HL Deb 31 January 1961 vol 228 cc99-110

3.3 p.m.

Further considered on Report (according to Order).

Clause 40 [Inspection of and inquiries into local weights and measures arrangements]:

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, on the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, moved at page 37, line 22 to leave out "trader or other." I refused this Amendment on the ground that we particularly wanted traders to be consulted and we thought that there would be no harm in making that plain in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, however, suggested that the legal doctrine ejusdem generis might have the effect that this phrase would be restrictive, meaning trader or somebody in the position of a trader. The Government have considered this point and in view of this possibility, we have decided that the right thing to do is to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, which I now beg to move in the same terms as those in which he originally put it down.

Amendment moved— Page 37. line 22, leave out (" trader or other").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful for the step which the noble Earl has taken, and I thank him for his interest.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42 [Inspectors of weights and measures]:

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, if your Lordships agree, I will move this Amendment with the two following Amendments, Nos. 55 and 56. They deal with the appointment by local weights and measures authorities of inspectors of weights and measures. When the clause was discussed in Committee, some noble Lords suggested that the Bill was grandmotherly, and that local weights and measures authorities were perfectly well able to assess their needs as to inspectors and to provide suitable accommodation for them and ought not to be interfered with by the Board of Trade. In particular, they pointed out that the clause would compel all local authorities to appoint a chief inspector and a deputy chief inspector, although in many cases the latter appointment would be quite unnecessary.

Our intention was certainly not to put local authorities under an obligation to appoint deputy chief inspectors where such officers were unnecessary, and the first Amendment I am now moving will accordingly leave any decision on this point to the local authority concerned. The second Amendment accepts the view expressed by some noble Lords that the number of inspectors to be appointed should be left, as it is now, to the discretion of local authorities, while the third Amendment deletes the provision that suitable premises are to be provided for the use of inspectors of weights and measures. I explained that we thought that it was better to deal with that by Amendment to Clause 5, which was done at our last Sitting on this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 39, line 3, leave out ("including") and insert ("which may, if the authority so desire, include")

Page 39, line 4, leave out from ("as") to ("for") in line 5 and insert ("may be necessary")

Page 39,line 7, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 9.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I think that the three Amendments meet in a reasonable and satisfactory way points about which local authorities were somewhat disturbed. I am much obliged for the consideration shown by the noble Earl and approve the principle.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD LATHAM moved to add to the clause: () So much of this section, with the exception of subsection (3), as applies to the appointment of a chief inspector of weights and measures and a deputy chief inspector of weights and measures, shall not apply to the county of London, and references in the said subsection (3), and in any other place in this Act where it occurs, to a chief inspector of weights and measures or a deputy chief inspector of weights and measures shall, in relation to the County of London, be deemed to refer to such person or persons as the local weights and measures authority shall from time to time appoint.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was the subject of considerable discussion on Committee stage. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was good enough to say that he would consider what had been said in what I regard as a convincing case, and I am sorry that nothing appears on the Marshalled List to-day indicating any change in the proposals as set out in the Bill.

Local authorities are disturbed about proposals to designate a particular officer with a responsibility which is now unique in local authority administration. The noble Earl will recall saying, in the course of his statement on this Amendment, on December 15 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 227 (No. 24), col. 623]: I believe it is an essential part of the administrative arrangements proposed by the Bill that responsibility for technical matters in a local weights and measures service must devolve upon a properly qualified officer as provided in subsection (1) of this clause—namely, the chief inspector.

We take the view, as do the local authorities, that the responsibility for carrying out the functions cast upon them is a matter for the local authority and not for any particular officer. It is the case that, so confused did our consideration of the matter become (which I think perhaps is an indication of the confusion which will result in local authority administration), that, having said as I have read from the OFFICIAL REPORT, the noble Earl went on to say, at column 624: The chief inspector is not responsible to the authority for technical matters.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

That was a mistake which I made inadvertently. He is responsible to the authority.

LORD LATHAM

If he is responsible, it seems to me that the local authority must be responsible for carrying out the functions imposed by the Bill. How that responsibility shall be discharged is a matter for the local authority and not for the Board of Trade to dictate or for provisions to be made in that behalf in legislation.

