The clause is particularly relevant to the supply of large fireworks for displays and to people who might have been trained. I should like to return to the issue of noise, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes. I am sure that she did not mean to say that antisocial behaviour and noise had increased since 1997, although her remarks highlighted the law of unintended consequences. The supply of bangers was banned in 1997 by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths). That appears to have led to a large increase in the use of airbombs. The Minister has referred to the fact that a voluntary ban on airbombs will take something like 10 million bangs out of the market in the coming year. What does she intend to prohibit under this clause, given that airbombs are probably the biggest problem and they will be disappearing from the streets in the coming months?
It is difficult to say at this point, because the regulations have not been discussed in detail. When one thing is banned, there is a danger
that something else will take its place. I therefore commend the fact that the Bill empowers the Government to issue regulations to deal with things as they develop; that is the advantage of not including specifics in primary legislation. I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes about noise: because the cost of fireworks has come down and the number of bangs has gone up, fireworks are reaching young people who can get a large number of loud bangs for their pocket money, and use them as a way of disrupting communities. The airbomb ban will make a huge difference, because airbombs have become a substitute for bangers.
In consequence of our discussions about the importance of noise, we shall look again at the measures in order to ensure that we do not end up with a further substitute. The industry is equally concerned to ensure that the public can enjoy fireworks at sensible noise levels without suffering the sort of disruption that takes place at the moment. It is keen to work with us and with the other relevant organisations. Those who are concerned with the measures, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South, are working to ensure that fireworks are produced at a reasonable cost—in packs rather than singly, for example—and that future firework production will conform with any measure we introduce to deal with noise.
Subsection (4) relates to
''the satisfactory completion of a course, or courses, of training''.
I was caught up in something of a firefight over the issue of noise when we debated who should be consulted under clause 2. I know that the Minister will consult the Health and Safety Executive and other advisers. Can I ask her to take soundings from independent retailers associations?
This is a welcome subsection. It is necessary for retailers to have appropriate training so that responsible retailers are rewarded. However, I would not want onerous duties or the time or money spent on training to put a local retailer on the corner in Pontycymer out of business. That retailer services the needs of the community by providing good, responsible fun with fireworks.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. The clause could, for example, be used to prevent anyone who had not satisfactorily passed a training course from being supplied with some types are fireworks. I do not think that the application of the clause in relation to training is related to supply so much as to use. However, there might be some training issues to do with whether people have a sufficient understanding to ensure that the fireworks are satisfactorily stored and sold.
I take my hon. Friend's point about consulting widely, which we want to do. Consultations normally consist of several months of discussion with interested parties. Bearing in mind the points that my hon. Friend made, I shall try to alert all groups that might be interested in responding. Given the number of groups interested in the matter, as well as the number of hon. Members, I am sure that there will be wide engagement in any future discussions.
I have one small point about subsection (4), which also mentions insurance cover against liability. If, in dealing with that matter, the Minister can specify training courses, will she also give help on insurance to those undertaking such courses? It is becoming increasingly difficult for even well-organised displayers to get appropriate public liability insurance. As she knows, that problem affects many businesses, but it also affects fireworks displayers. In a recent case, a well-organised fireworks displayer in my constituency who had operated for many years without incident had great difficulty in obtaining suitable public liability insurance to allow the display to continue.
The insurance that people obtain is a matter for them and their organisations, but I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. When my children were much younger, they and my family were frequently the beneficiaries of the fireworks display at a local school. The parent teacher association or the school needed cover of the kind that the hon. Gentleman talked about to run the display. There will be more reassurance for those providing insurance cover as a result of the measures that the Bill is likely to make possible. Those measures can only result in more rather than less reasonable insurance premiums, because the more concern and risk there is, the more people will want to increase the premium. At the end of the day, however, it is a matter of what insurance cover individuals can obtain.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.