I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With new Clause 2, if it is for the convenience of the House, we are to discuss the following:

The clause replaces the existing Clause 1 in its entirety. The reason is that, gratefully, we have l|ad the assistance of parliamentary counsel in amending some of the drafting of the Bill. We had to employ private parliamentary draftsmen to write the Bill, and it is only right that I should pay tribute to their work. They prepared the Bill from scratch in almost record time. That we have today 80 or more amendments on the Order Paper is no reflection on their skill. Rather, it shows their flexibility in being able to accept a large number of drafting amendments to try to make this complicated legislation as near perfect as possible.

The new clause is germane to the whole purpose of the Bill. It deals with the whole new principle that the Bill introduces. Therefore, it might be helpful if I explained the purpose of the Bill as set out in the clause.

Why should hallmarking be of interest and importance to the general public? I should like to divide the reasons into four separate items.

First, although not many individuals possess very much gold or silver, scarecly a family in the land does not have one piece of precious metal in its possession, even if it is only the wedding ring of the mother of the household. Little trinkets, such as studs and cuff links, are also possessed by almost everyone. Added together, they constitute a substantial amount of national wealth.

The second reason for the Bill is that the wealthy are fully able to protect themselves when purchasing valuable articles. The man who spends thousands of pounds on a piece of silver, gold or jewellery can well look after himself. He can employ professional advisers to advise him on the quality and purity of what he is buying.

In 1959, when the Stone Committee reported, it was apparent that 95 per cent. of all articles of gold or silver purchased were of a retail value of under £10. In view of the change in the value of money, I am inclined to say that today about 90 per cent. of all articles of gold and silver purchased are of a value of under £25. It is the smaller purchasers that require the protection given by hallmarking.

In the hallmarking process the article, usually in an unfinished state, is taken to one of the four assay offices, where it is sampled by scraping off pieces of metal and testing them, ensuring that they come up to the approved standards of purity. In dealing with various later amendments we shall have a good deal to say on the subject of fineness and purity.

Having ensured that the article is of the correct standard, the assay office puts marks on it—the mark of the maker, the mark of the office, the mark of the metal and standard and, finally, the mark of the date. That is the world-famous British hallmark. That hallmark lasts throughout the life of the article. While many other things—for example, furniture—decay and are forgotten, pieces of gold and silver have an exceptionally long life. They are often handed down from father to son or sold and bought again as secondhand goods. In some cases that process may continue for many hundreds of years. The hallmark, as a sign of quality, stays with the article throughout its long life.

The incidental benefits of hallmarking that come from putting a special mark on a precious article—for example, the date of the article for collectors' purposes —serve to identify an article that has been taken in a burglary. Many other incidental benefits come from an article's having upon it a British hallmark. To the manufacturer the interest lies in a cheap, reliable and independent form of quality control. The assay offices are well trusted by the trade. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State feels that on occasions they are too well trusted by the trade. However, after about 300 years of working together it is scarcely surprising that an excellent relationship has been built up.

Let no manufacturer try to pass a substandard article, or he will find a penalty imposed upon him. If the article concerned is substandard it is smashed, and the workmanship and time put into creating the article is lost. If a brass blank passes by mistake through a sample of gold rings—I have known this happen —it will be found that the sample will take an unconscionably long time to be assayed. In the meanwhile the manufacturer will have his money tied up in articles held in the assay office.

The retailer can be certain that if he buys a hallmarked article for sale in his shop it is of a quality and standard that is acknowledged to be correct. In the granting of makers' marks the assay offices pay attention to the standard of the makers' workmanship. Although that is not an official function of the assay offices, over the years that they have been in existence it can be accepted that the standard of British gold and silver and the craftsmanship which has been maintained over the last few hundred years have been such that they are acknowledged world-wide to be as good as any.

Other interested parties, such as Government Departments and consumer protection associations, have a subsidiary interest in the preservation of the hallmarking system.

The general purposes of the Bill are fairly simple. First, it consolidates more than 30 statutes. It updates existing legislation and includes platinum, with which we shall be dealing in a later clause. It also sets up the British Hallmarking Council, on which I assure the House there will be a debate later.

Clause 1 sets out the main offence under the Bill. There is some departure from previous practice. At present it is illegal to manufacture and sell substandard articles of gold and silver. That now has certain ill side-effects on such people as exporters who wish to sell substandard silver abroad but are not allowed to do so under our present laws. Therefore, a slight but crucial alteration has been made in the method by which hallmarking is applied in this country.

11.15 a.m.

We have made it an offence to offer for sale in the course of trade or business gold, silver and platinum unless—first, and most important—the article has been assayed and found to be up to standard and marked, and unless the article falls within the list of exemptions as set out in the schedule—namely, if the description "plated" or "rolled" is used as a qualifying description of the article or, unless beyond reasonable doubt, the description gold or silver does not apply to the article.

There are all sorts of problems in connection with the latter point. Let us consider, for example, a Golden Delicious apple or a box of All Gold chocolates. Such articles can hardly be hallmarked. Equally, no one purchasing those articles seriously believes that they are made of gold. I noticed with interest on my journeys on the underground last week some advertisements describing a silver-plated vitality pill. I am assured that those advertisements fall within the present law.

The possibility of misunderstanding that might take place should be explained. An article of gold or silver can still be sold if it is substandard gold or silver. The offence is not to describe it as sub- standard. That means that there is a deliberate loophole to allow innocent parties who have a gold coloured article to sell it. However, they must not delude the public into thinking that the article is of the standard of gold or silver. We have all seen articles abroad that are made to look like gold and silver and that are sold as such. That will not be allowed when the Bill becomes law. The words used in new Clause 2 are:

"… in the course of a trade or business—"

There has been a considerable amount of criticism from third parties that those words will allow a loophole, and that the unscrupulous jeweller, who has in his hands an article which is of substandard gold or silver, knowing that in the course of a trade or business he cannot describe it as such and sell it, will perhaps ask a friend to go down the road to see whether he can sell it privately. I pressed that this provision should be included in the Bill, but I have been subsequently convinced that there is no specific need for it. The Trade Descriptions Act has been the law of the land for some time. The Department of Trade and Industry has gained considerable experience in the working of that Act. It has been found, particularly in the selling of secondhand motor cars, that a second offence or a subsequent offence has been interpreted by the courts as in the course of a trade or business. Let there be a warning to the unscrupulous. Let them not think that by sending an individual to do their dirty work they can get away with it. They may get away with it on the first occasion, but they will not do so subsequently.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the different case of the perfectly innocent pawnbroker who receives a forged gold cup and who writes down on his pawn ticket, "Gold cup"? Will that broker be committing an offence under the new clause?

I do not think that he will be committing an offence if he writes, "Gold Cup" on the pawn ticket. If he puts the article in his window for sale and describes it as a gold cup he will, as I understand it, be committing an offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a far better lawyer than I am —indeed, I am not a lawyer. I am sure that he will be fully capable of interpreting the Bill.

The other and valid argument against including the words "any person knowingly" is that there could well be an occasion when an innocent individual, such as a solicitor responsible for an executor who is selling up a house or something of that nature, was unwittingly caught. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to introduce legislation that might catch the purely innocent. Moreover, it is scarcely administrable. Who. for example, would be able to oversee individuals in this way? Thus, perhaps somewhat reluctantly, I have bowed to legal advice and I have tabled an amendment to this effect. I think that this aspect of the matter is now closed.

It might be helpful to the House if I explain briefly new Clause 2, since the matter is one of substantial detail. If I use some legalistic language, it is because we are all anxious to ensure that hon. and learned Members should in no way be deluded by the complexity of the wording which, I acknowledge, is extremely complicated. I am the first to admit that I cannot take in every single line. A parliamentary counsel has kindly given his attention to the Bill and the amendments to the new clause reflect his advice. The gist and meaning of the new clause are exactly the same as new Clause 1, which has passed through the House to this stage.

Subsection (1) of new Clause 2 is the basis of the Bill and is in form similar to Section 1(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. This was another reason for leaving out the words "any persons knowingly". The Act does not contain those words. We owe a substantial debt to the Act in this Bill, but it is because hallmarking is a rather special form of consumer protection and of a highly technical nature that, over the years, both Labour and Conservative Governments have been persuaded of the necessity for having special legislation for hallmarking and not including it in the Trade Descriptions Act.

The permissible quality descriptions in Part I of the new Schedule were formerly in the old Clause 1. Part II of the new Schedule down to paragraph 14 is virtually the same as in the former Schedule 1. However, articles exempt subject only to their being of certain fineness are distinguished more clearly by being included under the sub-heading of paragraphs 10 to 14—

"Articles exempt subject to fineness."

Paragraphs 15 to 17 of the new Schedule reflect what was formerly in Clause l(2)(a), but to assist the reader of the Bill it describes a number of articles presently exempt from hallmarking by virtue of past legislation. It is one of the major faults in the present legislation that exemptions built up over the centuries have become out of date and useless for practical purposes. Indeed, I go so far as to say that the present list of exemptions is a substantial hindrance to certain manufacturing industries. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is aware of this, and it is one of the reasons why the Government have lent their support to the Bill.

Unfortunately, in connection with exemptions, because of the complexity of altering them at one fell swoop, we have been forced to introduce legislation which can only be enacted by order, because there are very good reasons for allowing the trade to have time from the passing of the Bill to the time when an order might be introduced to reorganise so as to take account of the change in the law. We shall, I hope, within the next three to five years be able to persuade the Department of the necessity of introducing the order under the Bill.

Part III of the new Schedule is a provision new to the Bill and is intended simply to provide that if a person describes the fineness of an article in carats he shall, for the purposes of the Bill, be deemed to describe it in the equivalent millesimals. A millesimal is shorthand for parts per thousand. A pure article is 1000 and anything less is a fraction of a thousand. A carat is a 24th part and it is felt by some people that transferring from carats, which are to some extent less intelligible, to millesimals will be of assistance to the consumers. I see the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) laughing. I cannot blame him, since these matters even bemuse the experts on occasions.

We feel that it would be wrong to drop altogether the very well-known and accepted word "carat". While perhaps it is not fully understood by the public in all its complexities, there is no doubt knowledge that a 9-carat piece is half as good as an 18-carat piece and that a 22-carat piece is the best available on the market. I shall not get involved in discussing the quality or otherwise of 9-carat gold. We deliberately avoided dealing with this difficult matter in the Bill because, although it is only one-third part pure gold, it is well accepted and has been in existence for more than 120 years and a number of manufacturers rely for their prosperity on making 9-carat articles. Therefore, we declined to grasp the bull by the horns, as was recommended by some consumer interests, and remove it as a standard.

This Bill is more about the testing of standards than about laying down standards. We have introduced no new standards except that for platinum. Platinum is an ultra precious metal more than twice as valuable as gold. It has been in use as a jewellery metal for a good number of years now. Until recently, it has presented a problem to assay offices in tests for purity. But new methods of metallurgical analysis enable them to carry out such tests quite easily and reasonably cheaply, and it was therefore felt that the introduction of the Bill was a suitable moment at which to introduce platinum into the hallmarking laws.

These remarks have to some extent not only introduced new Clause 2 but have explained to the House the background and the purposes of the Bill. I have done this because the Bill obtained its Second Reading "on the nod". I hope hon. Members will feel that the Bill, although complicated and lengthy in its content, is simple and worthy in its objective.

I am sure that the House welcomes the initiative of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) in introducing the Bill, and provided that he can give an undertaking that the next private Member's Bill he introduces is not one to start millesimal coinage, I think he will get general support for his amendments today.

I am still left with one doubt in regard to new Clause 2. It is one which I expressed in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I indicated a certain affection for the BBC television programme, "Going for a Song". I am anxious to maintain that no one appearing on that programme should inadvertently be guilty of an offence under Clause 1 as it is or as it may be altered by these amendments.

I have already aired the example of the perfectly innocent pawnbroker. I am doubtful about this aspect. I can see that one cannot stop every possible gap and there has to be some point at which one relies on common sense and so on. But I wonder about these examples. First, there is the pawnbroker who in good faith describes as a gold cup what has been lodged with him as a gold cup. New Clause 1(1) says:

"… any person who, in the course of a trade or business—

(a) applies to an unhallmarked article a description indicating that it is wholly or partly made of gold …"

and so forth.

It seems that a pawnbroker would be acting in the course of his trade or business and would be applying to an unhallmarked article a description indicating that it was made of gold. That is my worry. As for the programme "Going for a Song", I still have the worry about whether the compere or chairman of the programme, who is presumably conducting a trade or business, namely that of entertainment, may be technically guilty of an offence in saying, "This is a gold cup. What do you make of it?" This may be a remote instance but it is worrying.

