§ 2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation to replace the Explosives (Age of Purchase) Bill which failed to receive the Royal Assent before the Dissolution of Parliament.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to introduce any such legislation.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, while welcoming, of course, the great reduction in the number of accidents caused by fireworks, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree that public opinion wants us to advance in some small measure in the direction of better control? Further, would the noble Lord consider with his friends that as some fireworks more dangerous than 8 others, namely "bangers", are usually involved in the illegal use of fireworks in public streets and highways that useful legislation might be taken in that regard? Would the noble Lord's friends give fair wind to a Bill to outlaw at least these, the most dangerous and wounding of the fireworks at present allowed?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount, whose interest in this subject is well known to us, that the decision not to introduce a Bill does not reflect any indifference towards fireworks accidents nor any reluctance towards playing a part in reducing them. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not convinced that legislation of this kind is the right approach. What is needed is a readier and more effective acceptance by parents and other adults of their own responsibilities for ensuring that fireworks, which are not in themselves intrinsically dangerous, are safely handled. There is no doubt that they can be safely handled. The noble Viscount knows of the advances that have been made in recent years, and there is no lack of advice or guidance, which now includes the Firework Code on the lines he has advocated in the past. We feel that this approach is likely to be more effective than legislation of the kind to which the noble Viscount has referred in his Question.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, is the noble Lord saying that this is one element of the Government's new policy of standing on our own feet?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the point of greatest danger is that at which fireworks are used and not the point at which they are sold; and it is on that single point that our decision has been taken.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he thinks that no useful purpose would be served by banning the manufacture and sale of "bangers"? As he knows, these are perpetually used outside the law in public places and are the cause of a great number of accidents. Is he saying that no good could be achieved by legislation banning the manufacture of these fireworks? Is the noble Lord aware that one of the boys in my own club is now 9 blind and in hospital as a result of a "banger" exploding in his face?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, we are satisfied that the fireworks on sale in the shops are subject—as the noble Lord well knows—to very stringent control. I have recently seen demonstrations of the use of fireworks both of the type that are on sale and also of those which are banned. There is a considerable list of dangerous fireworks, many of them manufactured overseas, which are not available on sale. Those which are on sale, if handled correctly, are safe; and banning the manufacture and the sale of fireworks does not seem to us to be the most effective approach to greater safety. Our aim to achieve greater safety is exactly the same as that of the noble Viscount, but there are two ways of arriving at that.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, will the noble Lord explain a little more clearly what he means by saying that this is not a suitable subject for legislation? Legislation now exists. The only point about the Bill which this House passed before the change of Government was that we amended the legislation and made it more relevant. What is the argument against that?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, my reference was to additional legislation, not to legislation which exists.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, perhaps the noble Lord remembers the effect of the television programme last year, and others in previous years, which do not seem to have had any consequence in the way of change in the use of fireworks. With November 5 not far away would the noble Lord give an undertaking that there will be a review of accidents caused by fireworks to see whether anything can be learned from them?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMCertainly, my Lords. There is no doubt that the enormous increase in publicity in the last two years has led to a substantial reduction in the number of firework accidents. The B.B.C. are repeating the "Man Alive" programme on October 28—that is, on Wednesday of this week—and we hope that the effect of that, and other publicity, will be a further reduction. The figures are analysed with very great care.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, in view of the fact that in his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said the protection of the child should be left to the parents, can he tell me what precedent there is for this? Is it not a fact that when a Government recognise that some practice is harmful to a child the Government themselves take action, and do not regard a parent as a sufficiently responsible person to protect the child?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, it is a matter of scale. I believe that 300 million fireworks were sold last year. The number of accidents in relation to that figure is infinitesimal. But, of course, as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has just mentioned, examples of individual instances can be very tragic. For that reason, measures to improve the situation—the Firework Code, the control of the type of fireworks being sold and other measures—have been introduced. The noble Baroness may not agree with me, but I came to this subject fairly fresh and I am convinced that this is the way to make progress. The greater the supervision exercised by parents and adults in the use of fireworks, the fewer accidents there will be, whatever may be on the Statute Book.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, although everyone agrees that great success has attended the efforts of the manufacturers, the Government and local authorities in their efforts to reduce accidents during recent years, it is perfectly certain that on November 5 more than 2,000 people will be injured by fireworks, and will have to be taken to hospital. What we want to know is how the Government propose to reduce that number.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, by the measures that I have mentioned.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, does the noble Lord suggest that it is appropriate to express the number of children injured as a percentage of the number of fireworks made?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, it is sometimes helpful to have one or two comparative yardsticks so that one can compare the utilisation of something like fireworks with the accident figures. Of course there is no direct 11 correlation, but it was a surprise to me to learn that as many as 300 million single fireworks were sold, and I thought that the information might be of interest to some Members of your Lordships' House.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, on that basis, would the noble Lord reckon that there is a ratio between the number of people drowned and the number of gallons of water in the sea?
§ LORD FERRIERMy Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that any publicity in regard to this matter will include a reference to the importance of protection for domestic pets?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, it is unfortunate if a firework does harm, whether to a child or to an animal. But what I have been saying would apply in the case of pets as much as in the case of children. If fireworks are handled carefully no damage will be done to anyone.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, will not a very heavy responsibility—
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made reference to the ratio between the number of fireworks sold and the number of accidents. Will he not agree that some fireworks are more safe than others and that there are a number of fireworks which have been banned by law? He says that banning by law is no protection for children. But does he really believe that, when a number of fireworks have in fact been banned by law and have thus ceased to be a danger?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I think that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is a great deal more fundamental in his approach. He has on a number of occasions made quite clear that he would like to ban the use of fireworks completely other than, perhaps, at organised displays given by qualified people. That is a point of view. But his own Bill, which sought to achieve that, did not get a Second Reading. I do not think it was granted a Second Reading—the noble Lord may correct me if he likes.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, will the noble Lord answer my supplementary question? He has talked about everything else except my question. Will he please answer what I said?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I think that we really have debated this subject at considerable length—
§ LORD WINDLESHAM—and I am unable to add to what I said in my first Answer.