HL Deb 15 May 1973 vol 342 cc684-719

3.14 p.m.

LORD SANDYS

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Prohibited descriptions of unhallmarked articles]:

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 2, leave out ("overstating") and insert ("understating").

The noble Lord said: In rising to introduce the first Amendment, I feel that I owe your Lordships an explanation, if not also an apology, because, as your Lordships are aware, there is a list of no fewer than 84 Amendments set down to this Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that yesterday we considered a Private Member's Bill on recommitment and two Amendments were set down. We have just discharged a Bill, a few moments ago, from Committee. Therefore, the question must arise in your Lordships' minds why it is necessary to set down this very large number of Amendments to this Private Member's Bill. There is an explanation. It is an unusually technical Bill. It is, of course, concerned with the regulation of hallinarking and has involved considerable complexity of draftsmanship. I should here like to pay tribute to the work of the two principal Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Stainton and Mr. Caldwell, whose unstinting help has been given by Her Majesty's Government, whom I should also like to thank for their assistance between the time when this Bill left another place and its arrival in your Lordships' House.

The first Amendment appears to be the sort of Amendment which your Lordships might have thought would have been picked up automatically in another place. Why is it necessary to set it down here? In point of fact, this Amendment was picked up in another place, as the whole of Clause 1 was replaced at the final stages of the Bill in the House of Commons, and further amendment there was found to be too late. This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

LORD SHACKLETON

Before we proceed any further, may I ask whether, in contradistinction to yesterday, we are going to have the help of Ministers on this Private Member's Bill? The noble Lord may be aware that yesterday we were told that the Minister would merely listen, but it appears, from the degree of excellent drafting done by Government draftsmen, that the Minister on this Bill will be participating. He may not have known what happened yesterday, which caused some offence in the House.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)

I do not want to intrude where it is unnecessary, but I shall certainly be willing to help if I can.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

This is really consequential on the last Amendment. The effect is to extend paragraph 1(1)(c) in Part IV of Schedule 1 so as to enable the Secretary of State, by order, to make consequential amendments not merely to subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 1 but also to this part of Clause 1. The point again is essentially drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, leave out ("preceding").(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

Once again, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, leave out ("said Act") and insert ("Act of 1968").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Unhallmarked articles]:

LORD SANDYS

Amendment No. 4 is once again essentially a drafting Amendment. This Amendment implies that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are, for the purposes of the Bill, to be treated as foreign territory, and that is the intention. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 21, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 22.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

Amendment No. 5 is again a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 17, leave out second ("manufacture") and insert ("or the date of any alteration, the manufacture or altefation").(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.20 p.m.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 6: Page 23, line 24, leave out from ("presumed") to end of line 27 and insert ("to be an indication that the article or metal is of gold, and that its fineness is that specified in the following table for that number of carats. (2) This paragraph shall not apply if (as in a case where the article is a precious stone) the word carat' is used as a measure of weight for precious stones, and not as a measure of fineness.")

The noble Lord said: Once again, this is a purely drafting Amendment. Paragraph 2 is intended to deal with the special use of the word "carat" when used as a measure of weight for precious stones and not as a measure of fineness in relation to gold as a precious metal.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, which is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 36, at end insert ("and so in proportion for any other number of carats").(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 8: Page 23, line 38, after ("or") insert ("except in the phrase Britannia metal')").

The noble Lord said: The phrase "Britannia metal" is used of base metal in certain circumstances by dealers, and therefore has to be excluded from the definition of "Britannia" as an indication that an article is made of silver. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

I beg to move Amendent No. 9, which is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 38, leave out ("until the contrary is proved").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 10: Page 24, line 11. leave out from ("in") to end of line 12 and insert ("section 1 of this Act").

The noble Lord said: The purport of this Amendment was explained earlier in relation to Clause 1. At this stage, I do not feel it necessary to go into any further detail. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Meaning of approved hallmarks, etc.]:

LORD SANDYS

With Amendment No. 11 I should like to link Amendment No. 12, if that is for the convenience of your Lordships. Both of these are purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 3, line 22, leave out from ("which") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("has been made to an article bearing approved hallmarks"). Page 3, line 28, leave out ("mark") and insert ("hallmark").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 3, line 30, at end insert— ("Provided that paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection shall not apply if after the making of the addition, alteration or repair the article has been re-assayed and struck with any further approved hallmark.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment contains a proviso to make clear that if an article has some improper alteration made to it but is then re-assayed and struck with a further approved hallmark which the assay office may require, the alteration ceases to be a prosecutable impropriety. I beg to move.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I am just wondering whether the noble Lord can enlighten us. We have so far dealt with 12 Amendments and have agreed all of them. We have been told that they are drafting, but the Bill came before us so recently that one wonders why these Amendments were not made to the Bill originally. Can he explain why it is necessary to have so many drafting Amendments'?

LORD SANDYS

The noble Baroness may not have been in the Chamber when I gave my explanation. The Bill has been largely recast with the assistance of Parliamentary Counsel, and it has been thought both more readable and better draftsmanship to put forward these Amendments at this stage.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I thank the noble Lord very much.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Sponsors' marks]:

LORD SANDYS

With Amendment No. 14 I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to take Amendment No. 15. They are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 4, line 25, leave out from ("exhibits") to ("as") in line 27.

Page 4, line 27, at end insert— ("(4A) Registration or renewal of the registration of any sponsor's mark under this section shall be subject to the approval, provision and recording from time to time (in accordance with regulations made by the Council) of such punches or other equipment as may be specified in such regulations.")—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [Approved hallmarks]:

LORD SANDYS

Once again, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to link Amendments Nos. 16, 16A (which is a new Amendment, put down to-day) and No. 17. These are all drafting Amendments and are of no particular significance. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 5, line 9, leave out ("column (2) of"). Page 5, line 11, leave out ("of that table"). Page 5, line 13, leave out ('"column (3) of").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 18: Page 5, line 16, leave out from ("assaying") to ("specified") in line 18 and insert ("to a standard of fitness").

The noble Lord said: This also is a drafting Amendment, but a somewhat more specialised one. The existing wording dates back to the time before the Bill contained definitions of the words "fineness", standard of fineness and "minimum fineness" of gold on page 18 of the Bill. "Standard of fineness" has imported into it by those definitions the concept that the article referred to must in all its parts be not less than the fineness of the standard of fineness. This is a technical point. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

Amendment No. 19 is again a simplification. Amendment No. 21 to page 5, line 41, achieves the purpose of the lines which this Amendment seeks to leave out. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, leave out lines 22 to 25.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.30 p.m.

