HL Deb 14 March 1985 vol 461 cc286-9

7.3 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved. [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved. I do not think it will be necessary to detain your Lordships very long over this order. It forms part of an exercise to update certain penalty provisions in secondary weights and measures legislation. It would amend for the second time the original order of 1966 dealing with the carriage of solid fuel by rail. The first amending order in 1979 was necessary to reflect technological advances which enabled a whole train of permanently coupled wagons to be weighed while in motion. Where the whole consignment was to be delivered to a single customer, the document giving details of the load was no longer required to itemise information concerning each wagon as in the 1966 order, but could refer to the train as a unit. It was an offence for the seller to fail to hand the simplified document to the railway authority before the train departed. It carried the same penalties as failure to provide an itemised train bill.

The order before your Lordships' House this evening is mainly concerned with bringing up to date the maximum penalty which a court may impose, if the seller is convicted of failing to pass on the necessary documentation. The 1966 order prescribed a fine not exceeding £100 or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, £250. Conviction could also lead to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

Since then, fines for offences in primary legislation have been increased to take account of inflation, most recently in 1984; and the distinction between first and subsequent offences and the penalty of imprisonment for this type of offence was abolished by Section 18 of the 1979 Weights and Measures Act. Accordingly the present draft order will, if approved by your Lordships, increase the maximum fine for contravening the documentation requirements for coal trains to £2,000, and the offence will no longer be punishable by imprisonment.

Article 2 of the order before us this evening includes a small amendment which is also necessary to the wording of Article 2 of the 1966 order. As I have indicated, the 1979 amending order set aside the requirement in the 1966 order for the train bill to identify the individual wagons and allowed instead for whole trains of permanently coupled wagons to be documented as a single unit. The amendment to Article 2 is simply to make it clear that failure to comply with the simplified documentation provisions introduced in 1979 is no less an offence than failure to comply with the more detailed requirements in the original 1966 order. I am not aware that the present wording has caused any difficulties, but since the opportunity to clarify this point has arisen I should like to put the matter beyond doubt.

I think your Lordships will appreciate that this order is essentially a tidying-up of one or two loose ends. Although we have had consultations on these proposals, they have not elicited any adverse comment.

Finally, I am sure that your Lordships will wish to know that this order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but the committee did not draw the special attention of your Lordships' House to it. My Lords, with that explanation, I beg to move the draft order.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having given an explanation of this very brief order. As the noble Lord has already assured the House, the matter has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which reported this order under the heading of, Draft statutory instruments to which the Joint Committee do not draw the special attention of both Houses". In those circumstances, it would be extremely ill-advised of me to make very heavy weather of it.

However, I think it is necessary and very appropriate that we in this House should pay some regard and, indeed, tribute to the members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for the vigilance that they extend over these matters, so that your Lordships' House and Members of another place do not have to consider them in very great detail.

As to the first part of the order which is under review, and which deals with amendments to the Weights and Measures (Solid Fuel) (Carriage by Rail) Order 1966, it proposes (a) at the end of Article 2 there shall be added the words: 'or, in the case of any such train as is mentioned in Article 1(ii)(d) above, Article 3A below' ". In the process of investigating this matter, I did indeed turn up the statutory instrument concerned, which is No. 955 of 1979. In Article 5 of that instrument I found the words: After Article 3 there shall be added the following article—'3A. In the case of any such train as mentioned in sub-paragraph (d) of Article 1(ii) above, the information included in a train bill shall be the following'. From that it is quite clear that the amendment now proposed, to add a provision at the end of Article 2, ought in fact to have been incorporated in Statutory Instrument 1979/955. As the noble Lord said, all it does is to clear up the matter: but I think he will agree—and for the sake of the record perhaps he ought to agree—that this item ought to have been added to Article 2 of the 1966 order under the instrument of 1979. I do not cavil at that unduly, but knowing how the Civil Service works, and particularly having seen "Yes, Minister" and having thoroughly enjoyed it, whenever I see the words "to make it clear". I know perfectly well that this is "Civil Service" for rectifying what was probably a previous omission. I do not make much of the point, but we in this House have a justified reputation for being meticulous in these matters and perhaps therefore it ought to go on the record.

So far as the second part of the order is concerned, your Lordships will observe that Article 2(b) states: in Article 5 for the words 'one hundred pounds' onwards there shall be substituted '£2,000'. I now turn to Article 5 of the statutory instrument. I must say that if one interprets the word "onwards" in terms of the end of Article 5, one does, as the noble Lord has already indicated, eliminate the words, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence £250 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both". Those words are now eliminated. The term "onwards" appears to be rather indefinite. I assume it means "onwards" towards the end of the article. But I am curious to know why an offence, which at one time attracted a fine of £ 100, or on any subsequent occasion £250, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, is now suddenly amalgamated together for an overall fine not exceeding £2,000.

I do not know the reason for that. I was not in Parliament at the time and I do not know what inspired the authors of this order, whom I have every reason to believe were members of my own party, as there was in power a Government of my own party, to incorporate the threat of a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. Nor do I know what internal memoranda within the Department of Trade and Industry have suddenly eliminated this dire threat of imprisonment. Is it to do with the size of the prison population, or what? Why is an offence which in 1966 apparently led to imprisonment now suddenly being "absolved" with an overall fine of £2,000?

I am a very humane person and I do not like to send anyone to prison for any reason whatsoever, save for the most despicable of crimes. Why the change of mind? I ask the question because, like many others of your Lordships, I like to know which way the Civil Service mind works. How did it accomplish this transition from a fine of £100, or £250 in the event of a subsequent offence, and imprisonment of three months, to an overall fine of £2,000 to cover the whole issue? Is the offence now less serious; or are the personnel different; or is the social climate different? What has inspired the change?

I am quite sure that the noble Lord will be able to supply very satisfactory answers. From this side of the House I see no reason why we should object to the order in any way, and we should certainly be with Her Majesty's Government in this respect in enforcing the particular regulation. But curiosity very often elicits useful information, and in recording our entire support for the order before the House, we sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to throw a little light on the way in which the mind of the Department of Trade and Industry works in matters of this kind.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his welcome of the order which I have moved this evening. I am grateful to the noble Lord—I am nearly always grateful to him—particularly on two counts. Perhaps I may endorse his remarks with regard to the work that the Committee on Statutory Instruments performs. Indeed, it saves us all a great deal of time and looks into some of the intricacies with which perhaps we are not quite so familiar. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his acceptance of the provisions that have been added by virtue of the order.

With regard to the interpretation of "onwards", I would suggest that the noble Lord's remarks adequately represent a true and faithful interpretation which I can only endorse as being totally correct. I am grateful also to him for that. The noble Lord asked me specifically about the change in the penalty in that imprisonment was removed. He asked me two questions. The first was whether I could shed light upon how the Civil Service mind works. I have left out the words "in matters of this kind", which the noble Lord added to that, because I have to admit in relation to this matter or to any other concerned with the first part of his question that I do not know.

He then went on to ask whether I could shed light in the same regard on why the Department of Trade and Industry had removed the imprisonment penalty. It was in fact eliminated to bring the order into line with the amendment made to the 1963 Act by virtue of the 1979 Act, in line with Home Office policy to remove such penalties from this type of offence. So the Department of Trade and Industry, which I have the privilege to represent this evening, has fallen in line with the Home Office. I hope that that answers the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.19 until 8 p.m.]