Ian
Pearson: There will be a period before the directive is
finally agreed, and then there will be a transposition period, so our
current assumption is that it will come into force in autumn 2011.
Given that time scale, we will want to talk with the industry during
the intervening period to ensure that we can implement the directive as
smoothly as possible, and at least cost to the industry, while ensuring
that the directive is transposed effectively.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I seek your guidance, Mr. Weir.
You have sent me a note stating that we have left only 15
minutes in which the Minister can respond to questions. Would it be
better to raise these matters in debate or put them on the record as
questions and obtain a reply to
them?
The
Chairman: It is up to the Member’s discretion how
he wishes to pursue matters, but we have only until 5.30 pm for
questions. Thereafter, there will be a debate, and it will be quite
possible to raise the same matters in debate. The Minister will respond
to the debate at the end. I cannot direct the Member about which way to
deal with the matters; I merely suggest that he has two
options.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: That is helpful. As we have until 5.30 pm
for questions, let us use the time for questions, if we need to. It may
obviate the need for a debate, anyway.
On the issue
of toys in food, the directive foresees that toys should be marketed
and packaged separately from the food that they are attached to and
also that the packaging itself should not present any choking hazard.
Was a total ban on every food item containing a toy considered? The
hon. Member for Stroud raised that point earlier. Such a ban exists in
the United States.
Ian
Pearson: I understand that such a ban was raised as an
issue and the situation is as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member
for Stroud. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, there must be separate
packaging and the packaging must not be capable of being ingested. That
strikes a sensible balance. It might mean some significant product
changes to some of the items that are in the products that my hon.
Friend has at his disposal.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Stroud can take some of
the credit and I will take a tiny bit.
It has been
recognised that current safety regulations have created problems of
interpretation. Currently, parents seem to be bombarded with safety
marks, such as the CE mark, the kitemark, the lion mark and the lion
mark for retailers. What are the advantages of having one European-wide
safety mark rather than so many different safety
marks?
Ian
Pearson: The CE mark is a crucial mark that ensures that
products meet the safety requirements that exist to give us public
assurance. The hon. Gentleman is right that mums and dads get bombarded
with lots of information about safety requirements on products.
Clearly, that is an issue. I would certainly advise people to look for
the CE mark, because that mark is important and a guarantee that the
product has gone through certain processes. I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman would want to support that.
The
Chairman: Order. I call Mr.
Binley.
Mr.
Binley: It is kind of you to call me, Mr. Weir,
and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. However, I
am still concerned about the impact of this measure on local
authorities and trading standards departments. The Minister said that
this revised directive would be rolled out in 2011, and that he would
be talking to the toy industry. Will he also talk to those
representatives of local government who are responsible for trading
standards across the country, not least with regard to the anecdotal
evidence I have that suggests that there are fewer people in those
departments than there used to be? This measure will be an increased
burden, it needs to be sold properly and we need to have more training
to enforce it, as the Minister suggested. Therefore, I wonder if he
will promise to look at this area and take the necessary action to
ensure that local government is well prepared for the roll-out of this
measure.
Ian
Pearson: We want to see sensible and effective
transposition of the directive into law. As part of that process, we
want to have a dialogue with trading standards officers, consumer
groups and the industry. I like to think that we can achieve a
consensus on the best way to implement the directive, while at the same
time ensuring effective enforcement if companies put out products that
do not meet the requirements of the
directive.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: The Committee will be glad that I have
nearly come to the end of my questions.
Following on
from the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton,
South, can the Minister give some idea of the enforcement procedure?
When trading standards officers find a breach of the directive, what
sort of penalties are likely to be available to
them?
Ian
Pearson: In response to an earlier question, I indicated
that toy safety regulations provide that offences under regulation 15
are subject to penalties on summary conviction in a magistrates court
of a fine not exceeding £5,000 or a maximum prison term of six
months, or indeed both. Where a supplier does not comply within a
reasonable time with a request to have its toys tested under regulation
11(3), the penalties on a summary conviction are a term of imprisonment
of not more than three months or a fine not exceeding
£5,000.
