COMMITTEE FOR ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND INVESTMENT
Report on the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill
(NIA Bill 8/99)Together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee
relating to the Report and the Minutes of Evidence
CONTENTS
1. Report on Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill
2. Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee relating to the Report
3. Minutes of Evidence
Appendices
1. Written submission from General Consumer Council
2. Additional information provided by Trading Standards Service
REPORT 1/00
(COMMITTEE FOR ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND INVESTMENT)
Report on the Weights and Measures
(Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 8/99)
General
1. The Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill was referred to the Committee for consideration in accordance with Standing Order 31(1) of the Northern Ireland Assembly after completing its Second Stage on 26 June 2000.
2. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment made the following statement under section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:
"In my view the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
3. The prime purpose of the Bill is to introduce three deregulatory measures associated with the verification of weighing or measuring equipment - firstly, the self-verification of weighing or measuring equipment; secondly, the testing by official European Economic Area testers; and finally applying the prescribed stamp prior to testing. These three deregulatory measures already apply in Great Britain and the Bill therefore aims to achieve parity between the legislative provisions here and in Great Britain.
4. The Committee met on 12 September and 26 September to consider the Bill. The Committee had before it the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill (NIA Bill 8-EFM).
5. The Committee placed adverts in the press on 27 July seeking written comments from any organisations or individuals with an interest in the Bill. The Committee also wrote directly to twenty-five organisations that might have an interest in the Bill, inviting comments. The Committee received one written submission - from the General Consumer Council (see Appendix 1). The General Consumer Council stated that, on the basis of evidence supplied by Trading Standards Service, it was not opposed to the proposals to allow self-verification of weighing or measuring equipment.
6. The Minister and officials from Trading Standards Service appeared before the Committee on 12 September to answer questions about the provisions contained in the Bill (a transcript of this evidence is included in the Report).
7. The Committee sought further information from Trading Standards Service on the question of whether approved verifiers would be required to notify Trading Standards Service of the organisations to which they will sell their equipment to. A response was received on 20 September (see Appendix 2). Trading Standards Service advised that there was no such requirement, but that it would be possible to enter into voluntary agreements. The Committee discussed the response and was content.
Consideration of Bill
8. The Committee carried out a detailed clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill on 26 September (a transcript of this meeting is included in the Report). The Committee was assisted in its deliberations by a Special Adviser from the Assembly's Research Office. The Committee was satisfied that there were sufficient safeguards in the legislation to protect consumers from any abuse. In particular the Committee was satisfied that effective quality systems were required to be put in place before approval for self-verification would be granted by the Department. And that the Department had the power to withdraw approval of self-verification if the approved verifier did not meet the necessary standards of performance. The Committee also had regard to the evidence from Trading Standards Service that the system of spot checks would continue and that the number of manufacturers, installers and repairers eligible to apply for self-verification would be relatively small.
Recommendation
9. The Committee did not propose any amendments to the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill.
Pat Doherty MLA
Chairperson
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
RELATING TO THE REPORT
Tuesday 12 September 2000
Tuesday 26 September 2000
Tuesday 4 October 2000
TUESDAY 12 SEPTEMBER 2000
IN ROOM 144 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr P Doherty (Chairperson)
Mr S Neeson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr A Attwood
Ms P Lewsley
Mr D McClarty
Dr A McDonnell
Ms J Morrice
Dr D O'Hagan
In attendance: Mrs C White
Mr J Nesbitt
Mr M Anderson
Miss J Presho
Witnesses: Sir Reg Empey - Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Mr D Livingstone - Trading Standards Service
Mr E Cairns - Trading Standards Service
The Chairperson declared the meeting open to the public at 10.00am
Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 8/99)
The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and officials from Trading Standards Service gave evidence to the Committee on the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill. The Minister made an opening statement in which he outlined the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. The Minister and officials answered a number of questions put by the Committee on the implications of the Bill in NI.
[EXTRACT]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
RELATING TO THE REPORT
TUESDAY 26 SEPTEMBER 2000
IN ROOM 144 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr P Doherty (Chairperson)
Mr S Neeson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr W Clyde
Mr D McClarty
Ms J Morrice
In attendance: Mrs C White
Mr J Nesbitt
Miss J Presho
Mr D Donaldson
Mr H Widdis (Assembly Research Office)
The Committee went into public session at 10.15am
Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 8/99)
The Committee considered the response from Trading Standards Service (TSS) on the question of whether approved verifiers would be required to notify TSS of the organisations to which they sell their equipment to. The Committee noted the response from TSS that there would be no such requirement, but that it would be possible for TSS to enter into voluntary agreements with approved verifiers. The Committee was content with the response given.
The Committee carried out a detailed clause by clause scrutiny of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill. The clauses and the Schedule were read along with the related commentary in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.
Clause 1 and the Schedule (paragraphs 2 - 9) were considered.
Agreed - that Clause 1 and the Schedule should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 was considered (paragraphs 1 - 4).
Agreed - that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 was considered (sub-sections 1 - 3).
Agreed - that Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 was considered.
Agreed - that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill
Clause 5 was considered.
Agreed - that Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.
[EXTRACT]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
RELATING TO THE REPORT
WEDNESDAY 4 OCTOBER 2000
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER,
STRABANE DISTRICT COUNCIL OFFICES
Present:
Mr P Doherty (Chairperson)
Mr S Neeson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr W Clyde
Mr D Shipley Dalton
Ms P Lewsley
Mr D McClarty
Dr A McDonnell
In attendance:
Mrs C White
Mr J Nesbitt
Miss J Presho
Mr D Donaldson
Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 8/99)
The draft report on the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill was read.
Agreed - the draft report on the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill.
[EXTRACT]
Tuesday 12 September 2000
Tuesday 26 September 2000
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Tuesday 12 September 2000
Tuesday 26 September 2000
Members present:
Mr P Doherty (Chairperson)
Mr Neeson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Attwood
Ms Lewsley
Mr McClarty
Dr McDonnell
Ms Morrice
Dr O'Hagan
Witnesses:
Sir Reg Empey Minister of Enterprise,
Trade and Investment
Mr D Livingstone Trading Standards Service
Mr E Cairns Trading Standards Service
The Chairperson: You are all very welcome here this morning, and I thank you for coming.
Sir Reg Empey: Mr Livingstone and Mr Cairns have been working on this subject. They will answer any technical questions that you may have.
In broad terms the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill is a deregulatory measure and the fundamental pieces of its jigsaw became law in Great Britain in the middle of last year. To some extent it is a catch-up issue, but it is particularly important with companies operating across boundaries.
At present a lot of the weighing equipment used in GB would not be acceptable here. An example is Tesco's or Sainsbury's. If they were opening a facility here a lot of the equipment they currently use in GB would not be allowed to be used here. It would not qualify because it would be self-verified by manufacturers there and not stamped by the branch here. We have got to understand that aspect, as it is important.
First, it is deregulatory and, secondly, it has a parity element in it as well. The other important thing that it does is open up the EU context. Effectively, if the equivalent of Trading Standards Branch in Belgium, for example, has verified a piece of equipment, then this legislation allows us to accept the verification of trading standards in another EU country. In other words there is an EU element to it - a free-trade element - and has to be seen in that context as well. There are several dimensions to it over and above the simple technicalities.
Having said that, perhaps we might get down to the meat of it quicker if we were to move directly to questions, rather than my saying anything further. I made my comments in the House during the Second Reading. If you are agreeable we should move to questions.
Mr Attwood: This is new to most of us, if not all of us. So we can try to get a fix on what deregulation actually means, could you tell the Committee what is the current involvement of trading standards in the verification of weighing and measuring equipment at manufacturing, installation and repairing stages? How will that differ after this piece of legislation?
Sir Reg Empey: That is the core question in this. I will ask my officials, who actually do this, to explain the current procedures and what will happen after.
Mr Livingstone: Presently we are not involved at manufacturer's premises at all. This is because weighing and measuring equipment is normally shipped into Northern Ireland to a particular distributor or a retailer. We usually get called to a retailer's premises to look at the equipment when they go to install the new equipment that comes from the manufacturer. First of all, we make sure that it complies with its "pattern of approval", to make sure it is built as it should be built, to deliver accuracy and all the rest. We then make sure that it has all the relevant markings and complies with the technical details and the regulations. Finally, and probably most importantly, we then put weights on it to make sure that it weighs properly and delivers, or measures, properly if it is something like a petrol pump.
