§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public; to provide for a licensing system for firework displays; and for connected purposes.My object today is to seek the views of the House of Commons on the problem of fireworks and to establish whether Members consider that the answer I put forward in the Bill is the right one. Of course, it is well known that ten-minute rule Bills rarely become law, but my hope is that, if we get a substantial majority for the Bill today, it might persuade this or a future Government to do something about the problem.First we need to establish whether there is a problem. My view is that we have not only a problem but a nightmare with fireworks. Those of us with elderly relatives, young children or domestic pets will know that, for a period of months around the time of Guy Fawkes night, genuine alarm and distress is caused by fireworks exploding at all times of day or night, sometimes in the early hours of the morning. I reside in the centre of Southend and I also have a flat in London. From the telephone calls that I receive from distressed constituents, the letters that I receive and the representations that I hear in conversation, I gain the impression that the public are fed up to the teeth with the problem and want something to be done. They look to Parliament to take the appropriate action.
Apart from the inconvenience, there is also a safety issue. All sports involve dangers, but we should not ignore the fact that, in 1997, 908 firework accidents were reported, of which about half involved hospital treatment or other medical treatment. The previous year saw three deaths, including that of a 10-year-old boy called Dale, who died after a lit firework was pushed through the letter box in his home in Nottingham. An adult in Kent died of facial injuries after a private bonfire party.
In fairness, Governments of both parties have tried to do something about the problem. However, the difficulty is that all the measures that they have proposed have not worked. We had an active Consumer Affairs Minister in the Conservative Government who, in 1996, said that he would introduce a root and branch policy to sort out the problem. He brought in new regulations, which imposed massive fines of £5,000 for letting off fireworks in the street. He also prohibited the sale of fireworks to people under 18 years of age. However, despite that, in 1997, a third of all the accidents happened in the street and half of the injuries were to children under 15. That policy did not work.
Dramatic measures were proposed by the new Labour Government. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), when he was the new Consumer Affairs Minister, energetically said:
Firework injuries have soared to unacceptable levels. I am taking tough action to protect the public. Too many elderly people live in fear because of hooligan fireworks.He proposed a massive publicity campaign and spent £350,000 last year on advertising telling people about the problems. However, none of the proposals made by Government—Conservative or Labour—have worked.117 We can either do nothing at all, or do something that will work. The only effective course of action is to make a change to the law that is clear, precise and unambiguous. I propose a total and complete ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public, and on the firing of fireworks by the general public. The Bill would also provide that organisations or individuals wanting to hold firework displays—which can be very exciting—would be permitted to do so only under licence from the local authority or council. Consideration of licence applications would take into account where and on what date such a display was to be held, and its duration.
I am aware that some councils want to be more flexible and liberal in their attitudes. The Bill would allow them to be so, but other areas might take a different point of view. The proposals would resolve the real nightmare of fireworks in an effective and practical manner.
In general, I am reluctant to promote legislation that reduces the freedom of individual citizens, but we should acknowledge that the freedom that people enjoy in relation to fireworks causes genuine alarm, distress and inconvenience to the majority. That is why we have to take action, and as soon as possible. I urge the House to face up to an issue that has been swept under the carpet for far too long, and to support the Bill.
I know that some hon. Members disagree with me. I hope that those who do say so and oppose the Bill, and that they then make their own proposals. We must accept that fireworks are worse than a problem—they are a nightmare. Something must be done to tackle the matter, and I believe that the proposals in the Bill are the only possible answers.
I hope that the House will be able to support my suggestion, and that real and effective legislation will be introduced before too long.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) kindly invited those who oppose his Bill to say so. In one sense, I am happy to voice my disagreement, but in another it gives me no great joy, as I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend. He and I agree on many matters, but we shall have to disagree on this.
Of course, I understand my hon. Friend's motivation. Who could fail to respond to his warning that fireworks cause injury or even, tragically, the occasional death? My hon. Friend disapproves of that, as do a number of his constituents. However, I part company with my hon. Friend over the disappointing way in which he reaches for the ban and the licensing regime to solve the problem. That is classic old socialism. I should be surprised if new, modern Labour Members were attracted to my hon. Friend's solution, as it closely resembles the old-style, patronising socialism of which we thought that we had seen the back. However, my hon. Friend's Bill in effect patronises the public.
If a habit existed that was harmful to individuals and to society, would my hon. Friend want to ban it outright? Might it not be more appropriate to warn the public about possible dangers, and then let intelligent people make up their own minds? To my mind, that would be the preferred solution, and it is the approach that has been adopted up to now.
118 My hon. Friend used statistics skilfully but rather selectively. I considered this matter not long ago, and am happy to say that I found that the efforts of successive Governments and Ministers over a period of years had resulted in a fall in the rate of accidents caused by fireworks. That is a result of the assiduous attention of a succession of Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). By informing the public and warning them of the danger, we have caused people to be ever more careful about the use of fireworks.
My argument is also more general. Without much difficulty, we could identify a number of activities that, tragically and unfortunately, cause mishap, injury and even death. In different ways, horse riding, mountaineering, rugby, off-shore boating and flying private aircraft all cause tragedies to occur. People are warned in advance of the danger, and undertake those activities in the full knowledge of the danger. Some of those activities cause danger to more than the participants. For example, brave volunteers go on to mountains or out in Royal National Lifeboat Institution boats.
We do not reach for the ban for those activities. We do not say that, because we disapprove of them or because they can cause injury, we must ban them. That is not the instinctive reaction of the Conservative—at least, I thought that it was not—and that is why I am disappointed by my hon. Friend's suggestion. I was even more disappointed that he went beyond the ban to introduce an old enemy—the licensing regime. A bureaucracy will be set up at the taxpayer's expense to tell people when they may or may not use fireworks in the pursuit of whatever pleasure they get from them. To do so would replace what my hon. Friend called a nightmare with nothing more than another nightmare. That is the wrong response to the problem.
My disappointment will not diminish my admiration and respect for my hon. Friend. I do not think that anything could do that. However, I must ask him to think again about his approach. Does he wish to set the precedent of banning something just because he disapproves of it or believes that it might injure people? I ask him not to go down the track of patronising the public, telling them that they do not have the sense to make a decision once they have been given information, so he must make the decision for them. That must run counter to conservatism, and I hope that my hon. Friend will think again. I oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mrs. Christine Butler, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. John Cryer, Angela Smith, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Paul Burstow and Mr. John Randall.