LORD SANDYS

Amendment No. 20 is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert—

  1. ("(b) as respects articles comprised of two or more precious metals and satisfying the conditions of Part II of the said Schedule 2, marks struck in accordance with that Part; and
  2. (c) as respects articles comprised of precious metal and other materials and satisfying the conditions of Part III of the said Schedule 2, marks struck in accordance with that Part;").—(Lord Sandys.)

VISCOUNT AMORY

My noble friend Lord Sandys is showing a complete mastery of this Bill, and we are very fortunate in the knowledge that he has. But I wonder whether, for the benefit of those of us who do not have so much technical knowledge, he will give the explanations of some of these drafting Amendments which are perfectly clear to him but which are not quite so clear to us. Some of his explanations were a little fast and difficult to follow. But I am quite sure that he is leading us in the right direction, and I should be the last person to complain of the remarkable progress that we are making to-day.

LORD SANDYS

I will certainly attempt here to fill out, if I may, some of the points made. The clause here reinstates in a much more concise form and in a unified way the existing law, yet gives it a flexibility to the regulation-making power afforded to the Secretary of State. It will be seen from Schedule 2 that Parts 2 and 3 impose necessary safeguards against deception of the purchaser of articles which consist of two or more precious metals or of a precious metal with other materials. It is as I said earlier, my Lords, it is a technical matter of significance.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 5, line 41, at end insert— ("(2) If it is shown to the satisfaction of the assay office that the article was made in the United Kingdom, the assay office mark and the standard mark shall be those specified for that assay office in column (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act, and in column (3) of paragraph 2 of that Schedule; and otherwise the marks shall be those specified in column (3) of the said paragraph 1 and column (4) of the said paragraph 2.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been mentioned a little earlier in connection with lines 22 to 25. I do not think I should say much more about this particular Amendment. I accept the point which my noble friend Lord Amory has made. These are unusually obstruse matters and rather than make or attempt to make a Second Reading speech about each one, I hope he will forgive me if I do not dwell too heavily upon the matter here. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 6, at end insert ("a").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 23:

Page 6, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) A person who knowingly makes a false statement in furnishing any information to an assay office for the purposes of subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.")

The noble Lord said: This is an offence provision in the new subsection (3). It is a new offence but it is obviously right to include it in common sense, and I think this is where we can bring our judgment to bear on the Bill as a whole. I beg to move.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I would only ask whether we are not going a little too quickly. Surely, we have here provision that it is an offence for any person knowingly to make a false statement. Perhaps the noble Lord would explain what is the difference, because if you are furnishing a false statement to the assay office, surely that is no different from making a false statement anyway. I cannot quite see the difference.

LORD SANDYS

I think the explanation here is that very often a specific requirement of the assay office is to provide a piece of paper which indicates the position in regard to an article prior to its submission for hallmarking and that is taken to be evidence, in an equivalent way to verbal evidence, but of course a written statement is far more conclusive.

LORD DRUMALBYN

It might help the noble Baroness if she will compare the words which are proposed to be left out with the words that are proposed to be inserted. I think she will probably get some indication of what this Amendment is designed to achieve. It is a great simplification. It really covers the same ground, because as I understand it, the Amendments that my noble friend has been moving—that is, 16, 17, 19 and 21—provide that the assay office must be satisfied that the article is of British origin before they apply the United Kingdom hallmarks, otherwise they must apply the mark used for the imported goods, and, of course, in some respects there are different marks for imported goods and British ones. The Amendment makes it an offence for a sponsor also to mislead an assay office about the origin of an article. This is clearly necessary, because the assay office are largely dependent on the sponsor's statement and has little means of checking it. We are not here concerned with the transaction between the two, so it would not be covered, for example, by the Trade Description Act. They are not selling the goods to the assay office, and therefore special provision is needed.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I thank the Minister for his explanation. I should still have thought that it was covered by: … it shall be an offence for any person knowingly to make a false statement under this subsection". I should have thought that rather specifically referred to whether you were presenting the goods to the assay office, or whether you were in fact dealing with them in any way where you had knowingly misled either orally or in writing. But I will accept that it is unecessary to add this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

This is again a purely drafting Amendment, filling out the existing subsection (4). I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 33, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

("(4) If—

  1. (a) an assay office have refused to hallmark an article, submitted to them for hallmarking under this section; and
  2. (b) the person submitting the article has referred the matter to the Council in writing;

the Council shall consider the case and, if they are of the opinion that the assay office were acting unreasonably in refusing to hallmark the article, they shall direct the assay office to strike the article with the approved hallmarks.

(4A) It shall be the duty of an assay office to whom a direction has been given under subsection (4) above to comply with the direction.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Approved Hallmarks]:

3.38 p.m.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD moved Amendment No. 25: Page 25, line 9, column 3, leave out ("and the figures 925.").

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the two following ones cover very much the same point, and perhaps it will be to your Lordships' convenience if I speak to them more or less together. They concern the marks required to be struck on wares of silver or platinum other than imported articles—that is to say, they concern British produced wares —and the purpose of my Amendment is to delete the new requirement that what are called millesimal marks should he added to the established symbols denoting the fineness of metal in each case. Millesimal marks are figures expressing the standard of fineness in parts per thousand of pure metal in the material of which a ware is made. Thus in the case of sterling silver a millesimal mark composed of the figures 925 means that 925 parts in one thousand of the material are pure silver; and similarly with other standards.

The requirement that millesimal marks should be added to the recognised marks by which the fineness of British silver has been denoted for many generations, and also the new mark for platinum, was introduced by the Government in another place. The reasons there given in support of this change, to which I may say the assay offices and those who manufacture and trade in these metals are strongly opposed, may be briefly and I hope fairly summarised. They were: that millesimal marks are more readily understood; that their use is generally increasing; that they are already used on gold and on imported silver, and that they will form a part of the so-called EFTA mark if that Convention comes into force. As to whether millesimal marks are in fact more readily understandable I shall have more to say in a moment. They are indeed widely used abroad and, for all I know, may be more so in future, but their use is not universal. In the E.E.C. they are not required in France or Holland, with some exceptions, or in Ireland. To say, as was said in another place, that it would be confusing if imported silver and British silver do not bear the same marks is surely to mistake one of the objects of hallmarking itself, which is to show the origin of the article.

If British wares do not bear the same marks as foreign wares I should have thought the result would be to avoid confusion rather than to increase it. Moreover, many foreign marks, millesimal marks, are put on by the manufacturers and not by any independent authority. They are thus not certification marks and indeed, I regret to say, are often found to be inaccurate. As to the EFTA Convention, if that Convention comes into force the mark required under it will not be a national mark and should not appear to be one; it is a mark of a different kind. As to gold, millesimal or decimal marks have certainly long been used to distinguish between different standards of fineness in the same metal. For this purpose they are accepted and understood, and it is not suggested that they should now be changed. But the same consideration does not apply with any force to silver, and I suggest that it is false logic to suggest that it does.

