Debate contribution: Fireworks Legislation
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Fireworks Legislation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244656
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like most dog owners, I had the experience of seeing my dog distressed by the sound of fireworks, particularly the loudest ones, a few weeks ago at Halloween. I am aware that fireworks can also be very distressing for elderly and vulnerable people. Therefore, we support calls for the Justice Minister to engage with the Government around the possibility of reducing maximum noise levels for all types of fireworks. It should be recognised that most fireworks displays are safe and well managed. They are a source of enjoyment and wonder, and they contribute to national, community and family events across the country. However, as others have said, fireworks can also be misused in manners that are dangerous, inconsiderate and malicious. As my colleague referenced, a report by the USPCA in 2024 showed that 80% of pet owners said that their dogs had been distressed or frightened by fireworks. Every year, we hear heartbreaking stories of pets that run away and become lost after being frightened by fireworks. As well as looking at reducing noise levels, the Minister should consider an enhanced public awareness campaign that relates specifically to animals and pet owners and focuses on the Halloween and New Year periods. The regulations for manufacturing fireworks, particularly in respect of maximum permitted noise levels, remain a UK Government competence, but, regrettably, successive Governments have ensured that Northern Ireland slavishly follows EU rules on the matter, which is a nonsense. We want to make it clear that if, at any stage, the UK Government bring forward proposals to increase protections against the negative impacts of fireworks, such changes must be applicable throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The licensing system in Northern Ireland, which is one of the most robust, makes it possible for authorities to identify illegal firework use and supply. However, the current system is not perfect. The Minister should consider further measures to tackle the illegal supply of fireworks. The main fireworks legislation here was created in 2002. It has not had any substantive reviews or changes in over 20 years. Legislation needs to keep pace with technological advancements and tackle the problems with enforcement in the modern day.
We thank the Ulster Unionist Party for tabling the motion. We will support it and the Alliance Party's amendment.
381 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: 0.04 (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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.75 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.11 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.06 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 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.