06/09/2026
We have written to our local MP today - I would strongly suggest that firework enthusiasts, firework retailers and suppliers, and anyone who wishes to protect hundreds of years of tradition, as well as those who believe in sensible approaches to issues, as opposed heavy handed Government intervention do the same..
We wrote :
I am writing concerning the Government’s current consultation on fireworks and pyrotechnics. This has acquired added significance following the Prime Minister’s comments at Prime Minister’s Questions on 2 September. Responding to a question about antisocial behaviour, including the misuse of fireworks, Andy Burnham said that there was “a case for going further on fireworks and regulating them”.
I have worked in the UK fireworks industry for more than 30 years, across retail, wholesale, importing and the supply of organised displays. Through 1st Galaxy Fireworks and Vulcan Pyrotechnics, I see both the consumer and trade sides of the market. I was also directly involved in the industry’s contribution to the regulatory work that led to the Fireworks Act 2003 and the subsequent Fireworks Regulations 2004, including measures intended to address nuisance and so-called “pocket-money” fireworks.
I want to make clear that, both personally and professionally, I support proportionate reform. The present market is not perfect. Certain products, purchasing patterns and examples of consumer behaviour are inappropriate. The two recurring problems are excessive noise and powerful fireworks being supplied to, or misused by, unsuitable individuals.
Those problems warrant action, but they do not justify a blanket prohibition on consumer fireworks, nor an uniformed, or overly restrictive approach, which is currently what I fear may happen.
The Government’s own consultation acknowledges that approximately 20 million people participate in home fireworks activities annually, which is a significant number of people. It also cites research showing that 61% of respondents personally enjoy fireworks and 45% had attended an organised public or private display during the preceding year. Fireworks remain an established part of Bonfire Night, New Year’s Eve and British community life, while lawful demand now also reflects celebrations including Diwali, Chinese New Year and other religious and cultural occasions, which have increased significantly in recent times.
Our own sales patterns and conversations with customers confirm that the calendar of legitimate demand has become considerably broader. This helps explain why fireworks are now heard at more varied times of the year, although it is important to distinguish responsible cultural or family celebrations from genuinely antisocial or illegal use. I would also add, that such as our own company, have increased the number of so called ‘quiet fireworks’ into our sales lists, however customers tend to lead in this regard, so the sales of these types of fireworks is still a minority when compared to the whole list of products available.
The frequently advanced suggestion that fireworks should be permitted only at “organised displays” is also more complicated than it sounds. Many organised displays are not operated by large professional companies. They are arranged by private individuals and volunteers on behalf of parish councils, charitable organisations, village halls, cricket clubs, scout groups, schools and public houses. These events are important community fundraisers and often rely upon appropriately selected consumer-category fireworks. In fact many of our customers will tell us that the Bonfire Night Event is typically their biggest single fundraiser in the calendar by a significant amount.
At the same time, millions of private consumers use fireworks responsibly on suitable premises. Public policy should target the products and conduct presenting the greatest risk, rather than removing responsible use because of the behaviour of a minority.
In my view, the existing regulatory framework provides the tools for a much more targeted solution. Fireworks are already divided into the F1–F4 consumer and professional categories, supported by conformity assessment, prescribed testing and detailed product standards. Transport and storage classifications such as 1.3G and 1.4G provide further relevant information, although they should not be treated as direct substitutes for the F categories.
Controls could therefore be directed at clearly identified product types, constructions, effects or performance characteristics shown to present a disproportionate risk of misuse. This would be more technically defensible and enforceable than attempting to regulate the entire market with an overly broad prohibition. I personally have always advocated for the removal from sale of 1.3G fireworks, which by their technical nature tend to be much louder than 1.4G Fireworks.. and, this knits in closely with storage and transport regulations as well.
I am particularly concerned by question 3 of the consultation, which asks whether regulation 33 should be amended to make explicit that a firework “comprising more than one shot tube” is banned from sale to the public. Read literally, this could encompass ordinary cakes, barrages and combination fireworks rather than a narrowly defined high-risk product. These products form a substantial part of legitimate consumer and community-display use and, when properly designed and secured, can offer important stability and operational advantages. The intended scope urgently needs clarification before any legislation is drafted. I would suggest and argue that this was written by someone who is ‘uniformed’ as to the market of fireworks, and also the technical nature, because this specific category as identified under the testing and technical criteria covers an enormous tranche of fireworks, and these aren’t those that are typically ‘miss-used’, in fact in my experience and opinion quite the opposite. So, in my view, in the very least, the consultation implies targeting completely the wrong group of Fireworks.
The proposed reduction in the maximum noise limit from 120 to 110 dB(A,imp) also requires careful technical scrutiny. Noise measurement for fireworks is complex and affected by test distance, measurement method, construction, surroundings and atmospheric conditions. The consultation itself estimates that its preferred limit could affect around one-third of current consumer products. Any change should therefore be based on repeatable testing and evidence that it will reduce real-world nuisance without encouraging manufacturers merely to design around a laboratory threshold. I would also add that it would be much more efficient and precise, to be able to target other technical factors, which will then have the same overall impact by way of objectives met.
Ironically, it was the regulations brought about through testing via H&SE many years ago that has, in my view, created some of the circumstances we now find ourselves in… unintended consequences have meant that certain fireworks become ‘more’ attractive due to their technical nature.. I saw this coming over 20 years ago post the new regulations.. and predicted back then that where we are now would indeed happen… I would add, my involvement in writing those regulations was tightly attached only to pocket money fireworks and the legislation wording.. I was not involved in the part of the regulations that looked at Flash Powder, Transport and Storage and Hazard Types.. which are, now, in my opinion, the key area to target.
A six-month transition would also be inadequate for much of the industry. The consultation records that more than 95% of imported fireworks originate in China. Products are designed, tested, manufactured, shipped and stocked over long cycles, and lawful inventory can remain in the supply chain for several seasons. An unrealistically short transition could leave importers and retailers with substantial quantities of unsaleable but otherwise compliant stock, creating disposal, storage and financial problems.
Finally, international experience and domestic enforcement evidence should be considered before pursuing prohibition. A ban does not automatically eliminate demand. Without effective enforcement, it can displace supply into illegal and unregulated channels, where products may not meet UK conformity, traceability or safety requirements. The Government’s consultation itself recognises the need to minimise the risk of a black market emerging.
I would therefore ask whether you would consider:
raising the potentially excessive scope of the proposed multi-shot-tube restriction with the Department for Business and Trade;
supporting product-specific, evidence-led controls aimed at noise, misuse and genuinely high-risk ‘ higher hazard (under ADR) items rather than a blanket consumer ban;
pressing for a realistic transition period reflecting design, testing, importation and existing-stock cycles; and
encouraging ministers to consult people with detailed technical, retail, wholesale and professional-display experience before deciding the final regulations.
I would be very happy to meet you, brief your team or host a visit to our operation to explain the technical distinctions and the likely practical consequences in greater detail. I believe meaningful reform is possible, but it must be precise, enforceable and informed by how the legitimate industry and its customers actually operate.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my email