At this point I might add that the organisations which were consulted by the Department on this and other matters now in the Bill were consulted before the Bill was drafted and could not have known what is now in it; and I can add, without breach of confidence, that two important organisations, the Design and Research Centre and the British Antique Dealers' Association, which were quoted in another place as being in favour of these millesimal marks, have, now that they have seen the Bill, come out against them, and I understand have so informed the Department. There are many reasons against adding millesimal marks to British silver. Some are not perhaps conclusive, but, equally, they are not wholly negligible. They are partly æsthetic, mainly technical. They are strongest where small articles are concerned, and small articles constitute a large and increasing proportion of those to be marked. I will not attempt to go into the details of punches and other equipment, but will say only that the practical objections to adding millesimal marks to the four marks already required are felt most strongly by those whose work will be mostly closely concerned with them and who should best know what they are talking about.

But the really important point is this. Does the addition of a millesimal mark to the recognised symbols on British silver further the main purpose of the Bill, which is, after all, to protect the consumer'? I do not think it does. Those who are familiar with the existing hallmarks will gain nothing by it: they neither need nor would be helped by the addition of figures. The users of Britannia silver, of which very little is made, are of this class, as I suggest are those who may buy platinum, the sale of which would in any case be confined to fairly narrow circles by its very high price. In fact, almost all the silver wares made in this country are of sterling silver, and the mark denoting this, the lion passant, has been in existence and recognised for over 400 years.

The consumers we should most be thinking of are ordinary people with no special knowledge who go into shops to buy pieces of standard silver, generally fairly small, sometimes very small, and seldom very expensive. I really cannot believe that the figures "925", without further explanation, will mean more to them than the lion passant, which some at least know already and many more are learning. In any case, if explanation is needed they will have the protection of Clause 10 of the Bill, which requires every dealer to exhibit conspicuously in his premises a notice describing the approved hallmarks with such explanatory matters as the Hallmarking Council think fit. It is surely no more difficult to explain the symbol than the numerals; and to add the figures would complicate rather than simplify. If the article to be bought is not new but one of the thousands, not to say millions, already in existence, it will not bear a millesimal mark now or in the future. To introduce such an extra mark on new pieces will serve merely to confuse rather than to help; and, after all, the more marks the less easy to follow.

Domestically, then, I find it hard to see that the addition of millesimal marks will benefit the manufacturer, the dealer or the consumer. When we consider the export of British silver wares there are good reasons for thinking that it would be actually damaging to the export trade; and I am informed that this is the view generally held by the exporters themselves. British silver has a high reputation abroad, notably in the United States of America, and this, both in antique and in modern wares, rests not only on artistic merit and craftsmanship but also on the hallmark itself, which on the larger articles, and particularly on reproduction wares, is a feature in its own right. As such, the established four symbols are familiar and welcome. To add a fifth of a different kind is to risk raising a suspicion in the mind of the buyer that the new mark is not the authentic British mark they have long known and trusted but indicates something different, and even possibly inferior. if your Lordships think that this is an exaggerated opinion, I can only say again that the exporters hold it strongly, and they, after all, are the people who have to sell the goods. On this ground alone, if there were no others, I would oppose the millesimal addition.

I submit, then, that there are no good reasons for changing the well-known and long-established marks on British silver by the addition of these numerals, or for introducing them on platinum, and many good reasons against doing so. To make such a change by this Bill would be a retrograde step. It would increase the confusion rather than increase the assistance given to the consumer, and I hope your Lordships will oppose it by accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.

3.47 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

In supporting my noble friend in this Amendment I should like merely to emphasise once again the two points which I attempted to bring out on Second Reading. The first is that the millesimal mark, were it to be applied to sterling silver, the technical difficulties of such an application having been overcome, would by the very nature of the usage to which sterling silver is subjected be physically erased in a comparatively short time, and so would have no lasting value

The other point which I seriously suggest to the Committee needs emphasis is that of confusion. The millesimal mark is, as we have heard, only a measurement of fineness of the whole, and it is not in any sense a measurement of value. Consequently, if the consumer needs to be protected he really wants to have explained to him markings over which there may be no confusion whatsoever. If one places on the counter before him a white gold item at 18 carats with a millesimal marking of 750, or a platinum item at 916, or a silver item with a mark of 925, and the customer, the ultimate consumer, says, "Mr. Trader, what is the difference?", an unscrupulous trader may very easily say, "There are the numbers: you must judge for yourself". It follows reasonably, I think, that the uninitiated are going to say, "The bigger the number, the bigger the value"—and this, of course, is not so.

For those two reasons—I admit, a reemphasis of what the noble Viscount has already said—I think there can be no particular value in this proposal. That other countries may use a millesimal marking for their silver denoting a degree of fineness, which items we may then import, I do not think is relevant at all. We are primarily talking of our own sterling silver. The sterling mark, the lion passant, having been known and accepted worldwide for hundreds of years, is not going to be enhanced by the addition of numbers; neither incidentally is the millesimal number on imported pieces of silver going to bear that much relationship to a home-produced item. For these reasons and for those which the noble Lord has put forward I would support his Amendment.

3.50 p.m.

VISCOUNT AMORY

I am sure that other noble Lords feel the diffidence I feel in intervening in this technical debate. When my noble friends Lord Sandys and Lord Drumalbyn gave us their explanations they sounded impressive and I am sure they were absolutely accurate. I was very careful not to imply that they had not made me wiser. I remember the case of the Judge who replied to Mr. F. E. Smith on one occasion by saying, "Mr. Smith, you have made me no wiser," and who got the sharp response: "Without question, no wiser; but perhaps better informed." I suggest that we should be very wise to attach great weight to the advice which my noble friends Lord Sandys and Lord Runciman gave us this afternoon on these points because they are great experts in this field. I think that we should attach great weight to the considered opinions of those who administer the assay offices and who therefore know about these things.

I was impressed when my noble friend Lord Runciman said that in general the feeling of the trade was that the addition of these numerals as well as other marks would be damaging to our export trade. Another far less significant reason occurs to me. I think that with very small articles often if the markings are unnecessarily complicated or long they detract from the attractiveness of the article in question. I have a very strong inclination in this case to think that my noble friend Lord Runciman is right, and I hope that those of your Lordships who also feel like that will support him in pressing for your Lordships' approval this afternoon.