Clause 42, to which this Amendment refers, is a far-reaching clause, and subsection (3) reads: A chief inspector shall be responsible to the local weights and measures authority for the custody and maintenance of the local standards, working standards and testing and stamping equipment provided for the area for which he was appointed and generally for the operation of the arrangements made to give effect in that area to the purposes of this Act. The London Council scheme, which has worked satisfactorily for many years and includes the exercise of functions related to all sorts of public control and public interest, has been that the person responsible is not necessarily the technical officer, but the administrative officer. Under these proposals it means that, so far as weights and measures are concerned, there will have to be an alteration of the present satisfactory set-up of the pattern of administration at County Hall. The London County Council believe that that may be the case with other county councils, though as to that I have no information.

There is an added reason why no change should be made at the present time, and I referred to it en passant on the Committee stage—namely, that since the whole question of the local government of Greater London is now under consideration, as a result of the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission, it seems a pity, and is, in my submission, clearly unnecessary, that there should be any upset (if I may use that word) of the administrative procedures and machine which exist at County Hall, and which I think, by any token and any standard of judgment, have proved to be successful. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 39, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Latham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The Government have carefully considered this matter since your Lordships discussion in Committee, although we do not feel able to make any change in the Bill as it applies to this clause. I had been under the impression on the Committee stage that some of your Lordships thought it might oblige the London County Council to appoint an additional officer. I had hoped that by now that misunderstanding would have been removed, and I think from what the noble Lord has said that possibly it has been, because his objection now seems to be not that the London County Council might have to appoint some new officer, but that there would be some readjustment which might not be wholly satisfactory to the London County Council in their present administrative chain of responsibility. All that the London County Council have to do, like any other authority which operates a public control department, is to nominate one of their existing staff of inspectors—I understand that they have four senior inspectors—as chief inspector to carry responsibilities of the kind set out in subsection (3) of this clause; and they could do that without any increase of staff whatever.

In the view of the Government, the appointment of a chief inspector would not interfere in any way with the general administrative arrangements which now exist; that is to say, the placing of the weights and measures service under the administrative guidance and responsibility of the chief officer of the Council's public control department. Instead of this officer, as is done at present, giving instructions to four separate senior inspectors at four separate offices, all that this Bill would require would be that those instructions should be given to one officer designated chief inspector. We find it difficult to believe that the London County Council with its great administrative experience would have any difficulty in complying with Clause 42 by allocating to a qualified officer designated as chief inspector the responsibilities laid down in subsection (3).

The question at issue is not the size or efficiency of the authority, but whether the operation of the arrangements should be in the hands of qualified staff, and whether, as recommended by the Hodgson Committee, there should be one qualified officer in charge of the whole force of inspectors in the area. The Government have accepted both that the local enforcement should be done by qualified officers and that in each area one man should have overall responsibility; and if the principle is right, it applies with equal force to the larger authority which tends to have more technical equipment and staff. Of course, that would equally apply, whatever may transpire about the future of the London County Council, with which we are not concerned in this Bill.

If the noble Lord, Lord Latham, is apprehensive lest the responsibility for the operation of the arrangements made to give effect … to the purposes of the Act should be taken to mean that the council of any authority, or the appropriate committee of that council, would be prevented from directing their chief inspector to report to it through such senior officers of the authority as the council or committee might designate, I can give him a full assurance that that is not the Government's intention; nor would it be the result of this clause. I should further like to assure the noble Lord that in drawing up regulations under Clause 48 of the Bill the Board would take careful account of the special needs of authorities which operate a public control department system and would consult them about any regulation which seemed likely to have a bearing on their internal administrative arrangements.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I think the assurances given are satisfactory, since the Government are not disposed to alter the text of the Bill. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 [Inspectors not to act as adjusters of equipment]:

3.20 p.m.

LORD JESSEL moved to leave out "weighing or measuring equipment" and insert "weights and measures". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make quite sure that local authorities are not empowered under this Bill to set up organisations for adjusting, and servicing measuring or weighing equipment—and I emphasise the word "equipment". I spoke about this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I also put down an Amendment on the Committee stage on similar lines to the one I have down to-day, and I was strongly supported by my noble friend Lord Aberdare. Since all the arguments I have to advance in favour of my Amendment are on record, I will not weary the House much more with them. I should, however, like to sum up my case.

First of all, the Hodgson Committee were dead against the setting up of this type of organisation. Secondly, I think it is a bad principle that the same local authority inspectors should be allowed to adjust and then to certify equipment. Lastly, I maintain that there is absolutely no need for it. The makers of weighing machinery give good service all over the country, whether in the remote parts or in the towns. There has been no demand for it and no complaint, and I think it is quite unnecessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 39, line 41, leave out ("weighing or measuring equipment") and insert ("weights and measures").—(Lord Jessel.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, the noble Lord may remember that when he moved a similar Amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lord St. Oswald gave the reasons against accepting it. But as the noble Lord is aware, we have subsequently re-examined the matter in the light of the noble Lord's arguments, and we now think it right to support the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down again on Report. As he has pointed out, the Amendment will permit those local weights arid measures authorities who wish to do so to give the same adjusting service to the traders in their areas as they do at the moment. But after two years from the time the clause comes into operation the actual work will have to be done only by personnel other than qualified inspectors, and the organisation will be entirely separate from the weights and measures department, as regards both administration and accounts. The charges which may be made will be uniform, being those prescribed in regulations to be made by the Board. I am glad to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and I believe that his next Amendment is consequential.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said, this Amendment is consequential. I should like to thank him very much for accepting my previous Amendment. The purpose of this consequential Amendment is to put it beyond any doubt that from the date on which the clause comes into operation individual inspectors may not carry out any adjustment "of any description" of weighing and measuring equipment— subject of course, to their being entitled in the conditions specified in the clause, to carry on the adjustment of weights and measures only for a period of two years. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 40, line 2, at end insert ("of any description").—(Lord Jessel)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46 [Offences in connection with office of inspector]:

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (1) to leave out all words after "offence". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is interrelated with Amendment No. 61, and if your Lordships should accept it the intervening Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would not arise, as I shall explain. This is much the same point as that with which we dealt last Thursday, in an Amendment which I moved, at page 18, line 14, about the possible revocation of certificates given to people who control weighing machines.

Clause 46 deals with certain offences in connection with the office of inspector, and provides that where an inspector is convicted of an offence under the clause the Board of Trade may cancel or suspend the validity of his certificate of qualification. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, moved an Amendment designed to give an inspector a right of appeal against the proposed suspension or cancellation of his certificate. The noble Lords, Lord Latham and Lord Silkin, had also tabled an Amendment with a similar object, and we discussed them both together. The Government agreed that suspension or cancellation of an inspector's certificate was a serious matter. We said that we appreciated the purpose of the Amendments, and on that assurance the Amendments were all withdrawn.

When we considered the matter on the same lines as that of the other kind of certificate, we were impressed by the similarity between the situation of inspectors and that of keepers of public weighing and measuring equipment in this matter of their respective certificates. As in the case of a keeper, an inspector's certificate is an indication that he has passed an examination—although in this case, of course, a much stiffer one— as to his knowledge and skill; and we have now formed the view that, once given, it should not be capable of being withdrawn. As in the case of keepers, the onus of employing satisfactory men should be entirely the responsibility of the employer. It is entirely for the employer to decide whether, in spite of anything the man may have done wrong, he should or should not employ him. The question of his having obtained a certificate by passing an examination ought not, we feel, to be relevant to that, and the certificate, once given, should not be revocable at all. The first of the Amendments which I am moving therefore deletes the provision for the Board of Trade to cancel or suspend the validity of inspectors' certificates, and the second Amendment, No. 61, is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 40, line 29, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 32.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, we certainly accept this Amendment, which appears to go further than we originally had in mind, and I think quite rightly. I can only express regret that we had not spotted the point which the noble Earl has just made. It is perfectly true that a certificate which gives a person a qualification ought not to be withdrawn because he has committed an offence which may have nothing to do with his competence to do the job. Therefore, we fully agree with the Amendment and, of course, we shall not move Amendment No. 60A.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Earl for moving this Amendment. I take it that the position is now left as defined in a previous clause, Clause 42; that the authority may appoint a person holding the appropriate qualifications, and secondly that any person appointed as aforesaid shall hold office during the pleasure of the authority by whom he was appointed". I take it from the Amendment that if any offence is committed then obviously that clause will operate and the local authority itself will be in a position, must be in a position, to deal with the inspector as they think fit. I should like to thank the noble Earl for meeting the point so substantially.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I should like to overwhelm the noble Earl by adding my thanks.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 40, line 34, leave out from first (" inspector ") to ("acts") in line 35.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48 [General administrative regulations]:

