Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'an age so specified' and insert
'the age of 18 years'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 42, leave out 'an age so specified' and insert
'the age of 18 years'.
I thank the Minister for accepting amendment No. 47. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are intended to introduce more clarity and precision. Clause 3 refers to "young persons". Does that mean people aged 16, 18, 21 or 25? I regard anyone over 50 but under 60 as young. Why does the Bill not give a precise definition-people aged 18, for instance? That is not asking very much.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said:
"Clause 3 would ban sales to minors. The intention is that the current minimum age of 18 should be retained."-[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 482.]
The amendments would ensure that the promoter's intention was enshrined in law, clearly and unambiguously.

Miss Melanie Johnson: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment but certain category 1 fireworks are currently available to 16-year-olds: party poppers, Christmas crackers and throw downs. The amendment would mean that regulations implementing the Bill limited all fireworks to 18-year-olds. I think that those are the sort of fireworks that people commonly have and that they are generally regarded as pretty risk free and pretty harmless. In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments about category 1 fireworks, I hope that we will not be over-prescriptive. It is for that reason that specifying a single age may be a problem. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chope: The purpose of my amendment was not to specify ages under 18. What I was concerned about was that the power could be used to prohibit those aged 18 or over from buying fireworks. If the Minister is prepared to give an assurance that there is no intention to introduce restrictions for people who are over 18 but who are still described as young people, I will have no problem.

Miss Johnson: I have twin daughters who are still, just about, 18. It is unlikely that the Government will wish to extend the prohibition to those aged over 18. It is just those under 18 who are the issue.

Mr. Chope: In the light of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 3, line 4, leave out from 'from' to 'using' in line 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 53, in page 3, line 7, leave out from 'from' to 'using' in line 8.
Amendment No. 64, in page 3, line 16, at end insert-

'( ) Fireworks regulations may not prohibit the supply of fireworks for private use on residential premises.'.
Amendment No. 67, in page 3, line 16, at end insert-

'( ) Firework regulations may not prohibit the supply of fireworks in such a way as to interfere with the celebration of major religious and national festivals.'.
Amendment No. 55, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, at end add-

'( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to-

(a) any person whose trade or business is the professional organisation or professional operation of firework displays;

(b) any person whose trade or business, or part of whose trade or business, is the supply of fireworks or assemblies, for the purposes of supplying them in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations;

(c) any local authority for the purposes of a firework display;

(d) any person for use, in the course of a trade or business of his, for special effects purposes in the theatre, on film or on television;

(e) any local authority, enforcement officer or other body, where that authority or body:

(i) has enforcement powers, conferred by or under enactment, applying to the firework or assembly in question; and

(ii) before it purchases the goods, informs the supplier that the purchase is to be made for the purposes of ascertaining whether any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of the goods has been contravened in relation to those goods;

(f) any department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the purposes of a firework display put on by that department for use by that department at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event or for use by that department for research or investigations purposes;

(g) any person who:

(i) is in business as a supplier of goods designed and intended for use in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies; and

(ii) intends to use the firework or assembly in question solely for the purposes of testing those goods to ensure that, when used in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies of the same type, they will perform their intended function or comply with any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of those goods; or

(h) any establishment of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown for the purposes of a firework display or for use at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event.'.
Amendment No. 60, in page 4, line 30, leave out clause 7.
Amendment No. 61, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end add-

'( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to-

(a) any person whose trade or business is the professional organisation or professional operation of firework displays;

(b) any person whose trade or business, or part of whose trade or business, is the supply of fireworks or assemblies, for the purpose of supplying them in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations;

(c) any local authority for the purposes of a firework display;

(d) any person for use, in the course of a trade or business of his, for special effects purposes in the theatre, on film or on television;

(e) any local authority, enforcement officer or other body, where that authority or body:

(i) has enforcement powers, conferred by or under enactment, applying to the firework or assembly in question; and

(ii) before it purchases the goods, informs the supplier that the purchase is to be made for the purposes of ascertaining whether any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of the goods has been contravened in relation to those goods;

(f) any department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the purposes of a firework display put on by that department for use by that department at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event or for use by that department for research or investigations purposes;

(g) any person who:

(i) is in business as a supplier of goods designed and intended for use in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies; and

(ii) intends to use the firework or assembly in question solely for the purposes of testing those goods to ensure that, when used in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies of the same type, they will perform their intended function or comply with any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of those goods; or

(h) any establishment of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown for the purposes of a firework display or for use at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event.'.

