§ 2.14 p.m.
§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 2 [Determination or amendment of licences for factory where dangerous fireworks made]:
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "he may serve" and to insert:
and considers that a notice should be served on the occupier of the factory under the following provisions of this section, he shall give to the occupier a statement of the grounds on which his opinion is based and shall afford to him a reasonable opportunity of making representations as to the accuracy of the statement.(2) If the Secretary of State, having considered any representations made to him under the foregoing subsection, remains of the same opinion he may at any time more than fourteen days after the giving of the statement serve.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the next Amendment have been put down tomeet a criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, during the Committee stageof the Bill. He drew attention to the awkward fashion in which Clause 2 (1) was expressed, and I undertook to put down an Amendment to rectify the matter. The Amendment, in fact, is merely a redrafting of the subsection; it does not alter the meaning, but expresses that meaning in clearer and more logical form. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("public") to end of line and insert the said new words.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, I think the noble Lord has done his best to meet the point which I raised on the Committee stage, but my noble and learned friend Lord Simon points out to me that, after the word "occupier" in the fourth line of the noble Lord's Amendment, there should perhaps be inserted the words: "a notice tothat effect and." I am not quite certain at the moment whether that is necessary, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, will look into that point. Then, if necessary, an agreed manuscript Amendment can be made on Third Reading. I am obliged to the noble Lord for having redrafted this passage so that the provisions now follow the order in which the 819 sequence of events will take place. Of course, I have no objection to this Amendment.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, it is proposed to take the Third Reading to-day, immediately after this Report stage. Therefore, it will hardly be possible to put down a manuscript Amendment as suggested. I am a little taken by surprise by the noble Lord's observations. I do not think that any further Amendment is required, because the stages of the procedure are, first, that the Secretary of State gives the occupier a statement of the grounds upon which his opinion is based, and then, under subsection (2), the Secretary of State, having considered any representations made, gives to the occupier a notice. I think, therefore, that it is unnecessary to insert in the earlier part of the subsection the words "a notice to that effect and."
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, I am not saying that the point is in the least important; I quite agree with the noble Lord that without making a further alteration we shall achieve the result at which we are all aiming. I am looking at it merely as a matter of language. If the Secretary of State is of opinion that in a factory there are being manufactured fireworks which would be dangerous if in the possession of the public, that is a thing of which he ought to inform the occupier. He should begin by saying: "I give you notice that, in my opinion, fireworks are being manufactured in your factory which are dangerous if in possession of the public" and then to go on to say: "and these are the grounds on which my opinion is based." If the Bill says simply that the Secretary of State is to serve a statement of the grounds on which his opinion is based, as a mere matter of English the Bill has not covered the first point, which is that the Secretary of State should give notice thathe is of such-and-such an opinion. It is more a matter of the use of the English language than of securing the right result. I do not feel very much doubt that the way I have suggested is the proper way in which this provision should be worded.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble and learned Viscount is technically 820 correct about this matter. But it would be rather difficult for the Secretary of State to give an occupier a statement of the grounds upon which he has formed an opinion without explaining what that opinion is. So it seems to me that, in practice, the point is bound to he covered.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 30 to 34.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Determination or amendment of licences for factory where there is negligent manufacture]:
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, this Amendment and the next are directed to exactly the same point as the previous Amendments which we have discussed, and I need not repeat what I said then. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, leave out from ("fire") to ("serve") in line 39 and insert ("and considers that a notice should be served on the occupier of the factory under the following provisions of this section, he shall give to the occupier a statement of the grounds on which his opinion is based and shall afford to him a reasonable opportunity of making representations as to the accuracy of the statement.
(2) If the Secretary of State, having considered any representations made to himunder the foregoing subsection, remains of the same opinion, he may, at any time more than fourteen days after the giving of the statement, and subject to the next following subsection,"). —(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, I think there was some point in the intervention of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon on the earlier Amendment, to the effect that if the Secretary of State is going to serve a statement of the grounds upon which an opinion is based, he should say, first of all, that the factory in his opinion is one where fireworks, which would be dangerous in the possession of the public, are being manufactured. I therefore suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he should not press for a Third Reading to-day. After all, there is still a week or two of this Session left, and we should be glad if the noble Lord would look further at this 821 point. What we have suggested is only a drafting Amendment; it will not alter the sense of the passage. I think the noble Lord might well consider this point, with a view to determining whether or not the additional words which we have suggested are necessary, both in the previous Amendment and in this. If they are necessary in one they are necessary in both, and if we are amending a Bill that has come up to us from another place, we may as well send it back in a form which will not be criticised in another place. By taking another couple of days or so to look at this, and then having the Third Reading on Tuesday or Thursday next—whichever day is convenient to the noble Lord—we should then be in a position to send the Bill back and, perhaps, avoid a Commons Amendment coming back to us in due course. We therefore ask the noble Lord to look again at this particular point. We will certainly allow him to have this Amendment now, so long as he will promise to look at this matter again before the remaining stages of the Bill are taken.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, I will accept the suggestion which the noble Lord has made. I will not move the Third Reading of the Bill today, and I will look into this point to see whether some further redrafting is required.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 4 to 8.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Marking of fireworks]:
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHmoved after subsection (7) to insert as a new subsection:
( ) Where it appears to a Government inspector for the purposes of the principal Act that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this section against the occupier of a factory and the inspector is reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person and that the said occupier could establish a defence under subsection (6) of this section, he may cause proceedings to be taken against that other person without first causing proceedings to be taken against the said occupier.822In any such proceedings the defendant may be charged with and, on proof that the contravention was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the said occupier might have been charged.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, asked a question about the effect of the provisions in Clause 5 with regard to prosecutions initiated by the inspector. He asked whether it was possible in a suitable case for the inspector, instead of issuing proceedings against the occupier of a factory where he was convinced that some other person was responsible for the breach of the statutory provisions, to issue procedings against that other person. The answer was: no, it was not possible. Consequently, this Amendment is put down to enable the inspector, where he is convinced that the occupier has taken all proper steps to have the regulations carried out and the default is not there responsibility in any sense of the occupier, to proceed against the person who is directly responsible. The Amendment is based upon a number of precedents in former legislation, of which the most recent, I think, is the Factories Act, 1937, which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, introduced when he was Home Secretary. The proposed new clause follows that provision very closely and I hope it will be found to be satisfactory. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, for the attention he has given to this point. I do not say it was of great importance, but, as he has recognised, there is a point, and it appears to me to be admirably met. How could I say otherwise, when I understand, though I had completely forgotten it, that it closely follows the precedent which. I had something to do with creating? I thank the noble Lord very much.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, this Amendment is merely consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.