That answer
provides slightly more information than I provided previously and I
hope that it is helpful to the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: My final question is important. In the
current recession and economic crisis, it is likely that the resale of
second-hand toys, whether through the internet, charities or whatever,
will become more and more of an issue. Will anything in the
modification of the directive apply to the resale of toys? What can the
Minister do, perhaps through making available Government information,
to encourage people to buy or receive only those second-hand toys with
the kite mark on them?
Ian
Pearson: As I understand it, the directive is intended to
ensure toy safety when toys first come on to the market. Toys do not
necessarily have a sell-by date—it is hard to think of one that
does. If thinking of buying a second-hand toy on eBay or from a charity
shop, it is up to the purchaser to check that the goods remain fit for
purpose. Most people would sensibly take that advice. I am not aware of
anything in the directive that refers specifically to second-hand toys,
but if I receive any further information, or need to correct that, I
shall come back to the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I must press the Minister, because this is
a serious issue. If toys with known defects, or that do not meet the
latest standard needed to conform with the existing directive, are
resold, the Government ought to encourage people not to purchase them.
For example, I do not think that it is legal to sell second-hand
furniture without a proper fire retardant certificate. Should we not be
thinking along the same lines for toys? Will he think about that
carefully?
Ian
Pearson: The hon. Gentleman’s original point was
about the directive and whether it applies to second-hand goods. My
understanding is that it does not. However, the general product safety
regulations apply to the sale of second-hand goods. Those should
provide assurances. He will be aware that under those regulations there
is a duty on the vendor to ensure that those goods are fit for purpose.
He raises a very interesting point about potentially very old goods
that perhaps have been superseded by new legislation—for
example, some very old toy soldiers, probably with high lead contents,
which are collected by specialists rather than children. I shall take
away that point and consider how it might apply. If I may, I shall
write to him about
that.
The
Chairman: If no more Members wish to ask questions, we
shall proceed to the debate on the
motion. Motion
made, and Question proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 5938/08 and Addenda
1 and 2, the draft Directive on the safety of toys; and welcomes the
Government's actions in support of European measures aimed at securing
an appropriate level of safety for toys available on the internal
market and a strengthened internal market mechanism without imposing a
disproportionate burden on the UK toy industry.—(Ian
Pearson.) 5.23
pm
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I do not think that very much more needs to
be said. In my opening remarks, Mr. Weir, I did not say that
I welcome serving under your chairmanship. I do not think that it is
the first time that I have done so, but anyway it is a great pleasure.
I am grateful to the Minister for being so patient in answering my many
questions. However, if we are to do our job properly, we must probe
Ministers.
With the best
will in the world, the Minister has not explained well enough the
Government’s case on the net present benefit. He has explained
quite well the cost to, and the structure of, the industry, but he has
not begun to explain the scope of injury by toys and therefore the
health cost to the country and other disbenefits resulting from
accidents with toys. Will he write to the Committee with a little more
detail on that? If it is being asked to approve the document, it needs
to know what the costs, benefits and risks are; however, I do not feel
that we yet know enough about the risks.
Also, the
Minister did not quite deal with how we are going to license or approve
toys in advance. The aim, after all, should be that a defective toy
will never come on to the market. If it does, it makes no difference
whether it is manufactured in China or in this country—if it is
a dangerous toy, it is a dangerous toy. I should like to hear more from
the Minister, perhaps in writing to the Committee, on how he envisages
the revised directive preventing defective toys from coming on to the
market.
The Committee
has examined this matter in some detail, and I am sure that we can
leave it to the Government to ensure that the revised directive, when
it ever gets on to the statute book, is in the correct
form. 5.25
pm
Mr.
Drew: I thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Weir,
in allowing me to pursue my line of questions. I have a few more things
to say. The Minister’s comments in response to my last question,
about firms redesigning their products, were music to my ears. I have
spent the past 10 years of my life asking manufacturers—I will
put them on the record—to make changes. One is Ferrero, which
produces Kinder Surprise and sells millions of eggs in this country and
billions across Europe. Those eggs have led to fatalities and serious
injuries through choking. I and a small group of other people have been
working on this issue. I must mention Graeme and Jean Roe, who alerted
me to the problem with that product a decade ago. I have simply asked
Ferrero to redesign it.
There has
been no opportunity to address the problem before now, because the
directive did not mention toys in food, and neither the food nor the
toy directives were sufficient to deal with it. Now we at least have it
on the record that such products are subject to regulation. I welcome
that, but I wish that the directive went further. I have already
mentioned Arlene McCarthy’s work as the Chair of the Committee
that looked into this matter. She tabled a number of amendments that
were not passed, but if they had been, we would have an even more
secure situation with regard to safety.
Anyone who
knows anything about this area will know that ferocious—it is
interesting that I have used the words Ferrero and ferocious in the
same terminology—lobbying has been going on in Europe to ensure
that certain products stay on the market. Another friend of mine, the
late Philip Whitehead, who was involved in this pursuit with me, was
threatened on more than one occasion, because of the interest that he
took in the issue—and I mean threatened. There are people who
will go to any lengths to keep particular products on the market. It is
important that we say these things in public, because our primary
concern should be children’s safety. Of course, the business,
where it is a perfectly valid business, should be commended, because
millions of children enjoy such products, but they must be safe. That
is all I
ask. If
the Minister is true to his word, and I am sure he will be, there will
be opportunities for redesign. There is clearly an implication that the
food will be separated from the toys. If that had been the case, I
would not have had to spend 10 years of my life banging on about this.
Anyone who looks at this particular product, which I have to hand, will
know that people have to unwrap it. The labelling is unclear—I
think it essential to checking
the product’s standard that people are able
to read it in the appropriate language—and I still have
difficulties with the 36-month age limit. After taking
off the wrapper, one hits the chocolate egg. With the best will in the
world, one has to eat the chocolate egg to get the toy inside.
Naturally, children are tempted to put the toy in their mouths because
it is infused with chocolate. To be fair to the company, it changed the
product last year because in the hot summer—not here, but in
some parts of Europe—the chocolate was infusing the toy. At the
very least, the smell of chocolate is around the toy and children will
therefore be tempted to put the toy in their mouth. I hope that,
notwithstanding what the Minister has said, there is recognition of the
need for further testing and for standardisation. Safety is
key. I
welcome that we at least have that in a directive, but the directive
could go further and clarify the situation. I am worried about how the
products are tested and by whom, and I am even worried about
surveillance. Interestingly, we dropped our home and leisure accident
surveillance systems—HASS and LASS—and we now have some
other wonderful thing, but we do not know how many children choke every
year because we do not keep those statistics. Some years ago I wrote to
every accident and emergency department asking them how many cases of
children choking they had. Obviously, I received only a small number of
responses but it was clear that there were more cases of children
choking on all manner of items than was recorded. That is a worry: we
need to know what we are dealing
with.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my neighbour—I was
going to call him my hon. Friend but that would have got me into
trouble. He obviously has great experience of the issue. Has he any
evidence that the profusion of kitemarks has meant that consumers have
had problems understanding what they are supposed to know before buying
the toy? We can debate at any length, but if consumers do not know what
they are looking at the whole thing is a complete waste of
time.
Mr.
Drew: That is a problem. I have reported foreign eggs,
which come from Russia and are direct copies of these eggs, to the
police and to trading standards, because the instructions are in a
foreign language. Instructions must be in a language that a
three-year-old or someone younger can read. Those are key points
because there is a proliferation of what we mean by warnings and of
ways of telling people that these items are potentially dangerous. If
the items were not dangerous, we would not have the casebook of
evidence that some of us have accrued. I agree that it would help if
the Minister referred to the CE mark. That is as good a standardisation
as possible. But the problem is: how does one guarantee that the CE
mark has been given to a safe product? In a sense, the onus is always
on the manufacturer to be able to prove that, and we take it largely as
read until there is an incident. Clearly, in many instances items have
not been safe. We recognise that that is a sensitive
area. I
leave my remarks at that, and I hope that the Minister has heard them
and will go back to Europe and be robust. We need to understand that we
all tread carefully in this area. When there is the next
incident—I say “when” because I am not at all
satisfied that we have the safety case right—we will all say,
“Isn’t it terrible
that we didn’t do something about it?” We have had an
opportunity to do something about it; the legislation could have been
better, but at least we now have something to work on. If the Minister
supports the redesigning of the product, I will go away from the
Committee feeling at least a bit
happier. 5.33
pm
| 
