FIREWORKS

27 Feb 2002 : Column 711

Fireworks

3.35 pm

Joan Ryan (Enfield, North): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the retail sale of fireworks and use of fireworks by the general public.
I am sure many Members will be aware, if only from their postbags, that the problems caused by fireworks are extensive, and are no longer restricted to an annual seasonal event. The industry's voluntary code, which aims to promote the safer use of fireworks, stipulates that they are to be displayed to the public for only three weeks prior to 5 November, and for a few days afterwards. Unfortunately, however, the code is notably redundant, and fireworks are readily available to the public from retail outlets throughout the year.
Several significant problems are caused by the retail sale of fireworks. The most immediate is the number of injuries resulting from their use. In extreme cases their use can lead to fatalities. That, tragically, happened in the case of 13-year-old Martin Lamparter, a young man who lived in my constituency with his family and who was killed last December in an accident involving a firework. The event has devastated his family and the local community.
Even more tragic is the fact that Martin's death was not an isolated incident. Five deaths in the last five years have been directly attributable to fireworks. All were unnecessary, and would have been avoided had the retail sale of fireworks to the general public been prohibited.
Yet despite the focus of past debate on the subject-tending to centre on the devastating effects of injury and the potential for fatalities that fireworks possess-the hazard to human welfare of fireworks has not proved a sufficient propellant to effect the change in legislation for which my Bill calls. Following the implementation of the 1997 firework safety regulations, there was an 8 per cent. reduction in the number of firework casualties in 1998. However, the 30 per cent. drop in the volume of sales in that year makes the apparent decrease in injuries superficial, as proportionally the number of injuries was significantly higher. The number of casualties increased in both 1999 and 2000.
In recent weeks I have received many letters expressing support for the Bill, for a variety of reasons-not just because of the physical injuries that fireworks are capable of inflicting. The National Campaign for Firework Safety strongly supports the Bill, and has long recognised that under current legislation fireworks are a multi-faceted menace, at best a nuisance and at worst fatal.
The support that I have received of late has come not least from those concerned about the noise generated by fireworks. The noise pollution is not the occasional and tolerable inconvenience that it was once, but an ever-increasing source of fear and anxiety, especially to vulnerable groups in society. Such distress is not confined to people, but extends to domestic pets-some of which have had to be put down as a result-as well as farm animals and wildlife.
All those latter problems do not even necessarily entail the abuse of fireworks. When fireworks are deliberately misused, their effects are even more profound, exacerbating the possibility of injury, death and fear as

27 Feb 2002 : Column 712
well as fostering additional problems. The abuse of fireworks results in antisocial behaviour, criminal damage and-as police in Oldham, Bradford and Northern Ireland have found-their conversion into weapons.
Current legislation is failing to be effective primarily because it is reactive. Police powers are restricted to responding to specific offences arising from the misuse of fireworks, and the law, while making it an offence for under-18s to purchase fireworks, does not make their possession of fireworks illegal.
This is a serious problem. Statistics demonstrate that the greatest percentage of firework injuries are to those aged 15 or younger, accounting for some 40 to 50 per cent. of all firework injuries over the past five years. Such evidence clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of current regulations. If the current law were more vigorously enforced and the under-age use of fireworks all but eliminated, firework safety could still not be guaranteed. Age alone does not qualify someone to use explosive devices responsibly and competently. Being old enough to drive does not automatically qualify a person to do so. The safety provisions relating to driving require that a licence be obtained in addition to an age criterion being met. I believe that there is a strong enough case to draw a parallel between driving and the use of fireworks.
Only those who are trained and licensed should be able to access and use fireworks, because even when they are used within the law and with the best of intentions, they are still proving hazardous. Addressing the many problems caused by fireworks requires far more than the further enforcement of current statutes or the entrenching of the voluntary code into law. A statutory code that emulates the current voluntary code would not prevent the problems that I have identified from manifesting themselves around 5 November.
In addition, it is discriminatory to allow the sale of fireworks to the public to commemorate one historical and cultural event-bonfire night-but to deny other celebrations such as Diwali and the Chinese new year the opportunity to include fireworks in their festivities. The only safe and fair option is a complete ban on the retail sale of fireworks to the general public. All festivities would thus be entitled to include fireworks as part of their celebrations, provided that they were used in organised and licensed displays.
There will be those who will object to such a prohibition, perhaps because their profit or employment depends on the sale or manufacture of fireworks, yet the legal requirement for pyrotechnic professionals will create a new niche in the market. An economic calculation must be balanced against the paramount principles of public welfare and safety, and the cost borne by the taxpayer in picking up the tab for the damage caused by fireworks.
There will be those who will contest this Bill under the banner of liberty, on the basis of defending the public's freedom to continue to purchase what essentially constitute explosives. Ironically, in attempting to defend liberty they fail to extend it to those who wish to be free from excessive noise pollution, fear, criminal damage and injury.
A further form of opposition will come from those who claim that banning the retail sale of fireworks to the public will result in the creation of a black market. There is little evidence to support that. However, those who cite other examples of prohibition-such as alcohol-must concede

27 Feb 2002 : Column 713
that lighting noisy, colourful explosives is going to be much harder to conceal than consuming alcohol in one's own home.
A ban on retail sales and possession by the public of fireworks will invest the law with greater clarity and make it a lot easier to prosecute those who violate it. Numerous statistics demonstrate the need for reform to current firework legislation, for which neither the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 nor the Consumer Protection Act 1987 make adequate provision.
A ban on the retail sale of fireworks to the general public is the only way satisfactorily to address the many problems created by fireworks and to restore them to their role as a celebratory and pleasurable phenomenon. There is tremendous need-and equally tremendous public support-for this Bill, and it is with both of these things in mind that I urge Members to support it.

3.43 pm
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): I rise to oppose the Bill. It is only a little more than a month since the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) introduced his Bill. This Bill is even more restrictive than his, but I oppose it not on grounds of liberty, of whether one should have fun or not, or of being a killjoy or a spoilsport. I oppose it simply because it will not address the fears and concerns of most people.
I have fought for a long time on the issue of noise. The Bill that the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) will present shortly will not prevent cruelty to animals-be they cats, dogs, horses or wildlife. It will not stop antisocial behaviour by bad neighbours or by yobs who buy fireworks, legally or illegally. The hon. Lady's Bill will not stop public display organisers using very loud bangs. It will not protect the elderly from loud noises or young children from being frightened or injured by fireworks. It will not stop shift workers or night workers having their precious sleep shattered.
I shall not go into the regulations again. If hon. Members read the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Brent, North, they will see that there are a lot of them.
I also support the position of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who I am delighted to see in her place today. She said:
"We have no plans to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public . . . The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 prohibit from sale to the public several types of noisy category 3 fireworks such as aerial shells and restrict the size of the others. We will, of course, consider any representations that are made."-[Official Report, 26 November 2001; Vol.375, c. 672W.]
To her credit, she has done that.
The explosives industry group of the Confederation of British Industry recognises the great concern in the country and last year's unprecedented reaction to firework noise. The group has been working with the Department of Trade and Industry to see what steps the industry can take to alleviate the problem. It met the Minister on 19 December 2001 to discuss a possible action plan. One aspect of that plan was for the industry to examine the noise aspects appertaining to airbombs-the main culprit, especially in the hands of hooligans-to see whether it might be possible to stop supplying them to consumers or voluntarily reduce the decibel level to conform to the forthcoming European standards.

27 Feb 2002 : Column 714
All those present at an emergency meeting held at the recent Harrogate toy fair, at which the main consumer fireworks suppliers exhibit, resolved to take the single tube airbomb out of circulation. That is a major step for the industry to consider because orders have already been placed and there is existing stock. The industry takes a responsible view and has been working with the Minister to find some legal backing to enforce that possibility. The DTI officials present at the Harrogate meeting undertook to find out whether what the industry wanted was within the scope of the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997. From then on it has been quite clear that the industry is willing to address the fears of the public.
I would press the Minister on one more important point. Fireworks are imported, usually in containers, through the British ports. I think that most of them come through Felixstowe. Many of them are sold under the counter or out of the famous white vans. Those people are not bothered about having legal, licensed explosives storage, nor do they abide by the requirements. In order to catch the dodgy importers-who may represent only 1 or 2 per cent. of the fireworks trade-the explosives industry group has proposed the introduction of a tracking system from the point of entry to the final destination of the container, so that local authorities and the police can follow up the shipments and seize those that are illegal. That is why I urge the Government to strengthen the role of the port trading standards officers and encourage the police to assist.
The explosives industry group is fully committed to addressing the overall problem of firework noise and wishes to convince the public that responsible firework sectors take this matter very seriously. I invite the House to consider that it would be a much better proposition to work with the industry and the Government to achieve the objective that we all want-far less noise from fireworks. People do not object to the visual display; in almost every case it is the noise. That point has been made in letter after letter. The fireworks industry action plan should be supported by the House.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is even something that you could do-as could hon. Members and anyone outside this place who feels strongly about the matter. If people log on to my website, robertkey.com, they will find that my online voting topic for this month is fireworks. They will see that, to date, voting is two to one in favour of my proposal-to reduce the noise-against the proposal of the hon. Member for Enfield, North. There is an opportunity for everyone to have their say online.
The Bill is not only restrictive but will not work. I wish that the Labour Whips would take a grip on their Back Benchers and encourage them to support the Minister in her achievements so far.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Joan Ryan, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Barry Gardiner, David Cairns, Dr. Nick Palmer, Dr. Evan Harris, Bob Russell, Sir Teddy Taylor, Ross Cranston, Siobhain McDonagh, Shona McIsaac and Tony Wright.

Fireworks

Joan Ryan accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the retail sale of fireworks and use of fireworks by the general public: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 101].