The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No.3 (Deputy Speaker), Sylvia Heal, The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the table.

Order for Second Reading read.
9.33 am
Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I outline the main problems with fireworks and how the Bill would respond to them, I pay tribute to those who have tried to respond to public concerns over the past decade and change the way in which we deal with fireworks. The last successful private Member's Bill on fireworks was in the 1963-64 Session, so I approach this Bill with trepidation. The fireworks debate has obviously moved on at a considerable pace since then. In response to public concern, a statutory instrument was laid before the House in 1997 under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, but the Act's narrow scope limits what we can deliver on changes to fireworks legislation. The Bill would provide the opportunity for regulation to be laid before the House.
The fireworks issue has become more important for the general public over the past few years. Many hon. Members have responded in different ways and many of them wanted to sponsor the Bill. I am grateful for the cross-party sponsors and apologise to those who were unable to add their names to the list because of the limited number of Members who can sponsor a Bill. The number of hon. Members in the Chamber demonstrates the public interest in the Bill and the concerns that our constituents have expressed over many years. I have received hundreds of e-mails and letters. Yesterday, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association successfully lobbied and spoke to many hon. Members.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tynan: When I have made some progress. There is wide interest in the issue in the UK. Some 300,000 signatures have been delivered to No. 10 over the past six months, and four petitions on fireworks were presented this week. When I decided to pursue a Bill on fireworks, I had the benefit of the experience of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), which, unfortunately, failed. She was lucky, however, in that there was no discussion on Second Reading and only one hour was spent on it in Committee. It was only when it was in the House of Lords that concern was expressed about its width and scope. The Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform concluded that it did not "inappropriately delegate legislative power". Having examined that Bill and discussed the way forward, I felt that we needed to be as inclusive as possible.
I met various organisations, including the fireworks task group of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I corresponded with and consulted other groups that had expressed tremendous support, such as the TUC, the British Medical Association, the National Farmers Union, the Windermere campaign for fireworks control, the main groups representing trading standards officers and the national campaign for fireworks safety. If I have inadvertently left out an organisation or individual, it is because the consultation was so wide ranging. Many groups in a large number of local authorities also offered their support. Yesterday, we were lobbied by people from Salford, who said that they support the Bill. I must also thank the all-party parliamentary group on fireworks for its guidance, help and support over the past few months.
Starting from day one, I announced my intention that my Fireworks Bill would be as consensual as possible. I met representatives of the British Fireworks Association, the British Pyrotechnists Association and the explosives industry group of the CBI to discuss issues, exchange information and learn about the industry to reach, if possible, a consensus on the Bill's content. The assistance, support and advice from everyone has been extremely gratifying. I listened intently on the last Friday that a private Member's Bill was discussed and heard the clear message that such Bills should be simple and brief. This Bill is neither simple nor brief, but hon. Members and the general public demand it.
The COSLA fireworks task group published an excellent report last October. It is the most comprehensive report on fireworks in the past 25 years. I pay tribute to how well informed, wide ranging and meaningful the recommendations are that emanated from six months of consultation and inquiry, involving all interested parties. I am proud to base many of my proposals and my speech on the evidence collected by the task group and the suggestions that it made.
The COSLA fireworks task group was established in 2001. Many local authorities throughout Scotland received unprecedented complaints about fireworks that covered a diverse range of issues, from general antisocial behaviour to cruelty, abuse of animals and, most commonly, noise.

Michael Fabricant : Will the hon. Gentleman now give way?

