The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
David
Marshall
†
Burt,
Lorely
(Solihull)
(LD)
†
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
†
Djanogly,
Mr. Jonathan
(Huntingdon)
(Con)
†
Ellwood,
Mr. Tobias
(Bournemouth, East)
(Con)
†
Flynn,
Paul
(Newport, West)
(Lab)
†
Howarth,
David
(Cambridge)
(LD)
†
McCartney,
Mr. Ian
(Minister for
Trade)
†
Palmer,
Dr. Nick
(Broxtowe)
(Lab)
†
Purchase,
Mr. Ken
(Wolverhampton, North-East)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Stuart,
Mr. Graham
(Beverley and Holderness)
(Con)
†
Thornberry,
Emily
(Islington, South and Finsbury)
(Lab)
†
Walker,
Mr. Charles
(Broxbourne)
(Con)
†
Watson,
Mr. Tom
(West Bromwich, East)
(Lab)
Tom
Healey, Annette Toft, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
European
Standing
Committee
Tuesday 27
February
2007
[Mr.
David Marshall
in the
Chair]
Marketing of Pyrotechnic Articles
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Trade (Mr. Ian McCartney):
I
welcome you to the debate, Mr. Marshall. I shall start by
describing the main objectives of the Commission’s proposal for
a pyrotechnics directive. The first is to establish the conditions for
an internal market, and the second is to ensure a high level of
consumer and professional user safety. Although the Government share
those objectives, our attitude to the proposal has been somewhat
guarded until now, but I hope that the reasons why will become clear
during today’s debate. Whether or not the proposal would
establish a genuine internal market for all the pyrotechnic articles
under its scope is open to question. As the proposal splits
pyrotechnics into different categories, it is sensible to address that
question in relation to those categories.
For consumer fireworks, there is
currently very little cross-border trade in the European Union, as the
majority of fireworks are manufactured in and imported from China and
have been for a number of years. When that is linked with the different
age of supply requirements, the different types of fireworks available
and the days and dates on which fireworks can be supplied in all 27
member states’ markets, it is unlikely that many UK importers of
fireworks will start to trade outside this country. The same is likely
to be true of firework importers in other member states. However, and
perhaps most importantly, the proposal creates the opportunity for
considerably easier cross-border trade and will make the different
requirements of each member state more transparent and easier to
understand and
address.
For
category 4 professional fireworks and professional display companies
operating in the UK, the proposal will bring the benefits of
considerably easier trade with our European partners. Currently, a
display operator wanting to fire in or sell a display to another member
state must meet that country’s requirements. Some requirements
appear to have been created specifically to make it harder for
companies from other countries to fire or sell displays. The proposal
will bring benefits to professional display operators.
Another benefit is for
theatrical, film and television pyrotechnic articles, which include
articles such as bullet hits and various other controlled explosions.
United Kingdom companies, some of which are among the best in the
world, wishing to trade or operate in other member states must meet
those states’ various requirements, making it difficult and
often expensive to do business outside the UK. The harmonisation of the
technical specifications for such products will make it easier to
operate elsewhere in the EU. Members of the CBI explosives industry
group, which specialises in that area, believes that the proposal could
result in increased and easier cross-border trade.
Automotive pyrotechnic
manufacturers of products such as seat-belt equipment, car air-bag
detonators and so on could benefit most from the directive. Currently,
UK companies must meet the requirements for each country that they
trade into. For a number of countries, that requires additional test
reports and paperwork, which adds considerably to the burden of trading
with them.
CLEPA, the
European Association of Automotive Suppliers, estimates that the total
EU market for automotive occupant restraint systems is €5.5
billion a year. UK automotive component manufacturers are active in the
sector and have indicated that they support CLEPA’s view that
the proposal’s objectives will bring benefits to the
industry.
I very much
hope that the proposal’s secondary aim of ensuring a high level
of consumer and professional user safety will be strengthened, leading
to a reduction in firework injuries in the UK. Approximately 1,000
injuries in the UK each year are caused by fireworks of all types, and
only a very small percentage of injuries can be attributed to
malfunctioning or badly manufactured fireworks—the firework
industry’s estimate is fewer than 3 per cent. However, as many
injuries are caused by misuse of fireworks, such as throwing them in
the street, I do not think that there will be a dramatic reduction in
injuries if the proposal is adopted. The harmonised European standards
that will support the proposal will lead to harmonised user
instructions, warnings and safety distances.
The proposal recognises that
professional category 4 fireworks, certain pyrotechnic articles for
stage, film and television use and certain automotive components are
not suitable for use by everyone, and that access to them should be
restricted to competent professionals. Those provisions should lead to
a reduction in injuries to consumers and professionals
alike.
The UK was
initially opposed to the proposal, as it was felt that it would cut
across our existing and fairly new legislation on fireworks and was
unlikely to offer many benefits to UK industry or, indeed, consumers.
Apart from Sweden, which now also supports the proposal, the UK was
isolated in its views, so it was decided that the sensible course of
action was to work on the text to make it as practical and beneficial
as possible. Given the support for the proposal by the majority of
other member states, it was highly unlikely that we would persuade them
that they should refuse to implement it or that they would agree that
it was not such a good idea for us.
In my
Department’s correspondence with the Committee, we have been
open about our initial concerns with the proposal. Having now worked to
make the text of the proposal as agreeable as possible, we support the
proposal because its positive benefits outweigh the less positive ones.
The Committee will wish to know that the German presidency intends to
seek agreement on the text in the Council in March or April. I am happy
to now answer questions from
colleagues.
The
Chairman:
We have until half-past 5 to question the
Minister. I remind hon. Members that questions should be brief and
asked one at a time. There is likely to be ample opportunity for all
who wish to do so to ask questions.
Mr.
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): Given that the
directive seemingly presents no economic or environmental benefit and
that there is no indication that it will significantly improve consumer
confidence, why do the Government support the
proposal?
Mr.
McCartney:
I apologise if the hon. Gentleman was asleep
when I made my opening speech—
[Interruption.] I
apologise, he knows I did not mean that. There are four reasons. First,
when we consulted with industry professionals, both in the
entertainment and motor manufacturing industries, they made it clear
that the proposals, as renegotiated, would provide the possibility of
increased trade for them—for example, in relation to theatrical,
film and TV pyrotechnical articles. The harmonisation of the technical
specifications would assist them in significantly increasing
cross-border trade. Given that Britain is probably best in the world in
such activities, it would seem sensible, if we have negotiated that
change, to take the benefit of it.
The provision will help
professional display companies with cross-border trade. Again, the UK
is well set up. We have some of the best professional display companies
in the world. However, the directive helps to reduce barriers to
gaining access to business and provides opportunities for cross-border
trade.
We have
probably got the largest part of the European automotive products
industry, a significant part which employs large numbers of people in
the UK. Its products are regularly sought and sourced from the UK. It
seems sensible to support the proposal, given that the whole European
automotive industry, with British industry support, says that the
directive will help not only UK but European industry to cross-trade
and improve global trade. It is also reasonable to support the proposal
that has gone before the Council, given that we have renegotiated the
wording to ensure that all our high levels of consumer and professional
safety and our new regulations, which we have implemented in the past
few years, are protected and sacrosanct under the
proposal.
Mr.
Djanogly:
The Minister seems to be mainly speaking about
motor products, but my understanding is that the majority of products
relevant to this provision would be fireworks. To that extent, would he
now address my question again in relation to fireworks? Are there any
material, economic, environmental or significant consumer protection
benefits in relation to
fireworks?
Mr.
McCartney:
That is a reasonable question. I said in my
opening remarks that the majority of firework trade into the EU comes
from China. That will not change and there will be little cross-border
trading in fireworks. That is not an issue, but the second matter
raised by the hon. Gentleman is important and I want to reassure him on
it.
From the outset, it
was critical that two things happened in relation to safety. One
measure was developed on a cross-party basis. My former hon. Friend and
Member for Hamilton, South—Bill Tynan—made tremendous
strides with his campaign and private Member’s Bill that
resulted in changes in protecting consumers, children and adults alike,
in the past few years. Not all EU countries have the same standards of
consumer and product safety in the use of
fireworks, so the big gain from the proposal is that it will provide
harmonisation, to uplift the poorer consumer safety records of member
states. That is a benefit; it does not undermine us or detrimentally
affect our high
standards.
David
Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): On the same theme, will the
Minister explain his Department’s comments when it said that the
measure does not raise subsidiarity concerns? It is easy to see the
benefits of improving EU internal trade in the intermediate products
that he mentioned, especially in air-bag pyrotechnics in the automotive
industry and theatrical pyrotechnics, but what is the justification for
saying that there is no subsidiarity concern about EU regulation of
consumer fireworks? I suppose that the simplest way of putting the
question is what do consumer fireworks have to do with the
EU?
Mr.
McCartney:
Fireworks are relevant to the EU. We import
large numbers of fireworks from across the EU, which imports them
almost exclusively from China. We must ensure that fireworks and all
other products that enter the single European market are fit for
purpose, meet health and safety and other regulatory standards and
that, if not, there is a means of redress with which to deal with them.
The UK has done that by improving the regulatory regime for consumer
safety and by setting out measures for the use of fireworks by
consumers and in organised professional displays. That regime was
agreed on a cross-party basis and is protected.
The proposals will not distort
the genuine single market that we have been aiming at. We have been
trying to take down barriers to professional displays and theatrical
activities—an industry in which the UK is a product and
service-provider leader. We have had difficulties in the past owing to
unfair practices and administrative barriers. The directive will take
down those barriers. The industrial component industry across Europe
has asked us to support the directive, as has the industry in Britain,
because it will help cross-border trade and the development of the
industry. That seems to be a sensitive way forward.
Would it not be sensible to make
a genuine attempt to harmonise across all 27 nations an industry in
which consumer concern has arisen over safety and to establish minimum
standards? Those might not meet our higher standards, but we can
maintain them nevertheless under the directive, which will ensure that
standards must be complied with when fireworks are used, whether by
individuals or professionally. That is of advantage to
consumers.
David
Howarth:
I thank the Minister for that reply. The problem
with the consumer regulation in the proposal is that it governs not
just product standards, but the behaviour of people and sets age limits
for the use and purchase of fireworks, which seems to be a national,
rather than an EU matter. Furthermore, is there not a problem with
saying that the objective is to introduce competition and transparency
in cross-border trade? Although that is a good argument for ordinary
non-dangerous products, opening up the market in dangerous products
will drive down prices, which will increase the number of fireworks
sold and, therefore, the number of
accidents.
Mr.
McCartney:
I said that the majority of fireworks injuries
occur not because of defects in design and manufacture, but because of
the way in which they are used. That is true. In the Netherlands, for
example, the majority of fireworks are used on street events.
Unsurprisingly, the levels of minor and significant injuries there bear
a relationship to that.
On the point about subsidiarity,
nothing in the document changes the type of activity described as a
dangerous use of fireworks. The document does not do that. As the hon.
Gentleman said, it is up to a member state to decide the maximum level
of consumer safety, whether that is by providing individual advice and
support on how to use fireworks safely, ensuring that there are
regulations relating to organised firework displays, or regulating the
sale of fireworks and those who use them professionally. The UK has a
panoply of legislation that is not affected by the document.
I hope that
the basic minimum standards that will apply will help to drive up
standards in Community countries that do not have such high standards.
[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington
says, many of our constituents work or go on holiday in the European
Union and could be affected by the misuse of fireworks, so it is in the
interests of our citizens to drive up standards. The document will not
affect what we do here, but it is important to recognise that where
there are cultural factors, it is a matter for the state in question to
give appropriate advice and support to help to change that culture to
reduce accidents and injuries, as we have
done.
Mr.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East) (Lab): I apologise to my
right hon. Friend and to the Labour Whip because I must admit to the
Committee that I have read all the document. I hope that my right hon.
Friend bears with me while I seek clarification on a few technical
points to do with air bags.
The
Chairman:
Order. One question at a
time.
Article 7 of the document deals
with age limits and states that there will be an age limit of
18 years for category 1 pyrotechnics. My understanding is that
that will affect air-bag technology and seat-belt pretensioners. Will
that prohibit 17-year-olds, who can purchase vehicles in Britain, from
purchasing vehicles with pretensioners and air bags? I understand that
the Minister may not know the answer directly, but I thought that I
should raise that because it is of interest to the car
industry.
Mr.
McCartney:
I invite my hon. Friend to come to the Front
Bench and answer that question himself. The proposal sets out the
minimum age limit for the sale of consumer fireworks, which are below
those in the UK. The document allows member states to increase age
limits where justified on grounds of public order, security and safety.
As our age restrictions have been set on those bases, they will
continue. My understanding is that the age restrictions relate to the
sale of consumer fireworks.
Lorely
Burt (Solihull) (LD): The Liberal Democrats are happy with
the idea that this is a necessary directive for the automotive and
theatrical industries, but we are worried about subsidiarity where
fireworks are concerned. I am struggling to understand the situation.
The Minister said that there would be standard instructions. He implied
that the UK can set its own instructions on, and set standards for,
safety and the age at which people are able to buy and use fireworks.
Is that the case? If it is, why do we need to impose European safety
standards when we can completely ignore them and set our own, stronger
standards?
Mr.
McCartney:
It is not a matter of ignoring the safety
standards; it is about subsidiarity and the ability of a national
Government to improve on the minimum standard. For more than a decade,
there has been active public debate and concern about fireworks in this
country, not only about noise and nuisance, but about inappropriate
sales to younger people, and the poor organisation of events that leads
to injury and, up until 2000—sadly—some deaths. We have
gone through a long process in the UK of refurbishing and improving our
regulatory frameworks on a bipartisan basis to improve consumer and
professional standards, and quite rightly. That is why it is important
that any harmonisation of minimum standards in the directive should not
undermine that good
work.
I
shall give another example, which is not up for the Conservatives to
speculate on. We have the highest standards for product safety in
furniture manufacturing, not just in Europe but in the world. They were
introduced in 1988—10 years ago next year—by the right
hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), chairman of the
Conservative party. So effective are they that they have saved hundreds
of lives and prevented tens of thousands of injuries. Nothing done in
the harmonisation of European manufacture of foam furniture undermines
the effect of those measures.
I think that I have answered the
point about subsidiarity three times now. We have subsidiarity, and we
negotiated the settlement, to ensure that the effectiveness of our
Government’s measures is not undermined by the
proposals.
Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): I should put it
on the record that the issue of fireworks is of huge contention in
Bournemouth, as it is in many constituencies where they are becoming a
nuisance and causing a noise problem. In the Minister’s response
to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, he said that 99 per cent.
of the fireworks entering this country come from China. Am I correct to
say that the proposal is therefore not relevant to imports from that
country?
Mr.
McCartney:
No, that is not the case at all. All fireworks,
whether imported from China or otherwise, will be required to meet
stringent safety standards. The issue of fireworks and noise is
important. At certain times of the year, all MPs are inundated, and
rightly so, by constituents’ complaints about the environmental
damage done to them, their pets, their families and their communities
by inappropriate use and misuse of extremely noisy fireworks on a
regular, daily or nightly basis. Christmas starts in October in my
constituency
and goes all the way through to January with no break in between. Since
the measures were introduced, there has been a decline in the problem
in my area, but it might not be the same in
others.
The directive
deals with noise and fireworks under general safety requirements. The
proposal includes general definitions of noise for each of the three
categories of consumer fireworks: category 1, negligible noise level;
category 2, low noise level; and category 3, noise level that should
not be harmful for human health. The definitions are general and form
part of the mandate of the European standards committee for harmonised
standards for fireworks, which will set more specific decibel levels
for each category of firework. That will improve consumer safety and
deal with issues that we in this country are already dealing with
effectively. Rather than standing here reading a range of decibels into
the record, it might be more sensible to write to hon. Members on the
technical aspects, if that is helpful, because the point raised is a
fair
one.
Mr.
Ellwood:
I am grateful to the Minister for that response,
but it still does not clarify how the people of Bournemouth, or indeed
anywhere else, will benefit from that bit of the directive. He has
raised the issue of noise and acknowledged that the nuisance caused by
fireworks is growing. Categorising noise levels is interesting, but it
will not prevent individuals from going out and buying fireworks in the
various categories and using them. What can he say about the powers
allowed, whether on a local or a national basis, to reduce the misuse
of
fireworks?
Mr.
McCartney:
Again, I am happy to answer that question,
because we have specific legislation in this country to deal with
that.
Mr.
Ellwood:
It is not
working.
Mr.
McCartney:
I do not know how good the hon. Gentleman is as
a Member of Parliament, or whether his local authority is Conservative
or Liberal Democrat, but the powers exist, and I will tell him what
they are. I suggest that after I read them into the record, he goes
back to his local authority and other appropriate trading standards
officers about the matter, because it is important to all parties. I am
not making a partisan comment; the legislation was introduced with the
support of all political parties in this
place.
The year 2005
was the first fireworks season during which all Government measures to
counter antisocial misuse of fireworks were in place. The number of
reports from the public was significantly higher than in 2004. Why?
Because they knew that something could be done about it. That is
attributed to the powers being widely communicated and higher public
expectations to deal with various offences, especially with nuisances
caused after 11 o’clock at night. Home Office figures for fixed
penalty notices issued for firework offences in 2005 were 33 breaches
of curfew, 13 possessions of category 4 fireworks, 47 possessions of an
adult firework by persons under 18 and 642 setting off of fireworks in
a public thoroughfare.
The measures are being utilised
effectively across the country. Since 2005, we have had the ability to
do something about the nuisances in our constituencies. I suggest that
the hon. Gentleman goes back and talks to his trading standards office
about putting in place the proper use of those
measures.
Mr.
Watson:
I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to
article 12 on labelling, which
says:
“Manufacturers
shall ensure that pyrotechnic articles are properly labelled in the
official language(s) of the country in which the article is sold to the
consumer”.
He knows that
Britain leads the way in air-bag technology. There is a concern across
some members of the industry that although those pyrotechnic articles
will be placed in vehicles and will not be visible, the manufacturers
of that technology often do not know what markets their air bags are
going to be sold in, because they end up in cars all over the European
continent. Will he confirm that the article will not undermine the
air-bag industry by making it do things that it cannot do at
present?
Mr.
McCartney:
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the industry
supports the proposal as the text now stands in the negotiations, and I
have written to that
effect.
Mr.
Djanogly:
The hon. Member for Cambridge and the Minister
have had discussions on subsidiarity. In the Minister’s letter
of 6 November, it is
stated:
“The
European Commission considers Community action as justified in
subsidiarity terms as the pyrotechnics directive ensures the free
movement within the Community, of pyrotechnic articles falling within
its scope”.
Given that he
also accepts in his letter that the firework industry has indicated
that the current situation on cross-border trade is unlikely to change
as a result of the implementation of his proposals, will he satisfy the
Committee that the proposals meet the subsidiarity
test?
Mr.
McCartney:
I will. As I said in my opening statement and
in answers to subsequent questions, there will be little cross-border
trade because there is little manufacturing of fireworks within the EU.
Fireworks that are manufactured in the EU have a small national
marketplace. The proposal gives an opportunity for that small
productive capacity to trade more easily across the EU. Frankly,
however, because of the high level of import penetration over years and
decades, the vast majority of fireworks acquisition, either on a
professional or individual consumer basis, comes from outside the
European
Union.
Lorely
Burt:
The Minister said that only 3 per cent. of accidents
are due to the work of professional operators. Is that Europe-wide or
UK-wide? If we are so much safer in the UK, we would expect the
proportion of professional accidents to increase. If the way in which
we operate fireworks is so much safer, do we need standards that will
be—we assume—so much lower than those that we already
have in place? I see the benefits for other European countries, but I
am struggling to see what is in it for
Britain.
Mr.
McCartney:
The hon. Lady is struggling to make an
argument. The truth of the matter is—I think that I set this out
clearly—that in subsidiarity terms we have, and have been able
to retain, the highest level of safety standards across all aspects of
the issue. The minimum standards will help many countries that have
lower standards, and we should be in favour of that. Why should we be
less interested in a consumer in some other country who is damaged by a
firework? Firework damage is firework damage to the individual
concerned, so dragging up standards at an international level is
important. By the way, high standards are very good for our competitive
advantage, as with automotive products: we produce the highest quality
products, and the higher the standard, the more capacity there is for
making improvements in the marketplace.
On injuries, the 3 per cent.
that I mentioned was an estimate from the British firework industry. I
apologise if I did not make that clear. The figure relates to fireworks
that malfunctioned in the United Kingdom. I said that approximately
1,000 people a year are treated at hospital casualty departments. Of
those, 5 per cent. are serious accidents that require one or more
night’s stay in hospital. The latest figures show that there
have been no deaths since 2000. Overall, injuries are down by 14.5 per
cent.; injuries to under-12s are down by 24.6 per cent.; injuries
caused by rockets are down by 24.6 per cent.; injuries caused
by sparklers are down by 30 per cent.; injuries sustained at a family
or other private party are down by 19.5 per cent.; and injuries in
streets or other public spaces are down by 26 per cent. To give a full
picture to the hon. Lady, rather than picking out only the good points,
for some reason, injuries for 13 to 17-year-olds have risen by 8 per
cent., from 197 cases to 213. However, the overall trend is of
substantial improvement.
David
Howarth:
May I come back to the point about consumer
fireworks and subsidiarity? The Minister’s argument seems to be
that because British citizens go to other European countries on holiday
or to work, that justifies the EU deciding the standard. If that were
true, it would prove too much. Does he agree that if that is the
argument, it is also an argument for common, harmonised European
standards on matters such as traffic laws? We might end up having
common European speed limits or driving on the same side of the road,
which nobody thinks are good ideas. I invite him to produce a different
argument for his conclusion, because his first argument does not
work.
Mr.
McCartney:
I did not use that argument. To be perfectly
frank, that was a ridiculous point. I do not know how many times I have
answered the subsidiarity point. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member
for Solihull come back with another reason for asking the same question
time and time again. My point was that it seems sensible to support
dragging up standards wherever, particularly when British citizens go
to other places in Europe for a variety of good reasons, be they
business, commercial or travel. That our citizens will see improvements
is not an argument for subsidiarity; it is a common-sense argument to
help drive up standards.
Mr.
Watson:
I concur with my right hon. Friend. He is
absolutely right to say that we should be trying to drive up standards
across Europe, particularly on
fireworks. Frankly, it is terrifying if one chooses to be in Spain on
the wrong summer’s night.
On noise levels, the current UK
legislation for household fireworks sets a limit of 140 dB, I believe.
That level was set by legislation enacted a few years ago and was
closely fought over in the Chamber, as the Minister will recall, when
we debated what was then a private Member’s Bill. Does the
directive allow a future UK Government to unilaterally reduce noise
levels?
Mr.
McCartney:
No, it does not. Because of the way in which
the legislation is written, it provides us with the ability to improve
safety standards on the grounds of public safety, but who knows? In
future years, there may be a Government who are irresponsible enough to
reduce standards. We cannot compete with that possibility. Any
Government can change legislation, except, of course, European
legislation, which has to be changed by agreement. There is no way that
the measure can be used to reduce our standards, because they are set
by national legislation, which the document protects. In future years,
should we wish to make further improvements, the document gives us the
ability to do
so.
Mr.
Ellwood:
The more that I read the document and the more I
that understand the legislation, the more I believe that we are
receiving an unnecessary lump of red tape from the EU. If we are able
to impose our own standards, why would we have subservient standards?
If we are trying to raise standards across the board, why did we not
ask for those high standards from the EU in the first place, so that we
do not need supplementary standards? That is the point of subsidiarity
at the heart of our question.
I shall ask a question to
illustrate that example. Article 3 on page 21 lists the firework
categories, as I stated in my previous question: categories 1, 2, 3 and
4. Article 7 on the following page lists age groups, saying that
category 1 fireworks may be sold to children over 12, category 2 to
those over 16 and category 3 to those over 18. I question those numbers
anyway—I should like to see them a lot higher—but could
the Minister say whether the EU standards are the same as the British
standards?
Mr.
McCartney:
The UK standards allow 120 dB for category 2
fireworks, not 140 dB. The new harmonised standards will introduce
noise levels for further categories of fireworks. They will not impinge
on the levels that we have set as a
country.
Mr.
Ellwood:
I was not talking about noise
levels.
Mr.
McCartney:
No, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to
imply—it is a reasonable assumption, if he wants to make
it—that the proposals are just red tape and will impose
standards that we will not have to operate in any event. Two things are
important about that. The secondary issue is consumer safety, but the
big issue is a single market device and whether it will improve
cross-border trade in respect of the categories.
On the two really
important categories, British industry is saying to us, “This is
important. This will enable us to improve our cross-border trade by
getting
rid of the red tape that is preventing it and by getting harmonisation.
Because of the high standards, we will be able to sell our products and
services into the marketplace more effectively.” Those two
categories are important to every person who is interested and
concerned about fireworks safety issues.
We have an industry in this
country that is very good at organised displays. The proposal will help
those companies that find it difficult to get cross-border access to
sell their services. I assume that using safer companies and better
qualified professionals will help to reduce accidents outside the UK
and gain potential business for legitimate UK business
interests.
Mr.
Djanogly:
The Minister just
said—
Mr.
Ellwood:
On a point of order, Mr. Marshall. May
I not respond to that? I have only had one
question.
The
Chairman:
Is it a
supplementary?
Mr.
Ellwood:
Yes. I was gearing myself up, because I felt that
I had been completely robbed of the opportunity for a reply from the
Minister. I asked him specifically about the differences between EU
legislation imposed by Brussels on age limits for sales of categories
of fireworks and what we have here in the UK, which is very different.
He did not acknowledge that. That was the question, but he wandered off
into talking about decibels and all sorts of other things, such as our
wonderful manufacturing industry, which I do not challenge. My simple
question was why we have one set of legislation from the EU and another
set of top-up
legislation—
Mr.
Ellwood:
I have not finished yet, so the Minister can hold
on one second. We are having to top up with a pile of legislation. I
pose the question again. Why has the EU set age groups for the
categories of fireworks when the UK has a different, higher set of age
groups imposed by our own legislation?
Mr.
McCartney:
The hon. Gentleman asked quite a detailed,
far-reaching question, and he called into question the whole basis of
the directive on the grounds that it was red tape. I was trying to
point out the different components and aspects of the directive, to be
helpful.
The age limits
in the directive are the minimum standard for member states. They were
introduced on safety, security and nuisance grounds. The UK will
therefore maintain its age limit of 18 for the majority of fireworks
and 16 for party poppers and so on. Why? Because we are entitled to do
so, and the directive protects our entitlement to do
so.
Mr.
Ellwood:
That is why it is red
tape.
Mr.
McCartney:
We have it on the record that a Conservative
thinks that saving young people from accidents, injury and death is red
tape.
Mr.
Ellwood:
The EU legislation is red
tape.
Mr.
McCartney:
It is not. A 16-year-old, 18-year-old or
younger person living in any country is entitled to minimum standards
of protection. The fact that they might not have been born in England,
Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland is irrelevant, quite frankly. It is
one thing to be anti-Europe, but to be anti-child safety is
ridiculous.
Mr.
Djanogly:
The Minister said in his earlier remarks that
the key issue is whether the proposal will improve cross-border trade.
I suggest that in the vast majority of cases, it will not. Have we not
said that China is the key issue on fireworks, given that the majority
of them—more than 90 per cent.—come from China?
Therefore, the directive will presumably have little effect on
cross-border
trade.
Mr.
McCartney:
I said in my opening remarks that there is
little cross-border trade of consumer fireworks in the EU, as the
majority of fireworks are manufactured in and imported from China and
have been for many
years.
Mr.
Djanogly:
So how will the directive increase such
trade?
Mr.
McCartney:
It will not increase trade in that category. I
was quite open and frank about that. I cannot be plainer about the
categories in which it will increase trade. The UK has a distinct
advantage in relation to automotive products, products made for the
theatrical industry, services provided for consumer safety reasons and
organised displays. The directive will allow us to increase our trade
appropriately. In all three categories, the UK industries are asking
that the directive be
supported.
Mr.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): The
Minister has said that the changes will make little or no material
difference to the cross-border trade in fireworks, but that the effect
will be greater on automotive products.
Mr.
Watson:
You have not read the directive, have
you?
Mr.
Graham Stuart:
Perhaps not as fully as the hon.
Gentleman would like us to believe that he has.
We are talking about standards.
