|
National Campaign
for Firework Safety
in
Parliament
20 November
1996
House of
Commons
Wednesday 20
November 1996
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Firework
Safety
Motion made, and
Question proposed, That this House do now
adjourn.--[Mr. Bates.]
9.34 am
Mr. Richard
Burden (Birmingham, Northfield): I am
grateful for the opportunity to raise
this issue. It is only two weeks since
the headlines were full of news about
firework-related tragedies. On 28
October, a 10-year-old boy, Dale Mitchell
from Nottingham, died through the illegal
misuse of fireworks. On 1 November, David
Hattersley, a head teacher from High
Wycombe, was fatally injured during his
school's firework display. On 2 November,
Stephen Timcke, a City trader from Kent,
was killed in front of his two young
sons, aged five and seven, at a private
bonfire party.
The headlines may have gone, but the
consequences of those tragedies live on
for the families and friends of those who
died, as they do for all those injured by
fireworks. That is why the House is under
an obligation not to wait for the next
tragedy and the next headline, whether it
comes next month or next year at bonfire
night, but to take action now to improve
firework safety.
I secured an Adjournment debate on the
same subject in November last year, when
I raised questions about the sale of
fireworks to the under-16s and the
importing of dangerous fireworks. The
sale of fireworks to the under-16s is
still an issue. In 1995, 825 of the 1,500
firework-related injuries affected the
under-16s. We still need to take more
effective action to ensure that children
are not able to buy fireworks and that a
responsible adult is in charge wherever
fireworks are used. The Government's zeal
for deregulation has not helped us to
achieve that, but that is not the issue
that I want to spend time on today.
I want to consider firework imports in
depth. Last year, I told the House that
shipments of Chinese fireworks containing
illegal substances had been allowed on to
the market in the United Kingdom. Only in
October this year, more than a year after
authorisation was first given for those
fireworks, were the last container loads
tracked down. They had been on the market
in this country throughout that time.
The Government had unnecessarily scrapped
import licences for fireworks in 1993.
The Health and Safety Executive's actions
in authorising firework imports at the
time of last year's debate left a good
deal to be desired. Since that debate,
its performance in scrutinising import
applications has improved considerably,
but the procedures are not in place to
check that the products for which
importers apply and receive authorisation
are the same as the products that come
into the country and find their way on to
the market, and to ensure that those
products are properly labelled.
Example after example can be quoted.
There was a raid only yesterday--as
prosecution is pending, it would be
inappropriate to say where it happened--involving
a 40 ft container of fireworks that had
found its way into a lock-up garage in
this country. We must wait to see how
that prosecution turns out, but we must
ask why nobody knew that that container
had come into the country and why it was
checked on only once it had found its way
to the lock-up garage. Why did we not
know? Why did the authorities not know in
advance?
Perhaps an even more tragic example is
that of Stephen Timcke. He was killed by
a mortar shell, which was probably not
meant to be on general sale in this
country. It was imported from China and
all the instructions were in Chinese. He
died at a private bonfire party, in front
of his two sons. All sorts of questions
are raised. Who sold Mr. Timcke the
firework? How did the vendor get hold of
it? How did it get into the country and--perhaps
even more chilling--how many of those
fireworks are still in circulation and in
the shops to this day?
Investigations are continuing and it is
right that they should, but it is on that
matter that I seek my first assurance
from the Minister for Competition and
Consumer Affairs and the Under-Secretary
of State for the Environment, the hon.
Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P.
Beresford). Will he and his hon. Friend
assure me that the Health and Safety
Executive will not grant authorisation
unless arrangements are in place to
ensure that each consignment of imported
fireworks is logged at the port of entry,
transported directly from the port--sealed--to
secure storage at a recognised site and
routinely tested before it goes on the
market? Unless that is done,
authorisation is fine, but there is no
way of checking whether what has been
authorised is what finds its way into
this country and on to the market. The
results are tragic and only too plainly
seen in the death of Stephen Timcke. It
is within the Minister's power to do
something about that and I ask for that
assurance.
Secondly, on categorisation of the
different sorts of fireworks, the
Minister began a review of firework
safety regulations in March and I welcome
his initiative, which was useful. When he
takes into account the responses to that
review, I hope that he will consider
removing bangers from general sale. I met
him a couple of weeks ago to discuss that.
With 316 injuries last year alone, more
accidents involve bangers than any other
type of firework. They are easy to abuse,
have no visual appeal, are a nuisance to
people and frighten animals. They should
be taken off the market. I strongly urge
the Minister to agree that course when he
considers the results of the review.
Some measures cannot wait until the
review is completed and the results known.
Stephen Timcke was killed by a mortar
shell, as was David Hattersley, the head
teacher from High Wycombe. The signs are
that Mr. Hattersley acquired the shell
lawfully. It was probably a category 3
firework, for use in large outdoor spaces.
Mortar shells are freely on sale. What
are they? I can reassure you, Madam
Speaker, that the one I have here is a
dummy and there is no danger to the House.
It is a dummy of a 4 in mortar shell. It
looks like a lethal weapon and we know
that, in the cases of Stephen Timcke and
David Hattersley, that is precisely what
it was.
Mr. Hattersley suffered the most
appalling facial injuries when the mortar
shell exploded in his face--injuries from
which he died without regaining
consciousness the following day. Such a
firework has no place on general sale in
this country. It has no place on sale now--we
cannot wait until after the review, until
next year, or next bonfire night. I do
not want to see any more tragedies such
as were suffered by Stephen Timcke or
David Hattersley, and they were not the
first, as someone in Yorkshire was killed
by a mortar shell two years ago.
Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987,
the Secretary of State has the power to
ban by order, for a maximum of 12 months,
the supply of anything that is considered
unsafe to the general public. He does not
have to wait for consultation or for the
review. I imagine that 12 months will be
long enough for the Minister to complete
his review and to consider all the other
matters, and long enough for changes to
be introduced--either by this Government
or by the next Labour Government. Will
the Minister assure me that he will not
allow lethal items of equipment such as
mortar shells to remain on general sale,
so that we can be confident that there
will be no more accidents, no more
Stephen Timckes and no more David
Hattersleys, while the review is taking
place? The public demand action, and I
hope that the Minister will assure me
that he will take the action that it is
in his power to take, to remove such
shells from public sale.
Thirdly, we should consider training, in
particular the training of those who use
powerful category 3 fireworks, such as
the one that I have here, which are on
sale to the general public but which
should not be, or category 4 fireworks--the
category that I should like such
fireworks to be put into. Those are
fireworks that are not meant to be on
general sale to the public, but which are
meant for use in displays. According to
British standards, category 4 fireworks
are not meant to be on sale to the
general public, but no clear regulations
are in place to specify who is allowed to
buy or use them. There are no real
restrictions on their purchase or
operation. As a result, someone without
any formal training can buy and use
category 4 fireworks, setting him or
herself up to run a public display.
Surely that has to end.
My third request to the Minister--again,
it is entirely within his power to agree--is
that he should establish straight away a
national training scheme for those
running firework displays and using
category 4 fireworks. Will he ensure that
no one can run such a display without
appropriate and recognised training? For
that measure to be effective, we need to
control the places through which category
4 fireworks are distributed. Will the
Minister ensure that they are on sale
only from licensed premises, so that we
can see where they come in, where they
are stored, who is entitled to sell them,
to whom they are sold and who is allowed
to operate them?
The Minister might say that that is
complicated and difficult to do, but it
is not. A model for exactly the sort of
scheme that I am describing exists in
Canada. Support for such a mandatory
scheme comes from a wide range of
organisations: trading standards officers
and departments have voiced their
support, as has the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Accidents, the Consumers
Association and the National Campaign for
Firework Safety, to name but a few.
Responsible members of the fireworks
industry have also voiced their support
for such a scheme, because they know that
it is not in their interests for public
safety to be put at risk and for people,
who frankly do not have the skills, to
buy and use powerful category 4 fireworks.
That situation reflects badly on the
industry, and responsible members of the
industry want it to end.
The Fire Service College has said that it
has the skills and is willing to run a
training scheme. It only remains for the
Minister to give the go-ahead. Will he
introduce a requirement for such training
and for the licensing of retailers of
category 4 fireworks, so that we can be
sure that items of equipment such as the
mortar shell that I am holding are not
used by unskilled or untrained people?
I met the Minister the week before
bonfire night, to discuss the Department
of Trade and Industry's firework safety
publicity campaign, to raise again some
of the matters that I raised in my
Adjournment debate last November, and to
consider the review that he is
undertaking and some of the issues
arising from it. He received me with the
utmost courtesy, as he always does, and I
believe that he has the best intentions
on firework safety, but we need more than
good intentions and reviews: we need
action to back those up and prevent
further tragedies.
First, will the Minister and the Under-Secretary
of State for the Environment, who is also
involved through the Health and Safety
Executive, tighten controls on the
importation of dangerous fireworks? That
can be done only by checking at the port
of entry, transporting the fireworks
directly to secure storage and routinely
testing them before they reach the market.
Secondly, will the Minister put a
temporary prohibition order on sale to
the public of mortar shells and similar
powerful fireworks that, by any standard,
should be in category 4, while the review
is undertaken, so that we can be sure
that the public are safe in the meantime?
Thirdly, will the Minister establish a
national training scheme for anyone who
wants to run displays and operate
category 4 fireworks, and ensure that
those more powerful fireworks are
available only through licensed premises?
If he is prepared to do that, I am sure
that he will have the support of all
Opposition Members.
For goodness' sake, let us not wait until
the next bonfire night, witness more
tragedy and injuries, and ask ourselves
why we did not act when we had the chance.
Let the memory of David Hattersley and
Stephen Timcke be our spur to taking the
actions that are necessary to ensure that
the public are able to enjoy fireworks in
safety and that we avoid any more
tragedies of the kind that we have
witnessed this year.
9.52 am
Mr. Chris
Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth):
I congratulate the hon. Member for
Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on
securing this debate. To my knowledge,
this is the second time that he has
initiated a debate on the subject. The
previous one was on 1 November 1995, and
perhaps it is appropriate that this one
takes place after 5 November, because
there may be a tendency for views to be
heightened and emotional when
constituents are expressing concern in
the run-up to bonfire night and for the
emotion to fade away in the aftermath. So
we are more able to consider matters
rationally and seriously in the cold
light of late November. The time is
appropriate also because the Government's
consultation paper is still on the stocks.
The closing date for submissions was 16
October, but I hope that the Department
of Trade and Industry will take into
account the points made in this debate. I
welcome the review.
Like the majority of people in Britain, I
enjoy fireworks. I have taken part in
displays in a family environment since my
earliest years and I would not want to
deny such pleasures to others. Fireworks
are extremely popular in Saddleworth in
my constituency, and the Round Table and
other local groups take every opportunity
to organise displays of a high standard.
I hope that my constituents and I will
continue to share that pleasure.
My first concern is about the period
during which fireworks should be on
general sale. The guidelines agreed some
years ago say that fireworks should be on
sale for only three weeks before 5
November and a few days after. My
impression is that those guidelines are
becoming loose and that fireworks are on
sale earlier than they should be.
This year, fireworks day seemed to go on
for a long time, perhaps because 5
November fell mid-week and people
increasingly prefer to have family
parties on weekends rather than on the
due date, and because the weather on 5
November was not pleasant in many parts
of the country. I received calls the
following week saying, "When is this
going to stop? I can't let the cat and
dog out because every time it gets dark
there are fireworks going off all over
the place." The matter needs to be
reviewed.
People increasingly use fireworks on
occasions other than bonfire night--to
celebrate anniversaries or birthdays, for
example. We must consider what special
provisions should be made to ensure that
fireworks are available to those who want
them for legitimate purposes, but not so
freely available as to extend to the
whole year the period during which
annoyance is caused to ordinary
individuals.
The hon. Member for Northfield referred
briefly to bangers. Three weeks or so
before 5 November this year, I received a
call from the estate management board of
Holts village in Oldham, expressing
concern about the number of bangers being
thrown around the streets and put through
letter boxes by youths, causing anguish
to elderly people and others. I had
another call from someone who had seen
youths throwing bangers out of the back
window of a double-decker bus.
There exists in legislation a maximum
penalty of £5,000 for throwing a
firework in a street or public place, but
I have never yet heard of its being
implemented by a court. The small banger
is increasingly being treated
disdainfully and used by youths as if it
were a home firework. Perhaps that is
reflected in the fact that more than 50
per cent. of all accidents with fireworks
involve children under the age of 16.
I raised the matter with the managing
director of Standard Fireworks and Brocks
International last year. In his reply, he
said:
"I well
understand the problems caused to the
general public and in particular the
elderly through the misuse of bangers and
other noisy fireworks."
In a revealing and
honest statement, which is unlikely to
boost his marketing effort, he said:
"The Standard
Fireworks banger is the most ineffective
banger on sale in the UK today. Our sales
have continuously been falling, from a
high of 7 million to 2.5 million last
year."
I acknowledge the
fact that Standard Fireworks has been
closely involved with the Government in
reviewing guidelines and codes of
conduct, and I approve of the attitude
that lies behind what the managing
director said--his letter went on to
express his concern about the importation
of much more powerful bangers--but the
simple, cheap single banger is
increasingly being used as a weapon and
as a means of disturbing and frightening
people in many estates and communities
throughout the country. It is perhaps
time, as with ripraps, crackerjacks,
squibs or whatever, to introduce a
complete ban on the sale of bangers.
Most accidents involving fireworks affect
young people aged under 16. How do they
get hold of such fireworks? It is illegal
for fireworks to be sold to people under
16. When the matter was raised in the 1
November debate last year, the hon.
Member for Northfield--I remember that I
was unable to make an intervention--mentioned
that trading standards officers were
concerned about how regulations had been
changed, because that had made it more
difficult for them to enforce the law.
The Government said that the existing
regulations and laws gave trading
standards officers the authority to
enforce the rules. However, in practice,
trading standards officers still find it
difficult. They admit that it is possible
to carry out enforcement, but it is more
cumbersome, bureaucratic and time
consuming and they have other things to
do with their limited resources than
concentrate on that one problem.
In trying to reduce bureaucracy for small
businesses by scrapping the regulations
concerned, the Government threw out the
baby with the bathwater. Governments are
never willing to accept that mistakes
have been made, but I hope that in this
case they will recognise the due concerns
of trading standards officers. I spoke to
trading standards officers in Oldham and
Rochdale only an hour ago and they said
that, against their will, they had made
no effort to prevent the sale of
fireworks by shops to children under 16,
but had referred the matter to the police.
They did that because they believe that
the regulations are too cumbersome and
need revision. I ask the Minister to
ensure that he takes the opportunity of
the consultation to listen to their
concerns and review the regulations. I
hope that by this time next year, more
simplicity will have been introduced into
procedures.
The point of the hon. Member for
Northfield that mortar shells are
classified as class 3 fireworks was well
made. Mortar bombs and the like have
instructions that state that they should
be used at least 25 m from the public and
are clearly inappropriate for most
domestic gardens. They should be
reclassified as class 4 fireworks.
There is also the increasing use of
fireworks to celebrate new year's eve. I
go out of my house at midnight on that
night and from all the hills around me I
can hear fireworks going off and see
lights in the sky. The crucial problem
with the use of fireworks on that day,
which makes it different from bonfire
night, is that on 5 November, most
fireworks are let off between 6 pm and 8
pm; those on new year's eve are let off
at midnight. It is likely that people who
let fireworks off on bonfire night will
be sober, but on new year's eve, they are
likely to be intoxicated. If I had a
simple answer, I would give it, but I ask
the Minister to take that point into
consideration in the consultation paper.
I hope that he finds a means of tackling
the problem and reducing the likelihood
of accidents.
10.3 am
Mr. Barry
Sheerman (Huddersfield): I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden)
on introducing the debate so meticulously.
He has been through the detail, and I
shall not bore the House by repeating his
sensible suggestions. I shall merely
reinforce his points and hope that the
Minister comes back quickly and strongly
on everything that he said.
I must declare an interest as the Member
for Huddersfield. Not in my constituency,
but nearby in Colne Valley is Standard
Fireworks, the largest producer of
fireworks left in Britain. It is an
excellent company that employees several
hundred people and is renowned in the
House and outside for its interest in
safety and its good-quality fireworks. I
congratulate the company, the last of the
big fireworks companies in Britain, on
maintaining high standards of production
and of regulation of its activities and
on its tremendous work in putting its own
money into safety and in trying to ensure
that people can enjoy a traditional
holiday. One does not need a day off to
have a holiday. Bonfire night is a
holiday tradition that goes back to 1605.
I do not know when fireworks were first
let off, but it was long ago. It is deep
in our tradition.
I resent the killjoy tendency in Britain
whereby when there is a crisis or
accident, there is an emotional spasm
that says that everything must stop. I
share the deep feeling of sympathy of my
hon. Friend the Member for Northfield for
the people who died recently as a result
of fireworks, and for their families. I
feel strongly about the way in which
their deaths were caused. However, we
have to balance that with the fact that
fireworks are a traditional way of
celebrating 5 November, Guy Fawkes' day
or plot night, as we call it in the north.
I do not think that it should be stopped.
Fireworks can be safe if they are good
fireworks, properly regulated and let off
sensibly.
There are, of course, dangers. If people
who are not adult or experienced enough
let off fireworks, there can be tragic
consequences. But they can be overcome.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and
Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) mentioned the
honesty of the chairman and managing
director of Standard Fireworks about his
bangers. He has been equally frank with
me. It is a part of his market, but I am
sure that he shares my view that if there
were no banger market, Standard could
cope with it. Most of us know that the
real enjoyment of 5 November and of
fireworks is the colour and beauty of a
firework display. My view is heartfelt
because I have an interest and because I
know that there is a tradition that is
precious to many millions of people. I
want that to continue.
I am going to say some hard political
words. The Conservative party is the
great party of deregulation. Since I have
been in the House, it has shouted it from
the rooftops. The high priests of
deregulation, whether Front Bench or Back
Bench, cannot wait to tell us that the
state should not get involved in anything.
They want total deregulation. Let the
buyer beware, let people buy anything
they like and let off anything they like.
Fireworks are a classic example of what
happens when that ruthless attitude to
deregulation comes home.
The Minister will not like me saying that
two people died this firework weekend
because of deregulation. They died partly
because of the deregulatory attitude of
the Government, who have weakened
controls against the best advice of the
industry in Britain and of senior staff
at Standard Fireworks. They said that we
should not deregulate and that if we did,
we would get all sorts of dangerous
rubbish from China and elsewhere and
accidents would occur. That was self-interested,
because if accidents happen, people say
that fireworks should not be let off at
all and that we should end fireworks. I
have been involved in the matter for some
years. I have heard the industry and my
hon. Friend the Member for Northfield say
that deregulation will spoil it for
everyone. Yes, it will; deregulation has
spoilt the lives of families whose loved
ones have either died or been dreadfully
injured by fireworks that have come in
from abroad.
The incident was not isolated. I went to
my village and someone in a shop showed
me a firework costing £60, which was
about the size of a birthday cake. It was
not for a special occasion or display,
but for anyone to buy. Trading standards
officers do not have the power,
effectiveness or will that they used to
have. A parallel can be drawn with the
sale of alcohol: a survey of who could
buy alcohol in my area was conducted in
recent weeks. The police sent a nice
letter to all off-licences asking them to
stop selling alcohol to young people. The
police said that it should be done the
easy way, and that there was no need to
be heavy--the young purchasers should be
identified and the sales stopped. But the
campaign did not seem to be effective.
The police sent 14-year-old boys into off-licences:
20 out of 31 served those boys with
alcohol--in two cases, they were served
by a 13-year-old and a 12-year-old. As I
went round my area before 5 November, I
found that precisely the same happens
with fireworks: very young children get
hold of them and the deregulatory climate
seems to be responsible.
The situation is bad enough, with
deregulation and the people who have been
injured or killed as a result. But,
worse, two years ago there was a death in
the constituency of my hon. Friend the
Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)--he
will speak in more detail about that. The
coroner spoke directly to the Minister
involved and said that such evil
fireworks should not be brought in. For
two years, the Government have done
nothing about those fireworks, which have
come into this country and killed people.
I have spoken strongly about the subject.
I do not want to be a killjoy; I want our
lovely festival to continue; I want
proper curbs. I have no special mandate
for bangers, which are misused, and I
have no special case to make for the
extension of the time for using fireworks.
The traditional period in our country is
quite short--about three weeks--and I see
nothing wrong with that period being
strictly enforced in terms of the sale of
fireworks, apart from their use in
displays.
Some of us who were holding meetings in
the House of Commons on 5 November almost
thought that we were under attack. I had
booked a Room overlooking the river, and
there was a fantastic firework display on
the launch just outside the House of
Lords. It was a magnificent, safe and
enjoyable event, which showed how
fireworks can be used.
If the Government continue their
deregulatory, care-for-no-one attitude,
more people will die. If the Minister
does not take action before next year,
other people will die. But by then there
will be a Labour Government who will
ensure that firework displays are safe.
10.14 am
Mr. Bill Michie
(Sheffield, Heeley): I congratulate
my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,
Northfield (Mr. Burden) on giving us the
opportunity to debate this important
issue.
I want to start my speech where my hon.
Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr.
Sheerman) left off. We are not here as
killjoys to try to stop people enjoying
themselves or to try to stop various
organisations and religious bodies
celebrating holy days--that is nonsense.
The Firework Safety Bill and the debate
are about the effect that fireworks can
have on ordinary citizens who have no
argument with people enjoying themselves,
but are merely asking for some
consideration. Animal owners also need
consideration, but I shall come to that
subject later. This is a debate not about
how to stop people enjoying themselves,
but about how we can find a way of
ensuring that people can still celebrate
while protecting those who are greatly
affected by fireworks.
No one doubts the fact that fireworks
give pleasure. I thoroughly enjoy
attending the displays at my local park.
It is worth congratulating local
authorities and other organisations that
put on tremendous displays, in safety,
and that often educate children on the
dangers of fireworks, how to place them
safely and how to stand away. People
should be congratulated on holding
firework displays and educating others.
Safety is a priority, particularly for
organised bonfires. As my hon. Friends
have already said, how can it be safe for
someone to let off a £20 or £60 shell
in their back garden if he is meant to
stand 25 yd away from the firework? Many
back gardens are not 25 yd long, so
people would have to stay in the house--the
firework would no doubt blow all the
windows out. One firework, which must
have misfired, came over my fence and
exploded above the lawn. I was amazed
that none of my windows were blown in.
All the fire alarms, burglar alarms and
car alarms went crazy. Who knows what
would have happened if anyone had been
within a couple of yards of that firework--admittedly,
it misfired. Some fireworks have a shell
casing, which is almost like shrapnel
when they explode. We need to regulate
such fireworks, some of which are
powerful.
Most people enjoy the visual aspect of
firework displays, which are fine if they
are beautiful spectacles with a few
crackles, but I see nothing visually
beautiful about one big thud that
frightens half the population to death
and is then over. There is a difference
between the two types of firework
displays. I have doubts about how we can
regulate the use of most fireworks. By
banning bangers, we have gone a long way
to answer most of the complaints raised
in our surgeries.
I received a typical letter from an old
lady in my constituency. She wrote:
"Dear Mr.
Michie,
I sit in my home this evening, and feel
as if I have been living in a war torn
area for well over a month now".
She goes on to
describe the loud explosions and the
difficulties that she faces. She mentions
the advice given by Rolf Harris on his
programme when he told people to ensure
that they kept their animals in on
bonfire night as it was likely to be
distressing for them. Keeping a dog or a
cat inside for one or two nights is one
thing, but how can someone keep a pet in
for about two months, which seems to be
the period in Sheffield? At the end of
her letter, the old lady makes a plea.
She asks:
"Yes, people
have rights and some things are difficult
to enforce, but could you please help us,
speak up for us, the fed up majority, and
quieten the minority that disturb the
peace over a sickeningly long period of
time?"
The letter
finishes, "Help". I know that,
like that old lady, some live in blocks
with other old people, and I have talked
to them. They are terrified at the sheer
noise, which affects them psychologically.
I do not know whether we can restrict the
time for selling. As my constituent said,
that may be difficult because we have to
consider religious groups that celebrate
at different times of the year. It may be
difficult to restrict the time during
which fireworks can be used--it might be
a good idea if they are not used after
midnight--but it would not be too
difficult to control the sale of
fireworks. That would not stop people
hoarding them and setting them off at the
wrong time, but it would stop what is
happening in a shop not far from where I
live. It is open many hours a day,
including Sundays, and sells nothing but
fireworks for months on end. It
encourages people to make impulse buys.
If a child walks past the shop and
realises that he has enough spending
money to buy some fireworks, he will go
in and purchase them. Restricting the
times and dates on which fireworks can be
sold may help to ease the problem.
As I said earlier, taking bangers out of
the equation is certainly the most
effective way of helping the majority of
people. Old people and animals live in
fear. Unfortunately, I no longer have a
dog--mine died of old age many years ago.
It was a sheep dog of a nervous
disposition, to say the least, and for
bonfire night and perhaps the night
after, I used to get a tranquilliser for
him from the vet. It did not actually
knock him out but, for some unknown
reason, he used to walk about as though
he had gone deaf, so it obviously worked.
The problem is, however, that it is not
possible to keep giving animals
tranquillisers for two months or more,
just because some great firework might go
off. There are therefore limits to what
animal lovers can do to protect their
animals, just as there are limits to what
old people can do to protect their nerves.
The onus remains on the House to find
some way of restricting bangers or,
hopefully, banning them altogether. We
must take action on behalf of those who
do not want to kill the joys and
pleasures of others, but who want only a
little peace and quiet. That way all of
us, not just a minority, can have a happy
life.
10.20 am
Mr. David
Hinchliffe (Wakefield): I am grateful
for the opportunity to raise my concerns
relating to the circumstances surrounding
the death in November 1994 of my
constituent, Mr. Roger Robinson. His case
has already been mentioned by my hon.
Friends the Members for Birmingham,
Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for
Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).
In November 1994, Mr. Robinson organised
a display for elderly people at a care
home in my constituency. He was
killed as the result of the explosion of
an aerial shell, which was exactly of the
sort described by my hon. Friend the
Member for Northfield. The inquest report
indicates that
"The firework
involved was 4 inch in diameter and is
launched out of a mortar tube."
The evidence given
at the inquest stated that
"the shell
had a weight of almost 15 ounces, was
intended to reach a height of 800 feet
before ejecting its pyrotechnic effects,
and would have been travelling at a speed
of 225 mph when it came out of the top of
the tube"--
and hit my
constituent in the face.
The Minister is aware that I have been in
correspondence with him, his Department
and his predecessor about the
circumstances of Mr. Robinson's death. I
was especially concerned to learn from
the Minister's predecessor--the hon.
Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)--who
wrote to me on 11 August 1995, that
import controls on fireworks exercised by
the Health and Safety Executive had been
abolished from 1 December 1993.
The Minister is well aware of the
implications of that Government decision,
which was presumably taken as part of the
deregulation exercise mentioned by my hon.
Friend the Member for Huddersfield. The
Minister will also be aware that there
have been extensive representations from
trading standards officers in various
parts of the country, not least in West
Yorkshire. Here, I commend the West
Yorkshire trading standards officers; we
are fortunate in our area to have some of
the most effective and articulate
officers in the country. They wrote to
the Government stating that those aerial
shells were unsuitable for the public and
should be banned from public sale.
The Minister will be aware that the
inquest into the death of Mr. Robinson
was resumed on 30 November 1995. The
coroner for my area is my namesake, Mr.
David Hinchliff. At the end of the
inquest, he made a specific statement,
which I shall quote briefly. He stated to
the court that
"pursuant to
Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules,"
he intended
"to draw the
attention of this fatality to the
appropriate authorities, which in this
case will be the Department of Trade and
Industry."
Mr. Hinchliff
added that he was acting
"in the hope
that a fatality or fatalities of this
nature can in the future be avoided, that
is the very least that I feel that I can
do in this situation".
I have a copy of
the detailed letter that he subsequently
sent to the Minister on 3 January 1996.
The letter makes his feelings clear. It
states:
"My
recommendation must therefore be that
Aerial Shells of all sizes should not be
available to the general public, and that
they should be sold only to people who
have undergone appropriate theoretical
and practical training."
I have a copy of
the Minister's acknowledgement of that
letter.
I know the Minister reasonably well and
have always found him to be a decent and
honourable man who is competent in his
work. He always receives me well when we
meet. However, I have to ask what has
been going on--Mr. Robinson's death
occurred in 1994 and the circumstances
have been reported to his Department on
more than one occasion. Needless deaths
have occurred that might have been
avoided. I do not want to make a
political point--the issue is too serious
for that--but deregulation appears to
have overtaken common sense and the sad
consequences are there for all to see.
I want to repeat the point made by other
hon. Members, particularly by my hon.
Friend the Member for Huddersfield. I
know of Standard Fireworks and I and my
family have used its products over many
years. It is a company of repute and I
want to endorse the comments made by hon.
Members to the effect that the industry
wants not deregulation, but more
regulation. Yesterday, I met Mr. John
Woodhead of Standard Fireworks, who spoke
in detail of his concerns about the
implications for the industry of the sort
of incident that I have described.
Clearly, such incidents are not in the
industry's interests and Mr. Woodhead
wants more regulation, especially import
controls--precisely the opposite of the
Government's action in 1993. He wants
there to be training along the lines
described by several hon. Members this
morning. Judging by our conversation, I
am fairly certain that Mr. Woodhead would
have no objection to bangers being banned
altogether.
I have received representations from
constituents similar to those mentioned
by my hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and the
hon. Member for Littleborough and
Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). People have had
their lives made a misery in the period
around bonfire night and they ask me why
we have to have bangers. Would not having
bangers really cause great difficulties?
Would it really impact on the joy of
bonfire night?
I am not a killjoy--in my childhood,
bonfire night was one of the highlights
of the year. In my area, we started
preparing in August--chumping, we called
it, which meant getting the wood in for
the bonfire. It was a great event and I
want that to continue. I do not see why
we need to suffer the nuisance arising
from bangers. I vividly remember the
consequences for the guide dog belonging
to my hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). As
the direct result of being frightened by
a firework, the dog was run over and had
to stop working for my hon. Friend, who
had to get another guide dog.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer
Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): Comparing
notes with the hon. Gentleman on our
respective childhoods, I always found the
bonfire more fun than the fireworks. I
should like to thank him for his kind
personal remarks about me and engage him
not on the subject of guide dogs but on
an earlier point. He referred twice to
the fact that the import licensing regime
was overturned in 1993. For the record, I
want to make it clear that that regime
was, in fact, replaced in 1993. The
Health and Safety Executive will say that
the single authorisation scheme that was
put in place of the import licensing
regime in no way weakens safety controls.
One regime was replaced by another, not
simply removed.
Mr. Hinchliffe: All I would say to
the Minister is that I examined the issue
in some detail and discussed it with
representatives of the industry, whose
impression is that the import controls
weakened the safety aspect in this
country.
Mr. Burden: The Minister is wrong--import
licences were removed. The Health and
Safety Executive provides authorisation
and classification on applications to
bring fireworks into the country. There
is no regular check at the port of entry
and no way of telling whether the
fireworks entering the country are the
same as those for which authorisation was
requested. There was no replacement--import
controls have gone and they need to be
brought back.
Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend makes
an important point. That reflects my
understanding of the industry's
impression of the current position.
I conclude by congratulating my hon.
Friend on initiating the debate. Without
making party points, I hope that we can
learn from the deaths that have occurred
and that action will be taken. The action
that we should take is clearly set out in
the coroner's letter in respect of my
constituent's unfortunate death.
10.29 am
Mr. John
Heppell (Nottingham, East): I shall
speak briefly because I missed the start
of the debate. I apologise for that; I
had to attend a meeting.
Today's debate is predominantly about
import controls and about category 3 and
category 4 fireworks, but I am worried
about very small fireworks--those in
category 2, possibly even category 1. I
have been involved in previous firework
campaigns, but I became involved in this
year's campaign after being visited by a
woman whose dog had been killed in a
firework-related incident. I promised
that I would support her in getting a
petition together. Within days, a young
man had died in my constituency because
of a firework--apparently, not a big
firework.
I urge the Minister to extend the scope
of his review to smaller fireworks.
Import controls would not have helped to
save Dale Mitchell's life. I want
something that would have done so--an
increase in the age at which people can
buy fireworks to 18. I want a licensing
system. I want proper training in all
categories of fireworks.
I shall present that petition to the
Minister, probably at the end of this
month--I hope before he announces the
results of his review. He expressed his
sympathy following Dale's death. I thank
him for that, and hope that he will
consider the petitioners' views.
10.31 am
Mr. Nigel
Griffiths (Edinburgh, South): This
has been a debate of high calibre,
probably because the only contributors
have been Opposition Members of
Parliament. The debate is the culmination
of a campaign by Labour in Parliament,
which has sought for five years to
restore controls on dangerous fireworks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,
Northfield (Mr. Burden) has been at the
forefront of that campaign, but others
have supported him for many years--my hon.
Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr.
Sheerman), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)
and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). I
welcome the comments of the hon. Member
for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr.
Davies).
It is important to examine the
Government's record in action. Indeed, if
it had only been in action, we might not
be talking about the deaths today. From
the questions that I tabled in 1989 to
the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr.
Forth) to my private Member's Bill to
restrict the sale of dangerous fireworks
in 1994, and in Labour's calls in
November 1995 and June 1996 for the
banning of aerial shell fireworks, we
have been outspoken in the cause of
firework safety. In contrast, today, not
one Conservative Back Bencher has been
present to listen to us or the Minister,
let alone to speak.
It was a Labour Government who, in 1975,
secured strict controls on the type and
power of fireworks, limited who had
access to them and imposed a code of
practice to regulate firework safety.
Labour slashed the power of bangers and
ensured that unpredictable jumping
fireworks were abolished; both had high
accident rates. As a result, for more
than a decade, injuries plummeted to an
historic low. For years, far fewer people
suffered firework injuries and no one
lost their life.
All that was changed when the new Tory
right took over and decided to deregulate
fireworks legislation. It destroyed the
essential protection enjoyed by the
public. The Tory ideologues covered three
areas of public safety--the Department of
Trade and Industry, the Department of
Health, and health and safety. They are
guilty of scrapping legislation that was
the culmination of 100 years of firework
safety controls.
In 1988, the Tory ideologues weakened the
system of importation controls. Until
that time, from 1875, the importation of
fireworks was controlled by the
Explosives Act 1875 Order in Council 10A.
In 1988, Conservative Ministers repealed
the tough mandatory checks on each type
of imported firework by the Health and
Safety Executive and replaced them with
another system--self verification.
Fortunately, importers still had to
comply with strict safety rules.
In 1991, firework injuries had been cut
to 723--too many, but far fewer than in
countries with lax controls. The
reduction in injuries did not last long.
When at the DTI, the right hon. Member
for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), the hon.
Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for
Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)
and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr.
Redwood) all ignored warnings from the
industry and from safety experts.
In 1992, the chief inspector of
explosives, Mr. G. Williamson, wrote to
inform the DTI that some suppliers were
selling category 4 fireworks to the
general public. In a prophetic sentence,
he warned:
"The chance
of a major incident clearly increases"--
but the then
Minister, the right hon. Member for
Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), did nothing.
In 1991, the United Kingdom firework
industry lobbied the DTI for mandatory
legal sanctions on the sale of dangerous
fireworks. On 21 August 1990, in a letter
to the DTI, our leading company, Standard
Brock, said:
"There is
such a huge performance gap in the
present Category 3 range as to confuse
the public entirely and to put proper
safety in jeopardy . . . I would move"
aerial shells
"into
Category 4".
Still nothing was
done.
The Minister will doubtless tell us that
he has a consultation exercise in hand.
Sadly, it will be the third consultation
exercise that the Government have
launched in the 1990s, as they have
sought to push responsibility for
firework safety on to Europe, the
enforcement agencies, the fire service,
the police and the trading standards
service--everyone but themselves. The
Government conducted a consultation
exercise in June 1993, and another in
December 1994. They received a robust
response from the Association of Chief
Police Officers which, on 27 January 1995,
wrote to the DTI, saying:
"Under the
Fireworks (Safety) Regulations it is
necessary to prove only the offer to
supply or the agreement to supply
fireworks whereas the Explosive Act 1875
requires proof of the sale which can on
occasion be more difficult to prove.
Both"
police
"forces feel
that it is inappropriate to repeal this
legislation and would seek to retain it".
In spite of that
advice--that the Fireworks (Safety)
Regulations were performing a valuable
service protecting the public--Ministers
went ahead and abolished them. The
assurances that the Minister gave us
earlier--that that made no difference and
that safety was still in hand--are
patently untrue.
In our previous debate on fireworks, also
secured by my hon. Friend the Member for
Northfield, the Minister for Competition
and Consumer Affairs at the time, the hon.
Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans),
when questioned about the impact of
imported fireworks, said:
"We have
looked at whether imported fireworks have
any role to play in terms of the increase
in figures. We have no evidence of that
at all."--[Official Report, 1
November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 272.]
Is it not tragic
that the evidence was to come exactly a
year later because that Minister failed
to take action?
In the mean time, on 3 January 1996, as
my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield
said, the coroner who looked into the
death of his constituent Roger Robinson
sent a damning letter to the Minister,
communicating his findings. He said:
"From the
evidence recorded at this Inquest it
became apparent that legislative controls
are required for the sale of Aerial
Shells . . . The likelihood of an
accident involving a shell resulting in
fatal injuries is unusually high."
The Minister
present in the Chamber today, who
acknowledged the letter, did absolutely
nothing about it. When pressed by my hon.
Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church)
on 17 July this year on the Floor of the
House of Commons to impose a ban on
aerial shell sales to the public, he
again declined to take any action. It was
of course only a few months later that
two people were killed by that very type
of shell.
The warnings to the Government have been
legion. In 1994, the chairman of the
National Fire Safety Technical Committee
stated:
"It would
seem that if the current proposals go
ahead, consumer safeguards will be
lowered in an area where dangers are very
well known and understood".
I asked for a
meeting on 3 November 1994 with the then
President of the Board of Trade, now the
Deputy Prime Minister, to discuss the
import and sale of category 4 fireworks
following the removal of licences. The
relevant Minister replied:
"We have been
assured by the Health and Safety
Executive that this should not have any
real effect on the safety of imported
fireworks . . . I do not think that there
would be much to be gained from a meeting."
The Association of
Metropolitan Authorities begged Ministers
for a meeting with its officials in
October 1995. It took six months for DTI
officials to meet representatives of the
association and key enforcement officers.
The sad fact is that neither we nor the
general public have any grounds for
believing a word that Ministers say on
this subject. We know that they are lying
through their teeth on tax; they are also
lying through their teeth on the control
of fireworks--the deaths and horrific
injuries clearly show that.
The abolition of import controls has been
a deregulation disaster. My colleagues
have clearly spelled out what now needs
to be done. First, we must ensure that
those who sell fireworks over the counter
are held responsible for their actions--if
over-the-counter sales are to continue.
There must be some doubt about that. If
the injuries continue at the current
horrific rate and the public have to put
up with the tremendous strain of bangers
and other fireworks being let off in
unrecorded public incidents, the future
of such sales must be in doubt.
Furthermore, we must ensure that those
responsible for firework displays are
properly trained and licensed, and that
dangerous fireworks such as aerial shells
are not available to members of the
public but are restricted solely to those
who run professional firework displays.
On 16 October last year, the DTI issued a
press notice to the public. It read:
"Jonathan
Evans warns: the best don't mess with
fireworks".
The truth is that
the best do not mess with firework
regulations, which is precisely what the
Government have done. The best do not sit
on the Government Benches. The
Opposition, on the other hand, intend to
ensure that the British public get the
best, safest firework legislation
available anywhere.
10.43 am
The Minister
for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr.
John M. Taylor): I congratulate the
hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr.
Burden) on securing this debate on an
important subject. We are all aware that
today's debate takes place in the
aftermath of tragic deaths from fireworks
this year. I know that the whole House is
of the same mind in expressing
condolences to the family and friends of
young Dale Mitchell, Mr. David Hattersley
and Mr. Steve Timcke. That serves to
underline the serious issues that the
Government have to consider.
As has been pointed out, there have been
three deaths from aerial shells since
1994. Investigations are still continuing
into the deaths of Mr. David Hattersley
and Mr. Steve Timcke, and details are
still emerging. It appears, however, that
a significant factor in the two deaths
was human error. Hon. Members will also
recall the death in similar circumstances
of Mr. Roger Robinson of Wakefield in
1994. In that case, no fault was found
with the firework which killed him. I
recognise and accept that this raises
serious questions about the availability
to the public of such powerful devices.
Nine-year-old Dale Mitchell died as a
result of a fire started by a firework
being put through the letterbox of the
family home. I understand that the
incident is subject to court proceedings.
I have asked my officials to liaise
closely with the authorities
investigating the very different
circumstances of each case so that we can
learn the lessons from them.
The hon. Member for Northfield will be
well aware that many of the matters he
raised are already being considered as
part of the Department's review of
fireworks, and that I am giving these
issues the serious attention that they
deserve. As far as I am concerned, one
person injured on bonfire night is too
many. The answers that I have already
given the House should leave the hon.
Gentleman in no doubt that we intend to
do what is sensible and appropriate. My
priority is to arrive at a balanced
judgment of what measures would be
appropriate.
I hope that the House will bear with me
when I say that fireworks give rise to a
wide range of worries. I refer to
hooligan behaviour, the purchase and use
of fireworks by children, anti-social use
late at night or over an extended period--all
these have been mentioned. The hon.
Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth
(Mr. Davies) mentioned the link with
alcohol, and I agreed with him about that.
Then there is the question of training
for the organisers of displays;
carelessness on the part of non-professional
users; the availability of certain shells
which may be dangerous in the hands of
the inexperienced; and badly made
fireworks or those containing illegal
mixtures. I should point out that import
controls are relevant only to the last of
those issues. All the evidence shows that
badly made fireworks are a far smaller
issue than most of the others I have
mentioned.
Against this background, it can be seen
that there is no quick fix, but I will
instigate a thoroughgoing root-and-branch
review of the regulations--I give the
House that commitment.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister
appears to be committing himself to a
further review. Why, then, after he
received the letter from David Hinchliff,
the West Yorkshire coroner, dated January
of this year and specifically calling on
the Minister to re-classify all aerial
shells as category 4 so that they cannot
be sold to the general public--because
the deceased in question was an "adult
mature sensible person" who died as
a result of human error--did the Minister
not accept that advice and act on it in
January, before bonfire night, thereby
perhaps avoiding the subsequent two
fatalities?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is
aware of the letter that the coroner
wrote to me and, I think, of my reply.