What about the situation when forged articles are provided for educational or entertainment purposes? The hon. Gentleman will remember that he came very close to the wind under the clause when he supplied to the Committee certain forged metals and asked us to distinguish them from genuine metals, which he also supplied.

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be prepared to accept the privileges of the House on such an occasion.

The question is whether these privileges should be extended to perfectly innocent business men who are doing something quite properly in the course of their trade or business.

The other example concerns the solicitor who, in dealing with the executory articles, describes something as gold when it is forged. Another example that occurs to me in the same vein is that of the banker who receives a forged, or at least not hallmarked, gold article to lodge in a safe deposit. Both these gentlemen would be running pretty close to the terms of the clause.

I echo the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). In a sense we have been here before, because we discussed this at some length in Committee. I am grateful for the close scrutiny that my hon. Friend for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has given to the points that have been raised.

This is an extremely complex subject and I am still deeply troubled about this business of "knowingly for gain", because that is the criminal offence. If a person knowingly does something for gain, if he is fully aware that an article is not what it is purported and represented to be, that is a criminal offence. These points were developed in Committee but it is no disservice to the House to repeat them briefly.

As the hon. and learned Member said, when we are dealing with articles which demand a certain specialised knowledge the problem is that we are venturing outside the normal area of consumer protection. We can expect the ordinary man in the street to be able to tell whether most articles are real or fake. Let us consider antique silver. There is a tremendous boom in this at present. People collect it avidly and treasure it. Because of this the counterfeiters have exploited the market to some degree.

I do not wish to exaggerate the situation but there are a number of counterfeit pieces on the market at any one time. Those who perpetrate the crime should be properly punished. But, by the same token, when these articles, as occasionally happens, fall into the hands of collectors who through inexperience, naivety or anything else believe them to be genuine, it would be rather unfair if they were put in the position of having committed a criminal offence in selling such pieces. We have to recognise that collectors are buying or selling from time to time to enhance their collections.

We come back to this question of "knowingly for gain". I do not believe it is the function of the House to put, say, a solicitor, a pawnbroker or a doting grandmother making a gift to a grandchild, in peril of being put into the dock as a criminal if they believe an article to be genuine and sell it or make a gift of it. This troubles me but I understand what my hon. Friend said and why he said it. With these words of caution and anxiety, I will not press my objection further at this stage.

As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) pointed out, in moving the clause, it replaces Clause 1. It is linked with other amendments and the new Schedule, Amendment No. 79. It redrafts those important parts of the Bill considerably but does not basically alter it in any fundamental way. It seeks to clarify a very complicated position. There are matters of degree in the clarification of complicated positions. The hon. Gentleman said these were matters which bemused even the experts. I accept that they are highly technical amendments to what is a highly technical Bill and that clarification must be a matter of degree. But I welcome the clause as a successful attempt to clarify this situation.

The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said in Committee that it had taken 400 or 500 years of legislation to reach a state of confusion. He said then that he had listened to representations made by all the interested parties. In bringing forward these amendments he has shown that he is continuing to adopt this attitude. He warned hon. Members in Committee that a number of amendments would be likely on Report. We entirely accept that situation and recognise that the Clause and the associated amendments which arise from further advice and representations are designed to meet the requirements expressed in Committee. I welcome this clause.

The clause retains the expression

"in the course of a trade or business ".

The hon. Member dealt in detail with the reason for retaining that expression. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) expressed some reservations, as did the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). The phrase was discussed in great detail in Committee. I do not wish to repeat that discussion but it is right that hon. Members should have expressed some reservations about whether these words should be retained. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare moved an amendment in Committee to delete these words but after detailed debate it was withdrawn.

Thus the clause retains these words and all that they entail. Much of the whole principle of the Bill is contained in the first clause. As hon. Members are aware this is not an unusual situation. There have been many occasions, when most of the basic principles of a Bill have been dealt with once the first clause has been disposed of.

It is worth while putting on record what is the fundamental principle of the Bill. It is to protect the ordinary consumer in the light of modern conditions. The Bill is valuable in bringing up to date what has been described as 400 or 500 years of legislation which has merely resulted in a state of confusion. There is a need to protect the consumer and this is what the Bill is about. The Bill has the support of all parties in the House with, I presume, the exception of members of the Liberal Party who, not unusually, are absent from their places. The Bill certainly has the support of the Labour Party. We shall seek to facilitate its progress on Report as we did in Committee. However, we shall not abrogate our duty to make all sponsors of amendments justify all aspects of the amendments. We shall reserve our position in all cases until we have heard all the argument.

However, new Clause No. 2 is clearly justified. It has been put before us in a clear and able manner by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, and I hope that it will receive the support of the House.

This is the first time that the Bill has been debated on the Floor of the House, and I am sure that it would be the wish of everyone to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on bringing forward a long and complicated piece of legislation dealing with a necessary law reform which has been needed for some time.

It was decided in 1955 to set up a Departmental Committee to consider the state of the law on the subject of hallmarking and precious metals and to make recommendations for its revision. Subsequently invaluable work was done by the committee under the chairmanship of Sir Leonard Stone. His report, published in 1959, shed new light on a subject often obscured by mystique and revealed a fairly chaotic state of the law which had been allowed to grow up, rather like Topsy, over the centuries, accumulating not only serious inconsistencies but a good deal of plain nonsense on the way, with the result that a considerable amount of it was not enforced. Many of the committee's recommendations plainly inspired some of the Bill's features, and the completeness of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare deserves congratulations.

The Department was about to issue certain conclusions on the subject of hallmarking when, as a result of the ballot on Private Members' Bills, my hon. Friend announced that he intended to deal with this subject. I immediately made available to him the results of our inquiries, and I am glad to see that many of our ideas are reflected in his Bill. I am also happy to indicate, although it was obvious in Committee, that the Government are ready to give their support to the Bill, with one or two exceptions, which will be dealt with today.

Hallmarking has been with us for over six centuries and can well lay claim to be the oldest form of consumer protection. Some people think that consumer protection is a new phenomenon, brought about only perhaps in the last 15 or so years. But that is not the case. Articles made from precious metals, particularly gold, have long held a special place in people's minds, although it seems clear that in the past, as now, the decision to create special laws to govern such articles stemmed mainly from perhaps more mundane reasons. Unless alloyed with base metals, precious metals may be too soft to withstand wear and, therefore, mixing of precious metals and base metals is usually a necessity. That is the reason for the need to be able to assess the fineness of the article.

11.45 a.m.

But debasement of the precious metals can be carried to fairly considerable lengths before it becomes readily apparent to the eye. This opens the door for the dishonest worker or trader to mislead his customer. In the days when wealth was commonly stored in articles of precious metal it became essential to have some guarantee that the article contained the proper proportion of precious metal—the trouble today perhaps is that there are not as many gold coins in circulation as many of us would like to see—but those days are largely past. I do not know anybody who buys or sells by using gold or, for that matter, silver.

Few people nowadays buy articles of precious metal worth more than a fairly small amount of money. I was interested to see figures issued by the London Assay Office about assays which it had carried out during December last year which indicated that the average weight of a gold article was five grammes and the average weight of a silver article was 40 grammes. In other words, the precious metal content averaged in value no more than about £2.

The Stone Committee noted the phenomenon that most articles of precious metal are of relatively low value. As it concerns the new clause, may I remind the House of part of paragraph 12 of the Stone Report, which reads:

"Whereas it might be suggested that anyone who can afford to buy an antique can also afford to pay for expert advice, that argument does not apply to the purchasers of the vast majority of gold and silver articles which are sold today… the evidence is that about 95 per cent. of the new gold and silver articles sold today retail at less than £10. This is the market in which the public need the most protection and in which standards of fineness and the prevention of adulteration … are most essential ".

That was stated 14 years ago, but the passage of those 14 years has not affected the validity of the argument.

Although we have the Trade Descriptions Act, which offers protection against misdescription and contains powers under which we could lay down statutory meanings for gold, silver and platinum and under which we could require articles made from them to be marked with their composition and millesimal marks or other marks, we could not require those marks to be applied only by the assay offices. Here I wish to pay tribute to the work which the assay offices have done over the many centuries. Therefore, under this Bill, or the Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend, when it becomes an Act, we shall be able to retain the hallmarking system which commands universal respect at home and, equally important, overseas.

I am glad to note that in the new Clause the basis of law is to be the prohibition of the use of the descriptive words "gold", "silver" and "platinum" unless the descriptions are supported by a hallmark. The problems which the absence of a definition of these terms created formed one of the features of the Stone Report. I am glad that the Bill abandons the principle that it is illegal to produce goods which fail to meet the legal minimum standard for the metal concerned. The reason for this is that such provision is clearly ineffective in preventing the circulation of such wares. Coupled with the provision on sub-standard wares it applies to many pieces of historical or artistic merit or even of sentimental value would be at quite unjustified peril of destruction.

The Bill at last, therefore, frees our manufacturers to produce whatever goods the consumer wishes to buy provided that at the same time they do not mislead as to the amount and the standard of fineness of the precious metal they contain.

I in no way want to take away from the sponsor of the Bill in speaking in this debate but it would seem to me that it might be helpful, since the problem about "knowingly" has been raised, if I were to try to give certain assurances which I have obtained from a considerable amount of legal advice as this matter applies within the Bill.

As I understand the situation, the legislation would obviously be able to catch the man who fraudulently does this. There is no doubt about that. Then comes the factor or the person who may be in league with a jeweller of rather low repute who is attempting continually to bring on to the market articles which he knows to be sub-standard and which he is describing as gold or silver. The position here, I am assured, is that the law in a number of different areas will deal with the problem of anybody who commits the offence more than once. There may be a difficulty—I undeline it no more than that—in catching the person who does it the first time, and prosecuting him as thoroughly as some people would like, but the moment the offence has been committed twice, the Trade Descriptions Act has already proved that that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare made clear—is considered to be in the course of trade or business. When it is committed the first time, we would have to be able to establish that the man was an agent. The agency factor goes much further than might have been expected judging from some of the speeches of hon. Members in Committee. The agency factor would again allow a method of being able to prosecute the individual.

What we are doing is trying to ensure that people do not unwittingly commit an offence without ever knowing about it. It seems to me that we make the law an ass if we try to suggest that people commit offences who unwittingly are breaking the law while having no knowledge or realisation of the fact. That is why I believe my hon. Friend has been so wise to draft this provision in this way. It seems to me that he has gone all the way round to be able to deal with a situation where there is fraud or an agency or liaison while meeting the point about, say, the old-age pensioner or somebody perhaps even selling a wedding ring—a ghastly thought—and then suddenly finding that that was an offence. The idea that he would be committing an offence in such a circumstance is terrifying and I am certain that no hon. Member of the House would want it to be an offence.

I welcome this new clause because I believe that it goes a long way to setting the matter right.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for meeting one of the points which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) and I raised. I am most grateful for this categorical assurance which has gone a long way to removing my anxieties and doubts.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know he was con- cerned about this matter and it was for this reason, I thought, that, although this is not a Government Bill, it would be helpful to him and to others concerned with the Bill if I examined this matter in some depth and, if the occasion arose, as it has, made the knowledge available to the House.

With the leave of the House, I would comment on two matters since I was asked a direct question.

I refer the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) to subsection (9) of the new clause, which refers to Section 39(2) of the Trade Descriptions Act and it may be helpful if I read it out:

"For the purposes of this Act, a trade description or statement published in any newspaper, book or periodical or in any film or sound or television broadcast shall not be deemed to be a trade description applied or statement made in the course of a trade or business unless it is or forms part of an advertisement."

That rather conclusively deals with the hon. and learned Member's point.

I am most appreciative of the kind remarks made by hon. Members and the support of the Opposition, as stated by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins).

There is a rather important matter which perhaps should have been mentioned in response to previous representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), namely, the change in date in the new schedule which we are debating with this new clause. Knowledgeable hon. Members will appreciate that circulating in this country is a good deal of antique silver which for one reason or another escaped the net of the assay offices in previous generations. In particular, a considerable amount of imported silver brought over by immigrants has escaped the attention of Customs or of individuals failing to observe the laws of the day. Much of this silver has now acquired an antique value far in excess of its value as gold or silver. It is not marked, and its sale at the moment is illegal. This has put considerable difficulties in the way of the antique trade and auction houses. The Government have been most helpful over this and we have now agreed that the date before which exemption shall continue shall be 1900. Queen Victoria's death, which took place a year or two later, marked a substantial change in design of gold and silver. The date 21st December 1902 is not a very tidy date, and we feel that 1900 is one everybody can remember. The onus of proof is dealt with in the Bill. I will not take up the time of the House by dealing with it now, but we are providing that silver made before 1900 can be sold without a mark in the normal course of trade or business.

