§ ALTERATIONS TO HALLMARKED ARTICLES
§ Mr. WigginI beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 7, line 24, leave out '(i)' and insert '(i)(a)'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this amendment I think it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11.
§ Mr. WigginAmendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are formal drafting amendments. Amendment No. 11 relates to a new matter. Therefore, it might help if I say something about it.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the coating of a metal to be placed on an article after hallmarking. The House will probably agree that that is a significant matter. A provision is made that this coating shall be no thicker than 2 microns, which is so thin that in most cases it will probably wear off extremely quickly.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the trade to carry on a practice which is quite common. On occasion manufacturers coat, say, a 9-carat gold article, marked as 9-carat, with 18-carat gold to improve its appearance. The purchaser can tell from the mark that it is only 9-carat gold. This is really only a way of finishing the article.
There is also the question of coating with rhodium, which is put on silver articles to give a better initial appearance and which also gives the metal substantial protection.
§ Mr. EmeryThe explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given the House is absolutely correct. This practice has been carried on for a considerable time. However, purely on the consumer side, we ought to sound a warning that this practice takes place. The coating of a 9-carat gold article with 18-carat gold does, as my hon. Friend said, enhance the appearance of the article. Therefore, it indicates the need for people who deal in precious metals not to believe that they can judge the metal because of the way it looks compared with gold of another carat which may not have had a micron coating.
The amendment appears to underline the Tightness of ensuring that we have a degree of consumer protection which can be easily understood. Indeed, as with gold in the past, the structure of the millesimal factors of the purity is there for all to see.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendments made: No. 8, in page 7, line 25, leave out ' (ii)' and insert ' (b)'.
§
No. 9, in page 7, leave out lines 27 to 31 and insert:
' (c) an addition is of the same precious metal as and of a fineness not less than the standard of fineness of the precious metal of the article; and '.
§ No. 10, in page 7, line 32, leave out ' (iv)' and insert ' (d)'.
§
No. 11, in page 7, line 42, at end insert:
'(ii) an addition is by the coating in whole or in part, and of a thickness not exceeding 2 microns, of an article of—
§ Mr. WigginI beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 15, leave out 'Base'.
The amendment seeks to leave out the word "base" from the description "base metal" which the Bill insists be placed upon parts of an article which are made, on the one hand of precious metal, such as silver, and, on the other hand, of, say, 817 lead. There are technical reasons for this. One may ask: why should two metals be put in the same article? For example, it is now permissible for a candlestick which is made of silver to have a base of a heavier metal to keep it upright and stable. I believe it is right that the base metal should be indicated in some way. The ordinary mortal would probably agree that the words "base metal" are clear enough. However, in negotiating the EFTA convention it became apparent that the words "base metal" in different languages were of quite different appearance, whereas the word "metal" on its own without the adjective "base" was easily understood in the various languages concerned.
This is a legacy of the EFTA convention, and as the House has accepted the principle I do not think that there is any need for me to pursue the matter further. That is the reason for the amendment. The EFTA convention requires the word "metal" to be stamped alone, and I think it is reasonable that our legislation should conform.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ 12.30 p.m.