APPROVED HALLMARKS (Hansard, 20 July 1973)

§ Mr. Wiggin
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This, too, is a drafting amendment. The wording to be deleted dates back to before the Bill contained the definitions of "fineness", "standard of fineness" and "minimum fineness" at the foot of page 18. By those definitions the "standard of fineness" has imported into it the concept that the article referred to must in all its parts be not less than the fineness of the standard of fineness. I think that we would get confused if we were to go further into the matter. It is a question of the legal definition.

§ Mr. Wiggin
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Emery
This is slightly more than a drafting amendment because it is associated with certain amendments that have just been made to the Bill. Basically, it is important to make it plain that the amendments that have been made provide that an assay office must be satisfied that the article is of British origin before it applies to it a United Kingdom hallmark Unless it is satisfied about that an assay office must apply the mark used for imported goods. In other words, the amendment makes it an offence for a sponsor to mislead an assay office about the origin of an article.
Somebody who has non-British goods might submit them to an assay office in 1017 this country and try to pass them off as goods made here by obtaining a British hallmark from an assay office. People ought to realise that that is a criminal offence and that there are punishments for committing it.
An assay office is largely dependent upon statements made by the sponsor of the article when he submits silver or other articles for assaying. Often an assay office has little means of checking the validity of such statements. It is therefore important to make it clear that an attempt to mislead an assay office is an offence that is punishable, and it seems right and proper that we should reinforce the Bill by making the amendment.

§ Mr. David Watkins (Consett)
This is an important matter. The only thing that worries me a little in the light of what the Under-Secretary of State said is whether this provision will be enforceable. The Minister said that an assay office would be largely dependent upon the statements of those who submit items to it. I assume that assay offices will be in a position to make fairly stringent tests and inquiries for themselves. I accept that this is not an easy matter to deal with, but I should like an assurance that this provision will be enforceable. I appreciate the deterrent effect of this provision, but it should be made clear that it will be enforceable.

§ Mr. Wiggin
This is a matter of common sense. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkin) has made a valid point, and I am certain that his remarks will be drawn to the attention of the Hallmarking Council and assay offices in due course.

§ Mr. Wiggin
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 38, in Clause 12, page 12, line 40, leave out paragraph (d).

§ Mr. Emery
Amendment No. 19 spells out the procedure to be adopted when a sponsor appeals against the refusal of an assay office to hallmark an article. It adds the new proviso that if the council considers the refusal to be unjustified it may direct the assay office concerned to hallmark the article, and that assay office will be duty-bound so to do.
The amendment is necessary in order to make certain that the new council as established by the Bill has power over any assay office, which is what everybody wished to see. It was the intention of the sponsors of the Bill to ensure that, but in this instance it was felt better that it should be made clear in the Bill, and that is what the amendment sets out to do.

§ Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)
Perhaps at this stage I should declare my interest, as I have on previous occasions, in that I am a member of the Livery of the Goldsmiths Company.
Will the council have its own assaying facilities? An assay office might decline to hallmark an article on the grounds of suspect material, wrong degree of fineness, and so on. If the question is submitted to the council in the proper way, will the council be able to carry out its own assay work, will it send the article back to the assay office from which it came, or will it require to see the full reports of previous tests?

§ Mr. Wiggin
My hon. Friend has asked rather technical questions, but I think it can be said that the Hallmarking Council will not of itself have assaying facilities. One of the great arguments for the Bill has been that assay offices are the only places capable of assaying accurately and adequately, but those who are thinking about how the council should work intend that there should be a technical adviser and presumably one of the assay masters or somebody who is similarly qualified 1019 to help the council with these technical matters. I hope that that adequately answers my hon. Friend's questions.