Orders of the Day — Fireworks Bill

House of Commons, 3 July 1998.

TRAINING COURSES

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I hope that I may be allowed to make a few comments—after all, there has been little debate. The Bill received its Second Reading without debate, and it spent only one hour in Committee. When the Bill reached the House of Lords, considerable concern was expressed about its wide-ranging regulatory powers and Henry VIII clauses. One only has to make a cursory reading of the Bill to see that the Secretary of State may, by regulation, do whatever he pleases to regulate the fireworks industry. That is a worrying development. The Bill should not be a private Member's Bill—it should be a Government Bill. The amendments go to the heart of the Bill, as they deal with the Secretary of State being given more powers to regulate closely the amount of fees to be set for training purposes. I take a great interest in fireworks, because, for a time, I was the Minister responsible for the fireworks industry. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—who is sitting in front of me—is also a former Consumer Affairs Minister, and I think that he too was responsible for the fireworks industry. When I had that responsibility, there was continual pressure for more regulation. I am now getting very concerned about the matter. It can be said, on any matter, that the industry should not be allowed to set its own fees for training purposes. One could argue that about any industry. One could argue that, as we are talking about the fireworks industry and are dealing with potentially dangerous substances, the Secretary of State should be given wide-ranging powers. My hon. Friends should look at the amendment closely. It will be said that the private sector is allowed to set the fees, it could start charging exorbitant fees for training, or it could provide slipshod training, and therefore the Secretary of State must be involved. That argument could be used about any training course in any industry. I am not sure that that, of itself, is a strong argument. I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), or the Minister when he replies to this debate, will deal with that point.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

My hon. Friend is making an important point about training. Will he reconcile the Government's attitude to this matter with their publicly stated commitment to the principle of training and enterprise councils, which holds that employers should regulate training since they best understand the industrial needs in their sector of the economy?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is wide of the Lords amendment.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I will not respond to that point, except to say that what is pertinent to the Lords amendments is whether the industry itself—which is best equipped to know the circumstances in which it operates—should set the level of fees for training or whether it should be the Secretary of State. It should worry my hon. Friends that this is another instance in which the Secretary of State will set the level of fees. It could equally be said that, if the matter were left to the industry, it could subsidise training to all and sundry. It could expand the market for the most extravagant products and could thereby distort the market. That argument will be used by those in favour of the amendments. I do not believe that the amendments are necessary. They make a bad and dangerous Bill even worse, and even more regulatory. It grieves me, having spent so many years being concerned with the DTI and deregulation, to see another instance of even more regulation being provided. The prejudices that people use against the private sector setting fees are unsustainable. There is possibly a danger of abuse if the Secretary of State is given wide-ranging powers. If the Secretary of State is too involved in the process, private enterprise may be gradually prevented from setting its own high-quality training courses and its own fees.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Given my hon. Friend's experience in the DTI and of this sector, has he begun to consider the manpower and bureaucracy that is likely to be involved not only in the licensing process—the Bill refers to "licensed persons"—but in the Secretary of State getting involved in the charging of fees for the grant or variation of licenses"? Does that not give my hon. Friend pause for thought, given his experience?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and he and I have practical experience. It is some years since my right hon. Friend and I dealt with matters in the DTI. I pay tribute to the expertise of the officials who work in the Department. I recognise that they are not unduly bureaucratic, and that they have the public interest at heart. I make no criticism of them at all. However, I wonder whether they have the necessary expertise to understand what is going on in all aspects of a complex industry. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government have accepted the amendments. I do not know where they came from—presumably the Minister can elucidate. I cannot understand why the Government appear to have so little confidence in the ability of the industry to regulate itself.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Further to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), do we have any indication of how much the new structure will cost? It is not a cost-free exercise to give the Secretary of State those powers. There is no doubt that the money spent on that form of bureaucracy could be spent, for example, on assisting the national health service to give due regard to cancer screening—a matter which is currently exercising the NHS.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. We must not go wide of the amendments.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has followed the debate on fireworks, but there has been a sustained attack on the fireworks industry for many years. It is all about taking away people's traditional enjoyment of their own private fireworks parties. The Bill is part of a wider agenda, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I fought vigorously. That agenda is the imposition of more and more regulation and cost on the fireworks industry to make it more difficult for ordinary people to buy fireworks and enjoy them in their back gardens—something which, I am sure, my hon. Friends and I enjoyed when we were young. The Bill is part of a wider agenda to ensure that we have only a small number of highly regulated displays, run by professionals who have been forced to undergo expensive training courses, with fees, presumably, set by the Secretary of State. That is part of the wider agenda.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

Will the hon. Gentleman say what discussions he has had with the industry, particularly on its concerns about fees?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I have not had any recent discussions with the industry on the matter, but I have been provided with a briefing note about its concerns. It is perfectly justifiable for Members of Parliament to speak from briefing notes. People in the industry are concerned, and I am dealing with their worries.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

The industry supports the Bill—it is not asking to set the fees—so who has provided him with the briefing note?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

What I will say—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is responsible for his own speech; who provides information is not a matter for the House.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

As someone who has taken an interest in the fireworks industry over the years, I am perfectly entitled to speak to these matters. If hon. Members do not find my comments interesting, they might listen to Mr. Mason, a director of consumer safety and standards, who told the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation: I think that I would prefer to see the private sector solution if we can generate enough interest… If there were a fee payable, I think the same comments that I have made about publicly set fees would apply. We would expect them to cover costs in line with Treasury guidance, but no more. Underneath that, there are the course fees that these licensed persons charge the general public to attend the courses. Our normal expectation there I think is that we rely on competition to drive down course fees to the appropriate level. We are talking really of either commercial or voluntary organisations operating in a competitive market. That is not to say, however, that we might not find ourselves in a position where there were very few organisations offering training and that there was concern about an exploitation of what is after all a form of statutory monopoly. We are assuming that certain people can only have access to fireworks after they have gone through this procedure. We would certainly want the ability, under those circumstances, to fix a maximum level of fee, though again it would probably be a maximum rather than an absolute level because, even under those circumstances, you would hope that competition could drive down the prices further. Mr. Mason made a serious case—that the private sector should be able to set the fees—although I wonder whether he was right to say that it was desirable to set a maximum fee. The problem with maximum fees is that they quickly become the going rate. If the usual forces of competition apply, there is no reason why a sensible fee should not be set. I am not sure why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to set a fee, let alone a maximum fee.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

The significance of the training scheme is that it would confer a statutory right to buy specific dangerous fireworks. Surely it must be right to limit the charges on what is, in effect, a right to buy particular fireworks.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

One could use that argument about any regulated industry and say that the Secretary of State should always be able to intervene. I am not sure why it should be assumed that, if the private sector set fees, it would drift into collusion. People in the industry are responsible; they are perfectly capable of setting fees to cover their costs and to allow others to enter the market. I hope that the Minister will explain why he thinks that he should become involved. Bodies hoping to offer fireworks training will presumably be able to negotiate with the Government about obtaining permission, and come to some formal or informal understanding about the nature of the training, the length of the courses and the appropriate fees. Presumably the Secretary of State has other powers closely to regulate those matters and to ensure that people in the industry are not abusing their position of trust. I do not understand why it is thought that the Secretary of State does not already have sufficient powers to ensure proper compliance. There is concern that the Secretary of State will set too high a fee. I am sure that she would not set out to do so, and that she would want to act entirely fairly. I do not suppose that she will be driven by revenue considerations, as the amount of money that the Treasury received from the fees would be small. I am more worried that safety campaigners will press for higher fees to limit the number of training courses and make it more difficult for people to provide them. That has happened in other sectors. For example, people who are concerned about firearms use regulations to press the Secretary of State to erect ever higher barriers—a sin tax, so to speak—to prevent people from entering the market. I believe that the Secretary of State will be under continual political pressure from the well-organised group that is suspicious of fireworks to increase the fees prohibitively. Some may think that that would result in greater safety, but it could result in less safety. If fees are too high, fireworks organisers may be encouraged to cut corners and train fewer people. There are worrying precedents, especially in relation to firearms, of what happens when the Secretary of State becomes involved. Anyone who has taken an interest in consumer affairs over the years will know of the increasing involvement of trading standards officers and the growth of regulation and Government interference. If the Secretary of State is too closely involved, local authority trading standards officers will also be involved. That would create a vicious circle of a drive for high fees and a reduction in the number of courses.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As we have not been given the pleasure and privilege of an explanation of the amendment, we must interpret it ourselves. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment suggests two sets of fees, one for those who train and the other for those who are trained? The regime will have a multiplicity of licences and fees, so the dangers that he highlights will be manifold.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Be brief.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Neither the Bill nor the amendment tell us exactly how the training courses will be organised, who will take part or what the fees on industry will be. All we have is broad regulation-making powers being conferred on the Secretary of State, as is the case throughout the Bill. We are discussing a serious matter, as presumably the amendment would seriously curtail who the industry can train, how much it can charge and where training courses will be held. The Minister may wish to reassure us on that point, and to claim that that will not happen, but the history of fireworks legislation and of the House's interest in it demonstrates that that fear needs to be raised here, and that he needs to deal with it.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

We will come to the history of fireworks—it is the hon. Gentleman's history, too.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The Minister says that it is my history, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I have nothing to fear or hide about what we did on those matters. Throughout the period of Conservative government, we achieved for the industry a gradual improvement in public safety and awareness about fireworks. Certainly my right hon. Friend and I were responsible for expensive advertising campaigns.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into a wide general debate. He must speak to the amendments.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led astray by the Minister, who was making a political point and diverting me from my interest in the narrow amendments. The public sector might provide unfair competition for private sector training providers. I do not know whether the Minister will deny that that will happen. Presumably a local authority could offer a course in a given area, and so would become a training provider, in competition with the private sector. I do not know whether, under the amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to prevent unfair competition. For the life of me I cannot understand—perhaps I have overlooked some matters—why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to become so closely involved. Is it because she does not trust the firework industry, or because there is a history of people acting in collusion? I do not know. I should have thought that the firework manufacturers would be the training providers. I cannot imagine anyone from outside the industry providing training.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

There seems to be a real possibility that the training may become a candidate for a national vocational qualification course. As the provision of NVQ courses is often the responsibility of training and enterprise councils, my hon. Friend's hope that training will remain primarily in the hands of the industry seems rather far of the mark.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That may well be the case. It is difficult to speculate on what will happen, as there has been no debate on those matters in this House, and only sparse debate in the other place, which is why the debates this morning are important. The counter-argument to mine is that, as only the manufacturer will provide the training because he will have the ranges and storage facilities in place, he could use his market power to dominate training, and presumably could thereby drive other people from the market; or manufacturers could use training as a loss leader. The argument might go—perhaps we will hear more about that—that they will use their profits from other sectors of the industry to subsidise their training courses. If that were true, and it resulted in training costs being forced down, I am not sure that we should necessarily worry too much about it.

