Response to interpellation 2023/24:333 on measures against fireworks
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns measures against fireworks. M argues that the government cannot ban fireworks approved for the EU market due to the pyrotechnics directive 1. M emphasizes that the current order is a well-considered balance between safety, animal welfare, and cultural tradition 2 3, and that the damages have decreased over time 2 3. M believes that local restrictions are possible 2 3 and that general bans are a blunt tool for a small group that already acts outside the law 4. M argues that non-purposeful behavior cannot be tolerated 4. MP believes that the government is balancing incorrectly and does not take sufficient account of people, animals, and the environment 5. MP wants the government to work towards changing the EU directive 6 and advocates for restrictions for persons convicted of weapons offenses 7 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! Rasmus Ling has asked the Minister for Justice whether he will let the question of banning or restricting the use of fireworks by private individuals be investigated and take some measures to ban the sale to, possession of, and use of fireworks by persons who are convicted of, for example, weapons offenses. Furthermore, Rasmus Ling has asked the Minister for Justice whether he will take any other initiatives to limit the damage caused by fireworks and other pyrotechnics.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
The Swedish regulatory framework regarding fireworks is largely based on EU legislation, primarily the so-called pyrotechnics directive. According to the pyrotechnics directive, member states may not prohibit, restrict, or hinder the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles that meet the requirements set out in the directive. However, a member state may take certain measures to prohibit or restrict the possession, use, or sale to the public of certain fireworks for reasons relating to public order, public safety, health and safety, or environmental protection. The pyrotechnics directive does not allow a member state to completely prohibit fireworks.
The Pyrotechnics Directive has been incorporated into Swedish law through the Act on Flammable and Explosive Goods, the associated regulation, and the regulations issued by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, MSB.
Considering that Sweden's national legislation in this area is based on EU legislation, the government cannot ban fireworks that are approved for the EU market.
Sweden has however, against the background of the opportunities provided by EU legislation, introduced certain restrictions regarding fireworks. Among other things, since 2019 there has been a requirement in MSB's regulations that private individuals need special training and a permit to be allowed to use rockets with a guidance rod. During the assessment, the licensing authority will request extracts from the suspicion and criminal record register from the Swedish Police Authority.
Furthermore, it appears from the Public Order Act that pyrotechnic goods may not be used without a permit from the Swedish Police Authority if the use, with regard to the timing, the location, or other circumstances, involves a risk of damage to, or any significant inconvenience for, persons or property. Additionally, the government, with the support of the Public Order Act, has authorized the municipalities to issue the additional regulations needed to prevent people's health or property from being damaged as a result of the use of pyrotechnic goods.
During 2023, the EU Commission initiated work aimed at revising the pyrotechnics directive. The Government welcomes that initiative.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Carl-Oskar Bohlin for the answer to the interpellation. I am glad that we can have this debate tonight. This is an issue that engages many broadly across our country.
I think, Madam Speaker, however, that the answer from Carl-Oskar Bohlin and the government is a bit passive. One explains the regulatory framework, but one says very little about what one wants.
I will raise some reasons and perspectives that exist in this issue. Regarding the commitment, I shall also say that there is a large organization in Sweden - Riksföreningen Stoppa Fyrverkerier för Privatpersoner i Sverige - which has over 23,000 members. There is, therefore, an enormous commitment in this issue.
Three main reasons are pointed out as to why limitations are needed regarding this, and they are people, animals, and the environment. I intend to start with what I think is perhaps the strongest reason, namely all animal owners all over Sweden and above all all animals.
There is a nearly infinite number of testimonies about how animals suffer in various ways during the times when the most fireworks are set off, especially around New Year's Eve. It is dog owners who are locked inside and who have to take care of their dogs and try to calm them even though they are shaking, and it is horse owners and many others. This is something that I think Carl-Oskar Bohlin and the government should take to heart.
