|
National Campaign
for Firework Safety
in
Parliament
Part 1, 9.39 am
to 12 noon
3 July 1998
Orders of the
Day
Fireworks
Bill
Lords
amendments considered.
Clause 10
Training courses
Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 6,
line 6, after ("State",) insert--
("() authorise the making by the
Secretary of State of provision about the
charging of fees for the grant or
variation of licences,")
n made, and
Question proposed, That this House
doth agree with the Lords in the said
amendment.--[Mrs. Gilroy.]
Madam Speaker: With this, it will
be convenient to discuss Lords amendments
Nos. 2 to 4.
9.39 am
Mr. Edward
Leigh (Gainsborough): I hope that I
may be allowed to make a few comments--after
all, there has been little debate. The
Bill received its Second Reading without
debate, and it spent only one hour in
Committee. When the Bill reached the
House of Lords, considerable concern was
expressed about its wide-ranging
regulatory powers and Henry VIII clauses.
One only has to make a cursory reading of
the Bill to see that the Secretary of
State may, by regulation, do whatever he
pleases to regulate the fireworks
industry. That is a worrying development.
The Bill should not be a private Member's
Bill--it should be a Government Bill. The
amendments go to the heart of the Bill,
as they deal with the Secretary of State
being given more powers to regulate
closely the amount of fees to be set for
training purposes. I take a great
interest in fireworks, because, for a
time, I was the Minister responsible for
the fireworks industry. I believe that my
right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley
and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)--who is
sitting in front of me--is also a former
Consumer Affairs Minister, and I think
that he too was responsible for the
fireworks industry.
When I had that responsibility, there was
continual pressure for more regulation. I
am now getting very concerned about the
matter. It can be said, on any matter,
that the industry should not be allowed
to set its own fees for training purposes.
One could argue that about any industry.
One could argue that, as we are talking
about the fireworks industry and are
dealing with potentially dangerous
substances, the Secretary of State should
be given wide-ranging powers.
My hon. Friends should look at the
amendment closely. It will be said that
the private sector is allowed to set the
fees, it could start charging exorbitant
fees for training, or it could provide
slipshod training, and therefore the
Secretary of State must be involved. That
argument could be used about any training
course in any industry. I am not sure
that that, of itself, is a strong
argument. I hope that the hon. Member for
Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), or the
Minister when he replies to this debate,
will deal with that point.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale):
My hon. Friend is making an important
point about training.
Will he reconcile the Government's
attitude to this matter with their
publicly stated commitment to the
principle of training and enterprise
councils, which holds that employers
should regulate training since they best
understand the industrial needs in their
sector of the economy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. The hon. Gentleman's
intervention is wide of the Lords
amendment.
Mr. Leigh: I will not respond to that
point, except to say that what is
pertinent to the Lords amendments is
whether the industry itself--which is
best equipped to know the circumstances
in which it operates--should set the
level of fees for training or whether it
should be the Secretary of State. It
should worry my hon. Friends that this is
another instance in which the Secretary
of State will set the level of fees.
It could equally be said that, if the
matter were left to the industry, it
could subsidise training to all and
sundry. It could expand the market for
the most extravagant products and could
thereby distort the market. That argument
will be used by those in favour of the
amendments. I do not believe that the
amendments are necessary. They make a bad
and dangerous Bill even worse, and even
more regulatory. It grieves me, having
spent so many years being concerned with
the DTI and deregulation, to see another
instance of even more regulation being
provided.
The prejudices that people use against
the private sector setting fees are
unsustainable. There is possibly a danger
of abuse if the Secretary of State is
given wide-ranging powers. If the
Secretary of State is too involved in the
process, private enterprise may be
gradually prevented from setting its own
high-quality training courses and its own
fees.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Given my hon. Friend's experience in the
DTI and of this sector, has he begun to
consider the manpower and bureaucracy
that is likely to be involved not only in
the licensing process--the Bill refers to
"licensed persons"--but in the
Secretary of State getting involved in
"the charging
of fees for the grant or variation of
licenses"?
Does that not give
my hon. Friend pause for thought, given
his experience?
Mr. Leigh: I agree with my right hon.
Friend, and he and I have practical
experience. It is some years since my
right hon. Friend and I dealt with
matters in the DTI. I pay tribute to the
expertise of the officials who work in
the Department. I recognise that they are
not unduly bureaucratic, and that they
have the public interest at heart. I make
no criticism of them at all. However, I
wonder whether they have the necessary
expertise to understand what is going on
in all aspects of a complex industry.
For the life of me, I cannot understand
why the Government have accepted the
amendments. I do not know where they came
from--presumably the Minister can
elucidate. I cannot understand why the
Government appear to have so little
confidence in the ability of the industry
to regulate itself.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent):
Further to the intervention by my right
hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), do we have any
indication of how much the new structure
will cost? It is not a cost-free exercise
to give the Secretary of State those
powers. There is no doubt that the money
spent on that form of bureaucracy could
be spent, for example, on assisting the
national health service to give due
regard to cancer screening--a matter
which is currently exercising the NHS.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must
not go wide of the amendments.
Mr. Leigh: I am not sure whether my
hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and
Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has followed the
debate on fireworks, but there has been a
sustained attack on the fireworks
industry for many years. It is all about
taking away people's traditional
enjoyment of their own private fireworks
parties.
The Bill is part of a wider agenda, which
my right hon. Friend the Member for
Bromley and Chislehurst and I fought
vigorously. That agenda is the imposition
of more and more regulation and cost on
the fireworks industry to make it more
difficult for ordinary people to buy
fireworks and enjoy them in their back
gardens--something which, I am sure, my
hon. Friends and I enjoyed when we were
young. The Bill is part of a wider agenda
to ensure that we have only a small
number of highly regulated displays, run
by professionals who have been forced to
undergo expensive training courses, with
fees, presumably, set by the Secretary of
State. That is part of the wider agenda.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton):
Will the hon. Gentleman say what
discussions he has had with the industry,
particularly on its concerns about fees?
Mr. Leigh: I have not had any recent
discussions with the industry on the
matter, but I have been provided with a
briefing note about its concerns. It is
perfectly justifiable for Members of
Parliament to speak from briefing notes.
People in the industry are concerned, and
I am dealing with their worries.
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham,
Northfield): The industry supports
the Bill--it is not asking to set the
fees--so who has provided him with the
briefing note?
Mr. Leigh: What I will say--
Hon. Members: Tell the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon.
Gentleman is responsible for his own
speech; who provides information is not a
matter for the House.
Mr. Leigh: As someone who has taken
an interest in the fireworks industry
over the years, I am perfectly entitled
to speak to these matters. If hon.
Members do not find my comments
interesting, they might listen to Mr.
Mason, a director of consumer safety and
standards, who told the Select Committee
on Delegated Powers and Deregulation:
"I think that
I would prefer to see the private sector
solution if we can generate enough
interest . . . If there were a fee
payable, I think the same comments that I
have made about publicly set fees would
apply. We would expect them to cover
costs in line with
Treasury guidance, but no more.
Underneath that, there are the course
fees that these licensed persons charge
the general public to attend the courses.
Our normal expectation there I think is
that we rely on competition to drive down
course fees to the appropriate level. We
are talking really of either commercial
or voluntary organisations operating in a
competitive market. That is not to say,
however, that we might not find ourselves
in a position where there were very few
organisations offering training and that
there was concern about an exploitation
of what is after all a form of statutory
monopoly. We are assuming that certain
people can only have access to fireworks
after they have gone through this
procedure. We would certainly want the
ability, under those circumstances, to
fix a maximum level of fee, though again
it would probably be a maximum rather
than an absolute level because, even
under those circumstances, you would hope
that competition could drive down the
prices further."
Mr. Mason made a
serious case--that the private sector
should be able to set the fees--although
I wonder whether he was right to say that
it was desirable to set a maximum fee.
The problem with maximum fees is that
they quickly become the going rate. If
the usual forces of competition apply,
there is no reason why a sensible fee
should not be set. I am not sure why it
is necessary for the Secretary of State
to set a fee, let alone a maximum fee.
Mrs. Gilroy: The significance of the
training scheme is that it would confer a
statutory right to buy specific dangerous
fireworks. Surely it must be right to
limit the charges on what is, in effect,
a right to buy particular fireworks.
Mr. Leigh: One could use that
argument about any regulated industry and
say that the Secretary of State should
always be able to intervene. I am not
sure why it should be assumed that, if
the private sector set fees, it would
drift into collusion. People in the
industry are responsible; they are
perfectly capable of setting fees to
cover their costs and to allow others to
enter the market. I hope that the
Minister will explain why he thinks that
he should become involved.
Bodies hoping to offer fireworks training
will presumably be able to negotiate with
the Government about obtaining
permission, and come to some formal or
informal understanding about the nature
of the training, the length of the
courses and the appropriate fees.
Presumably the Secretary of State has
other powers closely to regulate those
matters and to ensure that people in the
industry are not abusing their position
of trust. I do not understand why it is
thought that the Secretary of State does
not already have sufficient powers to
ensure proper compliance.
There is concern that the Secretary of
State will set too high a fee. I am sure
that she would not set out to do so, and
that she would want to act entirely
fairly. I do not suppose that she will be
driven by revenue considerations, as the
amount of money that the Treasury
received from the fees would be small. I
am more worried that safety campaigners
will press for higher fees to limit the
number of training courses and make it
more difficult for people to provide them.
That has happened in other sectors. For
example, people who are concerned about
firearms use regulations to press the
Secretary of State to erect ever higher
barriers--a sin tax, so to speak--to
prevent people from entering the market.
I believe that the Secretary of State
will be under continual political
pressure from the well-organised group
that is suspicious of fireworks to
increase the fees prohibitively.
Some may think that that would result in
greater safety, but it could result in
less safety. If fees are too high,
fireworks organisers may be encouraged to
cut corners and train fewer people. There
are worrying precedents, especially in
relation to firearms, of what happens
when the Secretary of State becomes
involved.
Anyone who has taken an interest in
consumer affairs over the years will know
of the increasing involvement of trading
standards officers and the growth of
regulation and Government interference.
If the Secretary of State is too closely
involved, local authority trading
standards officers will also be involved.
That would create a vicious circle of a
drive for high fees and a reduction in
the number of courses.
Mr. Forth: As we have not been given
the pleasure and privilege of an
explanation of the amendment, we must
interpret it ourselves. Does my hon.
Friend agree that the amendment suggests
two sets of fees, one for those who train
and the other for those who are trained?
The regime will have a multiplicity of
licences and fees, so the dangers that he
highlights will be manifold.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Be brief.
Mr. Leigh: Neither the Bill nor the
amendment tell us exactly how the
training courses will be organised, who
will take part or what the fees on
industry will be. All we have is broad
regulation-making powers being conferred
on the Secretary of State, as is the case
throughout the Bill. We are discussing a
serious matter, as presumably the
amendment would seriously curtail who the
industry can train, how much it can
charge and where training courses will be
held. The Minister may wish to reassure
us on that point, and to claim that that
will not happen, but the history of
fireworks legislation and of the House's
interest in it demonstrates that that
fear needs to be raised here, and that he
needs to deal with it.
The Minister for Competition and
Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): We
will come to the history of fireworks--it
is the hon. Gentleman's history, too.
Mr. Leigh: The Minister says that it
is my history, but I hope that my right
hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I have
nothing to fear or hide about what we did
on those matters. Throughout the period
of Conservative government, we achieved
for the industry a gradual improvement in
public safety and awareness about
fireworks. Certainly my right hon. Friend
and I were responsible for expensive
advertising campaigns.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon.
Gentleman must not go into a wide general
debate. He must speak to the amendments.
Mr. Leigh: I apologise, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. I was led astray by the
Minister, who was making a political
point and diverting me from my interest
in the narrow amendments.
The public sector might provide unfair
competition for private sector training
providers. I do not know whether the
Minister will deny that that will happen.
Presumably a local authority could offer
a course in a given area, and so would
become a training provider, in
competition with the private sector. I do
not know whether, under the amendment,
the Secretary of State will be able to
prevent unfair competition.
For the life of me I cannot understand--perhaps
I have overlooked some matters--why it is
necessary for the Secretary of State to
become so closely involved. Is it because
she does not trust the firework industry,
or because there is a history of people
acting in collusion? I do not know. I
should have thought that the firework
manufacturers would be the training
providers. I cannot imagine anyone from
outside the industry providing training.
Mr. Rowe: There seems to be a real
possibility that the training may become
a candidate for a national vocational
qualification course. As the provision of
NVQ courses is often the responsibility
of training and enterprise councils, my
hon. Friend's hope that training will
remain primarily in the hands of the
industry seems rather far of the mark.
Mr. Leigh: That may well be the case.
It is difficult to speculate on what will
happen, as there has been no debate on
those matters in this House, and only
sparse debate in the other place, which
is why the debates this morning are
important.
The counter-argument to mine is that, as
only the manufacturer will provide the
training because he will have the ranges
and storage facilities in place, he could
use his market power to dominate
training, and presumably could thereby
drive other people from the market; or
manufacturers could use training as a
loss leader. The argument might go--perhaps
we will hear more about that--that they
will use their profits from other sectors
of the industry to subsidise their
training courses. If that were true, and
it resulted in training costs being
forced down, I am not sure that we should
necessarily worry too much about it.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey): My hon.
Friend has just said that, if training
were provided by manufacturers, the cost
could be covered by other sectors of
their business. Many fireworks companies
are also involved in defence contracts,
which generate considerable revenue from
the sale of pyrotechnics to the armed
forces. All the evidence is that the
strategic defence review, which we might
see next week, will fall heavily on the
procurement sector, so the defence-related
part of the firework industry's business
may become much smaller, and the revenue
will not be there. The industry is going
to be in for a tough time in the next few
years and the Bill will do nothing but
impose extra financial burdens on it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Bringing
the defence industry into the matter
would be going far too wide of the
amendments.
Mr. Leigh: Of course I do not want to
get involved in the problems of the
defence industry, Mr. Deputy Speaker--there
are other forums for doing so--but I
think that we can debate what the
amendments will mean to the fireworks
industry and those companies that are
owned by defence companies, and whether
the argument that we are dealing with
powerful companies, which will drive
their competitors out of the market, is
valid. I am not sure that that is
entirely true, for the reasons given by
my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr.
Colvin). I do not think that it will
happen. I do not think that a few
companies will use their market power to
subsidise training courses and drive
competitors out.
One could say that the companies would
use their power only to give training on
their own products, with minimum training
on those of competitors. However, one
could argue that about any industry. I
accept that, with fireworks, we are
dealing with potentially dangerous
products, but if we go down that route,
where will it end? Of what other industry
will it be said that, because we are
dealing with a potentially dangerous
product, the Secretary of State must get
involved, insist on training courses,
regulate them, and set the level of fees?
Mr. Rowe: As my hon. Friend may know,
in the past four years, four people have
been killed by fireworks, but, on
average, five people are killed every
year playing ball games. Are we to have a
set of regulations, at great expense,
dominating--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must
get back to the amendments, which are
about fees and training facilities.
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the Member
for Faversham and Mid-Kent does the House
a service by reminding us that, because
of the gradual increase in safety
awareness, for which the previous
Government were responsible and which
they promoted for many years, there has
been a huge decline in the number of
deaths compared with 20 or 30 years ago,
and that great progress has been made--although,
of course, any such death is very sad.
