Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1985 (Hansard, 28 January 1985)

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1985, laid before the House on 11th December 1984, to be made under the Consumer Safety Act 1978, be approved. I should just point out that the Order Paper refers to "Food Limitations". We are in fact here referring to "Food Imitations".
The proposed regulations replace and extend the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order 1984 (S.I. 1984 No. 83) made on 30th 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.
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". This is what has to be kept in mind when considering the need for regulations made under the Act.
There is a need to remove from supply certain products which, by this definition, cannot be considered safe, particularly to young children because, by wilfully and unnecessarily imitating food they increase the risk of choking presented by all small objects. These regulations need cause no concern to suppliers of toys, novelties and stationery items if the goods they market do not imitate food.
One is bound to ask: why should such things look, taste or smell like food, anyway? What is the point of making a pencil-sharpener look like a strawberry, or a rubber shaped like a typewriter smell of bananas? Any ordinary adult finding such things 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 possibly annoyance. Parents are well aware of the habit that all small children have of putting things in their mouths. But they 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 and imagination in responding to that demand. But suppliers must be responsible, and 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 this reason responsible manufacturers and traders look to Parliament for guidance on particular aspects of safety. These regulations, therefore, relate to the hazard and unnecessary temptation that small objects present to a specially vulnerable group; children under three years of age.
During last year the Department of Trade and Industry carried out extensive consultations on the scope and content of these regulations. In all 104 bodies were consulted. This figure included 30 trade associations and 16 individual firms. Half of the 104 responded; two had no comment, 39 were generally in favour, and 11 opposed the concept. Some, if not quite 536 all, of the concerns of the trade associations who were consulted have been met by subsequent amendments to the regulations. All comments received have been fully considered in determining the form and content of the draft regulations.
In taking action now, Parliament will do two main things: first, keep known food imitation products (mainly scented erasers) off the market and thereby avoid the potential increase in numbers of accidents associated with them; and, secondly, pre-empt the introduction of other products which might imitate food.
In making permanent regulations it is logical to cover not only scented erasers, but also other similar products which are equally dangerous, and to include other means of food imitation. In order to cause the minimum restriction on trade, however, 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.
A targeted approach has been adopted so that the trade should know with certainty what would and would not be permissible. The target is not the traditional toys of long standing, but the new and more dangerous products which have come on to the market in recent years, and almost all from the Far East.
The regulations need to contain three simple tests, all related to the size of objects. The main test is the truncated cylinder. But there is also a potential hazard from larger objects from which small children can detach smaller pieces by biting or pulling. So two severance tests are necessary to simulate the abuse things are likely to receive in the hands and mouths of small children.
The Government, in a White Paper (Cmnd. 9302), published proposals last July 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.
Additionally, 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 specific goods. All these measures will have the effect of diminishing the need for safety regulations, prohibition orders and notices of the kind we are considering tonight.
Finally, my Lords, it is pertinent to remark that there is legislation banning small objects that imitate food in a number of countries—France, Austria, West Germany. Switzerland, Sweden, the Republic of Ireland, Greece and Australia—and Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and a number of other countries are proposing action shortly.
The draft regulations before the House will promote greater safety, and, accordingly, I ask your Lordships to approve them. I beg to move.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing what is, of course, a serious matter as seriously and responsibly as he did. We on this side of the House support the regulations. We believe that although it might be thought that this is an extension of the "Nanny state", which none of us would wish for its own sake, the dangers here which are to be avoided by the regulations outweigh the dangers of increased regulation.
Having said that, I must also say that this is one of the most delightful little sets of regulations I have seen for a long time. There are very few that actually contain engineering drawings of test jaws or truncated cylinders. There are very few regulations which actually contain definitions of "food", "severable parts", "toys" or "marbles". I think the English language is in no way diminished by the kind of definitions which we see included in the regulations. We support the Motion.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I should like just to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his support for the regulations.