PROHIBITION OF SUPPLY ETC. OF OTHER EXPLOSIVES. (Hansard, 3 July 1998)

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 7.

§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)
I do not wish to detain the House because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I am broadly sympathetic to the Bill and I want to see that it has a fair wind. I wish to speak to amendment No. 7, which creates something of a hurdle to the regulations that the Secretary of State might make under clauses 1(2) and 14(3). For the purposes of brevity, I will confine my remarks to regulations that might be made under clause 1(2).
As drafted, clause 1(2) contains a major deficiency, which raises a serious issue. It says: The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1). Subsection (1) is the heart of the Bill, as it contains the definition of fireworks. Subsection (1)(b) defines fireworks as devices that would be fireworks for those purposes if they were intended as a form of entertainment. That gives some suggestion of how incredibly broad the definition is. It has nothing to do with the nature and properties of what one might consider to be a firework, but relates only to how the device might be used. It is not surprising, therefore, that it was decided that that broad definition should be amended. Without the amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the narrowness of the amendment to which he purports to speak. The amendment relates entirely to whether the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. He may address the House only on that matter.

§ Mr. Jenkin
I certainly agree with that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The purpose of the amendment is to determine whether such regulations should be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. The amendment relates to a serious deficiency in the Bill. It used to be a principle that one could not amend primary legislation by means of secondary legislation. As drafted, the Bill means not only that primary legislation can be amended by secondary legislation, but that that can be done under the negative resolution procedure. A Minister will be able to 687 propose a regulation, lay it on the Table and, 40 days later—with no reference to the House except for the rather ineffectual praying procedure that exists for negative resolutions—amend an Act of Parliament. Moreover, in this case, he will be able to amend the clause that goes to the very heart of the Bill.
I believe that we should support the amendment, but I make the fundamental point that even the positive resolution procedure, which requires the assent of both Houses of Parliament, is an inadequate protection for legislation that has gone through all stages in both Houses. We should not fall into the habit of framing legislation so that it can be fundamentally amended, even with the consent of both Houses. We should support the amendment, but the Bill is inadequately protected and deeply flawed, which explains why Lord Renton of Mount Harry said that it was the most extraordinary piece of legislation that he had come across in all his years in the law and in politics.

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)
I support amendment No. 7, which I hope is acceptable to the Bill's promoter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) has already indicated that she supports the amendment.

§ Mr. Nicholls
I am grateful to you for drawing that to my attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, unless the amendment is agreed to, the Bill will be deficient; we will be unable to scrutinise it, as we will not know what the end result will be.
There have been a number of cases in which definitions in legislation have not been tightened up, with most extraordinary results. The amendment will in no way thwart the intentions of those who want the Bill to be enacted, but it will ensure that when the Minister has provisionally taken a decision and taken appropriate action, Parliament can consider that decision—albeit after it has been made—and say whether it is a good idea.
Finally it would have been a great deal better—this is an important point, which I want to place on record—if the principle that we could scrutinise what we are being asked to pass had been built into the Bill in its entirety, instead of a lot of mechanisms that mean that we do not know what its final shape will be. It is sad—I state it no more strongly than that—that when my hon. Friends have tried to point that out over and over again, they have for some reason been misunderstood not only by the promoter of the Bill but by the Minister, which says something about the Government's attitude to such legislation.

§ Mr. Maclean
Amendment No. 7, which was made in another place, states: 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. To discuss sensibly whether the affirmative or the negative procedure should be used, one must look at those parts of the Bill. Clause 14(3) states: The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (2)"— of section 14. Clause 14(2) states: 688 In this section 'explosives' has the same meaning as in the Explosives Act 1875. The amendment also states that the affirmative procedure should be used in respect of amendments made to clause 1(2). Clause 1 states: In this Act 'fireworks' means devices", and goes on to describe fireworks. Clause 1(2) states: The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1). From the tortuous way in which the Bill is written, I conclude that, if we accept the amendment, the powers that the Secretary of State has taken in the Bill to amend the meaning of a firework and an explosive in the fireworks and explosives Acts will be subject to affirmative resolution. I sincerely believe that we must accept it, as it is a tiny safeguard against the draconian powers that the Secretary of State has taken.
It is totally wrong that we should be in this situation in the first place, and that the Secretary of State should be able to take powers by regulation—just one of the many thousand regulations that she can make under the Bill. She has taken unto herself powers to amend the Acts defining fireworks and explosives. Thankfully, the other place has done its little bit to tighten up those draconian powers by stating that a draft must be laid before each House and approved by affirmative resolution.
Affirmative resolution must be the bare minimum if the Secretary of State is to have such powers. It would be extraordinary if regulations that amend the fireworks and explosives Acts could be passed through the negative procedure in this House. I am not sure of the extent of the Explosives Act. It is an important measure, but I think that it merely defines explosives—whether they are shotgun cartridges, smoke cartridges or mountain rescue flares. Obviously, the definition includes large pyrotechnics, explosives, military explosives and so forth.
That measure was enacted in 1875. People accept that pyrotechnics and explosives change from time to time. New ones are invented—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have listened with patience to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that the amendment to which he is speaking concerns whether regulations made under clauses 1(2) or 14(3) should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—that point, and that point only.