I do not know why the Government felt it
necessary to use the private Member's
Bill system to introduce the legislation,
and why they are using the Lords
amendments to make it even more draconian.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham
and Mid-Kent mentioned ball games, but
one could talk about car manufacturers or
the motor industry, which is a far more
serious problem--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon.
Gentleman should not move on to car
manufacturers. He must confine himself to
the amendments.
Mr. Leigh: I was merely trying to
point out that the fact that there have
been deaths and that one is dealing with
potentially dangerous products--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the
hon. Gentleman talks about deaths or any
of those other matters, he is going into
the generalities of the Bill. The
amendments are specific, as I have
already said, and mention fees and
training courses. He must confine his
remarks to the amendments.
Mr. Leigh: The fireworks industry is
complex and experienced. Over the years,
it has run training courses to ensure a
gradual increase in competence in the use
of fireworks and in safety awareness. It
is perfectly entitled to set its own fees
and to conduct training courses as it
wishes, or with a light regulatory tough.
The Secretary of State has not made out
the case for setting fees.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
When my hon. Friend was a Minister at the
Department of Trade and Industry, did his
civil servants consider state-run or
privately funded training schemes?
Mr. Leigh: My recollection is that
that was not considered.
Mr. Forth: My recollection is that we
were very reluctant to resort to
elaborate licensing schemes and byzantine
arrangements such as those in the Bill,
because we judged that that would be
disadvantageous in principle, and could
harm the very people we were trying to
protect, and indeed employment prospects
in the industry and beyond. We always had
employment at the forefront of our minds.
Mr. Leigh: We were under widespread
pressure from safety campaigners to try
to limit the ability of people to hold
fireworks parties, but we never
considered imposing such draconian
regulations on the industry, as that was
against our philosophy.
Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has spoken
of training courses being regulated by
central Government or by the industry,
but he has left out the third option,
which is local government. There is a
case for local authorities assuming the
responsibility for running courses and
setting fees. Has he made any assessment
of the costs that might be imposed on
local authorities, which are probably in
the best position, geographically, to do
the work?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be brief.
Mr. Colvin: How would local authority
involvement impinge on the provisions in
the Bill?
Mr. Leigh: I do not believe that
local authorities should become more
involved, because central Government
already imposes many obligations on them,
and because they would operate through
trading standards officers. My right hon.
Friend the Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst and I, in our previous
incarnation, had constant run-ins with
such officers, who have constantly
imposed more and more onerous burdens on
industry. A more local structure is not
necessarily more benign. The correct
route to take is by way of the private
industry, which knows its own business
best.
Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend
agree that the ingenious suggestion of
our hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr.
Colvin) runs into two difficulties: the
diversity of regimes that would emerge,
which would lead to inconsistencies, and
the potential--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I
was a bit too relaxed in allowing the
question of local authorities to come
into the debate. We should not go into
detail on what local authorities can or
cannot do in the matter. We must keep to
the amendments, which concern the powers
of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Leigh: The subject is in the
clause, but of course I accept your
strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I do not know why it is necessary for the
Secretary of State to be involved in
setting fees. The industry is highly
competitive, and there is no reason why
it should not be left to its own devices
to ensure that good training courses are
available throughout the country to teach
people how to use fireworks safely, or
why the people who provide those courses
should not be able to set appropriate
fees.
What can possibly be gained by the
Secretary of State setting fees? If they
are set too high, people may be deterred
from taking part in the courses, and if
they are set too low, the courses may not
be sustainable or properly run. The
Secretary of State runs a Department with
a budget of only about £1 billion.
Mr. Forth: Only?
Mr. Leigh: It is small in comparison
with the budget of, say, the Department
of Social Security. The Secretary of
State does not have the time or the
resources to know what the fees should be.
The Bill is highly regulatory. It should
be a Government Bill, not a private
Member's Bill. The Government have
introduced it to regulate an industry
that has provided innocent enjoyment for
millions of people for many years.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
Is the hon. Gentleman speaking merely for
our edification and enlightenment, or
does he intend to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Leigh: It is difficult for me to
answer that point and remain in order. I
am unhappy about the Bill. I do not
believe that it has been properly debated.
It is highly regulatory, and I would be
happier if it had not been introduced. It
is, however, possible that the Minister
can reassure us, and tell us that it is
necessary and will save lives.
It is difficult to oppose in principle a
Bill that the Minister will tell us will
save lives. Any life lost, and especially
a child's, should worry us. I am
concerned about whether the Bill will in
fact save lives, or whether, by imposing
more and more onerous obligations on the
industry, it will encourage people to cut
corners. It often happens that, if one
takes away people's right to run an
industry in their own way, there comes a
point at which the rules and regulations
become unsustainable, and the industry
tries to get a round them.
We have achieved a huge amount in the
industry by way of consent, moving step
by step every year and encouraging public
awareness, but the Bill represents a step
change. Before we make the amendments, we
should have a proper debate and consider
whether they will save any lives at all.
If they will simply impose more rules and
regulations on a highly regulated
industry, we should reject them.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne): It
may be helpful if I rise early to outline
the Opposition's attitude to the Bill.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for
Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). I can
testify that it is an anxious business to
pilot a private Member's Bill through the
House. I imagine that she feels as
anxious as ever today. It is an
achievement to have got so far, and I
wish her well.
The amendments raise the subject of
charges. Despite sotto voce--perhaps not
so sotto--remarks from the Minister, it
is important that charges and fees should
be carefully examined. I served during
almost all the previous Parliament on the
Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
All too often, once charges have been
imposed, Departments try to put them up,
sometimes exponentially, and the
Committee raised that matter over and
over again with at least some Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was right to
raise that issue, and to point out that
the Bill contains sweeping powers,
sometimes called Henry VIII powers. The
House need not take my word alone on
that; the Bill has incurred the wrath of
the Select Committee on Delegated Powers
and Deregulation in the other place. Lord
Annaly told the other place that the
Committee recommended that
"the fees
charged for granting a licence to both
training providers and those wishing to
attend training courses should either be
approved by the Secretary of State or be
subject to a limit specified in
regulations. These amendments fulfil that
requirement".--[Official Report,
House of Lords, 5 June 1998; Vol. 590,
c. 665-6.]
I hope that the
Minister will listen to another important
point that affects him directly and that
relates both to the amendments and to
later Bills. It was suggested to the
Select Committee that a ministerial
assurance would, in certain
circumstances, do the trick. The
Committee robustly made it clear that it
would not be satisfied by that. Ministers
of all Governments, but particularly of
the current one, should take note.
Our view is that the amendments, which
were debated at some length in the other
place, are sensible. To some extent, they
fulfil requirements set out by the Select
Committee in trying to water down the
sweeping powers that the Bill gives to
Ministers. We support calls in both
Houses for safeguards. We are not against
the Bill in principle and we do not
intend to divide the House on the
amendments. After proper scrutiny--I
emphasise those words--we shall wish the
Bill and the amendments a fair wind.
Mr. Collins: I want to comment on the
relationship between the amendments and
the other provisions of the Bill. The
Bill's explanatory and financial
memorandum states:
"The
financial effects of the Bill will depend
on the content of . . . regulations and
cannot at this stage be predicted. In
particular, the regulations may confer
power on the Secretary of State to
provide training courses. The Secretary
of State will have a duty to consult
before regulations are made".
The amendments,
which will broaden the powers of the
Secretary of State to allow him to
provide for the charging of fees, will,
even more than before, mean that the
House is being asked to pass a Bill
without any real understanding of its
financial effects. That is not a good
basis on which to legislate. The
financial effects of legislation should
be set out in some detail in advance, and
it is a matter of concern that the
amendments will introduce even more
uncertainty about the Bill's financial
implications. That is a bad precedent.