Michael Colvin (Conservative, Romsey)

My hon. Friend has just said that, if training were provided by manufacturers, the cost could be covered by other sectors of their business. Many fireworks companies are also involved in defence contracts, which generate considerable revenue from the sale of pyrotechnics to the armed forces. All the evidence is that the strategic defence review, which we might see next week, will fall heavily on the procurement sector, so the defence-related part of the firework industry's business may become much smaller, and the revenue will not be there. The industry is going to be in for a tough time in the next few years and the Bill will do nothing but impose extra financial burdens on it.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Bringing the defence industry into the matter would be going far too wide of the amendments.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Of course I do not want to get involved in the problems of the defence industry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—there are other forums for doing so—but I think that we can debate what the amendments will mean to the fireworks industry and those companies that are owned by defence companies, and whether the argument that we are dealing with powerful companies, which will drive their competitors out of the market, is valid. I am not sure that that is entirely true, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin). I do not think that it will happen. I do not think that a few companies will use their market power to subsidise training courses and drive competitors out. One could say that the companies would use their power only to give training on their own products, with minimum training on those of competitors. However, one could argue that about any industry. I accept that, with fireworks, we are dealing with potentially dangerous products, but if we go down that route, where will it end? Of what other industry will it be said that, because we are dealing with a potentially dangerous product, the Secretary of State must get involved, insist on training courses, regulate them, and set the level of fees?

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

As my hon. Friend may know, in the past four years, four people have been killed by fireworks, but, on average, five people are killed every year playing ball games. Are we to have a set of regulations, at great expense, dominating—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. We must get back to the amendments, which are about fees and training facilities.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent does the House a service by reminding us that, because of the gradual increase in safety awareness, for which the previous Government were responsible and which they promoted for many years, there has been a huge decline in the number of deaths compared with 20 or 30 years ago, and that great progress has been made—although, of course, any such death is very sad. I do not know why the Government felt it necessary to use the private Member's Bill system to introduce the legislation, and why they are using the Lords amendments to make it even more draconian. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent mentioned ball games, but one could talk about car manufacturers or the motor industry, which is a far more serious problem—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not move on to car manufacturers. He must confine himself to the amendments.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I was merely trying to point out that the fact that there have been deaths and that one is dealing with potentially dangerous products—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. When the hon. Gentleman talks about deaths or any of those other matters, he is going into the generalities of the Bill. The amendments are specific, as I have already said, and mention fees and training courses. He must confine his remarks to the amendments.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The fireworks industry is complex and experienced. Over the years, it has run training courses to ensure a gradual increase in competence in the use of fireworks and in safety awareness. It is perfectly entitled to set its own fees and to conduct training courses as it wishes, or with a light regulatory tough. The Secretary of State has not made out the case for setting fees.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

When my hon. Friend was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, did his civil servants consider state-run or privately funded training schemes?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

My recollection is that that was not considered.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My recollection is that we were very reluctant to resort to elaborate licensing schemes and byzantine arrangements such as those in the Bill, because we judged that that would be disadvantageous in principle, and could harm the very people we were trying to protect, and indeed employment prospects in the industry and beyond. We always had employment at the forefront of our minds.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

We were under widespread pressure from safety campaigners to try to limit the ability of people to hold fireworks parties, but we never considered imposing such draconian regulations on the industry, as that was against our philosophy.

Michael Colvin (Conservative, Romsey)

My hon. Friend has spoken of training courses being regulated by central Government or by the industry, but he has left out the third option, which is local government. There is a case for local authorities assuming the responsibility for running courses and setting fees. Has he made any assessment of the costs that might be imposed on local authorities, which are probably in the best position, geographically, to do the work?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Be brief.

Michael Colvin (Conservative, Romsey)

How would local authority involvement impinge on the provisions in the Bill?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I do not believe that local authorities should become more involved, because central Government already imposes many obligations on them, and because they would operate through trading standards officers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I, in our previous incarnation, had constant run-ins with such officers, who have constantly imposed more and more onerous burdens on industry. A more local structure is not necessarily more benign. The correct route to take is by way of the private industry, which knows its own business best.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the ingenious suggestion of our hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) runs into two difficulties: the diversity of regimes that would emerge, which would lead to inconsistencies, and the potential—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Perhaps I was a bit too relaxed in allowing the question of local authorities to come into the debate. We should not go into detail on what local authorities can or cannot do in the matter. We must keep to the amendments, which concern the powers of the Secretary of State.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The subject is in the clause, but of course I accept your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to be involved in setting fees. The industry is highly competitive, and there is no reason why it should not be left to its own devices to ensure that good training courses are available throughout the country to teach people how to use fireworks safely, or why the people who provide those courses should not be able to set appropriate fees. What can possibly be gained by the Secretary of State setting fees? If they are set too high, people may be deterred from taking part in the courses, and if they are set too low, the courses may not be sustainable or properly run. The Secretary of State runs a Department with a budget of only about £1 billion.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Only?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It is small in comparison with the budget of, say, the Department of Social Security. The Secretary of State does not have the time or the resources to know what the fees should be. The Bill is highly regulatory. It should be a Government Bill, not a private Member's Bill. The Government have introduced it to regulate an industry that has provided innocent enjoyment for millions of people for many years.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It is difficult for me to answer that point and remain in order. I am unhappy about the Bill. I do not believe that it has been properly debated. It is highly regulatory, and I would be happier if it had not been introduced. It is, however, possible that the Minister can reassure us, and tell us that it is necessary and will save lives. It is difficult to oppose in principle a Bill that the Minister will tell us will save lives. Any life lost, and especially a child's, should worry us. I am concerned about whether the Bill will in fact save lives, or whether, by imposing more and more onerous obligations on the industry, it will encourage people to cut corners. It often happens that, if one takes away people's right to run an industry in their own way, there comes a point at which the rules and regulations become unsustainable, and the industry tries to get a round them. We have achieved a huge amount in the industry by way of consent, moving step by step every year and encouraging public awareness, but the Bill represents a step change. Before we make the amendments, we should have a proper debate and consider whether they will save any lives at all. If they will simply impose more rules and regulations on a highly regulated industry, we should reject them.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

It may be helpful if I rise early to outline the Opposition's attitude to the Bill. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). I can testify that it is an anxious business to pilot a private Member's Bill through the House. I imagine that she feels as anxious as ever today. It is an achievement to have got so far, and I wish her well. The amendments raise the subject of charges. Despite sotto voce—perhaps not so sotto—remarks from the Minister, it is important that charges and fees should be carefully examined. I served during almost all the previous Parliament on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. All too often, once charges have been imposed, Departments try to put them up, sometimes exponentially, and the Committee raised that matter over and over again with at least some Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was right to raise that issue, and to point out that the Bill contains sweeping powers, sometimes called Henry VIII powers. The House need not take my word alone on that; the Bill has incurred the wrath of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in the other place. Lord Annaly told the other place that the Committee recommended that the fees charged for granting a licence to both training providers and those wishing to attend training courses should either be approved by the Secretary of State or be subject to a limit specified in regulations. These amendments fulfil that requirement".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 665–6.] I hope that the Minister will listen to another important point that affects him directly and that relates both to the amendments and to later Bills. It was suggested to the Select Committee that a ministerial assurance would, in certain circumstances, do the trick. The Committee robustly made it clear that it would not be satisfied by that. Ministers of all Governments, but particularly of the current one, should take note. Our view is that the amendments, which were debated at some length in the other place, are sensible. To some extent, they fulfil requirements set out by the Select Committee in trying to water down the sweeping powers that the Bill gives to Ministers. We support calls in both Houses for safeguards. We are not against the Bill in principle and we do not intend to divide the House on the amendments. After proper scrutiny—I emphasise those words—we shall wish the Bill and the amendments a fair wind.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I want to comment on the relationship between the amendments and the other provisions of the Bill. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states: The financial effects of the Bill will depend on the content of…regulations and cannot at this stage be predicted. In particular, the regulations may confer power on the Secretary of State to provide training courses. The Secretary of State will have a duty to consult before regulations are made". The amendments, which will broaden the powers of the Secretary of State to allow him to provide for the charging of fees, will, even more than before, mean that the House is being asked to pass a Bill without any real understanding of its financial effects. That is not a good basis on which to legislate. The financial effects of legislation should be set out in some detail in advance, and it is a matter of concern that the amendments will introduce even more uncertainty about the Bill's financial implications. That is a bad precedent. The Minister is waving something at me; would he care to intervene?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member of Parliament, so let me draw his attention to the regulatory appraisal. I should have thought that he would have read it if he wanted to make an informed contribution to debate.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am grateful to the Minister. He and I sat together in the Standing Committee on the Competition Bill. He will recall that the standard regulatory appraisals brought before Committees by the Government are seriously slipshod and have been greatly condemned by industrial bodies. They are deeply misleading and, frankly, they offer no basis for serious consideration. The amendments broaden uncertainty about the financial implications of the Bill, even though, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has said, the implications for the economy as a whole are likely to be relatively small.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

One of the dangers of Bills such as this is the precedent created for others. If the Government wake up to the fact that 141 people die on average every year in swimming accidents, they may wish to bring in exactly the same kind of regulation for swimming.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. I have already said that it is out of order to talk about other matters.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is right to say that the issues raised by the amendments range more widely. We must be conscious that the House is an administrative and deliberative body, and we must be aware of the potential implications of any precedents that we may set, even on a Friday morning.

Michael Colvin (Conservative, Romsey)

When the Minister gives the Government's view on the Bill, he will be able to tell us which measures they are likely to introduce. The Bill is essentially an enabling measure, and we should have some idea of the financial implications of fees, training costs and other matters. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give the House some idea of how he will use the Bill's enabling powers.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We look forward with great anticipation to a detailed speech from the Minister. We hope that he will set out the principles on which the Government propose to implement the Bill, and give some detail of the precise levels of charges to be implemented for training courses, if the amendments are agreed to. We would like some indication of how the charges will be reviewed because, given that the Government have lost control of inflation, the chances are that the fees may need to increase rapidly.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. When the Minister replies, he will reply to the amendments.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I doubt it.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I will make sure that the Minister replies to the amendments, just as I am making sure that everyone speaks to the amendments.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the Minister will bear that injunction in mind, as will I. My second point is that the amendments would, like all other regulation-making powers in the Bill, be subject to clause 2(1), which states: The Secretary of State may by regulations…make any provision which he considers appropriate for the purpose of securing that fireworks are used safely. In other words, the power to charge fees for the grant or variation of licences relating to training would be subject to the overriding provision that it should be subject to his or her judgment about how fireworks can be used safely. The fees may not be decided by financial considerations, such as their affordability or being charged at a rate that provides good value for money, but will be subject to the Secretary of State's interpretation of what is necessary to provide safety. If the Secretary of State can charge fees for such a wide range of training services, he could use the power to drive certain businesses out of the sector if he believed that it was an important means of achieving greater safety for the public, animals or others set out in clause 2. He could use the fee structure as a weapon against a company that Department of Trade and Industry officials thought was acting unsafely, but were unable to get under any other provision. It could be used against a company that had, in some way, offended officials. It is a dangerous power to be in the hands of Government officials or the Secretary of State.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

As the hon. Gentleman has linked the amendment to the general issue of safety, will he clarify whether he wants the Bill to pass?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The Bill is flawed, but it seeks to achieve important objectives. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) give the position of the official Opposition. I regard my Front-Bench colleagues as a source of great wisdom on all matters and, in due course, I shall no doubt be influenced by what he said. While Labour Members are at liberty to try to stretch out the debate if they so wish, I want to return narrowly to the amendments. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you explained earlier how you would try to ensure that the Minister replied in some detail. He must give an assurance in the Official Report, which can be studied in detail by the industry, that there is no question of the Government using the powers that they would be granted if the amendments were passed, or any of the Bill's provisions, to drive companies out of the firework sector for any reason other than that they are breaching clear, safety-based regulations. Will the Minister assure us that there is no question of the Government, or any arm thereof, using the powers to impose licences and charges for training purposes in order to drive companies out of the sector? It is important to get that assurance; I hope that we can look to the Minister for it. In debating these amendments, we have been able to start—only start—to examine some of the implications of a complicated Bill which is likely to have implications across a wide range of sectors. It is important to consider them properly and thoroughly. When the Minister replies, it is important that he establishes in detail the Government's position across the range of issues raised by the Bill. A skimpy 30-second reply would not be adequate. I hope that we have started a proper examination of legislation that is likely to affect people for many years to come, and I hope that that will be reflected in the debate in coming months.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We are considering amendments to clause 10. In judging them, it is important to place them in the context of the opening words of clause 10, which set the tone for our judgment about their value or otherwise. The key words are at the beginning of the clause, which states: If fireworks regulations specify conditions relating to the satisfactory completion of a course, or courses, of training in the use of fireworks, they may make provision for courses". Straight away we have a suggestion of the problems that are likely to arise from the provisions not only of clause 10, but of the amendments. The introduction of the words "satisfactory completion" immediately poses the questions of who judges whether the training courses are satisfactory and who judges whether the people giving the training courses, and those receiving them, are operating satisfactorily. I shall return to that later, but I wanted to show the difficulty when we get involved in elaborate regimes of licensing and prohibition of the sort set out in the Bill. We shall have to turn our minds, in judging fees, to the context of satisfactory completion of a course, or courses". That will provide a useful benchmark against which to judge the later provisions of clause 10. Several hon. Members asked whether, as the clause suggests, courses should be provided directly by the Secretary of State. That implies that they would be run by the DTI, and the clause admits that as a possibility. In that case, the fees would apply only to those receiving the training courses. We are immediately confronted by the possibility of an additional bureaucracy run directly by the Department to provide the training required under clause 10, should the Secretary of State wish to invoke it. The clause starts, "If fireworks regulations specify"; it does not require such regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, the Minister should say up front whether the Secretary of State has it in mind to invoke the provisions of clause 10. If she does not, we have spent much time rather needlessly. It would be valuable—indeed, it is essential—if the Minister told us the Secretary of State's intentions. That point also applies to the provisions of clause 10(1)(a), (b) and (c), because it would make a difference to the debate on Lords amendments on fee levels if we had some idea of what the Minister had in mind. This would apply either to the direct provision of courses by the DTI or to courses provided by a body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State". As was noted earlier, other bodies could be involved, in which case the later provisions of clause 10 and the amendments would come into effect. Then we come to "licensed persons", which is where the concerns expressed earlier are most clear. As I interpret the clause—I am open to correction—there are two distinct levels of licensing and operation and, therefore, of fees. The first level would be the provisions in the amendment and clause 10 on the regime for the licensing by the Secretary of State of the providers of training. That immediately opens all the normal questions that arise in such a process. It must be determined whether the fees are at a level sufficient to attract people to provide the training on a business basis. We are, presumably, talking about private providers who would not only have to provide satisfactory training—we will return to how that will be judged—but provide it profitably, because they would be private sector businesses, unless local authorities were used. That opens a different possibility. We have to bear in mind always the fees that providers would pass on to those whom they trained. We are into a morass of bureaucracy; we have no guidance about the number of bodies. I am not aware that it has ever been mentioned. The Minister will want to spend some time giving us an idea of the number of bodies or licensed persons that he thinks will be necessary to obtain the quality of training needed to deliver the level of safety that he has in mind, in the bureaucratic mess that would be created.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the structure of what is proposed—he is setting out the questions clearly—there is a potential interplay between fees for the granting of a licence and fees that are determined by the Secretary of State for the charging for attendance at courses? If that interaction works in the wrong way, the Secretary of State may deter able people from applying to become licensed persons, and hence restrict the supply of trade.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is a crucial point, on which I may wish to elaborate in a moment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it at this stage. The relationships at every level of the provision in clause 10 will, I suspect, provide enormous challenges to the Department and the Secretary of State, and create an enormous number of problems. We are necessarily talking about a complex set of interrelationships between the judgment of the Secretary of State, the number of people whom she would wish to license to carry out the important task provided for in clause 10, and the number of people she would expect to apply for and to need the training required to provide the level of safety assurance that the Bill is presumably all about in the first place.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Does my right hon. Friend think that only one level of fee will be declared by the Secretary of State, or more than one? Some people who have spent their life in the pyrotechnics industry are probably fully qualified in any case, but if they have not been through a course, they may not be allowed to operate. Will they be charged a fee? Will they be charged a different fee from that charged to a parent or schoolteacher who wants to qualify to run a fireworks party? These are complex issues.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Indeed they are. My hon. Friend's question raises another interesting point that I had not thought of, on which my hon. Friend may wish to elaborate if I do not. The point is whether there will have to be exemptions from the regime for exactly the sort of people whom my hon. Friend describes. There must be—must there not?—people with relevant qualifications, training and experience who could be exempted from being trainers or being trained before they could carry out the activities covered by the Bill. That in turn raises some important considerations about whether these are blanket provisions with no exemptions or whether there will be reasonable provision for exemptions. I want to return to the theme that I was touching on, because it is important. Unless we have some idea of numbers, we are all debating the matter rather in a fog. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State envisage many providers coming forward to do the training? If so, that assumes that many people will apply to receive the training in order to operate fireworks for the delight and pleasure of many people. Unless we know about the numbers, we cannot make a proper judgment about the effectiveness of the clause or about the competitive or non-competitive regime that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) mentioned earlier. If we are to judge how we shall vote on the amendments and our view of the Bill, it is incumbent on the Minister—he bears a heavy responsibility in the House this morning—to give adequate and full answers to the questions that have been raised in the debate.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

It is important that we get on the record the right hon. Gentleman's position. He referred to his views on the amendments and the Bill. Is he saying that, if the amendments were accepted, he would or would not vote for the Bill? Is he saying that, if the amendments were not accepted, he would or would not vote for the Bill?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Fortunately, at this stage, procedurally that question does not arise—[Interruption.]

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is right. The question does not arise. We are considering the amendments, not whether the right hon. Gentleman supports the Bill. We are discussing the amendments.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The amendments from the other place relate to clause 10, which deals with some key elements of the elaborate regime that the Bill seeks to erect in order to deliver a level of comfort, safety and assurance.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something of a misapprehension that the amendments are all of a piece? It may be perfectly possible to agree that the Secretary of State should make provision for the setting of a fee for the grant of a licence, but to disagree with the idea that the Secretary of State should set a fee for attendance at a course.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is an important point. My hon. Friend may wish to receive the guidance of the Chair on whether we can seek separate Divisions on the different elements for precisely the reason that he suggests. It is perfectly possible that the Secretary of State may wish to be involved in the first level of fees—those involved in the granting or variation of licences—but may not judge that it is necessary to be involved in setting a level of fees for the delivery of training by licensed persons or bodies. That is a matter on which we might require clarification from the Chair at some stage.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

