ASSAY OFFICES BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 4 April 1962)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER
My Lords, before the House proceeds to give a Third Reading to this Bill, as I hope it will do, I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the purpose of the Bill and its implications, because although superficially it is a Bill dealing with technical matters, it nevertheless touches very ancient traditions and personal rights. Therefore I think your Lordships would not wish to pass a Bill of such nature without some consideration of what is involved.
The Assay Offices Bill has as its purpose the closing of the Assay Office in the City of Chester, and the dissolution of the Chester Company of Goldsmiths. In doing this, the Bill is implementing one of the recommendations of a Departmental Committee, set up by the Board of Trade in 1955, which reported in 1959. That Report, which was drawn up under the Chairmanship of Sir Leonard Stone, the Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and himself a learned scholar in the art of the goldsmith and the silversmith, made a number of recommendations for the reform of the assaying and the marking of gold,and silver objects. This Private Hill seeks to implement one, and only one, recommendation of that Committee.
On any count, this is a regrettable Bill, because it brings to an end a tradition, a living, working tradition, of over a thousand years. For there is clear record of the work of the moneyers of the City of Chester in the reign of King Athelstan; and in every century the goldsmiths and silversmiths of Chester have been practising their craft. And their work has been assayed in the city, for it is almost certain that before 1700 gold and silver objects were assayed under the authority of the Earls of Chester. In 1700 the Plate Assay Act set up five provincial Assay Offices: in York, Exeter, Bristol, Norwich, and Chester; and of those five, Chester is 179 now the only one still working. Therefore, by closing the Assay Office in Chester, this Bill brings to an end this long and honourable tradition.
But, my Lords, it must be recognised that this Bill is a regrettable necessity, for although the Assay Office in Chester seems to be prosperous, yet in point of fact its existence is very precarious. For the last two or three years it has been doing some £15,000 worth of business; but it depends almost entirely for its work upon the good will of a small number of merchants in Birmingham. And if they were to withdraw their custom, then indeed the situation of those who man and do the work of the Assay Office in Chester would be extremely parlous.
There are nine people on the staff of the Office: three of them are over 70, and two more are over 60. It may surprise your Lordships to learn, as it surprised me when I discovered it, that these men who do such a notable service to the community, a service which requires great skill and training, have no claim whatsoever upon the National Exchequer, and therefore their livelihood depends upon the earnings which they make from work in the Office. It is true that they are allowed to make provision for pensions out of theft earnings, but since in the past the office of a Master of Assay has been regarded as a life-long appointment, it has not been the custom of Assay Offices to make provision for their retirement. Therefore, if the custom from Birmingham were to be withdrawn from the Assay Office in Chester, these men, who have given a lifetime of service to this very important and skilled work, would be, as I have said, in a very parlous condition. This Bill makes provision for compensation and pensions for the staff of the Chester Assay Office, and if only for that reason it is desirable that the Bill should receive a Third Reading.
There are, however, two matters in the Bill which are of particular concern. One is that the Bill not only closes the Assay Office in Chester but also dissolves the Company of Goldsmiths. Now, there was a Guild of Goldsmiths in the City of Chester long before the 1700 Act, which constituted the Company to run the Assay Office. That ancient Guild was absorbed into the Company. Therefore, if the Company of Goldsmiths is 180 dissolved, so also will the ancient Guild of Goldsmiths in the City of Chester be left without any shape or form. That would be very regrettable, because we have still existing 24 Craft Guilds in the City. We are about to make available to them a church, which is no longer needed for worship, which we hope will become a Guildhall, in which these ancient craft guilds will be able to restore something of their work and interest. It would be profoundly unsatisfactory if the Guild of Goldsmiths, which is one of the senior, should disappear at this moment.
The argument of the Bill for the closing of the Company of Goldsmiths is that, since the Company was set up by the 1700 Act to run the Assay Office, it is desirable that it should be dissolved now that the Assay Office is to be no more. We accept that, since the Promoters of this Bill have been good enough to accept our point. Subsection (3) of Clause 4 makes it abundantly clear that the Officers of the present Company will be the Officers of the ancient Guild of Goldsmiths when once the Company has been dissolved.
The other matter to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is of more significance. As I have reminded your Lordships, this Bill implements only one of a number of recommendations which the Departmental Committee made for the reform of the system of assaying and marking in this country. There are a number of recommendations in this Report which, to somebody like myself who has no knowledge of the technicalities, seem to be admirable and good common sense. Yet, so I understand, this Report has never been debated either in this House or in another place. It is three years ago since this Report was issued and the members of the Committee said that they regarded reform as essential and urgent. Yet, so far as I know, apart from this Bill, nothing has been done to implement the recommendations of the Report. Chester does not relish the unenviable position of being singled out for the one reform which shall be implemented, and we shall have an ugly suspicion that we have been a sop thrown to Cerberus unless there is some indication that the other reforms recommended are going to be implemented.
I think we all recognise that from time to time it is essential to reform 181 ancient institutions in the light of modern requirements. But I think that I shall have the sympathy of the House in saying that when such reform is necessary, then the disturbance to ancient institutions, which have been well tried and have served the nation well, should be as small as possible and that the least possible injustice should be done to those who are the subjects of the reform. By the Amendments which have been made to this Bill in Committee, I think that the former has been dealt with satisfactorily. I hope that we may have some assurance that the latter condition will also be fulfilled.

Time JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)
My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I intervened for a moment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and particularly of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, to say that my right honourable friend is quite happy with the Amendments which have been made in the Unopposed Bill Committee and which have been referred to by the right reverend Prelate in his speech. I understand that these Amendments have been agreed between the right reverend Prelate and the Promoters of the Bill.
The right reverend Prelate said that the Bill was regrettable, but I am glad that he followed that shortly by saying that it was regrettable but necessary. I must agree that that is the fact: this Bill is a necessity. We are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing to our attention what might have happened if he and the Promoters of the Bill had not amended it in Committee. It is clear that the Company of Goldsmiths must go but, as the Bill is amended, the ancient Guild will not go, and I am sure that that is desirable.
The right reverend Prelate raised two other points. He asked why this matter of the Chester Assay Office was being taken in isolation from all the other matters that were mentioned in Sir Leonard Stone's Report, which was laid before Parliament in 1959. That Report recommended many changes in the present law on the hallmarking of articles of precious metal; and my right honourable 182 friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering these proposals which, as the Committee suggested, would appear to involve a complete overhaul of the confused—I think I may say that—and ancient body of legislation on this esoteric subject.
My right honourable friend considers that these proposals should be dealt with as a whole, but he does not see any reason why the closure of the Chester Assay Office should not be dealt with separately at this moment by means of this Private Bill. There is not, and there is not likely to be, enough hallmarking business to justify the continuance of four separate Assay Offices in England. Therefore, there is good reason for closing the Chester Office. Responsibility for providing reasonable compensation to the staff and their wives or widows has been agreed to lie with the remaining Assay Offices in England.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate should have ugly suspicions. This is no sop to Cerberus. This is not an easy method of getting out of a complicated Report. We think that this is an entirely separate matter. As I have said, the Stone Committee recognised that comprehensive legislation would be needed to cover all their proposals. Therefore, legislation could not possibly be done by Private Bill procedure. Although the Report gives much detailed information and, indeed, appears to be broadly acceptable to the interests concerned, the preparation of a Bill of this nature, based on the Report, would be no simple matter and the Bill itself would be of great length. The aim would be to replace completely the legislative accretion of hunderds of years and this requires much careful study and work. The Government hope that all these matters can be resolved without undue delay and that in due course a Bill will be brought forward, but I am afraid that at this moment I cannot indicate when my right honourable friend will be in a position to bring such a Bill forward. I hope that, after what the right reverend Prelate has said and what I have ventured to say, your Lordships will give this Private Bill a Third Reading.

LORD MERTHYR
My Lords, I should like to say only two or three words. First of all, I think the House 183 will agree that it is not part of my duty to deal with the matter of the Stone Report. Any action taken as a result of that Report would properly form the basis of a public and not of a Private Bill. I am sure that the House will appreciate the great interest which the right reverend the Lord Bishop of Chester has evidently shown in this matter and will have listened with interest to his speech this afternoon. I am sure that the House will understand his regret at the passing of something that is very ancient, but will also perhaps understand the necessity for it.
Finally, I would say only this. I think that it is a matter for satisfaction that an Amendment to this Bill, which has been agreed after negotiation between those interested on both sides, has been incorporated in the Bill by agreement and that that Amendment, while not taking anything away from the main purpose of the Bill, goes a good way to preserve the historical associations and historical importance of this matter. And I am very glad to think that the right reverend Prelate may have the satisfaction of knowing that those historical associations will to that extent be continued.