The Minister is waving something at me;
would he care to intervene?
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I know that the
hon. Gentleman is a new Member of
Parliament, so let me draw his
attention to the regulatory appraisal. I
should have thought that he would have
read it if he wanted to make an informed
contribution to debate.
Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the
Minister. He and I sat together in the
Standing Committee on the Competition
Bill. He will recall that the standard
regulatory appraisals brought before
Committees by the Government are
seriously slipshod and have been greatly
condemned by industrial bodies. They are
deeply misleading and, frankly, they
offer no basis for serious consideration.
The amendments broaden uncertainty about
the financial implications of the Bill,
even though, as my hon. Friend the Member
for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has said,
the implications for the economy as a
whole are likely to be relatively small.
Mr Rowe: One of the dangers of Bills
such as this is the precedent created for
others. If the Government wake up to the
fact that 141 people die on average every
year in swimming accidents, they may wish
to bring in exactly the same kind of
regulation for swimming.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon.
Gentleman should know better. I have
already said that it is out of order to
talk about other matters.
Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend the
Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr.
Rowe) is right to say that the issues
raised by the amendments range more
widely. We must be conscious that the
House is an administrative and
deliberative body, and we must be aware
of the potential implications of any
precedents that we may set, even on a
Friday morning.
Mr. Colvin: When the Minister gives
the Government's view on the Bill, he
will be able to tell us which measures
they are likely to introduce. The Bill is
essentially an enabling measure, and we
should have some idea of the financial
implications of fees, training costs and
other matters. I hope that the Minister
will be prepared to give the House some
idea of how he will use the Bill's
enabling powers.
Mr. Collins: I am most grateful to my
hon. Friend. We look forward with great
anticipation to a detailed speech from
the Minister. We hope that he will set
out the principles on which the
Government propose to implement the Bill,
and give some detail of the precise
levels of charges to be implemented for
training courses, if the amendments are
agreed to. We would like some indication
of how the charges will be reviewed
because, given that the Government have
lost control of inflation, the chances
are that the fees may need to increase
rapidly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When
the Minister replies, he will reply to
the amendments.
Mr. Forth: I doubt it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will
make sure that the Minister replies to
the amendments, just as I am making sure
that everyone speaks to the amendments.
Mr. Collins: You are quite right, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the
Minister will bear that injunction in
mind, as will I. My second point is that
the amendments would, like all other
regulation-making powers in the Bill, be
subject to clause 2(1), which states:
"The
Secretary of State may by regulations
make any provision which he considers
appropriate for the purpose of securing
that fireworks are used safely."
In other words,
the power to charge fees for the grant or
variation of licences relating to
training would be subject to the
overriding provision that it should be
subject to his or her judgment about how
fireworks can be used safely.
The fees may not be decided by financial
considerations, such as their
affordability or being charged at a rate
that provides good value for money, but
will be subject to the Secretary of
State's interpretation of what is
necessary to provide safety. If the
Secretary of State can charge fees for
such a wide range of training services,
he could use the power to drive certain
businesses out of the sector if he
believed that it was an important means
of achieving greater safety for the
public, animals or others set out in
clause 2. He could use the fee structure
as a weapon against a company that
Department of Trade and Industry
officials thought was acting unsafely,
but were unable to get under any other
provision. It could be used against a
company that had, in some way, offended
officials. It is a dangerous power to be
in the hands of Government officials or
the Secretary of State.
Mr. Burden: As the hon. Gentleman has
linked the amendment to the general issue
of safety, will he clarify whether he
wants the Bill to pass?
10.30 am
Mr. Collins: I
am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
that question. The Bill is flawed, but it
seeks to achieve important objectives. I
heard my hon. Friend the Member for
Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) give the
position of the official Opposition. I
regard my Front-Bench colleagues as a
source of great wisdom on all matters
and, in due course, I shall no doubt be
influenced by what he said. While Labour
Members are at liberty to try to stretch
out the debate if they so wish, I want to
return narrowly to the amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you explained earlier
how you would try to ensure that the
Minister replied in some detail. He must
give an assurance in the Official
Report, which can be studied in
detail by the industry, that there is no
question of the Government using the
powers that they would be granted if the
amendments were passed, or any of the
Bill's provisions, to drive companies out
of the firework sector for any reason
other than that they are breaching clear,
safety-based regulations. Will the
Minister assure us that there is no
question of the Government, or any arm
thereof, using the powers to impose
licences and charges for training
purposes in order to drive companies out
of the sector? It is important to get
that assurance; I hope that we can look
to the Minister for it.
In debating these amendments, we have
been able to start--only start--to
examine some of the implications of a
complicated Bill which is likely to have
implications across a wide range of
sectors. It is important to consider them
properly and thoroughly. When the
Minister replies, it is important that he
establishes in detail the Government's
position across the range of issues
raised by the Bill. A skimpy 30-second
reply would not be adequate. I hope that
we have started a proper examination of
legislation that is likely to affect
people for many years to come, and I hope
that that will be reflected in the debate
in coming months.
Mr. Forth: We are considering
amendments to clause 10. In judging them,
it is important to place them in the
context of the opening words of clause 10,
which set the tone for our judgment about
their value or otherwise. The key words
are at the beginning of the clause, which
states:
"If fireworks
regulations specify conditions relating
to the satisfactory completion of a
course, or courses, of training in the
use of fireworks, they may make provision
for courses".
Straight away we
have a suggestion of the problems that
are likely to arise from the provisions
not only of clause 10, but of the
amendments.
The introduction of the words "satisfactory
completion" immediately poses the
questions of who judges whether the
training courses are satisfactory and who
judges whether the people giving the
training courses, and those receiving
them, are operating satisfactorily. I
shall return to that later, but I wanted
to show the difficulty when we get
involved in elaborate regimes of
licensing and prohibition of the sort set
out in the Bill. We shall have to turn
our minds, in judging fees, to the
context of
"satisfactory
completion of a course, or courses".
That will provide
a useful benchmark against which to judge
the later provisions of clause 10.
Several hon. Members asked whether, as
the clause suggests, courses should be
provided directly by the Secretary of
State. That implies that they would be
run by the DTI, and the clause admits
that as a possibility. In that case, the
fees would apply only to those receiving
the training courses. We are immediately
confronted by the possibility of an
additional bureaucracy run directly by
the Department to provide the training
required under clause 10, should the
Secretary of State wish to invoke it. The
clause starts, "If fireworks
regulations specify"; it does not
require such regulations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for
Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)
said, the Minister should say up front
whether the Secretary of State has it in
mind to invoke the provisions of clause
10. If she does not, we have spent much
time rather needlessly. It would be
valuable--indeed, it is essential--if the
Minister told us the Secretary of State's
intentions. That point also applies to
the provisions of clause 10(1)(a), (b)
and (c), because it would make a
difference to the debate on Lords
amendments on fee levels if we had some
idea of what the Minister had in mind.
This would apply either to the direct
provision of courses by the DTI or to
courses provided by
"a body or
bodies established or recognised by the
Secretary of State".
As was noted
earlier, other bodies could be involved,
in which case the later provisions of
clause 10 and the amendments would come
into effect.
Then we come to "licensed persons",
which is where the concerns expressed
earlier are most clear. As I interpret
the clause--I am open to correction--there
are two distinct levels of licensing and
operation and, therefore, of fees. The
first level would be the provisions in
the amendment and clause 10 on the regime
for the licensing by the Secretary of
State of the providers of training. That
immediately opens all the normal
questions that arise in such a process.
