---

Mr. Chope: We have made great progress. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) for indicating to me that he was prepared to accept both amendments, and I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that she is prepared to accept amendment No. 66. I am also grateful to both of them for indicating that they accept the argument that there is no case for reducing the decibel level for fireworks below 120 dB.

Mr. Leigh: We are almost there, but the Minister said that she would not object to a provision in the Bill dealing with the decibel limit, except for the fact that it might lead to further delays. She wanted concrete assurances. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) could catch the eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on the Front Bench, so that such assurances could be given.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).

Mr. Robathan: Notwithstanding the fact that every Member of the House is a free spirit, I can assure the House that the Front Bench, with the support of the Whips, will try its utmost not to impede any amendment from the other place relating to the figure of 120 dB.

Miss Johnson rose—

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I give way to the Minister.

Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is for the usual channels to discuss the matter fully and determine the outcome. I have made clear our position and our only reservation. I want to make it clear to hon. Members that although we would be content to accept amendment No. 66, unfortunately we are not content to accept amendment No. 40, which is subject to affirmative resolution.

Mr. Chope: I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept amendment No. 40. As I understood it, the Bill's promoter considered it a reasonable amendment. We may have to press the matter to a Division and test the will of the House.

Perhaps the Minister is constrained by the Government approach: they want to keep open as many options as possible, but as Members of the House, we wish to keep some control over the matter within our remit. One way in which we could do that would be to ensure that changing the definition of fireworks had to be the subject of proper primary legislation, which could be debated and amended in the usual way, rather than through regulation, even by the affirmative procedure.

On the substantive issue, we have made enormous progress in clarifying beyond peradventure that the Government believe that the 120 dB limit should be the lowest limit. That is in line with the view of the British

13 Jun 2003 : Column 951

Fireworks Association and with what is being contemplated in Europe. The only issue now is how we can ensure that the expressed will of the House can be written into the Bill, to prevent the possibility of a single-issue factor in the future putting pressure on the Government to amend it. That is why I should like the figure of 120 dB, which is fundamental to the future of the British fireworks industry and fireworks as we know them, to be written into the Bill.

The Minister said that she was concerned that if the clause were amended in the other place, the entire Bill may fall, but I hope that, as she said, the matter can be sorted out through the usual channels, because we are here to try together to improve legislation where it can be improved.

I regret that in all the earlier statements from both the Minister and the promoter there was insufficient clarity on the issue. If there had been proper clarity, we could probably have tabled the amendment in Committee, it would have been accepted on Report, and the Bill could have gone through in that form. Perhaps it is a feature of the House that we do not have as many stages for considering a Bill as they do in their lordships' House. That is a matter that the Procedure Committee may want to consider on a future occasion.

I am grateful to the Minister for her acceptance. I hope that it is shared by other hon. Members. I should like to press amendment No. 40 to a Division, as it involves an issue of principle. A fundamental change to the definition of fireworks should be the subject of primary, rather than secondary, legislation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 85.

Division No. 230 [11:15 am

AYES

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)
Forth, rh Eric
Grayling, Chris
Robathan, Andrew
Ruffley, David
Steen, Anthony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Christopher Chope and
Mr. Edward Leigh

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)
Alexander, Douglas
Allan, Richard
Allen, Graham
Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)
Austin, John
Bailey, Adrian
Barnes, Harry
Baron, John (Billericay)
Barrett, John
Bennett, Andrew
Best, Harold
Betts, Clive
Blears, Ms Hazel
Blizzard, Bob
Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Cairns, David
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Cranston, Ross
Crausby, David
Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Dobson, rh Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Gale, Roger (N Thanet)
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)
Gerrard, Neil
Gilroy, Linda
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)
Holmes, Paul
Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Keetch, Paul
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Leslie, Christopher
Levitt, Tom (High Peak)
Linton, Martin
Luke, Iain (Dundee E)
McCabe, Stephen
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McNulty, Tony
McWalter, Tony
Mallaber, Judy
Mercer, Patrick
Moffatt, Laura
Moonie, Dr. Lewis
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)
Osborne, George (Tatton)
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Perham, Linda
Prosser, Gwyn
Pugh, Dr. John
Quin, rh Joyce
Robertson, Angus (Moray)
Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)
Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)
Sheridan, Jim
Spellar, rh John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Touhig, Don (Islwyn)
Truswell, Paul
Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)
Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Ward, Claire
Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Weir, Michael
Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Barry Gardiner and
Mr. Andrew Dismore

Question accordingly negatived.

13 Jun 2003 : Column 952

Clause 2

Power to make Regulations about Fireworks

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'there is no' and insert 'the'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in page 2, line 2, after 'subsection (3)', insert 'is controlled'.

No. 43, in page 2, line 2, leave out ', or'.

No. 44, in page 2, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 45, in page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

'(a) death, injury or unnecessary suffering to persons'.

No. 46, in page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

'(b) death, injury or unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal, and'.

Mr. Chope: This is another important group of amendments, which deals with the issue of risk and consequences, and their effect would be to make clause 2 much more reasonable. If amendments Nos. 41 and 42 were accepted, clause 2(1)(a) would read:

"for securing that the risk that use of fireworks will have the consequences specified in subsection (3) is controlled".

Those of us who have any experience of health and safety issues and legislation—I have some, having had the privilege of serving on the Health and Safety Commission for a number of years—know that the elimination of risk is not practical. We are talking about introducing means by which risks and the consequences of those risks can be controlled. That is reflected in my amendments, rather than the absolutist approach—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many alternative conversations going on in the Chamber.

---