1
Understand the proposals
Read the main issues in plain English before deciding what you want to say.
Consultation closes 7 October
STOP A BACKDOOR BANON YOUR FIREWORKS
Government proposals would remove many familiar consumer fireworks from sale, restrict family celebrations and threaten legitimate businesses and jobs.
Takes around 2 minutes
Your responses remain editable
Nothing is submitted automatically
Review everything before sending
Provided by the British Fireworks Association to help supporters of safe, legal and responsible fireworks respond.
How it works
Understand it. Share your view. Have your say.
Work through a short interview, then review answers that reflect your own views before using the official consultation form.
- 2
Tell us your views
Answer a focused interview using your own words, experience and judgement.
- 3
Review your prepared answers
Check every answer carefully and edit anything that does not reflect your view.
- 4
Submit them through the official consultation
Use your reviewed answers when completing the Government's consultation form.
Consultation questions
What Government is asking
Open each topic to see the official question, what it means in plain English and the BFA's view.
Q1Further bans on consumer fireworksThis asks whether any further Category F2 or F3 consumer fireworks should be banned from sale to the general public.BFA view: No.
Government question
Are there any other particular F2 and F3 fireworks products that you think the general public should not be allowed to buy? Please state which products and give your reasons.
In plain English
This asks whether any further Category F2 or F3 consumer fireworks should be banned from sale to the general public.
BFA view
BFA view: No.
Why the BFA takes this view
- The existing restrictions on Category F2 and F3 fireworks under the UK version of the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 are already amongst the most stringent in Europe.
- Legitimate consumer products undergo exhaustive safety testing, chemical composition limits, including strict flashpowder controls, and rigorous UKCA/CE conformity assessments.
- Further bans on compliant, highly regulated F2/F3 products will do absolutely nothing to reduce anti-social behaviour.
- Individuals who engage in fireworks misuse or street disorder often do not purchase legitimate, high-quality products from licensed, bricks-and-mortar retailers; they source illegal, non-compliant explosives from social media bootleggers and international black-market.
- Banning additional legal categories simply penalises law-abiding families, destroys the commercial viability of multi-generational UK retail businesses, and actively drives consumers directly into the hands of unregulated, dangerous black-market operators.
Q2Consequences of more product bansThis asks what practical consequences further product bans could have for consumers, businesses, enforcement bodies, professional users and emergency services.BFA view: Adding more products to the banned list would have severe negative consequences for consumers, industry, enforcement authorities, professional users and emergency services.
Government question
If more products are added to the regulation 33 banned list, what consequences might there be for consumers, industry, enforcement authorities, professional users, and others? Please give your reasons.
In plain English
This asks what practical consequences further product bans could have for consumers, businesses, enforcement bodies, professional users and emergency services.
BFA view
BFA view: Adding more products to the banned list would have severe negative consequences for consumers, industry, enforcement authorities, professional users and emergency services.
Why the BFA takes this view
- For consumers, banning more legal products will severely restrict safe, traditional family and community celebrations such as Bonfire Night, Diwali, Chinese New Year and New Year's Eve.
- Deprived of safe, regulated items, consumers will either pay exorbitant prices for extremely limited legal stock or turn to online grey markets and backstreet sellers to source prohibited products, significantly increasing the risk of domestic accidents and severe injuries.
- The black market already exists, and greater restrictions will be a boon for it.
- For industry, the economic fallout would be catastrophic because the UK fireworks industry operates on an extremely long and highly leveraged supply chain, with orders and manufacturing in China planned up to 18-24 months in advance.
- Sudden additions to the banned list would result in millions of pounds of instantly write-off, unsellable inventory.
Q3Multi-shot cakes and barragesThis asks whether the rules should explicitly ban fireworks made up of more than one shot tube, which BFA says describes cakes, barrages and combination fireworks.BFA view: Strongly disagree.
Government question
Do you agree that regulation 33(1)(g) should be amended to make explicit that a firework comprising more than one shot tube is banned from sale to the general public? Please give your reasons.
In plain English
This asks whether the rules should explicitly ban fireworks made up of more than one shot tube, which BFA says describes cakes, barrages and combination fireworks.
BFA view
BFA view: Strongly disagree.
Why the BFA takes this view
- A firework comprising more than one shot tube is the exact technical and legal description of a cake, barrage or combination firework.
- These products are the absolute bedrock of the UK consumer fireworks market, representing over 70% of all F2 and F3 retail sales.
- If this amendment is intended to ban multi-shot cakes and barrages from public sale, it would instantly destroy the UK consumer fireworks industry overnight.
- No importer, distributor or specialist retailer could survive such a sweeping restriction.