The coroner's letter was a contributory
factor in launching the review. The basis
and framework of the review were laid
down earlier this year, and it went
public in July.
There are no quick fixes. Simply
shuffling one kind of firework from
category 3 into category 4 will not
overcome all the problems that we face. I
am not in the business of quick fixes; I
want to be thorough. There have been
changes in the market, with which I shall
deal shortly.
At risk of saying it twice or three
times, I do not intend to rush into knee-jerk
measures that might be effective for a
short period and attract congratulatory
headlines, but encourage an uncontrolled
black market in fireworks in the longer
term, as has been the case in some
countries that have strict legal controls.
Mr. Burden: I know that the Minister
is short of time, so I will not detain
him long. No one is asking for a quick
fix, or saying that he should not carry
out a review, but after three deaths in a
three-year period, what more evidence
does he need to ban aerial shells from
public sale for a temporary period under
the powers available to him, while a
thorough review is carried out? Let us
get them off the market and make sure
that people are safe. The Minister can
have his review and, if it is proved that
such fireworks are safe, let him bring
them back, but for goodness sake let us
not have any more deaths in the meantime.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman
returns to the point that he made when he
opened the debate. I will reflect on it,
but I shall not oblige him here and now
in the Chamber. I want to press on, as I
have only nine minutes left to reply on
behalf of the Government to what I
consider to be one of the most important
Adjournment debates for a long time. I
hope that the House will allow me the
opportunity to reply.
Let me assure the House that the
Government take the matter very seriously
indeed, as I have made clear by
undertaking the comprehensive review,
which I will see through. My reasons for
instigating it are well documented--and
shared by a number of hon. Members. The
review was initiated earlier this year,
well before 5 November. The reasons
behind it are manifold: growing concern
about the great variety and power of
fireworks available to the general
public; the increasing number of
fireworks sold and the way in which they
are used; the changed structure of the
market in fireworks; the nuisance that
they can cause to people, especially the
elderly and, as the hon. Member for
Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) rightly
said, to animals; and the elevated level
of injuries over the past two years.
The consultation document issued by my
Department was, I believe, the most
detailed explanation of the controls on
fireworks and the most comprehensive
attempt to seek views on a range of
important firework issues since the
review undertaken in 1975, to which the
hon. Member for Northfield referred. The
1975 review resulted in the endorsement
of a set of voluntary controls instituted
by the firework industry. I took the
view, shared by others, including many in
the firework industry, that the time was
past when those measures could be
considered sufficient to offer adequate
safeguards to the public.
A number of issues were raised today.
Much has been made of the removal of
import controls. I shall deal with that
once and for all, before turning to other
matters. The change to the authorisation
system was not rampant deregulation, as
the Opposition claim, but a sensible bid
to establish a more thorough and
equitable system that applied to both
domestic and imported explosives.
In 1993, the combined effect of changes
to border controls arising from the
completion of the single European market,
and the need to implement the explosives
for civil uses directive, necessitated
some change in the existing system. That
directive did not apply to fireworks.
However, the Health and Safety Commission
took the view that a uniform system
covering all explosives, including
fireworks, from all origins, both member
states and third countries, would have
safety benefits. The implementing
regulations were therefore used as a
legislative vehicle to strengthen and
clarify existing authorisation procedures
and remove import controls.
The current authorisation regime has
certain advantages over import licensing
controls. At the time of its removal in
1993, import licensing did not require
checks on every consignment brought into
the country or routine testing, as hon.
Members seem to believe. From 1987,
licences were issued for up to five years
and spot checks were made, as they are
now, under the authorisation system. An
import licence was issued for any
firework that fell into the appropriate
United Nations classification, which was
very broad. The new system uses specific
names which provide more precise
information to enforcement bodies.
The import licensing scheme required only
that a firework complied with British
standard BS 7114 before final
distribution. Accordingly, fireworks
could be imported in a state that did not
comply. There was no distinction between
fireworks intended for the public and
those for professional use. The import
licensing scheme did not specifically
prohibit dangerous admixture, which
authorisation does.
A major advantage of the authorisation
system is that compliance can be checked
at any time, rather than solely at the
time of entry.
Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister saying
that the Government did not deregulate,
and that if anyone is responsible, it is
not the Government but the Health and
Safety Executive? Is he saying that the
flood of cheap and dangerous fireworks
from China that are sold with no
instructions in English are nothing to do
with the Minister? If so, ministerial
responsibility is dead and I, for one,
mourn its passing.
Mr. Taylor: That is a rather
intemperate way of putting a question
that is well worth answering. The issue
of imported explosives is not, so to
speak, black and white. The Chinese--I
say this with the greatest caution--probably
have more experience with fireworks than
any other culture on the planet. The
other factor that does not lend itself to
a black and white interpretation is the
fact that some of the biggest importers
of firework material from China are
domestic manufacturers. The issue is
therefore more complicated than the hon.
Gentleman's question suggests.
There are two other aspects to be taken
into account in considering what the hon.
Gentleman might choose to call
deregulation. The import licensing regime
was replaced in 1993, but the Health and
Safety Executive--I associate myself with
this--says that the single authorisation
scheme, which is much more flexible, and
which replaced it, in no way weakens
safety controls.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It has.
Mr. Taylor: We differ about that.
Mr. Griffiths: Look at the figures.
Mr. Taylor: With two minutes to go, I
am not sure how useful it is for the hon.
Gentleman to intervene on me from a
sedentary position. I have not yet
finished dealing with the question about
deregulation, as the Opposition choose to
call it. I mentioned import licensing and
its replacement. The second aspect is the
revocation of the 1986 firework safety
regulations, which took place in 1995 and
has not weakened the hand of trading
standards officers. Local authorities can
authorise trading standards officers by
simple resolution, and mark their warrant
accordingly in these particular areas of
activity. In those circumstances, trading
standards officers can prosecute
retailers.
The present authorisation system applies
to imported and home manufactured
fireworks alike. Suppliers will be in
breach of the law unless each and every
item that they supply fully meets the
published criteria set by the Health and
Safety Executive's explosives
inspectorate.
I am beaten by the clock, but I would
like to offer to all hon. Members present
a letter that will cover any unanswered
questions.
Go to Parliament
Page
Go to Menu Page
|
|