I should be abusing my privilege if I were to reply in any greater detail, but I must thank my hon. Friend the Undersecretary for his kindness towards me as sponsor of the Bill, for the help that his Department has given, and for his part in Committee in helping with a lengthy and complex Bill. I know that this extra work makes an especially heavy load for him. His explanation of the reason for excluding the words "any person knowingly" was far more enlightened and conclusive than mine. I am sure that the House must now be convinced of the reasons— [Interruption.] I am reminded by my historian friend behind me that Queen Victoria died in 1901. Nevertheless, the point is the same; that is still not a particularly tidy date.

On a point of order. Is it possible to move a manuscript amendment at this stage? With my hon. Friend's help, I have noticed that in line 16 of the new Clause there is a mistake. The word "overstating" should be "understating". This is an important matter and I would, with your help, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like to move an amendment to correct the position.

Perhaps I may explain. If a 9-carat article is sold as an 18-carat one, that obviously is—

Order. Perhaps a long explanation here is not called for. I have had very little notice of this amendment, and I am not empowered to accept a manuscript amendment.

Further to that point of order. Since this is merely a drafting error, we could conveniently deal with it in another place. That would seem to me the easiest answer, with your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

It may be convenient to discuss at the same time the following:

Amendment No. 15, in Clause 6, page 9, line 26, leave out from 'an' to end of line 30 and insert ' improper alteration'.

Amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 22, leave out from 'any' to end of line 23 and insert' improper alteration'.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

This clause, which is intended to become Clause 2 of the Bill, has also been drafted with the assistance of parliamentary counsel. It incorporates definitions of fundamental importance in an early part of the Bill. Subsection (1) sets out the definition of approved hallmarks which is at present in Clause 20, but with an important addition. There is now specific inclusion of reference to convention hallmarks, to make it clearer that the Secretary of State intends, by order, at some future time to provide for recognition of hallmarks prescribed by the Convention on the Control and Marking of Articles of Precious Metals, November 1972, to which the United Kingdom is a party, and to enable United Kingdom assay offices to strike such convention marks on articles submitted to them where appropriate.

It also has the "vice versa" effect under the convention that is to be ratified, of making other people's marks acceptable in this country. This provision represents an initial step taken by this country and to the credit of this country, and particularly to the credit of those officials of the assay offices concerned, particularly the two Assay Masters of Birmingham and London, who have put in considerable work, with the aid of DTI officials, to persuade other countries of the virtue of our system.

Under the old EFTA arrangements we obtained a considerable degree of approval, and a convention has been signed—or a draft convention: I am not fully cognisant of the machinery of such matters. It would be silly to pass a law now, knowing that ratification of the convention was likely in future, without taking into account our knowledge of the existence of this convention. One hopes that we can lead the European Community in hallmarking in future. France and Holland already have compulsory systems of well-proven and well-trusted credibility, and it is to be hoped that on some date in the long-term future we shall get other countries to agree to our system.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 19 are drafting and consequential.

The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) rightly said that the new clause introduces important definitions and defines much more clearly the position in relation to hallmarks. It defines our approved hallmarks in some detail and it is a welcome innovation. It is also welcome in that it introduces the recognition of convention hallmarks, because this brings in the subject of imports and exports and a much wider range than the United Kingdom alone.

Subsection (1)(b) makes some reference to Dublin hallmarks before 1923. I do not think that there is any particular significance in the City of Dublin Assay Office but there may be some significance in the selection of the date—exactly 50 years ago. Some explanation would be useful.

I also wonder about the multifarious regulations that exist in or are likely to come from the European Commission. The hon. Member has said that we have taken a world lead in hallmarks, which probably makes my question hypothetical, but some further information from the sponsor and, perhaps, the Under Secretary would be welcome. The Commission may not yet have got around to this, but it will do so sooner or later.

One point that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) did not dwell on is the fact that under subsection (4), if an article is significantly altered—if, for instance, a beer mug is turned into a cream jug. or a tankard into a coffee pot by the addition of spouts and different handles—an offence will be committed unless the altered article is sent back to the assay office for the alterations to be duly stamped. I regret to say that many unscrupulous dealers try to pass off unfashionable articles as genuine antique coffee pots, and so on, when they are no such thing. It may be useful to underline this in the House, so that if it is taken up and reported outside people will be aware that that sort of thing is a very real offence, and is caught effectively by the new clause.

In no way do I want to intervene in the position of the sponsor of the Bill. However, it seemed to me that the question put by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) was directed more to the Government than to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). So that I may stay in order, I shall introduce the answer to the question. The new clause makes it quite clear that the definition marks which are applied overseas in conformity with an international convention to which the United Kingdom is a party would be included within the Bill. That obviously makes very good common sense. Indeed, the EFTA convention, which no doubt the hon. Gentleman has seen and studied, and to part of which we may be returning during the passage of the Bill, sets out standards of fineness.

The question I was asked was about what was happening within the EEC. There are no draft regulations or directives. However, a working party is working very much in line with the EFTA convention. It looks as though the method along which it would want to work is the use of the millesimal mark, which has become fairly widely understood throughout the world.

Therefore, the answer is that the United Kingdom will be taking a lead, with the basis of the EFTA convention as being the way in which this matter is most likely to go in the future.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This means that any developments are likely to follow the lines initiated here, which we are considering in the Bill. Although it is difficult to foretell the future, this matter is not likely to go contrary to the way in which we are dealing with it.

I cannot foretell the future. If I overstate the case, it may be misleading. It appears that this is the direction in which we are moving. I feel fairly confident that the Bill is, therefore, running in the direction of any future European decisions and not against them. It is very likely that we shall be taking a lead in some ways, so that what is in the Bill will fit automatically into the method which, perhaps, some of the Europeans will adopt.

The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) asked me a specific question about the year 1922. This has to do with the Independence of Ireland Act. The year 1922 was its effective date. Prior to that time, Dublin had an assay office, in the same way as had the rest of the United Kingdom. Dublin still has an assay office which enjoys a close liaison with the United Kingdom assay offices, but because Eire is a foreign country we cannot include that in our legislation.

The hon. Gentleman rightly stated that we had a world lead in this matter of legislation, subject to the passing of the Bill.

As our existing legislation is antique, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) mentioned the question of alterations. It has become a great fad in America that the ordinary domestic chamber pot should be used as a punch bowl. Those Americans who are fortunate enough to come across such an article in solid silver may be pleased to know that we have them firmly in mind in the legislation at present.

My hon. Friend's point is correct. Substantial alteration is an important matter. An article that starts off as silver and is subsequently altered in a material way can fall without the law. The warning my hon. Friend gives is sensible.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary explained most clearly the Governments view on the future of these matters. I like to think that in this relatively small but nevertheless important piece of international co-operation we—I shall not say "for once" but "in a particular matter" —will lead the world.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this we are to take Amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 22, leave out Clause 5.

The clause has caused a considerable amount of concern among my legal advisers, as this, again, is a very complicated matter. A considerable number of other pieces of legislation on the statute book affect it.

The new clause is effectively a revision of Clause 5 in the amended Bill. This clause, too, has been drafted with the help of parliamentary counsel. But in this case the assay offices and their advisers have given rather more than usual attention to this matter as it applies also to Scotland, and this creates extra-special difficulties.

The Law Commission has also been dealing with the whole question of forgery. The Commission has taken an interest in the composition of the clause. In particular, the Commission's interest in the proposals for the codification of criminal law also applies to the clause, so that the Commission will not in the future require to alter it. Again, this is looking into the future a little, but we are quite used to this in dealing with this kind of legislation.

The new clause is a little less harsh in some respects than both the existing law, by the Forgery Act 1913, and Clause 5 as introduced. For example, there is a greater emphasis on criminal intent as a necessary element, so that under paragraph (d) possession of a forged die or article, even by a dealer, is not an offence unless he knows it to be forged.

The new clause is particularly valuable in bringing the law of Scotland and the law of England into conformity. I would not wish to go into legal arguments about that, particularly with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). I think he would agree, however, that that is basically a good thing.

The Forgery Act 1913 did not apply in Scotland. Forgery there is only a crime at common law when combined with "uttering". The hon. and learned Member can refer to subsection (3) of the new clause for a defintion of that expression.

Consistent with the existing law, subsection (1) provides for higher maximum penalties than otherwise arise under the Bill, forgery here being proposed to give rise to a maximum fine of £400 on summary conviction and to a fine without limit or imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years on conviction on indictment. Some hon. Members may think that those penalties are severe. I accept that they are. But so they should be. Under the Forgery Act the term of imprisonment can be up to 14 years. It may be of interest to the House to know that until 1888 forgery in Scotland was a capital offence. Even today, I understand that the penalty for that crime in this instance could be life imprisonment. We are thus bringing the penalties more in line with modern thinking. The Forgery Act has a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 14 years. I think that we can claim to be a little more reasonable in maximum penalties. Nevertheless, it is right and proper that penalties should be severe.

It may be of help to those who are interested in this matter to refer to Clause 1 where the basic penalty for an offence under the Bill is a maximum of £400, as in the Trade Descriptions Act. Therefore, it is fair to say that it will not pay the criminal to break this law. In my view, that is as it should be.

I welcome the new clause without any qualifications. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has obviously done a great deal of homework and his advisers nave produced an extremely effective and clear clause to replace Clause 5. If the House accepts the new clause as a satisfactory substitute for Clause 5, my Amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 4, leave out "means" and insert "includes", will fall. I am glad to note that the point I was making in that amendment has been met in this new clause.

I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that we have taken cognisance of his views.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 29, leave out from first 'design' to 'as' in line 30.

The only amendment to this clause is to leave out the words in parentheses. These words were included in conformity with the proposals for the Bill prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry. It might be helpful to explain that when I approached the Department with a view to introducing the Bill it agreed to give its full co-operation subject to certain guidelines. These guidelines have been thrashed out over three years or more between the Joint Committee of Assay Offices and officials of the Department. There was no question but that the Joint Committee was in basic agreement with this point. This amendment is the result of those consultations.

The words have the effect of requiring any sponsor's mark for the assay offices themselves to be of a common single design, or they did originally. However, the assay offices would like to have different sponsors' marks for each office and the Department has now, I think, sensibly agreed.

The point is that there are some tiny manufacturers who make very few articles and therefore scarcely qualify to have their own registered mark. Some maker's mark must be put on these articles and the office do this from a standard mark. It is fair that each office should have its own standard maker's mark.

I should only add that the amendment continues a practice which obviously the assay offices value. Whilst it might be considered to be a slight complication, I understand that this is the way that it has worked in the past. Therefore, I see no reason to object to the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 7, line 24, leave out '(i)' and insert '(i)(a)'.

With this amendment I think it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are formal drafting amendments. Amendment No. 11 relates to a new matter. Therefore, it might help if I say something about it.

The purpose of the amendment is to allow the coating of a metal to be placed on an article after hallmarking. The House will probably agree that that is a significant matter. A provision is made that this coating shall be no thicker than 2 microns, which is so thin that in most cases it will probably wear off extremely quickly.

The purpose of the amendment is to allow the trade to carry on a practice which is quite common. On occasion manufacturers coat, say, a 9-carat gold article, marked as 9-carat, with 18-carat gold to improve its appearance. The purchaser can tell from the mark that it is only 9-carat gold. This is really only a way of finishing the article.

There is also the question of coating with rhodium, which is put on silver articles to give a better initial appearance and which also gives the metal substantial protection.

The explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given the House is absolutely correct. This practice has been carried on for a considerable time. However, purely on the consumer side, we ought to sound a warning that this practice takes place. The coating of a 9-carat gold article with 18-carat gold does, as my hon. Friend said, enhance the appearance of the article. Therefore, it indicates the need for people who deal in precious metals not to believe that they can judge the metal because of the way it looks compared with gold of another carat which may not have had a micron coating.

The amendment appears to underline the Tightness of ensuring that we have a degree of consumer protection which can be easily understood. Indeed, as with gold in the past, the structure of the millesimal factors of the purity is there for all to see.

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 15, leave out 'Base'.

The amendment seeks to leave out the word "base" from the description "base metal" which the Bill insists be placed upon parts of an article which are made, on the one hand of precious metal, such as silver, and, on the other hand, of, say, lead. There are technical reasons for this. One may ask: why should two metals be put in the same article? For example, it is now permissible for a candlestick which is made of silver to have a base of a heavier metal to keep it upright and stable. I believe it is right that the base metal should be indicated in some way. The ordinary mortal would probably agree that the words "base metal" are clear enough. However, in negotiating the EFTA convention it became apparent that the words "base metal" in different languages were of quite different appearance, whereas the word "metal" on its own without the adjective "base" was easily understood in the various languages concerned.

This is a legacy of the EFTA convention, and as the House has accepted the principle I do not think that there is any need for me to pursue the matter further. That is the reason for the amendment. The EFTA convention requires the word "metal" to be stamped alone, and I think it is reasonable that our legislation should conform.

I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 32 at end insert:

' section 25 (innocent publication of advertisement);'.

This amendment is derived from the Trade Descriptions Act and provides a defence to the innocent party if an advertisement is placed for the sale of a gold, silver or platinum article. It provides protection to an accused publisher of an advertisement if he did not know, or have reason to suspect, that the publication would amount to an offence. This provision is the same as that in the Trade Descriptions Act and I think that one would, in all common sense, accept this as reasonable.

I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in line 29, leave out 'metals' and insert 'metal'.

The amendment relates to the composition of the council. Perhaps I may deal with this matter on a later Government amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 24, leave out ' this section' and insert:

' subsection (1) of this section upon application therefor to the Secretary of State; and the provisions of the said Part I shall, subject to the modifications specified in Part II of the said Schedule, have effect with respect to orders under subsection (2) of this section by the Secretary of State without such application being made to him'.

With this we are to take Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70.

The purpose of the amendments is to provide some flexibility in the organisation of assay offices to serve the public, manufacturers and retailers by enabling the council to establish new assay offices if such a demand should arise. There are certain difficulties about this whole matter of the establishment of new and the closing of old assay offices, and these were fully recognised in the Stone Report.

There is, historically, a necessity to have an assay office in a place where the demands for the services of that office require it, but with modern communications this demand tends to reduce and it is only in the major manufacturing centres that assay offices can operate—and operate economically—as they were originally intended to do.

To have dealt in this legislation with the numerous Statutes which have been put together in the past would have been extremely difficult, and the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the British Hallmarking Council, which we shall be discussing later, will have some flexibility in recommending to the Government how these matters should be altered.

I do not think there is need to say more, except that this is to some extent a British compromise. It does not completely grasp the nettle, but it enables the council, and subsequently the Minister, to grasp it, and to do so in an effective way which will protect both the public and those who are interested in the matter at some future time.

My hon. Friend is right. These amendments are all consequential on the division of the clause. The purpose is to provide one procedure to be followed when the Secretary of State receives an application from the council or from an assay office and another when he acts for some other reasons. The clause empowers the Secretary of State to establish a new assay office or, if it is felt necessary, to close an existing one.

It seems right and proper that the procedure which the Secretary of State is to take in every instance should be properly spelled out. That is what the amendments do, in conjunction with the new schedule. It will be for the ease of the general public and for those in the trade and assay offices to know the exact procedure which the Government will adopt if either of the two occurrences which I have mentioned comes about.

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 15, line 40, leave out from beginning to second 'any' in line 41.

It may help the House if I say that ! propose to move Amendments Nos. 29 to 45 formally.

We are taking a number of amendments and before they are agreed to I should like to say something about Amendment No. 41.

The purpose of this amendment is to substitute definitions of fineness, standard of fineness and minimum fineness for the earlier single definition of minimum fineness, since all these terms now appear in the Bill. The definition of minimum fineness for gold and for silver is in accord with the present law, while that for platinum is the same as in most countries which have set a legal standard for this metal.

The definition of the word "export" is eliminated. It is no longer necessary, because of Part II of the new schedule. This is an important amendment, and in order to help the trade and those concerned with the industry who may have studied the Bill but may not have realised exactly what has happened, it seemed right to draw attention to the provision as it will be.

Following what the Under-Secretary said, I think that point of clarification needed to be made. It is important, because it is a highly technical matter, as indeed are all the other amendments. I intervened merely to say that we support these and have no objection to their being taken formally.

I beg to move, Amendment No. 48, in page 22, column 2, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert 'Standard of fineness'.

With this Amendment it will be convenient to take also Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52; Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 52; and amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55.

This is a matter on which we shall be having something of a debate as it is fair to say that there has been a considerable debate already outside the House with myself as sponsor of the Bill, the retail trade, the manufacturing trade, antique dealers and almost anybody interested in the subject, including considerable comment in the specialist and trade press.

What we are going to fall out over, I fear, is the question of millesimal marks for silver and platinum. I will say a word about the standard for 22 carat gold. It is a technical matter, but I think it will be helpful if I explain it. The translation from carats to millesimal means that 22 carat gold is a 916·6 recurring parts per thousand of pure gold and therefore in the Bill we are to show the figure as 916 to make it a little clearer than 917 which would be rather more than 22 carat gold.

The rest of the amendments are formal and are dealt with either on the advice of Parliamentary Counsel or in order to clarify the schedule. The argument about the millesimal mark is one, I fear, on which I must tell the House that I propose to be somewhat ambivalent. In my view this is a matter which is not as important as either the trade or the Government believe. I am sure that I shall get into trouble with all sorts of people for saying that, but I do not believe it to be a crucial matter. Both parties seem to think that it is, and it is only fair that I should say what I feel about it.

In the original proposals and at certain times in the past consumer associations, among others, and Government officials have come to the conclusion that the ancient symbols are perhaps out of date and therefore for one dreadful moment they proposed that the lion, the worldwide symbol of British silver, should be removed from the mark and that the more soulless millesimal number should be used to indicate the standard of purity or fineness of the article. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] There has been a long time convention that imported wares should have a different mark from home-produced wares. I suppose that critics of trade protection legislation could say that this is a small example of it. I do not see it in that light. British silver is world renowned and it would be rather like seeing Rolls-Royce change the shape of its radiator. It is more than just trade protection; it is a symbol of purity, quality, manufacture, design and metal, and it would have been a desperate tragedy had the lion not been allowed to remain.

12.45 p.m.

Therefore, it was put to me during the trade—or perhaps that is too strong a term, and I should say the "give and take" in these matters, where points have to be made on each side of the negotiation—that were I to leave in the millesimal mark for silver and platinum the authorities would not frown on the inclusion of the lion and imported mark as previously.

Bribery!

That is very much overstating the case. There are arguments on both sides. I have listened carefully to them in private and I am glad that we shall have the opportunity of ventilating them on the Floor of the House this afternoon.

Is my hon. Friend saying that he was offered the choice of having the lion plus the millesimal mark or the millesimal mark on its own?

I shall get into terribly deep water if I go into that. The original proposal, several years ago, when the negotiation started, was that the millesimal mark only should be shown, and after a good deal of persuasion the assay offices made the case that it would be a great pity to have only the millesimal mark. But in the course of negotiating more detailed points on the Bill I have found, as would anyone who produces legislation, that there has to be considerable negotiation. I think the Government felt—and I believe they are perfectly entitled so to do, and no doubt the Undersecretary will justify the case—that if we had symbols and the millesimal marks both points would be met. In order that we could keep the lion and so that the other points could be included, I felt that this was not an unreasonable compromise. Little did I know the storm which would descend upon my head from those whose business it is to manufacture silver and platinum articles.

I must be careful to get right the functions of the British Jewellers Association and the National Association of Goldsmiths. It seems that I interposed their functions in Committee. The National Association of Goldsmiths represents the retail trade and the British Jewellers Association the manufacturing trade. The manufacturers felt quite strongly about this, for a number of reasons, as I can understand. The major one is that the inhuman-looking number does not contain artistic merit, which is a feature of the traditional hallmarking system. In the current edition of the Connoisseur there is a picture of a fine silver bowl in which the hallmarks have been made a decorative feature of the design. I am sure that hon. Members have seen, in retailers shops all over the country, ashtrays with four marks placed in a way that gives them a decorative function. Equally, it may be argued that the millesimal mark is like the octane rating in petrol—to the mathematically minded, a definitive and easily understood indication of purity. I have therefore made it clear to the Government behind the scenes that I, as sponsor of the Bill, have a completely open mind on the matter.

I am not prepared to table an amendment to remove millesimal marks. I have made it clear to the trade that I believe that it has obtained substantial concessions in the marks agreed with the Government to date. Therefore, I shall remain outside any Lobby if there is a Division. I can see arguments on both sides, but I have made it clear from the start that as the sponsor of the Bill I shall not take a position on the matter.

This is rather a sad moment for me, because up to now I have found myself completely in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I am grateful not only to him but to my hon. Friend the Minister for all he has done to assist the passage of a necessary and sensible piece of legislation. But now the crunch has come for me, and I know that I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler). We are being asked to accept a compromise that is both untidy and thoroughly undesirable.

I could accept without any grave misgivings a stipulation that silverware exported from this country must bear a millesimal mark, because I could be persuaded that in other countries the British lion would not be recognised for what it is. Even that argument does not hold up very well, certainly not among those who know silver, who love it and who realise that some of the finest silver in the world has been for centuries produced in these islands, and has gone out with the lion proudly proclaiming its origins and with the other marks showing the assay office where it was stamped and the man who fashioned it.

I could accept the millesimal mark for export. What I cannot accept in any circumstances is that it is necessary or desirable for silver produced in this country and sold on the home market. The amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth would remove these abortions. The assay officers, who have been spoken about in such glowing terms several times today, and the trade all feel very passionately that the proposal is unnecessary and undesirable.

I should like to talk of some of the very valid objections raised by Goldsmiths' Hall, and in doing so to refer entirely to silver. In a letter that I received a little while ago it was pointed out that the assay offices are not in favour of millesimal marks for silver, nor for platinum. The first reason is the lion, the recognised mark for sterling silver since 1544. Over the centuries, wherever silver has been bought people have turned it up and looked at the side to see the lion and the leopard's head, or the thistle if it has come from Edinburgh, soon to be the lion rampant. The marks have been the guarantee of authenticity, an absolute standard of purity for the buyer. The marking is the oldest form of consumer protection at a high level that we have.

We must remember that silver bears not just one mark but several. Let us take the London mark, the leopard's head, not as noble as it was before 1821, when the crown was taken off. There is the lion, and there is the date letter from which it is possible to tell at a glance when the article was made. There is also the maker's mark. If a further mark is added the whole matter is complicated to an unnecesary and untidy degree, and it is likely to make identification more rather than less difficult.

If we stick to the same marks as have been used for over 400 years on English sterling silver, the continuity will make for easy identification by the public. Many little handbooks that can be bought for a few new pence give an adequate guide to British hallmarks. Hardly a jeweller's shop or an antique dealer does not have some of them on sale. Two or three years ago a petrol company gave away tens of thousands of them, and they were very popular. To say that the public are not aware of the existing marks is not entirely realistic. The public can identify silver.

If the millesimal mark were adopted, some articles would have it and others would not. As my hon. Friend pointed out, silver articles last and are treasured for many years, and frequently change hands. We are legislating for perhaps 200 or 300 years. In 200 or 300 years' time those collecting and treasuring their silver would to some extent be confused by millesimal marks added some time in the 1970s in honour of a convention formulated by a now dead grouping.

Hallmarks are struck on the articles at the assay office either by single punches, one for each symbol or mark, which are normally used when large marks are required, or by means of a combined punch containing all the symbols or marks if the article is small. The addition of the millesimal mark to the lion would mean that single punches would have to be used in many cases where a combined punch is now used, and that would increase the cost of marking, a factor that the assay offices tell me causes them real concern. For the larger marks involving the use of single punches, an additional punching operation would be required, which would also increase the cost.

Important as those arguments are, there are others that are more significant. British hallmarks are themselves things of beauty, admired by collectors and others all over the world, and frequently made a feature of the silver article. My hon. Friend referred to the picture of the silver bowl in this month's issue of the Connoisseur. When we look at some of the priceless articles in the Victoria and Albert Museum or in some of the shops of Bond Street, or at the pictures in any book of English domestic silver, whether Jackson's monumental work or others that have appeared in recent years, we frequently see that an outstanding feature of their beauty is the bold punch mark or the series of bold punch marks on the bowl, goblet, salver or whatever it may be. That is recognised.

Will the little numbers 925 be destructive of the harmony and the cohesion of the marks which have been used for centuries or will they add to the beauty of the article?—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State laughs insensitively as if he does not care. That is unfortunate. For some people with aesthetic views that is a serious consideration, even if it does not appear to be so on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps that is an indication of the soullessness of monolithic departments of modern government. The numbers will make the process cumbersome and, to the sensitive person, will detract from the aesthetic appearance of an article.

1.0 p.m.

An argument which may appeal to the Under-Secretary of State, as it involves cost, is that there is in this country a considerable trade in reproduction antique silver. It is one of the principal export lines in the trade. That should appeal to the Department of Trade and Industry. It is of great significance that the modern hallmark is struck prominently in the same position as the original hallmark. That is a valuable selling point. An additional symbol, which never appeared on old marks, would lessen the value of the modern hallmark and could lead to significant diminution in a valuable trade. I hope that that argument will appeal to the cost-consciousness of my hon. Friend.

I shall not say very much about platinum as we are introducing the marking of platinum for the first time. However, it would be remiss of me not to make the point that has been made to me by the assay officers that the 950 mark seems unnecessary because there is to be only one standard of platinum. Most platinum articles are likely to be small. Some will be very small because of the low exemption weight of 0·5 grammes. An additional symbol would make the task of marking more difficult. Smaller and less easily readable markings would have to be used than otherwise would be the case. That is a valid point although I should not want to go to the stake on it. I rest my case on silver. Gold does not come into the argument because it is accepted that different standards of gold are sold.

It is important that people should be thoroughly and absolutely aware of what they are buying. The fact is that sterling silver—and most of the silver sold in this country is sterling silver—is known the world over. There is another standard of silver—namely, the Britannia standard. The hallmarking of that standard is a splendid mark. It represents the seated figure of Britannia with the lion's head erased. That mark, which is not so well known, signifies a higher standard. The public is in no way being duped, deluded or deceived. If somebody buys Britannia standard silver believing it to be sterling silver, he has a better buy because the silver is of a slightly higher degree of purity.

From whatever way the matter is considered, unless a person is dedicated to the idea of compromise or if it is felt that a convention drawn up by a new dead group is binding upon us, there is no case for additional marking. Holland and France have a similar system of hallmarking to our system, although it is not quite the same. They do not have millesimal marks, and there is no need for us to have them.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State will enhance his already lofty reputation by heeding our words and desisting from what would seem to me to be an untypical piece of obstinacy.

I must declare an interest in this matter as I am a Liveryman of the Goldsmiths' Company. We had a considerable debate in Committee about millesimal marks. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) made a fine and frank speech concerning his feelings on the matter. I disagree with him only in that he did not find it a crucial and vital matter. I agree that it will not shake the world if we proceed with millesimal marks on silver, but for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) has given, the matter is of some significance and should not be taken lightly.

I appeal to the Government—perhaps this is not a final appeal—to consider the purpose of the marks which are placed on silver and the two other precious metals. Their purpose is to tell a story. In no other case is such history, such description, such evidence of quality and standard, such guidance to the consumer and such protection of the consumer given in such a clear, simple, brief and adequate way. Why are we now being asked to include numbers which are entirely superfluous to the description of the article and its history and standard? The lion tells all. It tells us the quality of the silver. It tells us that it is British sterling silver.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock seemed to accept the possibility of using millesimal marks for exports. He may have meant imports. The British lion is recognised overseas, and for that reason there is no need to consider millesimal marks for export business.

I said that I did not think it was a very good case, but I made the point from a personal point of view. I accept that international convention may demand or require it, but for our domestic market, not at any price. I agree with my hon. Friend.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the matter. I still suggest that the lion is sufficient for the world as well as for this country.

I agree.

A considerable part of this matter involves bureaucracy, or civil servants who are concerned to use 10 words when one will do. The figures are superfluous. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock has referred to the aesthetic nature of the present mark, and to the cost of putting on additional and unnecessary marks. It is unproductive of labour to do so, and it is unaesthetic. It is also impracticable for small articles.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare referred to long life. He said—I think that I took down his words correctly—that a hallmark stays with an article all its life. The more marks we put on, the smaller they may have to be. Inevitably silver is rubbed and polished during its existence. It is inevitable that smaller marks will become indecipherable more quickly. At least there will be a risk of that happening. Anybody in the trade know many instances in which marks have become undecipherable over a period. Why make that more likely by adding other marks which will often have to be presented in smaller characters?

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case for his point of view. But, apart from the possibility of marks rubbing off, do not millesimal marks have an advantage for the ordinary consumer, although perhaps they are unnecessary for the connoisseur, such as members of the livery company to which the hon. Gentleman belongs? Would not these marks be a great asset to the ordinary consumer?

That is a useful point to raise, but I am not sure that millesimal marks, as such, would mean anything to the consumer. Indeed, I think that the contrary would be the case. The lion represents silver to the consumer, but in practice pieces will be examined by the retailer through a glass, and the retailer is well aware of the meaning of the lion.

Perhaps I may point out, for clarification, that there is a provision in the Bill that at every retail point an explanation of the hallmarks concerned will be available for inspection. I think that to some extent this will deal with the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray).

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).

I want now to refer to amendments Nos. 49 and 50. There is here a mathematical technicality. If we are going to use 916·6 recurring, mathematically, I suggest 916·7, or alternatively my hon. Friend could use a dot after the "6", which implies the recurring. But that is only a very small technical point. If we must have millesimals, 1 am at least grateful that for Britannia silver we are not going to have 958·4, which would be the end of the run.

I have suggested that millesimal marks are unnecessary, unaesthetic, superfluous, and unproductive, and will be less durable. Why cannot the lion passant stand on its own feet, as, one might observe, the European Parliament has discovered that the lion is not passé? Is it necessary to write the word "lion", across the figure of the lion, which is what is suggested? For all these reasons I support sub-amendment (a), and unless we have some response to our appeal at this eleventh hour my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and I must consider dividing the House.

It was not my intention to intervene on this group of amendments, but this is an important matter so I had better express the point of view of the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) indicated that he was taking an ambivalent attitude on the question of millesimal marks—that he was not prepared to introduce anything into the Bill to remove the provisions for millesimal marks but that in the event of there being a Division he would not take part in it. In saying that he expressed something of the dilemma with which he and the House itself is confronted in dealing with this complicated matter.

1.15 p.m.

The hon. Members for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) spoke from a committed point of view, and placed interesting and knowledgeable points before the House. In quite properly declaring his interest, the hon. Member for Bosworth also disclosed his knowledge of the subject and its background by speaking in such a convincing manner. Both hon. Members presented strong arguments, especially in regard to the vexed question of hallmarking in millesimal marks for silver.

It is true that outside the House trade and trade institutions feel strongly against this proposal. I hasten to say that no member of the trade or representative of any trade institution has approached me, but I am nevertheless aware that there are strong feelings, and, of course, this also came out in Committee. It seems as though the Government are the only people who want millesimal marks established, but we must remember that we have certain international obligations. I imagine that that will be one of the Undersecretary of State's arguments.

In Committee there was a Division in which the Opposition supported the Government against some Conservative Members who argued, as the hon. Members for Cannock and Bosworth have argued today, against millesimal marks. But it is no part of the Opposition's duty automatically to support the Government, and if I also take a somewhat ambivalent attitude I am doing no more than following in the admirable footsteps of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. I hope that a Division can be avoided on this issue. Perhaps the Under Secretary of State can give an assurance. I look forward with interest to hearing what he has to say.

This matter obviously creates high feelings. It is right that we should examine it carefully. I think that it needs to be examined in a reasonable and sensible manner and not with high oratory. It is not a matter of, "Once more unto the breach, dear friends", and all that is perhaps implied in some of the rather extreme descriptions we have heard on the question of millesimal marks for silver.

Some of the amendments we are dealing with relate to the standard of fineness and others to the method of assessment which is widely accepted throughout the trade and the assay offices. This is a matter of considerable concern to the consumer, who should be able to know the fineness of the metal used in the article he is buying. If that were not so, the whole concept of hallmarking would become a nonsense. Therefore, we shall all agree that there is a concern that the consumer should know the fineness.

I think we all also agree that the public interest demands the adoption of a readily intelligible system of marking to convey that information. It is not in the consumers' interest to indicate the fineness in one way on one article but in a different way on another, particularly when the method adopted in one case is a readily understood system of millesimal marking but in the other case is a symbol. The millesimal system of marking is to be adopted for all gold articles and there has been no suggestion that this would be unhelpful. Since it is to be adopted for imported silver it would be a nonsense to adopt an entirely different system for silver or platinum articles which are declared to the assay office as being of United Kingdom origin.

My hon. Friend is guilty of several confusions. Not every country produces silver of 925 fineness, so the millesimal mark can be a real guarantee and help, and is my hon. Friend suggesting that people buy gold and silver indiscriminately? Is he suggesting that these metals are used to make similar articles? This is not true. Gold is used almost exclusively for small items of jewellery, and silver for domestic items.

Is he suggesting that people who invest in a piece of silver, even if it is under £10, do so without care and thought? People like to choose their silver and have the hallmarks explained to them. Usually the first silver article which they buy is a new piece from a jewellery shop or silversmith. Millesimal marks are necessary for gold and imported silver but he is guilty of telescoping the argument in suggesting that they are necessary for domestic silver.

There is no confusion in what I am saying. This is just one of the nonsenses we hear in the arguments of those who wish to do away with millesimal marks. People want to be able to compare one thing with another. Take, for instance, imported silver and British silver. The position will be absolutely clear if a single millesimal mark is common to both. It will be confusing if one is marked and the other is not. My hon. Friend is grossly overstating the case if he claims that most people, other than those with a particular interest in silver, would know the difference between Britannia silver and sterling silver. It is a gross misconception to believe that people who buy silver in small amounts and of small value know the difference.

rose—

I will not give way at the moment. I will deal with some of the other arguments which the hon. Gentleman used in his speech. It is true that the hallmark in certain expensive pieces of silver is used decoratively. This is on expensive silver and not that which is bought by the ordinary person. The hon. Gentleman failed to realise that the dispersal of the marks is such that it is not necessary to use the millesimal mark as part of the design. The designer could have the millesimal mark positioned in such a way that it would not spoil the design. The concept that this is, as he puts it, an abortion, is an overstatement.

There is one aspect of this which has not been mentioned. One reason why the trade does not want millesimal marks is bound up with pure protectionism for British silver. It is right that this should be brought out. The hon. Member for Cannock argued that if the Government had to do something because we were arguing that British silver was sent abroad then such silver could be specifically stamped. It is the Government's belief that the millesimal marks will more and more become an accepted standard throughout Europe and America. It will become a common stamp which all will be able to understand. Not all silver leaves the country as official exports. Much of it goes with families and as personal gifts. Once it is out of the country there will be no common mark for comparison purposes.

My hon. Friend will also realise from the remarks I made on Clause 1 that the vast majority of silver articles, about 95 per cent., retailed 15 years ago at less than £10. Perhaps by now that figure has doubled. The arguments about auctioneers and duty do not concern the basic consumer. They concern the rich collector. I am not interested in protecting the rich collector as against the 95 per cent. of the population buying silver articles.

I am sorry that I have ceased to be the Under-Secretary's hon. Friend, so strongly does he feel about my arguments. While it is true that the majority of articles are of a low value it is perfectly possible, contrary to what he said, for the hallmark to be an important part of the design. Spoons are a good example of this. He talks about trade protection. What is wrong with trying to protect something which many people, including assay offices, believe to be of real value? As for Britannia silver, that is of a higher standard, so that even if there were any confusion—and very little silver is made to Britannia standard now —the customer would be getting a better deal.

The hon. Gentleman—no, my hon. Friend; there is no feeling against him other than that he is overstating his argument. The assay offices should be arguing, as they say they are arguing, for the protection of the consumer, not for the protection of the trade or of the auctioneer.

1.30 p.m.

My hon. Friend says that gold does not come into the argument, but, whichever way one looks at it, it does. His concern is that the extra mark will be obliterated more easily. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler). That applies to an even greater extent to gold, yet it was not thought to be a basic reason for finding some other way of dealing with the matter of gold.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth suggested that the lion tells all. But if we talked to people outside—not people like him who love gold and silver and who are associated with them, as he frankly admitted he is—I think we would find that they did not know what the lion told. I do not think that they would understand from the mark of the lion what the fineness of the silver was.

I should have thought that there was no question but that if we went into the street and showed a selection of people the lion on a piece of white metal and asked them what they thought it meant, the majority of them would say that it meant pure English silver. They would be wrong about the pureness, but they would say "English silver". On the other hand, if we put to them the figure of 925 for gold or the four new millesimal marks, they would not know what we were talking about.

We are not suggesting— and I am pleased that we are not suggesting—that the lion mark should be done away with. We are suggesting that the degree of fineness—and when I mentioned this matter at the beginning of my speech we were in complete agreement—should be that indicated by the assay marks.

It has sometimes been represented that only the Department of Trade and Industry is in favour of universal millesimal marking. That was the main point made by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins). Nothing could be further from the truth. The degree of support for a millesimal indication of fineness in all cases, including silver and platinum, was demonstrated by the replies which were received to a consultative paper circulated by the Department at the beginning of our exhaustive inquiry into the form of a reformed hallmarking law. I should like to indicate the strength of that support.

The Consumers' Association said:

"We support the adoption of the millesimal system to indicate fineness for all precious metals."

The Institute of Weights and Measures Administration said:

"The suggestion that the millesimal indication of fineness is the most understandable method and the one least likely to confuse the ordinary customer is strongly supported."

The Design and Research Centre said:

"The DRC take the view most emphatically that the standard of fineness in all precious metals involved should be indicated by the millesimal system as part of the hallmark."

Was that from the whole council or just from the director of the council?

The letter from the council indicated exactly what I have said.

The British Antique Dealers Association said that the

"… present system should be retained but using a symbol combined with the millesimal system."

None of that has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman. It has been dismissed as though it did not matter and did not exist. That is why I believe that he has been more than one-sided in presenting his argument.

The County Councils Association— and local government became concerned in these matters when the weights and measures inspectorate was brought into them—said:

"There should be a common method of indicating fineness for all metals…. A percentage marking would probably be easier … but whatever system is chosen its use should be compulsory".

The Corporation of Glasgow said:

"Millesimal indications should be applied across the board".

I do not believe that the assay offices, which say that what is suggested is unnecessary, or those in the trade, who plainly have a vested interest in these matters, are necessarily the best people to make judgments. It is interesting to note that the Stone Report also indicated that millesimal markings should be adopted.

Therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the millesimal system.

My hon. Friend suggested that the trade did not want millesimal markings because it had a vested interest. But it is not a vested interest to want to reduce the cost of applying the marks for the benefit of one's customers and, therefore, ultimately of the consumer. It is not a vested interest not to wish to have an additional mark which will be more difficult to apply and which will suffer the risk of being removed in time. These are not vested interests; they are the interests of the consumer.

I do not see the matter like that. The cost factor is a matter for consideration in relation to the consumer. But as most of the marks are put on by machine nowadays, except in the very expensive cases, I do not believe that the cost argument, while I accept it in part, is overwhelming.

The millesimal system of marking is nothing new. It is already widely used in the United Kingdom hallmarking system. The two lower standards of gold wares are marked in this way, whether or not they are imported, and all imported silver is marked in this way at present and will be in future.

The Bill provides for millesimal marking throughout. The sponsors of the amendments do not seek to change the way in which gold will be marked, nor do they wish to prevent a millesimal mark from appearing on imported silver or platinum. The amendments affect only home-produced silver and platinum. Study of Amendment No. 55 will, in any case, show that it is technically incorrect in its drafting.

Such a course, therefore I think is not only illogical but clearly prejudicial to the interests of consumers at large who would be confronted by some articles marked in one way and some marked in another with no ready way of being able to make comparisons. In other words, what I am saying is that the Government, in dealing with consumer affairs, as the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) knows, are trying to make things as simple as possible rather than make them complicated. In no way do we want to have a structure which would be confusing when it is possible here and now to set up a system which could be much simpler.

We do not dispute that the significance of the lion is important and that those who buy large pieces of silver may be quite content if a millesimal mark is not present, but most people do not buy large pieces of silver. The average purchase is small and not worth more than a few pounds. Moreover, the purchasers are not usually very knowledgeable about hallmarking and these are the people with most to gain from a readily comprehensible system of marking, and moreover a system which is used on all goods and precious metals.

It ought to be recognised that as time goes by we cannot expect to see articles of precious metals in our shops and made overseas and marked overseas without having millesimal marks on them because the international convention prepared by the EFTA countries, a convention which is open to signature by all other countries and which is not, as an hon. Member was suggesting, defunct, will require articles to bear a millesimal indication of fineness. That has been decided because it is the only possible form of international marking. Surely it would be nonsensical for us as participators in the EFTA convention to pass legislation which obviously runs against a provision which is likely to be adopted widely throughout the world.

It is sometimes suggested that overseas countries with hallmarking systems do not include a millesimal mark in their official hallmarks. Generally speaking, it is sometimes unnecessary for them to do so because their national law already requires the maker to have applied a millesimal mark before the wares are submitted for hallmarking. This was not altogether clear from the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock.

Therefore what I am saying is that the Government are not being bureaucratic about this. We have sensibly assessed the views of the consumers and the methods and ways likely to be used internationally and we have looked at our international commitments. I have to say to my hon. Friends that it would be impossible for the Government to move in their direction. It would be impossible for the Government to have legislation running contrary to certain obligations and certain lines which we have already taken.

Therefore I hope that in what has been not an emotive approach—although in some ways I think the whole debate has been exaggerated to some extent beyond its importance—and because of the strong feeling of my hon. Friends, I have dealt comprehensively with the matter. I hope that they will see fit not to press their sub-amendment to the amendment because it would be very unfortunate if we had a Division.

May I reply to some of the comments?

By leave of the House.

By leave of the House, I should like to say that both my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) and I are grateful to the Minister at least for replying at length, but that both of us, having listened to him, feel just as persuaded by the force of our own argument and the weakness of his.

We are in somewhat of a quandary. We feel that we would like to have a Division, but the House is not exactly full. We are conscious of the fact that for many of our colleagues this is a slightly esoteric subject and that therefore, they are busying themselves in their constituencies, and that if we were to have a Division and there were not 40 Members voting, progress on my hon. Friend's Bill, which we both emphatically support, could be impeded. It is not our wish to stand in the way of what we consider to be a vital and necessary piece of legislation.

We do, however, hope that our arguments will be taken up in another place, where there will be opportunity for further debate and for the Government to have further thoughts. So, as it were, passing the lion down the Corridor we shall not move our sub-amendment.

We come to Amendments Nos. 53 to 55.

After the remarks made by my hon. Friend, for which I am grateful, I hope that it will not be necessary for Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 to be moved.

I beg to move, Amendment No. 80, in page 25, line 4, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 and insert:

With this amendment we shall take Amendments Nos. 81 to 85.

The amendment changes the arrangements for the appointment of members of the British Hallmarking Council so as to provide a different structure of appointments so that the appointments shall be overall in the hands of the Secretary of State. Assay offices will, therefore, no longer nominate members of the council with the certainty that they would be appointed. However, the Secretary of State is required to consult the assay offices before appointing 10 of the 16 and to invite them to submit the names of suitable persons.

The situation is quite clear. It is essential that in creating a body which will be able to exercise wide influence on policy and the hallmarking law we should ensure that it is not only independent but seen to be independent. The object, therefore, is best achieved by placing the appointments in the hands of the Secretary of State, so long as we ensure that the Secretary of State is required to consult, and also to call for persons and lists of names who are acceptable from, those listed in the amendment. This means consultation with the assay offices.

It is, however, also essential to ensure that the persons who are appointed to the council are qualified for the work and can bring to bear on their duties the necessary expertise. The amendment makes that absolutely clear, and it is to be a prerequisite of any appointment of the 10. Thus, before appointing the greater number of members the Secretary of State is required to consult the four assay offices and invite them to submit the names of possible members of the Council. Those 10 members can be appointed only if they appear to be suitably qualified by virtue of their knowledge and experience of hallmarking. These requirements are laid down in paragraph 2(1) and (2). In order to ensure that their interests are sufficiently represented, four of the 10 are required by paragraph 2(4) to be drawn from trade circles.

What I have tried to do in the structure of the Hallmarking Council is to ensure this fairly cleverly-agreed balance. I believe that it took a considerable amount of negotiation between the different assay offices so that a single person from within them, with some trade interests, could be provided under the schedule.

These members can bring one kind of expertise to the work of the council, but it is also important to bear in mind that the consumer has a vital interest in hallmarking. Therefore, in appointing the other six members of the council the Secretary of State, in accordance with paragraph 3(2), must appoint three persons with knowledge and experience of consumer protection. The other three members may be persons whom the Secretary of State considers can make a special contribution to the work of the council. But, lest it should be thought that the trade may assume too great an influence on the decisions of the council, paragraph 3(3) prohibits any of these three, or the three with consumer protection experience, from being members of the trade. So we are trying to ensure not only that the council is independent but that it will represent the consumer and have an independent approach.

Finally, in spite of the care which the Secretary of State can be expected to use in selecting these 16 members, it is possible that the council, once established, may wish to draw on other expert advice. In paragraph 5, therefore, the amendment also provides that up to two additional members can be co-opted on to the council. I believe that the assay offices and those concerned in the industry were very hopeful that we would be able to keep co-option within the structure. Therefore, I have reverted from some other ideas about which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) knows, we have been trying to come to some arrangement, so that we can keep the two co-options.

It will therefore be clear that we have not departed far from the Bill's proposals. The principles are the same. Broadly speaking, the type of members that the Secretary of State is likely to appoint will be substantially the same. So it is fair to ask, why change the Bill? The most important reason is to provide the absolute guarantee of independence being seen. It has been suggested that the constitution of the assay offices guarantees a vast degree of independence. This is doubtless so in many ways, but it is insufficient reason for us to fail to build independence into the British Hallmarking Council as well.

Furthermore, there is always the consideration that where persons are appointed to represent particular interests such nominees may think themselves obliged to adopt a doctrinaire attitude, which could frustrate part of the working of the council.

There is another point, which was made in Committee. In certain circumstances, the Bill provides, in paragraph 4(3), that an aggrieved person can appeal to the council against a decision of an assay office. It would be wrong to set up a body which consisted mainly of assay office nominees to act as judges in their own cause.

The Government are satisfied that, with the safeguards written into the amendment and the fund of good will and assistance which the Secretary of State can expect to receive from the bodies that he is required to consult the arrangements in the amendments offer the best chance of producing the sort of council we need to oversee the general hallmarking law and to make suggestions for its improvement.

It will be apparent from my speech that I have moved some way from the original amendment that we were considering in Committee. I hope that the House will realise that the Government are particularly keen to see that the council shall not only be efficient and well able to act as the governing body of this industry to carry out the work that the Bill will involve; we shall also ensure that, in the last resort, it can be claimed that this body is independent since everyone will realise that the assay offices will have a considerable influence in the appointments made by the Secretary of State.

Amendment No. 80 and the consequential amendments give the Government control over the appointments to the Hallmarking Council. The principle involved was the subject of a short but lively debate in Committee, when the Under-Secretary proposed an amendment, the only Government amendment which was moved in Committee, to increase the number of appointees so that they would be in a majority on the council.

That amendment was strongly opposed on both sides of the Committee, and it was withdrawn, largely in view of the time factor but also in view of the opposition. The Under-Secretary undertook to look at the matter before Report and he has done that, but in this amendment he is proposing to appoint not just a majority of members to the council, but all of them, with the exception of the co-opted members, who would be appointed by those whom the Government would appoint. The amendment is even stronger than the earlier proposition which was withdrawn.

2.0 p.m.

I accept that when the amendment was withdrawn in Committee, it was made clear that the Government would want to retain at least a majority of the appointments to the Hallmarking Council. I am even more strongly critical of this amendment than I was of the amendment in Committee. The Under-Secretary made the Government's position quite clear and has not involved himself in any sharp practice. But the amendment which was withdrawn in Committee because it was opposed has now been replaced by an amendment which is even stronger.

I must voice a protest at the manner of presentation of the amendment as a starred amendment. It appeared on the Order Paper only today. On this important and contentious matter, the amendment might at least have been tabled yesterday so that hon. Members could have had more notice and could have examined it.

The Standing Committee completed its business on Wednesday 14th February. That was seven weeks ago last Wednesday. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has done a tremendous amount of work. All his amendments were tabled in order that hon. Members could have due notice of them. With all the Government's resources, however, and after the specific assurance given in Committee, apparently they could produce the amendment only hours before the House commenced the Report stage.

That is another measure of not only the Government's incompetence, but their contempt for the House, an attitude to which we are becoming so accustomed.

It was guile, not incompetence.

Either is reprehensible, whichever view one takes.

The Government face a dilemma in this matter. They face a number, but this dilemma arises because the proposal for control comes from a Government hitherto supposedly dedicated to noninterference in the regulation of trade and industry. They were specifically elected to office on promises, among other things, of non-intervention.

But they have found that non-intervention by Government in the economic, social and political circumstances of Britain just does not work. They found that out when they had to nationalise Rolls-Royce and to introduce the Industry Bill and, more recently, with the subsidisation of building societies.

At heart, the Government may not want to intervene by controlling appointments to the Hallmarking Council, but they have found from bitter experience that laissez-faire does not work. We told them so years ago; they have found how right we were.

I recognise the reasons behind the amendment, which arise from the Government's dilemma. But although we recognise and understand the reasons, that does not mean that we give the amendment our wholehearted support. We are not opposed in principle to the idea of a Hallmarking Council so appointed.

In deploying his case, the Undersecretary made a powerful point when he said that the Hallmarking Council would be an important body and must be shown to be independent of the trade. But it clearly has to be recognised that the trade has regulated this sort of practice for many centuries with great success and outstanding integrity.

We are worried, however, that this proposal should come from a Government showing such an authoritarian approach to Parliament and the country. The Under-Secretary has already gone some way towards meeting the assurances that we require, but we want firm assurances that, although the Government are proposing to control appointments to the Hallmarking Council, the maximum advice and consultation will take place in making the appointments. We want an assurance that due regard will be paid to not only the interests of all branches of the trade but to consumer interests.

We want an assurance that the Hallmarking Council will not be a plaything of the Government and that it will not be the Government's policy to interfere in the council's work once it has been appointed. That is extremely important. The Under-Secretary pointed out that the Hallmarking Council must be seen to be independent. Equally, it must be seen not to be a creature of the Government. There should be no likelihood of the Government's interfering in its day-to-day work.

The Opposition's attitude will depend largely on the assurances we receive. We shall listen with interest to all the other points to be made in the debate.

Two matters particularly occupied our attention in Committee. The first was that of millesimal marks, and the second was that of the Hallmarking Council. I support what the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) has said, but perhaps in somewhat milder language, about the late presentation of the amendment.

At face value, this is one of those cases where representation on the council could be completely satisfactory and acceptable to the trade. But this will depend on the decision of the Secretary of State. As I understand the amendment, the Secretary of State is not bound to accept any of the names put forward by the assay offices. Therefore, he would have complete power to appoint people who were unacceptable to the trade as a whole.

On this point it would be helpful to have an assurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that, other things being equal, the Secretary of State would accept names put forward by the assay offices and would tend to appoint to the council all the 10 members under the proposed paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 from names submitted by the offices.

My second point is about consumer protection. This is a vital factor and perhaps increasingly the Government are finding that they are having to take care of the consumer interest.

Surely in this instance it is the very hallmarking itself that gives the consumer protection. It has done so for over 600 years. Therefore, although what is being suggested for this council might be appropriate for other councils, I do not believe that it is so necessary in this instance to represent the consumer interest in such a specific way as is intended by the amendment. Indeed, I suggest that the assay offices have looked after the interests of the consumer extremely well in the past. I hope that there is no reflection on their actions in this respect during that time.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that independence must be seen to exist. I believe that what is necessary to be seen is hallmarking in as clear and explicit a way as possible and that the independence of the council is of less importance. I support what the hon. Member for Consett said about the council, when it is established in whatever form, being allowed to get on with its job and being as independent as possible of the Government.

I should first say in a conciliatory tone to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I do not think we are quite as far apart as may seem to be indicated by the tones of the speeches so far. Nevertheless, we have found it impossible to agree on a formula that is acceptable to myself as sponsor of the Bill. On behalf not only of the assay offices but of the various interested parties that I have consulted on this matter, I should inform my hon. Friend that the concession that he has described of allowing co-opted members to remain on the council is appreciated. However, to describe it as a concession is, I think, overdoing his position.

I turn now to the question of this being a starred amendment. The Committee stage took place on 14th February. I think that in all honesty I should make it clear, in defence of the Minister, that we have been trying to negotiate for at least the last ten days or as much as a fortnight. Originally our understanding of the Minister's requirement was that he should, so to speak, have an umbrella position over the whole council whereby he would adopt the numbers in the proportions stated in the original Bill, but that he required, in conformity with other legislation that was going through the House, to be able to say that he had nominated the whole council. I cannot for the life of me find any reason why he should wish to adopt this position.

I completely take the political point made by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins). It is true that we have changed our view on a number of matters as a party, and perhaps it is reflecting this new position that makes the hon. Gentleman so persistent. However, I believe that the basic disagreement is about the way that the assay offices carry out their duties.

I can well understand a suspicion on the Minister's part that the assay offices are in cahoots with all aspects of the trade and that they are pressing the position that they want in their own interests against the possible interest of the consumer—that mysterious animal which apparently none of us is but who has to have special individual representation in the Minister's eyes. I think that this disagreement ought to be aired.

In Committee, as reported at column 50, the Minister said:

"I understand the argument that the assay offices have always been taken in the past as being the protector of the consumer, but I believe that it is only understood within the industry and the trade. It is not widely accepted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 14th February 1973; c. 50.]

I totally dispute that statement. For hundreds of years the assay offices have been seen by the ordinary man in the street as the protector of him and what he buys in the way of gold and silver. The Minister earlier described the hallmarking system as the oldest consumer protection in the world. I think that he could easily have added, "And the assay offices as the oldest institution for carrying out that consumer protection."

2.15 p.m.

I fully acknowledge that the assay offices, in carrying out this task, have built up a close relationship with all aspects of the industry. It is right and proper that that liaison should exist. How, after all, could we carry out our day-to-day business if on occasions the usual channels did not operate? It is exactly that kind of thing. It does not mean that our views are like theirs. They are not. I hear a voice from the usual channels agreeing with me. It is in this way that the assay offices have got to know the trade and what it wants.

I do not mean to be over-critical, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, before he was elevated to the Front Bench, would have taken the view, particularly outside this House, that the Department of Trade and Industry does not have the absolute 100 per cent. trust of all aspects of trade and industry in this country.

I should like to quote a letter from the British Jewellers' Association representing the manufacturers. The quotation is quite lengthy, but I hope hon. Members will bear with me. The Association says:

"We understand that there is a proposal to meet the objections of the Minister by the power of appointment of all members to the Secretary of State."

Those were the objections raised in Committee by the Minister when he subsequently withdrew his amendment in the certain knowledge that he would not have carried the Committee with him.

"This, we feel, is not a satisfactory suggestion. The British Jewellers' Association has always accepted the fact that the provision of adequate trade representation on the Council is an extremely difficult problem and we have accepted the proposals in the Bill as at present drafted only because we have felt we could trust the Assay Offices to understand that reasonable representation of the trade interests was achieved by the nominations being in their hands. We have to say that the same trust does not extend to the Department of Trade and Industry."

It is in that philosophy that the objections have arisen. Indeed, in another committee on another matter the Government found that their proposals to nominate the chairmen of the new water authorities were not acceptable to that committee. I have no doubt that on that matter the decision may be reversed later. But the feeling running through this side of the House—I think it is a fair reflection of public opinion—is that Government interference has gone deep enough and for long enough.

I must refer to trade representation. The National Association of Goldsmiths, representing the retail trade, has taken a very deep interest in the representation of its members on the council. Had the Bill been allowed to go through without the threat of this Government amendment, I should willingly have given an assurance that assay office nominees would include a representative of the retail trade. Even though unfortunately we may have to accept the amendment, I say equally that the assay offices will ensure that the retail voice is among the ten representatives that they will put forward. Therefore, that association can assure its members that its representations have been listened to.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want anything go out from this House which might be considered misleading. May I refer him to paragraph 2(4) of the amendment which reads:

"Four, but not more than four, of the persons who at any time are members appointed under this paragraph shall"—

"shall" not "may"—

"be persons engaged wholly or mainly in trading in, or in articles made of, precious metals."

I am delighted that we have been able to make that point without any assurance being necessary.

May I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3 as it stands? Virtually the same statement is made that one of the nominees of each assay office must be engaged in the trade. There is nothing particularly new in that concession. I accept that I may have slightly misled the House. What is different is that "the trade" should include a retail voice. It is fair to say that the retailer is close to the consumer and therefore to some extent he is a consumer. When he buys from his wholesaler or from his manufacturer he is representing the consumer, and therefore in this aspect it is right to make it clear that this part of the trade, or a part of a trade representation, must be a retail voice.

Because of the way in which the amendment has been negotiated behind the scenes and subsequently tabled so late in the day it is abundantly clear that if I were to call a Division I should lose the business remaining to be decided. Therefore I am to some extent faced with a Morton's Fork of either accepting the amendment without opposing it or losing my business and going down the list on a subsequent day.

I find this most unsatisfactory. I have been unable to summon to my support my hon. Friends and, for that matter, hon. Gentlemen opposite who might not agree with the Government's philosophy. I shall not be able to divide the House, but I wish to register my dislike of the Government's amendment and hope that my remarks will be noted in another place where I trust there will be a chance for the matter to be looked at again and, if necessary, restored to what it was originally.

I shall be brief after that fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) which summed up the position admirably. I agree with him in all that he said. I could not help but wonder whether the Government felt it was necessary to hallmark the U-turn. I hope that further thought will be given to this matter. I am not persuaded that after several centuries of impeccable service to the consumer and the nation it is necessary to have this sort of council at all, and I wonder whether the slightly informal arrangements which now exist, might not suffice for the future. But if there is to be a council I do not accept that it should be dominated in this way by the Government.

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which I failed to mention. It has always been clear that a new body should be set up, partly to give cohesion to the various assay offices. These offices are giving up a substantial amount of their autonomy, and it is their willingness to co-operate with it which the House should consider and for which it should give them credit.

I accept that, as I do the fact that there will be a council, and I was not trying to suggest that the other place should delete the provision for it. I share my hon. Friend's unhappiness at the way in which this matter has been handled, and I support what was said by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) about the timing of such a vital and important amendment.

It seems to me that after centuries of impeccable service it is unnecessary, if a council is to be created, that it should even appear to be the creature of the Government. That is why I have some misgivings about this proposal, as my hon. Friend has, and as I think the whole House has, with the single exception of our hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench.

I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) about hallmarking a U-turn, but beyond that I do not think that I agree with him.

The criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) about the circumstances in which the Government have put forward the amendment carry great force, but it would be a pity if nobody expressed some support for paragraph 3(2). There is much force in the criticism of the amendment, especially on the principle of appointment by the Minister. I find it difficult to follow the reasoning behind the Minister's view. I may be able to follow it better if I read the report of the debate.

Apart from that caveat, I express qualified praise for paragraph 3(2). It seems to be a definite stride forward to include in provisions of this kind the express concept that persons who come on to this council shall be

"suitably qualified by virtue of their knowledge of and experience in organisations established, or activities carried on, for the protection of the consumer".

Even if others have difficulty with those words, to me they offer a definite advantage for the protection of the ordinary consumer, and that is something I welcome.

Perhaps I may intrude in this debate for the first and only time. I regret that I missed the Committee stage. I say that because I have found today's debate highly educational. When I listened to the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Hunter) and Cannock (Mr. Cormack) referring to confidence in the general acceptability of the lion, the thought occurred to me that if my wife were to say that she had bought something with a lion stamped on it I should accuse her of buying an elderly egg.

The debate has been reasonable, but I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) was right in what he said about the way in which the amendment has been brought forward, and it is for that reason that I have intervened. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), that there was consultation with the Government virtually up to the last moment in an effort to find a compromise solution to the problem, but it remains a fact that the whole House has the right to know when a piece of legislation which has reached its final stage in this House is to have an amendment tabled to it, and also the nature of that amendment. At the time of leaving the House last night many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including some who gave up their time to serve on the Committee, were unaware that the Government intended to bring forward this amendment. As a practice this is to be deplored, and it is right that the House should put on record its condemnation of it.

The Government have had several weeks in which to have the necessary consultation. I should not have thought it unduly difficult for the Government to put down the amendment 24 hours earlier than they did, so that all hon. Members, ragardless of the question whether the majority were particularly interested, had an opportunity to take part in the debate if they so wished. I realise that converts are notoriously zealous, and that the Government are recent converts to interventionism, but now they seem incapable of keeping their fingers out of any pie, however small. The Government's view appears to be that the British Hallmarking Council is too dangerous to be let loose without ministerial control.

