin
Pound, Stephen
Purchase, Ken
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rooker, Jeff
Ryan, Ms Joan
Stunell, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tonge, Dr Jenny
Truswell, Paul
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wallace, James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan  (Swansea W)

Tellers for the Ayes:
Angela Smith
Mr. Richard Burden

NOES
Paterson, Owen
Walter, Robert
Tellers for the Noes
Mr. Edward Leigh
Mr Eric Forth

Question accordingly agreed to
Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the sake of clarification, am I right to believe that you are grouping together two amendments that relate to two different clauses--clauses 5 and 7--and then, in a different grouping, two amendments, Nos. 6 and 8, that relate to a clause and a schedule? Does that complicate matters or is it how it should be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has made the selection, which is perfectly in order. It is quite common practice that if amendments applying to different clauses and schedules are seen to be pertinent and relevant, they will be taken together. There is nothing wrong with that.