HL Deb 03 July 1980 vol 411 cc601-8

6.57 p.m.

Lord TREFGARNE rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proposed regulations seek to ban the sale of three products—balloon-making substances which contain benzene, tear-gas capsules, and stink bombs containing more than 1.5 ml of liquid consisting of sulphides of ammonia or of these sulphides mixed or in solution with any other substance. These products are known in the trade as "novelties". The word "novelty" is usually used to describe relatively inexpensive products for pastimes or jokes which sometimes are designed to create amusement at the expense of unsuspecting victims. Typical examples are itching and sneezing powders, fake lumps of sugar, food made from plastic, glasses that leak their contents and blood-stained bandages.

None of these products is likely to offer substantial risks of personal injury. However, the three items covered by these regulations are believed to offer such a risk—the balloon-making compound because of the presence of benzene, a well-known carcinogen, and the tear-gas capsules and large stink bombs because of the risk of injury from the chemicals used to the face, especially the eyes and to other sensitive parts of the body. It is felt that the tear-gas capsules and large stink bombs represent what may be a disturbing tendency in the novelty trade, as they offer a substantial risk of personal injury to the victim or victims.

Balloon-making substances containing benzene are covered by regulations 2(a) and 2(b). This product was previously banned by the Balloon-Making Compounds (Safety) Order 1979 (SI 1979 No. 44), which was made under Section 3 of the Consumer Safety Act 1978. The order was made because it was found that "free" benzene was present in balloon-making kits imported in quantity from Taiwan via the United States. Benzene, which served as a solvent in the balloon-making paste, is known to be capable of causing blood diseases like leukaemia as a result of ingestion or prolonged inhalation.

Consultation about proposed regulations made under the Consumer Safety Act 1978 is always liable to be a lengthy affair. Consequently, it was not possible to introduce the regulation dealing with this product before the prohibition order expired on 18th January, this year. However, tests carried out for the department on samples of the balloon-making compound made by the same manufacturer and marketed after the order came into effect failed to reveal the presence of the offending benzene. For this reason it was not felt necessary to make a fresh prohibition order to cover the period between expiry of the original order and the entry into force of Regulation 2(a) and (b). Regulation 2(a) and (b) is so drafted as to come into force seven days after it is made.

Tear-gas capsules are covered by Regulation 2(c). They are at present banned under the Tear-Gas Capsules (Safety) Order 1979 (Statutory Instrument No. 887) which was also made under Section 3 of the Consumer Safety Act 1978. The regulation is so drafted as to come into effect from the date of expiry of the existing order; namely, 20th August 1980. The order prohibits the supply of a tear-gas capsule designed or intended to afford amusement to any person by causing discomfort to any other person by means of the lachrymatory properties of a substance capable of causing personal injury. By "lachrymatory properties" the draftsman means that the contents of the capsule cause copious tears. The department's medical adviser has stated that such a substance could cause damage to sight, if splashed into the eyes. Before the prohibition order was made there were known to be some of these products imported from West Germany.

Regulation 2(d) will forbid the supply of "large" stink bombs; that is, those containing more than 1.5 millilitres of a liquid consisting of sulphides of ammonia, or a mixture or solution of these substances. This liquid is corrosive and could burn the skin and eyes, and, if swallowed, the mucous membranes. In a confined space the gas given off—hydrogen sulphide—could be hazardous, particularly to persons with respiratory problems. Only large stink bombs are covered by the regulation. The large stink bomb appears to be a new development, and it is not proposed to prohibit the supply of the "traditional" small stink bomb which contains on average 1 to 1.2 millilitres of liquid.

It is recognised that some people may consider any stink bombs obnoxious or distressing, whilst others may consider them harmless practical jokes of a kind that children have always been given to. In the event, it has been considered right to draw a distinction between the "traditional" stink bomb and the large kind. The "traditional" stink bomb does not constitute the hazard to the victim offered by the large stink bombs, which may contain as much as 10 to 12 millilitres of liquid, and unlike the traditional kind, which are often crushed under foot, may well be used by splashing the liquid about. In the hands of hooligans who look upon the suffering of a victim as a joke they could constitute a serious threat of personal injury. Regulation 2(d) will enter into force three months after it is made, so as to allow the many small retailers of such goods reasonable time to withdraw stocks and avoid the risk of prosecution.

