UK Product Safety Review Consultation

The PSR was launched on the 2 August and is part of the programme of potential reforms (Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy) the government wishes to enact following the UK’s exit from the European Union. The PSR has been launched, considerably later than anticipated, following the “Call for Evidence” in 2021. As ever when these types of reforms are launched the stated objectives usually include sound bites like, reducing the burdens on business and deliver choice to consumers. This consultation is no different and indeed it also includes some fairly extravagant statements like reducing the cost of living and turbocharging science and innovation! But let’s leave all that stuff aside and look at what the PSR Consultation contains.

Within the consultation the government has laid out 13 specific proposals on which they are seeking stakeholder opinion. Quite some number of the proposals deal with what I would consider are technical/internal regulator functions, such as aligning some of the existing regulations to deal with some fairly apparent anomalies and contradictions which have crept in over time. However, I believe there are some 6 or 7 “proposals” which have a real bearing on our market and I will be responding to the DBT with views on them. The proposals that I have identified as relevant are below.

1. Proposal to: Examine options for a new approach centred around potential hazard, cross-cutting risk-based safety requirements and transparency!

This on the face of it has some merits, involving the grouping of products which have similar potential to cause harm. It would in all likelihood, mean a move away from some product/category specific regulation. However, this would not work for PPE as the likelihood of harm inherent in the product is very small whereas the likelihood of harm being caused if the PPE is not fit for purpose is significant. We need to see PPE as separate and maintain the “Regulation”.

2. Proposal to: Establish a derogation process, enabling businesses to apply for temporary regulatory easements to speed up the supply of essential products in emergencies!

This to me seems both common sense and at the same time problematic. During the easement on PPE, brought about by the covid emergency, we saw the market flooded by potentially unsafe products and some of it is still out there. Market Surveillance Regulators cannot effectively manage such a process. Further, for a derogation process to work there needs to be conformity assessment capacity and this is under threat following the extension of the acceptance of the CE “regime”. Finally in this area, I must admit that I have doubts as to the practicality of any regulatory regime if there needs to be a built-in derogation in times of need!

3. Proposal to: Take full advantage of digital labelling!

This, would you believe is restricted to products, such as white goods, which already have a screen. What a missed opportunity to utilise facility provided by QR codes. Proper use of technology would allow the PPE to be accompanied by digital documentation which would benefit the user the environment and the regulators. I am frankly amazed that this proposal is so lame.

4. Proposal to: Clarify cooperation duties for new business models, particularly “online marketplaces” to ensure effective cooperation! And linked ….

5. Proposal to: Set out due care requirements in relation to unsafe product listings!

Proposals 4 and 5 are about defining the responsibilities of online marketplaces and they lead into a further proposal…

6. Proposal to: For higher risk products, increase consumer-facing information for online product listings to support informed purchasing decisions!

As well as warnings and information traders details (names of sellers) would need to be displayed. I would certainly welcome proposals 4, 5 & 6

7. Proposal to: Enhance the leadership and coordination role of the Office for Product Safety and Standards.

PPE market surveillance is shared between the Health and Safety Executive and Trading Standards and in my opinion this is “ineffectiveness by design”. I believe there should be one market surveillance authority only, and while this outcome will not be realised by this proposal I believe it would be progress of a sort.

In conclusion I welcome the Product Safety Review consultation, it does contain some interesting elements. That said, it is very late and compromised to a degree, by the indefinite extension of CE acceptability. The sceptic in me says that we will not have legislation to support these proposals before the next general election.