- From a public safety perspective, cakes and barrages are scientifically the safest fireworks available to the general public. They are heavy, flat-bottomed, stable blocks that are secured to the ground, firing vertically in a highly controlled, pre-engineered sequence.
Q4Christmas crackersThis asks whether the purchasing age limit for Christmas crackers should be removed.BFA view: Strongly agree.
Government question
Do you agree that the age limit for purchasing Christmas crackers should be removed? Please give your reasons.
In plain English
This asks whether the purchasing age limit for Christmas crackers should be removed.
BFA view
BFA view: Strongly agree.
Why the BFA takes this view
- Christmas crackers are classified as Category F1 pyrotechnics but present a negligible, near-zero safety hazard.
- Maintaining an active age limit, historically 12 years of age, on what is universally regarded as a harmless, traditional family table decoration is an unnecessary, absurd administrative burden for supermarket staff and independent retailers.
- Removing this age limit is a sensible, common-sense deregulatory measure.
- It allows Trading Standards and police to focus their limited resources on actual high-risk enforcement, such as targeting illegal online sales of F2/F3 fireworks to minors, rather than auditing the sale of festive table decorations.
- Christmas crackers are Category F1 pyrotechnics but present a negligible, near-zero safety hazard.
Q5Other F1 and P1 productsThis asks whether any other lower-risk F1 products or P1 pyrotechnics should have their rules tightened or relaxed.BFA view: No changes to increase requirements; maintain the current robust frameworks.
Government question
Are there any other specific F1 and P1 pyrotechnics that should have their regulatory requirements increased or decreased? Please state which products, what regulatory requirements you think they should have and give your reasons.
In plain English
This asks whether any other lower-risk F1 products or P1 pyrotechnics should have their rules tightened or relaxed.
BFA view
BFA view: No changes to increase requirements; maintain the current robust frameworks.
Why the BFA takes this view
- Category F1 low-hazard indoor items and sparklers, and P1 specialist pyrotechnics like smoke flares, are already governed by exceptionally robust safety standards, transport regulations, and storage licensing requirements.
- The current age limits, 16 for F1 and 18 for P1, and Net Explosive Quantity limits are perfectly balanced.
- Any further regulatory tightening on P1 items would create pointless, damaging red tape for maritime safety, agricultural smoke products such as pest control, and sporting events, with zero measurable safety benefit to the public.
- F1 and P1 products are already governed by safety standards, transport regulations and storage licensing requirements.
- current age limits are 16 for F1 and 18 for P1.
Q6Maximum noise levelThis asks whether the maximum legal noise limit for consumer fireworks should stay at 120 dB (A,imp) or be reduced to 110, 100 or 90 dB (A,imp).BFA view: No, the maximum noise limit for fireworks should remain at 120 dB (A,imp).
Government question
Do you agree the decibel level of fireworks consumers use should be lowered? Choose one of the following options: No, the maximum noise limit for fireworks should remain at 120 dB (A,imp); Yes, to 110 dB (A,imp) (reducing perceived loudness by approximately half); Yes, to 100 dB (A,imp) (reducing perceived loudness by approximately three-quarters); Yes, to 90 dB (A,imp) (reducing perceived loudness by approximately seven-eighths); Don't know.
In plain English
This asks whether the maximum legal noise limit for consumer fireworks should stay at 120 dB (A,imp) or be reduced to 110, 100 or 90 dB (A,imp).
BFA view
BFA view: No, the maximum noise limit for fireworks should remain at 120 dB (A,imp).
Why the BFA takes this view
- The current 120 dB (A,imp) limit is an internationally harmonised safety standard established under BS EN ISO 17201.
- It is measured at the appropriate safety standing distance, 8 metres for F2 and 15 metres for F3, which ensures that the actual sound level reaching a human ear or nearby observer is already significantly lower and entirely safe.
- Lowering the statutory limit to 110 dB or less is a logarithmic reduction. A 10 dB drop represents a 90% reduction in acoustic energy and cuts perceived loudness in half.
- It is physically and chemically impossible to manufacture traditional aerial display fireworks, which require lift charges and bursting charges to safely disperse visual effects in the sky, under such a restrictive cap.
- A lower limit would act as a de facto, backdoor ban on almost all Category F3 and the vast majority of Category F2 fireworks, rendering traditional family displays a thing of the past.
Q7Benefits of reducing noiseThis asks what benefits might come from reducing the maximum legal noise level for consumer fireworks.BFA view: None or negligible positive impacts.
Government question
What might be the positive impacts of reducing the maximum decibel level of fireworks available to the general public? Please explain your answer, providing evidence where possible.
In plain English
This asks what benefits might come from reducing the maximum legal noise level for consumer fireworks.
BFA view
BFA view: None or negligible positive impacts.
Why the BFA takes this view
- While animal welfare and noise reduction are highly emotive issues, a statutory decibel reduction on legal fireworks will fail to achieve these goals.
- The individuals responsible for anti-social noise, street disorder and the deliberate distress of animals do not use legal, 120 dB regulated products purchased from compliant UK retailers.
- They use smuggled, non-compliant, ultra-loud European flash bangers, which often exceed 130-140 dB, and illegally sourced F4 professional-grade material.
- Reducing the legal limit will destroy the legal trade while leaving criminal black-market noise levels unchanged.
- Pets, wildlife and vulnerable people will experience no actual reduction in anti-social noise, only the loss of safe, structured family events.
Q8Problems caused by reducing noiseThis asks what harms or unintended consequences might result from reducing the legal noise limit for consumer fireworks.BFA view: Reducing the maximum decibel level would have severe negative impacts, including economic collapse, black-market growth, compromised public safety and loss of community and cultural celebrations.
Government question
What might be the negative impacts of reducing the maximum decibel level of fireworks available to the general public? Please explain your answer, providing evidence where possible.
In plain English
This asks what harms or unintended consequences might result from reducing the legal noise limit for consumer fireworks.
BFA view
BFA view: Reducing the maximum decibel level would have severe negative impacts, including economic collapse, black-market growth, compromised public safety and loss of community and cultural celebrations.
Why the BFA takes this view
- A reduced maximum decibel level would render over 90% of current F2 and F3 product ranges illegal overnight.
- UK importers and retailers would be left holding hundreds of millions of pounds of obsolete, unsellable inventory.
- This would force the immediate closure of seasonal and year-round pyrotechnic businesses, resulting in thousands of redundancies.
- Legitimate consumer demand for traditional fireworks will not disappear; it will simply shift entirely to the illicit black market.
- Heavily leveraged European exporters, specifically from countries like the Netherlands, where consumer fireworks are restricted and massive stock dumping is a threat, will flood the UK with non-compliant, smuggled stock.
Q9Transition periodThis asks how much transition time businesses would need if the proposals are implemented, and why that time is needed.BFA view: A minimum of 7 to 10 years.
Government question
How much lead in time would businesses need to prepare for the changes proposed in this consultation and why? Please state a lead in time in months or years, and explain your answer, providing evidence where possible.
In plain English
This asks how much transition time businesses would need if the proposals are implemented, and why that time is needed.
BFA view
BFA view: A minimum of 7 to 10 years.
Why the BFA takes this view
- The global fireworks sector operates on an exceptionally long, rigid, and complex international supply chain.
- Orders for raw materials, manufacturing in China, shipping logistics and UK warehousing are planned and funded up to 24 months in advance.
- If any technical changes are mandated, such as formulating lower-decibel chemical compositions, product development, stability testing, and mandatory UKCA/CE conformity assessments by approved bodies will take a minimum of 18 to 24 months per product line.
- This is heavily compounded by the current manufacturing and shipping crisis in Liuyang, China, where safety incidents and customs paralysis have severely disrupted global stock flows.
- Any transition period of less than 7 to 10 years would fail to allow UK businesses to safely sell through their existing, highly regulated inventory.
Q10Other considerationsThis asks what wider practical issues Government should consider when deciding how long any transition period should be.BFA view: Government should consider safe disposal of prohibited stock, enforcement capacity, Border Force and port security, and the effect of a short transition on independent retailers.
Government question
What other things should we consider when setting a lead in time? You may wish to reference the impact on people who buy fireworks, enforcement bodies, police or the general public.
In plain English
This asks what wider practical issues Government should consider when deciding how long any transition period should be.
BFA view
BFA view: Government should consider safe disposal of prohibited stock, enforcement capacity, Border Force and port security, and the effect of a short transition on independent retailers.
Why the BFA takes this view
- If products are banned or restricted under a short transition window, hundreds of tonnes of obsolete explosives will be stranded in UK warehouses.
- Legitimate businesses cannot easily or cheaply dispose of explosives.
- A short lead-in time introduces a severe public safety hazard, as cash-strapped businesses may struggle to afford specialist hazard disposal, leading to unsafe storage practices.
- Trading Standards, the Health and Safety Executive and local licensing authorities are already severely under-resourced.
- Forcing a rapid regulatory transition will overwhelm these bodies with testing, verification and enforcement duties, taking vital focus away from tackling the illegal online black market.
Ready to respond?
Build your consultation response
Answer plain-English questions, review every response and submit it yourself through the official Government consultation.