Mr. Chope: Some of the amendments are in the names of my hon. Friends, so I will not speak at length on those, but amendments Nos. 52 and 53 concentrate on the mischief of misuse rather than supply. I think that our constituents are concerned about the misuse of fireworks. There are already controls over supply under existing regulations. As the Minister said earlier, there are controls over safety. The big lacuna in the law and in the regulation-making power at the moment is in relation to the use of fireworks. That is why I seek in amendments Nos. 52 and 53 to cut out all the other guff and concentrate on misuse.

Mr. Tynan: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Police Federation has recently suggested that we should change the law in order to ensure that possession of fireworks is an offence, so that it could be dealt with. I ask him to withdraw the amendment. The issue of supplying, purchasing and possessing fireworks is very important and should be left in the Bill.

Mr. Chope: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of possession. Is someone who has fireworks in his possession going to be arrested by the police and charged with possessing fireworks? Surely the biggest problem is when the fireworks are used. There are already restrictions on the use of fireworks in the street. If we are talking about giving powers to the police to deal with people who are just possessing fireworks, are we not going unnecessarily far?

Mr. Tynan: The hon. Gentleman should accept, and I hope that he will, that minors often have fireworks in their possession and the police are powerless to deal with that situation. Sometimes, the minors are responsible for antisocial behaviour. On that basis and in those circumstances, it is vital that we give them the power to deal, if necessary, with the issue of possession and supply.

Mr. Chope: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not sure that the Bill will deal with the situation that he described. As I understand it, one of the big concerns is that it is not possible to introduce a fixed-penalty notice for anyone under the age of 18. The hon. Gentleman refers to young people and there are already restrictions on the supply of fireworks to them. Will the police be given powers to seize the fireworks in their possession?
The issue is similar to that of children or young people carrying drink in public places. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights has said that the police can seize cans of drink in the possession of young people only if the young people are consuming the drink or have started to do so. Will we be able to enforce a requirement that young people are not allowed to carry fireworks in a public place? Should they be subject to all these regulations if they have fireworks in their possession? That is my concern. I would like us to address the problem of misuse-and not just supply and possession-much more effectively.

Mr. Tynan rose-

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is itching to intervene again, but I want to make a final point. I hope that he is as alarmed as I am by what is said in the regulatory impact assessment about nothing in the Bill placing an extra burden on the police or causing them any more hassle. He seems to be under the illusion that the Bill will enable the police to be proactive in dealing with the hooliganism and antisocial behaviour associated with the use of fireworks in public places.

Mr. Tynan: I might not be explaining my position properly but, in the real world, individuals under the age of 18 sometimes obtain a supply of fireworks or purchase them from rogue dealers so that they are in possession of fireworks. Is it not a good idea for the police to have the opportunity to deal with that issue? In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should realise that it is in the best interests of the individual, as well as the population in general, for the police-I am sure that they would use their powers in a limited fashion-to be able to deal with the problem of minors having possession of fireworks.

Mr. Chope: We are both keen on achieving the same objective, namely reducing to a minimum the misuse of fireworks. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's remarks. The hon. Gentleman has been persuaded by some of my arguments and, in the spirit of the debate, I may well yet be persuaded by his.

Mr. Leigh: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 64 and 67, which are in my name. Amendment No. 64 deals with the supply of fireworks for private use, and we have already made progress on that matter. The Bill's promoter has already said that he does not want it to apply to class 1 and 2 fireworks. Class 4 fireworks are only to be used by explosive factories; they are not sold to the public. Class 3 fireworks have a safety distance of 25 m and they are used in displays. As a result of the assurances by the Bill's promoter that he does not want it to apply to class 1 and 2 fireworks and that he would be happy for an amendment to be tabled in another place, my fears, which I tried to deal with in amendment No. 64, have probably been addressed.

