Opposition encourages lawful pyrotechnics

Labour MP Gavin Gulia said the opposition encouraged and agreed with the pyrotechnic industry so long as it operated within the parameters of the law.

Speaking during the debate on the Bill amending the Explosives Ordinance, he said that he saw it as protecting the industry. It was consequential to the circumstances of a few months ago and was aimed at increasing deterrents to avoid the recurrence of such tragedies.

The country needed the pyrotechnic industry: It was part of the islands' tradition and it would not be fair if those working in the industry within the legal parameters were not safeguarded.

Dr Gulia said that one should not associate what had happened a few months ago with the state of fireworks factories owned by band clubs. What took place at Naxxar did not happen in a factory but in a garage. Therefore, he said, a distinction should be made between legal fireworks factories and unlicensed places.

The Bill was in no way restricting fireworks factories which were operating within the law. Everything depended on enforcement, and he hoped that this would not be aimed at the pyrotechnic industry but at the illegal activity which damaged the lawful industry.

If a particular legal circumstance was imposed in a certain way and this was not enough to serve as a deterrent, it was being enforced with the aim of instilling fear in abusers. Fines and crime levels were being increased for this reason.

Dr Gulia asked why such a Bill was being moved now, in reaction to the tragedy that had taken place. Why had the government not been proactive?

On the prospect of arrest without warrant of a person committing an offence against the ordinance, there were many qualifications as to when a police officer could arrest a suspect. Although this was a matter of detail, this paragraph needed to be refined because, in its current state, the Bill was widening the power of arrest.

Interjecting, Minister Mifsud Bonnici said that the clause was the effect of the fear of a looming war in 1937, when the ordinance had been introduced. He said he was ready to amend this during committee stage.

Continuing, Dr Gulia referred to court orders to revoke licences. He noted that this was discretional in certain instances and imposed on the court in others. The law should be clear.

A suspected person would be invited to cooperate with the police and, as a result, his punishment would be reduced by one or two degrees as regards imprisonment and by one-third to one-half as regards any pecuniary penalty. But when was such cooperation expected? During the taking of statements or once the compilation of evidence would have started? The clause could be used to encourage persons to cooperate at an early stage, but cooperation should also be encouraged later, because such cooperation would still be beneficial.

Dr Gulia said it was somewhat worrying that the police commissioner was being given the power to close down a factory for not more than a month if there was reasonable suspicion that the law was being breached. The Police Commissioner seemed to be given judicial power, and extreme care in exercising such power had to be used. There could be someone operating according to law and, if the Police Commissioner closed down a factory on the basis of an unfounded suspicion, such closure could well ruin a village feast as a result.

The courts could, while proceedings were still pending, order the factory to remain closed until the conclusion of the proceedings. He said he was skeptical of this power and proposed that a fast-track system should be found for the Commissioner to apply to the courts for the power to close the factory even before proceedings started.

He asked who would pay damages if it was eventually established that a factory had been closed without just cause.

Concluding, Dr Gulia said the opposition was in favour of the Bill in principle, but there was still a lot of fine-tuning to be done at committee stage.

Parliamentary Secretary Mario Galea said that fireworks in Malta were an activity of great risks and dangers in which one had to be properly trained.

The love of fireworks was deeply ingrained in Maltese and Gozitans. They were important for the Maltese festa and a tourist attraction. The Maltese were among the most capable people in the Mediterranean. Many parishioners also contributed funds for their local feasts' fireworks.

The aim of the Bill was to protect the tradition. Those who were licensed to manufacture fireworks were not against increasing controls but against abuse. Those against were those who knew very little but thought they knew a lot. And to know only a little in this sector was a recipe for disaster. An element of danger remained even for experts, let alone for those who knew only a little.

Legislation did not harm tradition. Tradition was harmed by those who were irresponsible and manufactured fireworks in unlicensed places. Fines were being heftily increased from the €76 in the law being amended.

The Bill also provided for the forfeiture of property. People involved were in favour of stiff fines, but believed that the best deterrent was forfeiture of property.

Mr Galea said tradition had to be safeguarded and made as safe as possible. Good intentions to control abuse were not enough. An information campaign among licensed personnel should be undertaken to explain to them that the legislation was aimed at addressing abuse and not at destroying the industry. This had to be followed up by enforcement.

He said that the main aim of the Bill was not to collect fines and send people to prison but to reduce tragedies. Supervisory visits to licensed factories were also important to ensure that all was in order.

Mr Galea referred to the inquiry report following last year's tragedy (at Birkirkara) and said that, as it had noted, open days at fireworks factories should not be permitted.

Other recommendations that the government should consider included that fireworks factories would not have concrete ceilings. It noted that potassium chlorate was dangerous and the amount taken by all associations had to be reduced by half. This was already taking place. There were recommendations on materials that should and should not be used. The amendments being moved were part of the recommendations.

In conclusion, Mr Galea said the Bill was aimed at giving tools to the forces of law and order to bring abusers into line.

Labour MP Michael Falzon said that the Bill did not distinguish between civil and military pyrotechnics. Such a distinction should be made even for its significance - while an explosive in military pyrotechnics was destructive, in civil pyrotechnics it was something beautiful.

He declared his interest in pyrotechnics, saying he was an enthusiast, a licence holder and the legal adviser to a fireworks factory.

Dr Falzon spoke on the abilities of Maltese fireworks manufacturers and said they were among the best in countries where this art was practised. There was a strong voluntary aspect, but these people were rarely appreciated for their work. Many did not even see the result of their efforts, and complaints against noise, which was part and parcel of pyrotechnics, had been repeatedly registered.

Malta's work, Dr Falzon said, was a unique craft which was not done anywhere else in the world. Moreover, the work in Malta was not done for profit.

He said that the Bill was primarily increasing fines. Although this was not bad in itself, there were things on which one could work more, even perhaps in the Bill, and there were others which were of a worrying nature.

The opposition, he clarified, was against all illegalities. A distinction should be made between something going wrong in a legal operation and something done illegally.

Dr Falzon warned against making the life of enthusiasts more difficult. He pointed out that the Explosives Committee did not currently include a person close to the sector, as it did until some time ago. This should not be the case.

There should also be follow-ups to courses undertaken. Courses for Licences A and B were held in September, but the people who took the courses had not yet been called for an interview. Those who applied for Licence C had been waiting for almost a year. Such delays should not be allowed.

With its lack of action the government could be giving one an incentive to break the law.

Dr Falzon emphasised the need for education, stressing that any mistake could have dramatic and even fatal results. The Birkirkara and Naxxar tragedies were still fresh in people's minds and recurrence should be avoided.

Fireworks in built-up areas and illegal fireworks should never be accepted. Incidents such as that of Naxxar should never be repeated. But there would always be incidents because this was a dangerous industry.

An emphasis should be made on the upgrading of existing factories in an organised manner and over a period of time. Factories should have blast walls, for example, and mixing should be carried out in three-walled rooms. Money from the Good Causes Fund could perhaps be used for this purpose.

On the use of potassium perchlorate instead of potassium chlorate, he said one should be careful as pyrotechnicians might return to the use of sulphur if they found a lack of potassium chlorate.

Enthusiasts, he said, could not be used for feasts and for tourism advertising without being assisted. The government could not be just reactive. The time had come to not just look at increasing fines but also at improving the situation.

He criticised the discretion the Bill was giving the police. Closing a factory for a month, he said, could do more harm than good.