Debate contribution: Fireworks: Legislation
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Fireworks: Legislation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5224705
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member is almost channelling what I was thinking in my head but had not managed to say in my original answer. When I write to people on the issue, I always promote the use of low-noise fireworks. There is also the opportunity to have some pretty amazing displays using drones and not using fireworks at all. The number of organised fireworks displays has actually dropped dramatically since the 1970s and 1980s because the cost of fireworks has risen exponentially. Therefore, there is a balance to be struck. As I said, I understand people’s concerns about pets. Over the Halloween period, the Agriculture Minister and I spent quite a bit of time sharing advice and guidance with animal owners on how to ensure that they could do their best to keep their pets safe. Obviously, my personal preference, as well as my preference for animals, would be to have low-noise fireworks. Fireworks noise is a problem. We cannot be prescriptive, though, because not all low-noise fireworks would be suitable for every occasion. However, a reduction in the number of fireworks licences that are being granted is indicative of the fact that many people are moving to other kinds of celebratory displays to avoid the use of, or over-reliance on, fireworks.
210 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.98 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:42 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.