|
Column Number: 2
Standing Committee C
Wednesday 30 April 2003
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
2.30 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room. Clause 1
Introduction
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I beg to move amendment No. 3, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 4, in
No. 1, in
No. 2, in
Mr. Robathan: As the Committee will know, the Opposition have no great problem with the Bill. Indeed, I applaud the work of the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) in promoting it. I hope that it will assist in making the lives of our constituents less noisy, and that it may help to reduce the upset and anguish that some people suffer as a result of firework noise.
As the Minister knows, the Bill has little content; it merely allows the Government to make regulations. However, we have a philosophical objection to giving the Government too much power to make regulation—powers that may be abused in years to come. Therefore, the amendments propose that the Government make changes by statutory instrument, which should be placed before Parliament. That is not unreasonable. Nor is it a wrecking move. We simply want the Government to agree, so that if a future Government were ill-disposed to a sector of the fireworks industry, or for some other reason wished to introduce draconian measures, they would not be able to do so without coming before Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I welcome you, Mr. Benton, to the Chair. I also welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in support of the Bill. I, too, express enthusiasm for the Bill.
Column Number: 4
I clearly understand the philosophical point made by the hon. Gentleman. However, I am advised by parliamentary counsel that amendment No. 2 is different from the others. Only that amendment would have an effect on the Bill, in so far as it would lead to fireworks regulations being subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; they are currently subject to the negative procedure. Only that amendment would have the effect that the hon. Gentleman seeks, and that would happen under clause 16(3).
I am informed that amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 do not achieve anything; they are technically defective. I hope that hon. Members will not press me too much on the detail, but the reason is the interaction of the amendments with the wording of clause 16, which deals with the parliamentary procedure for making regulations. It is probably a technical matter.
If the hon. Gentleman and others are concerned about the powers that the Bill would give the Government and wish to table further amendments in lieu of amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4, or if they want the Government to deal with the matter on Report, we shall be as helpful as we can. However, I am happy to accept amendment No. 2 if the Committee so desires. As I say, it would make orders subject to the affirmative resolution procedure that would otherwise have been subject to the negative procedure.
I turn to the previous private Member's Bill on fireworks, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). The concerns that were expressed at that time have already been addressed. Clause 1(2) and clause 14(3) provide powers to introduce regulations. The regulations that existed at the time that the previous Bill was discussed are those that were thought to cause problems. The regulations are now secure.
Regulations under those powers are to be subject to affirmative procedure. It may be that some of the difficulties or potential concerns that the hon. Member for Blaby has just outlined are addressed by different drafting in the present Bill. That addresses part of the problem.
I am happy to accept amendment No. 2 and to look at the need for further amendments. However, amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 cannot be accepted.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister for her very reasonable stand on the matter. As she will know, the Opposition do not necessarily have the benefit of extensive parliamentary counsel assistance. If it is the view of parliamentary counsel that amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are defective, I understand that they will not be allowable. Given that, and her reasonable assurance that, if necessary, she will come forward on Report with amendments to the Bill, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I ask that she write to me and other members of the Committee so we shall know exactly what will happen on Report.
I shall not press the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 5
Clause 2
Power to make regulations about fireworks
Amendment made: No. 2, in
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Ross Cranston (Dudley, North): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South on introducing the Bill and taking it this far. I want to raise an issue about subsection (2). Subsection (1) says that the regulations are for securing that there is no risk that the use of fireworks will have certain consequences. In subsection (2), those consequences are spelt out. The first area is to do with death, injury and alarm. There is great concern about the antisocial behaviour associated with fireworks. If I catch your eye later, Mr. Benton, I will say something about that when we discuss clause 4.
The second area deals with injury or distress to animals; that is a great concern. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which has done so much good work on the Bill, has said that it costs around £27,000 to train a guide dog but that four have to be retired every year due to stress. I know that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have received petitions. I received a petition containing about 1,500 signatures from a veterinary practice in Dudley, Black and Partners.
I have a question for the Minister about the third area, which concerns
''destruction of, or damage to, property.''
Does she accept that, where the word ''damage'' is used, it includes potential damage? I have been shown large rockets by trading standards in my constituency. I have also seen rockets that were exhibited by the chairman of the Black Country Chamber of Commerce, Mike Holder, containing large pieces of aluminium, other metals and plastics. Those pieces fall from the sky. I have had no reports that they have caused damage in my constituency. However, there is potential for damage. I should like to be assured that the regulations could cover potential damage—damage that may be caused by those fireworks raining down from the sky. The regulations may, for example, limit the use of large aluminium or plastic pieces in rockets.
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): My hon. and learned Friend says that he is not aware of injuries having occurred in his constituency but I echo his great concern. People may be in their gardens when debris from a large firework comes down. Last November, my local newspaper covered many near-miss incidents. There were photos showing how far the debris was embedded in the soil. If the person had been closer, they would have suffered a serious injury. When I was driving one icy night, debris from a firework hit my car bonnet, which was quite scary, so again there is a lot of potential for damage.
Column Number: 6
Ross Cranston: I have never been subjected to such damage by my constituents, but my hon. Friend makes my point for me. There is potential for damage, so I should like an assurance that the legislation would cover potential as well as actual damage. That may lead to controls on the type of materials that could be used in fireworks.
Shona McIsaac: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. It is great to see the Bill reach Committee today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South on the enormous efforts that he has made to achieve consensus on the Bill, and on bringing people together to get it this far. Some people may like the legislation to go a little further and others do not want it to go as far, but my hon. Friend must be congratulated on the way in which he has achieved consensus.
I do not know whether people in the Room are aware that today is special not only because we are in Committee but because it is international noise awareness day. It is therefore an apt day on which to debate the Fireworks Bill. I shall touch on some of the problems relating to noise and why it is vital that we accept clause 2. I am referring to the provision on the death of animals and injury or distress to animals. A vast number of people bring to our attention the injury and distress that is caused not only to pets but to livestock. Farmers in my constituency have been affected, and there is a particular problem with horses in stables.
The problem is across the board but I shall focus on one case that illustrates why we must toughen the law on fireworks: Warwick the guide dog. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has been very involved in supporting the Bill. Warwick, who was owned by Derek Thorpe, had to be retired because of fireworks. He was not injured by a firework. A firework was thrown at him and exploded between his paws. However, the noise of the firework meant that the dog had to be retired.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) said, a phenomenal investment goes into a guide dog. Derek lost his companion, his ''eyes'', because after the firework exploded the dog was so traumatised by loud noises such as clapping or a door slamming that he could no longer do his job effectively. Although no injury was caused to Warwick, the effect was traumatic for both Warwick and Derek.
|