It must be determined whether the fees
are at a level sufficient to attract
people to provide the training on a
business basis. We are, presumably,
talking about private providers who would
not only have to provide satisfactory
training--we will return to how that will
be judged--but provide it profitably,
because they would be private sector
businesses, unless local authorities were
used. That opens a different possibility.
We have to bear in mind always the fees
that providers would pass on to those
whom they trained.
We are into a morass of bureaucracy; we
have no guidance about the number of
bodies. I am not aware that it has ever
been mentioned. The Minister will want to
spend some time giving us an idea of the
number of bodies or licensed persons that
he thinks will be necessary to obtain the
quality of training needed to deliver the
level of safety that he has in mind, in
the bureaucratic mess that would be
created.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in
the structure of what is proposed--he is
setting out the questions clearly--there
is a potential interplay between fees for
the granting of a licence and fees that
are determined by the Secretary of State
for the charging for attendance at
courses? If that interaction works in the
wrong way, the Secretary of State may
deter able people from applying to become
licensed persons, and hence restrict the
supply of trade.
Mr. Forth: That is a crucial point,
on which I may wish to elaborate in a
moment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend
for raising it at this stage.
The relationships at every level of the
provision in clause 10 will, I suspect,
provide enormous challenges to the
Department and the Secretary of State,
and create an enormous number of problems.
We are necessarily talking about a
complex set of interrelationships between
the judgment of the Secretary of State,
the number of people whom she would wish
to license to carry out the important
task provided for in clause 10, and the
number of people she would expect to
apply for and to need the training
required to provide the level of safety
assurance that the Bill is presumably all
about in the first place.
Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend
think that only one level of fee will be
declared by the Secretary of State, or
more than one? Some people who have spent
their life in the pyrotechnics industry
are probably fully qualified in any case,
but if they have not been through a
course, they may not be allowed to
operate. Will they be charged a fee? Will
they be charged a different fee from that
charged to a parent or schoolteacher who
wants to qualify to run a fireworks
party? These are complex issues.
Mr. Forth: Indeed they are. My hon.
Friend's question raises another
interesting point that I had not thought
of, on which my hon. Friend may wish to
elaborate if I do not. The point is
whether there will have to be exemptions
from the regime for exactly the sort of
people whom my hon. Friend describes.
There must be--must there not?--people
with relevant qualifications, training
and experience who could be exempted from
being trainers or being trained before
they could carry out the activities
covered by the Bill. That in turn raises
some important considerations about
whether these are blanket provisions with
no exemptions or whether there will be
reasonable provision for exemptions.
I want to return to the theme that I was
touching on, because it is important.
Unless we have some idea of numbers, we
are all debating the matter rather in a
fog. Do the Minister and the Secretary of
State envisage many providers coming
forward to do the training? If so, that
assumes that many people will apply to
receive the training in order to operate
fireworks for the delight and pleasure of
many people. Unless we know about the
numbers, we cannot make a proper judgment
about the effectiveness of the clause or
about the competitive or non-competitive
regime that my hon. Friend the Member for
Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) mentioned
earlier.
If we are to judge how we shall vote on
the amendments and our view of the Bill,
it is incumbent on the Minister--he bears
a heavy responsibility in the House this
morning--to give adequate and full
answers to the questions that have been
raised in the debate.
Mr. Burden: It is important that we
get on the record the right hon.
Gentleman's position. He referred to his
views on the amendments and the Bill. Is
he saying that, if the amendments were
accepted, he would or would not vote for
the Bill? Is he saying that, if the
amendments were not accepted, he would or
would not vote for the Bill?
Mr. Forth: Fortunately, at this
stage, procedurally that question does
not arise--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right
hon. Gentleman is right. The question
does not arise. We are considering the
amendments, not whether the right hon.
Gentleman supports the Bill. We are
discussing the amendments.
10.45 am
Mr. Forth: The
amendments from the other place relate to
clause 10, which deals with some key
elements of the elaborate regime that the
Bill seeks to erect in order to deliver a
level of comfort, safety and assurance.
Mr. Lansley: Does my right hon.
Friend agree that there is something of a
misapprehension that the amendments are
all of a piece? It may be perfectly
possible to agree that the Secretary of
State should make provision for the
setting of a fee for the grant of a
licence, but to disagree with the idea
that the Secretary of State should set a
fee for attendance at a course.
Mr. Forth: That is an important point.
My hon. Friend may wish to receive the
guidance of the Chair on whether we can
seek separate Divisions on the different
elements for precisely the reason that he
suggests. It is perfectly possible that
the Secretary of State may wish to be
involved in the first level of fees--those
involved in the granting or variation of
licences--but may not judge that it is
necessary to be involved in setting a
level of fees for the delivery of
training by licensed persons or bodies.
That is a matter on which we might
require clarification from the Chair at
some stage.
Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend is
courteous in giving away again. There is
a certain amount of Treasury
guidance on the setting of a fee for the
grant of a licence. Unless otherwise
provided for, the fee should be that
required to compensate for the costs
involved. In a sense, one can see the
limited effect of that. That brings me
back to my earlier point. If there are
also fees relating to the charge for
attendance, one finds a complication
between two amendments in the group which
could be deleterious to the provision of
training.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right.
He gives me an opportunity to raise
another point that is important in any
regime such as this. All along, some of
my hon. Friends have referred to a fee. I
am not sure that we necessarily are
looking at a standard, uniform fee. It
always worries me when we talk about any
regime of this kind to be considered and
then imposed by a Secretary of State.
Should there be a uniform regime for the
entire country? As my hon. Friends will
appreciate and some Labour Members may
appreciate on a good day, the costs
incurred in delivering the regime
envisaged in clause 10 are likely to vary
enormously in different parts of the
country.
Looking around the Chamber at my hon.
Friends who are here for the debate this
morning, I can well imagine that the
costs of putting together and delivering
a training course would vary between, for
example, Penrith and the Border and
Westmorland, where they might be
relatively low, and my constituency or
Mid-Kent, where the inherent costs of
delivery are likely to be higher.
Are we talking--again, this is a question
for the Minister--about a relatively
straightforward, simple licensing regime
and level of fees, or must we
contemplate, in order for it to be
effective and reasonably to reflect
costs, a complex regime that acknowledges
the variations, diversity and sensitivity
of these matters across the country?
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border):
My right hon. Friend is making a valid
point about geographical variation, but
the amendments relate to fees for
training courses. Elsewhere, the Bill
states that the Secretary of State shall
have power by regulation to set up
training courses for those who are
supplying, exposing for supply,
purchasing, possessing or simply using
fireworks. That is a wide category of
different businesses and even private
individuals or councils. My right hon.
Friend should consider whether there
would have to be different lengths and
depths of courses, and different fees for
them.
Mr. Forth: Yes; my right hon. Friend
is correct. I am grateful to him. That
immediately raises another point. My
right hon. and hon. Friends are reading
my mind accurately and anticipating my
points, some of which probably deserve
elaboration. However, I do not want to
hog the debate.
Another question for the Minister on
which we shall need reassurance is the
estimate that has been made of the number
of additional personnel required in the
Department or elsewhere to administer and
monitor matters, and make constant
judgments about, for example, the
variation of a licence.
We are not talking about a one-off
process. The clause and the amendment
both refer to the granting or variation
of licences, which implies a process
about which we should know more. What
would variation of a licence involve? I
am sure that I can dream up circumstances
in which that might be necessary. It is
germane to our debate on the
effectiveness of the regime that we are
being asked to approve within the terms
of the clause and the amendment to ask
whether the Minister envisages a
relatively straightforward process
whereby a licence, once granted, would be
valid for a fixed period, be that one,
three or five years, or whether the
variation element would require
additional bureaucracy and personnel to
monitor closely the performance of each
person giving the training, and an
additional process whereby variation
could be carried out.
Mr. Collins: Does my right hon.
Friend agree that, as part of the regime,
officials would have to be set aside to
deal with correspondence and
representations on the nature of the
licences and the fees? For example, I
recently attended a firework display
organised by a Christian retirement home
in my constituency, which resulted in so
much noise that many local residents
said, "It's those blooming
Christians causing trouble again."
Such events might produce correspondence,
and officials would be needed to deal
with it under the proposed regime.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are
talking about the powers of the Secretary
of State, not what officials do, or what
the cost of officials replying to
correspondence would be. That
intervention goes far too wide of the
amendments before the House.
Mr. Forth: It is, indeed, the powers
of the Secretary of State that are
germane to the debate, Mr. Deputy
Speaker; however, my hon. Friends and I
are suggesting that there are many
questions that require an answer if we
are to make an assessment of the
acceptability of the clause--which is,
after all, what we are doing here this
morning.
Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend
raised some of those points on 29
January, during the debate on the money
resolution. His fears were dismissed by
the Minister, who said that safety was
paramount. Of course safety is paramount,
but how does the Minister setting the
fees promote safety? That is what I
cannot understand. Why cannot the
industry set the fees? The Minister could
then regulate whether the safety courses
had been carried out and whether too high
fees had been imposed. Why should the
Minister be involved in the highly
complex procedure of setting different
levels of fees for different types of
course in different parts of the country?
Is not the point that I have made a
strong one?
Mr. Forth: Yes, it is indeed. I am
grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding
me that we attempted to raise these
questions in the debate on the money
resolution earlier this year. My
recollection is that, at that stage, we
failed to get any substantive answers
from the Minister, which might explain
our anxiety today. We are now all rather
nervous that the Minister may be
unprepared or unable to give the detailed
answers to our questions that would give
us the sort of assurance that we need to
decide how to vote on the matter before
us.
I need not tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
but I want to remind the House that the
whole essence of the parliamentary
process is that Members of Parliament
come here to question the Executive and
to be satisfied about the nature of the
business before them. I suspect that,
when the Minister catches your eye, he
will tell the House whether he believes
that the amendments would strengthen the
Bill, but in doing so, he will have to
give answers to the questions that have
been legitimately raised.
So far, questions have been asked only by
Conservative Members; Labour Members have
been silent, so perhaps they are
unprepared for or lacking any interest in
the debate. We have become accustomed to
that attitude, but it is regrettable that
we hear nothing from Labour Members. I
assume that they are bored or
uninterested, or that they simply accept
without question everything that is
shoved at them. We are here to
participate far more fully in the
parliamentary process, and that is what
we are trying to do this morning.
Mr. Paterson: The clause makes it
a prerequisite for a user of fireworks to
have undergone a training course. Having
been a member of the Government, does my
right hon. Friend think that it is a
serious practical possibility that, on 5
November, the night of the year when the
overwhelming majority of fireworks are
let off, the Minister can send staff to
every bonfire party to make sure that
every person using fireworks has
undergone a training course that conforms
to the clause?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That
matter certainly does not relate to the
amendments.
Mr. Forth: The Minister may wish to
help us on that point later, although my
optimism about that possibility is fading
rapidly. The extent to which the Minister
makes an effort to answer our questions
will sway many of my hon. Friends in
deciding how to vote.
However, the point raised by my hon.
Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr.
Paterson) raises another important issue,
which is the judgment about the nature of
the training that would be given. Who
would judge whether the training course
was inherently satisfactory and whether
the training course had been completed
satisfactorily? That is another vital
point that must be considered.
Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon.
Friend give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the
right hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) gives way, let me
remind the House not to get into the
detail of the quality of the training.
The amendment talks about charging fees
for training, not the quality of the
training. The quality could be terrible,
but we must debate the fees charged for
it.
Mr. Forth: I had in mind the
beginning of clause 10, which is being
amended, which refers to
"the
satisfactory completion of a course, or
courses, of training".
I was raising the
issue in the context of the fees being
charged.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What we
have before us is not clause 10, but
Lords amendments--the changes made by the
Lords. The amendment is extremely narrow
and talks about the Secretary of State
charging fees for courses, nothing else.
As long as we stick to the subject of
fees, we shall be all right.
Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful for
your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The
amendments do indeed refer to
"the charging
of fees for the grant or variation of
licences,"
which is one of
the processes that we are debating;
however, they then talk about
"the charging
of fees for attendance at courses of
training in the use of fireworks,"
which raises other
serious and relevant questions about
whether simple attendance is all that is
necessary, or whether achieving a level
of competence based on that attendance is
required.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us be
clear: the level of competence has
nothing to do with the amendment before
us; only the charges are relevant. The
amendment gives a power to the Secretary
of State to charge fees, albeit for
attendance. We need not worry about other
parts of the Bill or the level of
competence achieved. We are addressing a
very narrow matter.
Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr.
Deputy Speaker. I, too, am grateful for
your guidance, but does it follow that
amendment No. 3, which covers all the
matters in subsection (5), means that we
may not raise any of the matters in
subsection (5)?
Mr. Forth: On the one hand, we are
talking about fees for the grant or
variation of licences, but, on the other,
we are talking about charging--
Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Madam
Speaker. Due to the changeover between
yourself and Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did
not get an answer to my point of order.
Madam Speaker: I am so sorry--I
thought that it was an intervention, not
a point of order. I understand that the
Lords amendment does not cover the matter
that the hon. Gentleman was raising in
any event, so perhaps we should continue.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. Maclean: I think that I can help
my right hon. Friend, without straying
outside the provisions of the Bill. Of
course, the amendment relates solely to
the fees that can be charged for training
courses, but clause 5 refers to people
having
"proficiency
or experience in the use of fireworks".
Therefore, it is
envisaged that there will be certain
training courses that will lead to
qualifications or other proof of
proficiency and there will have to be
fees charged for those courses as well.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right
hon. Friend for his assistance on that
matter, but I am mindful of the stricture
that Mr. Deputy Speaker placed on me a
moment ago, when he said that such
matters were not immediately relevant to
the clause or the amendments. As ever, I
am mindful of his guidance, and will
adhere to it strictly.
The point that I was about to make
relates to the charging of fees for
attendance at courses. That creates
another set of difficulties that we must
consider carefully because it implies
that it is simply the attendance that
matters in relation to the clause. That
leads to further questions about the
effectiveness of the training courses for
which the fees are being charged. If only
attendance is significant, one can
envisage people going through the motions
of attending courses.
It being Eleven o'clock, Madam
Speaker interrupted the proceedings,
pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday
sittings).
Fireworks Bill
Lords
amendments again considered.
Clause 10
Training courses
Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 6,
line 6, after ("State,") insert--
("() authorise the making by the
Secretary of State of provision about the
charging of fees for the grant or
variation of licences,")
Question again proposed, That this
House doth agree with the Lords in the
said amendment.--[Mrs. Gilroy.]
11.32 am
Mr. Forth: I
believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we were
considering clause 10 of the Fireworks
Bill and the amendments from another
place relating to that clause.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I
remind the House that we are talking
about a cascade of possibilities that
raises several questions that the
Minister must answer. Clause 10 starts
the cascade by saying:
"If fireworks
regulations specify conditions ... they
may make provision for courses."
The clause then
goes on to outline three possible routes
by which the training courses may be
provided: directly by the Secretary of
State; by a body or bodies--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is
quite right: there is a clause there.
There are other clauses also, and perhaps
he will have an opportunity to discuss
them later. However, we are discussing
the amendments, and the right hon.
Gentleman must stick to them.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, as
ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The amendments relate to the setting of
fees and the Secretary of State's role in
that process. I think that we can take it
for granted that, were the courses
provided directly by the Secretary of
State or by a body established by her,
the Secretary of State would have direct
control over any fees charged. That goes
without saying. However, it raises some
important questions even at that level
about the internal mechanism that would
be provided within the Department of
Trade and Industry to allow the Secretary
of State to establish what the level of
fees should be.