Mr. Tynan: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about the general nuisance caused by fireworks, and he is absolutely correct. He mentioned guide dogs for the blind. Is he aware of the permanent trauma that fireworks inflict on them, which costs between £150,000 and £200,000 a year of public money donated to the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association? More to the point, that means that some six blind people--[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tynan: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come on to the problems caused to guide dogs.
Many people have complained to councils that fireworks are getting louder and more intimidating, and that their use is becoming increasingly antisocial. The remit of the task group was to identify the changes needed to the legislative framework governing the sale and use of fireworks, to consider and to recommend the means by which the changes could be secured, and to consider recommendations through which public concerns could be addressed. It began by examining the current legislative position on storage of fireworks, their sale and supply, and their use and abuse--issues on which I shall expand later. It considered noise issues, the legal definition of fireworks, the different categories under British standard 7114--including indoor, garden, display and professional--and the injury statistics associated with firework misuse.
The task group examined the case for change from a number of viewpoints. All 22 Scottish local authorities that responded favour tighter controls; indeed, six favoured an outright consumer ban. The Association of Chief Police Officers was of the opinion that fireworks misuse has escalated significantly, resulting in its becoming a serious community problem that causes considerable annoyance to the general public and affects the quality of life in local communities. The Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association expressed concern about the increasing misuse of fireworks, and about the need to strengthen the current system; indeed, it has offered its support for this Bill. The society of chief officers of trading standards voiced particular concerns about the problems of storage and supply. The SSPCA reported that 90 per cent. of vets who responded to its survey had treated animals for injuries resulting from the misuse of fireworks.
Public opinion submissions from community groups and voluntary organisations demonstrated the serious nature of many of the incidents, including arson, physical attack and the abuse of the most vulnerable. The task group also met many of the industry representatives whom I have met, such as Martin Guest of Black Cat Fireworks, who was particularly concerned about the illegal importing of fireworks.
The task group then looked at the current legislative framework and the Explosives Act 1875 in particular. The storage of fireworks is covered by that Act, which, with input from the explosives industry group, is being reviewed by the Health and Safety Executive. It will consider the storage of larger quantities under the terms of the manufacturing storage explosives regulation. A report is due in 2004. As I shall explain, storage of quantities of less than 1 tonne of fireworks is currently inadequate, so this is a sensible moment to introduce the Bill, and to work alongside the changes planned under the manufacturing storage explosives regulation. The report looked at the voluntary code, and it is just that: a voluntary agreement between the Department of Trade and Industry and the fireworks industry on how certain fireworks are sold. The agreement reached in the autumn on a ban on air bombs is to be welcomed, but it is just not working. In addition to differences of interpretation about the sales period, it is not possible to enforce the code. Indeed, the main industry groups have been advised that attempting to enforce the code on their members and on those who supply could be interpreted as uncompetitive conduct by the Office of Fair Trading.
Soon after the air bomb ban was unveiled, internet messages from firework forums noted that the agreement was only voluntary, and that a business opportunity had therefore been created for the irresponsible. In the light of this, and having considered all the options, the COSLA report came down firmly in favour of the need for new firework regulations.
Having touched on some of the problems relating to fireworks, I should like to discuss some of them at greater length. The first problem is licensing and storage. For a payment of some £13, an annual licence to permit storage of quantities of fireworks suitable for sale can be obtained. Local authorities or fire authorities in metropolitan areas cannot refuse to grant a licence, and have no powers to revoke one. Although selling illegal fireworks, selling fireworks to minors, or engaging in improper storage or sales practices may be offences in themselves, they cannot lead to a licence being revoked.
The second problem is noise and nuisance. There is a general perception that fireworks are getting louder, and that they are now being used year-round and later at night. Fireworks have become a part of weddings and birthdays, and I have even seen them advertised for Valentine's day. I did not buy any, by the way. A European standard of 120 dB has been proposed, and is being considered. The recent report from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, entitled "Quiet Please", has argued for lower noise levels.
In discussing this issue, I am conscious of the need to consult all interested parties, which I hope might lead to agreement on appropriate noise levels for fireworks. There is also increasing concern about the use of fireworks by those engaged in the wider problem of antisocial behaviour. The use of fireworks to destroy bins and post boxes, and in attacks on cars, has been reported in my constituency.
The third problem is injuries to humans and to animals. Statistics show that the 1997 regulations and the emergency regulations that preceded them arrested the steady increase in firework injuries, but in the past five years the figures have been increasing rapidly. It should of course be noted that the figures apply only to the four-week period around 5 November, and as such the injuries caused by increased, year-round use--including the death that occurred in 2001-02 new-year period--are not included.
There has been increasing focus on the injuries caused to animals. Animal charities have reported deliberate attacks on domestic and farm animals.

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in the private Member's Bill ballot, and on introducing such a worthwhile Bill, which most people in the UK will undoubtedly want to see on the statute book as soon as possible. Will he clarify whether it will give the police and the courts the power to deal with unscrupulous shopkeepers who indiscriminately sell fireworks to young people for a profit, in the knowledge that they will cause misery to many people and animals, and to society as a whole?

Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. If he will allow me to continue, my speech will respond adequately to his question.

Linda Perham (Ilford, North): The London training centre for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is in my constituency. As my hon. Friend said, that organisation is very concerned about the waste of expensive training, as well as the stress imposed on animals. He will doubtless confirm that the Bill will give better protection to animals than that provided under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

Mr. Tynan: I can only agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.
The National Farmers Union and the British Horse Society have logged incidents for a number of years, and both the Blue Cross and the SSPCA have campaigned on the issue of animal protection. Each year, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, with which I have worked closely in the past few months, has to retire as many as four dogs, and provide additional training for up to another 150, at a cost of £27,000 per dog. If we were to target only that issue, the Bill would still prove extremely worth while.

Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): I should tell my hon. Friend that the blind people from my constituency who visited Parliament yesterday, with their guide dogs, are extremely grateful to him for introducing this Bill, and they expect the House to ensure that it has a speedy passage.

Mr. Tynan: When my hon. Friend goes back to his constituency, he will have the comfort of knowing that the Bill has been supported by all sections of the House.
A final area of concern is importation. Only one company--Kimbolton Fireworks--manufactures fireworks in the UK. I have visited it to see the process for myself and to discuss these issues with the son of the owner. I spent a considerable time there. I am told that about 1,000 containers of fireworks are imported to the UK annually, mainly from the far east, of which the majority go to legitimate UK fireworks companies, where they are stored on premises licensed by the Health and Safety Executive. The industry estimates, however, that up to 13 per cent. of fireworks that come into this country are not stored in HSE-licensed premises. Containers can sometimes be driven to a lay-by--or who knows where?--where the contents are divided for distribution by rogue retailers. Companies that transport fireworks to safe and secure premises licensed and inspected by the HSE are required to have marked vehicles that are driven by trained drivers. Those who flout the law, although needing import licences, are able to remove containers from the port without having to confirm that they are being transported in the correct manner to licensed storage.

John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): Does that mean that, if someone drives up to a dock in a white van, loads it up with £25,000 of fireworks, drives it to the House of Commons, parks it and then lights the blue touch paper, the only time that he breaks the law is when he lights the blue touch paper?

Mr. Tynan: My hon. Friend has read my speech!
The industry has serious concerns about the importation of fireworks to this country. It is acknowledged that HSE-licensed premises are not a problem. However, I decided to test the Department of Trade and Industry--and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not surprised by that. I asked a friend to write an application from a private house on a sheet of A4. He sent away the form and the reply asked him to convert his figure of £25,000 to euros. He did so. He was then asked to say where the fireworks were coming in. "Felixstowe", he said. He was told that he would have to give the date. He then asked, "I haven't got the date, but can I not have the licence?" He was told that there was no problem with getting the licence but that he would have to give the date. It is therefore obvious that anyone can make an application. There are no checks that the fireworks will go to licensed premises. We have to address that in this Bill.
When preparing for this Second Reading, I wrote to the Serjeant at Arms to ask about the possibility of bringing fireworks into the House of Commons. I was told that I would need a responsible person. [Laughter.] I was told that I would need to carry the fireworks in a closed steel container and that I would have to have a police escort while they were on the premises. That demonstrates the level of security in the House of Commons, but it also highlights the converse situation with the importation of fireworks to the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is right. Any organisation that fills in an import licence application can find itself with a container of fireworks that it can drive wherever it wishes. That has to be tightened up.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): There is great concern about the storage of fireworks. Mine is one of the few constituencies that has a licence for explosives, but that does not cover fireworks. Many hon. Members will have seen huge car boot sales in their constituencies at which huge amounts of fireworks can be sold without containers. Will the Bill outlaw such sales?

Mr. Tynan: It is essential that we are able to track the supply of fireworks to this country and within this country. If we do not do that, we will end up in the situation that my hon. Friend describes. Fireworks can be sold in pubs, clubs, car boot sales or wherever. We have to deal with rogue retailers, and the way to do that is through this Bill. I expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to implement appropriate measures.

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): Liberal Democrats also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. We also thank the Home Secretary for being in the Chamber for the first discussions on the Bill, showing how seriously it is being taken.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken about importation. There have been increased sales of fireworks from the far east via the internet for private use. Will the Bill deal with that issue, about which activists in my constituency--including Mrs. Marjorie Johnston, who has led the campaign--are concerned?

Mr. Tynan: The Bill makes it clear that consultation is necessary on a range of issues. When that consultation takes place, people will have the opportunity to have an input.
I have clear expectations of the firework regulations that this Bill will introduce. I foresee a new regime whereby we respect fireworks as the explosives that they are but acknowledge their legitimate use. Powers would be granted to allow firework regulations to be made in a range of areas--such as the life of fireworks, import, storage, sale and use.

Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing a Bill that is long overdue to say the least. Later in his speech, will he touch on the problem of enforcement?

Mr. Tynan: I hope that, as I go through the Bill, my hon. Friend will be reassured on that point.
The aim of the Bill is to provide an effective and comprehensive solution. Now that I have outlined the problems that the Bill seeks to address, I hope that hon. Members will have some concept of its aims. I hope that this is not presumptuous, but I do not propose to detain the House with an extended clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill. I trust that that can wait until another day.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) rose--

Mr. Tynan: This is an ideal time for my hon. Friend--I mean the hon. Gentleman--to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman was right the first time. I am entirely sympathetic to his objectives but, given the extensive regulatory powers that he seeks to give Ministers, what can he say to reassure me about the survival of the firework party held by law-abiding citizens who seek to entertain their children in their back garden?

Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was very helpful. I think I can reassure him. The Bill is similar to the Bill that went through the House of Lords in 1997-98. At that time, reassurance was sought on the width and scope of the Bill. That convinced the House of Lords to send the Bill back, unamended, to the House of Commons. My Bill will seek to allow the participation of people such as the hon. Gentleman who wish to let off fireworks for their grandchildren--I am sorry, for their children. [Laughter.] I am sure that he will be delighted to be able to do so.
Clause 1 establishes the definition of fireworks. I do not intend that the Bill should extend to items such as pyrotechnic bird-scarers, small explosive charges for car airbags, amateur rocket motors or marine distress flares. I have been asked to give assurances to groups that use such devices. They are not currently classed as fireworks, and that will continue.
Clause 2 grants powers to enable firework regulations to be made, and outlines the grounds on which they can be made. Included are protections for humans, animals and property, and a requirement to consult interested and relevant groups before making regulations. However, the scope for making emergency provisions--as happened in 1996--continues to be included.
Clause 3 would ban sales to minors. The intention is that the current minimum age of 18 should be retained. Clause 4 would limit the times at which fireworks can be sold or used. There is scope to allow exceptions, such as a post-11 pm use at new year. The clause would introduce a year-round curfew of 11 pm.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South): I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill before us. It is long overdue. One reason for that is that the industry ignores its own code of conduct. Companies such as R.S. McColl sell fireworks 365 days a year and will continue to do so. Will my hon. Friend's Bill prevent that?

Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have held extensive consultations with the fireworks industry. The industry is receptive and supports the Bill. It recognises that there is a problem and wants the Bill to address it. I think that my hon. Friend will be content with the provisions and with the discussions that will have to take place before it is implemented.

Vernon Coaker (Gedling): I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. It is most welcome and many of us hope that it will be passed quickly. Has my hon. Friend spoken to the police, the local authority and trading standards officers about the proposed regulations? My constituents complain that existing regulations are not enforced, so we need to ensure that the police, trading standards and council officials realise the importance of enforcing regulations introduced under the Bill, and that people selling fireworks to children or letting off fireworks in the street are prosecuted.

Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The professional bodies of the UK fire service and of chief constables all support the Bill. They recognise the need for regulation.
Clause 4 would specify the hours of day when fireworks may be used. Clause 5 would restrict the sale of certain categories of firework only to people who are trained, experienced and insured as appropriate. Existing British standards categories would be retained.

Valerie Davey (Bristol, West): I offer my hon. Friend congratulations from my constituents and from the police in Bristol, who have experience of category 3 large display fireworks being used as hand-held weapons. When the provisions are considered in detail, will he take into account experience in Bristol, and also in Northern Ireland, where the law was changed?

Mr. Tynan: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening intently and that she will address such points in her contribution.

Ross Cranston (Dudley, North): One of the valuable points about clauses 4 and 5 is that they deal with possession. At present, there are enforcement problems. The police have power to prosecute people who throw those things in public streets but they cannot catch them. The Bill includes regulations on possession that will definitely allow enforcement--at least in England--especially coupled with the valuable penalty and notice system.

Mr. Tynan: My hon. and learned Friend is correct.
Clause 6 would introduce conditions on matters such as training, insurance, consultation with people nearby and local authority permission for public firework displays. Those holding displays would be expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that certain standards were adhered to in respect of training and insurance, and that the impact of displays on people or animals nearby was curtailed or minimised.

Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once more. Can he assure me that the Bill will do something about the irresponsible behaviour of far too many retailers? Is he aware that a survey conducted by Edinburgh city council found that retailers in more than half the premises visited were willing to sell fireworks to children who were clearly under age, even though the council had sent out a letter warning retailers that it was about to carry out that survey? Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill is successful the Government should use its powers to ensure that such practices do not continue?

Mr. Tynan: I think that the Bill covers the problem of rogue retailers. At present, trading standards departments have to issue permits and there is no chance to revoke or refuse a licence. Retailers who sell to under-age children would certainly be dealt with under the Bill.

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): I congratulate my hon. Friend on presenting the Bill. My constituent Mrs. Marlene Healey has collected a petition of 9,000 signatures; one in eight of my constituents are calling for the types of change in the law proposed in the Bill.
Does my hon. Friend agree that even at private parties fireworks can maim and kill? Can he assure the House that the restrictions on sales to which he refers will ensure that fireworks that can maim and kill children and young people will not be available for use at private parties?

Mr. Tynan: I have been accused by some individuals--although very few--of being a killjoy. I want to make it clear that I want the Bill to promote opportunities for the responsible and safe use of fireworks. It is essential that we do not introduce a ban when there is no public demand for one. The Bill will help to ensure the responsible use of fireworks. It is important that people organising private parties understand the dangers of fireworks, and I hope that the annual safety campaigns will continue to stress how dangerous those explosives can be.

Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford): On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the Bill.
Does my hon. Friend agree that retailers who advertise, as they did in Chatham, "Free Fireworks" are extremely irresponsible? Can my hon. Friend confirm that at private parties, especially weddings, people will be able to obtain a licence without too much difficulty and bureaucracy, as long as they provide proper safeguards? My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) may be interested in that point as he is getting married in a couple of weeks' time.

Mr. Tynan: Clause 7 would strengthen the existing system for licensing retailers. A two-tier system would be introduced, with tougher licensing and a lower tier that allowed retailers to sell fireworks for a limited three-week period around 5 November and for a short period before the new year. I recognise that, in addition to properly run displays for births, marriages and Valentine's day, there is a more than legitimate demand for fireworks for Diwali, Eid and the Chinese new year. I have held discussions with relevant communities and groups as to how we could deal with the sale of fireworks outside the defined periods.

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): My hon. Friend has just come to the point that I wanted to put to him. I represent a diverse constituency, with people from many ethnic minority backgrounds. There is concern that the Bill might prevent legitimate celebrations, starting in the autumn with Diwali and running through to Chinese new year in the winter. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, while his Bill would rightly control the misuse of fireworks, it would not prevent legitimate family celebrations for those important events in the diverse communities of my constituency?

Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I checked on when Diwali takes place; it is normally within the three-week period before 5 November. I spoke to the Chinese embassy about Chinese new year, as I wanted to make sure that I could answer questions such as those put by my hon. Friend, and I was told that fireworks are not used at the celebrations but that crackers are used.
Under the Bill, fireworks would be available throughout the year, but only with a higher tier licence. There would be higher costs, and stricter standards of training and record keeping would apply. It has been pointed out that if we allowed the sale of fireworks only for a three-week period, people would buy them and store them for months. I want to avoid that. We could have a situation in which people from the different cultures existing in this country felt that they were being discriminated against. I want to avoid that.

Bob Spink (Castle Point): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill, and I support him. On his point about training, I note that one aspect of his Bill is to enforce stricter rules on the training of those who give professional displays. I want some comfort on that. We want more professional displays--we do not want to raise barriers to them--and I am not aware that there is a major problem with the safety of professional displays. I have never had a representation from a constituent about that. Will he assure me that he will not over-regulate in that area?

Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I have consulted widely, and the British Pyrotechnists Association is currently running a pilot scheme in four areas. It is looking at the training of operatives at licensed displays to make sure that two tiers apply to the people who operate and the people who manage. There is some merit in the manner in which they are setting up the training scheme, and consultation and discussion can take place to see whether it is a practical proposition for the future. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Jim Knight (South Dorset): My hon. Friend is being exceedingly generous in allowing so many interventions. I applaud him for that and for introducing the Bill, which is being very well received in Dorset. Today, three Members have received some 8,000 representations from Dorset area residents. In response to the point about the killjoy element, is there not some local variation through local authorities regulating the licences, which allows them to make judgments about traditional firework events in their area, and whether they will be carried out responsibly?

Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that. As I said, I think that I will get a rocket if I take any more interventions. Local authorities will have such an opportunity depending on conditions. A uniform position will apply in relation to the granting of a licence to deal with rogue sellers and those who currently abuse the voluntary code, which has not been enforced. I hope that that will content my hon. Friend.
Both tiers of retail licences could be refused or revoked, and the higher tier would apply to those selling via the internet or mail order. Clause 8 allows regulation to be made in respect of the information that must be provided about fireworks. The intention is that that would relate to packaging and information provided with both individual fireworks and packs of fireworks.

Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South): I am not just supportive of the hon. Gentleman's Bill: I am highly supportive. I have a genuine question. He spoke about several things that he would like to happen as a result of the Bill, none of which are contained in the Bill, which is nothing but an enabling measure giving the Minister powers to introduce such regulations. Does he have assurances from the Minister that the things for which he asks will happen?

Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It is important that I set out, after my consultations and discussions, the content that I believe should be included in the Bill. It is an enabling Bill, and it is essential that the Minister listen to the voice of Members and of the general public outside. Under the circumstances, I hope that that will be acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 9 allows regulation to be made on the impact of the importation and manufacture of fireworks. The intention of that is that information will be provided to confirm that fireworks entering the UK have been transported to legal storage, and hence that action can be taken more swiftly if they have not. Clause 10 allows for and defines the nature of training courses referenced under the fireworks regulation. It is intended that, in consultation with the industry--as I said, I understand that the British Pyrotechnists Association has already studied this area--and other interested parties, appropriate training courses and standards would be established to cover those areas.
The remaining clauses are supplementary, covering penalties for committing an offence, a number of technical aspects, the financial provisions of the Bill, the means of firework regulations coming into law, and a number of other minor aspects. From my discussions with the industry and enforcement officers, I would not expect regulations made to have a significantly adverse effect on the business of legitimate parts of the fireworks industry, or to place too large a burden on trading standards, Customs, the Health and Safety Executive or the police.
In presenting the Bill to the House, I am aware that there are those who may be worried by the fact that this is an enabling Bill. I, too, have some concerns about some of the visions of draconian provisions being enacted using the scope of powers granted under the Bill. I am, however, reassured by the discussions that I have had in preparing the Bill. I believe that, with proper thought and scrutiny, the regulations made under it would not be an instrument of tyranny. This is not a killjoy Bill. As those with expertise have agreed, it is a sensible, considered response to the problems of fireworks misuse, unless it is denied that there is a problem and it is thus contended that the public are wrong to be alarmed about the nuisance of fireworks.
I trust that I will find agreement that action is needed. I would welcome comments and, as appropriate, amendments to the Bill--perhaps I should not say that--as it progresses through the House. I hope that those who may have a problem with the Bill will work to strengthen and improve it rather than dismiss it.
This Bill is a timely and comprehensive attempt to modernise how we deal with fireworks in the United Kingdom. I understand that some are concerned about any attempt to tighten the import, sale and use of any item. I trust, however, that they will agree with me, a large number of charities, local authorities, enforcement officers and the British fireworks industry itself--all those who know about fireworks--that the current situation is not acceptable, that we need to change it, and that the Bill provides the way forward. I commend the Bill to the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I make a plea to all Members that, since many of them wish to contribute, they should make their speeches concise.
10.17 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): Last night, at about 20 minutes past 11--not 12 hours ago--there was a loud explosion of a firework of some description outside my bedroom window. It woke my daughter, aged three, who started screaming. She fell out of bed 20 minutes later, for which I will also blame the firework. Not 36 hours ago, on Wednesday evening, there was an explosion outside my front door followed by another series of explosions. It may have been the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) trying to make a point, but, instead, it brought home to me how apposite this Bill is. I am delighted to see it, and I congratulate him on his good fortune--I wish that I could win the lottery--and on his comprehensive speech in which he outlined the reasons why the Bill is being introduced.
We should not forget, however, the enormous pleasure that fireworks give, and have given for many years, to a huge number of our constituents. Just because they have not written to us about it does not mean that they do not enjoy fireworks. It is those who are badly affected who write to us. When I was a child, we would have a bonfire in our little back garden on the edge of London on 5 November only. If it was not in our back garden, it was in somebody else's. We used to eat a lot of sausages, and quite a lot of ash that had attached to them--

Mr. Willis: We did not have a back garden.

Mr. Robathan: Oh dear. I suppose that the clogs were a bit rough, too. Poor old chap.

Joan Ryan (Enfield, North): He lived in a penthouse.

Mr. Robathan: I thank the hon. Lady for her submission that the hon. Gentleman lived in a penthouse. That is a typical example of Liberal double standards. I suspect that she will agree with me about that.
In back gardens around the country on 5 November, children gather and have an enjoyable bonfire night. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said, we do not wish to spoil their pleasure. I am old enough to remember that I was sent to the local toy shop with a letter from my mother telling the retailer that I was allowed to have some fireworks. Those were the regulations some 40 years ago. There seemed to be very little trouble at the time, although the accident rate may have been worse. Those of us of my age need to realise, however, that the situation has now changed.
We have all received many letters, and know that the problem is growing and needs to addressed. Hence the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South.
For the benefit of doubt, the Bill is sponsored by two members of the Conservative Front Bench. I am sure that all the press releases issued by the phalanx of Labour Members in the Chamber will mention that.

Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East): Members on both sides of the House are genuinely appreciative of the fact that the Conservative party supports the Bill. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we did not have to do it this way? If his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)-- "Airbomb Eric", friend of the noisy neighbour--had not talked a similar Bill out two years ago, we would not all be here now because legislation would be in place.

Mr. Robathan: I was going to say that I am delighted to see a phalanx of Labour Members here today. I expect my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to walk into the Chamber at any moment.
The Conservative party generally supports the spirit of the Bill although, like the hon. Member for Hamilton, South, we do not like enabling powers. I cast no aspersions on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), but I dislike giving the Government powers that may be abused in future. Members on both sides of the House are always concerned about that. Draconian powers may be introduced, but I hope that they will not.

Mr. Swayne : Is there not a danger that the Government might enable too much? My hon. Friend began with his fond memories of 5 November. Part of my concern about regulating powers derives from the fact that we will accommodate much wider dates than 5 November. It would be much better to have a narrower range of dates.

