§ Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the cost of producing and posting the circular which he issued to firms, organisations and individuals in March urging them to remove scent from scented products.
§ Mr. FletcherNo costing of this small exercise has been done.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the loss of business and loss of employment sustained by producers, importers, wholesalers and retailers of scented products following the issue of his departmental circular of March 1984, advising the removal of scent from scented products and the inadvisability of selling scented products.
§ Mr. FletcherNone. The consumer safety unit of my Department engages in correspondence and discussions with many suppliers of consumer products which may present a hazard or may be capable of improvement from the safety point of view by modification or the addition of warning labels, and so on. The 29 March letter was one example of this activity. My concern is with safety, and where this is at issue possible financial losses which suppliers may suffer are not a proper consideration for me.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why his Department issued a circular letter in March urging firms to remove scent from scented products and to avoid manufacturing or selling scented products in view of the fact that there was no known connection between such products and solvent sniffing.
§ Mr. FletcherThe text of the circular letter itself makes the reason for issuing it apparent. The letter acknowledged that medical opinion had not established any link between the smelling of scented products and glue sniffing. I am watching the position carefully. I continue to be concerned about the swallowing risk presented by smaller scented products.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions he has had with manufacturers and distributors of scented products about the circular issued by his Department in March; and if he will make a statement;
(2) how many firms, organisations and individuals were sent copies of his Department circular in March urging them not to manufacture or sell scented products in view of an alleged connection between such products and solvent sniffing; and if, following his recent determination that no such link is known, he will now issue a revised circular to the recipients of the March circular;
(3) what were the considerations and what was the evidence which prompted him to authorise his Department 98W to issue a circular letter in March urging the removal of scent from scented products; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. FletcherThe circular letter issued by my Department on 29 March 1984 went to seven trade associations and five individual firms, and invited their comments. Useful discussions subsequently took place with four trade associations and one supplier.
In the light of comments received and the expressions of concern about the trend towards scented toys and other children's products which have reached me from the medical professions, from Members of Parliament, from such organisations as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA), from local authorities through their associations and from individual consumers, I am now considering the need for regulations to cover erasers and some other non-food products on a permanent basis and in particular what the scope of such regulations should be. The thinking that lies behind this concern is that small objects that may be confused with food or drink, whether by scent or appearance or by other means, represent an addition to the swallowing hazard that exists for all small children. My objective is to minimise the risk to small children. Since we are concerned with the risk of things being swallowed by small children it follows that any new regulations will cover only things below a certain size.
I explained in answer to another of my hon. Friend's questions today that the circular letter of 29 March itself acknowledges that there was no known link between smelling children's scented products and glue sniffing. There was therefore no "recent determination" on this point, and it follows that there is no need for a revised circular.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in the light of the withdrawal of the advice which he gave in March on the manufacture and sale of scented products, he will now withdraw the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order.
§ Mr. FletcherThe advice in the circular letter of 29 March 1984 has not been withdrawn. I remain concerned about the suffocation hazard represented by small scented products for children. I do not intend to withdraw the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order 1984.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what costs have been incurred by Her Majesty's Government over the legal challenge to the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order; and if it is his intention to defend the action in court on 19 and 20 July.
§ Mr. FletcherIt is not possible to give a meaningful estimate of the costs incurred by Government in this action to date. The action will be defended.