Member

I have had a chance to reflect on this even this morning, and I put it to the noble Baroness that the definition of “hygiene products” is potentially very wide. I think I know what she means, and I think I know why it may be important to look at that issue. For example, an underarm deodorant may be designed as an aerosol, as a hygiene product, but that could be used to start fires, create a flame thrower or spray in people’s eyes. I simply put that to her as a consideration. A razor to have a shave could be determined to be a hygiene product, but equally could cause deep lacerations or be used as a weapon. I think I know what she means, but I am simply saying that the definition—going back again to the legal test of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—is always important. It is important to know what we are talking about when we talk about what we are talking about. Therefore, I think that there is quite a wide resolution of what the point she made could well be.