It is noted that there is an EU directive to comply with, but that is not the point. It is also noted that the European Commission has begun the work of revising the directive and that the government welcomes the initiative. But what does one want? We are not just passive members of the EU, we are to do things. I would have wished that the government could state what one wants to do and that one wants to limit the damage and perhaps also enable member states to introduce bans on sales.
There is another perspective besides all animals, both those handled by humans and all the others, namely the safety of people. In the interpellation, I raised a number of examples of what happened on the last New Year's Eve. In Alvesta, emergency services personnel were targeted. In Kristianstad, the rescue service was shot at. In Motala, the police had to intervene when youths began firing rockets at each other. Unfortunately, it is not the first time this has happened, and I have myself at one point witnessed how it occurred against a residential building. Unfortunately, it is far too many around the country who have experienced this.
Madam Speaker! I would therefore like to ask a question to Carl-Oskar Bohlin: Will any initiatives be taken to limit the damage? I do not think I received an answer in the interpellation, so I hope that the Minister can elaborate on his answer. Does the government want to change the EU directive in this direction and enable bans or in some other way limit the damage from fireworks?
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! If the question is whether the government intends to work towards a total ban on fireworks in Sweden, the answer is no; there is no such work at the current time.
This is fundamentally about a balance of interests between achieving an order that takes into account people's safety and ensuring that animals are not harmed, and that the two-thousand-year-old tradition we have of fireworks in the world within reasonable limits can be practiced in various specific contexts.
What we can state is that we currently have an arrangement where, according to the fireworks directive, it is not possible to ban fireworks even if the government would like to. However, we do not have such work. A revision of the directive is currently underway, and we will have to see what comes out of this work.
What can be said for the sake of clarification is that fireworks are divided into the categories F1-F4 according to the directive. In Sweden, categories F2, F3 and F4 require a permit, with some exceptions in certain different contexts. It is therefore only the very simplest types of fireworks that do not require a permit.
Furthermore, as I mentioned in the answer, there is a possibility for municipalities to introduce special regulations and more far-reaching restrictions through the municipal public order ordinance, which means that it looks different in different places in the country.
Having this flexibility at the local level is conducive to the local democratic perspective but also allows one to take into account the fact that Sweden does not look the same everywhere. There are different conditions, and it is reasonable to be able to make those types of trade-offs.
What we can observe is that over a ten-year period we see a decrease when it comes to injuries from firework pieces. In 2012, approximately 100 people needed to seek inpatient care or specialized outpatient care as a result of an explosion of a firework piece. Last year the number was 60, so the work that has been carried out over time in this area with, among other things, permit requirements and other measures means that we see a trend where the number of those injured by firework pieces is declining. This is, naturally, a positive development in this context.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! The Government has stated that we are bound by a directive and therefore cannot do anything. They also clarify that now that the directive is up for revision, they also do not want to enable Sweden or other member countries that so desire to introduce a ban, but it shall continue to be impossible for Sweden. There I can question local democracy or national democracy, if the Government does not want that the path should be able to be taken.
Madam Speaker! It is naturally correct and right as Carl-Oskar Bohlin says that Sweden looks different, but there is no municipality in Sweden where there are not animals that suffer when fireworks are set off. So it is across the country. This we should be able to agree on.
Another thing that I asked about in the interpellation, Madam Speaker, and which I think the government should be able to stand behind is a restriction for persons who have been convicted, for example, under the Weapons Act or the Knife Act. I actually cannot understand why the government does not consider that a restriction should be made for persons who have recently been convicted of that type of crime. Is it reasonable that a person who has been convicted of a weapons crime should be able to legally buy fireworks and walk around with them in town? I do not think so, Madam Speaker, and there I think the government should be able to agree.
I also want to point out that this should not be a block- or party-dividing issue. Carl-Oskar Bohlin's former colleague in the Riksdag, MP Boriana Åberg, has championed this issue. Even the Kristdemokraterna, which is also a government party, has stated that they want to see restrictions. There is a great pressure from citizens on this issue, and it should not be party-dividing.
