Debate contribution: Fireworks Legislation

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 18 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

18 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Fireworks Legislation

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5244546

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

I rise to propose the motion to the House. Whilst I welcome the sentiment behind the amendment, I fear that I may not be able to support it because at this point — we have a debate to come — it falls short of what our constituents expect of us, what our animal welfare organisations are pleading for and what our communities clearly need. The amendment narrows the debate to one issue: penalties. It proposes that we:

"consider changes to the penalties available for the illegal use and sale of fireworks in the pending review of sentencing issues".

That is not a strategy or a programme of reform. It is certainly not the comprehensive response that I believe that the people who have contacted me are looking for. It is, at best, a tiny slice of the answer. I will, however, listen to the debate to learn more about the amendment. The truth is that we cannot simply enforce our way out of the problem. Rather, we have to engage properly with the problem and be properly educated about it, and we are not properly regulating in 2025 if we are using legislation from 2002. If Members think back to a couple of weeks ago, they will realise that it was a Halloween like no other. I know that because I was out with my own children during the celebrations, and there were extreme explosions in the urban area that I was in. The noise was disconcerting even for my children. The next day, my inbox, phone and social media were overwhelmed. I had never before witnessed the scale of concern from across Northern Ireland emanate from a Halloween celebration. The power, volume and frequency of fireworks set off in back gardens and on street corners was unlike anything that I had experienced before. Households that had never previously purchased fireworks suddenly seemed to have access to powerful, high-noise devices that, frankly, did not look or sound like the types of garden fireworks that are normally available. That is exactly why constituents have told me that they know that there is an issue. One lady who wrote to me after watching a video that I had posted on social media said:

"My dog shook so badly I thought he'd had a heart attack. Fireworks used to be loud, but this year they were like bombs."

Another person — a parent — wrote to me to say:

"My wee one hasn't slept since Saturday night. Every time he hears something drop on the floor, he jumps. He's terrified."

Many of us will have read the recent report in 'The Irish News' about Rosie, the much-loved dog from Ballyclare, whose owner said that she suffered a stroke that was brought on by sheer terror after a night of intense fireworks. The family described Rosie as shaking uncontrollably and panicking and said that she never recovered from the ordeal. Their vet confirmed that the stress that Rosie endured was consistent with the kind of anxiety-induced collapse that the family had witnessed. Those fireworks were therefore not a celebration but a harm. We are certainly not trying to be the fun police. Fireworks used appropriately in the right environment can be something to enjoy, but we cannot ignore the inescapable truth, which is that their impact is real, widespread and, in many cases, severe. Who is affected? The victims of the irresponsible use of unregulated fireworks are not a small or niche group. They include pets, especially cats and dogs, whose hearing is multiple times more sensitive than our own; farm animals, which are already stressed by unpredictable weather and farming pressures and can become agitated, leading to milk production going down and, at certain times of the year, dangers in pregnancies; wildlife, for which the bursts of light and noise are disorientating and sometimes fatal; older people, particularly those living alone, who experience fireworks as fear rather than as festivity; babies and young people, whose developing nervous systems are sensitive to loud, unexpected and, this year, concerted high noise levels; and people living with PTSD, including former or serving members of our security forces, for whom the sound of explosive bangs is not entertainment and could be re-traumatising. There are then, of course, our ordinary neighbours, who simply want peace in their home. Those are not isolated incidents or rare events but predictable outcomes of a system that allows the widespread private use of powerful fireworks —.

Yes, I will.

I absolutely concur with the Member. That is one of the reasons that I am looking to hear more about the amendment. The legislation at the moment does not lean towards engagement and education, which is where, if we see change, the real benefits will materialise in the future. The Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 are now 23 years old, which is older than many of the young people who are setting off fireworks. The regulations were written in a world in which the retail market was entirely different. Online sales were not a factor, cross-border flows were smaller and the range of available fireworks was much less powerful. Our legislation is being outpaced by how fireworks are being marketed, sold and used.

To those supporting the amendment, which says that fireworks regulation in Northern Ireland is:

"among the most robust in these islands",

I say that "robust" does not mean "effective", and it certainly does not mean "adequate". We have robust rules on paper, yet little public awareness of them; we have robust penalties, yet little enforcement of them; and we have robust licensing requirements, yet an explosion, literally, of unlicensed fireworks in our communities this year. A system that is robust but ineffective is not a system worth defending. The evidence is clear: the public want change. A number of pet advocacy groups have contacted me. Dogs Trust commissioned a UK-wide YouGov poll in October 2025. The results for Northern Ireland could not be clearer: 95% of respondents want fireworks to be restricted to licensed displays; 93% want limits on dates and times; 83% say that fireworks have a negative impact on their lives due to their pets' distress; 83% want more regulation; 76% feel unsafe during private, unregulated displays; 70% support the sale of low-noise fireworks only; and 31% support a complete ban. When 95% of people in Northern Ireland agree on anything, the Assembly should sit up and listen. Cats Protection also calls for restricting the use of fireworks to licensed public events at set times of the year; ensuring that local authorities consider the proximity of rehoming centres, farms and rescue centres; reducing the maximum permitted noise levels to 90 decibels; restricting online sales; and supporting alternative displays, such as drones and low-noise options. Arguably, those are practical, proportionate and enforceable measures for some, and they come from respected charities. They are not radical proposals, and they are not necessarily what we propose. What we are saying is that the call today is backed by animal advocacy groups and they are coming up with solutions. The amendment focuses on punishment, whereas our motion calls for prevention, which is always a better strategy. We need a strategy that, first, engages with communities, retailers, young people and online platforms. We want to see a strategy that educates people about safe use, the law and the impact of fireworks on animals and vulnerable groups. We can then move to enforcement with targeted campaigns, better reporting mechanisms and intelligence-led policing. Right now, we do very little of the first two and little of the third.

I thank the Member for that point. The legislation should mandate education and engagement. My party colleagues —.

I will not. I have only one minute left, Minister. My two party colleagues will engage more on the legislative side and point out, perhaps, the flaws and shortfalls in that. I am building the public case for change, which is why we are here. Right now, we have very little of the first two and little of the third, but we will get to the facts and figures of that afterwards. Prevention is always better than prosecution. The motion asks for "an urgent and comprehensive review": nothing more but, certainly, nothing less. Our constituents expect leadership, not lip service; they want safety, not stress; and they want celebration, not chaos. As I said, the amendment, whilst well intentioned, diminishes the scope and ambition of what we need to do to achieve change, so I urge Members listening to the debate to support the motion.

1,431 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:58 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.

Challenge this classification