PERSONS AUTHORISED TO PASS AND STAMP EQUIPMENT (Hansard, 28 April 1989)

§ Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central)
I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'Secretary of State', and insert 'local weights and measures authority for the area in which an applicant for a licence has his head office or his registered office'.

§ The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 37, in page 1, line 5, after 'State' insert ',after consultation with any local weights and measures authority appearing to him to be concerned,'. No. 29, in page 1, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert— (aa) is employed by a local weights and measures authority and has completed a course of training deemed by the Secretary of State to be satisfactory.'. No. 48, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 11.
No. 73, in page 1, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert— (b) satisfies regulations issued from time to time Secretary of State in consultation with representatives of local weights and measures authorities and (ba) who has been accredited and audited in accordance with BS 5750 on such other quality assurance scheme as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine, and (bb) has been accredited by the National Weights and Measures Laboratory in conjunction with Local Trading Standards inspectors and (bc) has been audited by the appropriate local authority inspector in conjunction with the National Weights and Measures Laboratory.'. No. 39, in page 1, line 10, after 'satisfies', insert 'the Secretary of State as to the matters mentioned in subsection (1 A) below and complies with'.
No. 67, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'local weights and measures authority'. No. 47, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'section' to 'equipment' in line 14.
No. 49, in page 1, line 14, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 15.
No. 40, in page 1, line 15, at end insert— '(1A) The matters referred to in subsection (1)(b) above are—

(a) the adequacy of the quality assurance system which is to be adopted by the applicant;

(b) the adequancy of the procedures which are to be so adopted for ensuring that any equipment which is passed and stamped by the applicant conforms to or complies with such of the following as are applicable to it, namely—

(i) any pattern in respect of which a certificate of approval under section 12 of the 1985 Act is in force; and

(ii) the requirements of regulations under section 15 of that Act (including in particular the requirement that the equipment should fall within the prescribed limits of error); and

(c) the traceability to national measurement standards of any testing equipment which is to be used by the applicant.'

1250 No. 68, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'local weights and measures authority".
No. 22, in page 1, line 17, at end insert— '(2A) Before granting a licence, the Secretary of State shall consult the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures for the local weights and measures authority, and the authority, together with the Chief Inspectors of such other local weights and measures authorities (if any) as appear to him to be appropriate.'. No. 69, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'local weights and measures authority'. No. 72, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'Secretary of State such fee as the Secretary of State' and insert 'local weights and measures authority such fee as the authority.'.

§ Mr. Illsley
The Opposition are concerned that this measure has been introduced through the private Member's Bill procedure. We are aware of the Eden report on this subject of a few years ago, and of the Government's response to it. In effect, the Government accept most of the committee's recommendations. We should have liked the Government to introduce a comprehensive measure dealing with the self-verification of weights and measures equipment. We believe that this Bill deals only with a section of the Eden committee's recommendations and does not implement them comprehensively.
Amendment No. 66 seeks to delete the word "Secretary of State" and to insert the words local weights and measures authority". The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill. We think that the appropriate authorities to deal with weights and measures inspection and verification should he local weights and measures authorities and trading standards officers. Which, therefore, is the appropriate body to grant licences under clause 1?
There are a number of reasons why I should like the local weights and measures authorities to be the licensing authorities rather than vesting that power with the Secretary of State. The latter course would involve a centralised system of weights and measures administration with powers placed on the Secretary of State and would move us away from the local aspect of weights and measures administration. It is a fact that every local authority has a department that deals with weights and measures legislation and contains trading standards officers. The localisation of weights and measures administration should be retained.
In any event, if the Secretary of State were the licensing authority, he would have to seek the advice and co-operation of a host of other organisations on the applications for licences that he would receive. As it is more than likely that those organisations would he local weights and measures authorities together with organisations such as the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, we feel that the involvement of the local weights and measures authorities should be retained.

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)
Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there has been sufficient consultation with the weights and measures authorities? All hon. Members who have been involved with consumer affairs legislation in the House for a long time are worried that there may not have been sufficient consultation. Does 1251 my hon. Friend agree that such consultation is important in determining our attitude to the amendment and to the Government's control of the Bill as a whole?

§ Mr. Illsley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. It might have been better if the promoter of the Bill, the Government, the local weights and measures authorities and their representatives had been brought together to discuss a comprehensive Bill on which all parties could agree because, although there is a substantial measure of agreement within the local weights and measures authorities on the recommendations of the Eden committee, there is not a great deal of agreement about the provisions of the Bill which seeks to enact only part of the recommendations of that committee. I am sure that the local weights and measures authorities would be only too pleased to participate with the Department of Trade and Industry and with the manufacturers of weights and measures equipment in drawing up some proposals for a framework for legislation on this matter.
Centralising the power to grant licences in the Secretary of State would mean that he would either utilise the framework and the facilities that are already available—the local weights and measures authorities—or adopt an attitude of granting blanket licences to any manufacturer who applies. That would defeat the whole object of weights and measures legislation. I stress that we can trace the origins of such legislation as far back as the Magna Carta.
Although we talk about safeguards in weights and measures legislation, it would seem to defeat the whole idea of protecting the public from being short measured if we were to give a power to the Secretary of State, without adequate safeguards, to give a blanket licence to anyone making an application.
I emphasise that the local weights and measure authorities have considerable experience in that area, and I suggest that they should be responsible for the granting of those licences. Indeed, by their very name, the local weights and measures authorities are the obvious candidates to run any type of licensing arrangements. They are doing the job now and they are doing it well. The public have confidence in them. That confidence is increasing, and that is borne out by the response that most local trading standards officers receive to their reports.
Trading standards officers have influence within their authority areas. Why should we remove from them the whole remit for weights and measures administration and pass it to the Secretary of State? Those officers are doing the job and would be the obvious people to grant licences. If the power to grant licences is left with the Secretary of State, he will have to utilise weights and measures officers and trading standards officers or employ trained staff. It would be ridiculous if local weights and measures officers were not used by the Secretary of State. Why not give them the job and the authority to grant the licences to be applied for by various manufacturers?
Local weights and measures authorities have been operating for years and have built up local knowledge of companies, operators and people who use weights and measures equipment. Such local knowledge will be essential for the Secretary of State before he grants a licence. Again it seems logical that the ideal candidate to supply that local experience and knowledge is the local 1252 weights and measures authority. That would also enable local weights and measures authorities to combine inspection with other aspects of trading standards in their locality. The assessment about the suitability of a company for a licence could be combined with the normal day-to-day workings of local departments, and that would save time, effort and money. Local weights and measures departments have instant knowledge about the suitability of candidates applying for licences.
The Bill requires the provision of various controls such as audit and accreditation mechanisms. It also requires the inspection of the verification systems that will be put in place for manufacturers. Once again it will be left to local trading standards officers to control and monitor the audit and accreditation systems that will have to be used by manufacturers. It would be a duplication of effort to bring in local weights and measures officers under part of their remit to advise the Secretary of State when he is considering licence applications. The authorities should he given the power to carry out that job at the same time as they are verifying audit control, quality control and accreditation systems.
The job of considering the suitability of an applicant for a licence will enable the local authority to accumulate knowledge and experience of manufacturers in its area. That experience can be used to make instant decisions about licences and that will cut down on the bureaucracy of shuffling papers between local authorities and the Secretary of State. The local weights and measures authority is on the spot and has the experience, the knowledge and the capability to carry out the necessary functions in a short time. Of course it could also do the job much cheaper.
As well as being able to grant licences, the local weights and measures authority could also be an adviser. Before or after a licence application the authority could advise manufacturers on how to set up a self-verification and accreditation system or a quality control system. During that process of giving advice or advising on these systems, the local weights and measures authority would be able to accumulate the information required for the granting of a licence. Indeed, it would be on the spot to advise a company about what measures it would need to employ to qualify for a licence offered under the terms of this Bill rather than applications being made through the system to the Secretary of State, with a licence possibly being refused and further amendments being required. In those circumstances, much bureaucratic effort is involved in the granting of a licence.
1.45 pm
The Eden committee said in its report that any scheme of self-verification must engender the same confidence as verification by weights and measures inspectors. If we are to maintain public confidence in the weights and measures system in this country, licensing should be left with the local authorities and not given to the Secretary of State.

§ Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would seem to be more sensible for the Government to act on all the recommendations of the Eden committee by bringing forward its own Bill? Why has it taken the Government so long to act, and why are we having now to deal with a partial implementation of the 1253 Eden recommendations through a private Member's Bill rather than deal with a comprehensive Government measure which would have appeal to all parties concerned?

§ Mr. Illsley
We would obviously have liked and would have co-operated in consultation on the full implementation of the Eden committee proposals, or as near to that as could be achieved. The Eden committee reported in June 1985, the Government's response being completed a year later. So the Government have had three years in which to bring forward a comprehensive Bill to cover these aspects of the weights and measures legislation. Even at this late stage, we would still like to see the Bill withdrawn with some commitment to a Government Bill and consultation with all the appropriate authorities.
I was saying that public confidence has to be maintained in the weights and measures authorities and legislation. As that public confidence presently rests with local weights and measures authorities, if the provision before us is accepted, that confidence will be transferred to the granting of licences.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the good work of the local weights and measures authorities would be destroyed if we had a central licensing system? Another great danger is that many local authorities now have inter-departmental arrangements between one area and another, enabling information to be transmitted very quickly to put on warning other areas of the country against fraud or other criminal acts. That, too, could be at risk.

§ Mr. Illsley
My hon. Friend demonstrates adequately another reason why local weights and measures authorities have a stake in being the licensing authority under the Bill. Through their knowledge, networking and the facility they offer, authorities are able to work together. Their extensive knowledge in the field is what presses us to move these amendments to include them as the licensing authority.
The Eden committee recommended independent assessment, accreditation and surveillance. If amendment No. 66 is accepted, we would be moving some way towards the Eden committee recommendations. Paragraph 117 of the Eden report states that the authorities should be responsible to the Secretary of State and should also be publicly accountable. It stated that they should establish and publish criteria for accreditation and assess, accredit and register manufacturers. It also recommended that they should maintain a register and have many other responsibilities. Eden produced a long list of recommendations which he believed were necessary for the authority which would deal with the legislation. I believe that Eden never envisaged the idea that the Secretary of State would be the sole licensing authority. He believed that weights and measures authorities would be given that role.
Eden recommended that the authorities should be responsible to the Secretary of State through some kind of mechanism.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
One of my worries about the Bill is that it gives the Secretary of State powers to fiddle. That is roughly it. The manufacturers are saying that they do not want an independent body to test their machines. They want the power to make them, repair them, and to fix the dials. That is in line with this Government's policies. They have fiddled 19 different sets of unemployment figures, they have fiddled the cost of 1254 living figures, and they have threatened to fiddle the balance of payments deficit because it is so embarrassing. Now along comes this Bill from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The Government are so blatant that they are introducing Bills under the guise of private Members' Bills to fiddle the figures. That just shows how arrogant the Government have become.
Only a few days ago the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare could have introduced his Bill, but what happened? He fiddled it away. It disappeared from view and was scheduled for another Friday. Then some Government fiddler came along to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and jogged his elbow. He said, "Get your Bill off. Fiddle it away." He fiddled it away. He sat in this place for an hour and a half and then decided to take it off at the Government's behest. The whole thing is surrounded by fiddling. It fits in with the Government's performance in trying to trick and deceive the nation.

§ Mr. Illsley
My hon. Friend has made one or two points in his brief intervention which I should like to address.
The fact that the Bill is being presented as a private Member's Bill does not exactly inspire confidence in the hope that the Government will protect weights and measures legislation. Public confidence would have been maintained had we had a Government Bill open to the full rigours of debate, with a Committee stage and consultation.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth)
I am at a bit of a loss to understand the difference in principle between the private Member's Bill on the very important subject of fly tipping and waste control and this measure. Surely it is equally legitimate for Members on both sides of the House to come forward with such measures.

§ Mr. Illsley
I am not seeking to deny Members the right to bring forward Bills on whatever subject they choose. That point is for another debate at another time.
Weights and measures legislation and weights and measures authorities must maintain public confidence. In such a delicate area as this, perhaps a Government Bill involving adequate consultation, taking into account the Eden committee's recommendations in full, would have been more suitable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) also referred to tolerance exploitation, and that will be raised later in our proceedings.
Paragraph 124 of the report sets out three scenarios for a self-verification system. They include the British Standards Institution, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and the National Metrication Coordinating Unit. All three scenarios are set out diagrammatically and are explained in some detail, but not one of them takes recourse to the Secretary of State as the highest authority. A supervisory body exists in all three cases, but at no point is it ultimately or immediately responsible to the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Bermingham
Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned public confidence in the Government. One cannot have confidence in a Government when, as in the case of the factories inspectorate, the number of public inspectors has decreased, as has also occurred in respect of Admiralty searches and the number of marine surveyors. If weights and measures also passed into private hands, what 1255 guarantee would their be that proper verification would take place—and that verification or self-verification of the small repairer will be adequate to guarantee the accuracy of weights and measures systems?

§ Mr. Illsley
My hon. Friend's comments are self-explanatory. Public confidence must be maintained in any weights and measures legislation, as must the current local accountability.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 73 relate to provisions that we feel should be included in the Bill for regulating licences. We propose four different conditions, because the regulations set out in clause 1 relating to matters that must be taken into account by the Secretary of State when considering licence applications are inadequate, and they should be substantially strengthened.
Licence conditions and regulations should be clearly defined, and those relating to any self-verification scheme must be particularly well understood. The Bill currently requires only that a licence application should be in writing, accompanied by a fee, and that a record of it should be kept. Provided that a manufacturer can write and can afford the fee, he can obtain a licence. The Bill imposes no further conditions as to the suitability or otherwise of any manufacturer or body applying for a licence under the Bill.
Weights and measures legislation is a technical area, as is evidenced by the Weights and Measures Act 1985, and we are concerned that the Bill is loosely drafted. Licence conditions should be clearly stipulated, but the Bill contains only a vague proviso mentioning certain requirements of the Secretary of State—not conditions, but only requirements. We believe that licence applications should comply with various conditions. The first is that the applicant satisfies regulations to be issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in consultation with local weights and measures authorities. We believe that they are the appropriate authorities to draw up regulations in conjunction with the Government in ensuring that weights and measures legislation retains public confidence.
2 pm
Under the second condition, schemes must be accredited and audited in accordance with BS5750, which deals with quality aassurance schemes, or other quality assurance systems which the Secretary of State may introduce. The third condition provides for the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and local authority trading standards officers to accredit licensees. The fourth condition provides for assistance by the NWML in auditing manufacturers.
There must be confidence in any self-verification scheme introduced under licence or the Bill, and that would involve local weights and measures inspectors. There should be independent assessment of quality management systems, accreditation systems and surveillance systems. Paragraph 16 of the Eden report sets out self-verification schemes in detail. The committee recommended that BS5750 should be followed in quality assurance schemes. We believe that that should be made compulsory in the Bill. The government accepted that proposal in their response to the committee's report.
The Eden committee set out requirements for authorities administering the scheme. Those requirements 1256 should be included in the Bill to make it comprehensive. The Bill refers merely to a vague request to comply with requirements.

§ Mr. Bermingham
Is not the great danger of the Bill the fact that, because it is so short on detail, it is wide in the licence that it gives manufacturers? There cannot be quality control when licence is given to abuse.

§ Mr. Illsley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that we shall return to that issue. Applications for a licence should lay down detailed requirements for manufacturers or, as my hon. Friends have said, the Bill will be a charter for manufacturers to cheat.
The paragraphs in amendment No. 73 reflect the Eden committee's recommendations. The committee envisaged a split system for self-verification schemes, a split between the supervisory role, covering regulations issued by the Secretary of State and accreditation by the NWML and trading standards officers, and the Executive, which would have the job of inspecting the schemes, accrediting those involved and auditing management on a day-to-day basis. The British Standards Institution, because of BS5750 on quality management schemes, would be a prime candidate on the supervisory side, with the NWML and trading standards inspectors carrying out field audits. Alternatively, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and the National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit might act as supervisors, with the weights and measures laboratory accrediting the firms and manufacturers and the home trading standards officers carrying out audits and imposing sanctions.
The final suggestion involved the establishment of an accreditation board—

§ Mr. Skinner
Something has just crossed my mind. My hon. Friend has been associated with the mining industry all his life. He may care to draw attention to something that happened when I was a lot younger and when his father worked down the pit. We used to have self-verification machines at the pit, owned by the private coal owners, who weighed their own coal. Under the Bill, those weighing machines could come back. We should then have to do what we did then and employ a check weighman to check the bosses' weighing machines. The bosses ran the tubs of coal over the weighing machines and cheated the miners. We had to pay check weighmen out of our own pockets to stop them doing it.
We have talked about a return to the Victorian era. The Bill might not take us quite as far back as that, but the system extended into the twenties and thirties and right up to nationalisation. The miners had to employ people to check the machines, which were deliberately made to cheat them out of the amount that they were due for the coal that they had produced.

§ Mr. Illsley
My hon. Friend has given us a graphic description of the introduction of the check weighman into the coal industry. What he has described is known as tolerance exploitation. Within a given legal tolerance, a weighing machine can be adjusted to give a lesser reading than that which it is prescribed to deliver. Tolerance exploitation is still possible under the law, and one of our fears about the Bill is that tolerance exploitation may be used by repairers or installers—rather than the 1257 manufacturers, with whom the clause deals—especially those who have some relationship with the end user of the machine. We hope to come to that in due course.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
Does my hon. Friend know that, in a statute of 1335, Edward I made it clear that it was precisely such problems that concerned him? He required that, in the weighing of wool, the Tongue of the Balance be even, without bowing to one Side or the other, and without Hand or Foot, or other Touch made thereto. Is it not clear that nothing changes?

§ Mr. Illsley
My hon. Friend is right that nothing changes. As I said earlier, the weights and measures legislation can be traced back to that statute and to the Magna Carta.

§ Mr. Bermingham
To Roman times.

§ Mr. Illsley
As my hon. Friend says, it goes back to Roman times. The Bill would severely dent public confidence in weights and measures, which hitherto has enjoyed a high degree of continuity.
A cost would have to be involved—a licensing fee—if, for example, the British Standards Institution were involved, as it would have to cover its costs. The accreditation boards, too, would have to cover their members' expenses. Under the existing arrangements, it is sensible to include and use the existing organisations such as the weights and measures laboratory and the co-ordinating unit. That would make the transition to the new system easier and ensure that we were using known, tried and tested standards.
All the recommendations to which I referred and which are contained in the amendment are set out in paragraph 126 of the Eden report. The Eden committee's recommendation was accepted by the Government, but it was not put into the Bill, and we have no Government legislation to implement it. It is interesting to consider the Government's response. The Eden committee recommended: Accreditation to self-verify will depend on the applicant satisfying the Secretary of State about:

(a) quality assurance;

(b) the traceability of testing equipment to national measurement standards;

(c) the procedures for ensuring conformity with an approved pattern;

(d) the adequacy of the testing regime for ensuring that self-verified equipment meets the relevant regulations."

On page 11 of the Government's response, one line stands out and confirms what I have been saying. It reads: there is a special opportunity to benefit from inspectors' accumulated experience in the verification of equipment". Unfortunately, that does not appear in the Bill. The Government recommended British Standard 5750 because they wanted demonstrably high standards. Again, there is a special opportunity to benefit from inspectors. They said that they would encourage schemes based on British Standard 5750. On audits, they said that we need regular assessments plus notification of self-verification equipment for sample checking. That is not included in the Bill. The Government's response to the Eden report went on to state: The inspector will have powers to issue instructions to a SVO regarding verification procedures and powers to embargo equipment where the spot checks have revealed an unsatisfactory performance by the SVO. 1258 That is not in the Bill, but it is in the Government's response to the report. The Government should have come forward with comprehensive legislation to cover those points.
Trading standards officers are the weights and measures authority in this aspect of the law, and they should remain so. The amendment should be accepted. If not, the Bill should be withdrawn in favour of a Government Bill.

§ Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)
I declare an interest. I am a consultant to the National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers. I have never made any secret of the fact that I have brought the Bill forward so that this country should be ahead of its rivals in Europe when self-verification is introduced, willy-nilly, in 1991—whether or not the Bill is passed.
Three hon. Members have tabled amendments. I wrote to all three, inviting them to tell me about their specific complaints and seeking to satisfy them. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) replied, but the other two did not. I am sorry about that. The only organisations that have formally come to me have been the Association of County Councils and the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. Both organisations have points to make about my Bill. I met representatives from both organisations, we discussed our views, and amendments to satisfy their requirements were tabled in my name.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central is under many serious misapprehensions. Had he given me a chance to explain more fully the circumstances of the Bill he would have understood that, far from encouraging the nefarious activities that he described, it is a small measure which may affect no more than a dozen manufacturers and will free trading standards officers for other duties which they constantly tell us they have no time to pursue. I do not understand why there should be such a wave of opposition to this extremely minor measure.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
As I was one of the hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write, I apologise to him for not having replied. The reason for that is that I was consulting at considerable depth with those who will be most directly affected. When I first put down my carefully considered new clause, it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to pursue the Bill without having consulted me, although he may have consulted other hon. Members. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he felt that it was discourteous that there was no official reply to his letter. Had there been considerable consultation with all hon. Members concerned about the Bill, there might have been greater understanding of his position. No one objects to his making his attitude clear, but there are real objections on behalf of the consumers. It is quite wrong to suggest that only the weights and measures officers are involved.

§ Mr. Wiggin
The hon. Lady knows that those interested in the Bill, including consumers, were represented on the Eden committee, which produced a unanimous report. In the period between publication of the Eden committee report and the Government's response, all interested organisations made their views known. That was why we saw no reason for individual consultation.

§ Mr. Skinner
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Wiggin
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Skinner
I have a letter from the Consumers Association—the publishers of Which?—dated 27 April, which is after all the consultations had taken place. It says: Dear Mr. Skinner, I am writing to draw attention to our misgivings over the 'Weights and Measures (Amendments) Bill', and to request your support in opposing ‖ Although this bill appears uncontroversial, it does, in fact, overturn basic measures of consumer protection which have been taken for granted for over 100 years. I have not been involved with any of the amendments. I just read the letter and thought that the Consumers Association obviously had a case.

§ Mr. Wiggin
The hon. Gentleman thought wrong. If the Consumers Association had had the courtesy to discuss the matter with me, it would not have written a letter based on so many misapprehensions and misconceptions. It has simply failed to understand what the Bill is about. I was alerted to the fact that the Consumers' Association had made representations to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), but it did not copy those representations to me, nor did it consult me or ask for an explanation of the intentions of the Bill. If the trading standards officers, who would be freed from their duties by the application of the measure, were to apply themselves to the sort of things that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was talking about when he referred to cheating in the mines, I believe that it could be argued that this is a consumer protection measure which will improve consumer protection.
It is not fully understood that the licensing agreement from central Government will go only to manufacturers who obtain British Standard 5750.

§ Ms. Quin
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Wiggin
I will just finish my explanation, as it is important.
The suggestion that any manufacturer who applies will be permitted to stamp his own machines is ludicrous in the extreme. As a promoter of a previous consumer protection Bill, the Hallmarking Act 1973, I can say that the concept that our Government are not completely alert to the necessity to ensure that these things are done properly—they have been done properly in this country for many hundreds of years—is ludicrous. We are talking about technically difficult matters. Obtaining British Standard 5750 is not only a lengthy process, but an extremely expensive one involving staff at all levels in the company —from the managing director down to the chap who sweeps the floor. Few people will be able to afford or will take the trouble to obtain BS 5750. We believe that at present perhaps a dozen manufacturers in this country will be able to take advantage of the legislation.

§ Mr. Bermingham
Is the hon. Gentleman not saying that those who are in the club can therefore benefit from the club, and that that will exclude all the other manufacturers? What about companies which are beginning to develop in this sector? Unless they are part of that little group, they appear to be excluded.

§ Mr. Wiggin
They will go on in exactly the same manner as now and a trading standards officer will visit them and stamp their machines as and when required.

§ Ms. Quin
The hon. Gentleman refers to the fact that the Consumers Association has written to me as well as to other hon. Members outlining its objections to the Bill. Does he agree that as he knew that the Consumers Association was party to the widespread agreement to the Eden committee recommendations it would have been better to consult that association before putting pen to paper to devise his Bill? Does he also agree that instead of his being placed in this difficult position it would have been much better if the Government had brought forward a measure which incorporated the Eden recommendations and therefore satisfied all parties?

§ Mr. Wiggin
I had assumed, with good reason, that as a result of its presence on the Eden committee and its constant communications with the Government on that matter subsequently, there was no reason to believe that the Consumers Association, of all people, would be disturbed by the Bill. Its relevance to the consumer is remote.
The young man at the Consumers Association whom I telephoned on hearing of his concern said that he would write to me that very day. The letter was delivered on Wednesday night, but I cannot carry out negotiations on such a complex matter in 24 hours. He will receive a detailed critique of all his detailed points, but there is no substance in them and the consumer has nothing to fear from the Bill. It is a thin argument to suggest that manufacturers' costs may be modestly affected and that, therefore, the costs of weighing machines may be passed on to the public. The consumer has nothing to fear from the Bill. The application of trading standards will continue as before. It is the manufacture and, perhaps, the subsequent installation and repair of weighing machines that is involved. This Bill is not about the checking of weighing machines. No one is suggesting that there should be any change in current arrangements for that.
The substance of the Opposition's objections to the Bill was revealed by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central, who said that they were very annoyed that they had got only a slice of the cake and that they would not allow the Bill to pass because they wanted the whole cake.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister because the Bill would give us a substantial lead over other European countries in subsequent negotiations. Obviously the necessary expertise is being applied to advise authorities in Brussels of the likely outcome of events. By stopping the Bill, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central is simply allowing the French and the Germans to take a lead in a matter in which we are perfectly able to take the lead.

§ Mr. Illsley
The hon. Gentleman says that we could steal a march on the Europeans if the Bill were passed. If the Government had activated the Eden committee report in 1986 when they accepted its recommendations, we should have gained a further three years on the Europeans.

§ Mr. Wiggin
I cannot argue about the desirability of bringing forward a Bill covering all the Eden recommendations, especially as it would contain the measures proposed in the Bill before us.
I have a letter to the Scottish local authorities from my hon. Friend the Minister in which he makes clear the Government's intention to bring forward a Bill. We all know that the timetable in this place is already full and my hon. Friend the Minister was unable to argue that this 1261 matter was of sufficient priority for the Government to produce a Bill. The failure to produce such a Bill is a poor reason for opposing my measure, which is simply part of that measure. The argument that a Bill covering all the Eden recommendations has not been introduced is not a good basis for opposition. In the light of that explanation, I should have thought that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central would think carefully about the substance of his complaint.
My amendments have been tabled at the request of the Association of County Councils. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable that the local trading standards office should be consulted before a licence is issued. The suggestion that the scheme should not be administered nationally shows that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central does not understand how the administration of weights and measures is conducted. Trading standards offices receive, at regular intervals, central guidance notes from the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, which is held in the highest esteem by all concerned.
Nowadays, we deal in high technology. The old weighing machine with a weight on one side and the item to be weighed on the other has gone. We now have sophisticated electronic instruments. The concept of a trading standards officer even understanding their operation let alone the adjustment of them, is clearly completely out of date. It is because the manufacturers are the best people for that job that the Bill suggests that they should be allowed to mark the machines on their own premises. Once that machine comes out of the factory, there is nothing to stop the trading standards officer putting his measured weight on it to check its accuracy. The checks and duties of the trading standards officer, as carried out today, will continue. I do not believe that the Consumers Association or any other organisation can suggest that the consumers' interests will be affected in any way. The present arrangements simply allow the trading standards officer's inspection to become the final inspection within the factory process. That is deeply unsatisfactory.
If any Opposition Member wishes to have a full explanation of the motives and merits of the Bill, and to discuss any fears that he or she might have about it, I am ready and available to do so. I am deeply sorry that I have not been given the opportunity to do so before.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth)
With the permission of the Committee, I shall take this opportunity, although time is running out, to set out the background. Questions have been raised about the Government's position, and it will help hon. Members if I set it out briefly.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Eden committee was asked by the Government to review the arrangements for the legal control of measuring equipment in use for trade. One of the key recommendations of the committee, which included representatives from consumer bodies, and, as has been said, trading standards interests and equipment manufacturers, was that a self-verification scheme should be introduced. This scheme would allow properly accredited manufacturers, installers and repairers of trade equipment to verify and stamp equipment which had been shown to meet legal requirements, rather than requiring a trading standards officer to fulfil the task.
1262 In accepting that recommendation in its published response, the Government fully endorsed the committee's commitment to ensuring that the public's confidence in fair trading should be maintained. To this end, the scheme would be available only to those companies accredited against stringent quality assurance criteria, and the expertise of the local authorities' trading standards officers would be used in the accreditation and auditing of the scheme. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that there would be any compromise of consumer protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has introduced this Bill which seeks to amend the Weights and Measures Act 1985 so that a self-verification scheme could be introduced. The measures proposed in the Bill are consistent with those outlined in Cmnd. 9850 for the introduction of a self-verification scheme, and therefore the Bill has Government support. Similarly, the amendments tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare have sought to meet the quite proper concerns of trading standards officers and consumer interests and, therefore, should receive hon. Members' support.
As the Eden committee recognised, the technical complexity of weighing and measuring equipment increases inexorably—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare—and self verification, properly based on sound quality assurance principles., is the way forward. Other countries have already introduced schemes of this kind and we can certainly expect the impending Community directives on measuring instruments to include provisions for self verification. The United Kingdom rightly has an international reputation for the effectiveness of its weights and measures controls, and also for pioneering work on quality assurance certification. We want to take this opportunity to introduce a national self verification scheme and maintain our position in Europe as enlightened regulators for the benefit of manufacturers, consumers and the enforcement authorities.
I shall state the Government's position on the amendments as they arise.

§ Mr. Bermingham
I am always worried when a promoter of a Bill says that it is promoted in the interests of that section of the community who will be able to verify its own interests. Unless someone, who may be a manufacturer, is one of that group, he or she will still be subject to the same British Standard 5750 and cannot be part of the club.
I am even more concerned that a Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and agree that the Government had read the committee's report and accepted all its recommendations but will choose to implement just a few of them because that might help us in Europe.
I am even more concerned when the Bill's promoter says that trading standards officers should not be involved because they do not have the technical expertise to deal with these matters. That is not right or proper. I expect the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) to withdraw that comment; it was a nasty slur that was unworthy of him.
Trading standard officers in St. Helens have expressed grave concerns to me about the Bill—