National Campaign for Firework Safety

Parliament in 1998
Part 5, 1:45 pm 3 July 1998 - 17 November 1998,

House of Lords where stated, otherwise House of Commons

1.45 pm 3 July 1998
The Minister should be able to ban such devices, as Ministers in the past have been able to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I, who have both had responsibility in this sphere, often had to act quickly to ban particular products. The first action taken by my right hon. Friend on becoming Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs was to ban a particular product. In such circumstances, we would say, "We will ban the product without having to go through the delays engendered by the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament, but then we shall give the industry a chance to discharge its burden of proof and, in that way, we shall determine whether the product is safe." At least we could act quickly in such circumstances.
What worries me is that, because Parliament is rightly concerned about the Bill's wide-ranging powers--in a sense, that is the devil in the legislation--Parliament is circumscribing the Minister's power to act quickly when public safety is at stake. On the other hand, I can understand why my hon. Friends feel that it is necessary for Parliament to be involved through the affirmative resolution procedure. I understand and support their argument that, because the Bill is so wide-ranging, it can almost reinvent itself in the sense that it can give ever wider powers to Ministers to determine what is or is not a firework. My hon. Friends do not want to give such power to Ministers.

Mr. Jenkin: My understanding, and I might have misunderstood, is that, in the normal course of events, and unless provision is made for emergency regulations, any regulations laid on the Table cannot come into force until they have lain on the Table for 40 days. Therefore, the amendment would not engender any further delay. If my understanding is incorrect, I hope that my hon. Friend will enlighten me.

Mr. Leigh: I have tried to think through in my mind whether or not the amendment would engender further
delays. My personal understanding might be wrong and my hon. Friend's right, in which case the debate will have produced a proper outcome and I shall be satisfied. I simply wish to press the point, which is worrying to me, even though I understand why, because of the nature of the Bill and the way in which it is drafted, hon. Members want these matters to be brought before Parliament and the Minister to be obliged to explain--albeit in a truncated and often unsatisfactory debate--what is or is not a firework.
In Committee, hon. Members mentioned issues such as distress flares or bird scarers. The Minister might consider a distress flare to be a firework, especially given that, some time ago, an appalling act of homicide caused by a distress flare took place on the football terraces. Whether such flares should be included in the ambit of the legislation might be precisely the sort of issue that the Minister might want to discuss with Parliament.
The other problem is that distress flares are also used to protect lives at sea and on mountainsides, and therefore play a very positive role. In the case of an appalling incident such as the one that I described, in which a hooligan used a distress flare and caused injury, there would immediately be great public pressure on the Minister to bring the product within the ambit of the Bill.
Our concern about the amendment is that Ministers will be able to act very quickly. Of course, they would want to act properly, and would not take action without advice from officials, but occasionally Ministers and officials make mistakes and Ministers are put under pressure. If there is not a time for calm reflection and the matters cannot come before Parliament, a mistake may be made. We are worried that a product may be banned and that--although that may deal with a problem such as that which I described, which engendered public pressure forcing Ministers to act--there might be unforeseen consequences.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have calmly reflected and decided that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of repeating himself.

Mr. Leigh: I shall not deal further with that particular case.

Mr. Jenkin: I may inadvertently have given the House misleading information. Having taken informal advice on statutory instruments, I understand that, unless the parent statute signifies that a statutory instrument cannot come into force immediately, a Minister may table a statutory instrument and it can come into force immediately, whether it is required to lie on the Table or requires affirmative resolution. Therefore, the amendment places no restriction on how quickly a new regulation can come into force.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I respect his judgment, but I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I should like the Minister to confirm that point.

Mr. Jenkin: The Minister is not here.

Mr. Leigh: I do not understand why the Minister is not here, when we are discussing matters of public safety. I am not sure that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is present, is the appropriate Minister and capable--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is very interesting and amusing, but it has nothing to do with the
amendment before us.

Mr. Leigh: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was intervened on.
Other matters might cause the Minister to act, such as pesticidal smoke cartridges; shotgun cartridges; magnesium blocks, which are sold to help to light fires in emergencies; Hilti guns, which fire heavy-duty bolts and nails in the construction industry; alarm mines--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the substance of the amendment, which concerns the simple question whether the affirmative resolution procedure should be used.

Mr. Leigh: I am coming to the end of my points, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In going through that list, I was showing you and the House that there may be doubt about whether or not numerous devices are fireworks, because of the nature of the explosive charges they contain. It is right that such matters come to the House to be considered properly and for the Minister to have to justify his actions.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be nice if the Minister could now reply to the debate.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): For the avoidance of doubt, the Government accept the amendments sent from the other place.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:--
The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 0.

Division No. 328

[1.53 pm

AYES
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Austin, John
Bradshaw, Ben
Brand, Dr Peter
Brinton, Mrs Helen
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnett, John
Caplin, Ivor
Collins, Tim
Colman, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cotter, Brian
Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Dowd, Jim
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Efford, Clive
Fearn, Ronnie
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flynn, Paul
Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Heald, Oliver
Hill, Keith
Iddon, Dr Brian
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Kemp, Fraser
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Lepper, David
McFall, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David
McNulty, Tony
Paice, James
Pearson, Ian
Pickthall, Colin
Purchase, Ken
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rooker, Jeff
Ryan, Ms Joan
Savidge, Malcolm
Stunell, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tonge, Dr Jenny
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wallace, James
Walter, Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:
Angela Smith
Mr. Patrick Hall.


NOES
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. Eric Forth
Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that the Bill is largely an enabling measure, it would assist the House greatly if we knew the Government's line on the various measures in it. Is it in order for the Minister to remain seated for so long in this debate, when an intervention early in the debate, with a clear statement about the Government's view on the various enabling proposals, would have facilitated progress? Why have we been denied a statement? Is it in order for the Minister to remain seated for as long as he has?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is certainly not a question of order as to which hon. Member, whether on the Government Front Bench or not, contributes to a debate in the House. We are considering a private Member's Bill which is being piloted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) to question whether there has been a Government response, when the Government gave that response and he was not here to listen to it, or to the answers to the very questions that he put?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is no better a point of order than the last one.

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all understand that Ministers have duties outside the Chamber that necessarily occupy their time. In the previous debate on Lords amendments, it would have been very informative to have had the Minister's view--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just dealt with the substantive point of order raised by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin).

Mr. Jenkin: It is a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It does not sound like it.

Mr. Jenkin: Would it be in order for the Minister to answer now the points that were raised?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Most certainly not. The hon. Gentleman must know that that confuses completely a
point of order with a point of debate.

Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you check Hansard on Monday and the Minister's claims that the Government have responded to the debate? I have been here throughout this morning's proceedings and I did not hear any such response. I am not asking that you request the Minister to reply now--of course not--but I ask you to check Hansard in order to see what was said. The Minister's comments appear to be at variance with my understanding of what happened.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What has been said will be on the record for all to see.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because the Minister was not here for large parts of the previous debate, I felt that it was appropriate to divide the House--if only in protest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the point of order as to whether the Minister is obliged to take part in the debate.
Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 8, line 8, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)").
Motion made, and question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.--[Mrs. Gilroy]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8.

Mr. Forth: This is a clear case--perhaps the clearest that we have had to date--of how it would be helpful if, at the outset of our consideration of the amendments, we were given the courtesy of some brief explanation as to why the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), recommends the amendments to the House. Amendment No. 6 may be detailed and technical--it may even improve the Bill--but it would assist the House to know why and how that is so.
That argument applies even more strongly to amendment No. 8. Those of us who have not had time to scrutinise the amendment this morning--we have been rather busy and in the Chamber all the time, unlike the Minister--want to know why the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 is relevant to fireworks legislation. Given the obvious obscurity and very detailed nature of these amendments, in particular, it would be helpful if the Bill's promoter would do us the privilege of explaining at this stage the reasons for the amendments and why she believes that they should be accepted.

Mrs. Gilroy: The amendments are simply drafting and tidying-up measures. My father was a civil engineer who was much given to tidying the roads, and I am pleased to ensure that this Bill is kept tidy.

Mr. Paice: That raises the question whether it is right that the House should amend the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 at this stage in the Parliament. The House has already passed legislation to create a Scottish Parliament, which will come into being next year following elections. As I understand it, the issue of roads in Scotland will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I suggest that it might be inappropriate at this stage in the Scottish Parliament's development for the House to do anything to alter legislation that the Scottish Parliament could change again 10 months hence.
I would have hoped that the hon. Member for Sutton would address that issue. If her father was a civil engineer, he would know the importance of having legislation absolutely right and tidy. If we are likely to have a change again next year, when there is a Scottish Parliament in place and a Scottish Minister with responsibility for roads in Scotland, one has to ask what is the point of introducing a change now.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who is promoting the Bill, did not choose to explain amendment No. 8, so it falls to me to help the House in its consideration by explaining what it is. The amendment relates to the prospective repeal of sections 30 and 80 of the Explosives Act 1875. When those are repealed, the two sub-paragraphs in question will no longer have any relevance.
I have been to the Library to consult the Explosives Act. In particular, of course, I have consulted sections 30 and 80. Section 30 says:
"Gunpowder shall not be hawked, sold, or exposed for sale upon any highway, street, public thoroughfare, or public place. If any gunpowder is hawked, sold, or exposed for sale in contravention of this section--

(1) the person hawking, selling, or exposing for sale the same, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 shillings; and

(2) all or any part of the gunpowder which is so hawked or exposed for sale, or is found in the possession of any person convicted under this section, may be forfeited."
What I do not quite understand--again, presumably, the Minister will not be prepared to tell us; certainly the hon. Member for Sutton was not prepared to tell us--is this. We are repealing or amending part of section 30 of an important measure, which was presumably passed by Parliament, in its wisdom, to protect people on the Queen's highway in Scotland, but it is not clear what the law in Scotland relating to public safety on the public highway will be.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend must recall that all that we have been offered so far by way of explanation is that the father of the promoter of the Bill was a civil engineer with a tidy mind. I do not know what my hon. Friend thinks about that as an explanation. I think that it is patronising and insulting. Unless we get something a lot better from the promoter or the Minister, I cannot see how we can possibly be persuaded of the merits of the amendment.

Mr. Leigh: I strongly suspect that the reason why the hon. Member for Sutton made that fatuous comment is that she had not done what I did, which was fairly elementary. I went back to the Explosives Act to ensure that, rather than these matters just being glibly wafted through the House of Commons without any debate, we considered why we were repealing part of the Act.
Of course I will be reassured on that point. I cannot believe that the Government have made such an elementary error as not to consider properly what is in the Act--of course they have--but we should like an explanation of why, when Parliament in its wisdom, passed section 30, it is now to be repealed.
Schedule 4 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, amending section 80 of the Explosives Act, deals with the penalty for throwing fireworks in the thoroughfare. It says:
"If any person throw, cast, or fire any fireworks in or into any highway, street, thoroughfare, or public place, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale".
By the language, my hon. Friends will realise that that is an amendment to the Explosives Act--it is not the original words--but, again, it is an important protection for people going about their lawful business. Section 80 makes it clear that there should be a penalty for throwing fireworks in the thoroughfare.
What could be more unpleasant than going about one's ordinary lawful business on the thoroughfare and finding that someone is throwing fireworks around? This is a matter of public concern, and I hope, therefore, that, before we complete consideration of these matters, we shall get some help from the Minister. Will he assure us that nothing in the Bill as presently drafted, and none of its changes to existing legislation, will in any way lessen public safety on the highway or the protection that the Explosives Act has adequately provided for the best part of 130 years? I hope that I have made my points, and I look forward to the Minister's contribution.

2.15 pm
Mr. Maclean: Like my hon. Friends, I thought initially that amendment No. 8 was a fairly innocuous tidying-up measure, and that once we received an explanation from the Minister or the promoter, we might be happy to accept it. I do not hold it against the promoter, but I found her response extraordinary. I put it down to the hon. Lady's inexperience or perhaps to the wrong advice that she was given. However, it was an extraordinarily flippant remark to make--that this is just a tidying-up amendment and that her father, who was no doubt a distinguished engineer, was good at tidying up roads.
The House deserves a better explanation than that. I think that it was because the Minister declined to reply to the previous debate that my hon. Friends divided the House. Unless the hon. Lady can give an explanation that I would find more satisfactory, even I as a broad supporter of tightening fireworks safety, especially for children, would be driven to conclude that she deserved the vote to go against her for treating the House in such a flippant way.
Amendment No. 8 would insert in the schedule the repeal of part of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I do not follow the complex legal arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) produced, and I am slightly surprised that the amendment relates to the legislation that he quoted.
The schedule refers to the Explosives Act 1875, the Explosives Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, the Explosives (Age of Purchase &c.) Act 1976, the Explosives Act 1875 etc. (Metrication and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 1984, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Explosives (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The contents of the schedule deal with explosives. Suddenly, the promoter is asking us to accept an amendment from another place--the other place has added this amendment--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing not the contents of the schedule, but an amendment, and moreover a drafting amendment.

Mr. Maclean: Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing an amendment that would insert the repeal of parts of the Roads (Scotland) Act into the schedule, which deals with Acts relating to explosive substances. We have had no clear indication why the Roads (Scotland) Act should be included in the schedule. I would think that it is an innocuous measure. No doubt it deals with interesting and important matters relating to roads in Scotland. What is it about the Act that makes it appropriate to be included in a schedule dealing with explosives legislation?
Does the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984--the hon. Lady should tell us--include provisions relating to fireworks and explosives? I presume that such provisions must be in it somewhere. However, we have not had an explanation setting out why it is relevant for the Act to appear in the schedule and why the House should agree with the other place.
When we were considering the previous group of amendments, I thought that the other place had put forward some sensible suggestions to improve the Bill. We discussed them and the Minister, unfortunately, neglected to reply to the debate. However, we voted the lead amendment through. I think that that was sensible although some of my hon. Friends might have disagreed with the way in which the Minister behaved in refusing--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We are discussing Lords amendment No. 8, a drafting amendment.

Mr. Maclean: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not repeat my point.
I hope that in this instance we shall be given an explanation. I was trying to bring my remarks to a close by saying that if the Minister does not want a repeat of what happened earlier, we need an explanation of the relevance of the Roads (Scotland) Act in terms of its inclusion in the schedule.
I used to be familiar with some of the details of roads legislation; I used to take a little interest in it. I cannot for the life of me--I am willing to be informed by the Minister or by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy)--recall the particular provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 that relate to fireworks. I assume that they relate more to explosives. As we are being asked to include the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in the schedule, could we have an explanation of why only Scotland is referred to? Are there not similar requirements for roads in England?
I will not go down that route, because it would be quite out of order, but I believe that the House is entitled to know the relevance of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, when other roads legislation relating to England is either not included or not relevant. Are these matters covered in some of the explosives or fireworks legislation contained in the schedule? The hon. Member for Sutton cannot get away with her skimpy explanation to the House today.
This is an important Bill, which contains a tremendous number of draconian powers, to which I shall not refer again. We have looked sensibly at amendments to the Bill today. These two important amendments were recommended by the other place, and I happen to believe that, in tabling amendments, the other place does a good job. However, we are entitled to a view of what the other place has given us. We need to know from the Government why the amendments are to be included and their substance, purpose and consequence. Also, if we fail to pass them into law, what will be the effect?
You say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they are technical or drafting amendments. They may be--in your opinion. We do not know from the Minister or the hon. Member for Sutton what they are intended to do. Amendment No. 6 is clearly a drafting amendment.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend, who is a student and has been a practitioner of these matters, will know that an amendment may look innocuous--it may change only one word. However, he would surely concede that that can often contain within it substantial changes to the meaning of a clause, or even to a Bill. It is for that reason that he is right to say that, although there has been no debate on the matter, it is important--if only as a courtesy to the House--for either the promoter of the Bill or the Minister to give us a proper explanation of amendment No. 6, and then a bigger explanation of amendment No. 8.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Although an explanation would have been helpful, I assume that amendment No. 6--with which I was comfortable, and which proposes to delete "this section" and insert "subsection (1)"--would have no unintended legal consequences. However, I may not be correct. Perhaps my right hon. and hon. Friends have a different view. It would appear to be a technical or drafting amendment.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend keeps repeating that this is a technical or drafting amendment, but it is not.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It is.

Mr. Leigh: The Minister says that it is. I hope that he will intervene and explain, because he did even not bother to turn up for the previous debate, let alone reply to the points that I made on safety. Frankly, that was outrageous behaviour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving well away from the point of the amendment.

Mr. Maclean: It appears to me that deleting "this section" and inserting "subsection (1)"--I presume that that is subsection (1) of clause 14--might appear to be a technical amendment, making it simpler to understand. It may have different legal consequences--I am not certain. I am concerned that we have not had an explanation from the hon. Member for Sutton of the legal consequences of deleting "this section" and inserting "subsection (1)", so that the Bill would read:
"In subsection (1) 'explosives' has the same meaning as in the Explosives Act 1875."
There could be some unintended consequences.

Mr. Paterson: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the Scottish aspect, and as he comes from Scotland, may I ask him whether he believes that the clause is compatible with Scottish law? Will there have to be a further redrafting through regulations, given that the Bill is so badly drafted?

Mr. Maclean: I must pick up my hon. Friend on one point. I do not think that there can be a further redraft to correct the anomaly. The Secretary of State has taken powers under almost every clause of the Bill considerably to amend other Acts, including the Explosives Act 1875, but I am not sure that she could redraft the Bill to change any mistakes that he has made in interpreting Scottish law.
None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) raised the valid point that the Bill would amend the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The Bill relates to fireworks and applies to the United Kingdom, but there has been no explanation of its consequences to the Scottish legal system. I believe that--I do not want to go down the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)--the matter may more appropriately be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament, to which such powers will be devolved. However, that is not my main concern, and I may be out of order if I suggest that it would be better to amend the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 through roads legislation or through a devolved measure in the Scottish Parliament.
We are discussing a suggestion from the other place that the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 be added to a schedule of a United Kingdom Act of Parliament that deals with fireworks. I do not think that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle through which to amend that Act, as is suggested by the Act's proposed inclusion in the schedule.

Mr. Forth: The thought has occurred to me--it may have occurred to my right hon. Friend, too; I know how perspicacious he is in these matters--that, as the Bill seems to find it necessary to encroach on Scottish legislation, it will equally affect matters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If so, the Bill could contain a defect, although it is a bit late in the day for us to identify it. Perhaps the Minister or the promoter will make it clear why the Bill seems uniquely to affect Scotland and why, by implication, it does not have a similar effect in other parts of the United Kingdom. Has my right hon. Friend taken that into account in his analysis of the amendment?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend raises a good point. Clause 19 states:
"This Act may be cited as the Fireworks Act 1998."
It continues:
"This Act extends to Northern Ireland."
I do not want to trespass on any legislation relating to Northern Ireland or on the unique way in which, at the moment--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the scope of the amendment. He must confine himself to speaking about whether it is desirable to improve the Bill's drafting as proposed.

Mr. Maclean: Precisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for being tempted slightly astray. Amendment No. 8 relates to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, but we have a United Kingdom.
Mr. Paice: There seems to be a contradiction. Clause 19 clearly states that the legislation will extend to Northern Ireland. Moreover, the schedule repeals Northern Ireland legislation. I find it odd that amendment No. 8 will amend Scottish legislation when, as far as I can see, the Bill contains nothing to suggest that it applies to Scotland at all.
Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. The legislation extends to Northern Ireland. Therefore, the parliamentary rules of interpretation are such that it would be regarded as a United Kingdom Bill, which I assume automatically--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may assume that he is well out of order.
Mr. Maclean: The amendment to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 suggested by the other place clearly applies to Scotland. That is obvious. We have a United Kingdom Act of Parliament before us. When the hon. Member for Sutton, who is promoting the Bill, introduced the amendment from the other place, she gave us no explanation about what it does. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who has considerable legal expertise in such matters, was able to cite accurately from the various statutes those provisions--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

9 July 1998
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield): Will my right hon. Friend have further discussions with the Opposition about the timetabling of their business and the issues selected for debate? I ask that in the light of events last Friday, when Opposition Members--one of whom, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I see in the Chamber--talked out the Fireworks Bill. They implied that in doing so, they had the support of the firework industry. However, they had no such support and have been told so by representatives of the firework industry, who said that the actions of the Opposition could contribute directly to an increase in firework-related accidents.
As Opposition Front Benchers stated that they wished to give the Bill a fair wind, will my right hon. Friend propose to the Opposition that they make some of their time available, so that we can ensure that firework-related injuries go down rather than up as a result of irresponsible actions of Opposition Members?

Mrs. Taylor: Many people both outside and inside the House would be appalled at the behaviour of those who sought to prevent that Bill from making further progress last week. Firework-related accidents are an important issue. I hope that those who stopped the Bill will have a clear conscience because they will bear a great deal of responsibility for any further problems that might arise. The Opposition said that they would give the Bill a fair wind. They acted irresponsibly, and I can well understand why my hon. Friend and others say that the whole procedure for private Members' Bills must be considered by the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): Given that the timetable is under pressure and that the Leader of the House is anxious, through her Committee, to reduce the number of late sittings, will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the Government could make a contribution by accepting on Monday the amendment passed by a substantial majority in the other place? Will she acknowledge the comment of Lord Russell that, if the Government do not accept that modest and reasonable amendment, it will raise the question of whether they want a revising Chamber?


16 July 1998

Consumer Protection

10. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): What measures she has taken to enhance protection for consumers; and if she will make a statement. [49381]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have taken a number of measures to put consumer interests and consumer protection at the heart of Government, from banning dangerous laser pens to tackling time-share touts and protecting British loaf weights. Among other things, we have targeted rogue directors, introduced a Competition Bill, moved to allow consumers' organisations to take representative actions in our courts and improved protection for low-income consumers seeking credit.

Fiona Mactaggart: I know that my constituents welcome this active approach to consumer protection, especially the swift action that the Minister took last autumn to tackle unsafe fireworks, which led to the largest fall in firework injuries in 23 years. However, will he share my disappointment and anger at those Opposition Members who, by talking out the Fireworks Bill, stopped him building on that track record, and thus put their petty politics before public safety?

Mr. Griffiths: I certainly share, as do firework safety campaigners and the Confederation of British Industry, my hon. Friend's anger at the activities of the former Conservative consumer spokesman, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and his Conservative friends in talking out that measure. When the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, the number of firework injuries rose by 46 per cent. and 335 more people ended up in hospital. Fortunately, the Government are able to use secondary legislation to outlaw bangers this year.

Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): The Minister will be aware of the problems faced by consumers who purchase home-working packs with the promise of making large amounts of money and then find themselves ripped off as the income does not materialise. Does the Minister have any plans to tackle the problems faced by such people, including my constituents in Sheffield, who have found themselves ripped off by unscrupulous home work offerers?

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and I have launched a national campaign on home working. We share the condemnation of the abuse of home workers and we believe that the national campaign will offer real protection by ensuring that people are steered towards projects of proven worth, not projects such as the hon. Gentleman refers to.

Mr. Andrew Reed (Loughborough): I know that the Minister is aware of the difficulty that many of my constituents have had resulting from international lottery draws, whereby individuals are targeted from abroad for lottery winnings. Those are, of course, largely fraudulent acts. I believe that the Advertising Standards Agency has no rights in that regard. Will the Minister turn his attention to such acts originating from Australia, the far east and eastern Europe, to protect consumers in my constituency and throughout the country?

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to have the opportunity to warn every member of the British public against falling for these unfortunate scams. We are seeking international co-operation on advertising, and in this case the abuse of advertising, to ensure that such scam schemes are prohibited from entering Britain and are put out of business altogether.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): Why is the Minister so sickeningly self-satisfied? May I draw his attention to two examples of failure--first, his refusal to respond to the request of the Consumers Association to add consumer issues to the remit of Action 2000 and, secondly, his absolutely supine attitude in Europe? Not long ago, he boasted at a conference that he had contributed strongly in the Consumer Council towards the aim of creating a people's Europe. How is that rhetoric consistent with today's European Court of Justice ruling preventing ordinary people from having access to the designer clothes so beloved by Labour MPs?

Mr. Griffiths: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to two questions because both were so poor.
To tackle the first question, given that the present Government have spent 70 times the amount that the previous Government spent on the Action 2000 campaign and on fighting the millennium bug, it is ridiculous that the hon. Gentleman should criticise us on that.
As for today's decision of the European Court of Justice, one of my first acts as a Minister was to invite some of Britain's leading retailers, some of our most successful companies--people who had never been
invited under the previous Administration--to come to the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the very issues that have come up today. We deplore any action that prevents British retailers from providing British consumers with foreign-manufactured goods at reasonable prices. Although it is important that trademarks are protected, a balance must be struck between the right of those who hold trademarks and the right of consumers. It is unfair that British consumers should have to pay inflated prices, and we have taken action to get the European Commission to investigate pricing across all the EU states, because we believe that, in too many areas, British consumers are paying far too much.

Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield): Does my hon. Friend agree that the criticisms of Opposition Front Benchers would have rather more weight if they had not sat on their hands and allowed their Back Benchers to derail the Fireworks Bill? The CBI said that the derailing of that Bill was likely to lead directly to an increase in firework-related injuries. Will my hon. Friend ask Opposition Front Benchers whether they will now co-operate in ensuring that the Bill comes back to the House and is given a "fair wind", to use their words, so that the number of firework-related injuries continues to go down, rather than going up again as a result of their irresponsible actions?

Mr. Griffiths: This should not be a party political matter. I invite Opposition Members to reflect on it and to support any such Bill. It is noticeable that there were more Opposition Members in the House to block that Bill than the 13 or 14 Back Benchers present this afternoon to discuss that issue and other important matters, such as British manufacturing. They simply do not care.


17 November 1998

Fireworks

Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated for injuries caused by fireworks in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [60265]

Dr. Howells: I have been asked to reply.
The DTI's annual census of firework injuries is conducted over a four week period taking in the run-up to 5 November and a few days afterwards. In the last ten years the number of people treated in Accident and Emergency departments in Great Britain during this period was as follows: