Just days after many were acclaiming the art of pyrotechnics following St Joseph-Għaxaq’s Bilbao success, we experienced another frustrating and an-gering fireworks tragedy.

I am deeply saddened. I am even more saddened having known Nenu Farrugia throughout my life. It is time for concrete action. Knowing the people in this sector, I am aware that some of them will not be too pleased with this statement. But it has to be done, for their sake and that of their families.

I write as a son who for the past 36 years has lived in dread of hearing a blast and discovering that his father is dead. The last time when minutes felt like hours was on August 13.

As a politician, I feel I have waited long enough. Authorities seem to act only on impulse of public pressure. Despite rhetoric, even this pressure lasts only until funerals are over.

I might score political points by saying the 2008 changes to regulations have reaped no positive results. But this would be cheap and unfair. They were the best deterrent against illegal manufacturing for almost 25 years. Preventing this sector from going underground is imperative. An open-ended moratorium, proposed with all good intentions, would only reverse what has been painstakingly achieved.

Other changes focused on display times, distances and sizes. Nevertheless, it seems to have escaped everyone’s attention that accidents during aerial fireworks displays have been almost unheard of, and have not claimed casualties for decades. Focus must turn steadily to ­production, the first link being raw materials.

I previously felt obliged to take a step back on this issue not to be accused of having ulterior motives by proposing stricter standards which might favour particular players or would restrict market access to new competitors.

The importation rules for explosives and two main oxidizers are stringent, as they should be. Importers must to submit certificates of suitability, storage is in army-owned stores, and supply quotas are imposed.

No such rules exist for other materials, especially those not used exclusively for fireworks. These can be bought practically over the counter, not necessarily from specialised suppliers.

I know for a fact that some suppliers voluntarily provide certificates of analysis and suitability for these products too. This should become a formal obligation. Authorities should also take samples and compare them with declarations.

Notwithstanding this, there would still be loopholes. Individual sourcing of products online and freedom of movement of goods has made parallel routes even more accessible. Globalisation means these methods will persist and increase. Education of users and strict enforcement are key.

A thin line separates innovation and peril in pyrotechnics, a sector that had locally barely seen any innovation for years. Then came the digital age. A simple Google search opens a plethora of internet forums where one can find dozens of “new” formulas from unknown sources, references to new weightings, previously unheard of materials and substitutes.

Reactions, especially latent ones given our particular and changing climate, of some materials and formulas are largely unknown. The local reclusiveness barely helps.

Thus, one key proposal is the obligation on plant licence holders to log in, one day in advance, planned activities and materials to be handled on the following day. This log should be kept at a separate location and be available for inspection. It is a cumbersome but necessary procedure, which then needs to be implemented and overseen.

I also propose discussions on the feasibility of having CCTV cameras installed in strategic places within plants, with footage being transmitted to a separate location. This would not only help identify what would have been going on during, God forbid, an accident, but would discourage unlicensed people entering the premises, as well illegal practices. It is the closest one can get to a ‘black box’.

A word of caution here. There needs to be an expert discussion on this proposal and on the location of eventual installations, especially given the fact that electronic circuits are forbidden in particular locations since they could pose short circuit and radio frequency hazards.

It goes without saying that compulsory ongoing training, as was mooted some time ago, is a must. I would go a step further, abolishing the current Licence A (manufacture and supervision) and Licence B (assistance) system. All those wanting to take part in manufacturing should hold a new licence, which would be equivalent to today’s Licence A.

Would these proposals prevent accidents? Possibly. Certainly they would discourage abuses and help better identify causes.

There are other proposals that should be considered, including the upgrading of existing facilities, allocation of licence holders to specific plants with the possibility of a transfer system, and the potential establishment of maximum capacities.

The blast wall system, introduced in the 1980s with the idea of containing blasts but which some argue is compounding them, needs to be re-examined, together with the introduction of safety ditches, the effect of increasing UV rays, tolerance of mobile phone use, and enforcement of rules.

I was inspired to write this article by a man who years ago at a village feast saw a young boy he barely knew parading an unignited petard which he was banging against a wall. The man lunged towards him, yelling at the boy to stop what he was doing because the firework may go off. He managed to seize the petard. As soon as he did so, it ignited. The boy was unhurt. The man lost part of his right palm.

Had the man failed to act, the young boy would have lost his arm, his eyes, possibly his life.

During his long term in hospital, the man, a humble salesman who earned a living from writing and carrying boxes, learnt to write with his left hand and how to handle things with his disabled body part. Years of practice led him to re-learn writing with his right hand.

He never complained, always feeling it was his duty to save the young boy, whom he did not know, and he would undoubtedly do the same again. That man was my father.

Dr Muscat is Leader of the Opposition.

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott’s column is not appearing this week.