9 Use of phthalates in toys
| (27127)
PE CONS 3645/1/05 REV1
—
| Draft Directive amending for the 22nd time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (phthalates)
|
| Legal base | Article 95 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 6 February 2006
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 34-xv (2005-06), para 8 (18 January 2006)
|
| Discussed in Council | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
9.1 Phthalates are plasticisers which have been used for over
40 years to soften PVC, and are used in a wide range of products.
Concern had, however, been expressed over their use in toys and
childcare articles intended to be put in the mouth, since it was
considered that risks could arise from six phthalates[28]
used in these circumstances. The Commission therefore proposed
in November 1999[29]
a ban on their use in toys and childcare articles intended
to be put in the mouths of children under the age of three, whilst
their use in toys of soft PVC which could be put in the
mouth would have required a warning label.
9.2 This was considered by previous Committees on
a number of occasions between 2000 and 24 October 2004, when the
proposal was cleared, on the basis that an attempt was being made
to reach political agreement at the Competitiveness Council on
a text which reflected new risk assessments. These showed that
three of the six phthalates (DEHP, DBP and BBP) had been identified
as reprotoxic, with a prohibition thus being applied on their
use applying to all toys, whether or not they are intended
to be put in the mouth, whilst information on the other three
(DINP, DIDP and DNOP) was still inconclusive, so that, pending
further risk assessments, the restrictions on them would apply
only to toys intended for children under three years of age and
which can be put in the mouth. Also, the earlier labelling
provisions appeared to have been dropped.
9.3 We ourselves subsequently received three letters
from the Minister for Consumer Affairs at the Department of Trade
and Industry (Mr Gerry Sutcliffe). The first (on 4 August 2005)
said that, following the European Parliament's second reading
vote, a revised text was expected, and was likely to contain changes
significant enough to warrant a new Explanatory Memorandum, whilst
the second (on 8 November 2005) confirmed that the Council had
reached political agreement in October 2004, and reiterated the
earlier undertaking to supply an Explanatory Memorandum on the
revised text, which we were told was expected shortly. However,
the Minister then wrote to us on 29 November 2005 to say that
the matter had now been agreed in COREPER, and that, as the new
text had still not been issued, it had not been possible to provide
the promised Explanatory Memorandum. He also said that the proposed
restriction on phthalates had been broadened, and that this was
likely to have a significant impact on the toys industry.
9.4 We therefore decided to take up the Minister's
offer to provide an Explanatory Memorandum on the revised text,
the effect of which is to impose a total ban on all toys containing
more than 0.1% by mass of DEHP, DBP and BBP, irrespective of whether
they can be out in the mouth, and to impose a similar ban in the
case of DINP, DIDP and DNOP for toys which could be put
in the mouth, irrespective of the age of the child.
9.5 We duly received from the Minister of State for
Industry and the Regions at the Department of Trade and Industry
(Mr Alun Michael) an Explanatory Memorandum of 9 January 2006
enclosing a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment, pointing out
that, according to the industry, substitute ingredients used in
toys cost on average 40% more than phthalates, but that much would
depend upon a guidance document being prepared specifying what
is to be considered as a toy which can be placed in the mouth.
He added that, in view of this, any forecasts of the financial
implications of the Directive would at present be speculative.
9.6 In our Report of 18 January 2006, expressing
the view that the Department's handling of the scrutiny of this
document and its predecessor had been lamentable, we also commented
that, whatever the justification for the measure now adopted,
its impact remained uncertain, and would presumably do so unless
and until the further guidance referred to became available. We
therefore decided simply to draw the various scrutiny lapses to
the attention of the House, but to withhold clearance of the current
document pending further clarification of its financial impact.
Minister's letter of 6 February 2006
9.7 We have now received a letter from the Minister
for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs (Mr Gerry Sutcliffe)
accepting our criticisms of these scrutiny failings and expressing
his regret. He has also enclosed a summary of the economic impact
of the measure, suggesting that the retail toy market in the UK
is worth about £2 billion a year, and that the additional
cost to be absorbed by the UK toys industry as a whole would be
about £74 million. However, he adds that most toys are now
imported (predominantly from China), with only a "handful"
of those companies which manufacture toys in the UK being directly
affected by the Directive.
Conclusion
9.8 We are grateful to the Minister for his letter,
in the light of which we are now clearing the document.
28 Di-"isononyl" phthalate (DNIP), bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate (DEHP), dioctyl phthalate (DNOP), di-"isodecyl"
phthalate (DIDP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) and dibutyl phthalate
(DBP). Back
29
(20750) 13308/99; see HC 23-vi (1999-2000), para 2 (26 January
2000), HC 23-xx (1999-2000), para 5 (7 June 2000) and HC 42-xxxiii
(2003-04), para 10 (20 October 2004). Back
|