LORD MAY

I must first declare a personal interest in this matter. I am a manufacturer as well as a retailing jeweller. I have spoken to many people in the trade but I have yet to meet somebody who favours the addition of this millesimal mark. Traditionally, the lion passant is accepted throughout the world as a standard of sterling quality. This is something of which everybody is justly proud. Figures, particular on precious metal, are always very suspect. A short while ago I was in Germany where a manufacturer showed me some 13½ carat gold. When I asked what it was, I was told that it was to be marked 14 carats for export to the United States of America where there was a half-carat tolerance. This country's manufacturers ask for no tolerance; we do not get it and my noble friend Lord Runciman will never let us have it.

The point of view of the retailer has been put comprehensively by my noble friend Lord Lucas. The display of any notice, which I gather is about to come into being, must stop any confusion there might possibly be. Figures basically are not pretty. Perhaps the most important aspect of this Amendment is the aesthetic one. Hallmarks are in themselves aesthetically pleasing, and the assay offices co-operate very readily to try to do their best to enhance any piece of jewellery or silverware which comes to them. If you are asked to add the figures "925" then you are going to find it very difficult to make anything pretty out of it. Finally, I think of the general long chain of disappointments which is going to start with the assay worker who is asked unwillingly to mark a piece of silver. It will continue with the craftsman who sees his own work defaced and then with the retailer who must explain to the customer why his purchases have been spoiled. This last disappointment will continue for many generations and will cause untold misery. If this addition goes into law, it will on past experience remain there for a very long time and it will mark 1973 as a very black year indeed for hallmarks. I believe this to be an unsightly, unnecessary and quite useless addition.

VISCOUNT LONG

I have wondered when we were going to stop for a breather and have an argument. At the rate that these Amendments were going we were all getting out of breath. I should like to say that my noble friend Lord Runciman has put a strong case for all the technical points. The main two points are, first, the confusion that may arise by the addition of these numbers stamped on silver which in any case will not make the silver any more valuable but will probably make it ugly. I do not think your Lordships really believe this to be a good idea. The second point is that with all the arguments of experience against all these Amendments, I should have thought it was going to cost a great deal more to have to put further stamps on the back of these metals. Therefore I do not think it is necessary. We have previously had our silver stamped with a crown and I think that that is quite adequate. I do not see any point in taking up more space on the back of a fork or knife with numerals.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Perhaps it might be desirable for me to suggest to your Lordships that there must be some reasons why these provisions appeared in the Bill in the first place and that the argument is not necessarily all on one side. For example, I noticed that my noble friend Lord May referred to the disadvantages to the sponsor, to the assay officer, to the appearance of the goods and to the retailer. But he said nothing about the consumer, the purchaser of the goods. These Amendments propose that whereas gold articles—it is necessary to make this case—are to be hallmarked with the standard mark consisting of a symbol and a figure showing the fineness of the metal in hallmarking terms, silver and platinum goods made and hallmarked in Britain should bear only a symbol and not the figure; in other words, in the case of gold the symbol is not in itself an indication of fineness since the crown will appear on all four of the finenesses in which articles of gold are normally made in this country (375, 585, 750, 916.6) but an indication that an article is made in the United Kingdom. This is what the symbol means.

The Amendment proposes that in the two grades of silver and one grade of platinum in which articles are made and hallmarked in the United Kingdom the sole indication of fineness should be a symbol. I accept that at the present time almost all silver articles made and hail-marked in the United Kingdom are of a fineness of 925, but it cannot be assumed that that will always be so or that platinum will always be made only of a fineness of 950. In legislation we have to think of the future as well as of the past and the present. Indeed, the object of this Bill is to bring the law up to date and make it as uniform as possible so far as hallmarking is concerned; retaining as much as possible of the good and getting rid of the unnecessary or the less good. Even if we were to accept that articles of silver and platinum would continue to be made wholly or predominantly of one standard of fineness in the United Kingdom, how many people in this country—outside the comparatively narrow circle of experts, collectors and connoisseurs—if asked what standard of fineness the lion or the Britannia symbol, or for that matter the orb and cross, represented would be able to give the right answer? Yet, as my noble friend Lord Runciman pointed out on Second Reading: Almost everyone these days owns, or wants to own, some article of gold or silver, however small—wedding rings, for example. In so doing, they want to be assured that it is gold and silver and not something different but that looks like it".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/5/73; col. 236.] In other words, we have to legislate to protect everyone, particularly the people who are purchasing small articles.

It may well be that people who have lived quite a long time will know what the lion passant denotes, but I venture to doubt whether the younger generation will necessarily know that, or whether, with the first article of silver they buy, they will look for the lion passant. But in buying they will want to be assured that the articles they buy are of the right quality. In the case of gold they want to be protected by the millesimal marking. If these Amendments are carried, all fineness would be indicated in one way for gold, whether the goods were home produced or imported; but in different ways for silver and platinum. The Bill provides for a millesimal system of marking for gold, silver and platinum articles alike, coupled in the case of the United Kingdom-made goods with a symbol indicating the type of metal.

There is no possibility of confusing the hallmarking of white gold, silver and platinum because all articles will bear an appropriate symbol as well as the millesimal mark: the crown for gold, the lion or Britannia for silver and the orb and cross for platinum, as well as a different shape of shield. But these Amendments would take away the millesimal markings for silver and platinum and leave only a symbol in the case of British-made goods, but not of imported goods. The shopper who wanted to buy a piece of silver would find that some of the articles in the shop quite properly described as silver were marked with a symbol and others with a millesimal mark, either alone or, where the country of origin had adopted the international convention devised by EFTA (it is not just an EFTA convention, it is an international convention devised by EFTA) with the addition of symbols. The shopper might well doubt whether they were of the same quality, though there surely must be an advantage for the consumer in a uniform system of marking. Indeed, there is an advantage for traders too, because it will mean that to a growing extent in the future hallmarking in one country will he accepted in another without any need for the goods to be assayed a second time in the importing country. I entirely agree that British hallmarks are respected throughout the world; but reciprocity in international arrangements is a fact of life, and in the future we may well find a growing tendency in countries to accept our hallmarking only if we accept theirs, and to accept only hallmarkings which include the millesimal indication of fineness.

On Second Reading I indicated that in the last three or four years the Government had been reviewing the Stone Committee's proposals and in that review had consulted many interested parties including the assay offices, the trade and similiar organisations. It was, of course, to project consumer interests that assay officers were established, as my noble friend Lord Runciman made clear on Second Reading. But that is not to say that assay offices and similar organisations take the same view as to the best means of protecting the interests of consumers. In fact, as I said on Second Reading, the consumer organisations consulted, almost without exception, were in favour of fineness being marked in figures. Since these consultations took place we have participated in preparing the International Convention which requires millesimal marking, and proposals have been made by the E.E.C. for the use of millesimal markings in order to facilitate trade in articles of precious metal. I am, of course, aware that there are countries in which a certain tolerance, while not allowed, seems to happen. We are all living in a time when consumer protection measures are being increased and there is a considerable demand for consumer protection; and we are likely to see in the future a greater degree of consumer protection in hallmarking as elsewhere. So I do not think that we need attach too much importance to the tolerance argument, even at the present time.

