Cosmetic Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985 (Hansard, 19 December 1985)

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I beg to move that the Cosmetic Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which were laid before the House on 13th November, be approved.
These regulations make detailed amendments to the main regulations governing cosmetics and are not themselves of very great importance. But I make no apology for this, for I believe that measures that are going to be given the full force of law, however minor, 927 ought to be at least briefly considered and approved by this House.
These regulations bring up to date the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1984, which ensured the safety of cosmetics in this country by prohibiting certain ingredients, restricting the use of others and prescribing appropriate warning labelling. It is necessary to regulate cosmetics in this way because each member of the public uses cosmetics—which, one must remember, include soap, toothpaste and shampoo—every day of his or her life, and so we have to try to ensure that they are completely safe.
The proposed regulations implement the latest EC Directive 84/415, which we are required to implement. They amend the list of prohibited and restricted ingredients and the warning labelling required and also make some clarifying amendments to the principal regulations. We supported in Brussels the directive that we are now implementing and would have made these changes in any case. We have consulted the industry and representatives of the medical profession, consumers and the enforcement authorities, who are content. These regulations are not contentious. They concern a few detailed additions to the list of regulated ingredients of cosmetics. However, as I said, since the regulations will become law it is important that Parliament should approve them.
Perhaps I may now turn to the subject of enforcement of these, and indeed other, regulations which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, quite rightly raised at Question Time yesterday. The levels of safety set by these regulations provide clear direction to manufacturers and other suppliers. Most traders, being reputable, will comply, but there will always be a minority whose goods will need careful checking by enforcement officers.
Local authorities have the duty to enforce all these regulations. There is no reason to think that they will not enforce them adequately, but the level of enforcement inevitably varies with the enthusiasm of, and the importance placed on them by, individual local authorities. I need hardly remind noble Lords that, of course, the enforcement authorities liaise closely with the Department of Trade and Industry on enforcement matters. We plan to introduce the measures proposed in the White Paper Safety of Goods, including the general safety requirement and the measures for more effective enforcement, as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
Trading standards officers already have powers to seize and detain goods for the purpose of ascertaining, by testing or otherwise, whether safety regulations have been contravened. But these powers are limited to the taking of samples for the purpose of testing etc., and they do not permit the authorities to halt directly the sale of goods, even where there are strong reasons for believing that the general public is at risk. We are therefore proposing to strengthen the existing powers by enabling enforcement authorities either to require suppliers to retain in their possession goods which are suspected of contravening safety requirements, or, if necessary, to seize such goods. This is an important part of the proposals in the White Paper on the safety of goods, which, as I say, we intend to implement as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
928 In Great Britain safety regulations are enforced by local authority trading standards departments. There are 98 of these. The number of officers employed is about 1,500, but it is not possible to estimate the overall proportion of resources devoted to consumer safety, because the level varies between local authorities. I would also remind your Lordships that a supplier of goods prohibited by these regulations is liable to a fine of £2,000 and up to three months in gaol. With those remarks I invite the House to approve these regulations. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced the Cosmetic Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, and I am obliged to him, too, for having given certain other information which applies not only to this order but also to the succeeding orders that we are to discuss. It will perhaps be convenient to the noble Lord and to the House if I discuss the enforcement aspect of the regulations not on the consideration of this order, but on the consideration of the orders that are about to be discussed by the House. But so far as these regulations are concerned, we on this side are happy to facilitate their passage.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of this order.