Only we can do that at the moment and are involved only at the premises of retailers, mostly, but sometimes distributors, of these pieces of equipment. Instead of waiting for them to go out to the shops, they can get more bangs for their bucks, as it were, if they get the weights and measures inspector along to their premises. We can stamp 20 or 30 of these and then they can just distribute them, rather than have us follow them around the country.
If the Bill becomes law that will change as we will be involved a lot more at any manufacturers who decide to avail of this. We will have to be involved with them to decide whether they are competent, fit, properly qualified people to do this work.
We will have to look at their quality system in detail to make sure that everything is done as it should be to deliver quality. It is all about ensuring that the accuracy is intact and that people get a fair deal. Then we will be involved, still at retail stage, in market surveillance or routine monitoring of weighing equipment for trade. We will call, unannounced, into petrol stations, shops, butchers' shops, weighbridges, et cetera, to check that everything is OK. If the Bill becomes law, the emphasis will change, and we will become much more involved at the manufacturers premises than we are at present.
Sir Reg Empey: During the Second Stage of the Bill Dr O'Hagan expressed concern that this would leave consumers more exposed to abuse and fraud as a result of the changes. That would also be my concern because we do not want to do anything which would put consumers in a worse position than they are in at present. I am assured that if the Bill becomes law the inspection of retailers' premises will continue. This measure is one stage back from where the equipment can be dealt with in the supplier's premises. When the supplier has satisfied trading standards that he is competent, he can then distribute the product. But that does not prevent or inhibit the routine calling, which is for the ultimate protection of the consumer.
Mr Neeson: To what extent will the proposed legislation reduce the burden on businesses in Northern Ireland?
Sir Reg Empey: This is not a dramatic measure by any stretch of the imagination. It is just transferring the point at which equipment is verified from the current situation to the point where somebody can set themselves up to perform this function, in accordance with standards which are acceptable to the Department. So it moves the point at which the Department initiates its involvement with this process, rather than actually affecting it at the other end.
Mr Livingstone: The extent to which the burden will be lifted will really depend on how many manufacturers decide to take up this option, as this is only an option. We will still be available to do it for those who do not want to pick up that option. We operate competitively on a cost-recovery basis. Given the scale of the operations in Northern Ireland, we do not have any major manufacturers of weighing and measuring equipment. I am not being boastful by saying that the current regime is content with what we provide.
There would be a lot of start-up costs involved. Putting together a quality manual and a quality system is no mean task. We are also subject to a quality system. Mr Cairns is the quality manager in our lab and, even for this small operation, the quality manual consists of about 150 pages. So the burden of starting up is quite onerous. It also depends how many take up the option - I suspect, in the short term, few will take it up.
Mr Neeson: In your opening remarks you talked about parity. When the equivalent Great Britain legislation was being brought forward concerns were expressed that the legislation did not provide sufficient specification of quality systems requirements.
Does the proposed order make sufficient provision for internal reviews or audits of quality systems? How often will inspections be carried out on quality systems of approved verifiers? And does it provide clear controls on the use of subcontractors, under quality assurance procedures, to ensure traceability of product and work done by them?
Sir Reg Empey: Perhaps I talked about parity, but primarily it is a deregulatory function in its own right, so in this case parity is a consequence of that. The potential is there for manufacturers, if they achieve the quality standards, to perform this function without the Department having to verify every piece of equipment. In other words, it can simplify the manufacturing process and allow a smooth transfer from manufacturer to user. That is the primary purpose. It so happens that the consequences here are of a parity nature, but I would not want us simply to assume that is the only reason we are doing it. The primary purpose is to be deregulatory.
Mr Neeson: You mentioned quality assurance, the frequency of inspections and subcontractors.
Mr Livingstone: There were earlier concerns expressed by my colleagues across the water, where the feeling was that the measures which were being put in place were not sufficient to ensure proper consumer protection. Those concerns were addressed, and I am quite content that the final form of our Bill is an extremely robust set of measures to ensure that people are going to get the right quantity and quality, or the right measure anyway, when they are buying stuff from equipment in use for trade, should this Bill become law. The second point is that we will probably, as a rule of thumb, visit annually. In the early days, I suppose there is a temptation to drop in a little more often, until we see whether they are getting it right. Against that, considering that the purpose of this is deregulatory, we do not want to be perceived as not trusting industry and to be begrudging. We are acutely aware that one thing that business does find burdensome is people like ourselves - regulators and enforcers - so we have to strike a balance between making sure there is proper consumer protection and not overburdening them with visits. As a rule, if we look annually at the quality system and find that we are not entirely happy, then it may be that we will decide to visit more frequently until we are satisfied that everything is working well. There are now measures specifically written into the schedule to deal with the verifiers using subcontractors and their traceability.