The issue of subsidiarity is about whether there is a need for law at
European level. The partial interest of certain manufacturers in this
country in standards which may or may not benefit them in competitive
terms, against other competitors across the EU, is not a reason, in
principle, for the Minister to give up the recognition that we should
not bring in rules at the European level that are best made at the
national level. Perhaps the Minister would address
that?
Mr.
McCartney:
I have addressed that on more than one
occasion. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, as it does not matter if
he has not read all the documentation. Ministers sometimes stand at the
Dispatch Box and do not read all of it. In those circumstances, we look
to the Opposition and, if they are blank as we are, we know that we are
going to be okay.
[Laughter.] I will give away a secret or two.
I know what will happen: every time that I come to this Committee, the
first thing they will do is look at my eyes to see whether I know
something about the subject.
The thrust of what I have been
saying is that we have maintained subsidiarity where it exists. That is
important because there is a huge diversity of standards in firework
safety measures, or lack of them, in the 27 countries of Europe. It
would therefore seem sensible, as a secondary part of this directive,
to start the process of upgrading and improving those standards. It is
important that that
happens.
The
Conservatives have a difficulty with subsidiarity in European
legislation. It is a legitimate intellectual and political point to
make, but having made it on numerous occasions—I respect that
point of view—they should show respect back in acknowledging
that we have negotiated a position where their concerns and worries
with subsidiarity are not only matched, but groundless in terms of the
directive.
Mr.
Stuart:
I thank the Minister for that answer and he makes
a strong point. What estimate has he made in discussions with industry
groups about the likely effect of the regulation on increasing
UK—or indeed inter-country—trade in the products that he
referred to?
The
Opposition are concerned that there is an increasing amount of red
tape. If there is not a material and great improvement in cross-border
trade and an economic difference to the working of the single market,
as my hon. Friends have said, this will be unnecessary regulation,
created by an EU which tends to go into areas beyond that which it
needs
to.
Mr.
McCartney:
That is a very fair question. The proposal will
allow, for example, professional firework display operators to trade
and fire their displays on an even and equal basis in other member
states. The reason for that is that there is currently no minimum
standard. Therefore, every time our industry, which has the highest
professional standards and operates effectively, attempts to compete in
different states it comes up against all sorts of barriers and the
application of different standards. Those are all designed for one
reason: to prevent genuine competition. The introduction of minimum
standards will not only improve the safety of consumers, which is
important, but give our industries the ability to seek to operate in
France or elsewhere and to sell their services on a legitimate, even
playing field.
Mr.
Watson:
In the spirit of my right hon. Friend’s
candour, I admit to him that I read the document safe in the knowledge
that my friend in the Government Whips Office would never put me on
this Committee again. I thank him for his earlier reassurance about
decibel levels and the UK Government’s ability to reduce the
decibel level of household fireworks in future. As he knows, the 120 dB
limit was a compromise agreed by those who introduced the Fireworks Act
2003. That compromise, which is still creating misery for many of our
constituents in West Bromwich and in Bournemouth, had to be made
because Conservative MPs had threatened to talk the Bill out. I hope
that, if we reach such a point in future, there will be new thinking
among Conservative Members and that the directive will
help.
Mr.
McCartney:
I take it that when my hon. Friend says that
the Conservatives were going to talk it out, that was the noise
nuisance part of the Bill.
That was a fair point, and I
repeat: not only does the directive not undermine our legislation, but
it allows us to improve it in future. At the time of the passing of the
2003 Act, commitments were given that, once the legislation had bedded
down and been monitored, there would be a chance to go back and improve
it. In his Bill, my former hon. Friend and Member for Hamilton, South
improved on previous attempts at legislation by both Government and
Back Benchers, and I reassure my hon. Friend that there is
nothing in these proposals that prevents us from maintaining
our current standards and, if necessary, improving them in
future.
David
Howarth:
I want to come back to the point about whether
the consumer product part of the directive will increase intra-European
trade—either it will, or it will not. If it does, surely that
will increase the amount of harm that fireworks do, because it will
increase the number of fireworks being traded and used by consumers
rather than by professionals, which will be a dangerous matter in
itself. If it does not increase the amount of intra-European trade,
which I think is the Minister’s position, that throws into doubt
the jurisdictional basis of what the EU is doing. How can this be a
single market regulation if it does not increase internal
trade?
Mr.
McCartney:
This is another instance of the hon. Gentleman
asking again a question that he asked nearly an hour ago—and the
answer is still the same. He is very good at that and I admire his
tenacity—he gets bombed out the first time round but keeps
coming back to his point. I have been very frank about this; he would
have a technical point if the directive prevented cross-border trade.
In fact, there is very little cross-border trade because the fireworks
industry is production based. However, that allows the capacity to have
that very little trade, but we are being realistic about it. If I were
to come here and say, “This will enhance cross-border trade in
consumer fireworks,” I would be misleading the hon. Gentleman
and the Committee. There is potential for cross-border trade, but there
will be little of it. The directive allows for that.
Another reason why the hon.
Gentleman’s argument is not threadbare but lacks a little
credibility is that the directive has been set out in categories. Why?
Because each category contains different consumer products or services
in pyrotechnics. In all the other sectors, there is potential for
significant cross-border trade. That has
not just been the view of the Government in our negotiations; it is the
view of the suppliers of goods and services in each
sector.
David
Howarth:
Is the Minister therefore saying that there are
big gains to be made in the industrial sectors from the directive and
that, to get those gains, we have had had to negotiate away our
position on the consumer side? If that is his position, it is perfectly
understandable.
Mr.
McCartney:
I am going to go for elocution lessons—I
am sure it is down to my accent. We have not negotiated away our
subsidiarity. In fact, it is enhanced. The directive does not affect
subsidiarity in any way, particularly on consumer safety or
professional safety standards. Indeed, it still allows us to improve on
them if we so desire. There will be minimum standards, so we will be
able to compete on a basis on which we cannot compete just now. The
myriad different standards, or the lack of standards, makes it
difficult to penetrate certain EU markets. That will end under the
directive, which is why there will be potential for cross-border trade
in the other
categories.
The
Chairman:
I must say that I have no difficulty
understanding the
Minister.
Mr.
Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) (Lab/Co-op): It
has been a perfectly amicable discussion between yourself,
Mr. Marshall, and my right hon. Friend the
Minister.
My
constituents, like many of the Minister’s constituents, would
throw their hats in the air if they believed that anything coming out
of the directive would give them some relief from the appalling
behaviour of our fellow human beings with fireworks that mainly come in
from China. Anything that can be done to exorcise that a little will, I
assure him, be met with absolute joy in my constituency and elsewhere.
When Baroness Thatcher signed the trade agreement in
1986—
Mr.
McCartney:
The single
market.
Mr.
Purchase:
Indeed, and that was a reason for British
exporters to throw their hats in the air because, although it did not
necessarily mean an overall increase in trade, which was never a
condition of the arrangement, it guaranteed fair market conditions.
That is what we benefited from. It also brought the opportunity for
responsible trade, again something from which our best companies in
Britain have benefited enormously. Will my right hon. Friend respond to
Conservative Members who want, in a Pecksniffian way, to take this
little directive to pieces? They must recognise that if we want
improvements we sometimes have to pay a small price—in this case
regulation, well thought through, which my right hon. Friend should be
congratulated on for bringing to
us.
Mr.
McCartney:
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I
thought that his last remark would wake the Opposition up, and it
certainly has. I say to the hon. Member for Burma—I apologise,
the hon.
Member for Bournemouth, East; it is just because of his
politics—that the regulation has been asked for by industry
Europe-wide and in Britain. Why? Because it will ensure transparent and
easier access to customers throughout the 27
states.
One
can be opposed to regulations, and this Government have the best record
of any modern Government in Europe on getting rid of unnecessary
regulation, but regulation that exists to take down barriers, create
greater transparency and give companies the ability to trade is
sensible, as is safety regulation. I hope that at the end of the
debate, when the Committee comes to take a view on the matter, the
Conservatives will put aside some of their prejudices about Europe and
see that the directive has been significantly improved for British
industry and consumers because of our positive input. It is now a
better directive than it was when we openly said in Committee that it
needed improving. Indeed, we were opposed to it. We have done that work
and I hope that the Committee will approve it so that we can get on
with the business of improving access to goods and services in Europe,
and the ability of consumers to use services and products without
injury or
accident.
Mr.
Stuart:
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East suggested
that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would support the
measure strongly if they thought that it would bring safety
improvements and relief to their constituents. I agree with you,
Mr. Marshall, about the Minister’s clarity: he made
it clear that it will make no difference to fireworks. That has been
established. It is important to put it on the record that it will make
no difference to the welfare of British residents in relation to
fireworks.
Will the
overwhelming proportion of businesses affected by the directive be
those selling consumer fireworks? In other words, is this a
single-market measure affecting fireworks which will result in no
improvements, as the Minister has made clear, because there is little
or no international
trade?
Mr.
McCartney:
The hon. Gentleman would have a good argument
if the directive dealt not with pyrotechnics in general, but with
fireworks used by individual consumers, and if there were no
legislative or regulatory regime in the UK. However, he has completely
missed the point. This is a single-market proposal to ensure that
pyrotechnic goods and services can be traded across borders. We should
facilitate that trade. In respect of consumer fireworks only, I made it
clear to the Committee from the outset that because the vast majority
are made and produced in China, and imported from there, there is
little opportunity for cross-border trade, but where there is an
opportunity—little as it is—this directive will
help.
Mr.
Stuart:
Will the Minister confirm the value of the
prospective businesses that will be covered by the directive? That goes
to the heart of the matter and I would like a clear answer from him on
the quotum of business that will be
covered.
Mr.
McCartney:
The European fireworks market is worth
€14 billion a year, which is split equally between consumer
fireworks and professional display fireworks.
The latter constitutes one of those areas in which our industry says
that it can provide the professional, quality services necessary to
gain access to that bigger market. It is a huge potential
market.
Mr.
Stuart:
What about
non-fireworks?
Mr.
McCartney:
I am coming to that.
The market for automotive
pyrotechnics is valued at €5.5 billion. The automotive industry,
Europe-wide and in the UK, is asking us to support the proposal because
it will benefit the industry. I said that in my opening statement. That
is what the industry is saying to
us.
Mr.
Djanogly:
What impact is the introductionof the
conformity assessment procedure and modified labelling requirements
expected to have on the use of pyrotechnic articles in the UK and on
their
manufacturers?
Mr.
McCartney:
The hon. Gentleman has been given the answer to
that question because it is similar to the one raised by my hon. Friend
the Member for West Bromwich, East about automotive products and
labelling. The directive does not impugn the ability to trade, which is
why the industry made it clear that it supports it. The point made by
the hon. Member for Huntingdon is a fair one, but it does not undermine
the directive or the ability and willingness of the industry to utilise
it. If I have misrepresented his question, which was highly technical,
I shall write to him, if my answer was wrong. As far as I am concerned,
however, in all negotiations and discussions on the text that we have,
the industry asked us to support
it.
Mr.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): On a point of order,
Mr. Marshall. The Minister said that the market for
fireworks was €14 billion, but the report on page 2 says that it
is €1.4 billion. I thought that that might need
clarification.
The
Chairman:
That is not a point of order. It would have been
better as a question, which the Minister could have clarified. We are
in our last minutes, but I shall allow him to
reply.
Mr.
McCartney:
It may well be a typographical error that has
gone up in smoke. My brief makes it clear that it is €14 billion
a year for the two sectors, one sector being split equally between
consumer fireworks and professional display fireworks. Automotive
pyrotechnic products are valued at €5.5 billion. I assure
Committee members that if the error is on my part, although I do not
think that it is, I will write to them and correct the
record.
Several
hon. Members
rose—
The
Chairman:
Order. That brings us to the end of the time
allotted for questions. I do not wish to extend the time because
everyone has had a fair innings.
Motion made, and Question
proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 13568/05, draft
Directive on the marketing of pyrotechnic articles; notes the
Government’s current negotiating line; and supports the
Government’s actions in this field.—[Mr.
McCartney.]
5.30
pm
Mr.
Djanogly:
In effect, we are in agreement with the
conclusions of the European Scrutiny Committee in its first report of
the current Session. The directive’s aims are to ensure the free
movement of pyrotechnic products within the EU, to improve the
protection of consumers and professionals, to contribute to the
reduction of injuries and to harmonise the safety requirements
applicable in different member states.
However, a number of the
concepts in the directive are already in place as far as the UK
regulation of fireworks is concerned. Most member states already have
effective national regulations restricting the supply and use of
fireworks. As a consequence of the UK’s already robust
requirements, there is unlikely to be an overall improvement in
consumer safety as a result of the directive. The minimum age limits
specified for the supply of fireworks and other articles are already
met under current UK rules—in fact, ours are higher—and
we already have tighter restrictions in place on the supply of some
types of article than those proposed.
Statistics show that 95 per
cent. of injuries in the UK are caused by the misuse of fireworks
rather than poor standards of manufacture. The measures necessary to
reduce the number of injuries in the UK are therefore beyond the scope
of the directive.
It
is proposed that a standardised categorisation of fireworks should be
introduced, that manufacturers should ensure that their products comply
with essential safety standards, and that there should be new labelling
requirements regarding instructions for use, minimum age limits and
minimum safety distances. Again, it would seem that many of those
matters are already adequately covered by current UK legislation,
particularly the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which require
manufacturers to comply with British standards, including strict
labelling requirements.
We have spoken to people in the
firework industry who warn that the costs of complying with a new
regime of EC marking will have serious consequences for manufacturers,
even driving some out of business. The directive has focused on
consumer fireworks, and the position regarding the display market has
thus been overlooked. Not only will the costs of compliance threaten to
put some UK display companies out of business, but they will stifle
development within the industry. The costs involved in testing and
gaining approval for each item manufactured may make it unviable for
manufactures to excel in small-scale production for display. That could
have disastrous consequences for the firework displays that
will, for instance, inevitably be a part of the
celebrations for
2012.
I thought that
the general policy approach would be to encourage people to attend big
displays, with their obvious safety and quality benefits. The proposals
seem to fly in the face of that policy. Complaints have also been
raised that the proposed time scales are
entirely unrealistic. The Minister spoke of driving up standards as an
end in itself, but I disagree. The costs and benefits of regulation
must be weighed up. The Minister’s language is the language that
small businesses in this country dread. It is more red tape for the
sake of
it.
Mr.
Watson:
Will the hon. Gentleman square the point that he
made about regulation with the calls of the hon. Member for
Bournemouth, East for tighter controls on fireworks in the
UK?
Mr.
Djanogly:
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East
made a remark based on his own constituency experience. I am giving an
overall
view.
Mr.
Watson:
So the British Conservative position is not to
increase firework safety in the
UK?
Mr.
Djanogly:
The position of the Conservative party is that
UK regulations are more stringent than those in the directive, and that
if we are going to examine safety issues, which are not the topic of
the debate, that should be done in a UK context, according to what
needs to be done on the basis of
subsidiarity.
Paul
Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): If the hon. Gentleman is
saying that there will be fewer manufacturers and higher prices for
fireworks as a result of the decision today, would that not mean that
fewer fireworks will be let off, which would be entirely beneficial for
many animals and people who are distressed and whose lives are blighted
by fireworks for weeks and weeks each year?
Mr.
Djanogly:
The hon. Gentleman adds an interesting spin to
the debate, but I wonder whether the Minister’s intention is to
have firework production and use reduced as a result of the directive;
I think not, but he may care to comment on
that.
Countries without
adequate standards are much keener than we are to have the directive
implemented. Therefore, to insist on applying an entirely new system of
regulation will, in fact, prejudice UK manufacturers because of the
significant cost implications of moving away from testing based on the
currently established British standard.
There is an argument that the
harmonisation of regulation across the EU will enable the free movement
of trade. That seems to be the case as regards pyrotechnics used in
films or cars, but for fireworks, which make up the majority of
products affected by the proposals, evidence has been put forward by
the UK industry, and conceded by the Government, to indicate that the
current situation is unlikely to change very much if the proposals are
adopted. There is also an argument that, according to principles of EU
law, an article approved in an EU country does not need re-approval,
therefore making the case against harmonising regulation even
stronger.
Although
concessions have been won, allowing member states to retain control of
their existing national legislation regarding minimum age limits and
maintaining existing bans on certain types of articles on grounds of
public security or safety, noise or
nuisance, that does not constitute an adequate reflection of the
principle of subsidiarity. The proposal will fail to have a significant
effect in the UK in any of the areas on which it aims to have an
impact: no evidence has been given to suggest that EU market access
will improve; it will not reduce injuries; and it will not improve
customer protection. Once again, this proposal serves little useful
purpose.
What are our
Government saying here? From what I can make out from their obvious
confusion, it seems that they are saying that this directive has many
weaknesses, but that we should adopt it in any event, for the sake of
toeing the line on European harmonisation. This is another example of
them throwing in the towel to the Commission for little or no benefit
to the British public, the British leisure industry or our national
firework sector. It smells strongly of a Government who are looking for
the quiet life, and that is simply not good enough. The Minister should
get back to Brussels and better represent the national interest than he
has done to
date.
5.38
pm
David
Howarth:
I do not fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, but
I do find the Government’s position slightly puzzling. I want to
discuss where the negotiations on the directive have got to, and why it
is that the Government have done a fairly good job during those
negotiations, but have not got quite as much out of them as they could
have done. Furthermore, by accepting this compromise, the Government
are threatening to accept a position on subsidiarity that they should
not.
The Government
have negotiated very well on behalf of some important British
industries: the automotive industry, in particular; theatrical
suppliers; and a number of others, such as the display industry. There
is no doubt that the directive offers substantial benefits for those
industries. The air-bag industry is one example. There is evidence that
some other European countries were using their regulatory power to
prevent imports of British products, and the fact that the EU is taking
jurisdiction over that will remove those barriers to trade and improve
the economic position of our industry. That is entirely
sensible.
The
Government have also negotiated a position on fireworks, which is, to
put it crudely, that the directive will make no substantive difference
to what happens in Britain. We will not have to change our standards by
much and very little consequential change will be necessary. We can
still improve those standards in the future if we want. That would
include changing the noise standards that have been referred to, for
example, or changing the age limit. We have something to learn from
other European countries. The documentation relating to the directive
contains the interesting fact that the accident rate in Britain is 20
times that in Ireland, so perhaps we have something to learn from our
neighbours.
The
problem is not the practical effect of the directive; it is with the
precedent that it sets for future directives, which might have
different, more serious effects. The directive accepts a weak case for
European-level law making on firearms, which is that it is important to
have a common external standard for
Chinese imports. I cannot see why that is sufficient reason to have
common, harmonised, internal regulation of individual behaviour, such
as the regulation of age limits, at European level.
The Minister added the extra
argument that it is important for our citizens to have confidence when
they go abroad that other European countries meet minimum safety
levels. There is no doubt that there will be some benefit to our
citizens and to citizens of other countries who come here. The trouble
with that argument for European power is that, stated so baldly, it
gives away too much. There are many dangerous aspects of life where
standards could and perhaps should be improved, but where the
law-making power clearly lies at the national level. I gave the
example, which I think is crucial, of road safety and traffic
accidents. If the Minister is serious that there is a reason for
allowing the EU law-making power in this case, that would lead
logically to a position on matters such as road safety and traffic
which I do not think that anyone in the Committee would
accept.
My conclusion
is that the Government have done quite well in negotiating the
directive. They have got themselves to a position in which the
practical effects are all positive. The trouble is with the possible
consequences in other
areas.
5.43
pm
Mr.
Ellwood:
The Committee will not be surprised to hear that
I shall focus on the aspects of fireworks that are contained in the
directive. This has been an interesting, entertaining, but somewhat
pointless debate. We are introducing legislation that will have no
impact on Great Britain; we already have tough, respectable legislation
on pyrotechnics. We would like such legislation to be imposed on EU
standards, rather than having to confirm and vote on subservient EU
standards, as we have been asked to do today.
I should like to go back to the
Minister’s comments and offer him an opportunity to withdraw the
remarks that he directed towards me, when he said that I was not
considering child safety when it came to fireworks. I hope that he
knows that, from a personal perspective, all members of the Committee
have child safety at the top of
their—
Mr.
McCartney:
The point that I made was not a personal attack
on the hon. Gentleman; I was taking his argument to a logical
conclusion. That might well not have been his conclusion, but it would
have been the effect of what he was proposing. I am happy put on the
record that I was not making a personal attack, but when he thinks
about what he said and when he reads it back in the cold light of day,
he will realise that the logical conclusion of his remarks meets with
what I was saying. Perhaps if I say sorry, he will withdraw or rephrase
his remarks.
Mr.
Ellwood:
I will take that as an acknowledgement and I hope
that we can depart from the Committee as friends. The important thing
to take away from the debate is that child safety is important to all
Members of Parliament. However, we have a dichotomy in that
one set of standards affect children in the UK and that another set of
standards affects children on the continent. Children from the UK can
go abroad and buy fireworks that they cannot purchase in the UK. That
seems to be utter madness. In his concluding remarks, will the Minister
say what efforts were made to try to bring the rest of the EU into line
with British legislation? What efforts were made to ensure that our
high standards were introduced to Europe, or about that
possibility?
The
British industry has been mentioned. We are very proud of what happens
here, but I am disappointed that we were unable to emulate its
standards further afield among our friends in the EU.
My final point is about the good
people of Bournemouth and the use of fireworks in my constituency. I do
not believe that Bournemouth is any different from anywhere else that
has an antisocial element who take advantage of loud fireworks and use
them as a nuisance, particularly to those who own pets. The Minister
made it clear that existing legislation can be used by the local
authorities and the police. However, once fireworks have been set off
and once the kids have run away, it is very difficult to track them
down. The noise has already been made: if it happens after 11
o’clock, say, residents have already been woken up. We face that
situation not only in Bournemouth, but up and down the
country.
Mr.
Watson:
Will the hon. Gentleman suggest a remedy for
that?
Mr.
Ellwood:
If one talks to the police in Bournemouth, one
will learn that they would be more than delighted to have more police
on the streets, so that they are able to do their job. I am afraid that
they are overstretched. Partly because of the introduction of the
alcohol laws that focus police on the town centre, other areas cannot
have the police presence that they would
like.
Mr.
Purchase:
The word the hon. Gentleman is looking for is
no.
Mr.
Ellwood:
I just gave the answer: if we had more police, if
we did not have such lax alcohol laws, we would have less antisocial
behaviour.
The
Chairman:
We are straying from the
subject.
Mr.
Ellwood:
I am very glad for your guidance, Mr.
Marshall.
5.48
pm
Mr.
Stuart:
We have had an interesting debate. At times, some
Government Members have been guilty, like pyrotechnic articles, of
producing gas and smoke. There has certainly been a great deal of heat
and sound but, unfortunately, precious little light. The light that has
be shone—I do not know whether it was involuntary, a kind of
Freudian slip, or an act of sedition—was shone by a bright Clerk
of the House. If we look at our papers, we see that the
truth—inadvertently or otherwise—is shone on the subject:
it
is called the “Darft directive on marketing of pyrotechnic
articles”.
[
Laughter.
] The Committee Clerk
got something right.
I
have a great deal of respect for the Minister, not least for his
combative style—the end of Punch and Judy politics is heralded
too much by Members, not least the leader of my party. Unfortunately,
the Minister, whose bread and butter is dealing with business issues at
the Department of Trade and Industry, has managed, despite his
assiduous reading of the papers—I am sure that he would not come
to the Committee without a fair briefing—to get the quantity of
fireworks in the EU out by a factor of 10. The domestic EU firework
market, as is stated repeatedly in the papers, is €700 million,
and the professional market is €700 million, so €14
million is entirely incorrect, and it is useful to have that on the
record.
Mr.
McCartney:
Magnanimously, I pointed outthat, if
my briefing was wrong, I would correct it. Occasionally, people get
things wrong. I was pointing out the professional estimate that was
given to me.
Mr.
Stuart:
For a Minister in the Department of Trade and
Industry to be out by a factor of 10 and to think that €14
billion is quite a large estimate. However, I accept the point and do
not want to be any more churlish than I already have been.
The Minister used a phrase about
Opposition Members trying to have their cake and eat it. I think he has
been guilty of that. He has tried to say that the main direction of the
proposal is a single market measure to ensure that cross-border trade
can go along, which everyone across the House would support, and that
that is the key issue. If that was all the directive covered, we could
accept that, but it is not.
The directive goes
into the area of safety, the very area that the Minister has said that,
under the principle of subsidiarity, should properly be retained in
nation states. It has laid down minimum standards on age. That erodes
the principle that the EU should stay out of that area and that it
should be up to nation states to lay down those safety measures
according to their customs and practice.
There is not a single market
provision on the age at which children can have access to fireworks. It
is inappropriate for the EU to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for
Huntingdon and the hon. Member for Cambridge have made it clear that
there is a risk—and I will take issue with my hon. Friend the
Member for Bournemouth, East, which I rarely do—that the
directive will have an impact on British citizens, by corroding the
principles by which we decide how Europe should and should not make law
and regulation. The Minister is not being entirely open and honest in
not accepting that the directive crosses over into that
area.
5.52
pm
Mr.
McCartney:
Very little has been said that was not said
during questions. However, as I always do in these Committees, I will
review the
Official Report and if there are any remarks that
required a response and did not receive one, I will write to Committee
members. I repeat that if there is any information that I have
given which is incorrect, for whatever reason, I will also respond to
Committee members. I am not always perfect, although I try my best to
be.
I thank Committee
members for contributing to a lively debate. The directive is never
going to do what it is not intended to do. It was never intended to be
an attack on subsidiarity, which is what hon. Gentlemen have argued. It
is a single market directive, and the issue around the single market is
to take barriers down to allow it to operate effectively. The
pyrotechnic industry is diverse in its goods and services, skills and
the type of companies that operate in the marketplace. The directive
takes account of that.
From the outset, it is important
that we have harmonisation of technical specifications on minimum
standards. As a consequence, British companies will not have huge
on-costs in trying to trade in another member state where they will be
doing exactly the same job that they do in the United Kingdom. They
will therefore not have to have the costs, on-costs and bureaucracy
just to trade. Minimum standards and technical specification changes
are critical.
Some
arguments made today have almost been anti-business. We have now got
the situation inwhich, if we are not careful, an anti-business
case,not a pro-subsidiarity case, will be put forward.
Governments are asked to listen to business and consult. From the
outset, we have been honest about this directive and what it could not
do and what it needed to do.
Despite what I said, the hon.
Member for Cambridge has been fair to me in our negotiations and I
thank him for that. We have done the best that we can, to this point,
on this directive. There have been major improvements that the
industries concerned all support. That is why the hon. Member for
Huntingdon was wrong when he said that the directive would undermine
firework display companies and put people out of
business.
Mr.
Djanogly:
That is what they have told
us.
Mr.
McCartney:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could name the
companies. The Confederation of British Industry’s explosives
industry group, which represents the companies, says differently. It
has indicated that there are benefits to the proposal. One of the
companies that puts on displays is run by a Conservative Member of
Parliament. He has, to be fair to him, declared his directorship and
remuneration in the House, so I make no point about that. However, I do
make the point that some companies that want to trade overseas might
have to improve their standards. Perhaps one of the reasons behind the
questioning is that they are not happy about that.
Those who operate in the UK have
to operate to UK standards. However, if they want to operate outside
the UK, they can use this directive in an effective way so long as they
are good, professional organisations that take care of their customers,
do not get into trouble and are not fined by the Health and Safety
Executive or the local council for damaging their customers when
something goes wrong. The directive and the measures that we have taken
so far are important in that respect.
In order that I might
engage constructively in negotiations on progress for the directive, I
ask the Committee to support my approach, despite the doubts of hon.
Members about it. This measure is not just pro-business, but is
pro-consumer and it is certainly
pro-safety.
Finally,
the hon. Member for Cambridge made the serious point that we have 20
times more injuries than they do in Ireland. In Ireland, there are
virtually no consumer sales of fireworks because of national security
issues. There has been a bipartisan approach to that for a long time
now, and I do not need to go into the reasons for that. I know that he
made a fair point, and I have answered him in that spirit—that
is why there is a difference in injury rates. I hope that I have taken
account of everything that hon. Members have said. I ask the Committee
to support the measure.
Question
put:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
5.
Division No.
1
]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 13568/05, draft
Directive on the marketing of pyrotechnic articles; notes the
Government’s current negotiating line; and supports the
Government’s actions in this field.
Committee rose
at two minutes to Six
o’clock.