§ Mr. Maclean
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall concentrate on that. I was trying to make the point—I apologise if I did not make it clearly enough—that regulations may be a sensible way of dealing with changes in fireworks technology or—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman repeating his error.

§ Mr. Maclean
Their Lordships have said that the affirmative procedure would be better, and I believe that it is absolutely essential.
The director of consumer safety and standards, Mr. Peter Mason, said: The degree of distress and anxiety that would justify ministers coming to Parliament, even under a negative resolution procedure, to justify some of the actions that we have talked about, would have to be pretty extensive. What we have been anxious to do is to make clear that we can take into account various factors which are not 689 available to us under the 1987 Act. It is certainly not the intention that these powers should be exercised for trivial reasons. In fact, I think that although subsection (2)(a) gives the vires for the regulations, one also has to pay attention to the political realities. We would have to be able to defend what we were doing through the consultation process, through Parliament's scrutiny processes and ultimately the negative resolution procedure. I do not think there is anything further I can say on that…I would say about the negative resolution procedure that we have a lot of experience of making resolutions under the 1987 Act, using this procedure. It is certainly one that I regard as being effective in so far as we know that the stuff that we write is subject to review, it is capable of being prayed against…I do not regard that negative resolution procedure as being in any way an ineffective constraint. That is Mr. Peter Mason's view, not mine. We all know that the Government are embarked on a lot of legislation that contains order-making powers, the vast majority under the negative resolution procedure. It would be a disservice to the House, and to an industry that legitimately manufactures explosives for use by the military, and fireworks for the enjoyment of millions of people, if the principal Acts were suddenly amended by Ministers through the negative resolution procedure.
No matter what we all may say publicly about the wonderful scrutiny that we give matters in the House, the scrutiny that Committees give even to changes made by affirmative resolution is not what it used to be, and not what many of us would like it to be. The negative procedure allows a huge amount of important legislation to be enacted, and I found it extremely convenient when I was a Minister. I jumped at any chance to use it, because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not enter into a general discussion of two forms of procedure. The question is whether these specific regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution.

§ Mr. Maclean
My specific point is that the other place has determined that we should use the affirmative resolution procedure. The only general point that I was making was that the House sometimes does not give enough scrutiny to other legislation and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is exceeding the bounds. For the second time, he has repeated a matter for which I have already reproved him. I shall be forced to look at the Standing Orders if he persists.

§ Mr. Maclean
I have no intention of persisting, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have misunderstood your ruling, and I will comply with it entirely. I was coming to the end of my remarks.
Although the other amendments are of concern, amendment No. 5 provides an essential safeguard. The House still has an important part to play in the conduct of national affairs, even if that role is declining. We can take powers to make sure that legislation is scrutinised properly, and affirmative resolution is the right way to do that for the powers in an enormously draconian Bill. The other place has done a service to Parliament and to the people of the United Kingdom by insisting that we use that procedure.

§ Mr. Forth
In following the perceptive remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border 690 (Mr. Maclean), I am drawn to the fact that clauses 14 and 16 include powers on the prohibition and supply of explosives other than fireworks as well as fireworks themselves. There is an important distinction between fireworks and explosives, as my right hon. Friend said. Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 relate to key clauses in the Bill, to which clauses 14 and 16 refer explicitly. Amendment No. 7 also refers directly to clauses 1(2) and 14(3). Our debate, therefore, is about the definition of fireworks under primary legislation, and about explosives.
The arcane wording of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps I can assist the right hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that he may have found a way to discuss the wider issues to which he has referred, let me tell him that amendment No. 5 is a drafting amendment, and there can be only the narrowest of debates on it. Amendment No. 7, as I have already reminded the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), relates specifically to whether regulations to be made under specified clauses should be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. Both points are very narrow.

§ Mr. Forth
Indeed they are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That makes them all the more interesting and relevant. They may have specific effects on businesses that supply fireworks or explosives, and on those who enjoy fireworks or who use explosives for legitimate reasons. The wording of amendment No. 5 is narrow, substituting by virtue of this subsection for under this section". The form of words is somewhat obscure, but it certainly refers to explosives and fireworks, and to regulation making. I can understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border concentrated on amendment No. 7, which refers to clause 16.
We are in important territory here, which is not to say that the wording of previous amendments was not of importance. All words in every Bill are of crucial importance. When a Bill reaches the statute book, its words have legislative effect on every individual in the country. They can affect businesses and employment. Every word of this highly regulatory Bill has the potential—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. By his own words, the right hon. Gentleman is extending his remarks well beyond the scope of the amendment. I must remind him to confine his remarks to the narrow amendment No. 7, to which he says he is speaking and which is about the affirmative resolution procedure—that, and that alone.

§ Mr. Forth
Indeed. We are discussing the extent to which the House agrees with the Lords. In making alterations to primary legislation, should Ministers be able to do it simply by regulation, as originally suggested—or, as has usefully been suggested in amendment No. 7, should we provide that Regulations…shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been…approved by a resolution of each House."? 691 I shall return to that, but I want to remind the House that we are discussing clause 1(2), which is fundamental to the Bill and, therefore, the functioning of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. No we are not. We are talking about whether the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

§ Mr. Forth
Indeed, but amendment No. 7 refers to Regulations under section 1(2) or 14(3)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to realise that we cannot go back to the substance of the clause to which the regulations refer. The debate is simply on the mechanical question whether the affirmative resolution procedure should apply.

§ Mr. Forth
I would not dream of challenging what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should have thought that what I was saying was relevant to a discussion of the importance of changing the mechanism, which I was relating back to the seriousness of the substance to which the mechanism relates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is challenging my ruling. If he wishes to continue to speak, I suggest that he confines himself to the terms of amendment No. 7.

§ Mr. Forth
That is helpful to me because I shall now embark on the main thrust of my remarks, which relate to amendment No. 7 and whether regulations should be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House. That is the crucial substance of the amendment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border rightly emphasised, which I wish to explore further.
Those of us with some passing familiarity with the proceedings of the House and the making of legislation know how crucial it is to have a mechanism to ensure that each House has a proper opportunity to consider statutory instruments, especially where they alter primary legislation, as in this case. Bills such as this, with provisions that would allow Ministers, by secondary legislation and the powers given thereby, to alter the meaning of primary legislation always cause nervousness, as you, with your long experience know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
That is why there has been a broad welcome for amendment No. 7. The other place has given us reassurance that we welcome. If I may say so without incurring your displeasure and strictly in passing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that yet again affirms the value of the work of the other House. I am sure that we all want to record our gratitude to it for allowing us to debate this matter and include the amendment.
The great danger was that, in its original form, the Bill did not offer us such a safeguard. We cannot know until we hear an explanation from the Minister or the Bill's promoter whether that was an oversight or whether it was deliberate. I hope that we shall be given some idea about that.
692 One of the difficulties of these debates has been that, for reasons known only to themselves, neither the promoter nor the Minister has chosen to explain why they are recommending, or not recommending, amendments. To some extent we are unguided in our reaction to them, because we have not yet had the privilege of such an explanation. That it obviously a matter for their judgment, but it puts us at a disadvantage, and it may be the reason why ever so occasionally we inadvertently stray from the strict material of the amendments. One would assume or hope that the understanding of the contents of the Bill is that much greater in the case of the Minister and the promoter, although I hope that they would—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am going to say now to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I am getting very close to considering that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks fall within the terms of Standing Order No. 42. I put him on final warning. I shall ask him to resume his seat if he persists in offending against that Standing Order.

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful, as ever, for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to emphasise that the provisions in amendment No. 7 are of great reassurance to us because they allow at least the possibility of the House of Commons and the other place giving some consideration to the proposals that may come forward in a statutory instrument. That may not allow us to amend the substance—the procedure does not allow for that—but at least it would provide that vital safeguard that we all increasingly look for against the power of the Executive to change legislation, make regulations and so on. That is the safeguard that is contained in the amendment. It is for that reason that I welcome the amendment today and wish it fair passage.