As for the argument about exports, noble Lords will have noted aready, that we have passed provisions (they can be found on page 21 of the Bill) which exempt from the hallmarking requirements any article intended for dispatch to a destination outside the United Kingdom. So, as I am advised, it would be quite competent for anyone who is importing hallmarked goods, anybody importing silver goods, not to have them marked at all or completely in accordance with our own requirements or with such marking as was required by the importer at the other end of the transaction. So in that case it would not be necessary, I am advised, for them to export goods bearing the millesimal mark if in fact the importer did not want the millesimal mark to be shown. Continuity of the past will be assured by retaining the lion passant or Britannia for pieces assayed in England. The need for better and more precise information for the consumer will be secured by showing the fineness in millesimal figures, not only for gold but also for silver and platinum.

The desirability of promoting uniformity, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sandys when introducing the Bill, for the purposes of international trade will be promoted by adopting millesimal markings for all three precious metals. The assay offices will lose nothing. They will keep their lions. They will be gaining a millesimal mark and so doing something which is wanted by such bodies aiming to help the consumer as the County Councils Association (I think my noble friend Lord Amory will find himself in a divided position in this, since the County Councils Association want it and the assay offices do not); the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration, now the Institute of Trading Standards, the Consumer Association or the Consumer Council as it then was. I may say that the members of the Institute of Trading Standards will bear the main burden of enforcing the provisions of this Bill all over the country in the interest of the consumers. They believe that millesimal marking will make things easier for the consumer and better for those who have to enforce the law in the interest of the consumer. The Stone Committee observed that if the law can be enforced easily the greatest deterrent to fraud has been achieved. It is for these reasons that the Government feel that the words as they are in the Bill at the moment should be retained and I hope that these reasons will commend themselves to the Committee.

LORD COTTESLOE

Notwithstanding the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, it appears to me, as an ignorant layman, that the weight of evidence is very strongly in favour of the Amendments and I shall certainly support them.

4.10 p.m.

LORD CACCIA

May I, too, as an ignorant layman, extend my thanks to the Minister for the careful way in which he has explained—and, as usual, with great courtesy—the reasons why the Government think that the Amendments should not be pursued. But the more I listened to the reasons given the less I was persuaded that we were not here faced with the situation described in another context last week by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. The question is: is this really necessary? If that test is applied to this Amendment, I think it answers itself. The Bill as it stands tries to create a uniformity for the sake of uniformity and. as I understood it, for the sake of the future. We are answering a hypothetical question which I thought all Governments, on the whole, wish to avoid. It is not as if at the present time there is a problem about the fineness of silver in this country. Therefore we are trying to bring in some figures in order to protect a situation that has not arisen. Is that really necessary?

Then again, some foreign countries have these figures and others do not. The French and the Dutch, we are told, who have been in the silver trade I dare say for as long as we have, and have a great past and a great present in silver making, do not put on these figures. Therefore, what are we setting out to achieve? If a new situation arises, if the Government think it right in the end to adopt this EFTA international agreement, or something else arises, it would not be difficult, I should have thought, to introduce a short amendment to this Bill to bring about the situation which the Government wish to have now, as I think, on their own arguments, ahead of time. In sum, on the question whether this is really necessary, I am bound to say that I think the case falls, and I shall support the Amendment.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I have listened carefully to the arguments, I have read a great deal of the debate in another place and I have tried to enlighten myself over a period of years on this quite fascinating question of hallmarking. Yesterday, when I approached with an open mind an Amendment submitted by a noble Lord on the other side and announced that I supported it, this did not seem to find favour with my noble Leader; but as he is not here, I assume that on this occasion I can exercise an open mind on this Amendment. The Minister has carefully explained the reasons why the millesimal marking is proposed in the Bill, but I must say, as a consumer representative, that I think we should be overstating the case if we suggested that it would make it any easier for the average consumers to understand what they were buying. This is a very special trade, and until recently I did not know what a carat was. One simply knew that one asked for 9 or 18 carat and relied totally on the honesty of the seller—and this is a trade which has always seemed to me particularly honest in its dealings with customers.

So I feel it is not a totally valid argument to say that the consumer will find buying easier by having this mark, particularly as we learn that this uniformity is not a real uniformity because certain tolerances are allowed in other countries.

LORD DRUMALBYN

When the goods from those countries arrive here they arrive un-hallmarked, as I am advised, and would have to be hallmarked. There is no possibility of any deception in this country from that source.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I thank the noble Lord. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mais, to say that the figure had a different meaning in some countries from others. Perhaps I misunderstood him.

LORD MAIS

All I said was that the figures on articles of precious metal are not always to be believed.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

That is good enough for me. When I buy my next piece of precious metal—I have a feeling that it will be a long time coming—I shall certainly bear that in mind. I may say that it is rather nice to see some of the noble Lords who are concerned with this business: it is just as much a joy to see them as the metals they handle. So if this uniformity is of some doubtful value, perhaps we are not achieving exactly what we imagine by the marking of the millesimal figure. I understood in the course of the debate to-day and from reading the debate in the other place that this could be a mark of the manufacturer and not an assay mark. That seems to me to have some relevance in the case of the consumer. I would support the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, in that although the arguments put forward by the Minister are very convincing it does not appear to be totally necessary to add yet another mark to what in many cases will be very small articles which the average person will be purchasing. For those reasons, unless I hear something else that is more convincing, I shall support the Amendment.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I should like to comment on one point which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He said, with truth, that it was not necessary to hallmark foreign articles. But if the foreign purchaser says, "I want the articles hallmarked", and he adds, "but I do not want the millesimal figures", then he is not getting the articles hallmarked. That is a small point, but I think it could be important from the point of view of relations between the buyer and seller. The only other thing I should like to say is that whatever we do this afternoon we are doing "for now". One of the agreeable features of this Bill is that, unlike what has gone before, if it should be found that circumstances change in the future, there are provisions in the Bill for dealing with them. So, whatever we do, we are not committing ourselves for all time. However, I repeat that in the circumstances of the present day I am not convinced by the argument in the Amendment, and I shall ask your Lordships to express your opinion in the Division Lobby.

