The Future of Fireworks in the UK: An Expert Review of the Government’s 2026 Proposals

Fireworks bring people together. They mark Bonfire Night, Diwali, Chinese New Year, New Year’s Eve, weddings and personal milestones. But careless or deliberate misuse can cause distress and harm to people and the environment.

Any responsible firework retailer must acknowledge both of these truths.

In July 2026, the UK Government opened a consultation on significant changes to firework and pyrotechnic regulations. These include a lower noise limit for consumer fireworks and potential restrictions on additional products. The consultation follows years of petitions about the effects of fireworks on animals, vulnerable people, neighbourhoods and emergency services.

The Government is not proposing a total ban on consumer fireworks and acknowledges that such a restriction would be disproportionate. This is an important recognition that millions of people enjoy fireworks responsibly and that lawful consumer use should be preserved alongside proportionate measures addressing any evidenced harms.

As a specialist retailer, designer and importer, Chorlton Fireworks supports evidence-led improvements to firework safety. However, responsible consumers using compliant products should not bear the consequences of illegal sales, careless misuse or deliberate criminal behaviour.

In this review, we break down the changes being considered in government, where the true dangers lie, and how compromise could ultimately be reached to meet essential safety measures without imposing undue restrictions on consumers.

What is the Government proposing?

The Government's open consultation is not proposing a complete ban on consumer fireworks. It is consulting on several targeted changes that could nevertheless significantly affect the products available to the public:

1. Reducing the maximum noise limit for consumer fireworks from 120dB to 110dB, while also seeking views on limits of 100dB or 90dB.

2. Restricting fireworks above the chosen noise limit to professional users.

3. Adding more F2 and F3 fireworks to the list of products prohibited from general sale.

4. Clarifying whether fireworks containing more than one shot tube should be prohibited from consumer sale - wording that could potentially affect cakes, barrages and compound fireworks.

5. Reviewing the requirements for lower-risk F1 and P1 pyrotechnics, including removing the purchasing age for Christmas crackers.

6. Introducing any approved changes with a proposed six-month transition period.

No changes have been made to the law yet. The consultation closes at 11.59pm on 7 October 2026.

What Would The Change Look Like?

Fireworks are already regulated by category, age, sales period, place of use and noise output. However, the consultation could introduce some of the most substantial changes to the consumer market in years.

What Could Change for Consumers?

The most noticeable difference could be a smaller and quieter product range. Some louder fireworks would become professional-only, while restrictions on additional F2 and F3 products could remove particular effects altogether. If the multi-shot wording includes ordinary cakes, barrages and compounds, consumers could also lose many of the single-ignition products used to create complete displays.

The extent of that change remains uncertain. Much depends on the final noise limit and how the Government defines the products covered by its proposed restrictions.

What Could Change for Retailers?

Retailers and importers may need to withdraw affected stock, alter their ranges and source newly compliant alternatives. Products could also require redesign, fresh conformity assessment or different labelling. As fireworks are commonly ordered and manufactured long before the main UK season, a six-month transition may affect stock already paid for, in production or legally imported.

The reforms, therefore, range from a modest adjustment to a potentially major restructuring of the consumer market. A meaningful assessment will not be possible until the Government publishes clearer product definitions and a complete impact analysis.

The Principles That Should Guide Firework Reform

As a long-standing fireworks supplier, we believe that any reform should meet five tests:

1. It should address a clearly defined harm. Noise disturbance, accidental injury and an attack on an emergency worker are serious but different problems.

2. It should be supported by relevant evidence. A product should not be prohibited merely because someone has used an example of it unlawfully.

3. It should be enforceable. A rule followed by licensed retailers but ignored by illegal sellers may reduce legitimate supply without stopping dangerous behaviour.

4. Less restrictive measures should be considered. Better information, enforcement or product-specific controls may sometimes achieve more than a broad prohibition.

5. Its results should be measured. The Government should establish how it will determine whether each change reduces injuries, fires, distress or antisocial behaviour.

This is not an argument against regulation. Fireworks are already, and should remain, closely regulated products. But precise regulation could reduce harm in practice without such a significant impact on consumer experience and retailers’ livelihood.

The Actual Risks Associated With Fireworks

Fireworks contain explosive compositions and produce heat, light, sound and moving effects. Product testing and instructions control those risks; they do not eliminate them.