LORD LATHAM had given notice to move to leave out Clause 48. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the assurance given by the noble Earl in relation to Clause 42, which assurance I gathered him to indicate would embrace the provisions of Clause 48, I do not move the next Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am much obliged.

Clause 52:

Prosecution of offences

(2) Proceedings for an offence under any provision contained in, or having effect by virtue of, Part IV of this Act, other than proceedings for an offence under subsection (6) of section twenty-six or proceedings by virtue of subsection (4) of section twenty-eight of this Act, shall not be instituted—

  1. (a) after the expiration of three months from the date when the offence is alleged to have been committed; nor

LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "committed" to insert: or from the date on which the offence is discovered by the prosecutor.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proposal in the Bill is that the period shall run from the date of the commission of the offence. The Amendment proposes that the period shall run from the date on which the offence is discovered by the prosecutor. There can, of course, be a material difference between the two dates. Under the Magistrates' Courts Act the period is six months, and we cannot see any reason why, as regards offences in connection with weights and measures, which can be serious and affect a large number of people, and can be quite unethical and against the social conscience, the period should run from the date of the commission of the offence. We hope that the Government will be prepared to bring the provisions of this clause into line with the provisions of the Magistrates' Court Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 44, line 5, after ("committed") insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, we discussed this matter pretty fully on the Committee stage and at the end of our discussion the noble Lord said that in the light of the explanation given he would withdraw the Amendment. I did not think there was any indication that he was dissatisfied with the explanation, and I did not expect that the Amendment would be moved again on Report, but since the noble Lord has done so I must do my best again to satisfy him.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, may I say I am sure the noble Earl will recall that we did subsequently, in another place, have a long discussion of this question.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for having held this discussion. There were so many points we discussed that my recollection does not embrace all of them. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Hodgson Committee that the period during which a prosecution could be instituted should be lengthened from the 28 days provided in existing weights and measures legislation to three months, but they do not accept the recommendation of the Hodgson Committtee which the noble Lord has now put forward that the period should run from the time of the discovery of the offence. As I said to your Lordships when we were talking about this matter in Committee, the Government feel it would be unreasonable to require a defendant who wished to claim that an action was out of time to bring evidence as to the date of discovery by the prosecutor. Particularly in Scotland, where prosecutions are instituted by the procurator-fiscal and not by the local authority, the prosecutor could hardly be said to have discovered the offence, and the same would apply in England where the facts discovered by an inspector and reported to his local authority were handed over to the police for subsequent action because they might involve some other more serious offence which would not be dealt with by prosecution by the local authority.

Your Lordships will see that this Bill now requires the person charged to have notice served on him within fourteen days front the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. It is not unreasonable to expect the proceedings to which this provision relates to be taken within two and a half months later than that, and we think it would be quite unreasonable for the small trader to be kept in suspense any longer, wondering whether he is going to be prosecuted for giving short weight or using unstamped weights.

As I told your Lordships in Committee, the Bill already recognises that before proceedings can be instituted for false warranty under subsection (6) of Clause 26 or against a third party under subsection (4) of Clause 28, much more prolonged investigation may be necessary, and in such cases a period of up to six months for the institution of proceedings is provided already by Section 104 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. Proceedings for offences under this latter heading will be likely to form, I should say, a large percentage of the total number of proceedings instituted by local authorities, particularly in relation to offences in respect of commodities; and those remaining ones which might justify a longer period than three months before they need to be instituted are, in our opinion, very few and would not warrant an alteration of the kind proposed by the noble Lord's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.