More than 60 bodies, representing a wide spectrum of interests—manufacturers, retailers, consumers and enforcement authorities—were consulted about the proposed regulations. They received a general welcome. The only substantial objection came from a manufacturer of the large stink bombs, who considered that a significant part of his production would be affected. His representations, together with all the others, were considered very carefully before it was decided to make the proposed regulations. The interests of safety were considered overriding. Accordingly, I recommend the draft regulations to this House, and I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th June, be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

7.3 p.m.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for having clarified some of the issues with regard to these regulations. However, there are, I think, one or two other points that still require clarification. Of course I am assuming that before he came into the Chamber the noble Lord divested himself of the stink bombs with which he was presented. If one looks at these very reasonable regulations, one finds all kinds of points that require even more clarification than the noble Lord has so far been able to give.

Regulation 2(a) refers to any kit for making balloons containing any substance from which the balloons are to be made which contains benzene".

Benzene is, like most chemicals, a troublesome and noxious substance if ill-advisedly used. At the same time it is an extremely common chemical, which can be purchased at a chemist's with no difficulty at all. Benzene has frequently been used as, for example, a solvent in removing greasy stains from clothing. It is not an uncommon substance; it is fairly common. It has been known ever since Michael Faraday discovered it in, I think, about 1854, and it has since been frequently used.

I do not wish to ask the noble Lord about the justification for excluding its use —I agree entirely with that—but rather, I wonder whether this prohibition will have any marked effect. Is it not perfectly possible for a kit to be supplied without benzene and then for the benzene to be purchased separately at a chemists' shop? One would then be able to do exactly the same thing as one could have done had the benzene been supplied with the kit.

Another point arises. I am not familiar with these kits, but there are various other substances—organies and liquids—which are not markedly dissimilar from benzene and which quite possibly could be used. Would it not be possible for a manufacturer to substitute some other substance? —for example, toluene, which is very similar to benzene and which might, if it were a matter of keeping the vapour pressure high enough, be diluted with another liquid which produced exactly the same kind of vapour pressure. I am not certain, but perhaps one is being a little too specific in mentioning benzene. Perhaps the noble Lord can elaborate on this point in his reply and explain to the House whether the regulations are concerned uniquely with benzene, or whether some other substance might not be able to perform the same function and be deleterious.

Certain other matters arise. The wording of the regulations is most delightful. No doubt the noble Lord has derived as much amusement from reading the regulations as I have. Regulation 2(c) refers to any injurious tear-gas capsule, that is to say, any article designed or intended to afford amusement to any person by causing discomfort to any other person …

I should really like to know where the banana skin comes in, in this. I should have thought it a perfect example of something that can be used to afford amusement by causing discomfort. It is surely the classic example. The regulation goes on to refer to the lachrymatory properties of a substance. Where does the common onion come in? The common onion is well known to have lachrymatory effects. Is the common onion, as well as the banana skin, included in this regulation, or is it not?

More seriously, I find it a little difficult to understand how a figure of 1½ millilitres is arrived at. It is a very small amount. Do the Government and their advisers maintain that 1.2 millilitres would be harmless, whereas 1.5 millilitres would be harmful'? I find this very odd, because I would have thought (especially as he referred to the medical advisers saying that if one got any of this liquid on the eyes, for example, it could be very troublesome) it does not require one and a half millilitres on the eyes to be troublesome. I would venture to say that a tenth of a millilitre could be very troublesome on the eyes. I would have thought that this figure of 1.5 was a very strange one to introduce into an order like this, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to justify this in greater detail, and explain to us why this figure of 1.5 is used.

Finally, there is another point I should like to raise. In the 1979 Order, No. 887, which comes to an end because it was applicable for only a year, there was a provision which said: No person shall supply, offer to supply, agree to supply, expose for supply or possess for supply any injurious tear gas capsule". Why has that been left out? I would have thought that that was a very clear statement which ought to have been retained, and I should like to know from the noble Lord why we have had this degree of dilution. It would surely be better to retain the original order with suitable modification, but not with the exclusion of that provision.

7.12 p.m.

