MPs Seek Quieter, Regulated Fireworks; Government Sets No Timeline

High-Level Summary

Westminster Hall debated two e‑petitions on fireworks: reducing the maximum noise level of consumer fireworks and limiting sales to council‑approved events. Robbie Moore introduced the debate for the Petitions Committee, highlighting repeated public concern and impacts on animals and people. Members from across the House largely supported lowering decibel limits and introducing clearer, limited periods for use, while noting enforcement difficulties. The Government said it would continue gathering evidence and consider further regulation but gave no timetable. The motion to note that the House had considered the petitions was agreed without a division.

Detailed Summary

E‑petitions on fireworks: decibel limits and sales restrictions

Opening the debate, Robbie Moore said, “It is a privilege to introduce the debate on these two petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee” [ref: a1.1/3], adding, “It is clear that public support for change is overwhelming” [ref: a1.1/4]. He and other Members cited harms to pets, livestock and people and urged action on noise and sales. Contributors pointed to the current position—“The current legal limit for loudness of fireworks is 120 dB” [ref: a6.0/2]—and pressed for a reduction to around 90 dB, for example: “Reducing the maximum noise level for consumer fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB” [ref: a20.0/7]. Many emphasised they were not seeking a ban: “My constituents are not calling for an outright ban” [ref: a10.4/3], and called for predictability through set days or council‑approved displays. Concerns about enforcement were prominent: “The biggest problem with fireworks is enforcement” [ref: a7.0/2]. Caution was also urged about Scotland’s experience: “The Scottish Government introduced a new licensing regime, much of which does not work” [ref: a2.6/1]. Members framed proposals as proportionate: “None of us is looking to be a killjoy” [ref: a11.1/1].

Responding for the Government, the Minister said, “We will consider the effectiveness that further legislation may have” [ref: a47.1/5] in addressing antisocial and illegal use. She acknowledged the strength of feeling but “was not able to provide a timeline at this stage” [ref: a48.1/1], while undertaking to press for “better regulations and urgency for action” [ref: a50.4/2]. No legislative decision was taken; the debate concluded with, “Question put and agreed to” [ref: a51.0/4], resolving that the House had considered e‑petitions 738192 and 732559 [ref: a51.0/6].