| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Feb 2003 : Column 492—continued
Mr. Robathan: First, as I have not done so properly, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his impending marriage. I have done it myself, and I think that it is generally a good thing. I say that for the benefit of my wife. Secondly, I do not think that I am missing the point. I pointed out that guide dogs and other animals are terrified for a long period of time. Thirdly, from what the hon. Gentleman said, I imagine that his constituent was in the middle of the road when somebody threw a firework in the street. That is illegal now.
The RSPCA does much good work, but its firework campaign is misguided. I am still waiting for the RSPCA to react on its report entitled "Pain and Stress in Fish", last updated in 1994, which stated:
- "The society's policy is to oppose the infliction of pain and suffering in the name of sport"—
- "the case for fish feeling pain is surprisingly complete".
The situation regarding fireworks is getting worse and we need to consider why. The first reason is that fewer fireworks are manufactured domestically. The overwhelming number of fireworks come in from China. The UK is quite a small market, whereas the other markets, such as the United States, which are much larger, prefer bigger bangs. Perhaps that is because they have more space. In any event, the Chinese are making fireworks for a different market and they are being sold in this country.
The second reason is a good example of the law of unintended consequences. The 1997 regulations banned the manufacture, sale and use of bangers—we all remember the penny bangers that used to be thrown around the street. Because bangers are banned, yobs now use air bombs. Since 1997 the price of air bombs has fallen to a quarter of what it was, so they are more accessible. They are much louder, they are directional—I have never fired one myself because I am too old, but perhaps I should go and buy one to find out—and they can be fired some 60 m, so they become almost a weapon in the hands of the teenage hooligans who mainly use
them. We should remember the law of unintended consequences resulting from regulations that we make in the House.
Mr. Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robathan: I will not, as I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and a great many hon. Members wish to speak.
The third reason, as has been mentioned, is the larger white van trade, as I shall call it, for want of a better term—the black market that has sprung up in fireworks, which can be bought and distributed through unscrupulous retailers, car boot sales or wherever. The boxes, I understand, are split up from containers in lay-bys, which is illegal under the 1997 regulations. I suppose we have become a more antisocial society. When I was young, I do not think people threw bangers at old people and guide dogs. Perhaps I am being naive or showing my middle age.
The problems associated with fireworks are compounded, as we heard from several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), by the lack of enforcement. Bangers are illegal, as we know. Throwing fireworks in the street has been illegal since the Explosives Act 1875, yet, notwithstanding all the letters of complaint that we have had, only 64 cases were brought in England and Wales in 2000. I hope that the Bill will make enforcement easier for the police, which is what we all want.
I shall deal with improvements that are already on the way. Like the Minister who ruled out a ban on fireworks in the Westminster Hall debate on 30 October, we do not favour a ban. I commend the Government—very unusually—on the voluntary measures that they have been instrumental in introducing, which came into force on 1 January.
The industry, with the assistance of the DTI, has banned the import and sale of air bombs. That will turn out to be the key. People have told me that they believe that it will produce the quietest 5 November and surrounding period for years and that it will remove 10 million bangs from the market, and we all welcome that.
After eight years' discussion, the CEN, the Comité Européen de Normalisation, or the European Standards Committee—I have A-level French, although it is a little rusty—has agreed on a European standard of 120 dB. I understand that the DTI, the industry and most animal welfare groups are happy with that agreement and standard, and it could be introduced—I am sure that the Minister will tell us—this year.
The industry will also support a ban on displays after 11 pm—except, of course, on 31 December, although licensing may be needed for that day. Of course, displays after 11 pm are already illegal under the Noise Act 1996. I do not know whether there have been almost no prosecutions under that Act but I am pretty sure that that is the case. The Government are trying out a sort of curfew after 11 pm, which would give the police a greater chance to act, but they are also trying out fixed penalties. They started trying out £40 on-the-spot fines
in four areas last August. I hope that the Minister will tell us how those trials are working and how many fines there have been.
Richard Ottaway : May I assist my hon. Friend on that point? My constituency has one of the pilot schemes for fixed penalty notices, and precisely none has been issued against people for throwing fireworks in the street, mainly because those people are under the age of 18 and fixed penalty notices cannot be given to people under that age.
Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I hope that he may say more about it in his speech. The good wishes of the House are commendable, but the actions that follow our legislation are perhaps more important, and my point about enforcement relates very much to that.
Most of the things that we have heard about break the law already, and a lot of them come from unscrupulous importers and retailers selling to yobs, as the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned. The biggest problem of all is the white van trade, selling broken up boxes of fireworks to small retailers, who sell them on to teenagers.
I now wish to turn to the Bill itself. Conservatives generally are pretty wary of enabling legislation. We certainly do not like extra unnecessary regulations, but we generally support the spirit of the Bill, as I have said already. It is very much a last-minute Bill; the explanatory notes and the Library document for this debate were only published on Wednesday and the Bill was only agreed and published on 13 February, and I understand why. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South is being extremely sensible because, as we know, the Bill will be passed only if the Government give it a fair wind. That is why we have an enabling Bill, which was decided only on 13 February, so let us be in no doubt about that.
The Bill has been hugely watered down to get Government support, as the House is aware. I shall quote the Government's position, as explained by the Minister. [Interruption.] I trust that she has not changed her position since 30 October, when she said:
- The Government do not believe that a case has been made for banning the sale of fireworks and limiting their use to organised public displays. Such a ban could lead to the development of an illegal firework market and might encourage people to produce home-made devices. Sensible and considerate use of fireworks is a popular family entertainment.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 272WH.]
Of course, as a result of being watered down, there is very little substance in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South talked about what is in the clauses. Well, actually, there is nothing in them, except the opportunity for the Government to act, and we all need to be aware of that. The Bill gives the Government—I quote the title of clause 2—"Power to make regulations", and the explanatory notes, which I received only yesterday, summarise the Bill as follows:
- "The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations . . . which will regulate the supply and use of fireworks."
I have concerns about the Bill, and I should like to mention two of them. The first relates to clause 10 on training courses. As I said and as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), I think—
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Wherever.
Mr. Robathan: I am glad to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to the Chamber.
I have blown up a lot of explosives in my time, but the easy thing with fireworks is that we light the blue touch paper and retire—that is just about all the training that people need—and I was able to do that as a boy. I am not against training courses, but I am concerned because when I was younger I went on something called a mountain leadership course. It was an excellent course in many ways, but I vividly remember being taught, in the shadow of Ben Nevis, to light a little gas stove. It was just like lighting a gas stove at home: I turned it on and put a match to it, and then I switched it off. I was taught that as part of the course and, as a result, I left the course because I thought that it was such nonsense. If there are to be training courses, they should be short, apposite, inexpensive and as unregulatory as possible. It may sound great to have training courses, but it is the substance of the course that is the test.
My second concern relates to clause 3 on the supply to children. Of course, it is already illegal to sell fireworks to children. I understand that that clause is designed to stop unscrupulous people buying fireworks and passing them on to teenagers below the age of 18, who cannot be given on-the-spot fines, unfortunately. I am not against that provision, but is it likely—I hope that the Minister will put my mind at rest—that it will extend to giving sparklers to my six-year-old? The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) winces, but where does the Bill state that it will not do that? He has no answer because there is nothing in the Bill about it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |