HL Deb 05 June 1998 vol 590 cc660-9

3.56 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Monkswell.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]

Clause 2 [Power to make regulations about fireworks]:

[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Renton

The clause contains wide powers to make regulations. The Select Committee on delegated powers and deregulation, in paragraph 9 of its report of 22nd April, described it as a "disturbingly" wide power. It therefore considered that your Lordships, may wish to seek a ministerial undertaking to reassure the House that this wide power would, in practice, be used narrowly". I hope that the Minister who is representing the Government will be able to give such an undertaking. It is vital that the Government should do so.

Finally, Clause 2(3) requires the Secretary of State to consult various organisations, only one of which is specified. Can the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, tell us what other organisations he has in mind which should be consulted?

Lord Monkswell

The noble Lord will find that during the first day in Committee and at times today various ministerial undertakings will be given by the Government in respect of the way in which they will implement and deal with the Bill when it becomes an Act. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my understanding of what will evolve today.

With regard to the noble Lord's second point as regards the organisations which will be consulted when it comes to making regulations, it is fair to say that organisations representing firework manufactures, firework sellers, those reflecting the interests of the users of fireworks and, indeed, those representing safety interests—and I have in mind in particular the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—will be included. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that it would not be sensible to put on the face of the Bill a list of all such organisations. Indeed, that would vary over time as new organisations develop and others fall by the wayside. The broad categories of the organisations that I have mentioned would be the ones that we envisage will be consulted about this legislation.

Lord Renton

I am much obliged. However, as regards the Government being asked specifically for an undertaking, that is an issue which will need to be considered when Clause 2 stand part is discussed because that is how it arises. Indeed, the Select Committee referred to Clause 2. Therefore, we should have that undertaking. I have with me the Hansard report of the first day of Committee but, after reading it, I cannot determine whether such an undertaking was given.

Lord Haskel

Owing to the disturbance that took place when the noble Lord first started to speak, I was unable to hear clearly the particular undertaking that he has in mind. We gave a number of undertakings on Second Reading. I believe that the requests for certain undertakings made by the Select Committee have been responded to. However, I am not sure about the specific undertaking to which the noble Lord referred. We can certainly look into the matter and give that undertaking in writing or indeed during the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Renton

I can answer the noble Lord's query as to where this matter originally arose. It is mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Select Committee's report.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Prohibition of supply etc. to young persons]:

[Amendment No. 9 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Renton

As regards Clause 3, I believe that we should look again at subsection (2), which says: Fireworks regulations may include provision prohibiting the purchase or possession of fireworks, or fireworks of a description specified in the regulations, by persons who arc below an age so specified". That provision was put into the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but I wonder whether he or the Government have any particular age in mind. Indeed, that is a most important point.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Before my noble friend responds, perhaps, I may, with the deepest respect, point out to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that during the Committee stage, we proceed by means of amendment or by notice given that a clause should or should not stand part of the Bill. It is very difficult for those who are putting forward legislation to anticipate points which have not been made in the form of an amendment and to know to what they should reply. Of course, the noble Lord is strictly in order in raising a question on any clause in the Bill; indeed, I do not deny that. However, Committee stages survive because matters are notified in advance.

Lord Renton

With deep respect—and I speak from 19 years' experience in this Chamber—my understanding of the discussion on a clause stand part during the Committee stage of a Bill enables any noble Lord in any part of the Committee to ask the promoter of the Bill, or indeed, the Government, if it is a government Bill, what a particular part of the clause means, what its results might be and whether they will consider any further matter in relation to it. That is in addition to the discussion of any amendments tabled.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The noble Lord is, of course, entirely right, but it is common and helpful when that is to take place that noble Lords should give a minimum of notice of the matter they intend to raise by placing a Motion on the Order Paper to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lord Haskel

I respond to the noble Lord's point that he made earlier. Eighteen is the current age and there is no expectation that it will be changed.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Prohibition of supply etc. in certain circumstances]:

[Amendment No. 10 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Renton

I have a short point on Clause 4 of which I have not given notice. I do not consider it necessary for me to have done so. It appears that the supply or use of fireworks will be prohibited by regulations during periods of the year to be specified in regulations. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, what periods of the year he had in mind when he inserted that provision in the Bill?

Lord Monkswell

My understanding is that there is some concern among members of the general public about the selling of fireworks for some time prior to 5th November and also for some time afterwards. What we have set out in the Bill is a power for the Minister to circumscribe the period during which fireworks may be sold. That would be decided after consultation and therefore no specific dates can be mentioned as regards the limitations that are envisaged. I am sure the noble Lord understands that there is genuine public concern about this matter. This is a fall-back power if the sale of fireworks over an extended period of time were to continue.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Prohibition of supply etc. of certain fireworks]:

[Amendment No. 11 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Public fireworks displays]:

[Amendment No. 12 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Haskel

I may anticipate the points that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is to raise but it may be helpful if I deal with two points raised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation relating to the concept of public fireworks displays.

First, there was concern that training requirements might discourage traditional firework events put on by clubs such as scout groups, or even backgarden displays. I can confirm on behalf of the Government that there is no intention that events of this sort should be penalised. Where clubs and individuals wished to use the more dangerous types of fireworks it would be the intention to ensure that training was readily accessible to them.

Secondly, the Select Committee sought clarification of what is meant by a "public fireworks display". Specifically there was concern about whether the definition was too widely drawn and might include events of the kind I have just described. I should like to take this opportunity to confirm that we have looked at this matter closely. Clause 6(5) provides that a public fireworks display is one, to which the public, or any section of the public, are admitted (whether or not on payment)". The important question to ask about any display is, "is it open to the public, or to a section of the public?". We are firmly of the view that displays at private parties, private club functions, etc., are not public displays, because they are clearly not open to the general public.

Lord Renton

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that when a Select Committee of this House has drawn attention to particular provisions in the Bill it must be in order for us to refer to the views of the Select Committee and ask for undertakings, especially when the Select Committee has suggested that undertakings should be asked for.

On that basis, I invite the attention of the Minister to paragraph 11 of the Select Committee's report at the top of page 5, and the indication by the committee that, a Ministerial undertaking might be made [with regard] to … traditional back garden bonfire night fireworks". That goes to the heart of the matter. That is where the people of this country will be interested, involved and concerned as to the effect of the Bill. Bearing in mind the view of the Select Committee that on this and other matters mentioned in the paragraph there should be a ministerial undertaking, perhaps the noble Lord would be so good as to add to his remarks. I am sure that the Committee would be appreciative.

Lord Haskel

The point made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh was that it is the usual courtesy of the House to give notice of these questions. As I was not given notice of this matter, I shall have to write to the noble Lord about it.

Lord Renton

The noble Lord was not given notice by me but by the Select Committee. Presumably he read the committee's report; he was obliged to do so.

Lord Haskel

The clarifications and undertakings required by the Select Committee were dealt with in relation to previous amendments and at Second Reading, when I made a statement on many of these points.

Viscount Astor

I am sorry to disagree with the Minister, but in fact the matter did not arise at Second Reading. We did not discuss any of these points. It is only now, when we are examining the detail of the Bill, that we are doing so. However, we should be grateful to the Minister for saying that he will come forward with those clarifications.

Lord Monkswell

My understanding, having glanced at paragraph 11, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is that my noble friend Lord Haskel did effectively give a ministerial undertaking that satisfied both of the questions raised by the Select Committee. We may need to check Hansard to see that the specific wording of the undertaking given directly meets the requirements of the Select Committee. I am fairly sure that it does. However, a reading of Hansard will allow us to appreciate whether that is the case. If it does not, I am sure that we can arrange for undertakings to be given subsequently.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Training courses]:

4.15 p.m.

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 12A:

Page 6, line 6, after ("State,") insert— ("( ) authorise the making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for the grant or variation of licences,").

The noble Lord said: I suggest that with this amendment we also discuss Amendments Nos. 12B to 12D; they all go together.

First, perhaps I may make a somewhat general comment. I should point out that these and the other amendments outstanding on the Marshalled List were tabled by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I am sorry to say that my noble friend cannot be present today as he has been taken rather severely ill. My noble friend obtained advice from the Government—that is the euphemistic way of putting it—before he tabled these amendments, and we are grateful to the Government for the help that he was given.

At Second Reading my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and others complained that the Bill was merely an enabling Bill which was vague and lacking in safeguards. Its contents were severely criticised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The amendment I now move and those grouped with it, and other amendments on the Marshalled List, are intended to try to overcome the sweeping delegated powers contained in the Bill, which, as I said at an earlier stage, are quite exceptional. I have never seen anything like it before.

Members of the Committee will see that Amendment No. 12A inserts the words: authorise the making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for the grant or variation of licences".

Amendment No. 12C inserts in Clause 10 the words: making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for attendance at courses of training in the uses of fireworks, and the making by the Secretary of State, or by any body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State under this section".

This is a somewhat technical group of amendments and I do not believe that the Committee will expect a full explanation of them. They are essentially drafting amendments, but they pave the way for a later amendment on affirmative resolutions. I beg to move.

Lord Annaly

I support these amendments. Without them there is no requirement in the Bill that the fees referred to by my noble friend Lord Renton will be approved by the Secretary of State or be subject to a limit specified in regulations. It was the firm recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation that the fees charged for granting a licence to both training providers and those wishing to attend training courses should either be approved by the Secretary of State or be subject to a limit specified in regulations. These amendments fulfil that requirement and should be supported.

Lord Haskel

These amendments are acceptable to the Government. They will allow the Secretary of State to specify that fees be set according to a formula which covers costs and allows for a reasonable element of profit but is not excessive.

Viscount Astor

My name is also down to these amendments. Earlier in the Committee stage the Bill received a mauling—in my view, quite rightly. The Bill was heavily criticised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Having sat where the Minister sits, I know what it is like to be attacked by the Opposition for coming forward with any Bill, whether it be a Government Bill or a Private Member's Bill, which is full of Henry VIII clauses. I am always surprised that parliamentary draftsmen think that they can get away with that in this Chamber.

The Government have indeed taken on the concerns that were raised, but perhaps I may make one point. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation suggested that a ministerial assurance might in certain circumstances be satisfactory. The Committee gave a clear indication that it would not be satisfied by that, and I believe that the Select Committee should take note of that for the future.

The Government looked at this and agreed to accept the amendments tabled. We thank the Minister for that and perhaps apologise for the ambush that was created at the first stage of Committee. However, I hope that he sees why we felt it was so important to get this right. It would be not only a bad Bill, but it would be extremely bad for the future and the future of this Chamber if clauses of that kind were allowed to go through unchecked.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is also prepared to accept these amendments and indeed the amendments that we shall be debating shortly. I thank the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in advance. My noble friend will be moving them and I shall not necessarily have to say anything more this afternoon.

Lord Monkswell

Perhaps I can respond briefly, though the hour is late. I should clarify to the Committee that the report of the Select Committee on delegated powers raised various points but required no amendment to the Bill. However, it sought a number of ministerial assurances.

I believe that it is a question of interpretation as to how the Bill is read. As the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, pointed out on the last Committee day, a number of noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber felt concerned regarding the powers that the Bill would confer on government Ministers. Unfortunately, they did not seem capable of waiting for ministerial assurances to be given, all of which have been or will be given in the course of the debate.

As I say, it is a question of interpretation as to whether or not the amendments are necessary to meet the concerns expressed. As the promoter of the Bill I shall accept all the amendments tabled this evening, but it is worth pointing out that I felt they were not strictly necessary, though I concede that they meet anxieties expressed by the Committee on the last occasion and no doubt other anxieties that would come forward if the amendments had not been tabled and were not to be accepted.

Lord Renton

I thank my noble friends for their clarification of this group of amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for his views on the matter also.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 12B

Page 6, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Renton moved Amendments Nos. 12C and 12D:

Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("the") to ("provision") in line 19 and insert ("making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for attendance at courses of training in the use of fireworks, and ( ) the making by the Secretary of State, or by any body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State under this section, of").

Page 6, leave out line 25.

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Prohibition of supply etc. of other explosives]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 12E:

Page 8, line 6, leave out ("under this section") and insert ("by virtue of this subsection").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 12E and 12F go together. They clarify the distinction between regulations made under subsection (1) of Clause 14 and those made under subsection (3).

Subsection (3) allows for amendment by regulations of the definition of "explosives", which applies for the purposes of the Bill. Such regulations will not be subject to public consultation. I would, however, point out that if the Committee accept the amendments to Clause 16, which I shall be moving shortly, the regulations made under subsection (3) of Clause 14 would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is a safeguard which I suggest is well worthwhile.

Lord Haskel

These amendments are a matter of clarification and are acceptable to the Government.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 12F:

Page 8, line 8, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Parliamentary procedure for regulations]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 12G:

Page 8, line 14, after ("instrument") insert—

("( ) Regulations under section 1(2) or 14(3) shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

( ) A statutory instrument containing fireworks regulations shall be").

The noble Lord said: This is perhaps the most important of the various amendments on the Marshalled List today on this Bill. Noble Lords will recollect that during the previous debate, on the first day in Committee on 5th May, Clause 1(2) and Clause 14(3) which provides powers to amend by regulation the definitions of fireworks and explosives were criticised as Henry VIII powers, and rightly criticised. This was also a matter on which the Select Committee expressed concern. There was no limit on the face of the Bill on what might be brought within the definition of fireworks or explosives—very wide Henry VIII powers.

As a safeguard, and in order that Parliament may be required to consider the regulations made under those two clauses, Clause 1(2) and Clause 14(3), I suggest that they should be subject to affirmative resolution, and in each House, although of course in your Lordships' House we have various conventions which rather limit the use that we make of affirmative resolutions, sometimes, some of us think, regrettably. However, this is a good safeguard and I beg to move.

Lord Haskel

We have reflected further on this issue. It was always the Government's intention that the powers in Clauses 1(2) and 14(3) would be used only in exceptional circumstances. However, in view of the comments made by several noble Lords in Committee on 5th May, we accept that it would be appropriate to make use of the powers in Clauses 1(2) and 14(3) subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. These amendments are therefore acceptable to the Government.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 13 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.

In the schedule:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 13A:

Page 9, line 23, at end insert—

("1984 c. 54. The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. In Schedule 9, paragraph 7(3) and (4).")

The noble Lord said: This amendment has been brought forward because the attention of my noble friend Lord Mancroft was drawn to it by the Government. It is a very technical matter and I shall give a brief explanation. The amendment would add a reference to two sub-paragraphs from the schedule to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Those two sub-paragraphs need to be repealed because of a prospective repeal that the Government have in mind of Sections 30 and 80 of the Explosives Act 1875. When those sections are repealed, the two sub-paragraphs in question in the 1984 Act will no longer be relevant since they amend those sections in their application to Scotland. The amendment is desirable in order to keep the statute book tidy. I beg to move.

Lord Haskel

It seems sensible that this opportunity be taken to deal with what is a technical matter. The amendment is therefore acceptable to the Government.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.