As my hon. Friend the Member for
Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, that
question becomes even more important when
we consider the determination of a dual
level fee structure for those providing
training in the private sector. The
Minister must give us a much clearer idea
about the probable direction that he and
the Secretary of State will take: direct
provision by the Department, recognition
and establishment of other bodies, or
reliance on the private sector.
Depending on which route is chosen, we
will need to know much more about the
attitude that will be taken towards fees.
For example, will fees be set low in
order to encourage training, or will they
be set at a higher level in order to
provide a level of profitability to the
private licensed bodies? There is a
series of important questions relating to
the mechanism--we must know more about
that also--that the Minister envisages
being established within the Department
to deal with the substantial level of
bureaucracy that will be needed.
Can the Minister provide a precedent?
Some of my hon. Friends have from time to
time suggested that there may be a
precedent in this area. If so, it may
help the House--it will certainly help me--to
be told about the approach that the
Department might take to setting the fee
levels.
On the face of it, that is a daunting
task. The Secretary of State, the
Minister and the Department must take a
view about the number of people that they
envisage will have to be trained, which
will affect the number of operators and
trainers required, and the approach to
the setting of fees. Those matters are
intimately interrelated and linked.
Therefore, the more we know about what
the Minister has in mind, the more clear
we can be in our response to the
amendments from another place. In that
way, we shall make an informed judgment,
and cast our votes appropriately when the
time comes.
We are posing a challenge, but also
providing an important opportunity to the
Minister. The Bill has been little
debated, although the Minister appears to
attach much importance to it. I tried
earlier in the year--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We will
not worry about how often the Bill has
been debated. We are concerned only about
the amendments before us.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. We are worried about whether we
shall receive a proper answer from the
Minister. However, you have already told
us that you will police the matter: your
eagle eye will be upon the Minister and,
if he does not reply, he will incur your
displeasure. You helped us out in that
regard, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right
hon. Gentleman should not try to bring
the Chair into the argument. Any hon.
Member who speaks to the amendments will
confine his or her remarks to those
amendments--and that includes the
Minister. That is what I shall do. I am
not worried about the content of the
speeches, so long as hon. Members keep to
the amendments.
Mr. Forth: We shall worry about
the content, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the
Minister fails to answer our questions,
neither you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he, nor
anyone else will be surprised at the
action we shall take.
I have tried to play a modest part in
setting out this morning my worries and
anxieties about the amendments, clause 10
and the Bill as a whole. I hope that the
Minister will endeavour to provide more
answers than he has managed so far, so
that my colleagues and I can make an
informed judgment about these matters.
Mr. Rowe: We would all be delighted
if we could have prevented the deaths of
four people in the past four years.
However, the Bill and the amendments are
deeply troubling. The entire process is
in the hands of the Secretary of State;
no provisions are laid down. Clause 10(1),
to which the amendments apply, begins
with the word "If", and clause
10(2) also begins with the word "If".
It states:
"If fireworks
regulations make provision for courses to
be provided by licensed persons, they may
. . . make provision"
for certain things.
Their Lordships have amended provisions
that may never be brought in; there is
nothing in the Bill to say that they will.
The alternative, of course, is more
alarming: because the Bill and its
amendments are drafted in this way, there
is nothing to stop the Bill being
extended further and further.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon.
Gentleman should know better. I have
already explained to hon. Members that
what we have to consider is the charging
of fees. That is all that is before us--not
this clause or any other clause, just the
Lords amendments. He must speak to those
Lords amendments.
Mr. Rowe: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. However, the amendments are
governed by the word "if" and,
if we are going to authorise the making
by the Secretary of State of provision
about the charging of fees for the grant
and variation of licences, we are
entitled to repeat to the Minister that
we want to know what he has in mind. Does
he have it in mind that individuals will
receive a licence, which will allow them
to perform their function as a letter off
of fireworks as often as they wish during
a year, or will they have to seek a
specific licence every time they wish to
perform that function? Clearly, that will
have a considerable bearing on the value
of the fee charged because, if it is
clearly for a year, that fee will be
greater. The licence might even be for
life; once someone has taken the course
and shown that he is able to perform
safely, perhaps there will be a life
licence fee.
Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend
agree that, subject to what Ministers
say, there would be every reason for such
a licence to be provided without time, as
it were, because, if the licence is
granted with reference to whether a
person has the appropriate experience and
qualifications, they are not likely to
lose that experience and qualifications?
Therefore, just one fee should be levied
on one occasion.
Mr. Rowe: The precedent for that
would be the driving licence. That would
be perfectly reasonable, so I would be
interested to hear the Minister say what
he has in mind--if, of course, the
regulations are ever made.
Amendment No. 3 authorises
"making by
the Secretary of State of provision about
the charging of fees for attendance at
courses of training in the use of
fireworks".
As my right hon.
Friend the Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has already
asked, will attendance by itself be
enough, or will people have to have some
sort of qualification at the end? If they
are to be granted a qualification at the
end, will it be eligible to be a national
vocational qualification? If so, two
things follow.
The fees for attendance at courses will
vary sharply. For example, many training
and enterprise councils--which are
responsible for running NVQ courses--are
keen to encourage people to undertake
such courses because they represent a way
back into employment, perhaps as part of
the new deal. Are we seriously
suggesting that all those people will
have to pay a fee? I hope that the
Minister will tell us whether it is
intended that some people should be
eligible for exemption from the fees,
even if they attend a course. There is,
of course, the other element: people who
are already qualified who do not have to
attend a course at all will presumably
not be charged a fee.
Then we have the business about
"the making
by the Secretary of State, or by any body
or bodies established or recognised by
the Secretary of State under this section"
of
"provision
about any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (5)."
I believe that you
have already ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
that that does not allow me to talk about
subsection (5), even though one of the
amendments deletes subsection (5)(c), but
what I think is important is the body or
bodies established or recognised. That
involves a considerable difference.
If the body is to be established by the
Secretary of State, the charges will be
much higher because it will have to be
set up from scratch and enormous expenses
will attach to it. If, however, it is a
body recognised by the Secretary of
State, all sorts of questions are raised.
Will it be a training and enterprise
council? Will it be, as has been
suggested, a local authority? Will it be
some body relating to the industry
itself, in which case the Secretary of
State would no doubt assume that the
charges for setting it up and running it
will fall on industry?
Industry might or might not care for
that, but all these things will have a
considerable impact on the level, nature
and, indeed frequency, of the charges.
Therefore, I am deeply uneasy about the
amendments, which seem to confirm that
their Lordships had too little care--as
we have had in this House, I am ashamed
to say--about the open-endedness of the
Bill. This is a serious and difficult
matter.
11.45 am
Let me revert for
a moment to the grant and variation of
licences. I am not clear what the
variation of a licence would entail.
Would it mean that an individual holding
a licence would be entitled to perform
his functions in some areas, but not in
others? Would he be entitled to perform
his function in events of a certain size?
Those things matter. If the Secretary of
State is to be empowered to vary people's
licences, will that entail charging for a
variation, or will people be able to
apply for a variation of licence without
an additional charge? Once they have
bought their licence in the first place,
will they be allowed to vary it without
charge? Again, I do not believe that the
Secretary of State or the Minister knows.
I would be interested to hear what the
Minister has to say.
The amendments merely compound my
difficulty with the Bill.
Mr. Lansley: I have listened with
considerable interest to the debate, and
looked with care at this group of
amendments. The hon. Member for
Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) has
been at pains--and not always within
order--to ask whether hon. Members who
are intervening support the Bill. For my
part, I am happy to concur with the
Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, my
hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne
(Mr. Waterson). I have no reason to
oppose the Bill, but we are debating a
group of amendments and I urge my hon.
