Editorial

The big majority - over 63 per cent - of respondents to an online poll by The Times feel that regular on-site inspections would contribute to safer fireworks manufacture. That is, of course, not to say that danger would be completely eliminated, for a fireworks factory is by definition a danger zone as borne out again last week. The explosions at the fireworks factory in Wied Qirda claimed two lives and placed two others in grave jeopardy, although, luckily, one has now been released from hospital.

There have been a string of such accidents and so many deaths. One cannot belittle the efforts of those who strive to "light up" village feasts even if one may harbour grave reservations about the excesses that go with them.

But quite apart from such reservations, what is really of concern is why we do not seem to learn the lessons we really should from such tragedies. Why is it that the safety factor that should govern this activity remains a rebuke on those whose task it is to launch education campaigns, set down stringent standards and carry out enforcement? How would we fare in a comparative study with other counties concerning the manufacture, storage, conveyance and handling of explosives (at the factory and on-site) that make the process so potentially life-threatening?

It remains true, and it is well to recognise this, that the business of fireworks is an explosion waiting to happen in every sense of the word. One hopes and assumes that a display of fireworks will take place harmlessly in the sky. Both hope and assumption happen to be correct in the overwhelming majority of cases.

That still leaves us with dead bodies when things do not go according to plan, when somebody working in a factory is struck down by a force far greater than he could ever handle, when a human error or a demon in the explosive says so much to life, meet death. How can we make sure, at least as sure as is humanly possible, that production is carried out in a manner that prevents such tragedies?

Setting aside the human element (and the human element is considerable: self-discipline, mind on the job, avoiding casualness when handling materials, eschewing cockiness) it is only the imposition of an impeccable standard of safety, an insistence on it, that can help us through a process that is marked by danger.

There are regulations to govern the process. There are three types of licence holders who are allowed by law to be within the precincts of a fireworks factory and these licences are issued after the applicants follow a course. The truth is that many more people can be found in such factories and many of them would be hands-on.

Is the course applicants follow up to scratch? How often are its contents reviewed and when was the last time this happened? These questions are pertinent especially in view of suspicion that quite a few of those manufacturing fireworks "inherit" the "skill" rather than get formal training. Formal tests, preferably on an ongoing basis, should be mandatory for all those licensed to manufacture fireworks.

The factory structure itself also deserves attention especially since limestone is usually used.

Although on-site inspections are likely to contribute to make such places safer, the risk of death cannot be eliminated. However, more stress on formal training, ongoing education and far better monitoring - and not just to ensure only licensed personnel are on site - are clearly a must.