LORD ROBENS OF WOLDINGHAM

Would the noble Lord not agree that a hallmark on a precious metal, say, silver, is already an indication of the quality of that metal? That is part of the assay masters' test: to take their strengthenings and judge the quality of the metal. So in adding a number one is merely duplicating the information about the quality of the metal. Is it not more important, in the interests of the consumer, that the assay marks themselves should be well publicised, and when a piece of silver is sold for the first time there should be a little leaflet indicating what the assay marks mean? Because in the assay marks is contained the quality of the metal.

The other point I should like to ask the noble Lord about is whether he does not appreciate that when one is dealing with very small articles—rings, salt spoons and things of that kind—to add another assay mark is not the easiest of tasks? On small articles the hallmarks will be so small that no ordinary consumers buying in the shop will be able to make out what they are unless they have a powerful magnifying glass as used by opticians. Therefore is not this a case of duplication, adding to the labour and making the task of the consumer more confusing, when they have both a number and an assay mark to indicate the purity of the metal?

LORD DRUMALBYN

Perhaps I might reply to those remarks. The argument really is not that we are buying British silver. There will be foreign silver in the shops, and this is likely to increase in the future. There will be more and more interchange of goods of this kind. The consumer will then be comparing an imported article, which under this Bill will have to be marked with the millesimal marking. He will be comparing that with the hallmarking in Britain, if this Amendment is carried, which will not have the millesimal marking to compare it readily with the imported article. The noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that the lion passant is not really a mark of origin; it does denote the fineness, but my noble friend has made it clear that it has come to be regarded as the typical mark of English-made goods, and of course it will continue to be so. It is a fact that an additional hallmark would be required over and above what already exists in order to show the millesimal marking on British goods. But, equally, on imported goods from EFTA an additional marking will have to be put on to show that they come from EFTA; so there will be the additional mark there also.

I fully understand the position regarding small articles, believe me, but I am informed that there is already a very good pamphlet available. In addition the Bill requires in Clause 10 that there should be a notice showing the meaning of hallmarks. This argument, if you like, is one that cuts both ways, because it will be possible for the buyer to refer to the notice and see that tile lion does not denote "925", and compare that with the 925 marking. But it would leave in the consumer's mind a feeling of "Am I really quite sure about this?" It seems to me that the millesimal marking will give absolute certainty as between one article and another. There will be no dubiety about it at all. This is why I would urge that the House accepts the Bill as it now is.

LORD ROBENS OF WOLDINGHAM

Before the noble Lord resumes his seat, may I ask him whether he is not taking rather too lightly this question of the export market? He indicated, and it is perfectly true, that the Bill does not provide for the number to be stamped on anything going for export, because the noble Lord knows that a vast amount of silver is exported from this country, not as new but as secondhand; and it may well be that secondhand exports are far greater in total quantity than newly made silverware. When this rosebowl, or whatever it may be, is in a foreign land—perhaps in the Middle East, China, Singapore or Hong Kong, where a great number of silver transactions take place —the individuals concerned do not necessarily speak English. They look at a hallmarked piece of English silver and see four assay marks on it. To them, for over a century, that has been a guarantee that it is good English sterling silver. Now they will receive some pieces of silver that have five marks on them. My guess is that they will tend to put such pieces on one side until such time as they can be assured that these are not inferior to the pieces of silver they have handled for generations which have had four hallmarks on them and which they have accepted as a guarantee. I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree, as has already been suggested, that if it proved necessary in due course the fifth mark could be added. This really would be a better way of dealing with this matter, so that we could let those who are engaged in the silver trade, and particularly with exports, be content that they have not now to teach a very large number of traders throughout the world that in future there will be five hallmarks and not four. This would be a very difficult lesson to teach and it could in fact affect the hallmarking of English silver.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I would not myself have thought there would be a great deal of difficulty about this because buyers on the whole, particularly if they are not connoisseurs, will have regard to what they are told by the person selling the goods to them—the jeweller, or whoever it may be. It would not be a difficult matter for exporters to inform all their customers that as from January 1, 1975, a fifth hallmark is to be included on any goods made for the British market, and if such goods go abroad that is the explanation for the appearance of the fifth mark.

I have considered this point very carefully and I have seen a good many of the goods concerned: reproduction goods, new articles and the like. It seems to me that although this is quite a valid argument, it is also an argument that cannot be pressed too far. It is one that has to be balanced with the other argument—and the primary argument for us—of the protection of the consumer in this country.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT HOOD)

The Question is that Amendment No. 25, to leave out "and the figures 925." be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN or COMMITTEES

Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.29 p.m.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

On behalf of my noble friends I should like to move Amendment No. 26. This follows the Amendment we have just considered. I should like to link it with Amendment No. 27, as it reads with the previous two. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 25, line 15, column 3, leave out ("and the figures 958."). Page 25, line 18, column 3, leave out ("and the figures 950.").—(Viscount Runciman of Doxford.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

Once again this is a purely drafting Amendment to formulate a more satisfactory lead-in for the subparagraph in paragraph 4 of the Schedule. I beg to move Amendment No. 28.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 and insert—

("4. An article comprised of two or more precious metals shall be hallmarked only if:

  1. (a) it is of a description specified in one or other of the following sub-paragraphs; and
  2. (b) it complies with paragraph 5 of this Schedule.

and shall be hallmarked only in the manner specified for an article of that description;") —(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32 are all essentially drafting Amendments to integrate the later part of sub-paragraph (c) to the reference on page 25 in line 39 to the same standard of fineness which at present is not reflected in the later parts of this paragraph. Logically all the Amendments are needed and relate to each other. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 29 to 32.

Amendments moved— Page 25, line 41, after ("of a") insert ("higher standard of fineness or of a"). Page 25, line 42, after ("of the") insert ("higher standard of fineness or (as the case may be) of the"). Page 25, line 44, after ("of the") insert ("lower standard of fineness or of the"). Page 25, line 45, leave out ("that metal") and insert ("the metal of which those parts are comprised.").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

This Amendment is a purely drafting Amendment to provide a more easily readable lead-in to paragraph 6. I beg to move Amendment No. 33.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert— ("(6) An article comprised of precious metal and one or more other materials (in this paragraph referred to as "other materials") shall be hallmarked as if the precious metal were comprised in a separate article if, but only if, it complies with one or other of the following sub-paragraphs—").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35: Page 26, line 30, at end insert ("by regulations made by the Council (or, in relation to any single article, approved by the Council)—"). Page 26, leave out lines 40 to 46.

