§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alex Fletcher)I beg to move,
That the draft Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not selected the amendment.
§ Mr. FletcherThe proposed regulations replace and extend the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order 1984, made on 30 January 1984. They revise the size criteria, introduce severance test procedures, cover appearance and taste resemblance, in addition to scent, and extend to certain other products.
§ Mr. FletcherI hope to explain what we are doing to my sedentary questioner.
But I am pleased to see from the terms of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that he takes as his starting point the existence of a safety problem for which a solution must be found. I know that he will appreciate that the House cannot make drafting amendments to the regulations tonight. The regulations must either be approved or not. But I shall endeavour to show my hon. Friend that the solution to the problem with which he is concerned lies in the draft regulations. As I know of my hon. Friend's keen interest in EEC matters, I assure him that the regulations are not in any way inspired by the European Commission.
The definition of "safe" contained in section 9 of the Consumer Safety Act 1978 is
such as to prevent or adequately to reduce any risk of personal injury".That is what we must keep in mind when considering the need for regulations made under the Act.After careful consideration we reached the view that there is a need to remove from supply certain products which, by that definition, cannot be considered safe particularly for young children, because by wilfully and unnecessarily imitating food, they increase the risk of choking presented by all small objects.
§ Mr. ForthWill my hon. Friend explain why he is not banning other items that can be equally, or more dangerous to children's health? That would help the House enormously.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)Marbles.
§ Mr. FletcherAs I shall point out, the problem is that of course there are many objects that small children, especially those under the age of three, swallow or push up their noses. Indeed, my statistics show a greater incidence of the latter than the former in this instance. The danger is bad enough with ordinary products, but I propose that the House should continue to refuse to accept the products that wilfully and unnecessarily look like and smell like food. The resemblance has nothing to do with their purpose, and that is the danger. Some of the products actually encourage children to put them in their mouths. Again, that is the danger, and that is what the regulations are concerned with.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorIf these food imitations are so dangerous to children that they could choke and die, why 284 is my hon. Friend the Minister going to allow them to be sold if they are in dolls' houses? Why is he allowing them to be sold for export? If they are killer rubbers, is it not shameful that he should wilfully allow them to be manufactured in Britain and sent to Ethiopia?
§ Mr. FletcherI shall take my hon. Friend seriously on this point. Most of the goods under debate are imports. Indeed, the majority of them are imported from far eastern countries. Most countries in Europe and elsewhere already have similar regulations to those that I propose tonight.
I stress that these regulations need cause no concern to suppliers of toys, novelty and stationery items if the goods they market do not imitate food. One is bound to ask why should such goods look, taste or smell like food? What is the point of making a pencil sharpener look like a strawberry or a rubber shaped like a typewriter smell like bananas? Any ordinary adult finding such items in the shops will react with surprise, but if he or she is the parent of small children that surprise is likely to turn into concern and annoyance, because parents are well aware of the habit of all small children of putting things in their mouths. Parents have every right to be concerned when small objects appear in the shops that positively invite children to pop them into their mouths.
Of course, consumers constantly demand novelty, and suppliers rightly exercise ingenuity in responding to that demand, but suppliers must be responsible. The unfortunate fact is that some suppliers are not thoughtful or careful enough for the public to be protected without regulations of this kind. For that reason, responsible manufacturers and traders look to Parliament for guidance on particular aspects of safety. In most cases, my Department or the trading standards officers approach suppliers and ask them to take goods that they consider dangerous off the market, and the suppliers co-operate. Only exceptionally do the actions of suppliers of such products require an order of this kind to persuade them not to maintain dangerous goods on the market.
§ Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe)What is the evidence that the product which the regulations seek to ban causes the damage my hon. Friend suggests? What will happen to those people who had substantial quantities of this product in stock at the time my hon. Friend introduced these regulations 12 months ago and still have the product in stock?
§ Mr. FletcherIf my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall come soon to the question of evidence. Those traders who have found themselves with stocks of goods that they cannot dispose of—I regret that fact as much as any hon. Member—had 18 months of warning of the views of the Government and local authorities on the safety of these products.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorThat is not true.
§ Mr. FletcherMy hon. Friend must not say that that is not true. That point was established by a Standing Committee, and in July of this year an attempt was made in a judicial review to challenge the Government's actions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to know that the judge found in all the challenges made, including the challenge about consultation, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had acted correctly. I do not like, even from a sedentary position, the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that I am trying to mislead the House.
§ Mr. FletcherIf my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. Ample warning was given. There was ample opportunity for traders to heed the views of the Government and local authorities that these products were dangerous to children. The fact that traders ignored those warnings has resulted in a number of them incurring a financial penalty. I regret that fact, but the fault is that of the traders and not that of the trading standard officers or my Department.
§ Sir Bernard BraineI wish to press the point that has just been made. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has just told the House that traders were given 18 months' warning. We are anxious to learn of the evidence before that time showing that regulations of this nature were necessary. What additional evidence was presented during the warning period showing that the decision taken in principle to introduce these regulations would be justified? My vote turns on the case my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State makes to the House showing that action was necessary before the warning period and that experience during the warning period revealed that the initial decision was justified.
§ Mr. FletcherWarnings were given—the trade was advised — by my Department, by my predecessor as Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs and by local authorities, and there was the withdrawal of these products to a considerable extent from the market. But, despite the warnings that had been given, these products arose again, and in larger numbers, and at that point, after asking the trade — as we ask many traders and companies to withdraw products if we consider them to be dangerous—to withdraw them and after those warnings had failed, action was taken.
This is the seventh occasion since the passage of the Consumer Safety Act 1978 when a prohibition notice of this kind has been made forcing companies to take goods from the market. On many other occasions none of this heavy legislation—and I am the first to admit that we should not be considering a matter of this kind in the House of Commons — has been necessary. On only seven occasions has it been necessary to introduce legislation of this kind.
If people will not take notice of warnings and if the best advice that we in the Department have—medical advice and advice from the laboratory of the Government Chemist and others, including trading standards officers and local authorities — is that products such as these are dangerous, something must be done. Here is a chocolate that looks and smells like a chocolate but happens to be an eraser, when its function as an eraser does not require it to look like a chocolate. Kiddies who will normally put things in their mouths are surely much more tempted to do so when erasers are in that form.
§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)My hon. Friend has referred to warnings having been given during the last 18 months. Would he consider the letter of 29 March 1984 sent out by a Mr. Rider of his Department to a number of suppliers and retailers—going behind the backs of the suppliers, as it were—to have been one of the warnings? The link between scented products and glue sniffing was the real problem.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)Order. I am anxious to help the House, but I must remind hon. Members that this is a short debate and that we have had more interventions than we have had Minister's speech. I hope that we can now proceed.
§ Mr. FletcherThat letter, if dated 29 March 1984, would have been sent out after these goods had been banned, so it was not a warning. The goods were banned in January 1984, which is why this instrument is before the House tonight. [Interruption.] I cannot explain a particular letter sent out by my Department in March 1984. I thought that the substance of my hon. Friend's argument was that he was trying to demonstrate that inadequate warning had been given. I have explained that that letter was written after the time warnings had been given. The letter to which my hon. Friend referred was written in the normal course of business between my department and a supplier, and I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is objecting to what I have said.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorWho was warned?
§ Mr. FletcherI gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East insists that there was insufficient warning. I repeat that this matter was debated in Standing Committee last year and was part of the case brought in the High Court against my right hon. Friend. I would not expect to convince my hon. Friend about the former, but in the latter the court ruled in favour of my right hon. Friend on all counts and awarded costs in his favour. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is aware of these facts.
During the last year the Department carried out extensive consultations with the trade. In all, 104 bodies were consulted. They included 30 trade associations and 16 individual firms. Half of the 104 responded; 2 had no comment, 39 were generally in favour and 11 opposed the concept. By not responding, the 52 bodies which sent no reply can be assumed to support the principle or to have no firm views. The 11 opponents among the 104 which were invited to comment were all traders. Some, if not all, of the concerns of the trade associations whom we consulted have been met by subsequent amendments to the regulations and all comments received have been fully considered in determining the form and content of the draft regulations.
In regard to available accident statistics, the increase in the number of accidents involving erasers in the statistics available for 1983 and 1984 provided by the Department's home accidents surveillance system confirm that action is needed. The 1984 total, which is not yet complete, is 16 accidents in which erasers were swallowed or stuck in the noses of children. This is a survey of only 20 hospitals in England — that is about 7 per cent. of hospitals. It means that 16 erasers—
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)Of what kind?
§ Mr. FletcherOf all kinds.
§ Mr. FletcherI do not think they were all the one kind of eraser. There were several kinds of eraser involved.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)I am grateful for the fact that the Minister has given us that extra 287 information. When the companies have written to him, and when I have written to him to ask for more information about the 20 accidents referred to previously, he has replied that it would be too expensive to find out what type of eraser was involved.
§ Mr. FletcherWe have some more information although I cannot say exactly what sort of eraser was involved in each accident. That information is not available. The right hon. Gentleman is correct.
The point remains that 16 children were admitted to hospital. These are just hospital cases in 7 per cent of hospitals in England where erasers where swallowed, stuck in the throat or stuck in the nose and therefore the children required medical treatment. Obviously it does not take account of the number of cases where parents or schoolteachers rescued children from danger of choking.
§ Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North)This seems to be the crux of the matter. How many children were admitted to those 20 hospitals with foreign bodies pushed into some bodily orifice? Was it a small proportion or a high proportion?
§ Mr. FletcherThere should be no ambiguity about this. I have already conceded that children swallow all sorts of objects; for that matter, so do adults. I ask my hon. Friends to bear in mind that the danger we are trying to deal with is the manufacture of products which deliberately attract children to swallow them or to put then in their mouths or noses.
The regulations deal with food imitation. Like Germany, France, Greece, Ireland and other countries, we are saying that we should ban a flood of objects of this kind from Far Eastern countries. That is the object of the regulations. I see no benefit to the economy in the import of erasers shaped like lemons, strawberries, oranges and chocolates. It should be remembered that the home accidents surveillance system covers only home accidents that are treated in hospital. As I said, many are dealt with speedily by parents and schoolteachers and therefore are not recorded.
In taking action, the House will do two main things. First, it will keep known imitation food products, which are mainly scented erasers, off the market and avoid a potential increase in the number of accidents associated with them. Secondly, it will pre-empt the introduction of other products which imitate food. As I said, they can hardly be said to be making any contribution to the British economy.
In making permanent regulations, it is logical to cover not only scented erasers but other similar products that are equally dangerous, and to include other means of food imitation.
In order to cause the minimum restriction on trade, the product coverage has been confined to those items known to exist, or which can reasonably be surmised could exist, in food imitation form, whose utility does not require them to bear any resemblance to food and to which children have ready access.
I have adopted a targeted approach so that the trade should know with certainty what would and would not be permissible. My target is not the traditional toys of long standing, but the new and more dangerous products that have come on to the market in recent years, and almost all from the far east.
288 The regulations contain three simple tests, all related to the size of objects. The main test is a truncated cylinder. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be interested to know that it was originally developed for consumer safety purposes—to test goods that should not be swallowed—in the United States, hardly a nannying economy. It is now internationally recognised as a guide to the size of toy products that are suitable or not for children under the age of three.
It is a better test than that specified in the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order, whereby an eraser was banned if it had at least two dimensions each less than 45 mm, because it is directly related to the size of object a child could swallow. Trading standards officers favour the use of this simple, inexpensive, gadget as the main test of size.
There is also a potential hazard from larger objects from which small children can detach smaller pieces by biting or pulling. Therefore, two severance tests are necessary to simulate the abuse things are likely to receive in the hands and mouths of small children.
I remind my hon. Friends that the Government, in a White Paper published last July proposed to strengthen the legislation on the safety of goods. It is proposed that a general duty be placed on all suppliers to ensure that their goods are safe in accordance with sound modern standards of safety. Of course, they will mainly be BSI standards.
In addition, powers are proposed to enable enforcement officers to seize or freeze and thus prevent the distribution of suspected dangerous goods and to allow customs and excise to notify the importation of such goods. All these measures will have the effect of diminishing the need for safety regulations and prohibition orders and notices of the kind that we are considering tonight.
Finally, the House will wish to know that there is legislation in a number of countries banning small objects that imitate food — in France, West Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, The Republic of Ireland, Greece and Australia. Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and a number of other countries are proposing similar action shortly.
I invite the House to support the regulations.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)When I listened to the winding-up speech on fluoridation last night, I reached the conclusion that it was hardly possible for a Minister to make a speech more calculated to ensure a rebellion on his own Back Benches. We have now shortened our time scale in politics and discovered that a day is a long time. I congratulate the Minister on exceeding my expectations in his speech tonight.