12.45 pm
I have primarily been concerned with protecting the traditional private family firework display in people's gardens. I look forward to hearing what the Minister and the promoter say about amendment No. 64. Perhaps it is possible to obtain class 3 fireworks for a private garden display. I do not know what the legal situation is on that or what the supply situation would be. It may be that we have dealt with that issue.
The more substantial point that I want to raise relates to amendment No. 67. I do not know what the technical objection may be, but I hope that the Minister reassures me about the issues that it raises. As well as protecting the private traditional display with one's family, I want to avoid the situation in which people can let off fireworks only around 5 November. I would not approve of that. I do not say that because I am a Catholic and would object to the fact that fireworks could be used only to celebrate the gunpowder plot, but because it raises an interesting point. We live in a varied society with many religious groups and types of people. I do not understand why we should gradually move bit by bit-as we are doing as a result of a ratchet-type effect-to let off fireworks only at that time of year. There is no reason why people should not be allowed-encouraged even-to let off fireworks around new year.
We also have to recognise that there are other religious festivals, such as Hindu and Muslim festivals. A Conservative colleague came up to me in the corridor yesterday and said, "I don't know what you're doing about this Bill. The fact is I get loads of letters from people objecting to the fact that we get fireworks at all times of the year. They're used to celebrate Hindu festivals and some of my constituents don't like it." But that is the country we live in. If someone wants to celebrate a Hindu festival with fireworks, that might not be on 5 November. In the spirit of a liberal multicultural country, we should recognise people's ability to let off fireworks when they want to.
Amendment No. 67 might not be necessary. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to make it clear that we recognise that people in our society will want to let off fireworks at different times of the year. I am not sure that many people would want to let them off on Bastille day, but if they want to, let them. There is, after all, an ever-growing French community. If it wants to let off fireworks, why not? Why should the ever-growing American community not let off fireworks on independence day? We do not want to be more and more restrictive. We have a voluntary agreement that makes it difficult for members of the public to obtain fireworks except around the period of 5 November and the new year. If the Minister reassures me on that, I shall be very happy.

Mr. Tynan: The issue is important. In my constituency it is simple to purchase fireworks all year round. That is the fact of the matter and I am sure that it happens in many constituencies. However, when I formulated the ideas behind the Bill I was conscious that we should not disadvantage other multicultural groups. As a member of one of them, I recognise their value. I spoke to Hindu people about what could be done. That is why we suggest a two-tier licensing system that will give those who want to celebrate major religious or national festivals the opportunity to buy fireworks. I raised the matter on Second Reading; I recognise the fact that we live in a multicultural society, and the Bill takes account of the points that have been made. I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to withdraw his amendment.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 would remove the prohibition on the supply of
fireworks, and limit prohibition simply to the use of fireworks, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) has explained why that is not desirable. There are occasions on which the prohibition on supply is crucial, and we may want to consider prohibiting supply at certain times of day, in certain places or in certain circumstances. The amendments would therefore take a retrograde step because we would lose some of our ability to control the supply of fireworks. Conservative Members agree with us about the importance of that control, so I hope that they will not feel the need to press the amendments.
Amendment No. 55 is too prescriptive. However, it was tabled before our discussions earlier this morning, and I hope that Conservative Members will recognise that the flexibility in the Bill is necessary so that we can consider who should be excepted from certain of the prohibitions imposed by any regulations made under the Bill.
I turn now to amendment No. 60 on the licensing of suppliers. Many people, including consumers, enforcement officers, firework companies and many hon. Members feel that licensing is a suitable way further to control the availability of fireworks entering the market. The provisions are important because the Bill will allow local authorities to refuse and revoke licences to retailers who have previously breached conditions such as those relating to storage or supply to children.

Mr. Baron: As I said, I fully support the Bill and, in particular, the idea of proper licensing and control of the sale of fireworks to the public, but may I tease out of the Minister any suggestions that the Government may have for addressing the issue that licensing will not solve all the problems? One could stockpile fireworks, for example. Although the Bill is helpful, and I support it, I would be grateful for a little clarification from the Minister.

Miss Johnson: We are considering the issue carefully to make sure that the provisions are effective but not overly bureaucratic or burdensome for retailers. Where possible, we are trying to link them with revision of the regulations on the manufacture and storage of explosives, which obviously relate to the hon. Gentleman's point about storage. Those regulations are currently under review by the Health and Safety Executive, so there will be an opportunity to tackle that.
Amendment No. 61 is very similar to amendment No. 55, so I need say nothing further on that. Turning to amendment No. 64, I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) accepts that things have changed since he tabled the amendment. It would remove our ability to create a watershed for residential use, and we would all regret that. In any event, the hon. Gentleman indicated that he would not press the amendment, and I hope that he will not.
Amendment No. 67 is rather vague and, therefore, unhelpful. It may be difficult to define "interference". We entirely share the hon. Gentleman's aspiration that the buying and selling of fireworks is not confined to the period around 5 November.
The amendment is not necessary because under clause 2(4) the Secretary of State is required to consult organisations and other people considered to have interests and to be affected by the Bill. Additionally, the Government are obliged in the regulatory impact assessment to consult extensively members of particular minorities when drawing up regulations, and we shall obviously ensure that all sections of the community are represented. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Gainsborough, whose concerns are similar to ours.

Mr. Chope: In the light of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 3, line 28, at end insert-

'( ) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to class I and class II fireworks.'.-[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

Clause 6

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 4, line 3 [Clause 6], at end insert-

'( ) advanced notification of the time and place of the display has been given to the owners or recipients of land adjoining the site of the display'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 57, in page 4, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 58, in page 4, line 29, at end insert-

'( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to a display from which the public are excluded notwithstanding that it may be witnessed by the public.'.
No. 59, in page 4, line 29, at end insert-

'( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to a display which does not include the use of fireworks under category 4 of the British Standard Specification relating to fireworks published on 30 November 1988 (BS 7114) or any British Standard Specification replacing it.'.

Mr. Chope: These amendments deal with the issue of public displays. My hon. Friends may think that amendment No. 56 is far too regulatory and restrictive, as it requires that advance notification of the time and place of a display be given to the owners or occupiers of land adjoining the site of the display. The amendment uses the word "recipients" instead of "occupiers", but I am sure that that is a typo.
A big mischief results from the anti-social use of fireworks when, for example, people let them off without thinking about their neighbours-that is even more true when there is a large, organised display. If they knew that fireworks were going to be let off, dog owners such as myself could put their dog inside and people who have a horse or pony, as my daughter has, could take appropriate precautions. Obviously, it is difficult to take such precautions if one does not know that an event is taking place. In our village, somebody's horse eventually died, I think, from injuries caused by problems with fireworks. Those problems could easily
have been overcome if the person organising the firework display had thought of notifying their neighbours. That is the thinking behind the amendment.
Turning briefly to amendment No. 58, the Bill does not cover displays that are not public. However, I am concerned that that may be interpreted as covering displays that may be witnessed by the public. Lots of members of the public, for example, may not be inside the enclosure. That is a nightmare for people organising fireworks displays, as they need income from paying visitors to pay for the fireworks. However, people sometimes find vantage points nearby and enjoy the whole event for free. If the public witness an essentially private fireworks display, that should not fall foul of the regulations.
Amendment No.59 would restrict the application of the clause to fireworks displays that use fireworks under category 4, which we recognise as big public displays. Again, it is a reasonable measure to clarify, define and limit the application of the clause.

Miss Melanie Johnson: The hon. Gentleman may have corrected the word "recipients", but it still appears in amendment No. 56, and he and I would agree that its meaning is unclear.

Mr. Chope: I raised the matter when I saw the amendments in draft on blue paper. The Clerk assured me that there had been a typographical error and that the word "recipients" would be replaced by the word "occupiers". I am sorry that that does not seem to have materialised on today's Order Paper.

Miss Johnson: I am not sure where that leaves us for the purpose of the debate, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I accept the good intention underlying the amendment, but such a measure would be difficult to operate and potentially ineffectual. The owners of adjoining land in highly populated areas such as London could mean the owners of properties immediately around the perimeter of the display, but neighbours living just a few meters away or at the other end of a small road might be left out. It is difficult to see how the measure would be helpful to all those who might be affected, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, public displays tend to be large and significant, and can be viewed from quite a wide surrounding area.
I do not believe that the intention is to inform all residents within a defined perimeter, which would be difficult anyway, because of the cost to the operators. Fireworks displays generally are heavily subsidised. There is usually a promoter, who puts a substantial amount in. The proposed measure could oblige the organisers to notify thousands of residents. That might kill off public displays, which we all agree are in general a good thing. In the light of my reservations, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendments.

Mr. Chope: Has the Minister given the House an assurance that the clause as drafted would not impact in the way that I fear, in relation to displays witnessed by the public from outside?

Miss Johnson: The definition of a public display is set out in subsection (5), which clearly states that a
fireworks display is one attended by the public or a section of the public, thereby precluding private fireworks displays on private land. If members of the public choose to watch their neighbours' garden display, that is an instance of "free riding", but we could not classify it as a public display.

Mr. Chope: I thank the Minister for that clarification. In the light of her comments, I shall seek leave to withdraw my amendment No. 56, but with this caveat: the Minister's Department is involved in public information, and it would be useful for the Department to encourage people who are organising public fireworks displays, particularly outside the usual season for fireworks and in rural areas, to notify their neighbours as a matter of good neighbourliness, to avoid some of the problems that have occurred in the past.
Given the particular difficulties with my amendment, which has been printed differently from the way that I had intended, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

Mr. Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 5, line 33, leave out Clause 9.

Mr. Leigh: First, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting amendment No. 66, so that category 1 and 2 fireworks will no longer effectively be dealt with by the Bill. That is good progress.
This is a probing amendment that seeks to determine why clause 9 is necessary. I accept that some extremely unpleasant and unsafe fireworks are being manufactured around the world, which we may not want here, but why cannot the Minister use powers provided elsewhere in the Bill and in earlier regulations to deal with such products? Why is it necessary to have a separate clause on imports? The Minister may be able to give a good reason.
The Minister will also want to explain how the clause impacts on Europe and the single market. I am sure that the clause does not apply to imports from the EU. Bearing in mind what the Minister has said, there will probably be agreement throughout Europe on a decibel limit of about 120, so imports will presumably be on that basis. I am sure that the Minister will assure the House that clause 9 in no way militates against the free exchange of fireworks across the EU, which adds to competition and creates choice in a free market-all the things that we are in favour of.

Mr. Robathan: The clause is of immense importance and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Many of the problems that are associated with fireworks are the result of some rather dodgy importers. My hon. Friends have improved the Bill and made some good points, but I would not wish to see the amendment carried.

Mr. Chope: I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the single market and on the
issue of personal imports that was mentioned earlier. Is it envisaged that there should be restrictions on personal imports of fireworks? If people go to Calais or Boulogne and buy a case of fireworks, or fill up the back of their white van with fireworks instead of with booze, will they be restricted by the clause?
My understanding of the thinking behind the clause was that something needed to be done to control the situation between the point where fireworks were imported, for example, Felixtowe docks, and the place where they were stored. If that is the mischief that needs to be addressed in regulations, I question whether prohibiting the import itself, or putting conditions upon the importer, is necessarily the right way to proceed. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Tynan: I am concerned about removing the clause from the Bill because it serves a useful purpose. The industry is concerned about fireworks that, having been imported, do not go to a licensed storage place. The drivers therefore have no need to register that they are driving to a storage place and sometimes drive to a lay-by and split their load between perhaps 12 rogue retailers, who then sell the fireworks indiscriminately over three months. I think that the clause is essential if we are to deal with the rogue retailer who sells fireworks indiscriminately to anyone who will buy them, and with problems such as those that arose in my constituency over Christmas and new year, when category 4 fireworks were imported by the white van people, who were distributing and selling them in pubs.
My concern is not about imports from Europe, as most imports-some 95 per cent.-come from China. On Second Reading, I pointed out that an application form for an import licence is a simple A4 document that is very easy to fill in and to submit to the Department of Trade and Industry. If somebody has £25,000 to spare, they can send a banker's draft to China and ask for a lorry load of fireworks, and there is no need to determine whether proper storage and licensed premises will be used. If the Minister uses the powers wisely, the clause will assist in eliminating many problems concerning antisocial use of fireworks.
I hope that the amendment will not be pressed and that hon. Members will accept the difficulties that currently exist with regard to importation.

Mr. Baron: I rise briefly to speak in support of clause 9, which I think is a very important aspect of the Bill.
I was recently contacted by constituents about an unfortunate accident that occurred because of a poorly manufactured firework from the far east. Fortunately, there was no fatality, but an injury was caused. Any attempt to tighten up the situation to ensure that imported fireworks are of a certain standard is to be welcomed, as is any attempt to combat the illegal importation of fireworks and related problems of inadequate storage and supervision.
I welcome the clause, notwithstanding the fact that, as ever, it is an open-ended and enabling provision and I am not quite sure what will result. Overall, I think that it should remain in the Bill and it will certainly receive my support.

Miss Melanie Johnson: There is no single market in respect of fireworks and fireworks control, so the question of the single market is not an issue, as hon. Members have suggested.
Importation prohibition is required if there is an intention to minimise the availability of banned fireworks and thus to ensure that the British public are not the victims of the white van sales described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). In most cases, the products sold in such circumstances are unsafe.
Furthermore, I believe that the amendment would lead to a peculiar situation in which fireworks banned under the Bill and the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 would be manufactured and stored in a country that prohibits them. That seems a very paradoxical outcome and I am sure that it is not intended.
I request and hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Leigh: This was a probing amendment and I think that we have had a reasonable debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 6, line 10, leave out clause 10.
The amendment was inspired by the receipt late on Wednesday of the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill. The clause introduces a lot of regulation, requirements about training and so on. We probably know from our constituency postbags that some of these requirements impinge disproportionately on small businesses and shopkeepers-on the small business person, rather than the large multiple. If a butcher, for example, has to go on a training course, he has to find somebody else to run his shop. A little café in Highcliffe in my constituency recently obtained a licence to sell alcohol with meals, and the proprietor is required to go on a training course. He needs no training in something like that-he is a fit and proper person for the task. The requirement to go on a training course means that he will have to close his café or get someone in in his stead.
My instinct that there is no evidence of a problem that needs to be addressed, particularly in the case of organised displays, was confirmed when I read paragraph 5.4 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states in respect of training of display operators:
"There is no clear evidence of major incidence of death or serious injury caused by the use of fireworks by display operators. We do know that there have been occasional serious accidents in the past. But in the cases for which the Health and Safety Executive . . . have recent accident reports, there is still little clear evidence that the injuries sustained by members of the public were as a direct result of incompetence or the unprofessional use of fireworks."
The assessment proceeds to point out that although there has been a sharp increase in the number of injuries from fireworks in general terms, the number of injuries sustained at firework displays has remained fairly static, dropping in 2000 to 119, from the 1998 figure of 132. In 2001, the figure rose a little.
The important point is that we do not duplicate legislation. The regulatory impact assessment states that event organisers and display operators already have duties

"under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of members of the public, as well as their and others' employees. These duties would . . . require"-
regardless of anything in the Bill-

"operators to carry out a full site assessment; ensure that the equipment they use is suitable for the purpose; and ensure that they and their staff are competent and properly trained."
The assessment also states:
"The Health and Safety Executive . . . believes that the fireworks display industry has a generally very good safety record."
Those are very important arguments for leaving things as they are and not introducing the very convoluted regulation contained in clause 10.
We are almost getting into a mindset whereby we think that we should introduce a requirement for training, tests and so on through back-door regulation. We sometimes lose sight of the big picture, and the big picture in fireworks is that general safety would be improved if more people went to organised firework displays, rather than choosing to run them in their own gardens. Yet I suspect that if unamended, clause 10 would impose unnecessary and counter-productive burdens on those who are contemplating organising firework displays, add to their costs and encourage much smaller, unofficial firework displays. If the Minister has signed up to the regulatory impact assessment, why will she not carry through the logic of it and accept that we would be better off without clause 10?

Mr. Leigh: I very much hope that when the Minister sums up, she will make it absolutely clear to the House that she does not intend to insist on introducing regulations to require training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, some people make it their business to provide public fireworks displays-incidentally, it is quite commonly retired or practising vicars who enjoy doing it; I do not know why. They are very responsible people. There is no evidence whatever that they are causing death or injury to themselves or anyone else. As my hon. Friend said, the Government's own regulatory impact assessment says in paragraph 5.4:
"There is no clear evidence of major incidence of death or serious injury".
Training takes up people's time, and it is not necessary. When my hon. Friend and I were discussing the Bill in the past two days, we both felt that it was important to drive this point home, and that we really did want an assurance from the Minister that she would not regulate to require training. If the hon. Lady will give us that assurance now, we shall be satisfied.

Miss Johnson: Training is very important in some of these contexts. We would be neglecting our responsibilities in the House if we did not support the provision of training courses. The elimination of the entire clause, as proposed in the amendment, would leave no provision in the Bill to ensure safe and professional practice in the fireworks display industry. Displays do of course provide a safe way for people to watch and enjoy fireworks, but one reason why that is so is that people are highly trained and qualified to run such displays.

Mr. Chope: So what is the purpose of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974?

Miss Johnson: That is a very general question to which I cannot respond in like terms.
We would not wish to leave the supply of professional fireworks to those with little knowledge of their product. With products to whose supply and use a number of risks are attached, it is important that the Government should be able to ensure that the aims that we all agree are important under clause 2(1) and (3) are upheld and strengthened. An officially organised training course would ensure high standards while excluding the novice from such enterprises.
I cannot comment on the relationship of this Bill with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act because that is a large piece of legislation. I am happy to undertake to write to him, but I think it is very important that we provide for training. That training helps to ensure that people who handle the equivalent of explosives and set up displays and use or supply the product are appropriately qualified.

Mr. Leigh: Of course people who run displays must be properly trained and do their job; no one is denying that. But the Minister is not suggesting, is she, that there is any lack of training at the moment? Is she saying that there are cowboys, not properly trained, who are moving around the country causing death or injury to people? If she is saying that, that entirely contradicts her own regulatory impact assessment. The training is taking place. It works. All that we want to hear from the Minister today is that she will not impose a set of new regulations requiring new training, which is plainly not necessary.

Miss Johnson: Of course plenty of training is being done and some of that works well, and there are some highly professional people setting up displays; no one would question that. However, it would be a rash person who would assert that every such person had done everything that should be done, and had been properly trained. There are always cowboys out there.
If the hon. Gentleman is seeking my assurance that we are not thinking of some radically bureaucratic system to impose on all those dealing with fireworks training of a very different character from that envisaged at present, I am sure that I can give him that assurance. However, the amendment would delete the clause full stop, and many hon. Members, including myself, find that unacceptable.

Mr. Chope: I am disappointed in the Minister's response. I read from the regulatory impact assessment-if the hon. Lady she had not read it before, I hope that she was listening-and paragraph 5.5 makes it clear:
"Event organisers and display operators have duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974".
It also says that duties under the existing law
"require operators to carry out a full site assessment; ensure that the equipment they use is suitable for the purpose; and ensure that they and their staff are competent and properly trained."
If operators' staff are not competent or properly trained, the operators are in breach of existing legislation-the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The more the House tries to duplicate general legislation such as that Act, the more we undermine the responsibility we believe people should take for organising effective health and safety at work.
The issue is close to my heart because I served on the Health and Safety Commission for so long. The Health and Safety and Work, etc. Act 1974 has stood the test of time, but it will not continue to stand the test of time if people who operate within its bounds are told that there must be duplication to comply with a fresh lot of regulations.