My right hon. Friend is courteous in giving away again. There is a certain amount of Treasury guidance on the setting of a fee for the grant of a licence. Unless otherwise provided for, the fee should be that required to compensate for the costs involved. In a sense, one can see the limited effect of that. That brings me back to my earlier point. If there are also fees relating to the charge for attendance, one finds a complication between two amendments in the group which could be deleterious to the provision of training.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is right. He gives me an opportunity to raise another point that is important in any regime such as this. All along, some of my hon. Friends have referred to a fee. I am not sure that we necessarily are looking at a standard, uniform fee. It always worries me when we talk about any regime of this kind to be considered and then imposed by a Secretary of State. Should there be a uniform regime for the entire country? As my hon. Friends will appreciate and some Labour Members may appreciate on a good day, the costs incurred in delivering the regime envisaged in clause 10 are likely to vary enormously in different parts of the country. Looking around the Chamber at my hon. Friends who are here for the debate this morning, I can well imagine that the costs of putting together and delivering a training course would vary between, for example, Penrith and the Border and Westmorland, where they might be relatively low, and my constituency or Mid-Kent, where the inherent costs of delivery are likely to be higher. Are we talking—again, this is a question for the Minister—about a relatively straightforward, simple licensing regime and level of fees, or must we contemplate, in order for it to be effective and reasonably to reflect costs, a complex regime that acknowledges the variations, diversity and sensitivity of these matters across the country?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My right hon. Friend is making a valid point about geographical variation, but the amendments relate to fees for training courses. Elsewhere, the Bill states that the Secretary of State shall have power by regulation to set up training courses for those who are supplying, exposing for supply, purchasing, possessing or simply using fireworks. That is a wide category of different businesses and even private individuals or councils. My right hon. Friend should consider whether there would have to be different lengths and depths of courses, and different fees for them.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yes; my right hon. Friend is correct. I am grateful to him. That immediately raises another point. My right hon. and hon. Friends are reading my mind accurately and anticipating my points, some of which probably deserve elaboration. However, I do not want to hog the debate. Another question for the Minister on which we shall need reassurance is the estimate that has been made of the number of additional personnel required in the Department or elsewhere to administer and monitor matters, and make constant judgments about, for example, the variation of a licence. We are not talking about a one-off process. The clause and the amendment both refer to the granting or variation of licences, which implies a process about which we should know more. What would variation of a licence involve? I am sure that I can dream up circumstances in which that might be necessary. It is germane to our debate on the effectiveness of the regime that we are being asked to approve within the terms of the clause and the amendment to ask whether the Minister envisages a relatively straightforward process whereby a licence, once granted, would be valid for a fixed period, be that one, three or five years, or whether the variation element would require additional bureaucracy and personnel to monitor closely the performance of each person giving the training, and an additional process whereby variation could be carried out.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as part of the regime, officials would have to be set aside to deal with correspondence and representations on the nature of the licences and the fees? For example, I recently attended a firework display organised by a Christian retirement home in my constituency, which resulted in so much noise that many local residents said, "It's those blooming Christians causing trouble again." Such events might produce correspondence, and officials would be needed to deal with it under the proposed regime.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. We are talking about the powers of the Secretary of State, not what officials do, or what the cost of officials replying to correspondence would be. That intervention goes far too wide of the amendments before the House.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It is, indeed, the powers of the Secretary of State that are germane to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker; however, my hon. Friends and I are suggesting that there are many questions that require an answer if we are to make an assessment of the acceptability of the clause—which is, after all, what we are doing here this morning.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

My right hon. Friend raised some of those points on 29 January, during the debate on the money resolution. His fears were dismissed by the Minister, who said that safety was paramount. Of course safety is paramount, but how does the Minister setting the fees promote safety? That is what I cannot understand. Why cannot the industry set the fees? The Minister could then regulate whether the safety courses had been carried out and whether too high fees had been imposed. Why should the Minister be involved in the highly complex procedure of setting different levels of fees for different types of course in different parts of the country? Is not the point that I have made a strong one?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yes, it is indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that we attempted to raise these questions in the debate on the money resolution earlier this year. My recollection is that, at that stage, we failed to get any substantive answers from the Minister, which might explain our anxiety today. We are now all rather nervous that the Minister may be unprepared or unable to give the detailed answers to our questions that would give us the sort of assurance that we need to decide how to vote on the matter before us. I need not tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to remind the House that the whole essence of the parliamentary process is that Members of Parliament come here to question the Executive and to be satisfied about the nature of the business before them. I suspect that, when the Minister catches your eye, he will tell the House whether he believes that the amendments would strengthen the Bill, but in doing so, he will have to give answers to the questions that have been legitimately raised. So far, questions have been asked only by Conservative Members; Labour Members have been silent, so perhaps they are unprepared for or lacking any interest in the debate. We have become accustomed to that attitude, but it is regrettable that we hear nothing from Labour Members. I assume that they are bored or uninterested, or that they simply accept without question everything that is shoved at them. We are here to participate far more fully in the parliamentary process, and that is what we are trying to do this morning.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The clause makes it a prerequisite for a user of fireworks to have undergone a training course. Having been a member of the Government, does my right hon. Friend think that it is a serious practical possibility that, on 5 November, the night of the year when the overwhelming majority of fireworks are let off, the Minister can send staff to every bonfire party to make sure that every person using fireworks has undergone a training course that conforms to the clause?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. That matter certainly does not relate to the amendments.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister may wish to help us on that point later, although my optimism about that possibility is fading rapidly. The extent to which the Minister makes an effort to answer our questions will sway many of my hon. Friends in deciding how to vote. However, the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) raises another important issue, which is the judgment about the nature of the training that would be given. Who would judge whether the training course was inherently satisfactory and whether the training course had been completed satisfactorily? That is another vital point that must be considered.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Before the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) gives way, let me remind the House not to get into the detail of the quality of the training. The amendment talks about charging fees for training, not the quality of the training. The quality could be terrible, but we must debate the fees charged for it.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I had in mind the beginning of clause 10, which is being amended, which refers to the satisfactory completion of a course, or courses, of training". I was raising the issue in the context of the fees being charged.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. What we have before us is not clause 10, but Lords amendments—the changes made by the Lords. The amendment is extremely narrow and talks about the Secretary of State charging fees for courses, nothing else. As long as we stick to the subject of fees, we shall be all right.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As ever, I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments do indeed refer to the charging of fees for the grant or variation of licences, which is one of the processes that we are debating; however, they then talk about the charging of fees for attendance at courses of training in the use of fireworks, which raises other serious and relevant questions about whether simple attendance is all that is necessary, or whether achieving a level of competence based on that attendance is required.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Let us be clear: the level of competence has nothing to do with the amendment before us; only the charges are relevant. The amendment gives a power to the Secretary of State to charge fees, albeit for attendance. We need not worry about other parts of the Bill or the level of competence achieved. We are addressing a very narrow matter.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, am grateful for your guidance, but does it follow that amendment No. 3, which covers all the matters in subsection (5), means that we may not raise any of the matters in subsection (5)?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

On the one hand, we are talking about fees for the grant or variation of licences, but, on the other, we are talking about charging—

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the changeover between yourself and Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did not get an answer to my point of order.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

I am so sorry—I thought that it was an intervention, not a point of order. I understand that the Lords amendment does not cover the matter that the hon. Gentleman was raising in any event, so perhaps we should continue.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful, Madam Speaker.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I think that I can help my right hon. Friend, without straying outside the provisions of the Bill. Of course, the amendment relates solely to the fees that can be charged for training courses, but clause 5 refers to people having proficiency or experience in the use of fireworks". Therefore, it is envisaged that there will be certain training courses that will lead to qualifications or other proof of proficiency and there will have to be fees charged for those courses as well.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his assistance on that matter, but I am mindful of the stricture that Mr. Deputy Speaker placed on me a moment ago, when he said that such matters were not immediately relevant to the clause or the amendments. As ever, I am mindful of his guidance, and will adhere to it strictly. The point that I was about to make relates to the charging of fees for attendance at courses. That creates another set of difficulties that we must consider carefully because it implies that it is simply the attendance that matters in relation to the clause. That leads to further questions about the effectiveness of the training courses for which the fees are being charged. If only attendance is significant, one can envisage people going through the motions of attending courses.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we were considering clause 10 of the Fireworks Bill and the amendments from another place relating to that clause. In drawing my remarks to a close, I remind the House that we are talking about a cascade of possibilities that raises several questions that the Minister must answer. Clause 10 starts the cascade by saying: If fireworks regulations specify conditions…they may make provision for courses. The clause then goes on to outline three possible routes by which the training courses may be provided: directly by the Secretary of State; by a body or bodies—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is a clause there. There are other clauses also, and perhaps he will have an opportunity to discuss them later. However, we are discussing the amendments, and the right hon. Gentleman must stick to them.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to you, as ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments relate to the setting of fees and the Secretary of State's role in that process. I think that we can take it for granted that, were the courses provided directly by the Secretary of State or by a body established by her, the Secretary of State would have direct control over any fees charged. That goes without saying. However, it raises some important questions even at that level about the internal mechanism that would be provided within the Department of Trade and Industry to allow the Secretary of State to establish what the level of fees should be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, that question becomes even more important when we consider the determination of a dual level fee structure for those providing training in the private sector. The Minister must give us a much clearer idea about the probable direction that he and the Secretary of State will take: direct provision by the Department, recognition and establishment of other bodies, or reliance on the private sector. Depending on which route is chosen, we will need to know much more about the attitude that will be taken towards fees. For example, will fees be set low in order to encourage training, or will they be set at a higher level in order to provide a level of profitability to the private licensed bodies? There is a series of important questions relating to the mechanism—we must know more about that also—that the Minister envisages being established within the Department to deal with the substantial level of bureaucracy that will be needed. Can the Minister provide a precedent? Some of my hon. Friends have from time to time suggested that there may be a precedent in this area. If so, it may help the House—it will certainly help me—to be told about the approach that the Department might take to setting the fee levels. On the face of it, that is a daunting task. The Secretary of State, the Minister and the Department must take a view about the number of people that they envisage will have to be trained, which will affect the number of operators and trainers required, and the approach to the setting of fees. Those matters are intimately interrelated and linked. Therefore, the more we know about what the Minister has in mind, the more clear we can be in our response to the amendments from another place. In that way, we shall make an informed judgment, and cast our votes appropriately when the time comes. We are posing a challenge, but also providing an important opportunity to the Minister. The Bill has been little debated, although the Minister appears to attach much importance to it. I tried earlier in the year—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. We will not worry about how often the Bill has been debated. We are concerned only about the amendments before us.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are worried about whether we shall receive a proper answer from the Minister. However, you have already told us that you will police the matter: your eagle eye will be upon the Minister and, if he does not reply, he will incur your displeasure. You helped us out in that regard, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to bring the Chair into the argument. Any hon. Member who speaks to the amendments will confine his or her remarks to those amendments—and that includes the Minister. That is what I shall do. I am not worried about the content of the speeches, so long as hon. Members keep to the amendments.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We shall worry about the content, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister fails to answer our questions, neither you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he, nor anyone else will be surprised at the action we shall take. I have tried to play a modest part in setting out this morning my worries and anxieties about the amendments, clause 10 and the Bill as a whole. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to provide more answers than he has managed so far, so that my colleagues and I can make an informed judgment about these matters.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

