| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Israel
13. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield): What efforts he is making to help to ensure that Israel implements international law on the obligations of occupying powers and the provisions of UN resolutions 242 and 338. [23007]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Government have repeatedly called on Israel to respect international law, including the fourth Geneva convention. High contracting parties to the convention met in Geneva on 5 December and called on the parties in the region to ensure the protection of the civilian population, and on Israel to refrain from violations of the convention. The Government continue to work towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the middle east on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
Richard Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for reaffirming UN resolutions 242 and 338, which, as he knows and among other things, call for Israel's withdrawal from the west bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. Does he agree that it is ironic that while Israel stays in an area in which it has no right to be, a Palestinian from another part of the west bank is liable to be arrested if he or she sets foot in east Jerusalem? That happened to Dr. Mustafa Barghouti of the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees just last week—he was arrested and his knee caps broken by Israeli troops. Italian MEP Luisa Morgantini was also thrown to the ground.
Will my hon. Friend join me in looking into what happened to Dr. Barghouti and call on Israel to refrain from such breaches of human rights?
Mr. Bradshaw: I will certainly look into the case that my hon. Friend has raised. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier, the British Government deplore the Israeli policy of closures,
although it must be said that during the last few days, as we have enjoyed—relatively speaking—the quietest period since the beginning of the latest intifada, the closures have eased somewhat. Israel is entitled to its security, however. It should withdraw its troops from area A, but its total withdrawal from the occupied territories must be part of an overall peace settlement in the region, which I think all Members support.Control of Fireworks
3.30 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the sale and use of fireworks; and for connected purposes.
I also pay tribute to the campaigning work done over many years by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He is proof that it is possible for Members in all parts of the House to join in support of sensible and much-needed social change, whatever other political differences they may have.
Let me also apologise to the 36 Members whom my office welcomed as sponsors of the Bill when they telephoned, before the Public Bill Office explained that there was a limit of 12. I am sure that they will find ways of expressing their support on another occasion.
A little over two years ago, on 8 December 1999, I had the good fortune to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject of fireworks. That good fortune appears to have rubbed off on the Minister who replied, for she is now Secretary of State for the entire Department—the Department of Trade and Industry, that is. I trust that my right hon. Friend will not consider me unduly pedantic if I seek today to remind her officials of some of the undertakings and opinions that she gave on that occasion.
First, let me set out the reasons why I consider my Bill to be necessary. It may surprise Members to learn that the law allows a private individual to take delivery of 20 tonnes of fireworks—indeed, of any quantity, unlimited—and to store them for up to 14 days, with no obligation to notify a competent authority and with no official record being required. Nor is the firework company under any obligation to ensure that the person taking delivery is competent to handle such an enormous amount of explosives. There is no licence and no registration; there is only a rather loose insistence that the fireworks be kept in a safe and suitable place.
The Explosives Act 1875, which permits this monstrous state of affairs, does not define what a safe and suitable place might be, but if it did the definition would now almost certainly be obsolete. Firework technology has moved on somewhat in the 137 years since the Act received Royal Assent. We are subject to inadequate and archaic legislation that leaves the public at substantial risk.
When I raised the issue with the Secretary of State, as she now is, in 1999, she reassured me by saying:
- "the Health and Safety Executive is reviewing existing explosives legislation and the review may result in changes to existing conditions for the keeping of fireworks for private use. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is kept up to date as the review progresses."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 271WH.]
I am happy to acknowledge that in 1997 the new Labour Government passed the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations, as set out in SI 2294. All fireworks sold to the general public must comply with those regulations and must accord with British standard 7114. The minimum age for purchasing fireworks was rightly raised from 16 to 18 years and various powerful fireworks such as maroons-in-mortar, aerial shells, aerial maroons and those fireworks of erratic flight such as helicopters, squibs and jumping jacks were all banned from public supply.
In my previous debate, I congratulated the then Minister on the fact that those measures had resulted in an immediate 26 per cent. drop in the number of injuries requiring hospital treatment to 908 in 1997. However, that positive trend was reversed in 1999, pushing the figure up to 1,056. My right hon. Friend's successor, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North in October last year, took comfort in the idea that the blip could be accounted for by the millennium celebrations, which had pushed the volume of sales up. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend's logic was flawed, because although the subsequent year saw a drop of 8 per cent. to 972 injuries, the drop in the volume of sales was 30 per cent, so, proportionately, the number of injuries was much higher. There was also a substantial rise in the number of injuries to those aged between 13 and 15
The Under-Secretary also remarked that the voluntary code of practice whereby the industry restricts sales to the public to a three-week period around 5 November, though not perfect, "has generally worked well." Those of us who have been campaigning for many years for better controls on fireworks know that that is a unique code in the sense that it is distinguished by being more often broken than observed. My constituents have been subjected to a constant unabated barrage of fireworks from early October of last year through to the new year. They do not find the idea that the voluntary code has "worked well" laughable, but they certainly find it ridiculous.
- "No fireworks may be sold to anyone under 18 years of age. That rule is also enforced by the trading standards department. Those who break the rules are subject to prosecution."
- "There never has been a maximum penalty imposed, or a custodial sentence . . . the penalties tend to be at the lower end of the scale and it is arguable over whether such a penalty is viewed as a deterrent at all."
On 27 October last year, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals received a telephone call from a parent whose small son had been traumatised
by seeing a cat blown up by a firework on the school playing field. When the RSPCA went to inspect, it found the dismembered leg of a dog nearby. One child was traumatised. Two animals were dead. That was just one incident. Three days later the Under-Secretary stated:
- "Legislation also deals with distress to any domestic or captive animal, under the Protection of Animals Act 1911."
- "a legal underpinning for effective action".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 232-34WH.]
"The Fireworks Bill—a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy)—would have introduced many sensible additions to the regulatory package now in place for the control of fireworks. The Government supported her Bill, and I greatly regret that two Conservative Members chose to talk it out. It would have given the necessary powers to provide for mandatory training of people who operate large public displays. It would have dealt with the times during which fireworks could be sold—now purely a matter for the industry's voluntary code of practice—and provided powers to limit the letting off of fireworks except at specified times. These problems cannot be tackled under the current powers available to us".
- "It is a pity that that private Member's Bill failed. I hope that in a future private Members' ballot, any hon. Member who has an interest in this issue will succeed in reviving the Bill."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 271-72WH.]
Given the words of the Secretary of State that I have just quoted, I trust that I have her support.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |