PROHIBITION OF SUPPLY ETC. IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (Hansard, 13 June 2003)

§ Mr. Chope
I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 3, line 4, leave out from 'from' to 'using' in line 5.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments No. 53, in page 3, line 7, leave out from 'from' to 'using' in line 8.
No. 64, in page 3, line 16, at end insert— '() Fireworks regulations may not prohibit the supply of fireworks for private use on residential premises.'.
No. 67, in page 3, line 16, at end insert— '() Firework regulations may not prohibit the supply of fireworks in such a way as to interfere with the celebration of major religious and national festivals.'.
No. 55, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, at end add— '() Nothing in this section shall apply to—

(a) any person whose trade or business is the professional organisation or professional operation of firework displays;
970
(b) any person whose trade or business, or part of whose trade or business, is the supply of fireworks or assemblies, for the purposes of supplying them in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations;

(c) any local authority for the purposes of a firework display;

(d) any person for use, in the course of a trade or business of his, for special effects purposes in the theatre, on film or on television;

(e) any local authority, enforcement officer or other body, where that authority or body:

(i) has enforcement powers, conferred by or under enactment, applying to the firework or assembly in question; and

(ii) before it purchases the goods, informs the supplier that the purchase is to be made for the purposes of ascertaining whether any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of the goods has been contravened in relation to those goods;

(f) any department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the purposes of a firework display put on by that department for use by that department at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event or for use by that department for research or investigations purposes;

(g) any person who:

(i) is in business as a supplier of goods designed and intended for use in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies; and

(ii) intends to use the firework or assembly in question solely for the purposes of testing those goods to ensure that, when used in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies of the same type, they will perform their intended function or comply with any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of those goods; or

(h) any establishment of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown for the purposes of a firework display or for use at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event.'.

No. 60, in page 4, line 30, leave out clause 7.
No. 61, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end add— '() Nothing in this section shall apply to—

(a) any person whose trade or business is the professional organisation or professional operation of firework displays;

(b) any person whose trade or business, or part of whose trade or business, is the supply of fireworks or assemblies, for the purpose of supplying them in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations;

(c) any local authority for the purposes of a firework display;

(d) any person for use, in the course of a trade or business of his, for special effects purposes in the theatre, on film or on television;

(e) any local authority, enforcement officer or other body, where that authority or body:

(i) has enforcement powers, conferred by or under enactment, applying to the firework or assembly in question; and

(ii) before it purchases the goods, informs the supplier that the purchase is to be made for the purposes of ascertaining whether any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of the goods has been contravened in relation to those goods;

(f) any department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the purposes of a firework display put on by that department for use by that department at a 971 national public celebration or a national commemorative event or for use by that department for research or investigations purposes;

(g) any person who:

(i) is in business as a supplier of goods designed and intended for use in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies; and

(ii) intends to use the firework or assembly in question solely for the purposes of testing those goods to ensure that, when used in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies of the same type, they will perform their intended function or comply with any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of those goods; or

(h) any establishment of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown for the purposes of a firework display or for use at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event.'.

§ Mr. Chope
Some of the amendments are in the names of my hon. Friends, so I will not speak at length on those, but amendments Nos. 52 and 53 concentrate on the mischief of misuse rather than supply. I think that our constituents are concerned about the misuse of fireworks. There are already controls over supply under existing regulations. As the Minister said earlier, there are controls over safety. The big lacuna in the law and in the regulation-making power at the moment is in relation to the use of fireworks. That is why I seek in amendments Nos. 52 and 53 to cut out all the other guff and concentrate on misuse.

§ Mr. Tynan
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Police Federation has recently suggested that we should change the law in order to ensure that possession of fireworks is an offence, so that it could be dealt with. I ask him to withdraw the amendment. The issue of supplying, purchasing and possessing fireworks is very important and should be left in the Bill.

§ Mr. Chope
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of possession. Is someone who has fireworks in his possession going to be arrested by the police and charged with possessing fireworks? Surely the biggest problem is when the fireworks are used. There are already restrictions on the use of fireworks in the street. If we are talking about giving powers to the police to deal with people who are just possessing fireworks, are we not going unnecessarily far?

§ Mr. Tynan
The hon. Gentleman should accept, and I hope that he will, that minors often have fireworks in their possession and the police are powerless to deal with that situation. Sometimes, the minors are responsible for antisocial behaviour. On that basis and in those circumstances, it is vital that we give them the power to deal, if necessary, with the issue of possession and supply.

§ Mr. Chope
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not sure that the Bill will deal with the situation that he described. As I understand it, one of the big concerns is that it is not possible to introduce a fixed-penalty notice for anyone under the age of 18. The hon. Gentleman refers to young people and there are already restrictions on the supply of fireworks to them. Will the police be given powers to seize the fireworks in their possession?
972 The issue is similar to that of children or young people carrying drink in public places. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights has said that the police can seize cans of drink in the possession of young people only if the young people are consuming the drink or have started to do so. Will we be able to enforce a requirement that young people are not allowed to carry fireworks in a public place? Should they be subject to all these regulations if they have fireworks in their possession? That is my concern. I would like us to address the problem of misuse—and not just supply and possession—much more effectively.

§ Mr. Tynan
rose—

§ Mr. Chope
The hon. Gentleman is itching to intervene again, but I want to make a final point. I hope that he is as alarmed as I am by what is said in the regulatory impact assessment about nothing in the Bill placing an extra burden on the police or causing them any more hassle. He seems to be under the illusion that the Bill will enable the police to be proactive in dealing with the hooliganism and antisocial behaviour associated with the use of fireworks in public places.

§ Mr. Tynan
I might not be explaining my position properly but, in the real world, individuals under the age of 18 sometimes obtain a supply of fireworks or purchase them from rogue dealers so that they are in possession of fireworks. Is it not a good idea for the police to have the opportunity to deal with that issue? In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should realise that it is in the best interests of the individual, as well as the population in general, for the police—I am sure that they would use their powers in a limited fashion—to be able to deal with the problem of minors having possession of fireworks.

§ Mr. Chope
We are both keen on achieving the same objective, namely reducing to a minimum the misuse of fireworks. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's remarks. The hon. Gentleman has been persuaded by some of my arguments and, in the spirit of the debate, I may well yet be persuaded by his.

§ Mr. Leigh
I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 64 and 67, which are in my name. Amendment No. 64 deals with the supply of fireworks for private use, and we have already made progress on that matter. The Bill's promoter has already said that he does not want it to apply to class 1 and 2 fireworks. Class 4 fireworks are only to be used by explosive factories; they are not sold to the public. Class 3 fireworks have a safety distance of 25 m and they are used in displays. As a result of the assurances by the Bill's promoter that he does not want it to apply to class 1 and 2 fireworks and that he would be happy for an amendment to be tabled in another place, my fears, which I tried to deal with in amendment No. 64, have probably been addressed.
12.45 pm
I have primarily been concerned with protecting the traditional private family firework display in people's gardens. I look forward to hearing what the Minister and the promoter say about amendment No. 64. 973 Perhaps it is possible to obtain clays 3 fireworks for a private garden display. I do not know what the legal situation is on that or what the supply situation would be. It may be that we have dealt with that issue.
The more substantial point that I want to raise relates to amendment No. 67. I do not know what the technical objection may be, but I hope that the Minister reassures me about the issues that it raises. As well as protecting the private traditional display with one's family, I want to avoid the situation in which people can let off fireworks only around 5 November. I would not approve of that. I do not say that because I am a Catholic and would object to the fact that fireworks could be used only to celebrate the gunpowder plot, but because it raises an interesting point. We live in a varied society with many religious groups and types of people. I do not understand why we should gradually move bit by bit—as we are doing as a result of a ratchet-type effect—to let off fireworks only at that time of year. There is no reason why people should not be allowed—encouraged even—to let off fireworks around new year.
We also have to recognise that there are other religious festivals, such as Hindu and Muslim festivals. A Conservative colleague came up to me in the corridor yesterday and said, "I don't know what you're doing about this Bill. The fact is I get loads of letters from people objecting to the fact that we get fireworks at all times of the year. They're used to celebrate Hindu festivals and some of my constituents don't like it." But that is the country we live in. If someone wants to celebrate a Hindu festival with fireworks, that might not be on 5 November. In the spirit of a liberal multicultural country, we should recognise people's ability to let off fireworks when they want to.
Amendment No. 67 might not be necessary. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to make it clear that we recognise that people in our society will want to let off fireworks at different times of the year. I am not sure that many people would want to let them off on Bastille day, but if they want to, let them. There is, after all, an ever-growing French community. If it wants to let off fireworks, why not? Why should the ever-growing American community not let off fireworks on independence day? We do not want to be more and more restrictive. We have a voluntary agreement that makes it difficult for members of the public to obtain fireworks except around the period of 5 November and the new year. If the Minister reassures me on that, I shall be very happy.

§ Mr. Tynan
The issue is important. In my constituency it is simple to purchase fireworks all year round. That is the fact of the matter and I am sure that it happens in many constituencies. However, when I formulated the ideas behind the Bill. I was conscious that we should not disadvantage other multicultural groups. As a member of one of them, I recognise their value. I spoke to Hindu people about what could be done. That is why we suggest a two-tier licensing system that will give those who want to celebrate major religious or national festivals the opportunity to buy fireworks. I raised the matter on Second Reading; I recognise the fact that we live in a multicultural society, and the Bill 974 takes account of the points that have been made. I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to withdraw his amendment.

§ Miss Melanie Johnson
Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 would remove the prohibition on the supply of fireworks, and limit prohibition simply to the use of fireworks, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) has explained why that is not desirable. There are occasions on which the prohibition on supply is crucial, and we may want to consider prohibiting supply at certain times of day, in certain places or in certain circumstances. The amendments would therefore take a retrograde step because we would lose some of our ability to control the supply of fireworks. Conservative Members agree with us about the importance of that control, so I hope that they will not feel the need to press the amendments.
Amendment No. 55 is too prescriptive. However, it was tabled before our discussions earlier this morning, and I hope that Conservative Members will recognise that the flexibility in the Bill is necessary so that we can consider who should be excepted from certain of the prohibitions imposed by any regulations made under the Bill.
I turn now to amendment No. 60 on the licensing of suppliers. Many people, including consumers, enforcement officers, firework companies and many hon. Members feel that licensing is a suitable way further to control the availability of fireworks entering the market. The provisions are important because the Bill will allow local authorities to refuse and revoke licences to retailers who have previously breached conditions such as those relating to storage or supply to children.

§ Mr. Baron
As I said, I fully support the Bill and, in particular, the idea of proper licensing and control of the sale of fireworks to the public, but may I tease out of the Minister any suggestions that the Government may have for addressing the issue that licensing will not solve all the problems? One could stockpile fireworks, for example. Although the Bill is helpful, and I support it, I would be grateful for a little clarification from the Minister.

§ Miss Johnson
We are considering the issue carefully to make sure that the provisions are effective but not overly bureaucratic or burdensome for retailers. Where possible, we are trying to link them with revision of the regulations on the manufacture and storage of explosives, which obviously relate to the hon. Gentleman's point about storage. Those regulations are currently under review by the Health and Safety Executive, so there will be an opportunity to tackle that.
Amendment No. 61 is very similar to amendment No. 55, so I need say nothing further on that. Turning to amendment No. 64, I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) accepts that things have changed since he tabled the amendment. It would remove our ability to create a watershed for residential use, and we would all regret that. In any event, the hon. Gentleman indicated that he would not press the amendment, and I hope that he will not.
975 Amendment No. 67 is rather vague and, therefore, unhelpful. It may be difficult to define "interference". We entirely share the hon. Gentleman's aspiration that the buying and selling of fireworks is not confined to the period around 5 November.
The amendment is not necessary because under clause 2(4) the Secretary of State is required to consult organisations and other people considered to have interests and to be affected by the Bill. Additionally, the Government are obliged in the regulatory impact assessment to consult extensively members of particular minorities when drawing up regulations, and we shall obviously ensure that all sections of the community are represented. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Gainsborough, whose concerns are similar to ours.

§ Mr. Chope
In the light of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.