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I should like to suggest that we take Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 together. It has been agreed that the regulations governing the use of base metals in the manufacture of an article of otherwise precious metal should be made solely by the Council and the Secretary of State should abandon the regulation controlling the powers of the Hallmarking Council for which provision is made in the earlier versions of the Bill; that is, the Bill as originally introduced in another place. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Alterations to hallmarked articles]:

4.36 p.m.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 36: Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new clause:

Alterations to hallmarked articles

  1. ("4A.—(1) Subject to subsections (3) to (5) below, it shall be an offence for any person to make an addition, alteration or repair to an article bearing approved hallmarks, except in accordance with the written consent of an assay office.
  2. (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be an offence for any person to remove, alter or deface any mark struck on an article, except in accordance with the written consent of an assay office.
  3. (3) It shall not be an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above to batter an article so as to render it fit only for remanufacture.
  4. (4) It shall not be an offence under subsection (1) above to make an addition to an article which is not a new ware if the character of the article, and the purposes for which it can be used, remain unaltered and—
    1. (a) the addition is of the same precious metal as that of the article;
    2. (b) the metal added to the article is of a fineness not less than that of the metal of which the article was made; and
    3. (c) the amount of metal added does not exceed the lesser of—
      1. (i) I gram of gold, 5 grams of silver or 0.5 grams of platinum, as the case may be; and
      2. (ii) 50 per cent. of the weight of the article immediately before the addition was made.
  5. (5) It shall not be an offence under subsection (1) above to add a coating, of a thickness not exceeding 2 micrometres at any point, to the whole or any part of—
    1. (a) an article of gold, if the coating is of gold of a fineness not less than the standard of fineness of the article; or
    2. (b) an article of silver, if the coating is of silver of a fineness not less than the standard of fineness of the article; or
    3. (c) an article of silver, if the coating is of of gold or not less than the minimum fineness: or
      4. 712
    4. (d) an article of gold, silver or platinum, if the coating is of rhodium.
  6. (6) In giving any consent for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) above an assay office may make it a condition of the consent that the article concerned, or any addition made to it, be further assayed and struck with—
    1. (a) the sponsor's mark; and
    2. (b) such of the approved hallmarks as may be specified in directions issued by the Council for the purposes of this subsection or, in the absence of any such directions, such of the approved hallmarks as may be determined by the assay office.
  7. (7) If—
    1. (a) an application for consent under subsection (1) or (2) above has been refused by an assay office; and
    2. (b) the applicant has referred the matter to the Council, in writing;
  8. (8) Without prejudice to subsection (6) above, it shall be the duty of an assay office to whom a direction has been given under subsection (7) above to comply with the direction."

The noble Lord said: At this point we start a re-numbered Amendment and it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I take this rather more slowly. In this case the complete clause has been redrafted and set out in Amendment No. 36 as laid to-day. In yesterday's Marshalled List it appeared as Amendment No. 37. The clause reproduces in a more precise form what is substantially the existing law, and is intended to safeguard the integrity of hallmarks struck by assay offices against illegal alterations and additions made to articles which have been hallmarked. Unless the alteration is by way of an addition of precious metal in a small amount, as in the case of the repair of an article, the consent of an assay office to any alteration is required, and it is an offence to make such alterations without consent. These safeguards have been found to be essential and the criminal penalty to be fully justified if the very real risks of illegal interpretation and deception of the public are to be avoided.

The structure of the clause has been re-arranged. Subsection (1) makes it an offence for any alteration to be made to an article bearing approved hallmarks unless the written consent of the assay office is first obtained. Subsection (2) would make it an offence to remove, alter or deface any sponsor's mark, approved hallmark, or the words "filled" and "metal" when prescribed under Schedule 2 to the Bill; namely, to warn a purchaser that an article is filled or it has been partly made of a base metal.

Subsection (3) makes an exception of the battering of an article for remanufacturing purposes, which is an obvious exception. Subsection (4) affords certain further exemptions of what may be described as miniscule additions of the same precious metal so that the article which has been altered has been varied to only a small extent. Subsection (5) allows a coating of an article after hallmarking but only to a properly prescribed thickness of 2 micrometres. On Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, inquired about the substance "rolled gold". Perhaps I may give a layman's description of "rolled gold". It is a base metal with a coating applied. That is a rough description, but it will suffice in this case. This clause refers to a point which the noble Baroness very properly raised on Second Reading.

I should refer to the expression "micrometres" as it is new. Formerly in hallmarking we referred to microns; now "micrometres" is the "in" word. The two are precisely identical so far as measurement is concerned, but for the sake of a degree of uniformity this change has been thought to be desirable.

Subsection (6) entitles an assay office to insist on the re-assay and hallmarking of an article when their consent to a proposed alteration to an article is sought. Subsection (7) gives a right of appeal to an agreed applicant for consent to the Council—that is, the Hallmarking Council—and subsection (8) requires an assay office to abide by the Council's decision on appeal. I beg to move.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I am not going to impede the passage of this Amendment in any way, but, despite the noble Lord's explanations, which are very interesting, it seems that this new clause is only a rearrangement of the various subsections. I cannot even see any great difference in the penalties or the additions or the the descriptions in relation to rolled gold and so on. It is very satisfactory to have the provisions rearranged, but does it really serve any useful purpose? I have looked at it quite carefully and I cannot see any great difference. Perhaps the noble Lord could point out just one of the substantial differences.

LORD SANDYS

Parliamentary draftsmanship is an esoteric subject; it is a very esoteric subject in this particular case where we have a subject which is so technical that many of us find it extremely difficult to follow. I agree with what the noble Baroness has said in almost all respects. The draftsmanship is one of style rather than of substance, and here Parliamentary Counsel have advised that this form for the clause would be more readable and acceptable. This is the only explanation I can give to the noble Baroness.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I would not dare, of course, to question Parliamentary draftsmen, but at one stage I taught English grammar and I thought it was always preferable to say "it shall be" to "it shall not be". Now they seem to have moved into the negative, do they not? However, I would not dream of impeding.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [Counterfeiting, etc. of dies and marks]:

4.42 p.m.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 37: Page 8, line 34, after ("die") insert ("or any article bearing a counterfeit of a mark").

The noble Lord said: Once again, two Amendments, Nos. 37 and 38, are linked and I should like to deal with them together. These two Amendments constitute a substantial extension of the present scope of the clause but not of the law. I would emphasise that: the law is not being altered, but the substance of the clause is. The penalty provisions for forgery of hallmarks under this clause, indicated at the foot of page 8 of the Bill, are on indictment—and I stress that in excess of the penalty provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, applied with regard to other offences under the Bill by Clause 8. The penalty provisions of the Act are now proposed to be incorporated in the new Schedule 2A. In paragraph 1 of that new Schedule it will be seen that on summary conviction a fine not exceeding £400 is the maximum penalty, and on conviction on indictment a fine without limit or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both, are prescribed. The imprisonments prescribed at the foot of page 8 for forgery are much in excess of those general limits. I think it has concerned the assay offices that under Clause 6(1)(c) it is an offence for any person to utter or counterfeit a die, supply or offer to supply a die, when knowing it, or believing it, to be a counterfeit.

I think it would be for the satisfaction of the Committee to know that the expression "utter" is defined in the Bill; it is set out there. It is an unusual word in this context, but it has a very particular meaning. And the word "die" is further explained and described very accurately further on in the Bill. The offences mentioned in this clause are now brought more into line with the law between England and Scotland, and it is of considerable importance that these offences should be set out in this manner. This follows the existing law and the effect of the Bill as originally presented in the House of Commons some months ago. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

It may be of interest to noble Lords if I say that I support this Amendment. It carries further forward the possibility of bringing to book people who counterfeit; it makes it easier to do so. It does that because it extends the penalty for making a counterfeit of any die or mark to any article bearing a counterfeit of a mark. So it is not only the die itself but the articles on which the die is imprinted that will attract the penalties. I think this is right, and I support it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

I beg to move Amendment No. 38.

Amendment moved— Page 9, leave out from ("die") in line 9 to end of line 10 and insert ("or article bearing a counterfeit of a mark if knowing or believing the die or mark, as the case may be, to be a counterfeit, he supplies, offers to supply, or delivers the die or article.").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Treatment by assay offices of unauthorised marks]:

LORD SANDYS

I fear we are suffering from a particularly difficult problem in that all the Amendment numbers have been revised to-day, and what was set out yesterday as Amendment No. 40 is Amendment No. 39 to-day. It is a small point but nearly always makes procedure somewhat difficult. Amendment No. 39 is purely drafting, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 29, leave out ("an authorised manner") and insert ("a manner authorised under subsection (3) of this section").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

With permission I feel I should speak to Amendment No. 40. This is a further drafting Amendment, but the expression "ancient mark" now being defined in subsection (7) is a mark struck before December 22, 1854. This was the stopping point considered in an earlier Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 32, leave out ("a hallmark") and insert ("an ancient mark").—(Lord Sandys.)

VISCOUNT AMORY

I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Sandys would tell us a little about the technique of cancelling? From the context, I take it that cancelling is quite different from defacing.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

Before the noble Lord replies to that question, may I say that I am not quite clear why an ancient mark is not a hallmark, because from the consumer angle we have spoken all the time about the "hallmark". I am not quite clear why now we do not refer to a hallmark, because of the date, but we refer to "an ancient mark". Is it not an ancient hallmark?

LORD SANDYS

The noble Baroness is taxing me with an excellent point and it is one which I think bemuses those concerned with the production of this measure. Ancient marks, in certain cases, were marks struck by the assay offices with the agreement of the sponsors. There are historically cases where more than four marks were struck: in the period when the Plate Duty Act war in operation five marks were struck, so when this agreed date was reached the expression "ancient mark" was used. I hope the noble Baroness will accept this explanation. It is not entirely satisfactory, but I think for most purposes we can take it that "ancient mark" means "hallmark". But it is a fairly nebulous field and I should like to take advice from my colleagues before giving a further rendering of it.

VISCOUNT AMORY

Can my noble friend say something about the technique of cancelling? I take it that it does not mean the complete removal of the mark?

LORD SANDYS

I regret that I am not able to supply my noble friend Lord Amory with a satisfactory answer to his question. I have not on any occasion at the various offices seen this technique physically carried out on an article. I take it that he is referring to the physical act of the removal of a mark of some description.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I do not know whether I may be of help—and I hope I am right about this. I asked about this and I was told that cancellation could be done by putting on a cross above the hallmark, so as to avoid obliterating it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

Once again this is a purely drafting Amendment, consequential on the earlier inclusion in the Bill of the definition of the expression "improper alteration". I beg to move Amendment No. 41.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 36, leave out ("but").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 42.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 38, leave out from ("of") to ("or") in line 40 and insert ("an improper alteration").—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

4.55 p.m.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 43: After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:

Offences 7A. The provisions of Schedule (Provisions as to offences) to this Act shall have effect in relation to offences under this Act.

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are linked together. Amendment No. 43 inserts a new clause after Clause 7 and will be Clause 7A. This Amendment aims to reproduce Sections 18, 19, 20, 23 and 25 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The measure now before your Lordships owes a great debt to this particular Act, and indeed to its successor Act in 1972, in enabling this question of definition and consumer protection to be better placed. It has been thought that it would assist the reader if these provisions were set out in a Schedule rather than incorporated by reference to the Act of 1968. Legislation by reference is always difficult. If the section of the Act is incorporated in the Bill it is so obviously an advantage to the reader. I do not think I need enlarge on that. Provision is made in paragraph 6 of new Schedule 2A, which we shall come to in a moment, reflecting the defence of mistake, accident, et cetera, afforded under Section 24 of the Act of 1968 but in a much more limited form. These two Amendments are linked indissolubly in this respect. This matter has been the subject of considerable discussion with the Department of Trade and Industry and with Parliamentary Counsel, who are responsible for the redraft as a whole. It is to them that we can look, and we also thank them for the very sensible suggestion which has been put forward. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT AMORY

It strikes me that this is the sort of Amendment where it might be helpful to have just one word from my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn —if he feels like helping us—just to say whether this seems to be satisfactory in every way from the point of view of the Department.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Yes, willingly. The Government support this. There is one small point to which my noble friend did not refer. The duty to enforce the provisions of the Bill is laid by this Amendment on the weights and measures authorities. Power to enforce the provisions of this Bill is also conferred on the Council but not a similar duty to enforce the Bill. That is obviously right. It is very much part of their functions but not part of their duties to enforce the provisions of the Bill and the Council and the assay offices are not now given a duty to do so under the Bill but are given the power to do so. That is the right way to do it and fits in very well with the Trade Descriptions Act.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

There is one small point that I should like to raise. Perhaps I have misread this and again the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, can put me right. The new Schedule 2A says: A person guilty of an offence under this Act for which no other penalty is specified shall be liable—

  1. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400; and
  2. (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both."
But in Clause 6 we refer to: …conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. That appears to refer to any part of the Bill. There seems to me to be a slight conflict there.

LORD SANDYS

Once again I do not think that I should give a categorical answer without advice of Parliamentary Counsel because the noble Baroness has referred to the Bill as a whole, and without going through it clause by clause it would be misleading to your Lordships if I said anything further. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that at this stage.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

Yes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDYS

Amendment No. 44 was linked with the earlier Amendment. I do not think I should speak further to this Amendment unless there is some specific matter that your Lordships may feel I should refer to. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Schedule 2 insert the following new Schedule—