Ms Morrice: I think my question has basically been answered, but I just want to understand it in layman's terms. Is this like when the coalman delivers your coal, and you have got to sit by the window and count the number of bags that he pours in? Is it a case of no longer having to sit by the window and watch?
Sir Reg Empey: We are one stage removed from that. The Bill focuses on those who want to provide measuring equipment to the market - those who supply Tesco, BP, Shell and items such as the coalmen's weighbridge. That is the point at which the Bill bites.
The example you give is not affected at all. This Bill does not affect the accuracy with which a retailer or weighbridge provides material to a consumer - normal inspection procedures will continue to ensure that.
At present, if Morrice and Co want to set up a business to provide measuring equipment the Department has to stamp all the machines. This Bill will enable companies to stamp their own machines after their quality regime and abilities have been proven. If, after having been authorised to supply measuring equipment, any error is found during the preliminary or subsequent checking process, and the equipment is found to fall short, the authorisation would be reviewed.
This Bill is one step removed from the retail sector, and it affects a very narrow part of the market. Few people supply measuring equipment, even though it is quite a big business. There are a lot of petrol pumps. It is quite a significant business but a very narrow one.
The Bill also provides that the procedures for making measuring equipment in other European countries can be accepted by us without any need for further checks. That is part of the overall European Union process of opening the single market. There are a number of elements incorporated in the Bill.
Ms Morrice: We have been talking about parity with Great Britain. Will we also have parity with the South of Ireland?
Sir Reg Empey: I am not sure of their position on this.
Mr Livingstone: They do not have self-verification yet. At present, they operate as we do. Their inspectors go to the site. Traditionally we would spend a day at the coal quay, making checks. Coal bags would be put on the machine, a button would be pressed, and hopefully the bag should weigh in at 50kg. That is how the machines are tested. However, I would still be inclined to count the bags.
Ms Lewsley: What is the deterrent? How many instruments failed to meet the standards last year? What action was taken? Were there any prosecutions?
Sir Reg Empey: There were no prosecutions last year. I can tell you how many faults were detected. Six hundred and eighty-two items of equipment were found to be not fully compliant with the regulatory requirements. In most cases, the non-compliance was of a very minor nature. It must be understood that the equipment was not measuring short amounts in all cases. In many instances the equipment was inaccurate.
In other words, the supplier rather than the customer was losing out. Years ago there were stories about people sticking bits of lead or a magnet underneath weighing machines, but most things are now electronic. So there is less potential for that now, and faults tend to be of a very minor nature, but it is not all one way. Perhaps those who are actually doing it could elaborate more.
Mr Livingstone: Serious short measure is not one of the things that we find wrong. People tend not to be "on the fiddle" or "at their work". Things do go wrong sometimes, but, as the Minister says, it is as likely to be against the trader as against the consumer. Therefore they are usually pleased enough to see us coming.
That represents about 5% of all of the machines that we check. Only a very small proportion of those are so badly wrong that we have to say that they are not allowed to use them until they are fixed. Our policy is to try to sort out a problem on the spot. We try to help them to fix it, put the label on it or level it up - whatever is needed to work with the business to sort the matter out. Out of 12,000 inspections it was not possible to do that on fewer than 30 occasions, and we had to issue 28-day notices then. Such a notice gives a trader 28 days to sort out a matter before we return to check it. Of the 12,000 that we checked over that period, there was only one instance when we removed the stamp from the machine and forbade further use until a fitter checked and repaired it.
Compliance is pretty good at the moment. It is not an area of major concern for us, and we do not expect that to change very much.
Sir Reg Empey: It might be helpful to give a few statistics to the Committee. We were asked about the number of companies currently involved in manufacturing, installing and repairing of weighing equipment. There are 15. How many of these will be eligible to apply for self-verification? The answer is all of them. For the three-year period ending on 31 March 1999, a total of 35,259 weighing and measuring instruments were tested on traders' premises. Of those 35,259, 682 defects were detected over that three-year period. That is a lot of inspections. It works out at over 10,000 a year, which is over 200 a week - quite a lot of activity. People may ask why so much of this is done, given the high level of accuracy. With less activity, the risk is that things would be different. It proves that traders know that inspections are going on every week - up to 200 or more pieces of equipment are being tested a week, and random spot checks take place as well. The branch also notices if a pattern is developing. If certain operators or types of equipment tend to keep showing up as defective, there could be a technical reason, but whatever the reason, the inspection regime can target those problem areas more frequently. Computer analysis allows one to pick up where, if any, the hot spots are, and that is an extra assurance for the general public that the regime is being enforced.
Ms Lewsley: A substantial number of machines are being inspected in a year. What implications would self-inspection have for staffing levels?
Sir Reg Empey: It will not really have implications because the inspections of the actual equipment on traders' premises are ongoing and are not going to be affected. There will be a slight change in the emphasis within the Department on where people actually focus their attention, and maybe Mr Livingstone would wish to bring that to the Committee's attention.
Mr Livingstone: Yes, the inspections will go on. The regime that is being proposed is not really to do with the routine checking, but it is to do with the initial checking when an item is new or it has been repaired.
As to the impact on staffing, it was interesting that the name of the White Paper that started this whole thing off was 'Lifting the Burdens' which the Minister referred to as the deregulatory purpose behind the measure. It mentioned that it would be more flexible for business, give more choice and that it would probably reduce their cost and increase competition. Those are all good points.
Interestingly, the other thing that it suggested might happen was that the use of manpower in the trading standards authorities could be much more cost-effective. In other words, we could use our people to better effect. The intention is that the staff that would have been used for inspection could be used for other things - the rogue traders, and so on.
However, it is clear at the early stages that we will have to be involved heavily in the auditing, reviewing and monitoring of quality systems, and in the subsequent market surveillance to find out how these things are performing in the field. I suspect that that will probably balance with the reduction in the work that we will be doing in verifications.
Mr McClarty: I think that you can add psychic powers to all your other attributes because you have already answered one of the questions that I was going to ask you.
My other question is this: do you anticipate any problems arising from weighing and measuring equipment manufactured outside the UK? Will this equipment continue to be inspected after installation, and how will the Department trace failed products from an overseas self-verifying manufacturer?
Sir Reg Empey: I understand why you ask the question because that is one of the key purposes of the legislation to accept the equivalent in another European Union country. Now you may ask how we know that Bloggs & Co in Belgium are as good as we are. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
When equipment goes into the market place and arrives at the retailer or distributor, that equipment is still subject to the random testing programme by the Department. In other words, if Tesco's decide to put in equipment that has been verified from a manufacturer in Greece, our officers will still be testing that supermarket's equipment. We accept the equipment when it is installed on the word of the testing issued in the country of origin, if it is within the European Union. When equipment goes into the retailing premises, it is then subject to the same inspection regime as everybody else's. Any shortfalls, flaws or errors will emerge through the normal inspection regime in the normal way. If it is clear that a particular brand from a particular country is showing up as a hot spot, then the Department has the ability to act on that, and perhaps Mr Livingstone can indicate what steps would be taken.
Mr Livingstone: That is a real concern. We know that we are going to do it right, but will everyone else in the other countries? When something comes from Greece, will you be able to put your hand on your heart and say that you know that it is properly made and robust?
In the same way that we are going into a new regime and are opening this up to business on the basis of trust, I think that the attitude of the Department will be that it will and the UK's that it will have to trust the systems in these other countries to be as robust. We still have the option of checking these things until we are satisfied. Initially this could be done more frequently until we are satisfied that the stuff coming out of these countries is right and that it has been done properly. When you look at the issue of risk assessment, where you are trying to put your resources where they are most needed, that is probably going to be one of the areas that will need the most attention initially.
Dr O'Hagan: You mentioned earlier the 15 companies that would be eligible to apply for self-verification.
Sir Reg Empey: Yes, that is currently the number.
Dr O'Hagan: What criteria will be used by your Department to approve self-verification, and what are the overall benefits of this new legislation?
