ORDERS AND NOTICES TO PROHIBIT SUPPLY OF GOODS OR GIVE WARNING OF DANGER FROM GOODS. (Hansard, 28 April 1978)

§ Mr. Trotter
I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 4, line 8, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 31, in page 4, line 15, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".
No. 51, in clause 8, page 9, leave out lines 22 to 27.
No. 57, in page 10, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert 'might be used or kept';' 1902 No. 64, in Schedule 1, in page 12, line 33, leave out from "State" to end of paragraph and insert 'the risk of danger connected with the goods to which the order relates is such that the order must be made without delay'. No. 65, in page 13, line 15, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".
No. 66, in line 19, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".
No. 67, in page 14, line 10, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".
No. 69, in page 14, line 35, leave out "from" and insert "connected with".
No. 70, in line 41, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".
No. 71, in line 44, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".
No. 73, in page 15, line 29, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".
No. 74, in page 16, line 33, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".
No. 75, in line 36, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".

§ Mr. Trotter
This amendment arises out of the consultation that took place between Second Reading and Committee. It was not possible to table these amendments in time for Committee.
The main purpose of the principal amendment is to delete the word "dangerous". It was felt that confusion arose in the original Bill because we had a definition of "dangerous" and a definition of "safe" and it was considered that they were not the opposite of each other. The word "dangerous" is now being deleted, and we are left with either an object being "safe" or "not safe"—"not safe" being the alternative to "safe".
Normally the Department's policy has been—and I understand will be in future—to seek voluntary co-operation with those who are selling objects found to be causing risk to the public. That co-operation is normally most readily offered, but occasionally it is not forthcoming. It it then necessarily for the Department to make an order creating a prohibition 1903 notice on the sale of the goods or a warning notice requiring the person supplying or manufacturing goods to issue a warning in respect of the danger provided by the goods.
Originally there was a difference in degree in the Bill under which the Minister could make orders with great speed where there was a particular danger. Removal of the word "dangerous" from the Bill will mean that there will have to be a subjective judgment by the Minister as to the degree to which goods are unsafe. We must leave that to the commonsense of the Minister at the time.
Amendment No. 57 is different. It is a drafting amendment, because the circumstances in which goods are designed to be used were originally too narrow. They exclude many elements of foreseeable misuse. Even the British Standards Institute recognises that when goods are passed they should be passed on the basis that some misuse can be foreseen. The suggested wording deals with that contingency.

§ Mr. Neubert
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) sought comfort from the Committee proceedings in his soothing introduction and reassuring explanation about the significance of this group of amendments. It is not entirely a matter of semantics that the phrase "not safe" is an alternative description to the word "dangerous" as originally included in the Bill.
My hon. Friend said that the new wording will provide an opportunity for the Minister to exercise a subjective judgment. In that respect I see no difference because there is no scientific or other valid definition of "dangerous". What can be said is that by this change my hon. Friend has considerably broadened the powers in the Bill. For a product to be "not safe" in the estimation of most people need not necessarily mean that it is dangerous. These are matters of degree.
I know that the CBI, in a brief containing its views received only this morning, has considerable apprehensions about the extension of powers implied by this change. Clearly, the two definitions "safe" and "not safe" cover all products. A product must either be "safe" or "not safe" in the terms of these amendments, whereas as the Bill was 1904 originally drafted there were categories of product that were said to be safe and other products which were said to be dangerous. Presumably there were other goods of more doubtful quality in between.
Does my hon. Friend by "not safe" mean actually not safe or potentially not safe? We spoke earlier of the contributory part played by the user of products. Will it be held that a product which is apparently safe if used according to regulations and according to instructions might become unsafe if otherwise used? We need to have some greater reassurance as to what is intended and whether my hon. Friend is not extensively enlarging the area covered by the Bill.
My hon. Friend mentioned earlier the difficulty involved in the Bill going through "on the nod" on Second Reading and not perhaps having had the airing, prominence and publicity it should have had so that its provisions could be fully understood and appreciated by all those likely to be affected by it outside the House. The CBI is one organisation which is concerned, and I have no doubt that there are others. I am sure that further explanation of what is intended would be valuable.

§ Mr. Trotter
As I said, there was considerable consultation with literally hundreds of organisations and individuals between Second Reading and Committee. It took the form of a letter asking for views. Unfortunately, some of the views came in only within the past few days. Some bodies seem to take a considerable time to arrive at their views. The CBI was not in that category. It replied quite promptly, and I have had a series of meetings with its representatives.
I have not had the benefit of a communication from the CBI this morning. I assume that it is on its way. I am not therefore aware of the latest views of the CBI. I met its representatives earlier this week to discuss the amendments to be put down for today, and I asked whether they would let me have their comments. To be fair to the CBI, we are considering a large number of complex amendments today, so perhaps its representatives have not had time fully to consider them.
If there is anything in the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), perhaps I can get 1905 together with the Minister before the Bill goes to another place. I assure my hon. Friend that the whole purpose here is to deal with problems outlined by other people who were consulted. The general tenor of the views expressed to us after the consultation was that the original drafting was too wide. It is in no sense the intention of this amendment to widen it yet further. On the contrary the purpose is to limit and simplify the definition.
The definition is in Clause 8, and I hope that it is self-explanatory. As I say, the intention here is not in any way to widen the scope of the Bill but to simplify matters and deal with the worries expressed to me during the past few weeks.
On the question of "potentially not safe", I must say that it is difficult to get one's words exactly right on this subject, but I think that one has to consider things which may be potentially not safe, because one has to bear in mind possible uses to which they might reasonably be expected to be put. I am not thinking here of the scouring powder to which I referred earlier. I am speaking of reasonable misuse of products, and that is something which must be taken into account by those who place goods on sale to the public.