§ Mr. Leigh
This has proved an interesting debate. Everyone who has spoken so far has assumed that the amendment is worth while and that, if the Minister wishes to amend the definition of a firework, that decision should be subject to an affirmative resolution of the House. Everyone seems to think that that is what we should do. That is probably right, but I am not sure that we have considered what would happen if there were an emergency, in which case the affirmative resolution route might delay the Minister in taking urgent action to protect the public.
My recollection is hazy as to whether in the past the Minister has had to act urgently. I suspect that until now we have had a fairly good system under the Explosives Act 1875 and other consumer protection legislation that has given Ministers the power to intervene quickly to ban a product or to label it in a certain way to protect the public. Those who are promoting the Bill have, for perfectly justifiable reasons, produced a Bill which, because it is wide in its scope and contains Henry VIII clauses, has prompted the other place to insist on requiring the Minister to proceed by way of the affirmative resolution procedure if he wishes to label an item as an explosive.
Those who spoke in the other place said that Ministers should not be given free rein to do what they thought fit. Everyone who has spoken in today's debate has accepted that. I can give one practical example of a case in which the delay that may be engendered by the affirmative 693 resolution procedure could lead to unfortunate results, and in which the existing procedure, whereby the Minister can intervene quickly, is more appropriate. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on this point.
What if the fireworks industry came up with a new product which, say, used compressed gas to fire a pyrotechnic shell? That would overcome the ban imposed on aerial shells after Mr. David Hattersley, a head teacher from High Wycombe, was killed by such a device when the explosive charge that was supposed to launch the shell went off sooner than expected while he was leaning over the launch tube. Under the existing procedure, the Minister could act quite urgently in such a case. However, as in the example I have given, the industry might attempt to circumvent the individual firework ban by using technology that is just beyond the scope of the existing legislation. The industry would not cynically attempt to circumvent what Parliament or the Minister had decided, but it might do what I have described in an attempt to make a safer product. In such a case, others might want the Secretary of State to act quickly to exclude the unproven new breed of device.
1.45 pm
The Minister should be able to ban such devices, as Ministers in the past have been able to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I, who have both had responsibility in this sphere, often had to act quickly to ban particular products. The first action taken by my right hon. Friend on becoming Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs was to ban a particular product. In such circumstances, we would say, "We will ban the product without having to go through the delays engendered by the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament, but then we shall give the industry a chance to discharge its burden of proof and, in that way, we shall determine whether the product is safe." At least we could act quickly in such circumstances.
What worries me is that, because Parliament is rightly concerned about the Bill's wide-ranging powers—in a sense, that is the devil in the legislation—Parliament is circumscribing the Minister's power to act quickly when public safety is at stake. On the other hand, I can understand why my hon. Friends feel that it is necessary for Parliament to be involved through the affirmative resolution procedure. I understand and support their argument that, because the Bill is so wide-ranging, it can almost reinvent itself in the sense that it can give ever wider powers to Ministers to determine what is or is not a firework. My hon. Friends do not want to give such power to Ministers.

§ Mr. Jenkin
My understanding, and I might have misunderstood, is that, in the normal course of events, and unless provision is made for emergency regulations, any regulations laid on the Table cannot come into force until they have lain on the Table for 40 days. Therefore, the amendment would not engender any further delay. If my understanding is incorrect, I hope that my hon. Friend will enlighten me.

§ Mr. Leigh
I have tried to think through in my mind whether or not the amendment would engender further 694 delays. My personal understanding might be wrong and my hon. Friend's right, in which case the debate will have produced a proper outcome and I shall be satisfied. I simply wish to press the point, which is worrying to me, even though I understand why, because of the nature of the Bill and the way in which it is drafted, hon. Members want these matters to be brought before Parliament and the Minister to be obliged to explain—albeit in a truncated and often unsatisfactory debate—what is or is not a firework.
In Committee, hon. Members mentioned issues such as distress flares or bird scarers. The Minister might consider a distress flare to be a firework, especially given that, some time ago, an appalling act of homicide caused by a distress flare took place on the football terraces. Whether such flares should be included in the ambit of the legislation might be precisely the sort of issue that the Minister might want to discuss with Parliament.
The other problem is that distress flares are also used to protect lives at sea and on mountainsides, and therefore play a very positive role. In the case of an appalling incident such as the one that I described, in which a hooligan used a distress flare and caused injury, there would immediately be great public pressure on the Minister to bring the product within the ambit of the Bill.
Our concern about the amendment is that Ministers will be able to act very quickly. Of course, they would want to act properly, and would not take action without advice from officials, but occasionally Ministers and officials make mistakes and Ministers are put under pressure. If there is not a time for calm reflection and the matters cannot come before Parliament, a mistake may be made. We are worried that a product may be banned and that—although that may deal with a problem such as that which I described, which engendered public pressure forcing Ministers to act—there might be unforeseen consequences.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have calmly reflected and decided that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of repeating himself.

§ Mr. Leigh
I shall not deal further with that particular case.

§ Mr. Jenkin
I may inadvertently have given the House misleading information. Having taken informal advice on statutory instruments, I understand that, unless the parent statute signifies that a statutory instrument cannot come into force immediately, a Minister may table a statutory instrument and it can come into force immediately, whether it is required to lie on the Table or requires affirmative resolution. Therefore, the amendment places no restriction on how quickly a new regulation can come into force.

§ Mr. Leigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I respect his judgment, but I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I should like the Minister to confirm that point.

§ Mr. Jenkin
The Minister is not here.

§ Mr. Leigh
I do not understand why the Minister is not here, when we are discussing matters of public safety. I 695 am not sure that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is present, is the appropriate Minister and capable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is very interesting and amusing, but it has nothing to do with the amendment before us.

§ Mr. Leigh
I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was intervened on.
Other matters might cause the Minister to act, such as pesticidal smoke cartridges; shotgun cartridges; magnesium blocks, which are sold to help to light fires in emergencies; Hilti guns, which fire heavy-duty bolts and nails in the construction industry; alarm mines—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the substance of the amendment, which concerns the simple question whether the affirmative resolution procedure should be used.

§ Mr. Leigh
I am coming to the end of my points, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In going through that list, I was showing you and the House that there may be doubt about whether or not numerous devices are fireworks, because of the nature of the explosive charges they contain. It is right that such matters come to the House to be considered properly and for the Minister to have to justify his actions.

§ Mr. Leigh
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be nice if the Minister could now reply to the debate.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker)
For the avoidance of doubt, the Government accept the amendments sent from the other place.

§ Mr. Colvin
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that the Bill is largely an enabling measure, it would assist the House greatly if we knew the Government's line on the various measures in it. Is it in order for the Minister to remain seated for so long in this debate, when an intervention early in the debate, with a clear statement about the Government's view on the various enabling proposals, would have facilitated progress? Why have we been denied a statement? Is it in order for the Minister to remain seated for as long as he has?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is certainly not a question of order as to which hon. Member, whether on the Government Front Bench or not, contributes to a debate in the House. We are considering a private Member's Bill which is being piloted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) to question whether there has been a Government response, when the Government gave that response and he was not here to listen to it, or to the answers to the very questions that he put?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is no better a point of order than the last one.

§ Mr. Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all understand that Ministers have duties outside the Chamber that necessarily occupy their time. In the previous debate on Lords amendments, it would have been very informative to have had the Minister's view—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have just dealt with the substantive point of order raised by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin).

§ Mr. Jenkin
It is a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
It does not sound like it.

§ Mr. Jenkin
Would it be in order for the Minister to answer now the points that were raised?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Most certainly not. The hon. Gentleman must know that that confuses completely a point of order with a point of debate.

§ Mr. Maclean
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you check Hansard on Monday and the Minister's claims that the Government have responded to 697 the debate? I have been here throughout this morning's proceedings and I did not hear any such response. I am not asking that you request the Minister to reply now—of course not—but I ask you to check Hansard in order to see what was said. The Minister's comments appear to be at variance with my understanding of what happened.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
What has been said will be on the record for all to see.

§ Mr. Forth
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because the Minister was not here for large parts of the previous debate, I felt that it was appropriate to divide the House—if only in protest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have already dealt with the point of order as to whether the Minister is obliged to take part in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8.

§ Mr. Forth
This is a clear case—perhaps the clearest that we have had to date—of how it would be helpful if, at the outset of our consideration of the amendments, we were given the courtesy of some brief explanation as to why the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), recommends the amendments to the House. Amendment No. 6 may be detailed and technical—it may even improve the Bill—but it would assist the House to know why and how that is so.
That argument applies even more strongly to amendment No. 8. Those of us who have not had time to scrutinise the amendment this morning—we have been rather busy and in the Chamber all the time, unlike the Minister—want to know why the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 is relevant to fireworks legislation. Given the obvious obscurity and very detailed nature of these amendments, in particular, it would be helpful if the Bill's promoter would do us the privilege of explaining at this stage the reasons for the amendments and why she believes that they should be accepted.

§ Mrs. Gilroy
The amendments are simply drafting and tidying-up measures. My father was a civil engineer who was much given to tidying the roads, and I am pleased to ensure that this Bill is kept tidy.

§ Mr. Paice
That raises the question whether it is right that the House should amend the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 at this stage in the Parliament. The House has already passed legislation to create a Scottish Parliament, which will come into being next year following elections. As I understand it, the issue of roads in Scotland will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I suggest that it might be inappropriate at this stage in the Scottish Parliament's development for the House to do anything to alter legislation that the Scottish Parliament could change again 10 months hence.
698 I would have hoped that the hon. Member for Sutton would address that issue. If her father was a civil engineer, he would know the importance of having legislation absolutely right and tidy. If we are likely to have a change again next year, when there is a Scottish Parliament in place and a Scottish Minister with responsibility for roads in Scotland, one has to ask what is the point of introducing a change now.

§ Mr. Leigh
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who is promoting the Bill, did not choose to explain amendment No. 8, so it falls to me to help the House in its consideration by explaining what it is. The amendment relates to the prospective repeal of sections 30 and 80 of the Explosives Act 1875. When those are repealed, the two sub-paragraphs in question will no longer have any relevance.
I have been to the Library to consult the Explosives Act. In particular, of course, I have consulted sections 30 and 80. Section 30 says: Gunpowder shall not be hawked, sold, or exposed for sale upon any highway, street, public thoroughfare, or public place. If any gunpowder is hawked, sold, or exposed for sale in contravention of this section—

(1) the person hawking, selling, or exposing for sale the same, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 shillings; and

(2) all or any part of the gunpowder which is so hawked or exposed for sale, or is found in the possession of any person convicted under this section, may be forfeited."

What I do not quite understand—again, presumably, the Minister will not be prepared to tell us; certainly the hon. Member for Sutton was not prepared to tell us—is this. We are repealing or amending part of section 30 of an important measure, which was presumably passed by Parliament, in its wisdom, to protect people on the Queen's highway in Scotland, but it is not clear what the law in Scotland relating to public safety on the public highway will be.

§ Mr. Forth
My hon. Friend must recall that all that we have been offered so far by way of explanation is that the father of the promoter of the Bill was a civil engineer with a tidy mind. I do not know what my hon. Friend thinks about that as an explanation. I think that it is patronising and insulting. Unless we get something a lot better from the promoter or the Minister, I cannot see how we can possibly be persuaded of the merits of the amendment.

§ Mr. Leigh
I strongly suspect that the reason why the hon. Member for Sutton made that fatuous comment is that she had not done what I did, which was fairly elementary. I went back to the Explosives Act to ensure that, rather than these matters just being glibly wafted through the House of Commons without any debate, we considered why we were repealing part of the Act.
Of course I will be reassured on that point. I cannot believe that the Government have made such an elementary error as not to consider properly what is in the Act—of course they have—but we should like an explanation of why, when Parliament in its wisdom, passed section 30, it is now to be repealed.
Schedule 4 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, amending section 80 of the Explosives Act, deals with the penalty for throwing fireworks in the thoroughfare. It says: 699 If any person throw, cast, or fire any fireworks in or into any highway, street, thoroughfare, or public place, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale". By the language, my hon. Friends will realise that that is an amendment to the Explosives Act—it is not the original words—but, again, it is an important protection for people going about their lawful business. Section 80 makes it clear that there should be a penalty for throwing fireworks in the thoroughfare.
What could be more unpleasant than going about one's ordinary lawful business on the thoroughfare and finding that someone is throwing fireworks around? This is a matter of public concern, and I hope, therefore, that, before we complete consideration of these matters, we shall get some help from the Minister. Will he assure us that nothing in the Bill as presently drafted, and none of its changes to existing legislation, will in any way lessen public safety on the highway or the protection that the Explosives Act has adequately provided for the best part of 130 years? I hope that I have made my points, and I look forward to the Minister's contribution.

§ Mr. Maclean
Like my hon. Friends, I thought initially that amendment No. 8 was a fairly innocuous tidying-up measure, and that once we received an explanation from the Minister or the promoter, we might be happy to accept it. I do not hold it against the promoter, but I found her response extraordinary. I put it down to the hon. Lady's inexperience or perhaps to the wrong advice that she was given. However, it was an extraordinarily flippant remark to make—that this is just a tidying-up amendment and that her father, who was no doubt a distinguished engineer, was good at tidying up roads.
The House deserves a better explanation than that. I think that it was because the Minister declined to reply to the previous debate that my hon. Friends divided the House. Unless the hon. Lady can give an explanation that I would find more satisfactory, even I as a broad supporter of tightening fireworks safety, especially for children, would be driven to conclude that she deserved the vote to go against her for treating the House in such a flippant way.
Amendment No. 8 would insert in the schedule the repeal of part of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I do not follow the complex legal arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) produced, and I am slightly surprised that the amendment relates to the legislation that he quoted.
The schedule refers to the Explosives Act 1875, the Explosives Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, the Explosives (Age of Purchase &c.) Act 1976, the Explosives Act 1875 etc. (Metrication and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 1984, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Explosives (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The contents of the schedule deal with explosives. Suddenly, the promoter is asking us to accept an amendment from another place—the other place has added this amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are discussing not the contents of the schedule, but an amendment, and moreover a drafting amendment.

§ Mr. Maclean
Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing an amendment that would insert the repeal of 700 parts of the Roads (Scotland) Act into the schedule, which deals with Acts relating to explosive substances. We have had no clear indication why the Roads (Scotland) Act should be included in the schedule. I would think that it is an innocuous measure. No doubt it deals with interesting and important matters relating to roads in Scotland. What is it about the Act that makes it appropriate to be included in a schedule dealing with explosives legislation?
Does the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984—the hon. Lady should tell us—include provisions relating to fireworks and explosives? I presume that such provisions must be in it somewhere. However, we have not had an explanation setting out why it is relevant for the Act to appear in the schedule and why the House should agree with the other place.
When we were considering the previous group of amendments, I thought that the other place had put forward some sensible suggestions to improve the Bill. We discussed them and the Minister, unfortunately, neglected to reply to the debate. However, we voted the lead amendment through. I think that that was sensible although some of my hon. Friends might have disagreed with the way in which the Minister behaved in refusing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not relevant, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We are discussing Lords amendment No. 8, a drafting amendment.

§ Mr. Maclean
Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not repeat my point.
I hope that in this instance we shall be given an explanation. I was trying to bring my remarks to a close by saying that if the Minister does not want a repeat of what happened earlier, we need an explanation of the relevance of the Roads (Scotland) Act in terms of its inclusion in the schedule.
I used to be familiar with some of the details of roads legislation; I used to take a little interest in it. I cannot for the life of me—I am willing to be informed by the Minister or by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy)—recall the particular provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 that relate to fireworks. I assume that they relate more to explosives. As we are being asked to include the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in the schedule, could we have an explanation of why only Scotland is referred to? Are there not similar requirements for roads in England?
I will not go down that route, because it would be quite out of order, but I believe that the House is entitled to know the relevance of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, when other roads legislation relating to England is either not included or not relevant. Are these matters covered in some of the explosives or fireworks legislation contained in the schedule? The hon. Member for Sutton cannot get away with her skimpy explanation to the House today.
This is an important Bill, which contains a tremendous number of draconian powers, to which I shall not refer again. We have looked sensibly at amendments to the Bill today. These two important amendments were recommended by the other place, and I happen to believe that, in tabling amendments, the other place does a good job. However, we are entitled to a view of what the other place has given us. We need to know from the 701 Government why the amendments are to be included and their substance, purpose and consequence. Also, if we fail to pass them into law, what will be the effect?
You say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they are technical or drafting amendments. They may be—in your opinion. We do not know from the Minister or the hon. Member for Sutton what they are intended to do. Amendment No. 6 is clearly a drafting amendment.

§ Mr. Forth
My right hon. Friend, who is a student and has been a practitioner of these matters, will know that an amendment may look innocuous—it may change only one word. However, he would surely concede that that can often contain within it substantial changes to the meaning of a clause, or even to a Bill. It is for that reason that he is right to say that, although there has been no debate on the matter, it is important—if only as a courtesy to the House—for either the promoter of the Bill or the Minister to give us a proper explanation of amendment No. 6, and then a bigger explanation of amendment No. 8.

§ Mr. Maclean
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Although an explanation would have been helpful, I assume that amendment No. 6—with which I was comfortable, and which proposes to delete "this section" and insert "subsection (1)"—would have no unintended legal consequences. However, I may not be correct. Perhaps my right hon. and hon. Friends have a different view. It would appear to be a technical or drafting amendment.

§ Mr. Leigh
My right hon. Friend keeps repeating that this is a technical or drafting amendment, but it is not.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths
It is.

§ Mr. Leigh
The Minister says that it is. I hope that he will intervene and explain, because he did even not bother to turn up for the previous debate, let alone reply to the points that I made on safety. Frankly, that was outrageous behaviour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving well away from the point of the amendment.

§ Mr. Maclean
It appears to me that deleting "this section" and inserting "subsection (1)"—I presume that that is subsection (1) of clause 14—might appear to be a technical amendment, making it simpler to understand. It may have different legal consequences—I am not certain. I am concerned that we have not had an explanation from the hon. Member for Sutton of the legal consequences of deleting "this section" and inserting "subsection (1)", so that the Bill would read: In subsection (1) 'explosives' has the same meaning as in the Explosives Act 1875. There could be some unintended consequences.

§ Mr. Paterson
Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the Scottish aspect, and as he comes from Scotland, may I ask him whether he believes that the clause is 702 compatible with Scottish law? Will there have to be a further redrafting through regulations, given that the Bill is so badly drafted?

§ Mr. Maclean
I must pick up my hon. Friend on one point. I do not think that there can be a further redraft to correct the anomaly. The Secretary of State has taken powers under almost every clause of the Bill considerably to amend other Acts, including the Explosives Act 1875, but I am not sure that she could redraft the Bill to change any mistakes that he has made in interpreting Scottish law.
None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) raised the valid point that the Bill would amend the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The Bill relates to fireworks and applies to the United Kingdom, but there has been no explanation of its consequences to the Scottish legal system. I believe that—I do not want to go down the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)—the matter may more appropriately be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament, to which such powers will be devolved. However, that is not my main concern, and I may be out of order if I suggest that it would be better to amend the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 through roads legislation or through a devolved measure in the Scottish Parliament.
We are discussing a suggestion from the other place that the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 be added to a schedule of a United Kingdom Act of Parliament that deals with fireworks. I do not think that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle through which to amend that Act, as is suggested by the Act's proposed inclusion in the schedule.

§ Mr. Forth
The thought has occurred to me—it may have occurred to my right hon. Friend, too; I know how perspicacious he is in these matters—that, as the Bill seems to find it necessary to encroach on Scottish legislation, it will equally affect matters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If so, the Bill could contain a defect, although it is a bit late in the day for us to identify it. Perhaps the Minister or the promoter will make it clear why the Bill seems uniquely to affect Scotland and why, by implication, it does not have a similar effect in other parts of the United Kingdom. Has my right hon. Friend taken that into account in his analysis of the amendment?

§ Mr. Maclean
My right hon. Friend raises a good point. Clause 19 states: This Act may be cited as the Fireworks Act 1998. It continues: This Act extends to Northern Ireland. I do not want to trespass on any legislation relating to Northern Ireland or on the unique way in which, at the moment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the scope of the amendment. He must confine himself to speaking about whether it is desirable to improve the Bill's drafting as proposed.

§ Mr. Maclean
Precisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for being tempted slightly astray. Amendment No. 8 relates to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, but we have a United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Paice
There seems to be a contradiction. Clause 19 clearly states that the legislation will extend to 703 Northern Ireland. Moreover, the schedule repeals Northern Ireland legislation. I find it odd that amendment No. 8 will amend Scottish legislation when, as far as I can see, the Bill contains nothing to suggest that it applies to Scotland at all.

§ Mr. Maclean
My hon. Friend is right. The legislation extends to Northern Ireland. Therefore, the parliamentary rules of interpretation are such that it would be regarded as a United Kingdom Bill, which I assume automatically—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman may assume that he is well out of order.

§ Mr. Maclean
The amendment to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 suggested by the other place clearly applies to Scotland. That is obvious. We have a United Kingdom Act of Parliament before us. When the hon. Member for Sutton, who is promoting the Bill, introduced the amendment from the other place, she gave us no explanation about what it does. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who has considerable legal expertise in such matters, was able to cite accurately from the various statutes those provisions—

§ Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are about to move on to the rest of the business. Would it be in order for any right hon. or hon. Members who want to object to state that clearly by standing up, so that it can be shown in the public record that they have objected to one of the forthcoming Bills?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The objections are given in the usual way. It will be observed whether or not they are taken.

Division No. 328]	[1.53 pm
AYES
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Hill, Keith
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Austin, John	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Bradshaw, Ben	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Brand, Dr Peter	Kemp, Fraser
Brinton, Mrs Helen	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Buck, Ms Karen	Lepper, David
Burden, Richard	McFall, John
Burnett, John	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Caplin, Ivor	McNulty, Tony
Collins, Tim	Paice, James
Colman, Tony	Pearson, Ian
Corbyn, Jeremy	Pickthall, Colin
Cotter, Brian	Purchase, Ken
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Rooker, Jeff
Dowd, Jim	Ryan, Ms Joan
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Savidge, Malcolm
Efford, Clive	Stunell, Andrew
Fearn, Ronnie	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Flynn, Paul	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Wallace, James
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Walter, Robert
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Heald, Oliver

Tellers for the Ayes:
Angela Smith and
Mr. Patrick Hall.
NOES
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. Eric Forth and
Mr. Edward Leigh.