Mr. Robathan: I shall come on to the dates later, as there is a big issue about the periods when fireworks can be used.
I should like to look at three general topics--the current situation, the improvements that are already being made and the Bill itself. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned, we are dealing with explosives. That needs to be stressed, as they are always dangerous. I have probably used more explosives than most hon. Members in my previous incarnation. When I was blowing up stacks of high explosives I was always worried, whether I was using an electrical circuit or a safety fuse. Those things are dangerous, especially when the detonator does not go off and you are left wondering why. Unlike a rocket, you cannot put a few pounds of plastic explosive in a bucket.

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): In a previous life, I spent 18 years working in the explosives industry, so I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. As politicians we must get across to parents in particular the important point that although young children think that fireworks contain only a small amount of explosive, they burn fiercely and are white-hot. We have been very lucky not to have witnessed real tragedies on our housing estates. Only a couple of weeks ago, something went wrong in a discotheque or nightclub in America. Part of the cause may have been the building, but we saw the ferocity of the fire and the damage, devastation and death that can be caused by fireworks.

Mr. Robathan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who rightly gives a particularly good example of the way in which the mistreatment and mishandling of explosives can have disastrous consequences. I shall not now mention it in my speech. Whether we are parents or grandparents, we should all be aware of that.
My constituents have expressed concerns about safety, which the hon. Gentleman has just raised. We all welcome any measures that will serve to limit injuries caused by fireworks. In 2001, there was a total of 1,362 injuries--a 40 per cent. rise on the previous year, which is a worrying trend. Of even more concern is the fact that 58 per cent. of those injuries were to under-17s, and 33 per cent. to under-13s. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome anything that reduces those disturbingly high figures and prevents even one child being blinded.

Mr. Iain Luke (Dundee, East) rose--

Mr. Robathan: I am conscious of the press releases that are being issued like mad, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, I would rather not accept too many interventions.

Mr. Luke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave figures for the number of people injured by fireworks. Does he accept that if the numbers are not reduced with the introduction of a licensing scheme in the Bill, there will be a call for a total ban in future?

Mr. Robathan: I shall discuss later the proportionate nature of action to be taken. There are already calls for a total ban, which I do not support any more than I support a ban on every other thing that can injure people. I know that the Government do not support a total ban either. However, we wish to see children protected. Members may have had letters calling for a ban in their mailbags, but millions of our constituents would not welcome that. We need to bear that in mind when reading letters from people who are unhappy about the noise caused by fireworks.
Fireworks often cause a serious nuisance or disturbance, especially to older people and pets. In the past few years, we cannot have failed to notice that the use of fireworks has escalated, as I illustrated earlier, and that the period in which they are used has grown longer. We have all received many letters complaining about the considerable disturbance that they cause. Indeed, I suspect that there is not anyone in the House who has not received such a letter. A closely related issue is noise, which goes to the heart of the matter and is particularly problematic in built-up areas. The 12 target areas of last year's campaign by the Department of Trade and Industry, snappily called "Fool with fireworks and bang goes your image", were urban conurbations, including Liverpool, Portsmouth, Gateshead and greater Strathclyde.
Not only is the noise getting worse, but fireworks are used throughout the year. There are fireworks on 5 February, during Diwali, the Chinese new year, Eid and the new year--who can forget the millennium celebrations three years ago? Fireworks were used to celebrate the Queen's golden jubilee and her official birthday. Of course, we also have 6 May--[Interruption.] I am surprised that one or two Government Members do not know that 6 May is the official birthday of the blessed leader of the Labour party. These days, they either celebrate it or burn his effigy.
The noise of fireworks has become relentless, and is of particular concern to those of us with dogs and other pets. I have a gundog called Otter, which I have mentioned before in the House, as Members may recall. When I get my shotgun and take Otter shooting she gets excited. She is a Labrador retriever, and that is what retrievers do. However, if she hears fireworks, she cowers under the table and is terrified.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore): Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman was not shooting his neighbours.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me.
If Otter hears fireworks or a thunderstorm, she cowers under the table.

Mr. Willis: Does all of that happen in your back garden?

Mr. Robathan: It certainly does not happen in my penthouse.
Everyone in the House agrees that this issue is important, but we should not overstate the case. I should like to discuss safety, which was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) . In 2001, there were 1,362 injuries and no fatalities during the period of bonfire celebrations. The previous year, there were 972 injuries, with two fatalities--which is too high, I accept. However, we should compare those figures with the DTI's figures for accidents in the home. According to the DTI website, 2.7 million accidents required visits to hospital, and there were nearly 4,000 fatalities from accidents in the home. In 2001, there were 313,000 injuries following road traffic accidents, of which 40,000 were serious, and there were 3,450 fatalities. So our response must be appropriate and proportionate.
I have a great deal of time for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which does excellent work. I understand from the association's website that at any one time there are 5,000 guide dogs for the blind. Each dog has a working life of approximately seven years, so there is a turnover of 700 to 800 dogs a year. I am told that only four or five dogs have to be retired each year because of distress caused by fireworks. I accept that that is a problem, but again, we should be proportionate in our response. I know that fireworks terrify animals, but we should not overstate our case. The root problem is the amount and repetition of noise and the decibel level.

Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue as regards guide dogs is not just the cost of the retirement of, I acknowledge, a relatively small proportion of the total guide dog force, but the inhibitory effect that fireworks have on the lives of so many blind people, who are fearful of taking their dogs out during quite long periods of the year? If the hon. Gentleman or I are concerned about the safety of our dogs, we can go out alone, but that option is not available to a blind person. The use of fireworks substantially prejudices the blind person's quality of life.

Mr. Robathan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My point was that we need to be proportionate in our response. The use of fireworks, especially during daytime on the streets, which is what scares guide dogs most, is already illegal. We should remember that. Incidentally, if my figures are wrong, I should be delighted if any hon. Member in the Chamber, or the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, would correct me. I understand that between four and six dogs out of 5,000 are retired each year as a result of firework incidents. Some dogs may need retraining. The figures need to be analysed, as there may be other factors that have made the dogs nervous. I am not understating the case, but we should beware of hyperbole.

Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): Has the hon. Gentleman heard that there are cases in which dogs have to be drugged as a result of the fireworks nuisance, and therefore cannot be used by their owner, which causes problems?

Mr. Robathan: As I said, I do not underestimate the problem, but we should not overestimate it, either. I draw attention to an example of hyperbole. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned animals being tortured or injured. I received a letter a couple of days ago about kittens being tortured by having a firework strapped to their back. None of us would applaud that, and it has been illegal since the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It carries a penalty of up to six months imprisonment and it should not happen. The issue is one of enforcement, as has been mentioned.
The Act is often enforced by the RSPCA, to which I pay tribute for its work in such matters. However, I do not accept the RSPCA campaign, "Quiet Please", which aims to reduce the permitted decibel level to 95 dB. According to the RSPCA, that is similar to the sound produced by a book dropped on to a table from 1 m. I shall demonstrate that. I suspect that few of our children, the children of few of our constituents, and few of our grandchildren would welcome such a reduction in noise level.

Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham) rose--

Mr. Robathan: As the hon. Gentleman is about to celebrate his marriage with fireworks, of course I shall give way.

Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to reassure the House and, through the Chair, the Speaker's Chaplain that I have no intention of redoing Guy Fawkes's job by letting off fireworks in the Chapel in a couple of weeks' time. The hon. Gentleman is missing the point about the impact, especially on blind and elderly people. Regardless of the decibel level, it is the long period of time during which dogs, especially guide dogs, can be frightened or rendered less effective that reduces the quality of life for people. One of my constituents told me yesterday how he had been led across the road by his guide dog, which had been frightened while in the middle of the road. The dog disappeared and my constituent was left in the middle of the road with no means of getting across. For those reasons, we must make sure that the Bill goes through, and that there is a restricted period during which fireworks are available on the streets.

Mr. Robathan: First, as I have not done so properly, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his impending marriage. I have done it myself, and I think that it is generally a good thing. I say that for the benefit of my wife. Secondly, I do not think that I am missing the point. I pointed out that guide dogs and other animals are terrified for a long period of time. Thirdly, from what the hon. Gentleman said, I imagine that his constituent was in the middle of the road when somebody threw a firework in the street. That is illegal now.
The RSPCA does much good work, but its firework campaign is misguided. I am still waiting for the RSPCA to react on its report entitled "Pain and Stress in Fish", last updated in 1994, which stated:
"The society's policy is to oppose the infliction of pain and suffering in the name of sport"--
which is why it is opposed to hunting, and
"the case for fish feeling pain is surprisingly complete".
When the RSPCA writes to me to complain, I hope that it will tell me all about that.
The situation regarding fireworks is getting worse and we need to consider why. The first reason is that fewer fireworks are manufactured domestically. The overwhelming number of fireworks come in from China. The UK is quite a small market, whereas the other markets, such as the United States, which are much larger, prefer bigger bangs. Perhaps that is because they have more space. In any event, the Chinese are making fireworks for a different market and they are being sold in this country.
The second reason is a good example of the law of unintended consequences. The 1997 regulations banned the manufacture, sale and use of bangers--we all remember the penny bangers that used to be thrown around the street. Because bangers are banned, yobs now use air bombs. Since 1997 the price of air bombs has fallen to a quarter of what it was, so they are more accessible. They are much louder, they are directional--I have never fired one myself because I am too old, but perhaps I should go and buy one to find out--and they can be fired some 60 m, so they become almost a weapon in the hands of the teenage hooligans who mainly use them. We should remember the law of unintended consequences resulting from regulations that we make in the House.
Mr. Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The debate continues on Next Page