We would all be delighted if we could have prevented the deaths of four people in the past four years. However, the Bill and the amendments are deeply troubling. The entire process is in the hands of the Secretary of State; no provisions are laid down. Clause 10(1), to which the amendments apply, begins with the word "If", and clause 10(2) also begins with the word "If". It states: If fireworks regulations make provision for courses to be provided by licensed persons, they may…make provision for certain things. Their Lordships have amended provisions that may never be brought in; there is nothing in the Bill to say that they will. The alternative, of course, is more alarming: because the Bill and its amendments are drafted in this way, there is nothing to stop the Bill being extended further and further.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. I have already explained to hon. Members that what we have to consider is the charging of fees. That is all that is before us—not this clause or any other clause, just the Lords amendments. He must speak to those Lords amendments.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the amendments are governed by the word "if" and, if we are going to authorise the making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for the grant and variation of licences, we are entitled to repeat to the Minister that we want to know what he has in mind. Does he have it in mind that individuals will receive a licence, which will allow them to perform their function as a letter off of fireworks as often as they wish during a year, or will they have to seek a specific licence every time they wish to perform that function? Clearly, that will have a considerable bearing on the value of the fee charged because, if it is clearly for a year, that fee will be greater. The licence might even be for life; once someone has taken the course and shown that he is able to perform safely, perhaps there will be a life licence fee.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, subject to what Ministers say, there would be every reason for such a licence to be provided without time, as it were, because, if the licence is granted with reference to whether a person has the appropriate experience and qualifications, they are not likely to lose that experience and qualifications? Therefore, just one fee should be levied on one occasion.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

The precedent for that would be the driving licence. That would be perfectly reasonable, so I would be interested to hear the Minister say what he has in mind—if, of course, the regulations are ever made. Amendment No. 3 authorises making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for attendance at courses of training in the use of fireworks". As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has already asked, will attendance by itself be enough, or will people have to have some sort of qualification at the end? If they are to be granted a qualification at the end, will it be eligible to be a national vocational qualification? If so, two things follow. The fees for attendance at courses will vary sharply. For example, many training and enterprise councils—which are responsible for running NVQ courses—are keen to encourage people to undertake such courses because they represent a way back into employment, perhaps as part of the new deal. Are we seriously suggesting that all those people will have to pay a fee? I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it is intended that some people should be eligible for exemption from the fees, even if they attend a course. There is, of course, the other element: people who are already qualified who do not have to attend a course at all will presumably not be charged a fee. Then we have the business about the making by the Secretary of State, or by any body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State under this section of provision about any of the matters mentioned in subsection (5). I believe that you have already ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that does not allow me to talk about subsection (5), even though one of the amendments deletes subsection (5)(c), but what I think is important is the body or bodies established or recognised. That involves a considerable difference. If the body is to be established by the Secretary of State, the charges will be much higher because it will have to be set up from scratch and enormous expenses will attach to it. If, however, it is a body recognised by the Secretary of State, all sorts of questions are raised. Will it be a training and enterprise council? Will it be, as has been suggested, a local authority? Will it be some body relating to the industry itself, in which case the Secretary of State would no doubt assume that the charges for setting it up and running it will fall on industry? Industry might or might not care for that, but all these things will have a considerable impact on the level, nature and, indeed frequency, of the charges. Therefore, I am deeply uneasy about the amendments, which seem to confirm that their Lordships had too little care—as we have had in this House, I am ashamed to say—about the open-endedness of the Bill. This is a serious and difficult matter. 11.45 am Let me revert for a moment to the grant and variation of licences. I am not clear what the variation of a licence would entail. Would it mean that an individual holding a licence would be entitled to perform his functions in some areas, but not in others? Would he be entitled to perform his function in events of a certain size? Those things matter. If the Secretary of State is to be empowered to vary people's licences, will that entail charging for a variation, or will people be able to apply for a variation of licence without an additional charge? Once they have bought their licence in the first place, will they be allowed to vary it without charge? Again, I do not believe that the Secretary of State or the Minister knows. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The amendments merely compound my difficulty with the Bill.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I have listened with considerable interest to the debate, and looked with care at this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) has been at pains—and not always within order—to ask whether hon. Members who are intervening support the Bill. For my part, I am happy to concur with the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I have no reason to oppose the Bill, but we are debating a group of amendments and I urge my hon. Friends and, indeed, Labour Members, to look with care at each of the amendments. I hope to explain why. I shall argue that, of the four amendments with which we are presented—Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4—we should agree with amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 but disagree to amendment No. 3. When the time comes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to seek your guidance about how we might pursue that route. Let me explain why I take that view. We are dealing with the issue of fees, but in two respects: first, fees for the grant or variation of a licence—amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate to that—and, secondly, fees for attendance at courses; there we come to amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are necessary. In that respect, I agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne agreed, with the view of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It is right that, under the structure of clause 10 as presented to another place, the charging of fees for the grant or variation of a licence could have been determined by a body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State, but not directly on the basis determined by the Secretary of State. It is therefore right to reconstruct the clause by way of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 so that the provision in relation to fees for the granting or variation of a licence is not simply one of those matters to be determined after the granting of powers to bodies established by the Secretary of State. Where fees are concerned, there should be determination by the Secretary of State herself. I am happy with that. I shall not dwell on the considerable questions relating to the granting or variation of a licence, which have been touched on by my hon. Friends. I am simply concerned with whether the basis of determination of fees for the granting or variation of a licence will be the Secretary of State or some other body or bodies. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 bring us to rather a different point. On the face of it, it may seem that the two amendments are designed to do exactly the same thing in relation to the fees charged for attendance at courses—to reflect the argument that the provision for making fees should not be determined by bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State but should reflect the will of the Secretary of State herself. I understand that the Select Committee carried the thought through from the previous point about the will of the Secretary of State being translated into the determination of fees by a body or bodies established or recognised by her.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Does my hon. Friend have any idea whether the Minister expects the Secretary of State to pocket the fees for the issue of licences and, if he does, does he think that the same thing will happen with fees for courses? The two things are very different, since if the providers of courses are not entitled to keep the fees, they will not provide the courses.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I made the point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) earlier. It would be helpful if the Minister told us that where the charging of fees for the grant or variation of a licence is involved, the Secretary of State would seek to recover only the costs incurred by the Department in providing the service of granting or varying a licence. As regards fees charged for attendance at courses, it seems to me that it would not be for the Secretary of State to pocket any such fee unless she were herself to be the provider of such courses, which is contemplated under the clause. As I understand it, however, the Secretary of State has not told us to what extent she proposes to be a training provider in this context. For my part—I shall not dwell on the point at length—it seems wholly undesirable that the Secretary of State should be the training provider. The thrust of policy under the previous Administration, which I hope will not be deviated from, was that training should be private sector-led and private sector-provided rather than being provided directly by Government Departments. My hon. Friend made a useful and interesting point and I hope that I have answered him to his satisfaction. However, he has taken me slightly from my train of thought and I should recover it. I was referring to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which in this instance carried through the logic of the point made about the setting of fees by the Secretary of State: the Committee applied exactly the same argument to the setting of fees by the Secretary of State in relation to charging for attendance at courses. However, in that context, I do not think that the Committee was taking a view on the substance of the issue of whether the Secretary of State should set fees for the charging of attendance at courses. It was simply considering the procedural question whether, if such fees are to be set, they should be set by reference to the determination of the Secretary of State, or whether a body or bodies established by the Secretary of State and recognised for this purpose should be allowed to set fees wholly without regard to the determination that the Secretary of State would make in the same respect. Here I must depart from the view that has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, even though my admiration for him knows no bounds. Although the Select Committee examined carefully the structure of the clause and—in a procedural sense relating to the structure of powers—made a sensible amendment, it is open to us, in examining amendments Nos. 3 and 4, to reach a different view on the substance of the issue, which is the question whether the Secretary of State should set a structure of fees for charging for attendance at courses. That brings me back to my reasons for opposing amendment No. 3 while agreeing with No. 4: By doing so, we shall delete from subsection (5) the provision that the Secretary of State should make provision about matters relating to fees. That will delete that provision in substance from the policy of the Bill, as it were, and by disagreeing with the Lords in amendment No. 3 we shall not reintroduce the power for the Secretary of State to make provision for fees. I hope that it is clear to my hon. Friends why I propose that we should go down that path. That brings me to the substance of the issue. I am sorry that I have had to explain the process of my thinking about these amendments in such an elaborate way. When amendments are grouped, it is not always easy to explain why one opposes one and accepts others. I shall explain my view on the substance of the issue. The presumption—I say this from my experience with chambers of commerce, which were often training providers and participated fully in the establishment of training and enterprise councils—that lay behind the reform of training provision was that such provision was best provided by the private sector, and in a way that operated in a competitive and market-oriented fashion. I shall not dwell on the theory of that. I know that it is fully understood on the Opposition Benches. It may not be well understand on the Government Benches, but I understood that, in terms of training policy at least, the Government were not seeking substantially to depart from that which has been established. I find it odd that the structure of the Bill should look to intervene in a market-oriented system of training provision by setting a structure of fees, or providing for the Secretary of State the power to set a structure of fees. That seems an odd way of proceeding in the absence of any assessment, as far as I am aware, of the character of the marketplace in which the Secretary of State will be intervening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made an important point in that respect. The number of people seeking training and the number of people providing training is of the essence. If the numbers are small, there may be a debate about whether it is right to have a managed market in the short run. If the market is to operate effectively, it must be one in which a substantial number of providers compete among themselves. I understand that, in that marketplace, there is no reason, in time—if not at the outset—why the number of trainers will not be perfectly adequate for a training market to be established.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Does my hon. Friend have any idea whether the Secretary of State wants a substantial number of licensed people—in which case one would imagine that she would intervene to keep the price of training as low as possible—or whether this is a back-door attempt to remove fireworks altogether, in which case, presumably, she would intervene to keep the price at a level which would discourage people from taking training at all?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend slightly anticipates my next argument, although not unhelpfully. The Secretary of State might set the fee at a relatively low level, with the intention of seeking to encourage large numbers of persons to seek training to undertake activities with fireworks in a safe manner. By doing that, she might well inhibit the development of a market for training because the training providers might find that they did not have sufficient recompense for their training activity. There lies the difficulty of any Government or public body trying to intervene to manage the market in favour of a particular outcome. They often do not deliver the benefits sought. My hon. Friend may be right. The Secretary of State may set the fees at a low level to attract unskilled users of fireworks and make them skilled users of fireworks. In the process, she may set the fees at a level that brings in few good training providers. Frankly, she may bring into the marketplace providers at a level of fees that does not encourage them to provide training of the quality that is required to meet the underlying objective.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real source of knowledge on fireworks is those who manufacture fireworks? Does he think that we could have an unhealthy collusion between those who manufacture fireworks and the Secretary of State in deciding fees and setting up training establishments?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and useful point. I suspect that he is right, and a significant part of the training that is to be provided—if it is to be provided in a market manner—will be provided at the instigation of manufacturers and in relation to their products.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could name some of the manufacturers he thinks may enter into collusion. My understanding is that there are very few manufacturers left in this country, and that it is mostly a matter of importation.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Heavens, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly did not say that I thought that any manufacturer would collude or enter into collusive agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was talking about that. My point is, in a sense, quite the opposite. I am perfectly sanguine about the possibility that manufacturers may provide training. I am perfectly happy that, in a training market, one of manufacturers' objectives is to try to promote the use of their product. I have no difficulty with that. I see no reason why the supporters of the Bill should have a difficulty with that, so long as the licensing process is designed to ensure quality and safety in the provision, supply and use of the product. In a relatively robust marketplace with low barriers to entry, if manufacturers seek by collusion or by abuse of a dominant position—[Interruption.] The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and I have spent many happy hours debating the Competition Bill. He will know exactly what I mean by abuse of a dominant position. If manufacturers seek to do that in a relatively healthy marketplace with low barriers to entry, there will be no difficulty. The manufacturers will be circumvented by other training providers.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

It would help if I expanded my earlier comment to include importers. I was referring to those with a commercial interest in the sale of large numbers of fireworks in this country, who may wish to work closely with the Government to the exclusion of others.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend is right to remind me that I have not pursued that point. It seems to me inherently undesirable that there should be collusion either between manufacturers and importers, or between them and the Government, in setting a fees level designed to carry through some kind of distortion to the marketplace for training. By introducing the Bill, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and the Minister have assumed that there will not be a free market, as the licensing provision represents a barrier to entry—it is a statutorily determined monopoly on training.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the regulations, it is entirely possible—indeed, probable— that a wide part of the fireworks market will not be subject to training and, therefore, fees? He is straying wide of the mark.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I thought that I was entirely in order in talking about the fees to be charged for attendance at training courses. The hon. Lady should not chide me, as I am not talking about those parts of the industry that will not be subject to fees. Perhaps she is shifting her position. The burden of my argument is that the Secretary of State should not be in the business of setting a structure of fees for attendance at courses. If she is saying that that is almost the case already, she should disagree to amendment No. 3.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I was worried by the intervention of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), which went to the heart of some of the problems in the Bill and the wide-ranging way in which it is written. On fees, she said that it is possible, even probable, that the regulations may not be relevant to large sections of the industry. We have to debate the Bill and the amendment on fees, but we have no idea what regulations the Government will make, whom the regulations will cover and by what judgment the fees will be levied. The Government are asking us to buy a pig in the poke.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and gives a more effective riposte to the intervention of the hon. Member for Sutton than I could. If she is minded to intervene again, perhaps she will say what scope she envisages for the licensing system for those who run training courses. The Bill seems to suggest that, for safety reasons, a large proportion of the training of those who use and handle fireworks should be covered by a licensing process. It would be helpful to have the parameters set out. My argument, as I hope the Minister and the hon. Lady will recognise, is not about scope and how far the licensing process should go; it is about the principle—whether the Secretary of State should determine the structure of fees for training. The statutory barrier to entry set by the Secretary of State is not to limit the numbers entering the training market, but to determine quality. There is no reason why, if enough people are licensed to provide training at the appropriate standard, a fully competitive market for training in the private sector should not be established. I see no grounds for the setting of fees, or even maximum fees. If we go down that path, there will be many distortions, deliberate or otherwise. One risk, as has been pointed out, is that, although the intention is to increase the number of people who receive training, the number of training providers could be reduced or the quality of the training could be lowered. If the fee is too low, the intended objective may be compromised, and training providers may not be able to offer high-quality courses to meet the standards that the Bill suggests.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

My hon. Friend has prompted an important line of thought. It seems, prima facie, that the providers of the best training will have an expensive capital outlay for the range that they want. If they attract a large number of people because of the quality of their training, training costs could be driven down. If the Secretary of State has declared the fee that they are allowed to charge, there will not be that beneficial effect.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

That is a good point. Many distortions might result from a fee set at different levels. My hon. Friend reminds me of another important matter. The fee will not necessarily remain at the initial level at which it is set by the Secretary of State. If she is the price setter, training providers contemplating coming into the market will have to build in a form of risk with which they are not used to dealing. I have worked with many training providers. They have to accept commercial risk within a marketplace, which is well understood. If I were a provider, I would set out my stall, as it were. I would know roughly the number of people requiring training and the competition, and I would set the price according to what the market would bear. My question for the Minister is this: will the Secretary of State set the price at what the market will bear and how will she determine that when there is not yet a market? Of course she will not do so, because she does not know that price and will therefore set the fee in relation to costs.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I made a similar intervention on the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but the significance of the training scheme under the Bill is that it may confer a statutory right to buy certain dangerous fireworks. Does he not think it right that a limit should be set on charges made for such a right?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Lady questioned whether I had been here throughout the debate, and I can confirm that I have—I have left the Chamber only once, for a moment. Also, she was dealing with the wrong point. I have said that I support amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which relate to the charging of a fee for the granting of a licence or its variation. I do not dispute that point, and I do not understand why the hon. Lady should challenge me on it. Of course fees should be charged for attendance at courses People who want to be trained will go to training providers, who will charge a fee. The question is whether the fee that is to be charged should be determined by the Secretary of State or the provider operating in the marketplace. The hon. Lady's intervention shows that she has not listened to the argument—indeed, she is not even aware of the structure of the argument. My question, which is the essence of the matter, is: will the Secretary of State set the price in a market that she is to control by judging what it will bear? Clearly, she will not do so. It is in the nature of the beast that the Secretary of State cannot know what price the market will bear—the market has not established such a price. Therefore, she will either set the price too high so that training providers will receive a higher fee than they would if they were operating in a competitive marketplace without fees set by the Government, or she will set it too low. Short-run marginal costs are the normal basis on which Government Departments set such fees. If the fee is set on that basis, it will be below what the market will bear. Either way, there will be adverse consequences.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

My hon. Friend is developing a powerful market-based argument. Does he agree that a further difficulty with allowing the Secretary of State to set the fees is that training providers will have to club together to hire a lobbyist to make representations to her on a matter that is clearly vital to their commercial survival?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend is right. He illustrates the inherent inefficiency of trying to manage any market through Government intervention rather than market pressures alone. If the Government set the fees, they will be either too high or too low. If they are too high, the training providers will take an excess profit—I thought that the Government did not like excess profits—and people may be deterred from seeking training. If they are too low, more people may seek training, but there will be fewer providers and they may cut corners. I am astonished that the hon. Member for Sutton has not said that she is happy for us to disagree with the Lords in amendment No. 3, because having the Secretary of State setting the fees would only introduce inefficiencies and pose a risk that there could be manipulation for extraneous reasons: to impose a deterrent, for example. The Bill will achieve its objectives only by operating through the marketplace. We should support amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4, but oppose amendment No. 3.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on doing so well in the ballot and bringing her Bill so near to fruition. At 12.16 pm, it must seem tantalisingly close. The Bill is extraordinarily ambitious. It strikes me as being like a game of consequences. I whole-heartedly concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that, in considering the fees, we need to go right back to the explanatory and financial memorandum, which gives the Secretary of State extraordinarily wide powers. The memorandum says: The financial effects of the Bill will depend on the content of such regulations and cannot at this stage be predicted…the regulations may confer power on the Secretary of State to provide training courses. Those are extraordinarily broad—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to go down this route. There have been other stages of the Bill at which these matters could be debated. We are now considering Lords amendments concerning the charging of fees for training, and the granting and variation of licences. The other powers have nothing to do with the amendments.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I totally take on board your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely the fees are set according to the regulations, which are decided by—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. It is a question of taking on board not my advice but my instructions. The hon. Gentleman has had other opportunities to debate these matters. The other place has sent us these specific amendments, and we must confine ourselves to considering them.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I will do my best to follow your instructions to the letter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill requires a high level of training, in which there is no risk and no animal can be injured. That—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. If he will talk about fees, he will be all right—and I shall be happy.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I will try. I am concerned about the practical consequences of the Bill and the ability to set fees at a realistic level. I have tried in my preamble to demonstrate that the Bill is so extraordinarily ambitious that it will be beyond the powers of the Secretary of State to set satisfactory fees. As I understand it, no fireworks will be sold by anyone who has not been on a training course and—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the Bill. I do not want him to talk about the Bill in general terms. I do not want him to talk about any clause. He should talk only about the amendments before us. That is the difficulty in which he finds himself, and if he is unable to speak to the amendments, perhaps he will allow another hon. Member to speak. He cannot decide to go somewhere else in the Bill just because he cannot speak to the amendments.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I apologise once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My concern is that the Secretary of State must set fees, but I do not see how he can do that under the Bill's requirements. He has four options. He may set fees without consultation, or he may palm the setting of them on to the industry so that it can make its own arrangements, or he may go to local authorities, or he may set up a quango. Surely, even allowing for the broadness of the Bill, the Secretary of State will not be allowed to set fees without consulting anyone. My fear, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), is that the Secretary of State will, by working closely with the industry, distort the market in fireworks and the training of those who use them. The only people qualified to conduct training, and the only people with the space for training grounds in open areas in which there is no danger of hurting livestock, will be importers or manufacturers already involved in the industry. They have a vested interest in shutting other people out of the market, and their interest lies in setting extremely high fees. They will work with the Secretary of State to distort a market that they alone will be able to provide. That will make it difficult for new importers to enter the market or for people to set up new businesses to manufacture fireworks. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sutton aims to stop fireworks, even though they are hugely popular on 5 November and at other celebrations. She shakes her head at that suggestion, but I fear that that will be the consequence of working with the industry. Unhealthy collusion will set up a cartel to decide how fees are set.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The Lords amendments would be even more beneficial if the word "affordable" were inserted before "fees".

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I agree entirely. The point is that the industry will want the fees not to be affordable. There will be a lock-out, with the collusion of the Secretary of State. The Bill requires good training and requires the Secretary of State to set training fees. The interest of those already established in the market lies in shutting out anyone else. There will be a smaller number of huge public displays, with safer organisation. Perhaps that is what the hon. Member for Sutton wants. I, however, favour private activity, more choice and more independence, which is precisely what the Bill would stop. It will not be in the interests of those who are established in the industry to set the fees too low. The Secretary of State should not be involved in setting fees. I am sure that enforcement will be deputed to local government, although local government is not mentioned in the Bill. Local government already has huge burdens. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) so wisely said, there is huge variation in the characteristics of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I come from rural areas in which there is plenty of room. It would probably be cheaper to set up fireworks use training establishments in a rural area where there are country spaces in which fireworks can land without hurting anyone.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I would not want my hon. Friend to think that our debate on the amendments implies any degree of support for large-scale fireworks training courses across the Lake District national park.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

No. I am sure that my hon. Friend's sheep farmers concur and will be cheering as they listen to the radio or watch on television. It is easier to provide training—and fees would be cheaper—in the country. There will be demands for lower fees from local government. Bromley and Chislehurst is a heavily populated, built-up area which may have considerable problems. People may have to travel. They may have to go all the way to the national park at Lonsdale to find a nice wide open space to do the training, and the fees may be greater. The Secretary of State is being given powers to set fees right across the country, regardless of local circumstances. That is unworkable. If fees are to be set, there must be flexibility to work with those with the extraordinarily difficult job of enforcing the regulations. There is no acknowledgment of how training is to be checked and enforced. In an intervention, I asked whether some security force will whiz around the country on 5 November checking that every fireworks party is being run by people who have paid the fees and been to a course with which the Secretary of State is content. That appears not to have been thought of at all. With respect to the Bill's promoter, that is not practical.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

Has the hon. Gentleman read the "Firework Injuries. Data Year 1997" survey? It has an illustration of a girl badly defaced with the caption: Face by boyfriend showing off with a firework. Boys behaving badly. What price would the hon. Gentleman put on such injuries?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I have already ruled that these matters are not before us at the moment.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will take your line and not take up that point. I am as concerned as anyone about injuries. I do not see that the setting of fees by the Secretary of State will reduce the number of fireworks injuries. Believing that passing a huge, blunderbuss Bill and giving the Secretary of State power to set fees and insist on training will make this hideous problem go away shows extraordinary faith. Dreadful injuries occur to a small number of people. The number involved is small compared with accidents at home or on the road. I do not believe that the problem will be washed away by giving such powers to the Secretary of State and setting fees. Much worse, I foresee a black market in the sale of fireworks and, if necessary, in training. Fly-by-night companies will operate outside the legal domain. In contrast to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) sought during the Conservative years, when he worked closely with industry and sought consent, the Bill will split the consensus. It all comes back to the fact that the Secretary of State is being given far too wide powers. The powers to set fees are unrealistic and unworkable. Sadly, that will not achieve the laudable aims sought by the hon. Member for Sutton.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I shall explain why the Government support the Lords amendments and the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). The heart of the issue is how we can introduce a regime to provide for training that can cut the number of injuries that occur every fireworks season. Labour Members can speak with some satisfaction in the knowledge that the action that we have taken since the general election has led to a record decrease in the number of fireworks injuries—the largest fall for 23 years. That gives us a unique position to speak with some authority; in contrast to the position of some Conservative Members and the record of the Conservative party. We support the Lords amendments to clause 10 because they give the powers needed to ensure that display and larger fireworks are used by properly trained people. In that desire, we have the support of everyone from those representing the industry to the Confederation of British Industry, which represents all industries, to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and organisations which represent the safety interests of the public. Two things have come out of the debate. None of the Conservative Members who have spoken today contributed to previous debates. Perhaps that is why they are so ill-informed. The speech made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) beggared belief. He stated that everyone who sells or uses fireworks will have to pay some sort of licence fee. In fact, the vast majority of fireworks sold will not be subject to the Bill, and nor will people who let off fireworks in back gardens or anywhere else.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

No. The hon. Gentleman also made a grave error; he belittled the number of injuries and compared them unfavourably with deaths in other sectors as if a large number of deaths in one sector means that we should not pay attention to the deaths and, more important, injuries from fireworks.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

No. The hon. Gentleman had a chance to participate in previous debates on this issue and he failed to do so.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is not relevant whether a Member has participated previously? This debate is free standing. If the Minister is too afraid to give way to take proper questions from the Chamber, that is a matter for him, but it is nothing to do with an hon. Member's previous participation.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I can also confirm that that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister to decide whether to give way to another hon. Member.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not normal that, if a Front Bencher misinterprets something that an hon. Member says, he should give way to have it explained?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

That is not a normal point of order, either.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

There was no misinterpretation of what the hon. Member said. I come to my second point, which relates to fees. We are giving the Secretary of State the back-up power to set fees if there is not agreement on them by those who run the courses. There are two sets of fees. First, there are fees for licensing. It is interesting that Opposition Members now say that those who are licensed should set their fees. I did not notice them advance that argument for taxi drivers, publicans, builders or developers. That is a red herring. The second set of fees is course fees. Everyone in the House of Commons agrees that, if agreement can be reached on course fees, that is fine. We want a lot of providers to come forward and run courses. If a number of people are running courses, it is likely that the level of fees will reflect the market. That is what we all hope for, and it is exactly what is in the Bill. What the other place has wisely suggested in its amendments, and in backing up the essence of clause 10, is that, if there is not agreement on fees or, if someone should, as hon. Members have suggested, have a monopoly of the market, the Secretary of State should have the backstop powers to set the fees herself.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I merely wish to take the Minister up on his statement that the fees charged by companies will reflect the level of the market and that that is in the Bill. I cannot see what provision he has made in the Bill to ensure that the fees he will set will reflect costs or the market.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The right hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to what I said, but that is hardly surprising. If several people provide courses, they will set the fees. As for the level at which fees should be set, it was made clear in the evidence that the other place took from Mr. Mason—and repeated by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) as a general principle of government—that the fees should reflect the general costs incurred and not higher costs, and should not be intended to produce a profit. I wholly endorse that principle. I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is reassured on that point.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

My point was made in relation to the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in granting or varying a licence. Where fees for attendance at a training course are involved, they can be set by the market. It would be helpful if the Minister explained in what circumstances he thinks the Secretary of State would or would not intervene to set fees that were different from those determined by the market in the normal way.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

If there was one provider of training courses and a complaint was made that it had a monopoly on provision and that the fees it charged were unfair, my right hon. Friend might well hear representations on the matter and, after discussions, seek to make alterations. However, I do not believe that those circumstances will arise, because several groups—people who have taken a great interest in the industry over many years—are already interested in running courses. One is the CBI explosives industry group, which has considerable knowledge of the subject and is especially keen to develop and run a training course. Other organisations might also want to run training courses, but if they are to be able to do so and to set the fees that we have debated today, we have to pass the Bill. I am sorry to say that the worst sort of filibuster appears to be going on. The British Pyrotechnists Association has been following our proceedings today; it was so concerned about the delays and filibustering that it took the opportunity offered by the private notice question to send a letter to me deploring the attempt being made by the Opposition—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The Minister himself is now in danger of going outside the scope of the Lords amendment that we are discussing.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The letter makes it clear that, in the Lords amendments and in accepting the need for fees, the BPA is able and willing to run training courses and wants the Bill to be passed quickly. The letter is signed not only by the chairman of the BPA, but by members of the CBI explosives industry group. This morning, we have heard hon. Members who do not know the scope of the Bill and who do not care that the current arrangements mean that there is a higher than necessary number of injuries. I invite the House to accept the Lords amendments and the whole Bill, because it has the support of the whole country, with the exception of the Conservative party.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Yes, even though the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for substantial parts of the debate.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

That is wholly untrue, as was the Minister's previous assertion. As he spent much of my speech chuntering under his breath instead of listening to what I had to say, he probably did not hear me wish the Bill a fair wind—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Oh!

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I said that the official Opposition would not be voting against the Bill. Does the Minister remember my saying that?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) saying, "Oh!" and groaning when the hon. Gentleman said that he wished the Bill a fair wind. It is the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the real Conservatives, not the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench—and that is the problem. The House should accept the Government's view that the Lords amendment is acceptable and reject all the arguments against it made by Conservative Members because our record on this matter does us a great deal of credit. The record of certain Conservative Members does not do them credit.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Why?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The hon. Gentleman asks why. When he was at the Dispatch Box doing this job between 1990 and 1993, the number of people injured by fireworks rose by 46.3 per cent., which means that up to an extra 335 people ended up in hospital because of his incompetent handling of his brief. I ask the House to accept the amendment, because our record of stewardship on the matter has shown a dramatic decline in the number of fireworks injuries and we want to ensure that the trend continues.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

The Minister is not responding to the carefully argued points made on the amendments. As he knows, I said that I was perfectly happy to support the Bill and, indeed, most of the amendments, but not the one relating to charging fees for training. The Minister is not responding to that argument, which is the subject of the debate.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am not accepting the hon. Gentleman's rejection of the amendment, because it would hobble the Bill and ensure that there was an unworkable regime because of the innate hostility to fees. I am sorry that he has taken part in the filibustering.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

As I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I shall. Perhaps he would like to apologise to the House and the country for his stewardship on this issue.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The point that the Minister made, which attacked me personally, was outrageous rubbish. He virtually said that I rape nuns and eat babies and that I was personally responsible for people dying because of fireworks injuries. That is an outrageous suggestion, and he should withdraw it. The Minister should reply to the serious concerns that we have raised in the debate. If he thinks the amendment so important, why did he not include it in the Bill in the first place?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

One of the great advantages of a parliamentary democracy is that one listens to the informed views of others. We listened to the views on the amendment. It will improve the Bill, and we accept it for that reason. I fear that Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate and not taken the opportunity to contribute to the constructive framing of the Bill will succeed only in talking it out, which would deprive us of a valuable tool further to tackle fireworks injuries. I commend the amendment and the Bill.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

As the last Opposition Member to speak on the amendment, I want to say a few words. In view of the Minister's provocative attacks on some of my hon. Friends, I could be tempted to speak longer than my wont, but I shall keep my remarks relatively brief. The Minister made a general attack, suggesting that some of my hon. Friends did not fully understand the Bill's scope. No one can understand its full extent because, in almost every clause, the Minister has taken to himself general powers to make regulations on any matter under the sun, including fees. I regret that the Minister did not confine his remarks to the amendments before us or deal with the particular questions raised by my hon. Friends. I wish to make another point absolutely clear. It is some time since I was on the Front Bench. What my Front-Bench colleagues in the official Opposition think of the Bill is their concern. I speak individually, and the Lords amendments trouble me. The other place was no doubt concerned to build more safeguards into the Bill, and probably considered the amendments to be safeguards. I am troubled by them because they seem to arise from a misunderstanding of what the Government have the power to do sensibly and wisely. Governments often make the great mistake of believing that they can read the market and fix a price that the market will bear. The Government will have great difficulty in making a judgment on what fees should be charged for training. The amendment contains no criteria for the level of fees, so the other place has not been up to its usual drafting standard. It has sent us an amendment giving the Secretary of State the power to set fees, but it has not done what it usually does—set criteria by which the Secretary of State may come to a conclusion on the fee to be set. If the criterion is the average or maximum price that the market will bear, or the level that would enable all the high-quality training that the Bill envisages to be carried out, that would give us some guidance on the level of fees that the Secretary of State has in mind and the criteria that she and her officials would use when determining the price to be fixed. 12.45 pm When one reads the Bill, one sees the quality of training that must be given and the proficiency required. Training fees are referred to in clause 10, but they relate to every part of the Bill where training is stipulated. It is also stipulated in clause 5, under which people must show that they are proficient and qualified. I presume, therefore, that it is not merely a matter of the Secretary of State fixing fees in accordance with the cheapest course on the market. I have experience—admittedly, many years ago—of training in industry. We would have had incredible difficulty had the then Government fixed the fees for the training courses that we provided. If I thought that the Government were fixing the fees, I would lay on the gold-plated, six-week residential course. When companies paid the fees themselves, we started with a five-day course and whittled it down to a two-day or highly intensive 10-hour course, and the fee structure was radically different. Obviously, the Secretary of State will not want to set the fees prohibitively high. She will set them at a level of full cost recovery, as I presume that her administrative costs must also be added to the fees collected. If so, there will be a Government charge for administering the fee structure, and the Secretary of State will then pick a level of fees that she considers reasonable. If it were not reasonable, it would be subject to judicial review, but what is reasonable in terms of the Bill? if it came to judicial review, their Lordships would have to study all the requirements in the Bill and the quality standards that have been set. I shall not go down the route of discussing quality standards, because that would be outside the scope of the amendment. Nevertheless, the fees that the Secretary of State sets must take into account what people are supposed to know and prove that they are proficient in, under clause 5. When one looks at the regulations that the Secretary of State has the power to make and the classes of people to whom they can apply, one assumes that only big organisations laying on big, commercial firework displays will be affected. However, according to my reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations stipulating that training may apply to anyone who lets off fireworks, even in small village displays. The Bill does not exempt those people.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

indicated dissent.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The Minister shakes his head as if to say, "Oh no, we won't go that far. We are only trying to catch the big events organised by municipalities. We don't intend to go after the little fellow who has bought some fireworks to set off for his children." On the other hand, if the Minister is to be as successful as everyone wants him to be in reducing the number of accidents and injuries resulting from fireworks, should he not acknowledge that most of those injuries occur because some individuals behave stupidly with fireworks, not because big organised public displays go wrong? I return to the fees issue. If the Minister wants to meet his safety objectives in the Bill, he must encompass in the training courses a range of people—not only the big Brocks, ICIs and CBIs of this world. He must get the training courses to the small punters who lay on little bonfire displays, and let off fireworks, on every village green. If those people are not caught by the training requirement, there is not much point in the training provisions, because such small displays probably make up the majority of firework displays in the country and, probably, the majority of accidents happen at small firework displays—but I shall happily be corrected. If those one-off punters who have some fireworks on bonfire night are to be trained and fees are to be set, what sort of training courses will be necessary for them, and what level of fees will they be charged? The Minister has given us no hint of the criteria that he will apply when setting fees. I believe that he tried to argue that he would base the fee level entirely on market forces. I do not know how a Government Department can make a judgment on the right level of fees. Will it choose the average price in the market? Alternatively, will it choose the price that the market will bear, and how will it do so? I had hoped that the Minister would categorically rule out using the fee mechanism to produce further policing. Some of my colleagues hinted that it could be done. The Bill would allow the Minister to do so because it does not set criteria to tie his judgment in setting the level of fees. The Minister did not answer my hon. Friends' argument that he could use the pricing mechanism to fund adequately only the gold-plated courses, forcing others out of the market. If he introduced regulations to outlaw firework displays by the little punters, he could force through the complete municipalisation—indeed, almost nationalisation—of firework displays. It may be the view in some quarters that the only fireworks that people should be allowed to see are those that are laid on by big organisations and councils. That aspect of the Bill worries me, because it means that it can be used to get at individuals who want to set off fireworks themselves. I deplore all those foolish individuals who do not use fireworks safely; I wish that the Bill had been a small Bill, dealing exclusively with tightening safety rules relating to children, especially sales to children. However, the Minister has in the Bill a huge blunderbuss measure, with lots of powers in every clause. In my view, the power that he is taking for the Government to set fees will do nothing to reduce accidents. The Minister may say that training will reduce accidents. It could do so if the right people were trained—which they may not be—but I do not, for the life of me, understand how giving the Minister the power to set fees will help to reduce accidents. The fees to be set by future Ministers are irrelevant to the safety arguments that the Minister put. The Minister ranged widely in his speech and made some blatantly political points. I shall not take that route; I confine my remarks to the Lords amendment. The Minister has not dealt with the points raised, including the point that I and my hon. Friends have made that the level of fees set by the Minister does not enhance the safety case one iota. I regret that the Minister replied as he did, and that he did not specifically address any of the points raised by my hon. Friends. On Fridays, when we debate private Members' business, my hon. Friends have a perfect right to scrutinise legislation. The Lords amendments have not previously been seen. It is irrelevant for the Minister to say that some hon. Members present have not participated in earlier debates on the Bill. None of us had seen the Lords amendments relating to fees previously, and it is valid for any of us to participate in that argument today. I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who will probably reply briefly, will pick up some of the points raised by my hon. Friends. I am still disturbed not just by large parts of the Bill, but by the suggestion that the Government must set the level of fees because that will somehow improve safety, and lead to fewer accidents and fewer children being blinded. That is nonsense. No one wants to see children blinded or fools messing about with fireworks, but there is nothing in the Bill that will prevent people from misbehaving badly with fireworks—in the same way that no legislation can stop footballers misbehaving badly on the pitch. The Minister is trying to create the false argument that, if hon. Members do not vote for the Bill, it will result in many more accidents involving young people. If the Minister wanted to reduce the number of fireworks accidents involving young people, he should have introduced a measure that was specifically targeted at that objective rather than introducing Henry VIII powers regarding regulations for everything under the sun, including training courses and fee setting by the Government.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

Before turning to the amendments, I point out to the House that my Bill was considered carefully by the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, in addition to being debated in another place and in Standing Committee. Opposition Members have expressed concern about not having had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. However, we welcomed the contribution by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and accepted an amendment. That showed, from an early stage, that we were prepared to take account of points raised by hon. Members in an attempt to improve the Bill.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Is this the hon. Lady's Bill or was it given to her by the Government?

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

Hon. Members may know that I am the first member of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration to be elected to the House, and I have taken a great interest in issues to do with consumer protection and safety. We have also received assistance from the Confederation of British Industry explosives industry group and the British Pyrotechnists Association. It is clear from the communication that my hon. Friend the Minister received, and to which he referred earlier, that those organisations do not object to the fee-making powers in the amendments. Amendment Nos. 1 to 4 are related, and I shall discuss them together. They relate to clause 10 of my Bill, which includes powers to make provision for, among other things, fees for the grant or variation of licences for training providers and for attendance at training courses. My Bill currently provides for either the Secretary of State or any body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State to make provision for such fees. The amendments were prompted by concerns expressed by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation—I should have thought that Opposition Members would have more respect for such a body—when it considered very fully the various regulation-making provisions in my Bill. The Select Committee was concerned to ensure that fee setting remained within the control of the Secretary of State. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of its report—which I imagine that Opposition Members have considered fully—the Select Committee expressed the view that fees should either be approved by the Secretary of State or be subject to a limit specified in the regulations.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

No, I want to make progress. There is much more to be debated in the Bill, and hon. Members are waiting to consider other legislation. The report also suggested that the Lords might consider whether a suitable ministerial undertaking would be satisfactory. In the Select Committee's view, that would have been sufficient. In any event, the Lords decided that the issue would be dealt with better by amendment. The amendments to clause 10 will, therefore, ensure that only the Secretary of State will be able to make provision regarding fees for training licences and fees for attendance at training courses. That would also provide a means of ensuring that fees were not set at excessive levels.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) should make it clear when she is refusing to take an intervention. I understand that she has completed her speech.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not notice the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) attempting to get in. I was in the course of my last sentence, so I was concentrating on finishing.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

In that case, I would like to speak for a moment. The Minister is right. I have only just come in, but the point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) is making goes close to a matter of great interest to me—training. Having run a private sector training company for years before I came into the House, and having been privileged to be the Minister with responsibility for training, I do not know of any other situation where the Minister is given the power to set the fees for attending a training course. There are many other examples, including pesticides—the issue that the next Bill is about—driving forklift trucks and driving heavy goods vehicles, where the requirement is for training, rightly, but there is no example, to my knowledge, where the Minister is given such a power. That is why I was seeking to intervene on the hon. Member for Sutton. I wanted to ask whether she could name another piece of legislation in which the Government take on themselves the setting of fees for training courses. I do not believe that there is any such example. It is a pity that the hon. Lady was not able to give way. Obviously, if she can come back and cite an example, I would be delighted, but, given that Labour says that it understands for the first time how industry and commerce work, I cannot imagine how it could possibly put into legislation the power for a Minister to set training course fees. Unless the hon. Lady or the Minister can give an example of legislation that gives that power to a Minister, I cannot see how the amendment can be acceptable.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the sake of clarification, am I right to believe that you are grouping together two amendments that relate to two different clauses—clauses 5 and 7—and then, in a different grouping, two amendments, Nos. 6 and 8, that relate to a clause and a schedule? Does that complicate matters or is it how it should be?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Madam Speaker has made the selection, which is perfectly in order. It is quite common practice that if amendments applying to different clauses and schedules are seen to be pertinent and relevant, they will be taken together. There is nothing wrong with that.

PROHIBITION OF SUPPLY ETC. OF OTHER EXPLOSIVES.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, 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—

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

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 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.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

I support amendment No. 7, which I hope is acceptable to the Bill's promoter.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

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.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

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: 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—

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.