There are also Social Democrats who have pushed for this, but perhaps the government does not take that into account, just like members of the Centre Party. Many who have voted for the parties that make up the government or the government base consider this to be an important issue. Perhaps Carl-Oskar Bohlin should take that into account.
Since I have a little time left, I shall pose a more concise question, in addition to the question I had regarding those who have been convicted of crimes. It concerns the questions that the Christian Democratic member Torsten Elofsson raised in an article in Sydsvenskan the day before New Year's Eve regarding the Christian Democrats wanting to introduce permit requirements for the purchase of pyrotechnic goods, that conditions for use are specified in the application and permit, and that sanctions shall be imposed if sales are made to persons who lack a permit.
Madam Speaker! Is this not something that the government should be able to take to heart and put forward proposals on?
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! Just as Rasmus Ling expresses, I do not believe that this is necessarily a block-dividing issue, but rather that it is very much about what one personally has for starting values and relation to the issue.
There are many legitimate interests to take into account. And this must be based on some kind of overall assessment, a balancing of interests where one tries to accommodate different interests and balance various competing interests against one another. One interest is, of course, how pets and others experience this situation. To totally ban fireworks, which nevertheless have a cultural and historical place in the social landscape during certain holidays, is however very far-reaching.
The order we have now is that the use of fireworks is quite strictly restricted, specified to certain specific contexts and holidays with an extensive permit requirement.
I mentioned in my opening statement on the question of persons who appear in the criminal records that it is part of what is weighed in the permit review conducted by MSB in order for one to be eligible for such a permit.
Then, of course, one can always have a discussion about the demarcation between what should be subject to a permit and what should not. But the government currently argues that, taken as a whole, we have a relatively well-balanced situation. One may need to look at individual cases, and one may need to make revisions. But in combination with a relatively extensive permit requirement, we have also included the question of that municipalities can make further restrictions in their public order regulations regarding how fireworks may be used, and we have an arrangement that tries to balance, among other things, the various interests that I have highlighted.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! All politics is about balancing of interests. Here, I and my party, Miljöpartiet, mean that the government is balancing incorrectly. Sufficient consideration is not taken into account for people who are harmed, for animals that suffer and are harmed, and for the environmental consequences.
Changing EU legislation and making it so that this becomes prohibited for private individuals does not mean that one has to give up the cultural heritage that Carl-Oskar Bohlin speaks about. Municipalities can, in that case, with trained staff - or with companies that are trained in how this should be done - provide this in another way. Then one can have pyrotechnic activities as in other cases. It is entirely possible. But if one does not want to do this, it will naturally not be possible.
Madam Speaker! I regret that the government does not take these interests more seriously. I also think that greater restrictions should be possible, at least when it concerns persons who have been convicted of, for example, weapons offenses.
We also know, Madam Speaker, that even in cases where municipalities have made quite large restrictions in their local public order regulations, the police's possibilities to respond during these days are largely non-existent. Too much is happening, and one is under too much pressure. The possibility to prioritize when such things occur is unfortunately far too small. Violations of this will unfortunately be possible in far too many cases without there being any consequence. And I believe that Carl-Oskar Bohlin is well aware that this is the case.
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! I note Member Ling's views and note that the government, in some parts, makes a different assessment of the whole. But I want to say in conclusion that people who use fireworks in an improper manner and fire them at each other and so on, as it has been up as a side note in this discussion, is naturally a behavior that cannot be tolerated in society at all. And it is very important to make clear that it is not uncommon that people who commit such behavior also commit a number of crimes simultaneously. This shall, of course, be prosecuted with the full force of society. And it is not necessarily the case that one solves this problem with different types of general prohibitions. It is at least the case that general prohibitions in this context are a blunt tool for a small group of people who are already outside the framework of the law in their actions as they are today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.