Lord AUCKLAND

My Lords, I intervene briefly in this short debate, which brings a little levity after our rather heavy discussions on more controversial legislation but which, nevertheless, has some serious connotation to it. I speak, first, as an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and also as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, although I was abroad on business when this particular order came up. I do not think any of us wants to see prohibited the delightful novelties which a shop in High Holborn, not so very far from here, used to display, and which gave immense pleasure, nationally and internationally, but there are certain inherent dangers in some of the substances used in them.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who has given us an expert scientific appraisal of this, I am, I must say, no scientist, so I shall not go into the sizes of the various amounts of ammonia and other substances contained in these balloons and other novelties, but the question I should like to put to my noble friend is this. I understand from his original statement that some of these items are imported from Taiwan and elsewhere. Have the Government had arty consultations on this matter with the authorities in Taiwan and elsewhere? There was the problem of the dangerous lead content of toys imported mainly from Hong Kong, and, as I understand it, the Hong Kong Government was approached and that problem has now been largely resolved. Since we import into his country a number of these novelties, such as stink bombs, balloons and so on, while I do not think any of us would wish to be spoilsports enough to see these items too vigorously controlled, nevertheless, as this order indicates, there are certain safety hazards; and it seems to me very important that every step should be taken to ensure that, where imports take place, there is discussion with the Governments concerned as to safety levels, which are of paramount importance, particularly where children are concerned.

7.15 p.m.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, I am obliged to noble Lords for their reception of these regulations. I am glad I have not had to let off one of the stink bombs to get the measure through your Lordships' House, although perhaps that might be helpful in the case of the Housing Bill, which is going so slowly. Perhaps I may deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. They are fairly technical, but I will do my best. I think I have got it right, but the noble Lord will forgive me if I inadvertently stray, for I fancy he knows the answers better than I do. As for, first of all, the balloon-making kits, benzene, even if sold separately, which is certainly not the practice at the moment, would be caught under these regulations. Of course, the point is that the benzene is used as a solvent for the plastic from which the balloons are made. The kit contains a little plastic tube with the dissolved plastic, and thus there is a risk that the child would actually swallow some of the plastic and the benzene. That is why it was necessary to prohibit the kits where they contained benzene. Kits that have recently come on the market do not, I am informed, contain benzene, and they, therefore, are not caught by these regulations.

The noble Lord asked me about the reason for the 1.5 millilitre figure with respect to the stink bombs. The current traditional stink bombs, as they are called, contain, as I said, about 1.2 millilitres, which we consider harmless, and we therefore set the figure at 1.5 millilitres because we understand that these devices are not manufactured to very close tolerances, and the precise amount of liquid therefore cannot always he exactly determined.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. May I ask him whether the medical advice is that 1.2 really would be harmless on the eyes? Because I am surprised if such medical advice has been given.

Lord TREFGARNE

No, my Lords. The purport of the advice was that the traditional stink bombs, which are little glass capsules, by and large, and which, as I explained, are normally designed to be broken underfoot, or something like that, do not present the same risk because the fluid does not come near the eyes. The larger stink bombs are different. They are not glass capsules. The one that I was shown recently was a plastic bottle with a screw top, which could not have broken. It was simply that the top was unscrewed and the hooligan, or whoever he was, then scattered the fluid all around. That was clearly a hazard that had to be controlled.

The noble Lord asked me about tear gas capsules, and why it was that these regulations were diluted, as he thought they were, when compared with the original order banning them. I am advised that that is in fact not the case, and that the words used under the original order are virtually identical to the words used under these regulations. Certainly the effect is designed to be precisely the same.

My noble friend Lord Auckland asked me about consultations with the countries from which they come. There are some difficulties in this area because sometimes these products come via a devious route through several countries, and it is not always possible immediately to determine from where they in fact originate.

So far as Taiwan is concerned, our relations with Taiwan are not precisely cordial. As your Lordships will know, Taiwan has a curious place in the community of nations, and we do not in fact have relations with them at the present time. Thus, although we would be happy to stop the source of these products where that was practicable, we prefer to take the course laid out in the regulations. In fact, the larger stink bombs that I referred to are manufactured in this country; so clearly we had to proceed in the way that we did. I hope that with those explanations your Lordships will approve these regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.