Debate contribution: Fireworks Legislation
Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .
- MLA
- Miss Deirdre Hargey
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Fireworks Legislation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244603
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thanks to those who tabled the motion and the amendment. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue. It is an issue that affects many communities across the North, particularly at key times of the year, as has been outlined, so it is right that we look at the current system and the areas that are working and those that are not working. Fireworks, when used responsibly, safely and in an organised way, can be a source of joy and can bring our communities together at different times of the year. Many of us will know the positive and inclusive atmosphere around Halloween events, for instance, community festivals and seasonal celebrations. I saw it recently over the Halloween period with Féile an Phobail in west Belfast, when we saw thousands of children, young people and adults dressed up for the Halloween festivities and going to the Falls Park in an organised way. The main event there was a fireworks display that the community in west Belfast put on. There are good examples of how such things can be organised in a controlled environment, where it can be done safely and, of course, where much of the community supports those activities. Equally, there is another side to the story. That is the story of serious injuries, burns, lifelong scarring and trauma, as has been mentioned, which can be caused by fireworks, particularly when they are misused or obtained illegally. Every year, our emergency departments report cases that could have been avoided. We want to make sure that we avoid such incidents.
Yes, of course.
Thank you. Yes, that is a welcome step. It shows that the more controlled events we have, the more we can look at health and safety, hold the events in a managed way and people can get enjoyment from them, if that is what they want. We know that a section of our community — particularly older residents, children, maybe those with sensory needs and, of course, our beloved pets, which are part of the family — does not always take joy from fireworks. It can be distressing when fireworks are set off, particularly when it is not done in a controlled way and when due regard is not shown for how it might have an impact. We must always look at those issues. We need a system that balances community celebration with the community safety aspects and supports well-run public displays, while cracking down on illegal supply, the antisocial behaviour that raises its head and, importantly, unsafe use. When we look at tackling the issues, whether through legislation or ongoing improvements in prevention and education, it is crucial that we do so in a coordinated way. That is one of the key issues. Are all of the agencies working in a coordinated fashion? Are they speaking to one another, particularly around prevention and not just when something goes wrong? That is important. We must always look at it from a preventative and proactive perspective rather than wait until something goes wrong. Of course, engagement with local communities is also key to getting a balance between all of the rights: how people can celebrate and how we mitigate the worst excesses.
A joined-up, cross-departmental approach is important for the agencies that need to be there. Of course, I agree that prevention is the best cure, but where there is a need for enforcement, that can be looked at in the forthcoming sentencing Bill, which would be a good way to provide clear guidance to tackle the issue. I welcome the debate, and I have listened intently. I look forward to hearing the rest of the speeches.
617 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | 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 | 0.42 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.37 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.05 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:00 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.