I begin from the rather humble position of not wanting to intervene in the argument, which the Minister will clearly enjoy, between himself and his parliamentary friends—
§ Mr. FletcherThe right hon. Gentleman knows that I was happy to give way to my hon. Friends. There is no danger of his speech being interrupted by his hon. Friends.
§ Mr. WilliamsThere is a very good reason for that—I told them to go home. I shall explain a little later why I told them to do just that.
As one who used to be a Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs, I take a pragmatic view of these matters. I agree with what the Minister is doing. I do not 289 agree with the proposition that is implicit in some of the criticism—that we must wait for some poor child to die before we accept that there is a hazard. It is the duty of parliamentarians to identify a hazard and eliminate it if possible. It is irresponsible to ask "How many deaths have there been?" If, as a result of what happens tonight there are no deaths, we will be able to say that this was one of the House's more successful ventures.
§ Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West)The only time when, as a child, I choked on something and had to go to hospital, it was on a square sweet, which fulfils all the criteria laid down by my hon. Friend the Minister. Presumably neither the right hon. Gentleman nor my hon. Friend proposes to ban sweets on that count. Where does the right hon. Gentleman draw the line?
§ Mr. WilliamsMy understanding is that the average sweet is soluble and therefore more likely to be survived. If the hon. Gentleman wants to extend the scope of the regulations, he should table amendments to that end.
It seems self-evident that if objects look and smell like sweets to adults, they will certainly look and smell like sweets to young children. It is inevitable that, unless we take appropriate action, there will be an accident, for which we will all feel ashamed if we reject this proposal.
I want to support the Minister. Indeed, I bailed him out in the rebellion in the Committee of March last year. I used our vote, or the threat of it, to enable the Minister to get the legislation through because I thought it was needed, although he presented it ham-handedly and unconvincingly. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will recall that we thought we had extracted an assurance that, if we let the regulations go through, there would be immediate consultation and an amending regulation would be introduced within 12 months. We did not think that we should have to wait for so long as we have done.
§ Mr. FletcherWe intended to introduce the regulations as quickly as possible. We started consultations after the Committee debate, but were immediately involved in a case in the High Court, which prevented consultations from starting until after July, as we were obliged to defend the charges.
§ Mr. WilliamsThat is not a credible argument. Indeed, the High Court case rendered consultation more necessary, to prepare the Government to present a perfect proposal if the court turned the hon. Gentleman down. Although that case might have prevented discussion in the House, I cannot believe that it interfered with the process of consultation. It is more likely that the Department diverted consultations to glue sniffing and other matters.
The Opposition would have supported the regulations had that been necessary, but I told my right hon. and hon. Friends to go home. The Government have been less than adept in their presentation. The matter has been incredibly mishandled. Even the consultative process has been a sham. Although we might disagree with people, if we are to have a meaningful consultative process we must consider their arguments carefully.
§ Mr. FletcherI did.
§ Mr. WilliamsThe Minister says that he did. I had a letter from the suppliers whom I had attacked in 290 Committee. They said that the Minister had quoted 20 accidents involving erasers from the hospital surveillance system that I set up in the late 1970s.
§ Mr. FletcherA worthwhile system.
§ Mr. WilliamsI do not receive many compliments, so I am happy to receive one, from whatever source.
The Minister was asked how many of the 20 were attributable to scented erasers. He replied to the industry and said, in effect, that he saw no point in finding out. Even by ministerial standards that savoured of high-handedness.
I thought that I would try a little parliamentary comradeship and therefore I dropped the Minister a note, in the kindest and politest of terms, asking him for clarification about the 20 cases. The answer that I received was:
I do not think it necessary to pursue the further reported accidents to justify the action that has been taken. That would be going to unnecessary expense with no guarantee of establishing any meaningful statistics."Unnecessary expense" to find out about 20 cases? The people who are losing £200,000 of stock would have paid for the inquiry if the Minister had given them a chance to do so.Unnecessary expense with no guarantee".Does there have to be a guarantee? As he was calling those cases in support of his argument, surely the industry was entitled to have them thoroughly investigated, but as there was no guarantee of establishing meaningful statistics, the Minister was not willing to do that.One is left with a further suspicion. The suspicion in my mind, and, I am sure, in the minds of the Minister's hon. Friends, is that he did not go ahead with an analysis of those 20 cases because he was afraid that they would come out the wrong way. Strangely enough, only a few moments ago the hon. Gentleman referred to a different number. I shall not quibble about which number is correct, because it may not be relevant. The numbers may have been over a different time scale.
When I asked the Minister what types of eraser were involved, he told me that they were of all types. When I intervened to ask how he knew that, he said that they must have been. He does not know. It is of some significance when the Minister gives the House a categorical assurance—
§ Mr. FletcherIt was not.
§ Mr. WilliamsIt was not a categorical assurance, but the Minister was trying to persuade the House. Is he saying that if the accidents had been analysed it might have been found that the erasers were of all types?
§ Mr. FletcherNo.
§ Mr. WilliamsWhat is the Minister saying?
§ Mr. FletcherI said that the possibility of going back to these cases and establishing what type of erasers were involved was extremely remote. It was not a lack of willingness to go back but a doubt whether any substantial evidence would be available. That was the first consideration. Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman asked what type of erasers they were and I replied that they were of all types, I was saying that one could safely assume that more than one type was involved if there were a number of accidents. That is the point that I was trying to make.
§ Mr. WilliamsThe Minister said that he was afraid that the information might not be available. Surely the Government, even with their present economy campaign, could have afforded 20 second-class letters to find out whether there were any records, even if they did not explore further. What the Minister says does not wash. It does not bear analysis.
§ Mr. Christopher Hawkins (High Peak)The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. First he says that he thinks the Government are right not to wait until someone dies, which is a view I am delighted he has taken and completely endorse, and then he complains that the Government have not analysed the statistics to discover how many scented erasers are involved. The hon. Gentleman's argument was that Parliament's job was to decide whether, on balance, these were likely to be the cause of serious accidents. I totally accept his argument that they are very likely to be the cause of serious accidents.
§ Mr. WilliamsI was not basing my position on 20 cases, but the Minister was. The Minister might care to look at his correspondence and at the information that he sent to the suppliers. It was the Minister, not me, who came here and put forward the proposition. It is his evidence, not mine. I started from the position that I was in favour of what he was doing, but I still say to the House that it is entitled to clear information. The hon. Gentleman misled the House inadvertently — perhaps that is too generous: frivolously is nearer the truth; it was not done malevolently — and without due consideration. He misled his colleagues about the nature of the evidence in his possession. He does not have the evidence which he originally claimed to have.
I deal next with the question of voting because I want the Minister and Conservative Members to understand our position. As I said, in Committee, we made it clear that we would have supported the regulations had there been a vote. We should also have been happy to support the regulations this evening, but the Government's handling of the matter has been so appallingly bad that they do not deserve to he supported. However I believe that this is a desirable measure, and therefore I am not willing to ask my hon. Friends, despite the ham-handedness of the Government—
§ Mr. Fletcherrose—
§ Mr. WilliamsI told them to go home, for that very reason.
§ Mr. FletcherIs the right hon. Gentleman saying that before the debate began he asked his hon. Friends to go home?
§ Mr. WilliamsThat is right. I have all the Minister's letters. Does he not stand by the letters that he sends to his parliamentary colleagues? We knew that he had messed things up in his analysis of the situation. Consequently, I said to my hon. Friends that in no circumstances would we vote against the regulations but that it was not up to us to get the Government's chestnuts out of the fire when they had mishandled the situation so badly.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggThe hon. Member owes the House a further explanation. He has told the House in the clearest possible terms that these products constitute a hazard and that people can die. Faced with that fact, I simply do not 292 understand how, in all honour, he can say that because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has behaved an odd manner he will withhold his support for the regulations.
§ Mr. WilliamsIs the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the regulations will be defeated?
§ Mr. WilliamsI see. I did not know that we had a rebellion on our hands. If the hon. Gentleman had come to me and said that he needed the support of the Opposition to get these regulations through the House, of course we should have rallied our troops, but perhaps I had better leave the Government to sort out their own problems.
§ 11.8 pm
§ Mr. Christopher Hawkins (High Peak)I support the regulations. Some people have said that nobody has died because of scented erasers, so why ban them? Having found my youngest daughter when 18 months old with one such eraser in her mouth, I did not wait to see whether it killed her before taking action. Personally, I am delighted that the Government are not waiting either until somebody dies before they take action.
§ Mr. HawkinsI did not buy it. It turned out that my other daughter had a collection of 20 or 30 of these dangerous toys which neither my wife nor I knew about. I am sure that that has happened to many other people.
Some people say that children can die from swallowing marbles, coins or dice, so why not ban them? There is a very good reason. Even a young child who cannot yet speak can be trained not to swallow anything except food and drink. My wife and I have done that, as have most parents. Marbles, coins and dice do not look like, feel like or smell like food. I would object, however, if somebody made marbles which looked like aniseed balls and smelled like aniseed balls. We should ban such marbles, because they would fool a child into believing that they were food.
My objection to scented erasers is that they appear to be what they are not. They are purposely made to look and smell like sweets. They present a danger that we cannot train a young child to recognise. We cannot tell a child that does not yet speak our language that there are some imbeciles in the world who will take a perfectly useful object and use science and chemistry to make a small child think that it is a sweet or some kind of food so that they might eat it and choke themselves to death.
I should use two criteria. First, will a product fool a child into thinking that it is edible? Secondly, will it be dangerous for a child who tries to swallow it? Could he choke? Scented erasers fail to be acceptable on both those counts. However, marbles do not fail to be acceptable on both those counts. Some products may be marginal and some will fail strongly on both counts. Few of us would want people to start manufacturing household bleach that looked, smelled and tasted like orange juice.
To digress from the debate, I understand that another imbecile is making a product called gremlins which are half an inch long, look like sweets, and when dropped into water swell to five or 10 times their size. They will also do that in the mouth. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at those as well and take action. Many parents are equally concerned about that.
We should not over-protect the public, but products which look and smell like food or sweets and which can 293 be dangerous if a child tries to swallow them should be banned. That is why I welcome what the Government are doing, and that is why I will support the regulations.
I know that there is a big revolt among my hon. Friends. I have had personal experience of a child who might have died. Before my hon. Friends continue with their revolt. I ask them please to have an open mind. The bible says
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone".Let the first child die because of this dangerous product, and which of my hon. Friends will tell the parents why he revolted?
Mr. Michael Meadowcraft (Leeds, West)I take the same view as the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) about the seriousness of the matter. Whenever any Government decide to interfere in the commercial aspects of such a matter, the detail of the regulations can easily be mocked. There is no doubt that the amount of pressure and the number of Newtons required to pull something apart, and so on, in the regulations before us tonight can easily be laughed at.
There is an argument that Governments interfere too much in the ordinary affairs of people. The Minister said that the order seeks to ban items which positively invite children to put products into their mouths illegitimately. I accept that it cannot be imagined that the item that we are discussing is a high priority for time on the Floor of the House. But it is on the Floor of the House for debate, and so the question for those Conservative Members who mock the regulations is whether they are beneficial or not.
Clearly, on balance the regulations are beneficial. For instance, I quote a case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) of a six-year-old child who on Christmas day 1983 swallowed a pen top and died as a result. The question is whether an item would encourage someone illegitimately to eat it.
In Committee in March 1984 the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) criticised earlier regulations and then made play of only banning scented erasers rather than items imitating food. His hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who was also critical, said categorically that he would go further than the order and ban food facsimile erasers, whether they were scented or not. He said that anything that looks like food should be banned. That would make more sense to industry and the public. That criticism made in March has been met.
The logic is that the items mentioned do not have to look or smell like sweets, if they do, young children might eat them. It is not the world's greatest issue, but it is worth supporting.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)I hope that the few points that I shall make will persuade the Minister to withdraw the order. The order is ill-conceived, unnecessarily severe and badly drafted. The trades and industries involved have been treated shamefully.
We must first ask whether there is any justification for the order. If we had the slightest belief that these items were more dangerous than the generality of small objects which children can swallow, we should certainly support the banning of them. However, there is not a shred of 294 evidence from the Minister or anyone else that these items are any more dangerous for children than the multitude of small items which children can be tempted to swallow.
§ Mr. Christopher HawkinsWe are dealing with an essential and important point. A child can be trained not to put in its mouth things which are not for eating or drinking, but a child who cannot yet speak cannot be trained not to put in its mouth things which appear to be food.
§ Mr. TaylorI am sorry, but the evidence is exactly the opposite. I do not want to quote accident statistics. They are simply a means of saying "Let's wait for a death". However, one can use statistics to discover what children swallow and cause danger. I appeal to hon. Members before they vote to look at Hansard and the answer from the Minister about the number of children and others who received hospital treatment for swallowing things. It is there in black and white. The Minister says that 2,174 people, mainly children, received hospital treatment for swallowing things. What kind of things? A total of 690 received treatment for swallowing bones, 290 for swallowing money and an astonishing 74 for swallowing marbles. Only one child last year received medical treatment for swallowing an eraser— and we do not know whether it was scented.
On the basis of that information, there is a case for treating the marbles problem much more seriously than the eraser problem. If the Minister disagrees, I ask him whether there is any evidence that they are uniquely dangerous. There has been not a shred of evidence.
I have not picked out figures from one year. I have the figures for the last five years, which reveal that a multitude of children have been given hospital treatment for swallowing things, but they do not reveal evidence that scented erasers are any more dangerous than any other small objects which children pick up.
§ Mr. FletcherSometimes I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) argues with himself. There is no argument about the items that adults and children swallow. But why invite children to swallow things by designing products which do not have to look, smell, or taste like food so that more of our children are encouraged to put them into their mouths? Of the 16 cases that I mentioned, 15 involved children getting parts stuck in their noses. The unnecessary smell must have something to do with it. Even my hon. Friend would admit that. The victims had to go to hospital to have the items removed. No one, including my hon. Friend, would recommend that to parents or children.
§ Mr. TaylorIf we are to include all the figures, the figure of 2,000 will rise substantially, as the Minister knows. Last year's evidence showed that 74 children received hospital treatment for swallowing marbles, and one child for swallowing an eraser. The Minister has not even found out whether it was a scented eraser or one which would not be affected by the regulations.
If we accept the Minister's arguments, the crucial question is whether he warned the trade. Did he seek its co-operation? The only warning that I can trace—I have followed this matter up in many parliamentary questions — was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), the previous Minister, on 8 November 1982. He issued a Department of Trade and Industry circular letter entitled: 295
Scented novelties: Common sense and a caution rather than a ban.It stated that the Minister had considered the evidence and continued:I do not think a ban would be justified.However, my hon. Friend appealed to suppliers and shopkeepers to stop selling smaller-sized novelties of the kind particularly likely to cause choking if swallowed.The Minister knows that the trade was not advised of this regulation. It appears that a copy was sent to the toy manufacturers association, which is involved in only a small way, and that none of the 40 individual suppliers who are in touch with me was aware of a warning. If the Minister had told the trade that he was worried about small rubbers that look like sweets, the trade would have agreed to act immediately to avoid emergency regulations, which have caused it enormous hardship and considerable financial loss. It has been confirmed in parliamentary questions that the vast majority of the trade was wholly unaware of that warning. The Minister knows that, because I asked him for full details of all those who were consulted and approached.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggIf my hon. Friend is telling the House that the trade would have agreed to withdraw small rubbers, why should we object to prohibiting them?
§ Mr. TaylorThe trade would have agreed to withdraw all erasers that looked like sweets, which is a small percentage of those which are covered by the regulations. They deal with erasers which look or smell like sweets. That is about 30 times the number of those which look like sweets.
The Minister knows that he could have introduced regulations with the agreement of the trade to ban the sale of erasers that look and smell like sweets. The matter would have been resolved satisfactorily, not because the trade or those involved thought that there was a need for a ban but because the Minister thought that something had to be done. The matter could then have been resolved easily and without hardship.
It has been said that the association of district councils and others have put forward similar recommendations. The Minister knows that all such associations were under the impression that the Minister was considering erasers that looked like sweets. If we accept that there is a danger, although there is not a shred of evidence to support it, why is the Minister making three exceptions to the regulations?
First, he says that these small food imitations can be sold if they are contained in dolls' houses. If he is worried that these items are a danger, are they not an even greater danger to children if they are contained in dolls' houses? Why should they be excluded because they are contained in dolls' houses?
§ Mr. FletcherOnly if they do not smell or taste like food.
§ Mr. TaylorThe order uses the words
products bona fide intended for use to represent food in a dolls' house or other model … setting.
§ Mr. FletcherIf they do not smell or taste like food.
§ Mr. TaylorThey must look like food if they are to represent food in a dolls' house. Therefore, something that looks like food and is in a dolls' house should be excluded.
The second thing that the Minister has excluded entirely is marbles. If we believe that marbles are dangerous, why do we not exclude them? Last year, 74 children were taken 296 to hospital after swallowing marbles, compared with only one child taken to hospital after swallowing an eraser. The third exemption is for exports. If those objects are dangerous, why should we allow companies to export them?
The Minister should ask himself whether the order goes too far. He said that large erasers would be covered if one could bite pieces off them. What is the bite test? As the Minister will know from the regulations, the bite test involves a very sharp edge — much sharper than the teeth of a small child—with a weight of 50 lbs, which is larger than one's baggage allowance for flying across the Atlantic, going down onto the eraser. That is a much larger load than any child could bring to bear on an eraser.
The next thing that we must ask ourselves is whether the order is a fair way of dealing with the trade. The main problem is with erasers that smell like sweets or flowers. The trade has been dealing with the erasers for about a year, and I assure the Minister that they have created genuine fears. He will be aware of the case of a company in my constitutuency which took specific erasers to the trading standards officer in Hertfordshire and was told that they were perfectly lawful. They did not fall within the criteria for banning. The company was then prosecuted in another county for selling exactly the same erasers. The Minister knows that many such cases have arisen because trading standards officers and the courts must work out the smell of food and sweets. Many of the erasers are shaped like typewriters or spacemen. It is extremely difficult to work out the smell of food. I would suggest that it is completely unworkable.
§ Sir John Page (Harrow, West)I was sent a yellow and brown snail, which I believe is covered by the Bill. It smells of soap. I was wondering whether it would be more offensive if it smelled like escargots, or more dangerous if it smelled like glue. Does the matter that we are discussing this evening compare with the Spotted "Hummerfly" Protection Bill, about which my hon. Friend knows a great deal?
§ Mr. TaylorMy hon. Friend has raised an important point. What is the smell of food? Under the order, every trader will have to work that out for himself. He will have to seek advice. What is the point of a trader going to a trading standards officer and being told that the eraser is all right if he is prosecuted for it by a neighbouring authority?
§ Mr. FletcherThis order follows consultations and is an improvement on the original order; but, on the evidence of the original order, the judge in the judicial review accepted that such tests had to be made and that, in those circumstances, they were acceptable. As I said earlier, he found in favour of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend is disagreeing not just with me—that does not matter—but with the firm judgment on the case which was taken to the High Court by the trade which he supports.
§ Mr. TaylorThe Minister is in danger almost of misleading the House. The judge was not called upon to express a view on the merits of the case or on the feasibility of operation of the tests. He was asked whether this was a lawful use of emergency powers. Does the Minister agree that traders have taken erasers to trading standards 297 officers and, indeed, to public analysts, been told that they are all right, and then been prosecuted for selling them in other authorities' areas?
The Minister is aware that the complaint is not made by a few nutcases. This view is held throughout industry and, indeed, by the CBI. I have a letter from the CBI, which says:
The regulations as they stand are in danger of bringing consumer legislation into disrepute, because of its obscurity for business and enforcers alike.At a time when we have over 3 million unemployed, and industry and trade are fighting for survival, my hon. Friend the Minister has treated an important business in a contemptuous way, and has not taken its views into account. If there was a problem of safety and a danger to young people, this could readily have been resolved in proper discussions and consultations.My hon. Friend has made no case to show that the objects covered in the legislation are in any way more dangerous than the generality of many small objects that children can put in their mouths. If there were such evidence, most of us would jump into the Lobby to support such legislation. My hon. Friend has not proved the case for extending the order from things that look like sweets to things that smell like sweets or flowers. The sensible thing to do would be to withdraw the order. My hon. Friend should have proper consultation with the trade and bring in a new order, if he wishes, to ban erasers that look like sweets, instead of bringing in messy, unworkable regulations, which have caused a great deal of distress, anxiety and unnecessary loss of business. They are not in the interests of safety, but in the interests of senseless, bureaucratic nonsense.
§ 11. 31 pm
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who delivered his speech with a great deal of feeling. It is wrong to criticise my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for introducing these regulations. They are sensible, wise and prudent. I entirely agree with the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that these things constitute a trap. By nature and design, they are a trap. If one creates an eraser that looks and smells like a strawberry, one must not be surprised when a child puts it in his or her mouth.
The eraser that I have in my hand looks and smells like a strawberry. I would not be surprised if a little child put it into his or her mouth, and I would not laugh if a child did so. That is true of many other substances covered by these regulations. We may not have any clear evidence that anybody has died or suffered serious injury from products covered by these regulations, but, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West said, are we to wait for a serious injury or a fatality before we act? Is that a sensible exercise of the discretions and functions of the House? Surely not, because we are considering a hazard, and we are entitled to guard against it.
It is true that some aspects of the regulations probably go further than is necessary. However, my hon. Friend the Minister made the sound point that we cannot embark on a drafting exercise. I regret that as much as anybody else. 298 I wish that we could amend these regulations. However, we are faced with the choice of accepting the regulations entirely or rejecting them entirely. We can go on bringing them back, changing them in draft, carrying on negotiations, and one thing and another, but what would we be doing that for? My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East feels that there are other great counterbalancing factors to be considered. He talked about 3 million unemployed, and about large concentrations of stock on the shelves, but are those real considerations?
I sense that some hon. Members believe that the garment of liberty is indivisible, and that we cannot have fluoridation, seat belts and crash helmets, and we must allow people to produce dangerous objects. This is the old argument. I do not agree. I think that hon. Members are entitled to form a judgment in the broad, and in the broad these objects are dangerous. I do not see any counterbalancing arguments which support the point of view of either of my hon. Friends.
§ Mr. HickmetMy hon. Friend applies the law of tort to his analysis of this issue, and I am sure that if we were in the High Court we would all applaud his analysis. But where is the evidence that these rubbers are dangerous? If we are to say that we exercise a judgment in these cases and it is not necessary to wait until a fatality occurs, where does one draw the line? Surely one has to use judgment. If one is to ban particular objects, why should one not ban the whole range of similar objects which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has already described?
§ Mr. HoggI never mentioned the law of tort. I never contemplated the law of tort. I invited the House to apply common sense and good judgment. As my hon. Friend is a criminal lawyer, he is unduly preoccupied with evidence.
§ Mr. HickmetOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. HickmetNo, I want to ask my hon. Friend—
§ Mr. HoggNo, I will not give way. If it is a point of order, I am perfectly prepared to give way, indeed I must give way, but I do not have to give way to an intervention.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. This is a very short debate.
§ Mr. HoggGuided by the principle of common sense, we are being asked to consider a number of products which are for no very good reason designed to resemble sweets and other articles which would be attractive to children. It seems obvious to me that small children are likely to put them in their mouths and suffer serious injury. Faced with that obvious, clear and predictable risk, I think that the objections put forward by my hon. Friends are simply absurd.
§ Mr. John Watson (Skipton and Ripon)I should first declare something of an interest, in that until 1979 when I was elected to the House I was the managing director of Waddington Games, and I am still a director of the holding company. While I speak from a position of some interest, it is not a position of vested interest, because the company 299 makes none of the products that are now known rather euphemistically as scented products. We used to make such products. In the early 1960s we produced a series of jigsaw puzzles which were perfectly round, one of which was printed with scented ink. It was a picture of an Italian pizza. The slogan on the carton was, "Looks like pizza, smells like pizza, but tastes like cardboard". So far as I can see, such a harmless product would indeed be banned under the regulations. That is the one reservation that I have about them.
I will support the regulations, because I believe in the principle that they seek to achieve. I follow the common sense, if not entirely the arguments, of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), when he says that something that looks like chocolate and smells like chocolate runs the risk of being swallowed as chocolate.
