| Previous Section | Home Page |
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
Column 523
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. 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. 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 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
Column 524
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, 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
Column 525
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.
Column 526
Private Members' Bills
INTERNATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY ORGANISATIONS (REGISTRATION) BILL Considered in Committee ; reported, without amendment, read the Third time and passed.
RIGHT OF SILENCE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day? No day named.
ABORTION (AMENDMENT OF GROUNDS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
ROAD TRAFFIC (BREATH TESTS) BILL
Order read for resumed adjourned debate on Question--[24 February] - -That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.
SCARCE RESOURCES (CONSERVATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
AMUSEMENT MACHINES (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
EMPTY PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY AID BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
ABORTION (TREATMENT OF NON-RESIDENT WOMEN) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
HARE COURSING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.
Column 527
NET BOOK AGREEMENT (ABOLITION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
ABORTION (FINANCIAL BENEFITS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 June.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of Order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May we know which hon. Member objected to my Bill? I was not sure who it was, and I should be grateful if you could let me know.
Madam Deputy Speaker : It is not the business of the Chair to inform hon. Members of objections. I am sure that the hon. Member is alert enough to work that out for himself.
SAFETY IN CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
ABORTION (RIGHTS OF ANCILLARY WORKERS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
PROTECTION OF RESIDENTS IN RETIREMENT HOMES BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.
INSTALLATION OF SMOKE DETECTORS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day? No day named.
Column 528
REQUIREMENTS OF WRITING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.
ANIMAL PROTECTION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
ABORTION (RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.
FIRE SAFETY INFORMATION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.
RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS (WEARING OF PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.
AGE OF LEGAL CAPACITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day?
No day named.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 8th May--
(1) if proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to Dock Work Bill (Allocation of Time) have not been concluded before Seven o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of such proceedings ; and (2) the Private Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, for five hours after it has been entered upon.
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 10th May, the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Income Tax may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon ; and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at the end of that period, Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question.-- [Mr. Alan Howarth.]
Column 529
Palace of Julius Agricola
2.36 pm
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Alan Howarth.]
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : This Adjournment debate is about an exceedingly important national issue. The title of the debate
"safeguarding the site of the Palace of Julius Agricola, London" is not entirely accurate. The site in question lies within the area identified in the 1960s as the Roman Huggin hill bath site. It is along the Upper Thames street, but in Roman times it was located on the Thames waterfront.
I am reliably informed that the building was probably the largest public baths complex in Roman London and that it was constructed around 80 AD, during the time of Julius Agricola, the Roman governor of Britain. The complex used a highly sophisticated heating system. I have been informed, quite interestingly, that such a system was not seen again in London until the 19th century. One of the archaeologists to whom I spoke said that London had to wait until the advent of the London county council before public baths on the scale and sophistication of these Roman baths were once again constructed in London.
The baths complex stretches under Dominant house--the part that we are discussing today--and continues under Fur Trade house, the adjacent building which is due to be redeveloped within the next 18 to 24 months.
Early in 1986 the corporation of London received a planning application to redevelop Dominant house, of which it is the freeholder. Modifications were made to the original proposals as the corporation mistakenly believed that the site had already been scheduled. Scheduling was hurriedly approved in June 1986, in advance of conditional planning permission which was granted in July of that year.
The scheduling recommended by English Heritage, the popular title of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, said that the caldarium in the courtyard area between Dominant house and Huggin hill was very well preserved, with walls over 2 m high. The bath house remains under Dominant house itself were thought to be seriously damaged during the 1965 building operation. That wrong judgment was later corrected, but I suspect that in that particular error we see many of the seeds of the complications and the confusions that arose later.
The site's scheduled status having been established, conditional planning permission was given subject to the scheduled monument being adequately protected and preserved and made accessible to members of the public. Subsequent discussions between the corporation planning department, English Heritage and the developers failed to agree on a means of displaying any part of the site. Neither the City nor the Hammerson group, the developers, were willing to undertake the maintenance, and, unfortunately, English Heritage was unable to do so.
The City corporation, however, insisted that revised plans be approved by the Court of Common Council and English Heritage before any works were begun, if further excavations proved archaeologically significant. In 1988 the archaeologists carried out a series of trial works and it was established that the monument was in excellent condition and that the construction of Dominant house
| Next Section
| Home Page |