Dangerous and restricted goods
These regulations aim to protect members of the public from potentially dangerous goods and stop the sale of certain goods to children.
You can find all 24 regulations that relate to dangerous and restricted goods here [opens in new window].
Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:
- Should they be scrapped altogether?
- Can they be merged with existing regulations?
- Can we simplify them – or reduce the bureaucracy associated with them?
- Have you got any ideas to make these regulations better?
- Do you think they should be left as they are?
We cannot sell Christmas crackers to under-16s because they fall within the scope of the legislation. Such common and low-risk goods, which we do not believe were the intended focus of the legislation, should be exempted.
Whilst the Horticultural Trades Association can understand some of the reasoning behind this Act there is evidence of some confusion (particularly amongst enforcement officers) regarding which gardening tools are covered by the act and which are not. This can cause unnecessary costs and bureaucracy for garden retailers. The Act needs to be clarified to avoid this confusion.
Age restricted sales legislation should be consolidated into one piece of legislation covering all products for the benifit of retailers and enforcers. However as the different products (e.g. knives, alcohol, solvents, tobacco, fireworks) are covered by different central government departments with different priorities this is unlikely to happen.
Age restricted sales legislation should in no way be scrapped as it provides protection to the most vunerable members of our society. Selling alcohol, knives, solvents, fireworks, computer games, DVDs, and cigarettes to persons who are “underage” contributes to anti social behaviour, costs the NHS billions a year and leads to elderly people not wanting to leave their homes in the evening.
It should be said that Local Councils (especially at the moment) would not considered continuing conducting test purchasing if some retailers did not consistently sell products to underage consumers. Although retailers worry about making sales to underage consumers there appears to be complacancy with some premise around asking for ID and checking it properly. There will always be some minority retailers that would rather generate income though sales and are happy to sell to underage consumers.
Staff can be convicted (or feel under pressure to accept a caution) under a strict-liability regime that only offers a due-diligence defence. It does not seem right that a young person, either at or pre-university, is at risk of a criminal conviction that they must disclose (potentially for ever), jeopardising any hopes of becoming a police officer, lawyer or doctor, say, for an offence with no mens rea element. Abolish strict liability for age-restricted sales offences when it is the individual employee facing prosecution. Add a mens rea element to the offence
As a retail manager I find having to make all employees especially very experienced ones trainn on age restricted products every 6 months is excessive and dilute the message. Also having to have notices on xmas crackers as explosives is just daft!
There can be little sense in banning the sale to people under 16 of things that they can easily find in their own kitchen. Let’s try and be reasonably sensible about distinguishing between knives designed as weapons and knives designed as cooking and eating utensils. Obviously, both can do damage, but we can’t continue to run our society according to a lowest common denominator that penalises the innocent. There has to be some common sense applied.
This directive reduces the choice of herbal medicines from over 350 products now to just 30 after 1st May
It is done on the grounds of safety but where a product does not have a monograph in the European pharmacopoeia the company is allowed to write its own so how is this safer than the current system ?
What should have happened is that all herbal medicines which can be shown to have been on the market for 30 years should be allowed provided that they are made to EU GMP
This would save at least 4000 jobs in the UK as the only herbs now licensed are all made in germany
I would like to see the legal age to buy an Imitation firearm lowered to 16. There are a number of reasons for this. The sport/hobby of airsoft usually appeals to many of the younger members of our country, and most of them who start to take it seriously are around the age of 16. At the age of 16 I think a person is most definatly able to think for themselves and see the consequences of (for example) using an IF to rob a shop as well as someone 2 years their age would. Even with the “Two-Tone” restrictions in place, if someone was really dedicated to hold up a shop, they would just spray the “Two-Tone” parts a more realistic colour. I do not believe that the “Two-Tone” policy has stopped anyone.
Also, air rifles/pistols certainly can look as and sometimes more realistic than an Airsoft replica, and they come with the added danger that they can be lethal. I cannot see any way in which an Airsoft gun could kill someone, aside from possibly using it to club someone to death.
I am not saying that 16 year olds should be able to purchase an iF without any form of defense. Organisations such as UKARA which provide defenses for the 18+ Airsoft community should be able to do the same for 16+ Airsofters.