Brendan Ryan (Labour)

Having read section 66(1) a few times, I am not sure whether there is a drafting error. Perhaps my brain is too slow to understand what is intended. I refer to the part of the section that begins:

In any proceedings for an offence under this Act, a certificate in the form specified in Schedule 3 to this Act signed by—

(a) either—

(i) the State Chemist, or

(ii) another chemist employed or engaged at the State Laboratory and authorised by the State Chemist to sign the certificate,

(b) either—

(i) a public analyst appointed under section 10 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, or

(ii) another analyst authorised by such a public analyst to sign the certificate,

I wonder whether the word "or" should be included before (b) above. As it stands, it could mean that the certificate would have to be signed by one of the people mentioned in (a) and one of the people mentioned in (b). I am not being awkward. It seems to me that this section, as it is written, could mean that the certificate would have to be signed by both a chemist and an analyst, whereas I believe they are alternates.