Ian
Pearson: I understand the hon. Gentleman’ point and
I can certainly confirm that enforcement in the United Kingdom is
currently through trading standards officers, who have general
statutory enforcement powers under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
There is a training issue in that we must make sure that the relevant
people are aware of the new directive and its requirements. I do not
want to underestimate the costs of providing training to make sure that
trading standards officers are kept up to date, but we would expect
such training to be a normal part of their continuing professional
development. I do not expect there to be significant extra costs for
training existing trading standards
officers. On
the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, the Government have made
substantial additional funding available to local authorities during
the past 11 years. It is up to local authorities themselves to make
decisions on council tax, and I am pleased to see that council tax
increases will average 3.5 per cent. this year. The amount of money
that the Government have made available should not mean that there will
be significant cuts to trading standards or, indeed, other parts of
council
budgets. John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I am pleased to serve
under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Weir. I
share the concern of the hon. Member for Stroud about that particular
food hazard, but when one reads page 116—and it is not only
there—it seems clear that the data available to the Commission
are sketchy. Does the Minister have any more reliable data? If the
directive has been adopted, there will be some subtlety in terms of
implementation. What else can we change?
Ian
Pearson: The figures that I have given on the revised cost
to industry and the revised benefits are the best that we have
available at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the
detail of the original partial impact assessment, he will see that it
is quite a complicated state of affairs. There is a lot of uncertainty
at the moment about the figures. We have talked to the industry overall
about the compromise that has been reached on the directive and its
general view is that it is tough, but manageable. Industry does not
welcome that in some cases it will have to change its practices and
procedures, and I understand that, but as I have outlined, the benefits
of the directive being implemented overall outweigh the costs. That is
why we have previously said that to the
Committee.
Mr.
Drew: I shall be brief on this round of questions. Why
have we continued with the age level of 36 months that has been chosen,
given that many children still cannot read a label at that age? What
clarification is there in terms of being able to read a label and
making sure that it is legible? If we are, for example, talking about
my proffered chocolate egg, it is not always possible to read the
warning. Does the warning have to be in the language of the country in
which the product is being
sold?
Ian
Pearson: My hon. Friend asked a number of questions. On
the issue of 36 months, as far as I am aware, we still think that that
is an appropriate level at which to distinguish between babies, very
young children and more grown up young children. However, none of that
negates the need for parental supervision. Indeed, he will be aware
that the changes to the directive, in some cases, indicate where there
needs to be better labelling about the role of parents. We are not
assuming that all children can read by the age of 36 months; that is
clearly not so and that is not what the directive is
about. The labelling needs to be able to be read in
each member state. I understand that that is taken account of in the
normal way in which member states implement and transpose the
directive.
John
Hemming: I thank the Minister for his earlier response,
but the question was more about accidents and data about what is
actually going on with children. One would assume that there was
a foundation for making changes such as this, but when reading about
the egg situation, particularly, the information says that there are no
real data to rely on. One wonders how we have come to particular
conclusions.
Ian
Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in some
cases, there is a paucity of data. He will be aware that there has been
talk about updating this directive for a number of years. He will also
be aware of some of the health scares of 2007. It is arguable whether
those scares could have been prevented if this legislation had been put
in place, but it certainly could not have applied with regard to
excessive lead in paints, because that was illegal anyway. In respect
of the other high-profile case of magnets dropping out of toys after a
period of time and potentially being ingested by young children, that
might be prevented in future, if such items are regarded as not having
been completely contained and if research and product safety approval
has led to some
benefits. On
the hon. Gentleman’s valid overall point about there not being a
great deal of data out there, there is probably a need for research to
continue in this area. That is one reason why we, as the UK Government,
stressed the need for proportionality during the negotiations. There
were not clear, demonstrable areas where there was harm and things that
needed to be done to improve the directive
overall.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I should like to follow on from the
question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. The Minister
has given us some figures on the costs and the net present benefits.
Could he enlarge on how he came up with his costs? How many businesses
does he think there are in the industry? What is the average cost to
each business? How many accidents are there each year? I have obtained
one figure from a website showing that there may be as many as 40,000
accidents each year relating to injuries caused by unsafe toys. I
believe that some of those accidents may include people who have
tripped on or fallen over toys, but what figures does he have on the
actual risk and danger that this modification is supposed to overcome?
He must have done some of that work, otherwise he could not have come
up with a net benefit figure of plus £1.5 billion or
minus £507 million. If the Government have produced these
figures, they must have had some background analysis to base them on. I
should be grateful if the Minister enlightened the Committee on that
matter.
Ian
Pearson: The hon. Gentleman asks about the background
information on the industry. I have some figures available that
indicate that the gross value added by the toy industry as a
whole was approximately £181 million in 2006, with a total
turnover of £500 million. It comprises 690
businesses, mainly small and medium-sized companies employing about
5,000 people in total. Some 86 per cent. of those businesses have fewer
than nine
employees, which is due to the nature of the UK toys
market, in which domestic activity these days tends to be limited to
assembly packaging or distribution rather than manufacture. Around
£1.5 billion-worth of toys were imported to the UK in 2006, 70
per cent. of which came from outside the EU. Those imports are mostly
from China these days. Around £600 million-worth of toys were
exported in the same
period. On
the impact assessment, the market failure rationale behind the revision
of the toy safety directive relates to asymmetric information. Children
and parents are not able accurately to judge a toy’s safety
prior to purchase. There is insufficient provision in the toy safety
directive for manufacturers or importers to display or document a
product’s characteristics, and surveillance authorities do not
have enough information on the toy’s safety. There is an
argument that there is a lack of clarity on the scope of the revision
directive and the objectives that it is trying to fulfil, which is to
allow the functioning of the internal market for toys while ensuring
adequate safety enforcement and clarification of scope and
concepts. I
fully appreciate the points that the hon. Member for Cotswold and other
hon. Members made about pointing to clear benefits. I have to say that
the information that we have is less robust and statistics-based than
we would like. However, the balance of opinion among member states who
looked at the matter was that there was a requirement to revise the
directive—that is why there has been a discussion and
negotiation process. He will be aware of how the process works and the
fact that compromises take place as a
result.
Mr.
Drew: I am pleased that the new directive says something
about toys embedded in foodstuffs and makes it clear that the EU has
the right to deem them illegal. That is currently the situation in the
United States, where hybrids are not allowed for sale. I am interested
in how we can determine whether the packaging separates the food and
the toy, and what kind of tests would be applicable to demonstrate that
the separation is real rather than
perceived.
Ian
Pearson: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He is
right to be concerned about food products containing small toys that
are capable of being ingested by young children. The days of the
sixpence in the Christmas pudding are long gone. We must make it clear
that we will not allow food products in the marketplace that contain
toys that could pose a risk to young children. We must either ensure
that they are banned and not allowed in the marketplace in the first
instance, or that there are strict labelling requirements. That is what
I believe the directive seeks to achieve. It certainly tightens up the
present
legislation.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I do not want to be unkind to the Minister,
because I have a good personal relationship with him, but his reply to
my question on the net present benefit was strong on the costs to
industry but almost non-existent—waffly—on the costs of
fatalities and injuries from toys. I suggested to him that the number
of accidents could be up to 40,000. He did not refute the figure, but
neither did he confirm
it. The
Minister stood in the Committee today and said that the range of the
net present benefit is from plus £1.5 billion to minus
£507 million. If the Government
have come up with those figures, somewhere in their coffers must be the
calculations of health benefits, health costs and so on that led to
them. I ask again: could he tell us a little about the methodology used
to arrive at the
figures? Ian
Pearson: I can certainly make the full impact assessment
and revised costs available again. I do not have current information on
the number of accidents. I am advised that the 40,000 figure is very
high, but I will check it out. Clearly, accidents are recorded, but it
is not always specified what the cause or the toy’s role was
when the accident happened. Unfortunately, we are dealing with an area
in which information is less precise than we would all ideally wish to
see. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud believes, significant
issues need to be addressed, which is also the general consensus of the
European Parliament. The UK Government have tried to recognise that
feeling and the potential costs to industry if there were an
over-zealous implementation of a new directive, and to strike a
balance. That is what we have been trying to do in the negotiations, as
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is
aware.
Mr.
Bailey: I get the impression that the original Council
directive adopted in 1988 has been regarded as a success. Does the
Minister have any idea of what benefit accrued as a result of its
implementation? The directive identifies certain areas that need to be
addressed and changed. Is there any statistical backing to demonstrate
the number of accidents related to each area that is supposed to be
addressed in this
directive?
Ian
Pearson: As I have said, the information available is less
precise than we would wish. I undertake to make further information
available to the Committee.
Let me return
to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud when he
talked about toys contained within food, or commingled with food. They
must have their own packaging, which must be of such a dimension as to
prevent it from being swallowed and/or inhaled. That is a general
safety requirement in paragraph 4(f) of annex II of the
directive.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I have a large number of questions. I am
more than happy to read them on the record and have the Minister reply
to them after. If not, we shall have to go through them one by
one.
With China
having such a large hold over the market, I am aware that it has been
making considerable changes to prevent dangerous toys from entering the
market. However, recent figures have put the amount of toys from China
considered dangerous enough to trigger the rapid alert system across
the EU as high as 48 per cent. of all products involved. What is being
done to assist China
further?
Ian
Pearson: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. We all
know the extent to which toys purchased at Christmas were made in
China. It is the case at the moment that when China exports toys to the
European Union, it has to conform to European Union product and safety
standards, whether they are toys for young or
old children. I know that dialogue has gone on between the European
Commission and the Chinese authorities about safety standards. Before
toys are imported, we need to ensure that they conform to the right
sorts of safety standards. As I have said previously, we have a regime
through trading standards to enforce areas in which there are
particular
problems.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: Following on from that question, when
member states organise a performed surveillance on a product, how soon
do alerts go out for toys that are of concern, where do the alerts go
and how are they communicated to other member
states?
Ian
Pearson: I do not have that precise information to hand,
but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the
issue.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: Part 2 of the explanatory memorandum, on
page 000013, deals with public consultation and states
that “it
could be assumed that a part of these individual replies originates
from individuals who are to various degrees involved in the toys
business”. Is
it commonplace to accept and, perhaps, to act on replies based on that
assumption?
Ian
Pearson: I am not sure about the wider background to the
hon. Gentleman’s point, but, during the consultation process,
the UK, the Commission, other member states and Members of the European
Parliament sought to take evidence from a wide range of people,
including not only toy manufacturers but consumer organisations.
Through the negotiations, we have tried to strike the right
balance—wanting to take no risks with toy safety, but ensuring
that we take a proportionate approach to the burdens that we may seek
to impose on industry as a result of the directive being
strengthened.
Mr.
Drew: I referred earlier to the importance of labels. If
labelling is not sufficient or clear enough, what sanctions exist for
taking action in respect of toys?
Ian
Pearson: The directive is intended to ensure clear
labelling, and, if there is a complaint that labelling does not meet
the required standards, it is a market surveillance and enforcement
issue. Market surveillance, as I said earlier, would take place through
trading standards; enforcement would take place in the normal way. My
understanding is that fines of up to £5,000 or six
months in prison would be the normal way of enforcing the
measure—whether there was a labelling issue or a product had
failed to comply with the directive.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I shall follow on from that important
question from the hon. Member for Stroud. Inevitably, the directive and
its revision have taken a long time, but when the new directive is
eventually published, will there be a phase-in period? What will happen
to those goods that are either being manufactured or in some
retailer’s store waiting to be sold? Will there be a period in
which the old labels are allowed, or will they have to be replaced
immediately?
| 