A ten-year study at one UK regional burns and plastic surgery unit identified 93 patients with firework-related injuries, an average of approximately nine cases per year. As the study does not report the unit’s total patient numbers, it cannot tell us what proportion of all injuries were firework-related or establish the national incidence.

Home Office data recorded an average of approximately 260 primary fires a year in England in which fireworks were identified as the source of ignition between 2010–11 and 2021–22. However, these figures do not tell us whether each incident involved a compliant or illegal product, a defect, incorrect use, poor disposal or deliberate behaviour. Better incident data is essential if regulation is to target the causes rather than the broadest available category.

Sudden explosions can cause fear or distress in some pets, horses and other animals. Evidence is strongest for dogs, although research has also documented fear, escape behaviour and injuries involving horses.

Firework sounds, flashes and smells may cause sensory distress for some autistic people and others with noise sensitivities. But it’s important to note these responses vary considerably. Many neurodivergent and disabled people enjoy fireworks, including audiences at the specialist schools Chorlton Fireworks supplies, while others may need advance notice, greater distance or lower-noise displays to participate comfortably. The solution to this should be in managing the firework event and having awareness of the audience and the surrounding area. Low-noise fireworks are often a good alternative when noise sensitivity is a concern.

Fireworks Are Already Subject to Extensive Controls

UK law divides fireworks into four categories. F1 covers very low-hazard products, including some indoor items. F2 products are intended for outdoor use in limited space, while F3 products require a large open space. F4 fireworks are for people with specialist knowledge.

Consumer F2 and F3 fireworks cannot be sold to anyone under 18. Category F4 products are not available to ordinary consumers and only to trained or licensed professionals. Most retailers can sell F2 and F3 fireworks only around recognised celebrations, while year-round sales require an additional licence. Storage is regulated, products must meet conformity and labelling requirements, and consumer fireworks currently have a maximum noise level of 120dB(A,imp) at the relevant category safety distance.

Firework laws state that fireworks generally cannot be used between 11pm and 7am. The exceptions extend to midnight on Bonfire Night and 1am for New Year’s Eve, Diwali and Chinese New Year. Where fireworks can be used is also restricted. It is also illegal to throw or discharge fireworks in a street or other public place without lawful authority.

This is relevant because some of the conduct causing the greatest concern (fireworks fired at people, used in streets, supplied to children or discharged after the curfew) is already illegal. Product regulation cannot substitute for enforcing behaviour-based offences.

On Prohibiting More F2 and F3 Products

The Government wants to add products that present “unacceptable risks” to the existing list of products prohibited from general sale. It asks respondents which F2 and F3 products should be included, but does not provide a settled list.

We support restricting a product where credible evidence demonstrates an unacceptable inherent risk that cannot be adequately controlled through design, classification, instructions or appropriate use. However, each addition should be supported by product-specific incident evidence and an assessment of likely consequences.

Using rockets or Roman candles as weapons, for example, demonstrates a serious criminal behaviour. It does not automatically establish that every compliant product of that type poses an unacceptable risk when used as directed. The Government must explain whether it is seeking to prevent an inherent safety defect, ordinary accidental misuse or deliberate attacks, because those problems require different interventions.

It must also consider displacement. In its 2020 response to Parliament’s Fireworks Inquiry, the Government acknowledged police concerns that a total ban could “push the market underground and make it more difficult to monitor”. A targeted restriction is not the same as a ban, but any significant reduction in legitimate availability should still be assessed for its effects on the illegal market.

The Multi-Shot Question Requires Urgent Clarification

The consultation’s most concerning wording appears in Question 3. It asks whether the law should make explicit that “a firework comprising more than one shot tube” is prohibited from sale to the public.

Existing regulation 33 prohibits particular individual shot tubes: those producing a report as their principal effect or having an inside diameter greater than 30mm. Cakes and barrages commonly contain multiple tubes fired in a designed sequence, while compound fireworks connect several certified items on a stable base.

Read broadly, the new wording could encompass established consumer categories rather than simply clarify the existing rule. The British Fireworks Association says cakes, barrages and combinations account for more than 70% of F2 and F3 retail sales. That is an industry estimate, but it illustrates the potential scale of the ambiguity.

Further to that, multi-shot fireworks can offer safety advantages because a single fuse produces an entire pre-engineered sequence, reducing the number of times users must approach, position and ignite individual fireworks. Their broad, flat-bottomed construction can also provide greater stability than individual tubes when properly positioned and secured in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Before proceeding, the Government should publish a technical definition and a product-level impact assessment showing exactly what would be removed. It should identify the hazardous characteristics it intends to address and explain how the amendment interacts with the separate legal definitions of shot tubes, batteries and combinations.

We cannot support wording that may prohibit broad categories of compliant products without this clarification and supporting evidence. As addressed above, it would also be prudent to assess whether replacing single-ignition sequences with a greater number of separately lit items could increase operator exposure or set-up errors.

Should the Consumer Noise Limit Be Reduced?

The Government proposes reducing the maximum from 120dB to 110dB, which it describes as approximately half as loud in perceived terms. The consultation also offers options of 100dB and 90dB. It estimates that the preferred 110dB limit would affect around one-third of current consumer products.

However, choosing a statutory threshold requires more than demonstrating that noise causes distress. The Government should show the expected welfare benefit at 110dB, 100dB and 90dB; how many products each option would affect; and whether its test method will classify products consistently.

Peak decibels are not the entire experience. Distance, buildings, weather, repetition, duration and unpredictability all affect how sound is perceived. Standardised consumer information about noise and duration could help people make more considerate choices regardless of the eventual limit.

We support the growth of lower-noise choices and better noise information. A particular legal ceiling should nevertheless be based on measurable benefit, reliable testing and a complete assessment of its effects.

Lower-Risk Products and Christmas Crackers

The consultation also reviews F1 and P1 products, a broad group containing everything from Christmas crackers and party poppers to smoke products and indoor pyrotechnics.

The Government proposes removing the minimum purchasing age for Christmas crackers because the risk is negligible and age checks impose a disproportionate retail burden. It also asks whether controls on other F1 and P1 products should change.

The sensible principle is product-specific regulation. Items within the same legal category can have very different uses and risk profiles. Controls should respond to the characteristics and evidence associated with each product, not merely its broad classification.

Six Months is Not a Realistic Transition

The Government proposes a six-month transition after any new law is made. Yet its own figures show that more than 95% of UK fireworks imports come from China. Products have lengthy design, production, conformity-assessment, shipping and seasonal stock cycles.

Safety should not be delayed simply to protect commercial interests. Equally, implementation is part of a good safety policy. A transition that leaves large volumes of previously legal stock unsaleable could create financial pressure, confusion and incentives for irregular disposal or illicit sale.

A better way to approach this would be to gather documented lead times from manufacturers, importers, testing bodies and retailers, then align implementation with actual production and sales cycles. The Government should also state how stock already manufactured, shipped or legally placed on the market will be treated.

Where Reform Should Focus

A safer future for fireworks should include more than product restrictions. In our capacity as a firework retailer with expertise in the industry, we believe the Government should:

• Enforce existing offences involving public-place use, curfew breaches, underage sales and attacks;

• Target illegal imports, rogue sellers and non-compliant online supply;

• Improve national recording of product type, supply route and circumstances in firework incidents;

• Introduce clear, consistent consumer information about noise, required space and duration;

• Strengthen practical education on securing products, misfires, combustibles, disposal, weather and alcohol;

• Encourage advance notice to neighbours and nearby animal keepers;

• Give legitimate businesses a transition based on real supply-chain evidence; and

• Review the results of new regulations against published measures of injury, fire, distress and criminal misuse.

Responsible retailers also have obligations. Chorlton Fireworks already offers safety guidance, product advice and a dedicated lower-noise range. The industry should continue improving how it helps customers choose products suitable for their available space and surroundings.

Reform the System Without Abandoning Responsible Use

The debate should not force a choice between ignoring the harms associated with fireworks and ending responsible consumer celebrations. Both positions are too simplistic.

The Government is right to address injury, noise, animal welfare and antisocial behaviour. But effective reform requires precision. It must distinguish the safety of a product when correctly used from negligent use, illegal supply and deliberate attacks. It must demonstrate how each restriction will reduce a defined harm and consider whether enforcement, information or narrower controls could achieve the same objective more effectively.

We support a future in which celebrations are safer, more considerate and better informed. We also believe responsible adults should retain access to compliant consumer fireworks unless evidence shows that a particular product or practice presents an unacceptable risk that cannot be controlled by proportionate means.

Everyone affected, whether they enjoy fireworks, fear them, sell them, regulate them or care for people and animals distressed by them, should respond to the official consultation by 7 October 2026.