ANNEX
Letter from the Lead Officer for Legal Metrology, Institute
of Trading Standards Administration to the Committee Assistant
(ITSA)
I was present at the public session of the Deregulation Committee
held on the afternoon of 20 July and, as a result of certain matters
raised during that session, I would welcome the opportunity to
make further observations on behalf of this Institute.
You will appreciate that I do not have the advantage of having
seen a transcript of yesterday's evidence, so of necessity what
follows relies heavily upon personal recollection and perception.
Should either appear at fault I can only apologise to the Committee
in advance!
Firstly, during the course of his evidence, Dr Bennett made reference
on several occasions to the comments made by Mr Alan Street, Chief
Executive of ITSA, during his earlier evidence, which were to
the effect that the proposals might even be an improvement on
the existing arrangements. For the avoidance of doubt can I make
it clear that such a favourable endorsement remains subject to
the concerns we have previously raised being addressed to our
reasonable satisfaction.
Secondly, one Member of the Committee raised the question of the
extent to which the proposals did actually remove a burden. Might
I respectfully draw attention to this Institute's submission of
13 June 1996 in which we said:-
"Controls upon the accuracy of weighing or measuring equipment
exist principally to protect the interests of equipment users
and their customers. We question whether either category would
see the present proposals as "removing burdens" but
rather as simply moving them from one place to another."
Indeed there is a further argument to say that in one respect
protection is potentially reduced for those groups. At the present
time there is an obligation upon a local authority both to provide
the verification service and to do so for a "reasonable fee".
(Ss. 11(4) and (5) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985). No such
equivalent provisions are made under the current proposals in
respect of the "self-verification" services that a manufacturer,
installer or repairer of equipment might provide. We wish to reiterate
our concerns for the potential for "cherry-picking"
by commercial organisations, which could potentially lead to disproportionate
price increases in respect of the residual local authority work.
Should this occur it would be likely to act to the disadvantage
of trader's remote from urban centres.
Thirdly, we were particularly concerned regarding the comments
made relating to the impracticability of using UK inspectors for
the assessment of surveillance of foreign manufacturers. We do
not disagree that such an approach has financial and logistical
problems. However, the alternative (of utilising local metrological
enforcement officers) raises the issue of their likely understanding
of, and interest in enforcing the relevant UK technical legislation.
Either approach has its attendant problems and illustrates the
difficulty attaching to implementing this proposal in advance
of pan-European legislation.
So far as we are aware there is no body of experience against
which to judge a proposal of this sort in respect of whether officials
elsewhere would perform their duties to the same standard as UK
inspectors. What can be said however is that under European legislation
no distinction could be (or would need to be) drawn between equipment
intended for export and that intended for domestic use since both
would be subject to the same requirements and controls. To that
extent at least we could be assured that equipment for export
could be treated no differently to that intended for domestic
use.
A favourable comparison was, I recall, made with the existing
European provisions for the certification of childrens' toys under
the Toy Safety Directive. This Institute could not regard the
operation of the technical certification of toys under that Directive
as being an unqualified success. Experience has shown that the
presence of the required "CE" mark, particularly in
the case of items manufactured outside the EU, is no guarantee
that the articles to which it has abeen applied do in fact comply
with the Directive.
Lastly, I would respectfully draw the Committee's attention to
what we see as a link between two apparently unrelated issues.
The need to be able to identify items as a means of assisting
recall in the event of incorrect verification has been discussed.
Indeed, during earlier consultations with officials of the National
Weights and Measures Laboratory the Institute and LACOTS were
assured that manufacturers would not be licensed to self-verify
in the absence of a suitable scheme. (See, eg Pargraph 9 of the
draft Approval set out in Annex G).
It is difficult to see how such a scheme could operate without
requiring some indication upon the equipment itself. However,
if such a requirement were to be interpreted as a technical requirement
relating to the product, (as presumably it could be), there would
seem to be a corresponding requirement to notify the proposals
to the Commission. (This was, of course, the subject of some extensive
debate in the earlier Committee meeting in the light of the Department's
conclusion that such notification was not necessary on the grounds
that the proposals (related to people and not products.)
21 July 1998
| 