Mr. Robathan: I raised training courses on Second Reading. I am worried that people might be compelled to go on training courses that are frankly unnecessary, so what my hon. Friend says is broadly right.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful for the endorsement of my hon. Friend and the official Opposition. What he and I have said is in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said on Second Reading:
"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."-[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 485.]
That is our position and it is why I shall press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made:-
The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 78.

[1:27 pm

AYES

Baron, John (Billericay)
Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)
Forth, rh Eric
Grayling, Chris
Mercer, Patrick
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Robathan, Andrew
Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)
Walter, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Christopher Chope and
Mr. Edward Leigh

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)
Allan, Richard
Allen, Graham
Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)
Austin, John
Bailey, Adrian
Barnes, Harry
Barrett, John
Best, Harold
Betts, Clive
Blears, Ms Hazel
Blizzard, Bob
Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Cairns, David
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Connarty, Michael
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Cranston, Ross
Crausby, David
Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Dobson, rh Frank
Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Gale, Roger (N Thanet)
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)
Gardiner, Barry
Gerrard, Neil
Gilroy, Linda
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)
Holmes, Paul
Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Keetch, Paul
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Levitt, Tom (High Peak)
Linton, Martin
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McNulty, Tony
McWalter, Tony
McWilliam, John
Mallaber, Judy
Moffatt, Laura
Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Prosser, Gwyn
Quin, rh Joyce
Robertson, Angus (Moray)
Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)
Sheridan, Jim
Spellar, rh John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Touhig, Don (Islwyn)
Truswell, Paul
Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Ward, Claire
Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Weir, Michael
White, Brian
Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)
Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Stephen McCabe and
Mr. Andrew Dismore
Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, may I remind the Tellers that the correct procedure is that, on reaching the Table, they should bow again to the Chair.

Clause 12

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 8, line 15 [Clause 12], leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 2.

Mr. Chope: This is a probing amendment, because this is the first chance that any hon. Member has had to find out what subsection (3) is about and why the Minister wants to keep it in the Bill. That is why I tabled the amendment and I look forward to hearing her response.

Miss Melanie Johnson: I believe that I can help the hon. Gentleman considerably. The amendment would
remove the limit on the disclosure of information under the fireworks regulations. The limit makes sense. It is imposed under the Enterprise Act 2002 and it means that only relevant parties will have access to certain information gained in relation to activities carried out under the Fireworks Bill and the subsequent regulations. It could be commercially damaging if anybody was able to demand that information be disclosed to him or her, and that is why the limitation is in place.

Mr. Chope: I thought that I would be easily satisfied, but the Minister is introducing a secrecy clause to prevent people from gaining access to information.

Miss Johnson: Obviously, freedom of information legislation covers various aspects of disclosure, but the limit refers to information that might be commercially damaging, as I mentioned.

Mr. Chope: Can the Minister assure the House that the limit will used only to withhold information that would be commercially damaging?

Miss Johnson: I believe that that is its principal purpose. I am not sure that I can give the hon. Gentleman a cast-iron guarantee, but I can give him as close to it as I can get that it is my belief that the limit covers only commercial information. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman further on the issue, if that would be helpful.

Mr. Chope: Indeed, it would, and I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I hope that the letter she sends me will make it clear that the limit will be restricted to commercial considerations. The Minister has an amendment in the same group-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must advise me whether he wishes to withdraw his amendment, before I invite the Minister to put her amendment formally.

Mr. Chope: I thought that that Minister had not yet introduced her amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was done as part of her earlier contribution. The amendment has yet to be made formally. I need to know first whether the hon. Gentleman intends to proceed with his amendment.

Mr. Chope: No, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.