Sir Reg Empey: The criteria that will be used must relate to the quality system that is in place in the company itself. We have indicated that is a very substantial undertaking, and our own Department's quality manual is over 100 pages long, which is very significant. The other thing that will have to be looked at is the applicant. Is the applicant qualified and competent to conduct the verifications themselves? If someone has been in the business and established a negative reputation, then that is something the Department would have to examine very closely. The Department would have to ensure that a competent person with an approved quality regime in place is chosen. These would be the main points of the criteria that the Department could measure an applicant against.
Mr Livingstone: The accredited quality systems are robust, and it would be hard to cut corners. We know from experience of working quality systems, particularly where they use accredited certification bodies with people coming in once a year, that they are robust and vigorous. A quality system also causes the applicant to ensure the system is working. The applicant must audit the system and there is also internal audit provision. Another important aspect is to ensure the audits are carried out when they should be and to the standard set in the quality manual. The benefits are increased flexibility in that more people can adapt themselves to be able to do this. This, in turn, should lead to more choice and the expectation of competition which should have a beneficial impact on costs. I think the flexibility thing is useful, not only in terms of timing, because it means that manufacturers will be able to bring these systems in-house and make them cheaper themselves.
They will be able to do them exactly when they want to do them, rather than have to phone trading standards and get us to come along - maybe waiting and holding up other processes. Those are the broad benefits that industry is likely to see as a result of these measures.
The Chairperson: The booklet that your Department produced covers three years. When deregulation comes in will this type of report come out more regularly, less regularly or at all?
Mr Livingstone: The requirement to produce that report will stay. It exists in our current legislation, Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. It is fairly archaic; it was there long before me. It reports on things that were important when we were very much concerned with counting inspections and verifications. These days, with modern government and with the change of emphasis and with our position within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, we are looking more to measure what good we do, rather than simply what we do. We are looking to measure the impact that our activities have on society, both on consumers and business. We have been looking for a legislative opportunity to get out of producing that particular report. It does not make provision for reporting on the new regime. What we propose to do, even if that opportunity does not come, is to change the emphasis of the report to better reflect the present situation. I would anticipate that in future we will produce our annual report and embrace, or add, some of the important elements of self-verification - and how that is going should the Bill become law.
The Chairperson: It says on page 12 that there were 19 prosecutions in that three-year period and when you look at them, six of them are bakers and eight are food producers. Is there a particular problem in the food sector?
Mr Livingstone: Those would be offences in relation to the production of food items. The self-verification we are talking about today is about the equipment and the output of that equipment in terms of the bread, or the packets of whatever it happens to be. It is what we call the average weight provisions. In the old days we used to go along to retailer establishments and check every item. We would put it on a scale and if it said 1lb it had to be 1lb. There was no leeway. In 1980 it was thought that a new regime was required to make us more effective. It changed the emphasis and put it back into the production. It sent us into the factories, as opposed to the retail establishments, to the packers and importers of goods where we check the products according to a statistical sample. That is where we are finding the problems. The problems lie with peoples' systems and very rarely, if ever, with the weighing and measuring equipment in those bakeries. It is in the lack of a system, and if there is a system the lack of adherence to that system. They are not doing enough checks or records and they miss short-weight ones that are coming across and would eventually get out into the market place. That is where those prosecutions arise from in the main.
Mr Neeson: Obviously we are still very much involved in the learning process. I think it might be helpful if we got a one pager on what trading standards do and the make-up of the Department.
Sir Reg Empey: I do not think there is any difficulty in that. I am quite sure that the Department could easily provide that. As you say it is a regulatory Department so by definition it is working within the law that has been long established. I am sure we can send a short paper to the Committee Chairman.
The Chairperson: Thank you for your time and the precise way you answered all of our questions. There will be occasion for further dialogue as we move along this road.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Tuesday 26 September 2000
Members present:
Mr P Doherty (Chairperson)
Mr Neeson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Clyde
Mr McClarty
Ms Morrice
Special Adviser:
Mr Widdis
The Chairperson: We are now in public session. We have Mr Widdis with us, who will highlight or clarify any aspect of the Bill of which we are unsure from a legal point of view. We must proceed in a given format, which I shall describe as best I can.
This is the Committee's second meeting on the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill. As you are aware, we have already heard evidence from the Minister and his officials, and a number of questions were put on members' concerns about the effects of the Bill. In addition to questions put at the meeting with the Minister and his officials, a further question was put to the Department, and a copy of its response is included in your meeting papers.
The purpose of this meeting is to carry out a detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. Members will be able to raise concerns and suggest amendments. Members should read the relevant clauses in the Bill along with the explanatory and financial memorandum.
Members were asked to submit any suggestions or amendments to the Committee Clerk by last Friday. The Committee Clerk has advised me that no amendments were received.
This Bill has five clauses and one schedule. Each clause, and any subsections of the clause and the schedule, must be considered in turn. The Committee will have three options; the first is to agree that the clause stand part of the Bill; the second is to agree on any proposed amendments arising from consideration of that part of the Bill; and the third is to seek further information from the Department on any unresolved issue.
The primary purpose of the Bill is to introduce three deregulatory measures to lessen the burden on business associated with the verification of weighing or measuring equipment. These three measures already apply in Great Britain, and the Bill therefore aims to achieve parity for the legislative position here.
We start with clause 1, which states that the schedule to allow self-verification of weighing or measuring equipment shall have effect.
Schedule (Amendment of 1981 Order to allow self-verification)
The Chairperson: We should now look at the schedule on page 4 of the Bill and page 6 of the memorandum. The schedule amends the Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to allow self-verification of weighing or measuring equipment. We must take each paragraph in turn.
Paragraph 2 provides for the insertion of the definition of "approved verifier". Before we turn to paragraph 3, do members agree with paragraph 2?
Paragraph 2 agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 3 provides for some amendments to article 9 of the 1981 Order. Do members agree with paragraph 3?
Mr Neeson: Mr Chairman, are we taking paragraph 3 in its totality?
The Chairperson: Yes.
Paragraph 3 agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 4 provides for the insertion of a new article 9(a) after article 9 of the 1981 Order. Article 9(a) is entitled "Approval of persons to verify equipment manufactured etc. by them". Do members agree paragraph 4?
Paragraph 4 agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraphs 5 and 6 provide for some minor amendments to the 1981 Order.
Do the members agree paragraphs 5 and 6?
Paragraphs 5 and 6 agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 7 relates to powers of inspection and entry and provides for a new provision in the 1981 Order. Do members agree paragraph 7?
Paragraph 7 agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 8 relates to offences and provides for the substitution of paragraph (2) of article 45 of the 1981 Order. Do members agree paragraph 8?
Paragraph 8 agreed to.
Paragraph 9 (proposed schedule 2A to the 1981 Order)
The Chairperson: Paragraph 9 of the schedule provides for the insertion of a new schedule 2A to the 1981 Order. Part I of schedule 2(A) is headed "Approvals: General". Paragraph 1 of schedule 2A is about fees to be paid to the Department.
Ms Morrice: Are we just looking at paragraph 1?
Mr Neeson: How does that operate at the moment?
Mr Widdis: At present there is no system of approval for self-verification at all. An inspector must come and give his approval. What is being proposed here is a procedure to enable a manufacturer to apply to put his own stamp on the goods. There is no procedure for that now and no set fee for such.
The Chairperson: Do members agree paragraph 1 of schedule 2A.
Paragraph 1 of the proposed schedule agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 2 of schedule 2A is about form, effect and conditions of approvals.
Mr Neeson: Mr Chairman, are you dealing with all of section 2?
The Chairperson: Yes. Do members agree with paragraph 2, schedule 2A?
Paragraph 2 of the proposed schedule agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 3 of schedule 2(a) is about the suspension of approvals and contains eight sub-paragraphs. Do members agree with paragraph 3, schedule 2A?
Ms Morrice: Does "a period not exceeding 28 days" refer to the period during which the suspension notice applies? Does the position then revert to normal?
Mr Widdis: Yes, although the 28 days is the maximum period which the inspector can set. It appears to me that it could be a period of anything, for example three days or seven days - any period up to 28 days.
Ms Morrice: And following 28 days?
Mr Widdis: The suspension order falls and the situation reverts to normal. It operates on the principle that the verifier already has approval. His approval is temporarily lifted from him, and if he fails to get back in order, further action will be taken.
Ms Morrice: That is the issue.
Mr Widdis: The notion is that if he can get his ship back in the water, automatically, at the end of that fixed period, he reverts to ordinary business.
Ms Morrice: So it is simply taking that time to correct matters?
Paragraph 3 of the proposed schedule agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 4 of schedule 2A is about withdrawal of approvals and contains five sub-paragraphs. Do members agree paragraph 4, schedule 2A?
Paragraph 4 of the proposed schedule agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 5 of schedule 2A is about granting new approval following withdrawal and contains three sub-paragraphs. Do members agree paragraph 5 of schedule 2A?
Paragraph 5 of the proposed schedule agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 6 of schedule 2A is about an application for further approval. Do members agree paragraph 6 of schedule 2A?
Paragraph 6 of the proposed schedule agreed to.
The Chairperson: Part II of schedule 2A is headed "Requirements To Be Met by Approved Verifiers". Paragraph 7 of schedule 2A is about the maintenance of quality systems for approved verifiers. Do members agree paragraph 7 of schedule 2A?
Paragraph 7 of the proposed schedule agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 8 of schedule 2A is about the preparation et cetera of a quality system manual. Sub-paragraph (1) lists what should be contained in the manual. Do members agree paragraph 8 of schedule 2A?
Mr Neeson: Do you mean sub-paragraph 8(1)?
The Chairperson: No, all of paragraph 8.
Paragraph 8 of the proposed schedule agreed to.
The Chairperson: Paragraph 9 of schedule 2A is about the keeping of records. Do members agree paragraph 9 of schedule 2A?
Paragraph 9 of the proposed schedule agreed to.
The Chairperson: Do members agree that clause 1 and therefore the schedule should stand part of the Bill?
Clause 1 agreed to.
The Chairperson: Clause 2 is about testing by official European Economic Area (EEA) testers. Page 1 of the Bill and page 3 of the memorandum provide for the acceptance by an inspector of test reports from third-party testers from the EEA. There are four subsections in clause 2. Do members agree that clause 2 should stand part of the Bill?
Clause 2 agreed to.
The Chairperson: Clause 3 is about pre-test stamping - page 2 of the Bill and page 4 of the memorandum refer. This clause provides that manufacturers of weighing or measuring equipment, who are approved verifiers, can apply for the prescribed stamp prior to the equipment's being tested and passed as fit for use by trade. Clause 3 contains three subsections. Subsection (1) is the most relevant and contains seven paragraphs. Do members agree that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill?
Clause 3 agreed to.
The Chairperson: Do members agree that clause 4 which deals with interpretation should stand part of the Bill?
Clause 4 agreed to.
The Chairperson: Do members agree that clause 5, which deals with the short title, should stand part of the Bill?
Clause 5 agreed to.
The Chairperson: That concludes the business.
COMMITTEE FOR ENTERPRISE,
TRADE AND INVESTMENT
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT) BILL (NIA BILL 8/99)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: GENERAL CONSUMER COUNCIL
18 August 2000
1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment at the Committee stage of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill.
2. The Consumer Council has asked the Trading Standards Service (TSS) for information about the state of compliance with the present law and whether there is evidence of serious breaches.
3. TSS has told us that, over a two year period of inspection between 1998-1999, 682 instruments out of 8687 checked did not comply, i.e. just under 8%. However the Service pointed out that this included technical breaches including minor errors in plate marking. They indicated that they rarely found examples of obvious fiddles.
4. On the basis of this evidence the Council would not oppose this deregulatory move. However we believe that it would be important to maintain consumer confidence in two ways:
-
ensuring that manufacturers notify TSS locally of the outlets and organisations to which they sell their equipment, and
-
providing for a programme of spot checks by Trading Standards Officers.
5. I hope the Committee finds these comments helpful.
Maeve Bell
Director
COMMITTEE FOR ENTERPRISE,
TRADE AND INVESTMENT
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT) BILL (NIA BILL 8/99)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY:
TRADING STANDARDS SERVICE
20 September 2000
Your minute of 18 September 2000 to David McCune, DETI Assembly Section, refers. David has asked that I respond to you direct.
You asked, "Will approved verifiers be required to notify Trading Standards Service of the organisations to which they sell their equipment to?"
The answer is no, but it will be possible to enter into voluntary agreements with approved verifiers to notify the Trading Standards Service about the location of newly self-verified equipment.
It will also be possible, in appropriate cases, to make such notification a condition of the verifier's approval.
I hope this reply satisfactorily addresses the Committee's concern in this matter.
David Livingstone
(Chief Inspector)