Friends and, indeed, Labour Members, to
look with care at each of the amendments.
I hope to explain why. I shall argue
that, of the four amendments with which
we are presented--Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4--we
should agree with amendments Nos. 1, 2
and 4 but disagree to amendment No. 3.
When the time comes, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I hope to seek your guidance about how we
might pursue that route.
Let me explain why I take that view. We
are dealing with the issue of fees, but
in two respects: first, fees for the
grant or variation of a licence--amendments
Nos. 1 and 2 relate to that--and,
secondly, fees for attendance at courses;
there we come to amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are necessary. In
that respect, I agree, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Eastbourne agreed, with
the view of the Delegated Powers and
Deregulation Committee. It is right that,
under the structure of clause 10 as
presented to another place, the charging
of fees for the grant or variation of a
licence could have been determined by a
body or bodies established or recognised
by the Secretary of State, but not
directly on the basis determined by the
Secretary of State.
It is therefore right to reconstruct the
clause by way of amendments Nos. 1 and 2
so that the provision in relation to fees
for the granting or variation of a
licence is not simply one of those
matters to be determined after the
granting of powers to bodies established
by the Secretary of State. Where fees are
concerned, there should be determination
by the Secretary of State herself. I am
happy with that. I shall not dwell on the
considerable questions relating to the
granting or variation of a licence, which
have been touched on by my hon. Friends.
I am simply concerned with whether the
basis of determination of fees for the
granting or variation of a licence will
be the Secretary of State or some other
body or bodies.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 bring us to
rather a different point. On the face of
it, it may seem that the two amendments
are designed to do exactly the same thing
in relation to the fees charged for
attendance at courses--to reflect the
argument that the provision for making
fees should not be determined by bodies
established or recognised by the
Secretary of State but should reflect the
will of the Secretary of State herself. I
understand that the Select Committee
carried the thought through from the
previous point about the will of the
Secretary of State being translated into
the determination of fees by a body or
bodies established or recognised by her.
Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend have
any idea whether the Minister expects the
Secretary of State to pocket the fees for
the issue of licences and, if he does,
does he think that the same thing will
happen with fees for courses? The two
things are very different, since if the
providers of courses are not entitled to
keep the fees, they will not provide the
courses.
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon.
Friend. I made the point to my right hon.
Friend the Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) earlier. It would
be helpful if the Minister told us that
where the charging of fees for the grant
or variation of a licence is involved,
the Secretary of State would seek to
recover only the costs incurred by the
Department in providing the service of
granting or varying a licence.
As regards fees charged for attendance at
courses, it seems to me that it would not
be for the Secretary of State to pocket
any such fee unless she were herself to
be the provider of such courses, which is
contemplated under the clause. As I
understand it, however, the Secretary of
State has not told us to what extent she
proposes to be a training provider in
this context.
For my part--I shall not dwell on the
point at length--it seems wholly
undesirable that the Secretary of State
should be the training provider. The
thrust of policy under the previous
Administration, which I hope will not be
deviated from, was that training should
be private sector-led and private sector-provided
rather than being provided directly by
Government Departments. My hon. Friend
made a useful and interesting point and I
hope that I have answered him to his
satisfaction. However, he has taken me
slightly from my train of thought and I
should recover it.
I was referring to the Delegated Powers
and Deregulation Committee, which in this
instance carried through the logic of the
point made about the setting of fees by
the Secretary of State: the Committee
applied exactly the same argument to the
setting of fees by the Secretary of State
in relation to charging for attendance at
courses. However, in that context, I do
not think that the Committee was taking a
view on the substance of the issue of
whether the Secretary of State should set
fees for the charging of attendance at
courses. It was simply considering the
procedural question whether, if such fees
are to be set, they should be set by
reference to the determination of the
Secretary of State, or whether a body or
bodies established by the Secretary of
State and recognised for this purpose
should be allowed to set fees wholly
without regard to the determination that
the Secretary of State would make in the
same respect.
Here I must depart from the view that has
been expressed by my hon. Friend the
Member for Eastbourne, even though my
admiration for him knows no bounds.
Although the Select Committee examined
carefully the structure of the clause and--in
a procedural sense relating to the
structure of powers--made a sensible
amendment, it is open to us, in examining
amendments Nos. 3 and 4, to reach a
different view on the substance of the
issue, which is the question whether the
Secretary of State should set a structure
of fees for charging for attendance at
courses.
That brings me back to my reasons for
opposing amendment No. 3 while agreeing
with No. 4: By doing so, we shall delete
from subsection (5) the provision that
the Secretary of State should make
provision about matters relating to fees.
That will delete that provision in
substance from the policy of the Bill, as
it were, and by disagreeing with the
Lords in amendment No. 3 we shall not
reintroduce the power for the Secretary
of State to make provision for fees. I
hope that it is clear to my hon. Friends
why I propose that we should go down that
path.
That brings me to the substance of the
issue. I am sorry that I have had to
explain the process of my thinking about
these amendments in such an elaborate way.
When amendments are grouped, it is not
always easy to explain why one opposes
one and accepts others.
I shall explain my view on the substance
of the issue. The presumption--I say this
from my experience with chambers of
commerce, which were often training
providers and participated fully in the
establishment of
training and enterprise councils--that
lay behind the reform of training
provision was that such provision was
best provided by the private sector, and
in a way that operated in a competitive
and market-oriented fashion. I shall not
dwell on the theory of that. I know that
it is fully understood on the Opposition
Benches. It may not be well understand on
the Government Benches, but I understood
that, in terms of training policy at
least, the Government were not seeking
substantially to depart from that which
has been established.
I find it odd that the structure of the
Bill should look to intervene in a market-oriented
system of training provision by setting a
structure of fees, or providing for the
Secretary of State the power to set a
structure of fees. That seems an odd way
of proceeding in the absence of any
assessment, as far as I am aware, of the
character of the marketplace in which the
Secretary of State will be intervening.
My right hon. Friend the Member for
Bromley and Chislehurst made an important
point in that respect. The number of
people seeking training and the number of
people providing training is of the
essence. If the numbers are small, there
may be a debate about whether it is right
to have a managed market in the short run.
If the market is to operate effectively,
it must be one in which a substantial
number of providers compete among
themselves. I understand that, in that
marketplace, there is no reason, in time--if
not at the outset--why the number of
trainers will not be perfectly adequate
for a training market to be established.
Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend have
any idea whether the Secretary of State
wants a substantial number of licensed
people--in which case one would imagine
that she would intervene to keep the
price of training as low as possible--or
whether this is a back-door attempt to
remove fireworks altogether, in which
case, presumably, she would intervene to
keep the price at a level which would
discourage people from taking training at
all?
Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend slightly
anticipates my next argument, although
not unhelpfully. The Secretary of State
might set the fee at a relatively low
level, with the intention of seeking to
encourage large numbers of persons to
seek training to undertake activities
with fireworks in a safe manner. By doing
that, she might well inhibit the
development of a market for training
because the training providers might find
that they did not have sufficient
recompense for their training activity.
There lies the difficulty of any
Government or public body trying to
intervene to manage the market in favour
of a particular outcome. They often do
not deliver the benefits sought. My hon.
Friend may be right. The Secretary of
State may set the fees at a low level to
attract unskilled users of fireworks and
make them skilled users of fireworks. In
the process, she may set the fees at a
level that brings in few good training
providers. Frankly, she may bring into
the marketplace providers at a level of
fees that does not encourage them to
provide training of the quality that is
required to meet the underlying objective.
12 noon
Go to Fireworks
Bill, 3 July 1998, Annex, Part 2
Go to Parliament
Page
Go to Menu Page
|
|