| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Looking back through previous debates, it seems that almost everything has been considered on many previous occasions. Today we have an opportunity to examine the evidence and to see whether anything has changed to warrant further regulations or changes. We are happy to discuss how the existing regulations might be improved, because we want the risks to be managed sensibly and effectively. However, we think that a complete ban on the sale of fireworks would be a disproportionate response. We do not want to be killjoys or to ban everything that carries a risk, nor do we want to introduce a draconian state-sanctioned prohibition without clear evidence that it is necessary. It is wrong to punish the thousands of families and communities who put on safe and enjoyable
firework displays at designated times and in the correct manner. It cannot be right that the actions of an antisocial minority dictate the lifestyles of the majority.
John Mason: The hon. Gentleman says that he would not like a complete ban, and I tend to agree, but would he be open to tightening up the regulations, as has been suggested?
Adam Afriyie: I will come to that point in general terms in a moment, but we are open to looking at the evidence of what may have changed since 2003 and 2004, when the legislation was brought in. Let us look at the trends in the numbers of injuries and complaints. If there is something to respond to, we will be open to responding with appropriate measures.
Mr. Watson: Does the hon. Gentleman see any merit in regulations that would allow slightly quieter fireworks for domestic use, but louder fireworks for commercial display?
Adam Afriyie: A little boy was squeezing my hand at the last fireworks night and saying, "Why don't they make fireworks a bit quieter?" He likes the spectacle, but he was not sure about the crashing and banging, so I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point. We have different categories in place, but my personal preference would be to consider the noise nuisance a lot more than the light nuisance. We are happy to discuss the regulations, but we do not want to be killjoys or respond in a knee-jerk way by banning things that may carry some risk without looking closely at the evidence.
In closing, let me say that I understand that this can be an emotive matter, especially when people's safety is at stake. In those circumstances, it is more important than ever that we adopt a calm, reasoned and scientific approach to our deliberations. We are only at the beginning of this debate, but I am pleased that it has been reasonably well conducted so far. As the shadow Minister for Science and Innovation, I believe that it is vital that we consider the matter carefully and on the basis of the available evidence. It would be irresponsible to make policy changes without looking at the evidence.
We need to know whether the number of injuries is rising or falling. We need to know what the impact of awareness-raising campaigns is on the number of injuries. We need to know whether people are being injured at home or at the major events. We all have our instincts about that, but let us look at the figures. We also need to know the number of children and minors injured relative to the number of adults. That is just one stream of information that we need to look at.
Information is power, but I have a complaint. The Government have put us in a difficult position. Bizarrely, they told officials to stop gathering the information on injuries in 2005. That was a very odd decision, and it is not good enough. Even the impact of the measures introduced in 2004 cannot be monitored adequately if the information is not available. I therefore have two requests for the Minister. First, will he make a commitment to start this year to count the number of injuries caused by fireworks? Secondly, will he give an unequivocal commitment that any changes to the regulations will be based on evidence, not merely assertion? This is not a debate with an ideological divide.
Mike Penning: Having been a fireman, I cannot believe that the Government stopped collecting the data, given that the safety of the public is the most important thing. Not only should those data be collected again, but they should include where the incident took place, whether at a public display, in a private residence or in the street. That information is crucial, so that we do not introduce unworkable legislation.
Adam Afriyie: The point is incredibly well put and I agree with it entirely. The statistics have been gathered since the mid-1970s, I think, and it could be argued that we should gather them in even greater detail, but to abandon collecting them altogether is a very odd move by a Government who say that they are interested in the outcomes of their policies.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend out. In 2005, which was the last year in which the statistics were collected, the Government reported that 48 per cent. of firework-related injuries were sustained at family or private parties, that one quarter were sustained in the street or another public place where fireworks were banned and that half the victims were children, even though it was then illegal to sell fireworks to anyone under 18.
Adam Afriyie: I am glad that my hon. Friend has told the House the numbers. The question now is: what has been the impact of the regulatory changes in 2003 and 2004 on the number of injuries that we are concerned about? If the information is not collected, there will be no way for the House to make a sensible judgment on what may or may not need to happen next.
Mr. Watson: The hon. Gentleman and I share an obsession with data, so will he confirm whether he is saying that he would bring back data collection, and if so, whether he has costed it?
Adam Afriyie: There is a cost to data collection, and we must ensure that it is not disproportionate. However, in this case, given firework safety, the antisocial aspects of fireworks and the impact on animal welfare, the figure would have to be pretty enormous to fail to justify merely recording the causes of an incident when somebody arrives at accident and emergency or wherever. I think that the data are already collected; we merely require an adjustment.
Mike Penning: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. In my other role, as a shadow Health Minister, I can tell him that those data are collected by A and E departments and minor injuries units. Transferring them across would simply be a matter of joined-up government.
Adam Afriyie: With the advent of modern technology-distributive processing, systems being able to interoperate with each other, cloud computing and virtualisation-such data transfers and interconnections are pretty easy to make. I am not sure that there would be an enormous or disproportionate cost to transmitting those data to the appropriate location. Doing so would certainly give hon. Members, who have a responsibility to consider the evidence in order to reach a judgment, the opportunity to do just that.
There is not an ideological divide in this debate. Of course we all want safety and well-being for our families and our constituents. Of course we all want the antisocial
behaviour that we witness in many of our constituencies to be brought under control. Let me finish by urging the Minister, first, to reinstate the collection of data or give us a good reason why he would not want to do so. Secondly, will he give a commitment that the regulations that he makes-or that he is considering or may consider making-will be based on the evidence? Finally, this is an emotive debate, so let me urge a calm and reasoned approach to it. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
12.47 pm
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab): I am delighted to take part in this topical debate. When it was announced, I got out my heavily annotated copy of the Fireworks Bill, of which I was a co-sponsor, along with my colleague Bill Tynan. I also used to chair the all-party group that campaigned for the legislation. I hear what the Opposition said about being terribly calm, but one reason why that group was set up was to try to face down some of the opposition to introducing the changes that we needed to tackle the serious antisocial behaviour that was associated with each 5 November.
Private Members' Bills are notorious for never getting on to the statute book. We had to use a lot of tactics to get the Bill through, which involved the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who was also one of the Bill's co-sponsors, essentially having to sit on recalcitrant Opposition Back Benchers. The irony was that we set up the group to campaign on the issue shortly after my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) made one of the first attempts to bring in a private Member's Bill on the matter after the 1997 election, to which the Opposition also objected.
Our aim was to try to get the legislation on to the statute book before the 400th anniversary of the gunpowder plot, and our very best chance came in 2002. Several members of the all-party group on fireworks were lucky enough to be drawn in the ballot for private Members' Bills, so we got together and said, "Right. Each and every one of us will put forward a Bill on fireworks." We went, mob-handed, to see the Minister and said, "If you don't accept the Bill introduced by Bill Tynan, who came second in the ballot, we will move on to Bill No. 5, then No. 7, No. 12 and No. 17." So the poor old Minister would have had to have spent every Friday dealing with debates on fireworks.
I hope that that gives the debate a little background flavour of the tactics that we had to employ to get the changes that we wanted. I find it astonishing that anyone should suggest that the legislation went through terribly smoothly and without any opposition. In fact, the Second Reading debate was probably the most well-attended Second Reading debate of any private Member's Bill in that Session. Obviously, we again had to employ suitable tactics, so we ensured that we had well over 100 people in the Chamber at Prayers that day to show the opponents of the measures that we had the numbers to ensure that the Bill went through.
Mr. Hollobone: Was it not a shame that the Government did not give some of their time to enable the legislation to go through rather more easily?
Shona McIsaac:
This one had always been done as a private Member's Bill. I was chair of the all-party group on fireworks at that time, and one reason that we went
mob-handed to lobby the Minister was that we felt that the Government were being a little slow on the uptake. Back in 1997 and 1998, there was a problem because of different types of fireworks starting to be sold, fireworks starting to be sold in the summer, and shops opening up specifically to sell fireworks for short periods. This was resulting in a big increase in noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour, and vets and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were reporting more and more injuries to animals. We felt that the Government were being a little bit slow to catch up and respond to this increased nuisance.
We managed, however, to get enough people to back the Bill, and there were well over 100 people in the House that day. They all wanted to take part in the debate, but again, we had to ensure that the Bill got through its Second Reading, so very few of them actually spoke. I want to pay tribute to the Members from across the House who supported the Bill. They included the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), for Angus (Mr. Weir) and for Uxbridge, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton, for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood), for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson). They also included Paul Tyler-now Lord Tyler-and Brian White, the former Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale was our stalwart champion who ensured that the Bill got through the other place.
I used to get hundreds of complaints about fireworks every year in my postbag and e-mails, but the number has now declined. There is not the same level of complaints about fireworks going off in August and September, for example.
Mr. Hollobone: I am listening to the hon. Lady with great interest. The latest statistics from the national incident category list show that, in 2008-09, there were 45,112 incidents of the inappropriate use, sale or possession of fireworks, compared with 33,142 the previous year.
Shona McIsaac: I was simply saying that the number of complaints that I was getting in my postbag-about, for example, the use of fireworks throughout the year-had substantially diminished. However, when the Bill became an Act, and was implemented through various orders, it took some time for the processes to kick in, which might explain the statistical trend that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Last week, I met several members of the Fire Brigades Union when they were lobbying Members of Parliament in Westminster. They have known about my interest in this subject over a number of years, and they were telling me about their experiences. They said that the number of incidents involving fireworks that they had to deal with had declined. In our area, firefighters also have the power to remove inappropriate bonfires in public places, and they tell me that that has made a huge difference to the number of incidents that they had to deal with.
Shona McIsaac: I think I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say. I will give way to him in a few seconds.
The members of the Fire Brigades Union also told me that the nature of the fireworks available now gave them great cause for concern, and I agree with them.
This is where I differ from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We are no longer talking about the Catherine wheels and the rockets in milk bottles that I remember from my childhood. Nowadays, fireworks come in huge, heavy "cakes", as they are known. Yes, they have to be lit only once, but they are massive and completely inappropriate for domestic gardens. In our area, there are many small, terraced houses. The instructions on these "cakes" specify the distance that people are supposed to keep from them, yet they are being used in those settings. I am worried about the inappropriate use of these very large, modern fireworks.
Mike Penning: Actually, I was not going to mention multi-launchers, although I shall talk about them later if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was going to say that it is all well and good for the hon. Lady to say that the fire brigade has the power to remove bonfires-I have my Fire Brigades Union membership card, which I am very proud of, in my pocket-but firemen are not law enforcers. It is not their job to go and shut things down; they need the police with them to do that. It can often be very difficult for them when they are at an incident. We have had bricks thrown at us from the tops of tower blocks when we have been trying to put fires out. We have to remember that firemen are firemen, not enforcement officers.
Shona McIsaac: To be picky about this, firefighters deal with fire and safety. When I was discussing this with them, we also talked about attacks on members of the fire service when they were called out to incidents. Obviously, I can talk only about the area that they were serving, but they explained that many of the attacks around 5 November related to people building huge bonfires in the middle of housing estates. Those bonfires would be lit, and when the firefighters went to the incident, they would get bricks thrown at them. Some of those bonfires are piled high with pallets, tyres and so on. In recent years, however, the firefighters in my area have had the power to remove them-an ability that they see as part of their role in dealing with safety. They tell me that, since then, the level of antisocial behaviour towards them-having stones thrown at them, for example-has dropped.
I want to make a few points to my hon. Friend the Minister, because, in spite of the progress that has been made, some concerns remain. One is about animals, and about guide dogs in particular. We need to consider the impact of the noise from fireworks on guide dogs. Guide Dogs for the Blind gave us phenomenal support for our private Member's Bill. It tells me that every year, some of its dogs and puppies are unable to continue working because of the noise from fireworks.
I think we should do something about the noisiest fireworks; it is possible to manufacture fireworks that do not produce so much noise. How to tackle the problem of illegal sales is another issue that deeply worries me. I am told that there have been many more illegal sales since restrictions were brought in. Tracking where fireworks go when they come into the country-most are imported from China-is important. I would like to know more about what happens with firework imports, as not as many fireworks end up in shops as are brought into the country every year. Internet sales-an age-related
issue-are another problem. It is not, of course, just a problem of fireworks, as for a whole range of age-related sales young people pretend to be at a suitable age so that they can buy certain products.
I do hope that we can do something about these very large cake-type fireworks going off in small gardens. As I and others mentioned earlier, we might be able to look at how the labelling is worded. Rather than focusing on distance-I always think my garden is bigger than it actually is-and by saying that these fireworks are inappropriate for small domestic gardens, we could provide better guidance for dealing with the reality of modern fireworks.
Thank you once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. I think that hon. Members can tell that although we have had some changes, this remains an issue very close to my heart.
1.1 pm
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): I am not personally a huge fan of fireworks, but I know that they bring great pleasure to millions of people in this country, especially children. It is a shame that the actions of a few can spoil the pleasure and, indeed, the quality of life of many, but I do not believe that banning fireworks would be justified. As well as depriving retailers of a valuable source of income, a ban might create a thriving, unregulated black market. Some people might even try to make their own fireworks, which would have disastrous consequences in many instances.
As we have heard, the Government have introduced many regulations over the past few years, which have helped to strengthen the arm of the law in tackling antisocial behaviour. The police are now able to issue a fixed penalty notice on the spot and they can bring forward ASBOs and acceptable behaviour contracts in more extreme circumstances. No one under 18 can buy fireworks. Although the vast majority of retailers adhere to this regulation, fireworks can be bought on the internet, as the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) said, and no proof of age is required.
Mike Penning: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is ludicrous to be able to purchase fireworks over the internet? It presents safety issues during the transport of a product, which puts other people's lives at risk, especially those working in sorting offices, and we have no knowledge at all of who is buying the fireworks. If that is happening, the Minister should act now to stop it.
Lorely Burt: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I had my researcher on the internet yesterday to find out just how easy it was to buy fireworks. It is extremely easy, so the Minister might like to look at that and deal with the issue in his response.
Non-specialist retailers are able to sell fireworks only for a prescribed period. The Government's Firework Regulations 2004, built on the 1997 regulations, placed a curfew on the use of fireworks from 11 pm to 7 am in "peacetime", from midnight on 5 November and from l am on new year's eve and for Diwali, the Chinese new year and other celebrations mentioned earlier in the debate.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |