Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill (Hansard, 5 May 1989)

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Before I was interrupted to listen to the Vale of Glamorgan settlement of the doctors, I was discussing the matter of clause 2. From time to time I was diverted, particularly by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) who is PPS to the Secretary of State for the Environment was raising matters about lawyers. He actually started me talking about the devious nature of lawyers and about Government lawyers who are arguing the toss among themselves on the queston of barristers and solicitors. They are offended by the idea of the Lord Chancellor to merge the two professions.
However, I want to talk about clause 2 because my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has just arrived, and he has special knowledge of weights and measures, since he used to work in an industry in which such matters were discussed at length. He has a lawyer's analytical mind. When I first met him, I asked him what sort of Bill he would introduce if he won the ballot. He said that he had several in mind, including a Bill on weights and measures. He will probably tell us all about that later.
I am worried about a provision in subsection (5), which is designed to insert in subsection (6), after the words "An inspector" the words "or authorised person". What does that mean? It conjures up a lot of possibilities. Does it mean that we could have inspectors without proper qualifications? Will they be assessed? We have heard the Government talking about teachers needing assessment all the time, but apparently it is a different matter for inspectors. Apparently, proper assessments are not necessary for inspectors in the private sector.
For instance, the Chief Whip of the Labour party could appoint an inspector to look at the weighing machine in the cloakroom downstairs. That weighing machine is used by weight-watchers in this place. I do not have to use it. However, the weight-watchers fiddle the machine, and I suspect that such a person would be given the job as an "authorised person". Such people could go to meetings of weight-watchers and say that they have lost three stone when they have not.
If such appointments were made, how would we guarantee that machines were in order? Let us suppose one of these machines for weighing was in Harrods. I guess that, in fact, there are many such machines in Harrods. Let us suppose that an authorised person, not an inspector, was appointed to see whether the machines in Harrods were working properly. It could be Tiny Rowland dressed up.

§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
Would the telephone be bugged?

§ Mr. Skinner
He has already bugged the telephone in Harrods. He could be an authorised person, or he could be called an observer. Or it could be Donald Trelford making inquiries for a new edition of The Observer. Such people could go to Harrods, under the guise of being an authorised person, supposedly an inspector, to see whether weighing machines were working properly and were tuned 493 to take account of Common Market measurements. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) who introduced the Bill said specifically that it was introduced so that we would be in advance of the Common Market in 1992.
So along goes this authorised person, probably Tiny Rowland, to Harrods to inspect the machines. What a time he would have. He could find out information on every single floor of Harrods. He could draw up another report for the Department of Trade and Industry. That report could be leaked and printed in a special edition of The Observer. That is the sort of danger that could occur under subsection (5). Any authorised person could go along to Harrods saying that he was an inspector under this Bill passed by the Tory Government.

§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)
The Consumers Association has set out its objections in a brief that it sent to hon. Members. Its main objection is that manufacturers and installers are likely to be the repairers of such weighing machines. That is an interesting point, which needs exploring.

§ Mr. Skinner
I have here the brief from the Consumers Association. As the Chair knows—

§ Mr. Forth
The Chairman.

§ Mr. Skinner
Whatever it is. If we want to have a discussion about whether to say "Chair" or "Chairman" we can have one. We can discuss it as we debate clause 2 of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, but I do not think that Mr. Walker wants that. He is shaking his head. It is pretty clear that he is on my side. He wants to talk about the things in the Bill, such as authorised persons. He probably wants me to talk at length about whether the lawyers have drawn up a dodgy Bill for the Government because they are fed up to the back teeth with all the attacks made on their profession by Lord Mackay. However, that is another question.
The authorised person is an important issue. This is a weakness of the Bill, because it is saying to the people involved in manufacturing this equipment, "Don't worry about how good or bad it is because instead of having proper authorised inspectors to test it we will send along people who are one of us. They will be Tory-authorised persons, who will just go along, take a cursory glance at a machine and say, 'It's all right. Everything's in order'", when all of us know that we are not getting the proper weight for our goods.
The Tory Government have drawn up this Bill and then passed it to a Back Bencher. He has naively and innocently—no, not innocently. I have seen him talking to people who have something to do with this dodgy Bill. He has come along thinking that he can hoodwink us on this Friday morning, but I have this document from the Consumers Association. The Consumers Association is the body that produces that well-known publication Which?, about which I was talking when I was interrupted by the Secretary of State for Health.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Skinner
Yes, because my hon. Friend is a lawyer.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
My hon. Friend expressed concern about whether things would improve if Donald Trelford went into Harrods to inspect the weighing machines. Will my hon. Friend come down on one side or the other? Does he prefer the A1-Fayed standards of fair trading or the Lonrho standards?

§ Mr. Skinner
I am pretty well disposed to the idea that the big battalions in the Tory party or close to the Tory party are cutting one another's throats. When I see the A1-Fayeds, probably supplied with the Sultan of Brunei's funny money—he is a friend of the Prime Minister and of her son—falling out with the unacceptable face of capitalism, I think to myself, "There is a chance for Socialism here."
The Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with clause 2. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to it.

§ Mr. Skinner
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) was trying to get me to talk about the standards of fair trading in Harrods, and whether it was bought properly. I am not going to go down that road—not now—because I do not have the report from the Department of Trade and Industry in my hand. I did not expect to be discussing it this morning. If I had brought the report, I could have read out large chunks of it, and that would have been a story as well. It would probably have got more coverage than the statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the Vale of Glamorgan settlement with the doctors.
The Consumers Association sent us a brief—I hope that my hon. Friends will listen carefully to this, because it is no small point—in which it says that it was not properly consulted about this Bill. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who has introduced this Bill with the connivance of the Tory Government, did not properly consult the Consumers Association. The Government talk about being the friend of the consumer, but they did not consult the body that for many years has been well known as representing consumers' interests. The second paragraph of the brief says: Consumers Association's objection to the Bill is that it seeks to introduce only those recommendations which would be of benefit to those connected with the manufacturing industry, without adequate safeguards to protect the consumer. That sentence tells us everything about the Bill.

§ Mr. Barron
That is not inconsistent with the legislation passed in the past 10 years. The Government should at least get one point for consistency. It is as well that my hon. Friend was here this morning early on, and able to scrutinise the Bill. From what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said, he consulted nobody and nobody consulted him. The Bill would have gone through without proper scrutiny were it not for the vigilance of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Skinner
We have had to do this on a number of Fridays. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was to have introduced the Bill on another occasion, but disappeared from view. We were here about four Fridays ago discussing the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill, which was aimed at repealing the Clean Air Act 1956. My hon. Friend will understand our astonishment when we saw that that was the Government's aim. When we scrutinised the Bill, we found that it would only amend the Clean Air Act. They had got it wrong. The Government lawyers, or 495 the Government themselves, had produced a Bill that would do the opposite of what was intended. As a result of some close scrutiny over about three or four hours, we managed to persuade the House—it was one of those great victories that one can sometimes get on a Friday—that the amendments should be withdrawn before the Bill was passed.
We scrutinised that Bill as we are scrutinising this Bill, and we are able to show that the Consumers Association has a good argument. The Bill would have been nodded through this morning, in the wake of the by-election results, which some people are still studying. Some are active in their constituencies, but two or three of us managed to spot what was happening. Amendment after amendment was tumbling through the House without proper scrutiny and we stopped that. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) spoke at some length on this.

§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who was alert to this measure and what it could do. My hon. Friend spoke about Which? and paid tribute to it. Like my hon. Friend, it is the consumers' friend. Will not this measure, with its reference to the "authorised person" create problems for Which? Like many other people, I get the magazine, which shows all that one can buy in various lines. Will it not have immense problems with its reports? It will have to print, "Look out for 'authorised persons' stamped on it because we cannot say that the product that we tested is the one that you are buying or that it uses the right measures." The Bill will create immense problems for consumer magazines such as Which? in getting its information across clearly to consumers.

§ Mr. Skinner
That is the idea. The Government want to put consumers' interests at the bottom of the pile. They are interested only in people like the manufacturers of this equipment. No doubt, if we looked into where the profits of such manufacturers went, we would find some finishing up in the pocket of the Tory party. Instead of there being inspectors, there will be "authorised persons" who may allow changes, notwithstanding all the efforts made by the Consumers Association and Which?, which my hon. Friend apparently reads every week, along with defence magazines and other publications. I did not realise that my hon. Friend was reading so much material every day, and I commend him for that. I have only a cursory glance at Which? every now and again when a relevant Bill is coming before the House.
The Government are interested not in consumers but in profits for manufacturers. If they make machines that are dodgy and they are allowed to do so, they will make bigger profits. If that happens, they will say, "Well, it's pay-up day. The Tories have done us a good turn in Parliament". They will know that the Bill was smuggled through very nicely and that Labour Members were not ready for it. They will ask themselves what to do and the answer will be to give the Tory party a large sum of money, on top of what they have always given, for the next general election.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
It is payola.

§ Mr. Skinner
That is the word—my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, uses such subtle terms. I am not sure whether it is a legal term.
496 Make no mistake, when the Government introduce Bills into the House they have three things in mind: to hammer the working-class, cut taxes for the wealthy and make big profits for the manufacturers who will put money into the Tory party funds. That is their policy in a nutshell. Such Bills should be in the Queen's Speech. If the Government want to introduce Bills of a political nature, why should they be allowed to let private Members smuggle them through? They are taking up time on a Friday when proper Bills could be introduced.
I can think of two or three Bills that should be discussed today. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has got a great Bill, which is designed to give pensioners proper living standards and proper pensions. It would ensure that they no longer pay standing charges. The Prime Minister does nol pay standing charges at No. 10, nor does she pay rent or rates. It is costing £5 million a year to run Downing street—more than it costs to run Buckingham palace. We should be discussing a proper private Member's Bill that would give pensioners a square deal as well as concessionary fares, not just in London and not just for part of the day. Instead of Ministers being carted about from one oak panelled study to the next in ministerial cars, with free drivers, we could have old-age pensioners travelling the country. That would be a proper Bill to discuss on Friday instead of—

§ The Chairman
Order. We should be discussing the stamping of equipment by authorised persons.

§ Mr. Skinner
I want to stamp the concessionary passes for bus and rail travel for pensioners. You understand that, Mr. Walker, as you are close to getting one if you have not already got one. What would be better than to have a comprehensive bus and rail pass for every pensioner in Britain?
Ministers talk about market forces, but the moment they reach 60 or 65 they get their bus pass. I saw Lord Keith Joseph getting his photo done and I wondered, "What is he getting his photo taken for?". It was for a bus pass. When he was a Minister he was the guru of market forces, but the moment he was no longer a Minister he was into public expenditure in a big way.
We want machines to stamp the passes and to produce them.

§ Mr. Forth
Not weighing machines.

§ Mr. Skinner
We would need measuring machines. Is the Minister saying that such passes could be churned out willy-nilly? Oh no. Something would be needed to measure and weigh any form of equipment used to produce those passes. We want inspectors rather than authorised persons to do that.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
What about self-authorisation by the pensioner?

§ Mr. Skinner
We could have that if necessary and if we had such a truly libertarian society that would be nirvana.
Here we are on a Friday morning discussing a tinpot Bill, which has not been properly drawn up by Government lawyers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is a lawyer and I have already explained why the Bill has not been drawn up properly—one of the Tories spilt the beans. There are lawyers in the Government who are so frustrated at the reforms that have been suggested in the other place that 497 they are beginning to put Bills before the House that are deliberately drawn up in a vague and obscure way. It is clear that they have said, "To hell with the Government. We'll give them a Bill that will cause some trouble." Such Bills have been drawn up by someone, in a moment of frustration over the new attack upon the legal fraternity. Those Bills are not the genuine article. That is why we have to scrutinise Bills even more nowadays, especially after the other day when we discussed a Bill that intended to repeal the Clean Air Act when it should have read "amend". I smelt a rat.

§ Mr. Wiggin
This is tedious repetition.

§ Mr. Skinner
The hon. Gentleman did not have the guts to take on the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) when she appeared before him in the Select Committee on Agriculture. He did not ask her any of the right questions and yet he has the cheek to talk to me about tedious repetition. He should have used some tediously repetitive questions that day instead of being treated the way he was by that hon. Lady.

§ The Chairman
Order. All of this is a long way from clause 2 and is irrelevant to the stand part debate.

§ Mr. Skinner
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who originally referred to the Consumers Association, wants to make another reference to that matter.

§ Mr. Barron
The authorised person mentioned in clause 2 would replace local authority officers. When such officers are looking after the interests of consumers, they are subject to some form of democratic accountability. If people are authorised as suggested in the Bill, that would diminish, to some extent the relationship between democratic accountability and the inspectors. If my hon. Friend looks at the back page of the Bill, he will realise that it will probably cost jobs in local authorities. What does my hon. Friend think about the weakening of the democratic process as proposed in the Bill?

§ Mr. Skinner
Some time ago, representatives of the Labour local authorities, who are opposed to the Bill, sent us information about it when it first appeared on the agenda. It is probable that the environmental health department of local authorities employs such inspectors. If the Bill goes through, we shall have authorised persons, without proper credentials, doing the job. They could be taking a back-hander from companies—think about it.
Clause 2(5) states: there shall be inserted the words 'or authorised person"'. Suppose people come along who are not properly accredited, not connected to the local authority and therefore not subject to any public accountability. Suppose they are in the pay of the company concerned. We would have a real mess on our hands. There is a sinister side to the clause.
In the past few months everyone has been conscious about safety and the Government have sent Ministers to tell us how concerned they are about safety in this, that or the other. But here we are, the Government have connived with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare—he has admitted that the Bill was drafted by Governmnt lawyers. 498 That Bill will reduce inspectors' ability to do their job and it will allow any authorised person to take on that job. There is no doubt that this is not just an ordinary, innocent little measure contained in a Private Member's Bill.

§ Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)
My hon. Friend said that the local authorities are aware of what is proposed in the Bill. If I remember aright, Derbyshire county council was way out in front by spotting it first. It informed my hon. Friend about the Bill and yet other hon. Members who represent Derbyshire and who sit on the Conservative Benches have criticised that council for the amount of money that it spends, but it appears to be spending it in the right direction.

§ Mr. Skinner
It made representations in the middle of all the Government attacks upon it. There was a happy ending, because, despite all the targeting by the Tories, Derbyshire Labour authorities had a great success yesterday and now have 52 Labour members out of 84 seats. A seat was won by Labour next door to me, in Brackenfield. It was a great victory.

§ Mr. Greg Knight (Derby, North)
Here comes more praise for Bookbinder.

§ Mr. Skinner
The hon. Gentleman does not like it whenever I mention a great victory in Derbyshire. The hon. Gentleman, who is as partisan as any right hon. or hon. Member, does not like it, but he must lump it.

§ The Chairman
Order. No matter how great the victory, it has no relevance to clause 2.

§ Mr. Skinner
Yes, it does. Derbyshire county council, fortified by that victory at Brackenfield, will say, "We were right to make representations about that distorted weights and measures Bill. We shall carry on our campaign in the knowledge that we have won another seat from the Tories and have a mandate." Although that council was saying, at the tether end of a four-year period, that we should oppose the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, it—together with Nottinghamshire county council, in which Labour also made gains yesterday—will be able to say, "We were right to send messages to our Members of Parliament that they should oppose the Bill. The electors realise that the Tory Government are not on the side of the consumers, but only on the side of the manufacturers."
Not that there are many manufacturers. The question must be asked whether there will be Japanese machines or more Japanese machines? Will those firms have their own inspectors? If there are to be more Japanese manufacturers, where will their factories be located? Is the Bill part of the build-up to 1992? Will the Japanese manufacture machines in various parts of Great Britain so that they can overcome the barriers against third countries and invade the Common Market? Such a thing is conceivable. Account should be taken of the Japanese element. There will be many more Japanese manufacturers in the future, but many other factories will be closed.

§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)
What will happen if the authorised person is Japanese and does not speak English?

§ Mr. Skinner
One may ask why the Japanese are coming to Britain rather than the French or Germans. Suppose that the Japanese spot the Bill and say to themselves, "Here is another little niche." The reason that 499 the Japanese come to Britain is that their second language is English, which is not the case with the French or Germans. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare considered that aspect, or perhaps the Government have but did not tell him.

§ Mr. Soley
My hon. Friend has not addressed the point that the authorised person must be appointed by the Secretary of State. The idea behind that is to centralise control away from local authorities. How will the Secretary of State know that the person who authorises is capable of performing the duties involved?

§ Mr. Skinner
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, because in Wales another Secretary of State may be responsible. If the Secretary of State for Wales is made responsible for implementing one part of the Bill, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is made responsible for another, there is bound to be conflict. It is almost certain that the Secretary of State for Wales will come up with another coded message. We may not immediately understand it, and shall have to wait for the newspapers to do so. The Secretary of State for Wales will brief the press, saying, "When you read my speech on Monday, it will seem a bit vague and abstract, and a particular line should be explained as follows." We will pick up the newspapers and suddenly read a massive attack by the Secretary of State for Wales on the Prime Minister. The ordinary person may read that speech and be unable to piece it together, but it is the Lobby briefing that matters.
Much will depend on whether the Secretary of State for Wales keeps his job. I think that the right hon. Lady will sack him. That point is worth discussing at some other time, but 1 think that the right hon. Gentleman will get the chop after what he has been doing of late. It is just a question of the Prime Minister thinking to herself,"I can leave him there for the moment and blame him for the by-election defeat." I understand that the Vale of Glamorgan by-election has just been announced.

§ Mr. Greg Knight
What does that by-election have to do with clause 2?

§ Mr. Skinner
I will explain what it has to do with clause 2. Under the Bill, any authorised person can do what they like. A person can masquerade and enter a building saying, "Where is your weighing machine? I am an authorised person." Somebody could walk into a BBC studio and ask, "Where is your weighing machine? I am an authorised person."—and then walk into the studio, get on television, and announce the result of the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. That is what could happen.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer (Liverpool, Walton)
My hon. Friend makes an interesting digression about the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. I am sure that his comments are right and that the Labour majority has been huge. My hon. Friend is rightly suspicious about the Bill. Some years ago, the Government allowed not just building inspectors appointed by local authorities—which they still are up to a point—but others to do a similar job. Those other inspectors can be associated with a particular company. A person inspecting a building to ensure that it meets building regulations could be someone who is associated with the company constructing it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned, and I should like him to 500 take that aspect into consideration. It is clear that the Government lawyers are only following the path that they have been wanting to follow for many years.

§ Mr. Skinner
The Bill represents a relaxation of rules that have been observed for many years. The Consumers Association briefing points out that the existing form of weights and measures has endured for 100 years, but the Government want to break it. We would all agree with the Government if they wanted to tighten up the legislation. If the Government lawyers who drafted the Bill—as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare admitted was the case—had tightened up the existing provisions, we would have said, "It is not a bad Bill and we shall give it a bit of a decent ride on a Friday. It looks as though the hon. Gentleman has introduced a Bill that will assist the consumer." But when one examines the Bill, one finds that it relaxes the existing rules, so that instead of having inspectors, there will be authorised persons who could be in the Tory party and who, in the words of the Prime Minister, could be "one of us". Those manufacturers will not be too concerned about their product.
Let us think about this. There will be weighing machines at the entrance to the Channel tunnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) laughs, but I can see it happening. And what kind of inspector is going to go there? Goods will be travelling not only to the 12 countries in the Common Market, but to countless others. The machines might have to measure in ecus, for instance—that is one of the new words that have come from the Common Market.
The entrance to the Channel tunnel is a dangerous place. Are we to allow an "authorised person" who is not a properly trained inspector to turn up there saying, "I am an authorised person. I have come to check this very important machine at the entrance to the Channel tunnel."? He might be someone who could be described as a terrorist, wanting to go beyond the weighing machine and into the tunnel.
12.30 pm
People will say—as they do now when there has been an accident—"Fancy that. Were there no proper health and safety inspectors?". We shall say, "No, because the Government have cut them back." Every time that inspections are cut back in this highly technological age it opens the door for accidents. That is another reason why we must oppose the idea of the authorised person as proposed in subsection (5). We might have to force it to a vote—and, judging by the ranks on the Conservative Benches, we might be successful. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has already agreed to withdraw subsection (4) because it has been found to be faulty.

§ Mr. Cohen
May I quote briefly from a letter from Cleveland county council objecting to the Bill? The letter says: The Bill is being promoted by Jerry Wiggin MP (Weston Super Mare) who, amongst a clutch of interests, acts as a consultant to the National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers.

§ Mr. Wiggin
I have declared my interest.

§ Mr. Cohen
I know that the hon. Gentleman has done that. Is it not a possibility, however, that the Secretary of State, who has taken powers to appoint authorised persons, would say to the hon. Gentleman, "You have been a good boy, getting this Bill through for the 501 Government. I shall make you the authorised person." The hon. Gentleman could then go back to his friends the manufacturers and tell them to do what they liked.

§ Mr. Skinner
I do not think that the Government would be as blatant as that. The hon. Gentleman has admitted a direct financial interest.

§ Mr. Cohen
But he would not be qualified as a local councillor.

§ Mr. Skinner
He would be disqualified. I may be being over-fair to the Government, beyond the bounds of reason, but I do not think that they would be so blatant. They would probably appoint someone just a step away to try to make it look right and proper.
Given all the inadequacies found in it this morning, I do not think that the Bill will get through.

§ Mr. Barron
We must wait and see.

§ Mr. Skinner
Yes, there is plenty of time, but many Labour Members are now beginning to represent the views of consumers. I note that the SLD and SDP Members have left. I say this merely in passing, but they play a very poor role in the House. They simply do not do their job. Some lawyer flitted in earlier and asked a question on the statement by the Secretary of State for Health, but then they all left. Where are they? Are they moping because they had a bad night at the election? A representative should be present.

§ Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is enormous scope for political patronage in the appointment of the authorised person? In the debate on the Widdicombe report, Labour Members were criticised for twin-tracking, but let us reflect on the scope for twin-tracking of unemployable Conservative supporters who might be appointed to "authorised person" posts all over the country. Were the business interests of the Prime Minister's son in Dallas to fall flat on their face, would there not be a risk of his emerging in this country as an authorised person? Then there is the grandson. In my view there is enormous scope for serious misuse of the powers of patronage.

§ Mr. Skinner
There are all those possibilities. I am not so sure that the Prime Minister would be too keen to let Mark have a job as an authorised person because he would lose his way. He would finish up looking for weighing machines in the desert. That is why they have all this electronic tagging. The Government first thought of that when he got lost in the desert. They said, "That's a good idea." That is why the Government have introduced electronic tagging, but I think that Mark would be a little unreliable.
To sum up—

§ Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)
Before my hon. Friend does that, is there not another angle? My hon. Friend referred to Conservatives being encouraged to take on the job of an authorised person. No doubt they would consider taking low earnings for it. The Government have created millions of lower-paid jobs. If they could convince 502 Conservatives to take it on, would they not hope that that would influence other people to take lower-paid jobs and to continue to suffer under this Administration?

§ Mr. Skinner
My hon. Friend is on to a good point. Failed Ministers could become authorised persons. Every time the Prime Minister sacked somebody she could summon him to her office and say, "It's all right. You've had eight years and a good run for your money, but I don't like your braces these days." I suppose the conversation goes along that road. "Now it's goodbye. However, I've a little sinecure for you, as a weights and measures authorised person." The Government could have initials for that. They could include it in the Queen's honours. Mind you, I do not think that the Queen would accept it. If the Prime Minister went along to the Queen and said, "I've thought up a new honour for failed Ministers, as an authorised person" I do not think that the Queen would buy it. There is a lot of mucking down, to use a phrase, between the Prime Minister and the Queen, but that is a debate for another day—unless my hon. Friends want to develop it. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is right. To be an authorised person could be a nice little sinecure so that when Ministers were sacked they did not drop immediately right to the bottom. They could have this little job as authorised persons.

§ Ms. Abbott
My hon. Friend has made an important point about employing politicians who have come to the end of their days in party politics as authorised persons. As he said, it would be a nice little sinecure for them. That is why we want to delete subsection (5). Does my hon. Friend think that when the Opposition come to power we would appoint ex-Ministers as authorised persons? What criteria would we use? If the Bill is to get through, we have to examine the ramifications.

§ Mr. Skinner
I would make representations to the effect that if the Bill did get through—and I do not think that it will—the Opposition ought to repeal it. It would be a defective law. We ought to repeal it and not be tempted to recommend people as authorised persons, in the way that the Tories would. We should not go down that road one little step.

§ Mr. Cohen
Another point that worries me is the financial effects of the Bill. If the job of an authorised person could be a sinecure or an honour, those people might—like the people at London Regional Transport when it was made a quango—get chauffeurs. They do not go on the buses or the tube. When the Government appoint authorised persons under the Bill, they might say to the failed Ministers, "Have a car and a chauffeur." Could there not be a money element to the creation of authorised persons? Is not that an aspect that should be included in the Bill?

§ Mr. Skinner
The financial effects are spelled out in the Bill. They are a bit vague and could mean all things to all people, but the Bill states that it will not involve any additional expenditure. The costs of administering and monitoring the scheme will be recovered as fees paid by authorised persons to central and local government. In the case of local government, the loss of testing fees"— my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley was right about the removal of public accountability— under the present system may result in a small overall reduction in the income of some authorities. 503 That is an attack on local government as authorities will lose income and manpower when hitherto they were responsible and publicly accountable for carrying out such inspections.
Finally, clause 2 should be opposed because subsection (5) contains the tremendous loophole for inspectors to be replaced by authorised persons. It is an attack on local authorities. The Bill is opposed by the Consumers Association, which has briefed every Member of Parliament saying that it was not properly consulted on the Bill before it came before the House. Opposition Members are not prepared to allow British consumers to be affected in that way. We want our weighing machines and other implements and equipment to be properly tested. We are not happy about the way in which inspectors are to be replaced by authorised persons. The Bill is a relaxation of the safety laws. For all those reasons, I oppose clause 2 of the Bill and I know that my hon. Friends will agree with me.

§ Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in opposing clause 2, and particularly subsection (5) and the insertion of the notion of "authorised persons". I shall speak fairly succintly about that important issue.
There are three main reasons why we have to look very closely at subsection (5). Too many hon. Members are taking the question of weights and measures lightly, but important issues are at stake. First, in some constituencies the vote is weighed. It would not be enough for an authorised person to have checked the scales. Secondly, there is a big debate about measures in pubs, particularly in relation to wine. Thirdly, there is the general issue of the qualifications of an authorised person.
I shall begin by talking about constituencies where the vote is weighed. It would not be satisfactory to have only an authorised person inspecting those machines. At the time of the 1983 general election, I was working as a journalist for TV-am breakfast television. I was sent to do a piece on constituencies which in the past five or 10 years had been the first to declare. Certain constituencies were always the first to declare on election night, and Torbay and Guildford were among those constituencies.
Torbay holds the record for declaring first, so I went there with a film crew to find out exactly how they managed to declare first. Torbay is known as the English Riviera and used to be represented by Sir Frederic Bennett who has retired and been replaced by the present hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I spoke at length to the chief executive and the returning officer and to people who had been involved in previous general elections in Torbay. I also found all the old film of the Torbay general election. There were many films of when Torbay had declared first. I asked the chief executive how Torbay always managed to declare its result first, despite the stiff competition. He replied, "I shall tell you the secret. First, we count the votes in the normal way, but when we check the result, instead of counting the votes manually, as all other constituencies do, we weigh them." I asked, "Is that legal?" He replied, "As far as I know it is." He took me into a back room in the town hall at Torbay and showed me the beautiful Victorian scales on which he weighed the vote as a second check on the ballot. That is why time after time Torbay managed to declare its vote first.
504 Those scales, old as they are, have to be checked by properly qualified inspectors with a good public reputation. They are appointed by a panel and their appointment is open to public scrutiny. Under clause 2(5) the inspection could be carried out by an "authorised person" and that could mean anybody. Therefore, the result in a constituency such as Torbay would be open to challenge.

§ Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)
As the hon. Lady has not previously honoured us with her presence during the passage of the Bill and as she has not communicated with me in any way, it might be helpful if I explain to her that the Government will not issue a licence to anybody who does not conform to British standard 5750. I hope that she will accept that the Government will not issue a licence without the most rigorous inspection by a third and independent party. I want to ensure that that is clear in case the myth is promulgated further.

§ Ms. Abbott
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the issue. My hon. Friends and I and those in the Public Gallery want to know what that rigorous inspection will entail. What qualifications will the inspectors have to have? Who will appoint them?

§ Mr. Wiggin
My hon. Friend the Minister will explain.

§ Ms. Abbott
The Minister is not at the Dispatch Box. He is sitting on the Back Benches talking to the hon. Member for Weston-super-mare (Mr. Wiggin). It looks as if I shall never know the answers.
It is important to get rid of clause 2(5) and to have a proper inspectorate, not an "authorised person".
A controversial issue which concerns my hon. Friends and myself is the measure of wine served in a public house or restaurant. We are concerned that the tests should be done by qualified inspectors. How do the public know how big a glass of wine will be when it is ordered in a bar or a restaurant? At least they now know that at some time an inspector might check the measures. Under the Bill, that check would be carried out by an "authorised person."
There has been a campaign to tighten up the way in which wine is served by the glass. A group of trade organisations introduced a voluntary code of practice in May 1984. It is a voluntary code but the inspectorate advised on it. Under this Bill, who knows who would advise on it. The code of practice states: quantities of wine should be given alongside prices, on menus, wine lists and so on, and be displayed at bars and self-service counters. quantities should conform with one of 11 specific glass sizes listed in the Weights and Measures Act 1963. no bar or restaurant should sell wine by the glass in more than two measures, and the difference between these two measures should be at least two fluid ounces (or 50 ml) As I understand it, the existing inspectorate is keen to ensure that the voluntary code is enforced. How are we to know that an "authorised person" will enforce it with vigour?
Conservative Members look bored, but this is not a trivial issue. A survey has been conducted to see whether the voluntary code has improved the measures served in pubs. The survey found that fewer than one in seven premises complied fully with the code. Therefore, in six out of seven wine bars or pubs one might be given short 505 measure. The survey also found that only one in six premises was displaying clearly the quantity and price. If those facts do not show the need for a properly qualified inspectorate, I do not know what does.

§ Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)
In how many of those cases does the problem have anything to do with the equipment?

§ Ms. Abbott
The hon. Gentleman is not looking at the issue in a developed way. It is not just a matter of the equipment but of the political and administrative culture and the way in which the issue of weights and measures is perceived. There is no doubt that wine bars and restaurants would take the issue of short measures much more seriously if they knew that a qualified inspectorate was likely to check up. Such a qualified inspectorate should be supported by the House and its role should not be limited by clause 2(5).
Clause 2(5), which provides for authorised persons and detracts from the role of legitimate weights and measures inspectors, undermines and dilutes the political and administrative culture and will lead pubs and clubs to believe that they can give short measures.
The surveyors found that in over half the premises they visited staff were not even aware that there was a code for selling wine by the glass. How can staff take weights and measures seriously if Conservative Members do not take weights and measures inspectors seriously?

§ Mr. Waller
The hon. Lady was not present earlier, so I repeat that I speak as vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. Is she aware that if weights and measures inspectors did not have to spend so much time on routine tasks they would have more time to deal with genuine abuses such as the giving of short measures in pubs because of human error or intention rather than anything to do with equipment? The hon. Lady is speaking against the interests of the consumer, who would be better served if trading standards officers had more time to deal with genuine abuses of the weights and measures regulations.

§ Ms. Abbott
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should describe the provisions of clause 2(5) as trivial. Is he aware that in the 18th century there were bread riots because of under-weight bread? The issue of equipment and weights and measures is by no means trivial. If one visited the Vale of Glamorgan this morning, where the Labour party has won the by-election with a 6,000 majority, and asked those 6,000 people who constitute the Labour majority—

§ Madam Deputy Chairman (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
Order. I am not sure that this is relevant. The hon. Lady said that she would be succinct. I am waiting for her to fulfil that claim.

§ Mr. Cohen
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that trading standards officers do not want to carry out trivial tasks. I have a letter from the county of Cleveland, in which it clearly takes the view that self-verification by manufacturers under local authority trading standards officers' supervision is a reasonable development. However, it does not want to hand over all powers of supervision to the industry, which is the key 506 point that the hon. Gentleman avoided. The Government want to hand verification to the industry to spite local authorities, whereas it should be under independent local authority supervision.

§ Mr. Wiggin
Precisely for that reason, and at the request of the Association of County Councils, I tabled an amendment requiring that local trading standards officers should be consulted before a licence is granted. If the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) had read the amendments and understood the Bill he would understand that I have done precisely what has been asked for.

§ Ms. Abbott
It must be wrong to hand verification to manufacturers.

§ Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South)
Just to reinforce my hon. Friend's point, would she like to dwell on the relevance of the Labour majority in the Vale of Glamorgan by-election, which was 6,028 votes?

§ Ms. Abbott
Conservative Members have said that this is a trivial matter. More than once, they have said that the powers given to authorised persons are trivial. Each and every one of the 6,000-odd people who constitute the Labour majority in the Vale of Glamorgan by-election would say that this is not a trivial matter. We do not want verification handed over to the industry.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am sorry to have an argument with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) through my hon. Friend, but perhaps she would like to comment on the supervision provided through local authorities. Cleveland county council makes it clear in its letter that this private Member's Bill is a shabby process to avoid consultation. If this were a Government Bill, the Government would be forced to consult local authorities and trading standards officers fully. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to say that he wants to move an amendment providing for consultation, but that will be too late. The Bill will have been passed and rights taken away. Does my hon. Friend agree?

§ Ms. Abbott
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he has said about local authorities confirms that the Bill is not in the consumers' interest. Why has not the Bill come forward as a Government measure, with proper consultation? It is all well and good for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to say that he will move an amendment at this late stage. Why was not there full consultation before with local authorities and consumers?
Self-verification by the industry is a grave matter. Interpolation of so-called authorised persons as properly trained weights and measures inspectors is a serious matter, and clause 2 must be opposed. Conservative Members argue that authorised persons are needed because the weights and measures inspectorate does not have the time to verify equipment. If they are worried about the shortage of staff in the inspectorate and want to lessen the work load, they should argue for more rate support grant for authorities such as Cleveland so that they can employ as many weights and measures inspectors as it takes to check scales and pub measures and supervise pub staff who are pouring drinks. The Bill creates a shabby half-and-half twilight cast of authorised person to take work from the weights and measures inspectorate.
507 Weights and measures work is a distinguished calling. I had a lot to do with such people when I was on the environmental health committee of Westminster city council. As Westminster is in the centre of London, weights and measures is a pressing issue. Conservative Members who are serious about reducing the inspectors' work load and want them to do a good job should demand and fight for more money for local authorities so that they can employ staff and trainees and open the profession. If that happens, the weights and measures issue will be dealt with once and for all. The answer is not the creation of authorised persons but more fully qualified weights and measures inspectors.

§ Mr. Cohen
I have referred to the letter from the Cleveland county council, a Labour local authority which opposes the clause. Is my hon. Friend aware that not just Labour local authorities oppose it? The London borough of Sutton, which is not a labour authority, has made a number of points that have been raised in the debate. Its letter states: These are important and significant matters which could reduce the level of consumer protection and requires proper consultation, publicity and parliamentary debate. The letter calls for: Support in opposing the Bill unless and until such time as all affected parties have been consulted and the rights of the consumer receive adequate protection. That letter is from a Conservative authority, so it can be seen that opposition to the Bill runs across the political spectrum.

§ Ms. Abbott
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that the Bill is opposed not only by Labour authorities, but by other authorities, whether Conservative or SLD—although after the recent county council elections there are few SLD councils now. The only one left is the Isle of Wight and that is a jolly good thing too, because the SLD is not competent to run a local authority.
Clause 2 is opposed by local authorities whatever their political persuasion. Local authorities, including Conservative authorities, believe that the clause will lessen the protection available to the consumer.
Yet the Bill is being put through as a private Member's Bill on a Friday, with no Conservative Back Bencher now present. This is supposed to be the era of heightened interest in consumers, yet they will have their protection lessened by the Bill and especially by clause 2. That is an outrage. If Conservative Members were serious about the problems of the weights and measures inspectorate they would not be supporting the Bill. This is a vested interest Bill which will help industry.
If we look at the history of weights and measures, we see that many serious disturbances were caused by short measures and short weights, especially of bread. I read history and I remember learning of the bread riots of the 18th century. We should remember the seriousness of short weight and we should realise that even now some authorities weigh votes. No one had to weigh the votes in the Vale of Glamorgan, but we had a sizeable majority of more than 6,000. In the next general election, we may need to weigh the votes.

§ Madam Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Lady must speak to clause 2.

§ Ms. Abbott
Labour Members would not want "authorised persons" to weigh votes in the Vale of Glamorgan. We would want proper weights and measures inspectors to verify the fact that our majority at the next general election had shot up from 6,000 to 30,000.
The issue we are debating is significant. Discussions about short measures go on in pubs and wine bars. When we consider the pathetic inadequacy of the measures in this private Member's Bill, we see that, instead of a fully staffed, properly paid and properly respected group of weights and measures inspectors, we shall have a shabby group of people known as "authorised persons", and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has not said what qualifications they will need to have.
The Bill has been promoted, whether consciously or unconsciously, by industry interests. It will help only the interests of industry.

§ Mr. Wiggin
What is wrong with that?

§ Ms. Abbott
The hon. Gentleman asks—

§ Mr. Wiggin
What is wrong with its helping the interests of British industry?

§ Ms. Abbott
What is wrong is that Parliament is supposed to be concerned with the interests of all groups and individuals, not just industry, even British industry. We are supposed to be concerned about the consumer, the housewife, the person who shops in the market and the supermarket and the customer in the pub and the wine bar. It would be wrong for any hon. Member to be thought to represent sectional interests.
The Bill has been promoted, consciously or not, by the interests of industry. The Bill serves no purpose but the greater convenience and interest of industry. The Bill pays no heed to the voices of consumers, local authorities or professionals.
The Bill will do nothing to meet the concerns of people about the weights and measures of such things as bread. It will do nothing to help the people of Torbay who are anxious to know about the methods used to weigh their votes in elections. It will not help the more than 6,000 people who constitute the Labour majority in the Vale of Glamorgan. This is an age in which the voice of the consumer is heard in the land—which includes the Vale of Glamorgan with its 6,000 Labour majority. But the Bill is deaf to the voice of the consumer. I urge the Committee to oppose not only the clause but the entire Bill.

§ Mr. Barron
I am sure that the Bill's promoter will agree that clause 2 is the heart of the legislation. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) made a sedentary intervention about protecting British industry and asked what was wrong with that. I do not think that any Opposition Member would want to do anything other than protect British industry. We all help industry in our constituencies, and sometimes we help it by supporting legislation. However, we do not want to weaken the voice of the consumer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) gave a graphic example of short measure in wine bars. It would be difficult, even with electronic measures, to stamp out such practices. I am sure that the Bill's promoter will recognise that it is feasible to have a machine that records exact measure. The Bill deals 509 with machinery that not only weighs consumer products passed over the counter, but the new equipment that we see in supermarkets.
I understand that the official term for price marking in supermarkets is bar coding. If a customer goes to the supermarket for a product that does not have the price stamped on it, it will not be until she gets to the checkout that she will know how much it costs. That is because the product has on it this strange bar coding that has to be zipped over using a piece of equipment. That is difficult to understand, even in present day society, as a means of measuring prices. The equipment is currently covered by trading standards officers and its development needs to be carefully watched.
The bar coding system is used in all major retail outlets and now that corner shops are disappearing, we no longer see goods measured in pounds and ounces. We are moving into the age of electronics and the machines in use are not as perfect as people would like them to be.
One of the criticisms levelled by the Consumers Association is that the people who are responsible for the repair and maintenance of electronic machines do not set them up properly. I am sure the promoter will acknowledge that not every retail outlet has the same type of machine. My brother has a small butcher's business in Rotherham, and his machine is very good. When it has been programmed it shows the customer the exact price per pound, and how much the meat weighs and costs when it is placed on the scale. It is complicated machinery and, if it is not set up correctly, all sorts of things can go wrong. Different types of machine are involved. Small businesses repair these machines, and they have been called back in the past by trading standards officers when machines have not measured correctly.
Therefore, this legislation affects not only British industry but, more importantly, it affects consumers. Any changes to this legislation should make the position of the consumer stronger, not weaker. Local authorities, who have a statutory responsibility in this area, have said to Members and to well-respected consumer associations that they have misgivings about the Bill.

§ Ms. Abbott
I raised the question of the consumer most judiciously, and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) talked with some sharpness about what was wrong with doing something in the interests of British industry. Does that not suggest to my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman may be aware, in the bottommost recesses of his heart, that this Bill really does nothing for consumers? Would the sharpness of his retort not indicate a touch of guilty conscience about how consumers are affected by this Bill?

§ Mr. Barron
That is difficult to deal with, without hazarding a guess about the hon. Gentleman's position in British industry.

§ Mr. Wiggin
Let us be clear about the consumer interests; they were represented on the Eden committee, which was unanimous in its findings, with this Bill being part of its recommendations in its findings.

§ Mr. Barron
Before the hon. Gentleman actually said it, I was about to point out that the Bill contains only part of the recommendations of the Eden committee. Certainly, it 510 does not contain all of the recommendations. It has been alleged that this could be considered a quasi-Government Bill rather than a private Member's Bill. We believe, as do people involved in drawing up the Eden report, that it would have been right and constitutionally proper, Madam Chair, for the Minister to have proposed the Bill on behalf of the Government.

§ Madam Deputy Chairman
I may not be addressed as "Chair". We are in Committee. The hon. Gentleman should refer to me by name.

§ Mr. Barron
I apologise.
We would have been much happier if the Government had adopted a more comprehensive approach to the recommendations and introduced from the Dispatch Box a Bill containing all, and not some, of the recommendations of the Eden committee. That would have been a better procedure than this private Member's Bill.

§ Ms. Abbott
The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Weston-super-Mare, said that the Bill included part of the recommendations of the Eden committee. Would my hon. Friend not agree that this is definitely one of those situations in which half a loaf is not better than no bread? What should have happened is that a Government Bill should have been drawn up to take into account all the recommendations of the Eden committee, particularly acknowledging interests other than those of the very narrow sectional interests of British industry.

§ Mr. Barron
I was making that point, and my hon. Friend is right to echo it. Most people involved in the industry, certainly those involved in the Consumers Association, felt that the Bill would have been better if it had included all the recommendations of that committee. I thought that we were here to protect the interest of the consumer.
1.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the Grantham grocer's shop. We have all heard stories about the grocer who, when weighing out the sugar—before it came in its pre-packed form with the bar code—kept his little finger on the scales as the sugar was going into the packet, then lifted it off with the sugar saying, "Here you are, that is sixpence". We have moved on from those times and there is much more pre-packaging, although many retail outlets still operate in that way. Some shops have bulk-bought stuff in big tubs, which is cheaper if one does not mind buying in that way. Other products are bought in bulk and then sold on to the next person down the line, and they also use scales. Therefore, many of the points made in the report would have been better dealt with under a more comprehensive Bill that took into account all the different ways of retailing food.

§ Ms. Abbott
This important point illustrates the significance of the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, the goods in most shops are pre-packaged, so there is no need for a weights and measures inspectorate, but the sector of the population particularly concerned about the Bill, the accuracy of weights and measures and a properly developed inspectorate, is the elderly. Elderly people do not go into a supermarket to buy half a pound of cheese. They prefer going to small corner shops and buying two 511 ounces of cheese, or one rasher of bacon, or a slice of ham, which is weighed out for them. Therefore, they are particularly concerned.

§ Mr. Barron
My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, I have an interest to declare in that my brother works in the retail business as a butcher. He has a small shop in Rotherham and he has to compete against the major retail outlets—the supermarkets and the hypermarkets where one can go in and buy everything that one wants for the garden and the home. That makes things difficult for the small retailer and many of his customers are those whom my hon. Friend has described, who would be seeking the protection of the local authorities via the inspectors from the local weights and measures department who inspect the weights and measures machines in retail outlets. That is why it is vital that the Bill is made more comprehensive.
Under clause 2, once the authorised person has been agreed and has paid a fee to the Secretary of State, as set out in clause 1, to which the Committee has already agreed, he has the right to test and stamp equipment". There could be a conflict of interest if such a person were also being paid under contract to service the machines. Under the present system, all new or repaired equipment has to be tested by inspectors, but clause 2(5), will add authorised persons to the system. Inspectors are trading standards officers in my local authority and, I suspect, in other local authorities as well. By law those officers are prohibited from having any financial or other type of interest in the manufacture or repair of the equipment that they check.
If the Bill is passed we are led to believe that the inspectors will still oversee the work done by others—the authorised persons. The inspectors have no interest except a professional one—to look after consumer interests in various outlets. In clause 2, however, authorised persons will take over the checking of machines when they are installed. We assume that they will check the repair and any adjustment subsequently made to those machines, prior to the inspector checking them.
Although we are discussing clause 2, other parts of the Bill affect local authorities in terms of jobs as well as finance. It appears that the present system of inspectors is to be run down, but they have a statutory responsibility and they cannot have a vested interest in any of the work that they undertake.
I know that the Government's record for funding local government is not good. Their treatment of local government employees is not much better. Almost every other week in this House another Bill is introduced that is designed to remove local government employees, whether through privatisation or competitive tendering, as it is called by the Government.
It would be wrong if the Bill weakened the protection currently given to consumers by our trading standards officers. That fear, which has been expressed by my hon. Friends, is also shared by various consumer associations. In those circumstances we should reconsider whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. The change in the relationship between trading standards officers and retail outlets should be considered in detail during our deliberations on the Bill.
The Bill will take away from the local authorities the statutory responsibility to test and verify machines on installation, and any subsequent repairs. The system will 512 be subjected to a quasi-privatisation as a result of the appointment of authorised persons. Control will move back to Whitehall because the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint such authorised people. The Bill will centralise rather than decentralise. From the Government's rhetoric we are led to believe that they want to roll back the powers of the state, but in reality we know that power is being centralised all the time. The Bill is yet another example of that process.

§ Ms. Abbott
It is clear that state control is being broken down through glasnost and so on in the East and in Russia. Is it not extraordinary that the Bill and especially clause 2(5), are designed to increase the power of the state?

§ Mr. Barron
I agree with that well-timed and well-intentioned intervention. What is so upsetting is that local authorities have a fine and honourable record with their work in weights and measures. They currently undertake those responsibilities in statute but impartially and with no vested interest other than that of the consumers whom they are professionally employed to protect. I would sooner see consumer interests vested in local authorities, who reflect their local regions and who understand all aspects of life in their local communities, and who know whether or not the public are getting a good deal and not a short measure when buying certain items currently protected by local authority responsibility, by statute.

§ Ms. Abbott
Consumers are very satisfied with the existing system of local authority verification. Has the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) introduced his Bill in response to consumer pressure? If consumers have written to him in their hundreds and thousands, why are they not writing to other right hon. and hon. Members?

§ Mr. Barron
That question is really directed at the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, and I give way so that he may enlighten the Committee on that point.

§ Mr. Wiggin
If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the Bill before coming to the House and making an attempt to filibuster it out of existence, he would have found that it has nothing to do with changing the law in relation to trading standards officers and their ordinary duties in monitoring machines that are used for the sale of goods. The Bill is solely about self-verification by people who have passed the most stringent independent tests. I wish I knew why there is such deep opposition to the Bill. If any right hon. or hon. Member had been prepared to discuss it with me, I would have been happy to try to meet their demands, as I did in respect of representations by trading standards officers and the Association of County Councils, who had the courtesy to approach me. The amendments are a result of those negotiations. I do not understand why such a body of opinion should be generated against an innocent little Bill that will help about a dozen British manufacturers.

§ Ms. Abbott
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Chairman. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to accuse hon. Members with a deep and longstanding interest in weights and measures of filibustering.

§ Madam Deputy Chairman
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, and he is not offending against the Standing Orders of the House by expressing it.

§ Mr. Barron
I concur with the hon. Gentleman when he rightly points out that he was approached by interested bodies and subsequently proposed amendments to the Bill, to which I have no objection. If the Bill progresses, those amendments should obviously be incorporated. However, the hon. Gentleman makes mention only of those interested parties who approached him. One would have thought that any right hon. or hon. Member introducing legislation in this area would have consulted credible consumer associations—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Deputy Chairman
Order, there must be only one debate at a time in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has the Floor.

§ Mr. Wiggin
I repeat my earlier remark that the Eden committee was unanimous in its findings and that the Government responded to its recommendations. The Bill is the result of something that has already been agreed after consultations that took place two or three years ago.

§ Ms. Abbott
Not on this Bill.

§ Mr. Barron
The Eden committee was established in 1984 and comprised representatives of all interested parties, including manufacturers and installers, repairers, users, central and local government, and consumers, and had an independent chairman in Dr. Eden himself.
Let me ask the hon. Gentleman a direct question. Did the consumers—and we are here to represent them rather than anyone else on that committee—propose any change not covered by the hon. Gentleman's amendment to his Bill? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head? Let me ask him, then, why the Consumers Association—a very creditable organisation—now says that it is opposed to certain parts of the Bill?

§ Mr. Wiggin
I am sorry to say that, contrary to its reputation, the Consumers Association failed to ask for an explanation of the Bill. It has made a number of allegations which, frankly, are wrong. I have sent the association a detailed analysis of its objections, but if it had produced them earlier I could have enlightened it. I am forced to conclude that the association knows as little about the matter as the hon. Gentleman clearly does.

§ Mr. Barron
I suppose that that remark is in order.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that he should be consulted on high. I have just spent a good deal of time dealing with the Electricity Bill, another measure of interest to consumers. I shall divulge nothing except that extensive discussions have taken place between not only the Opposition but the Government—the Bill's promoters—and about 10 of the leading consumers' associations. The Government rightly consider it necessary to consult those associations about the changes imposed on consumers. There seems to be a contradiction here. If this is a Government Bill by another name, why is the hon. Gentleman, as a representative of the Government, saying, "You must come and see me. I am not prepared to contact you."?

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helen's, South)
I hope that my intervention will not provoke another barrage of personal insults from the Conservative Benches. Such conduct is entirely unnecessary.
Is not the test of the Bill, and of clause 2 in particular, very simple? At present an independent body, with its own professional standards and codes of ethics and behaviour, carries out the testing and stamping of weighing machines. The Bill seeks to allow in-house testing and stamping by people who are not party to the training course run by that professional body, and thus to make in-house stamping the prerogative of the elite at the expense of the many—and, ultimately, at the expense of the consumer.

§ Mr. Barron
That is the truth. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said earlier that nothing about the inspections would change, but if a new retail outlet was set up it would surely have to be inspected before it could trade, and under the Bill an authorised person could do that. The hon. Gentleman nods. That constitutes a change.
The hon. Gentleman said earlier—and it is fair comment—that this was only part of the recommendations of the Eden report. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be familiar with the briefing sent by the Consumers Association to all Members of Parliament, as he is the Bill's surrogate promoter. The association did indeed agree with the report. Its briefing states: We welcomed the recommendations of the 'Eden Report on Metrological Control' when it was published in 1985. Indeed, Eden's proposals were remarkable, in being endorsed by all parties—manufacturers, inspectorate and consumer representatives alike. After such strong endorsement by all the parties concerned, it is strange that we should be discussing a Bill that contains only part of the recommendations that were so widely endorsed.
The Consumers Association brief continues: The Consumers Association's objection to the Bill is that it seeks to introduce only those recommendations which would be of benefit to those connected with the manufacturing industry, without adequate safeguards to protect the consumer. If that is the case, every hon. Member ought to be worried that the Bill protects only industry. I accept that industry needs to be protected but the interests of industry should not be protected if consumer standards are likely to suffer. The Consumers Association's argument is good and strong and I am prepared to accept it. A more comprehensive measure should have been introduced.

§ Ms. Abbott
Is it not the case that the parliamentary adviser to the National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers has completely failed to take on board the interests of the consumer? The Eden committee first sat in 1984. Its recommendations were published in June 1985. Between 1985 and 1989 the retail industry has moved forward. There are new products; there is also new packaging and new machinery. Does that not make even more pressing the case for proper consultation? Does that not make it even more regrettable that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) failed to consult the interested parties before he introduced the Bill?

§ Mr. Barron
Yes, it is regrettable. Even the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare may have some regrets about the Bill not being more comprehensive, by taking into account the interests of consumers as well as the interests of British industry.
515 One of the main objections of the Consumers Association is to self-verification. It says: Self-verification should not be applied to installers and repairers until its success in relation to manufacturers has been assessed. Most manufacturers are in a position to ensure that adequate quality assurance and control measures are built into their manufacturing processes. This cannot be said for repairers, most of whom tend to be small businesses, often working away from their own premises and performing many different types of repair work on many different types of machine. I raised that point earlier. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare nodded his head in appreciation of that very important point when I raised it earlier.

§ Mr. Waller
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has taken account of the proposed changes. Provisions relating to installers and repairers would not come into force immediately; they would he postponed. Some of the Eden committee's proposals will come before the House later, but there can be no guarantee that if the Bill is not passed account will then be taken of the provisions in the Bill. By preventing the Bill from passing into law, the kind of safeguards to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and which have been taken into account will not exist.

§ Mr. Barron
The hon. Member's intervention draws me back to clause 1, which I shall not discuss in detail as we are debating clause 2. At present, clause 1 does not stop the threat of that happening even after the amendments have been made. We keep returning to the fact that the parties involved in the investigations and the conclusions of the Eden report were broadly in agreement. Although I cannot speak for the Labour Front Bench, that suggests to me that if a comprehensive Bill that covered all issues had been produced there would have been all-party agreement in the House and such a Bill would have been passed in far less time than we have spent in Committee this morning discussing whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. Many questions arise from that, but I understand that they cannot be discussed in a debate on clause 2 stand part. If I were to ask or answer those questions, I should be moving away from the subject of the debate.

§ Mr. Bermingham
Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) appeared to contain an element of blackmail suggesting that either we let the Bill through now, slightly amended, or those concessions will not appear in any future Bill? The main issue is how to protect the consumer, and threats are perhaps not the best way to do that.

§ Mr. Barron
My hon. Friend may well be right.
Although I always listen with interest to anything said by Conservative members that is helpful to the debate, it may be that there is a certain threat on that matter. That is normally left to the usual channels and to Government Departments and not to procedural issues in Committee. Had the Bill been thought through properly and had the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare lobbied the Minister, it might have been thought that the proper place and time for the Bill was not on a Friday in private Members' time but from the Dispatch Box on another day, properly promulgated by the relevant Government Department instead of a private Member.

§ Mr. Cohen
Does my hon. Friend agree that the checks 516 and balances for weights and measures for protecting consumers and assisting industry have existed for a long time and the Bill, which benefits the industry at the expense of the consumer, upsets those checks and balances? Does he agree that it would have been quite simple to include some protection for the consumer and, particularly, the local authority powers? In the four or five years since the Eden report, there have been plenty of opportunities to work out those measures.

§ Mr. Barron
My hon. Friend is right, but the five-year gap is not the responsibility of the promoter of the Bill. It would be wrong to blame him for the deficiencies in the Bill which seeks to enact only certain provisions of the Eden report. The responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry. Unfortunately, we cannot even blame the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs as he is a recent appointee, and a shock appointee, as I recall from the public comments made by some of his hon. Friends—I use the expression lightly—when he was appointed. The person who held his position during the years from 1985 is responsible for the fact that the Bill contains only some of the recommendations in the Eden report.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has been open and honest about the fact that the Bill is designed more to help industry than consumers. That is why I oppose clause 2.

§ Mr. Wiggin
The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that consumers will experience some expense. Does he seriously and honestly believe that the Department of Trade and Industry would smile on a Bill if it knew that there was the slightest shred of evidence that that was the case? He should bear in mind that several western European countries already have self-verification. Is he aware that the Community will be proposing self-verification in the near future? There is not a shred of evidence that the 13ill will harm the consumer.

§ Mr. Barron
The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in one of his interventions during my speech, he accepted that, in some instances—especially after installation or repairs—some machinery has had to be adjusted after its inspection by the proper statutory authority. How can we give authorised persons a licence, even for an interim period, if we know that, in the past, they have got it wrong? That is where the protection of the consumer begins to weaken, and it is highlighted by the Consumers Association.
The hon. Gentleman should have consulted the Consumers Association before coming to the House. He did not do so and he has given his reasons. The association fears that, because trading standards officers have had to adjust machinery in the past, that machinery may not be accurate after the enactment of the Bill.
There are drawbacks about extending the licensing provisions to those who install the equipment. The Bill would remove the existing requirement for an inspector to be present when bar coding tills are installed. Bar coding tills are in use in many of our retail outlets. They inform the customer electronically of the price of the goods. One would need to have a mind like a calculator to remember 517 the price of the sugar when reaching the checkout because in a hypermarket the shelf could be a quarter of a mile away.
In those circumstances, it is important that the equipment is accurate at all times. It should not be left simply to the person who installs the machine. Consumers should not have to wait until the local authority trading standards officer has time to visit the supermarket or hypermarket to check the accuracy of the machine. If we are to look after consumers' interests, the first item purchased in a retail outlet using that system must show that the price is being recorded properly before the other items are purchased.

§ Mr. Bermingham
My hon. Friend has probably read, as I have, about the problems with bar coding. When prices change, one price can be displayed but another barred through so that one is charged the original price and not the displayed reduced price. What damage will be done if such problems are left to self-verification?

§ Mr. Barron
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not surprised that he raised it because he is not only an hon. Member but a member of the legal profession. I am sure he is well aware of the introduction of new technology into retailing and its effect on consumers, and of individual consumers who are in dispute with a retailer about the cost of an item.

§ Ms. Abbott
I am sure that my hon. Friend has read, as I have, the Government's response to the report of the Eden committee, entitled "Metrological Control of Equipment for Use for Trade". For the benefit of other hon. Members who may not have read it, I shall read a paragraph that has some bearing on the debate. It says: The action which the Government proposes to take on the Report will undoubtedly be helpful to industry. However, the Government will take no step which could compromise fair trading—The Government believes that the basis of fair trading is the acceptance by all parties that the regulatory framework is reasonable. It is therefore especially pleased that the Report was unanimous and that reform in this area can be accepted by all interested parties without controversy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for this morning's controversy is that Labour Members believe that the Bill will compromise fair trading, in complete contradiction to that paragraph in—

§ Madam Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Lady is making a long intervention. Has she concluded?

§ Ms. Abbott
Yes.

§ Mr. Barron
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She has much expertise in this sector. I suspect that her previous job as an elected member of a local authority gave her much practical experience, which I did not have before becoming an hon. Member, in overseeing trading standards. I lack such experience, but having been a consumer all my life gives me a direct interest in the contents and passage of the Bill.
The Consumers Association said that the appointed system—the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has not dealt with this yet—has certain implications for local authorities. It says that more checks and inspections are required and that the Bill contains an admission that it could lead to less staff. 518 That point was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who said that other parts of the Bill could lead to losses of staff. The Consumers Association was concerned that Local authorities will also lose income which they currently receive from certifications. Such income offsets the expenditure incurred in maintaining their highly specialised and complex test equipment. Yet such equipment will still have to be maintained to test the work of non-licensed holders. Another part of the Bill states that local authorities are likely to lose out. In this age of attacks on local authority expenditure, can authorities sustain a department with enough staff and equipment to test scales used by retail outlets? In years to come, will there be sufficient protection for the consumer? Current amendments to the Weights and Measures Act 1985 are defective.

§ Ms. Abbott
My hon. Friend has referred to possible cash losses for local authorities. He will be aware of this statement in the White Paper: The Government recognises that inspectors will need training for the additional functions connected with self-verification … It will discuss with local authorities how this should be organised and funded. The Government are aware of the implications for local authorities. Have there been discussions with the local authorities about organisation and funding of special training for the inspectorate?

§ Mr. Barron
I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. If the Government, who have responsibility for these matters, had wanted to do something about the Eden committee's report, they would have introduced a comprehensive Bill containing all the answers and results of consultations with the Department of Trade and Industry. Instead, we have to guess whether the functions of trading standards officers in overseeing are sufficiently protected.

§ Mr. Cohen
I again take up the point about loss of local authority jobs, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) have referred. Is there not a familiar vicious circle? There is a shortage of people doing this expert work; a wave of complaints because standards have dropped and the industry has taken liberties; and the Government say that the local authorities are not doing the job properly so they will take away those functions. That vicious circle is seen in other aspects of civil services where people should be protected. Is there not a danger in cutting jobs and thereby setting that train in motion?

§ Mr. Barron
My hon. Friend has made a strong and precise point. He did not use the phrase "free market", but if the number of trading standards officers and their services were reduced, it would be open for people to say, "When you go to any of the major retail outlets using this equipment, you will be in the hands of the manufacturer, repairer, installer or retailer."
2 pm
There is one question above all about which consumers and the organisations that represent them are concerned. We are all, of course, well aware of the growth in the number of advice centres and consumer organisations. Those organisations have commented to me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members that they feel it is incomprehensible that out of the strong recommendations 519 in the Eden report, which were supported by the organisations, a selection of recommendations has been brought forward in the Bill. They fear, as I do, that if we accept the Bill, although some of its provisions are acceptable and there are sections of the British industry we want to encourage, we shall not see the other recommendations of the report carried out in legislation.
The Government, and especially the Department of Trade and Industry, have sat on the committee's conclusions for so long. They have now seen an avenue for some of them, but they dare not bring a Bill forward directly at the Dispatch Box because they have included only a few of the recommendations and ignored the others. For that reason, the clause should not stand part of the Bill and if there is a Division, I shall vote against it.

§ Mr. Cohen
I want to weigh in with my measured opposition to clause 2—if that is an appropriate way to start. We have had weights and measures regulations that have worked well over the years. They were initiated in the Magna Carta and what was got out of King John is being eroded under Queen Maggie.
There are inspectors of weights and measures working for local authorities throughout the country and I pay tribute to them. They do an outstanding job and they are unbiased. Clause 2 represents an erosion of their work and of their traditional and successful public service. I am pleased that my hon. Friends have taken the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly, because it would otherwise have gone through untouched and would have seriously eroded that public service. The Bill would have been a short measure in more ways than one.

§ Ms. Abbott
It is important to pay close attention to the recommendations of the Eden committee, to which hon. Members have often referred. The committee said, on the powers of the inspectors: It may be necessary to give inspectors additional powers in connection with their duties to undertake the quality audit of organisation. Where in the Bill are such additional powers provided?

§ Mr. Cohen
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the Eden report. As has been said, the Bill is a partial implementation of that report. Only those parts that benefit industry have been taken and the Bill has not included anything that will benefit the consumer. My hon. Friend was right to mention that key complaint of many of the people who have objected to the Bill.
I apologise to the Hansard reporters who have been sending me notes since I intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The notes ask for copies of the letters from the county of Cleveland and from the London borough of Sutton. I have not been able to send those letters up, but shall do so when I have finished my speech because I want to quote from them again. I apologise for not having responded to the Hansard requests.
A letter from Mr. S. P. Jones, the professional assistant to Cleveland council, was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). The letter makes several points and I shall briefly allude to them. It says: The bill by being a private members bill avoids the usual consultative process of a government measure and represents a particularly shabby manoeuvre by the DTI and interested parties. That has already been mentioned, so I will not dwell on it. The measure erodes all the excellent work carried out over 520 the years by a successful public service and the consultation process has been less than adequate. That is not a good policy to adopt.

§ Ms. Abbott
The key point is that the Bill is a shabby measure. When we look at the original Eden report, as most Opposition Members have done, we find that one of the recommendations was about a move away from self-regulation of the serving of beer towards some sort of inspection of beer measures. The report says: We recommend implementation of s. 19 of the 1979 Act on the measurement of beer or cider. To avoid the debate about whether publicans should have any sort of inspection of control of the pouring of beer and to allow them to continue to self-regulate it is one of the reasons for this shabby private Member's Bill being introduced. One of the other recommendations in the Eden report—

§ Madam Deputy Chairman
Order. This is a long intervention from the hon. Lady.

§ Ms. Abbott
Let me just mention one recommendation. It says: We recommend that the whole field of measurement be reviewed to establish a rational approach to legal control; the Weights and Measures acts cover only part of the field. That would avoid—

§ Madam Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Lady had a good crack of the whip this morning and she is taking a long time now in interventions.

§ Mr. Cohen
I take my hon. Friend's point, but I will not go down that road, except to say that when talking about drinks such as beer and wines, it is a case of "Cheers" for the manufacturers but not much in the way of cheer for the consumer.
The Consumers Association has said that it was not consulted and is very much against many aspects of the Bill. I have quoted what local authorities have said and shall continue to do so. They have said that they have not been properly consulted and that they are against the Bill. There has not been a good consultation process, but such consultation as there has been has elicited a hostile response to the clause. The Committee should take that properly into account. The letter from Cleveland county also says: The bill gives wide powers to the Minister who will make regulations through central agencies. The bill states that local authority manpower will be reduced. The inspectorate role will be transferred to central government. That is the point about centralisation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred earlier. He mentioned the provision for "an authorised person" to act as an inspector. I believe that the wording is immensely lax. An authorised person could, bluntly, be the agent of the manufacturer, repairer or installer. That provision certainly erodes the role of the independent inspector.
My hon. Friend also rightly referred to the centralisation of power in the Secretary of State. The Government are so dogmatic in their hostility to local authorities; they cut them back at every turn. Even when authorities are playing a good role, the Government cut them back. The Secretary of State, in this case, will take away the high standard role performed by inspectors for local authorities and vest the authority in himself. The Secretary of State will not be able to perform the same role 521 as that carried out by little local authorities up and down the country. He cannot perform the same effective role as people on the ground floor in the local authority. Thus, the service will be worse and more open to abuse, as well as being less democratic. That action is designed to take away powers as well as jobs from local authorities. The county of Cleveland is quite right on that point. Its letter states: It selectively implements the Eden Report. That point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) in her intervention. The letter continues it undermines the role of local authorities in consumer protection. Eden advocated a statutory duty for local authorities to inspect weighing equipment at reasonable intervals which the Minister and Mr. Wiggin have ignored. Absolutely essential to the Eden committee was the point of a statutory duty for local authorities to inspect equipment. The idea was to strengthen their hand. Had the hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce a measure that contained all the rest of the Eden committee's recommendations and was a Garden of Eden for industry, at least he should have included the statutory duty also recommended by the Eden committee, because that would have protected consumers by establishing the role of local authorities to protect them. It was wrong to ignore that recommendation. The letter continues: It substitutes self-regulation for independent check in a period when it is demonstrable that consumers require statutory protection enforced by independent inspection. This is the chief lesson of current food hygiene difficulties. That independence is vital, but will be eroded as a result of the Bill.
As I have said in interventions, not only the county of Cleveland and Labour authorities object to this clause; there are objections right across the board. I have a letter from the London borough of Sutton, signed by the director of housing, health and consumer services. A copy was sent to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The letter states: the Bill appears to be an extract of only those aspects of the Eden Committee recommendations which are of interest to the trade. The package of proposals recommended by the Eden Committee and negotiated by local authorities and the Department of Trade and Industry included a number of checks and balances in moving to a radically new system designed to protect the consumer and retailer purchaser. The present Bill takes no account of these arrangements and agreements. The Bill transfers all control powers from local authorities to the Secretary of State, with no statutory obligation to consult local Weights and Measures Authorities, and indeed there is an absence of adequate safeguards and sanctions to prevent improper use of the power to self-verify and/or abuse the licensing system. That is a scathing comment by a Conservative-controlled London borough on the Bill's proposals.

§ Mr. Bermingham
Do not all these objections, across the board, come from all shades of political opinion and all parts of the country, showing how widespread is the opposition to the Bill?

§ Mr. Cohen
My hon. Friend is right. That is shown also in the thick document from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which seeks to put right clause after clause. We have already referred to the Consumers Association.
522 No one has yet mentioned heavy lorries, and the use of weighbridges. Parliament has been standing out against the Common Market, which wants to allow heavier lorries on our roads. I suspect that the Government will cave in in 1992 and these increasingly heavy juggernauts will destroy our roads. However, there is a danger that a weighbridge operator, producer or manufacturer could appoint as the authorised officer somebody who is sympathetic to the Common Market suggestion that we should have heavier lorries, and who will turn a blind eye to any deficiencies in the weighbridge facilities. Despite our opposition to them, we shall get these heavier lorries because of insufficient inspection.
The Spitalfields market is being relocated in my constituency, and we are trying to have a weighbridge installed there, partly to ensure that overweight lorries do not go to the market, and partly because overweight lorries already thunder through Leyton. The police, the local authority and others could use the weighbridge, but if it is not accurate because it is not in the interests of the manufacturers, repairers or installers that it should be, those efforts to get the weighbridge will be wasted.
What will happen if, as a result of this clause, the authorised person is appointed by the traders? It will not be in their interests to prosecute their suppliers. That loophole could ruin an advantageous process. There should be weighbridges all over London and other large cities to keep heavy lorries out. That should be strictly enforced by the local authority and proper standards officers. If the interests of those who become authorised persons do not lie in enforcing those standards, a dangerous loophole will result.
Local authorities need more resources to carry out this independent role and to have a statutory duty to inspect at reasonable intervals equipment in use for trade. I would favour local authorities having more power to ensure that consumers get a fair deal. The whole weights and measures issue is about checks and balances. I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and I understand his motivation, but the benefits must be balanced so that consumers are protected. That is what is missing in the Bill, which is the terrible mistake.

§ Mr. Wiggin
I appreciate that some trading standards officers may have approached the hon. Gentleman, but I should tell him, especially as he has only recently taken an interest in the Bill, that the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, which is the trading standards officers' organisation, agreed, after its discussions with me and after I agreed to amend the Bill, that the Bill should proceed. Therefore, if individual trading standards officers are concerned about the Bill, I believe that we can satisfy them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not for a moment consider that that institute would approve of a Bill that is likely to have the effects described by him.

§ Mr. Cohen
The hon. Gentleman, in common with many other hon. Members, has a honeyed tongue and I am sure that he was able to persuade the institute to support the Bill. What did he say to it about consumers? Did he repeat what his hon. Friend the Minister said, which was that the part of the Eden report concerning consumers could be considered by Parliament in the future once this Bill is out of the way?

§ Mr. Wiggin
indicated assent—

§ Mr. Cohen
That may be so, but there is considerable doubt about whether there will be a subsequent Bill. We have already waited five years. Would the institute be so pleased with the Bill if it got the impression that there would not be another Bill that benefited consumers? I believe that the most likely course is that no such subsequent Bill will be introduced. Industry is pushing the Government to introduce Bills such as this, and consumer interests come way down the order. I suspect that the institute would not be so keen if it realised that that was the reality.
We need a system of proper checks and balances between the consumer and industry. Hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have done a good job in applying parliamentary scrutiny. We should think again and bring forward something that protects consumers. That is why I oppose the clause.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
The one thing that the Bill forgets is that we live in changing times and that the method of measurement and the types of scales used by the Government change as the days change—

§ Mr. Forth
That is what the Bill is all about.

§ Mr. Bermingham
I note the Minister's prompt response. I wonder how soon we will have television cameras in here so that people can see the sartorial elegance of the Minister today in his red shirt, which no doubt reflects the victory at the Vale of Glamorgan.
Times are changing when it comes to weights and measures, but, regrettably, the Bill is not designed to meet such changes.

§ Mr. Wiggin
It is.

§ Mr. Bermingham
It is not because it is moving towards self-verification. That may make the Minister smile—it must be one piece of humour in what is an otherwise sad day. If we have a process of self-verification, a series of problems is created. First, if the only person to verify the machine is the manufacturer, when the machine goes wrong, as undoubtedly machines sometimes do—[Interruption.] I appreciate that the Minister is displaying his usual good manners by talking out loud while others are speaking. I had hoped to catch his eye as his attention to the subject may assist the House. He may be able to intervene from time to time and correct us if we go wrong. He has been remarkably silent in the past two hours—

§ Mr. Forth
Five hours.

§ Mr. Bermingham
The Minister has sat silent for five hours. That must be a record. Someone has managed to shut this Minister up for five solid hours. The House should repeat this Committee week in, week out, as that would be to the benefit of the consumer in the long run.
Much of the repair work will be done not only on weighing scales. The Bill is about not only weighing scales but all sorts of machines. Bar coding machines have already been mentioned, as have other electronic weighing devices. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a point about difficulties with weighbridges. There are numerous other types of measuring devices.
I take this opportunity of reminding the Committee that the argument started not with Magna Carta but with the grain mountains in ancient Egypt and the arguments with the merchants. The argument about who shall check 524 the weights, and who shall verify the checkers of the weights, is as old as that—and it is a long argument.
The difficulty arises with the question of repair and maintenance. It is all very well major manufacturers saying, "If you buy our weighing scales, we offer an after-sales and repair service," but that may be of no value to the small corner shopkeeper whose scales break down. That shopkeeper knows the risks that he runs if he gives short weight, and that a prosecution may be brought against him.—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are at it again, Miss Boothroyd. This time it is the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) who is causing the noise, but let us not worry about that.
At present, the small corner shopkeeper can telephone a local repairman, who will come along to fix the scales, which the inspector can then verify. However, if that shopkeeper is wholly dependent upon a major manufacturer's repair service, he may find that his weighing equipment is not repaired as soon as he wants.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Having just returned to the Chamber, I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but it occurs to me that it would be wrong for manufacturers to be solely responsible for the fine determination of the accuracy of their weighing equipment. If they are, they will have a vested interest. What is needed is an independent, non-privatised, public body of integrity responsible for examining all weighing and measuring equipment. Weights and measures legislation was introduced in the first place to protect the consumer against being ripped off by unscrupulous vendors or by the use of inaccurate equipment.

§ Mr. Bermingham
My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. At the heart of the argument on clause 2 is who should verify whether or not a weighing machine is accurate. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare says that a recognised manufacturer with a large enough turnover, or a new manufacturer who is large enough and who wants to join the club, will be permitted to verify its own machines and that there will be no need for independent inspections.

§ Mr. Corbyn
My hon. Friend rushes over the question I wanted him to answer. Another point that occurs to me concerns people wanting to enter into the manufacturing of precision weighing and measuring equipment. There are firms in my own constituency that manufacture some precision equipment of that kind. How will a new firm setting up to manufacture precision weighing or measuring equipment fit into the grand scheme of things as provided by the Bill? Will it be ousted by a cartel of major manufacturers preventing any new manufacturer entering the market?

§ Mr. Bermingham
If such a firm were unacceptable to the existing manufacturers, it would have to operate outside them and be subject to the old local authority inspection system. That may make the firm less competitive, which is a disadvantage that the Bill creates and which does not exist at present. Under the present law, all measuring and weighing machines are verified by trading standards officers who are non-partisan and completely independent. That is the beauty of the existing system, and it is why the trading standards officer in my constituency contacted me about the Bill. That is why I, 525 along with many of my hon. Friends, remain utterly opposed to clause 2 and hope that if a Division is called the Committee will vote against it.
The test is very simple: do we believe in independent verification or in self-verification? If we believe in independent verification—the same verifier for all, regardless of manufacture or bearer—there may be a chance of some equality being applied to the test of verification. If, on the other hand, we leave it to the major manufacturers, what will happen to the newcomers—as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) pointed out—
It being half-past Two o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday 12 May.