| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Feb 2003 : Column 488—continued
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): In a previous life, I spent 18 years working in the explosives industry, so
I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. As politicians we must get across to parents in particular the important point that although young children think that fireworks contain only a small amount of explosive, they burn fiercely and are white-hot. We have been very lucky not to have witnessed real tragedies on our housing estates. Only a couple of weeks ago, something went wrong in a discotheque or nightclub in America. Part of the cause may have been the building, but we saw the ferocity of the fire and the damage, devastation and death that can be caused by fireworks.
Mr. Robathan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who rightly gives a particularly good example of the way in which the mistreatment and mishandling of explosives can have disastrous consequences. I shall not now mention it in my speech. Whether we are parents or grandparents, we should all be aware of that.
My constituents have expressed concerns about safety, which the hon. Gentleman has just raised. We all welcome any measures that will serve to limit injuries caused by fireworks. In 2001, there was a total of 1,362 injuries—a 40 per cent. rise on the previous year, which is a worrying trend. Of even more concern is the fact that 58 per cent. of those injuries were to under-17s, and 33 per cent. to under-13s. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome anything that reduces those disturbingly high figures and prevents even one child from being blinded.
Mr. Iain Luke (Dundee, East) rose—
Mr. Robathan: I am conscious of the press releases that are being issued like mad, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, I would rather not accept too many interventions.
Mr. Luke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave figures for the number of people injured by fireworks. Does he accept that if the numbers are not reduced with the introduction of a licensing scheme in the Bill, there will be a call for a total ban in future?
Mr. Robathan: I shall discuss later the proportionate nature of action to be taken. There are already calls for a total ban, which I do not support any more than I support a ban on every other thing that can injure people. I know that the Government do not support a total ban either. However, we wish to see children protected. Members may have had letters calling for a ban in their mailbags, but millions of our constituents would not welcome that. We need to bear that in mind when reading letters from people who are unhappy about the noise caused by fireworks.
Fireworks often cause a serious nuisance or disturbance, especially to older people and pets. In the past few years, we cannot have failed to notice that the use of fireworks has escalated, as I illustrated earlier, and that the period in which they are used has grown longer. We have all received many letters complaining about the considerable disturbance that they cause. Indeed, I suspect that there is not anyone in the House who has not received such a letter. A closely related issue
is noise, which goes to the heart of the matter and is particularly problematic in built-up areas. The 12 target areas of last year's campaign by the Department of Trade and Industry, snappily called "Fool with fireworks and bang goes your image", were urban conurbations, including Liverpool, Portsmouth, Gateshead and greater Strathclyde.Not only is the noise getting worse, but fireworks are used throughout the year. There are fireworks on 5 February, during Diwali, the Chinese new year, Eid and the new year—who can forget the millennium celebrations three years ago? Fireworks were used to celebrate the Queen's golden jubilee and her official birthday. Of course, we also have 6 May—[Interruption.] I am surprised that one or two Government Members do not know that 6 May is the official birthday of the blessed leader of the Labour party. These days, they either celebrate it or burn his effigy.
The noise of fireworks has become relentless, and is of particular concern to those of us with dogs and other pets. I have a gundog called Otter, which I have mentioned before in the House, as Members may recall. When I get my shotgun and take Otter shooting she gets excited. She is a Labrador retriever, and that is what retrievers do. However, if she hears fireworks, she cowers under the table and is terrified.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore): Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman was not shooting his neighbours.
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me.
If Otter hears fireworks or a thunderstorm, she cowers under the table.
Mr. Willis: Does all that happen in your back garden?
Mr. Robathan: It certainly does not happen in my penthouse.
Everyone in the House agrees that this issue is important, but we should not overstate the case. I should like to discuss safety, which was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). In 2001, there were 1,362 injuries and no fatalities during the period of bonfire celebrations. The previous year, there were 972 injuries, with two fatalities—which is too high, I accept. However, we should compare those figures with the DTI's figures for accidents in the home. According to the DTI website, 2.7 million accidents required visits to hospital, and there were nearly 4,000 fatalities from accidents in the home. In 2001, there were 313,000 injuries following road traffic accidents, of which 40,000 were serious, and there were 3,450 fatalities. So our response must be appropriate and proportionate.
I have a great deal of time for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which does excellent work. I understand from the association's website that at any one time there are 5,000 guide dogs for the blind. Each dog has a working life of approximately seven years, so there is a turnover of 700 to 800 dogs a year. I am told that only four or five dogs have to be retired each year because of distress caused by fireworks. I accept that that is a problem, but
again, we should be proportionate in our response. I know that fireworks terrify animals, but we should not overstate our case. The root problem is the amount and repetition of noise and the decibel level.
Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue as regards guide dogs is not just the cost of the retirement of, I acknowledge, a relatively small proportion of the total guide dog force, but the inhibitory effect that fireworks have on the lives of so many blind people, who are fearful of taking their dogs out during quite long periods of the year? If the hon. Gentleman or I are concerned about the safety of our dogs, we can go out alone, but that option is not available to a blind person. The use of fireworks substantially prejudices the blind person's quality of life.
Mr. Robathan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My point was that we need to be proportionate in our response. The use of fireworks, especially during daytime on the streets, which is what scares guide dogs most, is already illegal. We should remember that. Incidentally, if my figures are wrong, I should be delighted if any hon. Member in the Chamber, or the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, would correct me. I understand that between four and six dogs out of 5,000 are retired each year as a result of firework incidents. Some dogs may need retraining. The figures need to be analysed, as there may be other factors that have made the dogs nervous. I am not understating the case, but we should beware of hyperbole.
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): Has the hon. Gentleman heard that there are cases in which dogs have to be drugged as a result of the fireworks nuisance, and therefore cannot be used by their owner, which causes problems?
Mr. Robathan: As I said, I do not underestimate the problem, but we should not overestimate it, either. I draw attention to an example of hyperbole. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned animals being tortured or injured. I received a letter a couple of days ago about kittens being tortured by having a firework strapped to their back. None of us would applaud that, and it has been illegal since the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It carries a penalty of up to six months imprisonment and it should not happen. The issue is one of enforcement, as has been mentioned.
The Act is often enforced by the RSPCA, to which I pay tribute for its work in such matters. However, I do not accept the RSPCA campaign, "Quiet Please", which aims to reduce the permitted decibel level to 95 dB. According to the RSPCA, that is similar to the sound produced by a book dropped on to a table from 1 m. I shall demonstrate that. I suspect that few of our children, the children of few of our constituents, and few of our grandchildren would welcome such a reduction in noise level.
Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham) rose—
Mr. Robathan: As the hon. Gentleman is about to celebrate his marriage with fireworks, of course I shall give way.
Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to reassure the House and, through the
Chair, the Speaker's Chaplain that I have no intention of redoing Guy Fawkes's job by letting off fireworks in the Chapel in a couple of weeks' time. The hon. Gentleman is missing the point about the impact, especially on blind and elderly people. Regardless of the decibel level, it is the long period of time during which dogs, especially guide dogs, can be frightened or rendered less effective that reduces the quality of life for people. One of my constituents told me yesterday how he had been led across the road by his guide dog, which had been frightened while in the middle of the road. The dog disappeared and my constituent was left in the middle of the road with no means of getting across. For those reasons, we must make sure that the Bill goes through, and that there is a restricted period during which fireworks are available on the streets.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |