Stakeholders upset about fireworks consultation

SEVERAL stakeholders expressed their dissatisfaction with a virtual consultation that the Office of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs held on the draft Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (or Fireworks Bill) on Friday.

The consultation featured Minister in the Office of the AG and Legal Affairs Renuka Sagramsingh-Sooklal, three members of the Law Reform Commission (LRC) and a moderator from the ministry, Naasir Mohammed. While some e-mailed comments and questions were read out during the consultation, there was no live participation from anyone other than Sagramsingh-Sooklal and the LRC members

In an open letter to Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, Animals 360 founder Roger Marshall said, "There was nothing honourable or decent about the actions of the Office of the Attorney General in blocking participants from participating in the advertised consultation process on fireworks on the 12th August, 2022."

He described the event as a sham which was "nothing short of fabricated theatre to insult the intelligence of the population."

Until the new law is passed, Marshall urged Armour to take a note to Cabinet to direct the relevant government minister to immediately prescribe designated times, dates and locations for the safe discharge of fireworks for upcoming festivities.

"Do the right thing. Protect the citizens."

Marshall said based on a survey of over 3,000 people, 95 per cent want protection from fireworks and for their use by the general public to be banned.

He questioned whether the LRC considered reports from a parliamentary joint select committee and the Environmental Management Authority in drafting the bill.

"There are absolutely no recommendations from either of these bodies that could justify a free-for-all onslaught on a public holiday or on the 31st of December as proposed in the draft bill.

Marshall noted comments during the consultation by Sagramsingh-Sooklal and LRC members about other options to regulate the purchase and use of fire works would "essentially put an end to the (fireworks) industry, causing suppliers to suffer significant losses."

He described this view as shallow thinking.

"What about changing the business model?" Marshall said poultry and livestock farmers' livelihoods are also negatively affected by fireworks. He was uncertain whether the bill considered their concerns.

"Do they not matter? Are we prioritising fireworks over food security?"

Marshall said once the general public has access to fireworks, the authorities cannot police them.

"The recommendations in the draft bill are simply absurd and removed what little protection citizens currently have under the existing Summary Offences Act."

Marshall claimed the draft "promotes increased callous and irresponsible use of fireworks in that it relaxes current restrictions and encourages the use of fireworks for 95 per cent of traditional fireworks usage."

He described this as a backward step.

"We cannot continue to encourage or sanction a behaviour that is detrimental to the health, peace and security of our citizens."

Marshall recommended that the sale, import and use of fireworks to or by the general public be banned.

There should be licensed commercial fireworks operators to stage safe fireworks displays for the enjoyment of people on approved national days of significance. These include Independence Day (August 31) and Old Year's Day (December 31). Fireworks should be discharged only at approved locations, at sufficient distances to avoid harm to people and animals and there should be legislated maximum decibel levels for fireworks.

He lamented that this issue has dragged on for 19 years.

Animal-rights activist and Newsday columnist Elspeth Duncan agreed with Marshall. She said groups such as Animals Alive and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (TTSPCA) were invited to the consultation but were unable to participate in it.

"Their presentation appeared to favour the fireworks industry and did not take into consideration the views of many individuals and organisations who have been calling for years for a ban on fireworks, banning of sale to regular citizens, etc."

Duncan disagreed with Sagramsingh-Sooklal's description of fireworks as part of TT's culture.

"This is no excuse for continuing to allow what has been traumatising (sometimes fatally) so many animals and people."

One member of the public, who declined to give her name, said about the consultation, "Most of the difficult questions were completely bypassed. It looks to me as though the decision has been made.

"The new law as you probably know, actually expands the reach and use of fireworks. It’s horrific. And it shows no respect for the majority. The money being made by a small number (one?!) of people is at the expense of our quality of life and our animals. It’s just horrific."

Fire One Fireworks managing director Andre Abraham regretted being unable to participate in the consultation.

"Would have been nice, but maybe next time we will be able to."

The main legislative amendments contained in the draft bill are: regulating the use of fireworks through a permit system; making breaches of the law a ticketable offence via a fixed penalty system; general provisions for permits to be granted to use fireworks; requirements to notify certain entities about the intended use of fireworks; the use of fireworks on specified days without a permit; restrictions on the use of fireworks by certain people; restrictions on the use of fireworks in designated areas and for the relevant minister to make regulations.

On Friday, Sagramsingh-Sooklal said the draft bill seeks to strike a balance between responsible use of fireworks and the peaceful enjoyment of property, public safety and the interests of the fireworks industry.