Where I differ from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in the scope of the drafting of the regulations which seems to me to be unnecessarily wide. For example, why are adults included? I quote—
'Toys' means playthings whether intended for adults or children".Adults, I submit, know what they can eat and what they cannot eat. I acknowledge. that the catering department of British Rail may have done its best to blur the distinction in recent months, but by and large adults know what they can eat and what they cannot eat and do not need statutory protection in the matter. Secondly, why is it necessary to include the smell of flowers? Again I quote—any regulated product—(a) which looks like food, or smells like food or like flowers".Children by and large do not eat flowers. I have three children and I pride myself on believing that they are fairly normal. I can assure the House that they do not go rampaging round the garden biting the heads off the roses and munching their way through the gladioli. I do not think that children need protection from things that smell like flowers.Why do we need to include the specific product Playdoh? By implication, at least, that is included in the definition
modelling clay, plasticine and products of a like nature".Clearly that would include Playdoh although it is dough, and can be eaten. As I know to my cost, if someone puts it in the oven he will get a sort of technicoloured chapatti, which may not be particularly appetising but which is at least edible.If we pass the regulations, I fear that a little old lady running a toy shop in Bishop's Stortford, who is sitting down on a quiet Thursday afternoon doing her scented jigsaw puzzle of a scented rose, will be faced by a geezer from the trading standards office who says, "Will your pieces fit into my truncated cylinder? And, by the way, could the cherries in your hat be described as 'play things', because, if so, your hat has just been banned by Parliament?"
I am quite content to vote for the regulations, but I shall do so with the anxiety that they have been drafted with perhaps unnecessary width. I very much hope that they will not be used as a basis for a witch-hunt against products which Parliament is perfectly happy to permit.
§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)It is with some trepidation that I enter into the debate. I was 300 introduced to these items in exactly the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) was. My elder daughter brought them home from school, and I caught my younger daughter — who was then about four—trying to eat them. It was immediately apparent to me that what appeared to be harmless was not, and that what seemed to be clever and fun—and these items are very clever—was in fact, quite alarming.
The programme "That's Life" has been mentioned. Those of us who watched the programme for several weeks when it highlighted this problem are aware of the tremendous public concern that was produced. It also highlighted decorative items such as a brooch in the shape of a bar of chocolate that was being given away in Cadbury's drinking chocolate. It is interesting to recall that that was immediately and voluntarily withdrawn. If no one else will, I will pay tribute to the "That's Life" programme, because it has done an excellent job on this and other dangerous items and brought them to the public's attention. I also pay tribute to Derbyshire county council's trading standards department, which made renewed and persistent efforts to ensure that some regulations were introduced.
One of the problems is that most of these items are made for children and are therefore pocket-money items. They are obtained through swaps, too, and are extremely difficult—just about impossible—for parents to control, even for those who make every effort to supervise and control what their children buy. These articles look nice, look like food, and smell nice. We have all been sent a model snail by a company which readily admits that it stands to lose £140,000 in written-off stock. The point is that in support of its case it did not send us the strawberry smelling of strawberries, the—
§ Mrs. CurrieI shall not give way, as there is not time. That company did not send in support of its case an eraser that looks like a piece of candy and smells of mint, or a snail that smells of snail. If it had it might have better proved the point. I suspect that we all ended up knowing exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page) uses in his bath, because that company sent us a snail that smells of lemons. That is dangerous, because when small children smell it, the first thing that they will do is put it in their mouths to see whether it is food. The younger the child, the greater the danger. If such items are put in children's mouths, their size makes them dangerous. Anyone who has been with a choking child knows that it is a terrifying experience. Choking can cause not only brain damage, but death. It is not good enough to ask how many deaths. Our answer should surely be "as few as possible".
It is argued that other things cause problems — I accept that they do—but these items are new and are not traditional. They create a new hazard to which the public have reacted very strongly. They expect Parliament so to react as well. Secondly, because these articles are designed to be like food, they are designed to deceive, and they will do so. They will specifically deceive small children who do not know any better. Thirdly, just because some other goods are dangerous, these items should not be condoned. We are not excused from taking action to ban smelly rubbers just because something else is 301 dangerous. This is a dangerous world for children, and this one small specific move to tackle a particular problem is welcome.
I seem to have made several paternalistic speeches this week. Normally, I am a great believer in caveat emptor and I prefer to emphasise the responsibility of individuals for their own welfare and that of their families. My support for such measures is, therefore, only given with caution. In this case, I believe that the Government are right, and I urge hon. Members to support these regulations.
§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)There has been great misunderstanding in this debate. I intervened—so I did not have to make a speech—to correct that misunderstanding. It must be understood that the trade does not object to the strawberry that smells like a strawberry, to the sweet that smells like a sweet or to any of those items. It is easy to frame regulations to cover those items. When some larger different object that does not look like a sweet or food has a scent that enables traders to sell it, I do not believe that it can be harmful. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that the regulations should be changed to include those types of items, and I believe that there is across-the-board agreement on that point among Conservative Members.
We must realise that we are talking about a small trade in which many people have small amounts of money tied up. By and large, small entrepreneurial companies will suffer greatly from the effect of these regulations. Employment is involved and employees will be affected by this legislation. This is the most ill-advised legislation I have come across during my 18 months as a Member.
This is a classic example of the Minister deciding on a measure and then finding an argument to match it. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has decided that these objects are dangerous. My hon. Friend has told us of 16 cases of erasers stuffed up noses or down mouths. Yesterday, a written answer about objects swallowed showed that in the catogory
Other articles recorded less than 10 times, including erasers" —[Official Report] 14 January 1985; Vol. 71, col. 21.]only one article was swallowed in 1984.
§ Mr. FletcherWhat about items put up the nose?
§ Mr. AshbyMy hon. Friend tells me that I have not included items put up the nose. They are included in those 16 cases. What will happen when I ask my hon. Friend for the same sort of figures for marbles, money and other items stuffed up the nose? Vast quantities of items seem to be stuffed up noses.
As any parent knows—I have a child—small objects are a danger to children. Parents are vigilant about keeping small objects away from their children. It does not matter whether those items smell of flowers or food — they must be kept from children.
§ Mr. AshbyI shall not give way. One must be vigilant: one knows of the dangers of any item in the hands of children.
I am worried most by the way in which the new regulations have come about. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told us that the measures are an 302 extension of the existing emergency regulations, and they certainly are that. I have said that this is a classic example of the Government deciding on an action and then finding arguments.
§ Mr. AshbyI shall not give way. A letter dated 29 March 1984 was sent in vast numbers to toy manufacturers and retailers. That letter by Mr. Rider, which was headed "Scented Children's Products", stated:
You may know that in the recent debate in Parliament on the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order 1984, the Minister indicated that consideration would be given to the need to make regulations covering such products on a permanent basis, because of continuing concern about their scent.The crucial point followed:
Although medical opinion has not so far established any link between the smelling of scented products and glue sniffing, commonsense suggests that the addition of a scent to children's non-food products (except toiletries which children do not generally use in play) must encourage children to smell them for pleasure and thus carries a possible risk in that it may lead to something more serious,What did the official of the Minister's Department mean by that letter? Although one might say that there is no real link, I suggest that there was an attempt there to link any sort of scented object, including flowers, to glue sniffing. The object was to establish in the minds of the people the thought that once one started sniffing a scented rubber, the next step was glue sniffing. It is the most ridiculous argument I have ever come across.
§ Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)I challenge my hon. Friend on the point he is making. He underestimates the amount of parental opinion that believes that there could be a link between sniffing these rubbers and glue sniffing. The scents used in these items are particularly pungent. Children develop a kind of addiction to them. If one talks to teachers, one hears that they have had a major problem with children who have sniffed rubbers continually through lessons.
§ Mr. AshbyCan one really suggest that children become addicted and that the next step is glue sniffing? The nose is a vital organ. [Interruption.] There is taste and smell, but why on earth should these products be singled out from among the millions of pleasurable smells, including scented flowers, that exist? One need only go to a garden designed for the blind to realise the beauty of scented flowers.
Perhaps teachers should realise that children are constantly developing their senses. That is part of their education. Having something to hand to smell is a development of the sense of smell. [Interruption.] I appreciate that this is a subject of some mirth; it is bound to be because of the connotations that arise. As I say, smell is part of children's education and I should expect them to explore smells.
The argument that is being adduced for extending these provisions is designed to create a sense of fear. We are being asked to go far beyond what is required amd what commonsense dictates. If the instrument were confined to objects that look and smell like food, nobody could object, but it goes much further, and, for that reason, I shall oppose it.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)This is one of those profoundly disappointing and disagreeable occasions when one is left thinking that it is a sad day if this is all that the Government have to concern themselves with.
Other hon. Members have pointed out that, as parents, when they have found their young children in the process of eating these objects, they have stopped them doing so. That surely is where the primary responsibility for such matters has lain and will always lie. It is not for the House to try to usurp the role of parents in watching what their young children are doing before they reach the age at which they can make a sensible decision for themselves.
The Minister cited, as is often the case when it suits. other countries which had done this and said that this was therefore an excellent reason for doing it. He mentioned Greece. I for one am not always anxious to follow everything that the Greeks do in such matters. This sits ill with the fact that just last night in the debate on the fluoridation of water we were told that, in spite of the fact other countries did not fluoridate their water, we would go ahead and do it.
The Government must make up their mind about whether they wish to pray in aid what other countries do. I am prepared to follow one course or the other but I am damned if I shall follow both. For that reason, and for many others given by my hon. Friends, I shall not be supporting this nonsense.
§ Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)It is the Government's job to try to protect people for whom they have a responsibility. They also have a duty to spot those items which are manufactured deliberately to try to entice young people, particularly when it gets to the stage that such items form part of a craze, as notified to many of us by school teachers.
In the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 7 March I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that at that stage 50 million scented erasers were already in circulation and were not being banned or withdrawn because of the regulations. I asked my hon. Friend whether in the year following he would come back with statistics to show exactly how many of them had caused accidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) talked about common sense and probabilities. Out of these 50 million I wonder when one ingested by, according to Hansard, "persons of any age" in the past 11 months has been a proven danger to people under the Government's responsibility.
I am disturbed about these regulations because they extend further than most people want the Government's protectionist arm, but it is the Government's duty to recognise dangers when they exist. Therefore, I would not vote against the Government, because it is their duty to protect people through consumer legislation, and they do not do so often enough. However, I cannot support the regulations because I do not believe the case is proven in this instance.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 13.
305| Division No. 66] | [11.57 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) |
| Ancram, Michael | Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Baldry, Tony |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Hind, Kenneth |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Batiste, Spencer | Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Holt, Richard |
| Beith, A. J. | Hooson, Tom |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Benyon, William | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Best, Keith | Howells, Geraint |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| Blackburn, John | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hunter, Andrew |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Kennedy, Charles |
| Boyes, Roland | Key, Robert |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
| Bright, Graham | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
| Brinton, Tim | Knowles, Michael |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Knox, David |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Lang, Ian |
| Browne, John | Latham, Michael |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Lester, Jim |
| Burt, Alistair | Lilley, Peter |
| Butterfill, John | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | Lord, Michael |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Carttiss, Michael | Major, John |
| Cash, William | Marlow, Antony |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Mather, Carol |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Chope, Christopher | Michie, William |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Cockeram, Eric | Neale, Gerrard |
| Cohen, Harry | Nellist, David |
| Conway, Derek | Neubert, Michael |
| Coombs, Simon | Page, Sir John (Harrow W) |
| Cope, John | Patchett, Terry |
| Couchman, James | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Craigen, J. M. | Powley, John |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Dicks, Terry | Rowe, Andrew |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Dover, Den | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Dunn, Robert | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Durant, Tony | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Eastham, Ken | Silvester, Fred |
| Eggar, Tim | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Evennett, David | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Fallon, Michael | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Farr, Sir John | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Favell, Anthony | Soley, Clive |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Speed, Keith |
| Fletcher, Alexander | Spence, John |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Spencer, Derek |
| Franks, Cecil | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Freeman, Roger | Steen, Anthony |
| Gale, Roger | Stern, Michael |
| Galley, Roy | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Gow, Ian | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Gregory, Conal | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Ground, Patrick | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Grylls, Michael | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Sumberg, David |
| Harris, David | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Hawksley, Warren | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Hayes, J. | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Hayward, Robert | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Thurnham, Peter |
| Heddle, John | Tracey, Richard |
| Henderson, Barry | Trippier, David |
| Twinn, Dr Ian | Wilkinson, John |
| van Straubenzee, Sir W. | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| Viggers, Peter | Wolfson, Mark |
| Walden, George | Wood, Timothy |
| Wallace, James | Yeo, Tim |
| Wardle, C. (Bexhill) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Wareing, Robert | |
| Watson, John | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Watts, John | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and |
| Whitfield, John | Mr. Archie Hamilton. |
| Whitney, Raymond | |
| NOES | |
| Amess, David | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Forth, Eric | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Fox, Marcus | Wheeler, John |
| Garrett, W. E. | |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Harvey, Robert | Mr. David Ashby and |
| Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) | Mr. Patrick Thompson. |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
§
Resolved,
That the draft Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.