I am not surprised at the Government's approach. We have seen it with the Fair Trading Bill, under which a so-called Consumer Protection Advisory Committee is to be set up with no consumers on it as of right. Only the Minister can make the appointments. We see that philosophy repeated here—the Ministers and the Department know best. No minute crumb of Whitehall patronage is to be allowed to slip from the Minister's hands. I find it incredible that the Government should feel it necessary to intervene in this way. The Bill has been argued reasonably, and I think that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and his supporters should be congratulated on the way in which they have not only presented the Bill, but conducted the proceedings. It is a pity that this note of acrimony has crept in at such a late stage.

As has been said, one recognises that there should be a consumer voice on the council. My regret is that that voice is not stronger than is envisaged in the amendment. The consumer remains very much in the minority on what is a consumer protection body, and I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in his rather idealised view of a retailer who represents the consumer.

Only recently one of the Minister's colleagues and I debated the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Bill. That measure was propounded on the general principle that the retailer is not necessarily the consumer's best friend.

Lest I be misunderstood on this point, I should explain that I agree that if an unscruplous retailer felt that he could get away with offering to the public an article which was below standard, that would be the case. But hallmarked articles which have passed through the assay office have to be sold to the public, and no retailer would buy them unless satisfied with their quality. That is the point I was seeking to make.

I was not making a major point. I could not allow the hon. Member's general comment to go by without making a remark, and I could not resist the opportunity to pull slightly on one leg. However, I want to ask the Under-Secretary why the consumer's voice is so weak on the Hallmarking Council, as envisaged, and why it is treated differently. Why is there consultation for certain members of the Hallmarking Council but not for the consumer? No consumer protection body has the right to put forward a list of nominees. There seems to be a definite downgrading of the relative importance of the consumer in this respect, and I hope the Under-Secretary will explain why that should be so.

Does not the hon. Member consider that the assay offices are acting in the interests of the consumer?

The point remains that the generality of consumers have a right to participate more fully in this type of council, but I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says. I wish the Bill rapid progress through its remaining stages.

With the leave of the House, I shall deal immediately with the points raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams). I have found that on this Front Bench it is impossible to win. If we had left the Hallmarking Council as it was in the Bill the Opposition would have asked us why we had left the matter entirely in the hands of the industry. Now we have taken it away from the industry we are asked why we have done that. I think that is fair comment on the hon. Member's question.

He raised the question of the consumer's voice. We are all consumers. What we have tried to ensure is that there should be some specialist representation from consumers. His next question was why had we not listed who should be nominated. If he would like to tell me which consumer bodies he would have left out from the consultation, I should be interested to hear. Do we put in the Co-operative movement and leave out certain other people? There are only three places to fill, and it seems to make much more sense to try to ensure that consultation takes place in order to obtain nominations. The hon. Member for Swansea, West has been a Minister. He knows that these matters are dealt with fairly thoroughly and I can give him an assurance that they will continue to be dealt with in that way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) asked whether the Government were in the position of not being compelled to accept nominations by the assay offices. That is indeed correct, because if the nomination is to be made by the Secretary of State his power overall is what matters. But in order to try to spell out the views of the Government we have set out clearly the way that the consultation should take place.

As the amendment provides, consultation shall take place

"with each of the following Assay Offices, that is, the London, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Sheffield Assay Offices.

(2) Before making any appointment under this paragraph the Secretary of State shall invite those offices to submit the names of one or more persons appearing to them suitable for appointment, and shall take any such submission into account".

That goes much further than most legislation in trying to write into the law the assurance that I am now willing to give my hon. Friend—that quite obviously it is the general desire of the Government to want to be able to accept the nominations which come forward. After all, we accept immediately that the assay offices have considerable experience in this matter. Nobody is trying to cast doubt on that. It is normal under our procedures concerning the appointment by Ministers to certain positions for the House to presume that the Ministers, in making such appointments, will go out of their way to secure the best and not the worst people for the job. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with that.

I am grateful for the assurance. I recognise that it is difficult to write such a thing into the Bill. Will my hon. Friend confirm that what he is saying is that, other things being equal, he will choose from the names submitted by the assay office, or will give them some preference over others?

I am not absolutely certain what "other things being equal" means, but if I may go even further, perhaps I could explain that unless there is an obvious reason for not wanting to accept nominations which have been put forward, those would normally be the sort of appointments that the Secretary of State would want to make. That is why we have written the provision into the Bill in that form. That is also why we have gone further than the original amendment sought to go.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) asked whether we would allow the Hallmarking Council to get on with the job once it was appointed. Of course we shall. That is the whole object of its creation. The whole idea of having it dealt with in this manner is that once appointed it could be left entirely on its own and could be seen as an independent body, not just as judge and jury in its own cause, but as an independent body which can deal with the matters which the Bill sets out as being its responsibility.

The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) said that the Government had learned certain things by bitter experience. Certainly, we have learned by bitter experience how wrong and how terrifying was the inflation situation that the Labour Party left for us when we came into office. That is the sort of bitter experience we had. The hon. Member's speech turned a little back to the political knock-about stuff, and on that I am as good as the next. But I intend to concentrate my attention on the Bill.

I apologise to the House for this being a starred amendment. That is not how I should normally wish an amendment to come forward. I had every hope that it might be put down earlier in the week, but I have had a number of consultations on the matter. I had believed that it might well be tabled on Monday, but that was not how it worked out. I had to decide whether it should be tabled now or left to be dealt with in another place, and I thought that I should be open to more severe criticism if I took the latter course. I hope that the House will understand the problems that I face.

We come to the main contention over the question whether the amendment is better or worse than the original suggestions or our previous amendments. I think that it is much better than the amendment we considered in Committee. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was hardly anything to choose between the two. We have kept to the size that the original Bill suggested. There was severe criticism that the suggestions in Committee took the size of the council up to, I think, 26. I accepted the criticism that that was too many.

We are having to decide whether the committee, which must act as judge and jury and regulator of the assay offices, should be, and should be seen to be, composed of nominees of the assay offices in a majority, whom the Secretary of State could overrule only by dismissing the whole council. I cannot believe that would be right, or that that is how anyone but the industry would expect such a governing body to be set up.

The Government accept that historically and in the method of inspection and control the assay offices have had a substantial place. We have improved the situation as compared with the original Government amendment, because that amendment made it absolutely clear that those who had come from the assay offices could never be in a majority in the council. Under the present amendment, while they still have to be appointed by the Secretary of State as the final stamp of their independence, the majority of the nominations will come through the assay offices and the trade via the assay offices. I am surprised that there has not been some criticism of that today, because it could be said that that may be a weakness. I was prepared to defend it if it had been criticised.

In view of the way in which we have laid down the nominations, have been willing to keep a fairly compact size and to keep co-option, and have spelt out consumer representation, I think that it will be a much better council, and will be judged from the outside to be likely to be a much better council, than that which was originally provided for.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

In view of the comments I made on moving the first amendment there is no

The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has already been congratulated considerably on transacting a Bill. It is right that we should pay our compliments to him and to those who advised him. When he mentioned the Dublin Assay Office he inadvertently, I think, referred to the republic across the water as a foreign country. Technically it is not a foreign country. The Ireland Act 1949 specifically says that it is not a foreign country. I hope that he will retract what he has said about the Republic of Ireland in that respect.

I hope that the Government across the water will take note of the legislation which we are transacting and, I hope, passing today. I hope that they will endeavour to do something of a corresponding nature in respect of the Dublin Assay Office.

I have had to take so much advice from lawyers in the course of the last few weeks that it gives me no pain to take further advice. I willingly withdraw my erroneous statement.

The hon. Gentleman made his withdrawal very gracefully. Irish problems are always paradoxical. The major paradox is that the Republic of Ireland, while not being foreign, is not exactly British, either.

I add my congratulations to the hon Member for Weston-super-Mare and to those who advised him. I am satisfied that it has been possible to retain an assay office in Scotland. I regret that the traditional Edinburgh hallmark of the thistle has unfortunately been replaced by the hallmark of a rampant lion. Scotland has never been so traditionally minded as to be unprepared to make changes when changes do no harm. Possibly from an aesthetic and a national point of view, the rampant lion may be just as good an indicator of Scottish quality as the thistle. I am glad to associate myself with the moving of the Third Reading of the Bill.

I shall make a brief speech.

Why not?

I shall not respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Pell), who often comes to urge me to make long speeches on Friday afternoons. I associate myself with what has been said. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has performed a signal service in getting the Bill through the House. He steered it through Committee with masterly precision, and with considerable wit and good humour. He has exhibited the same qualities during a long Report stage for a Private Member's Bill.

Future generations, be they ordinary consumers or sophisticated collectors, will have cause to be grateful to my hon. Friend, as will be the consumer movement generally. He has performed a very real service. He could not have done it but for the basic sympathy shown to his aims and objectives by the Government. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) and I have had slight cause to feel a little put out at certain stages, we are both conscious of the enormous efforts that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made. He has had a busy time during the last few months whilst dealing with this Bill and the Fair Trading Bill. He has assisted this Bill, and for that we are grateful.

I am only too happy to have played a small part in helping to get the Bill on the Statute Book. I hope that their Lordships in another place will remove the two blemishes that I consider to be present. If that is done, it will be a magnificent piece of legislation. When the Queen signifies her Assent the Bill will be worthy of the ultimate in hallmarks.

Together with some of my hon. Friends, I was responsible for the motion to ensure that Third Reading was debated. The basic reasons for doing so were simply that the Second Reading was taken as a formality, and because this is a complicated and lengthy Bill.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on steering us admirably through all stages, despite the complexities and the length of the Bill.

We are now coming to the final stage. When that stage has been completed we can stand back and admire the handiwork. It has taken 150 years to put the Bill on the statute book. It is right that for a moment we should contemplate its future. It is essentially a consumer protection Bill. That point has been accented to a great extent in all our debates. There is no question but that the Bill's provisions will benefit not only the manufacturers but the retailers and the public. If a Bill can achieve those three objectives it is a first-class Bill.

I have indicated strongly my dissent on millesimal marks and the constitution of the council. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), I hope that those two points will be rectified in another place. I had hoped that the trade's wishes about marks could be observed. Powerful arguments have been advanced and I hope that the trade's record of independent self-policing, and the fact that it was worked with the assay offices, would have been sufficient to persuade the Government to leave the control of the council in its hands.

All difficult debates have a silver lining and, as one of the sponsors of the Bill, I wish this measure a golden future.

I sense that the House is anxious to make progress and to come quickly to its final decision. Therefore, I shall make my remarks suitably brief.

The Bill has been much amended both in Committee and on Report. However, its basic principles remain unchanged. A change has been made on the constitution of the British Hallmarking Council, but there has been no change in the function of the council. The overall principle of the Bill is the protection of the consumer.

The consumers whom we are seeking to protect are not the wealthy collectors. That point has been made during the earlier stages of the Bill. The Stone Committee reported in 1959 that 95 per cent. of all new gold and silver articles sold cost less than £10. Even allowing for the passage of time and the erosion of inflation, that situation will probably remain basically the same. We are protecting large numbers of people of modest means who buy things which are important to them which are made of precious metals. The House has produced a Bill which is as important to the purchasers of modest means as it is for wealthy collectors or dealers, whether private or public.

It is interesting to note the passage of time which has taken place in bringing about this legislation. There was an official inquiry as long ago as 1856 and another one in 1879. The Stone Committee produced its report in 1959. The thread running through those inquiries and reports was that hallmarking was in the public's interest. Whilst, for various reasons, the House has taken a long time to come to a decision, it has finally produced a good and widely acceptable Bill, notwithstanding the understandable reservations of some hon. Members. It is a Bill which will be an important piece of legislation for a long time ahead.

This is a very technical and complicated Bill, which is difficult for laymen to understand and appreciate. Its passage has been much facilitated by the able and courteous manner in which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has sponsored it and piloted it through all its stages. He has at all times shown himself most ready to listen to advice, both inside and outside the House, and, as I know, to discuss points at issue and to seek to reach agreement where that was possible. It should be recorded that his conduct has greatly facilitated the progress of the Bill. Great credit is due to him for having sponsored it and having conducted it in such a creditable fashion.

The hon. Gentleman is now well on the way towards joining that select group of private Members who have their names on the statute book. I must confess to being one of them myself. I want also to express my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the very courteous manner in which he has helped the House. Notwith- standing any criticism I may have expressed of him earlier, he has been most helpful. I again warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and wish the Bill well on its journey to the other place.

This is the final scene of the final act of the Bill in this House, I hope—from which it might be implied that I do not take the view that there should be amendments returning from another place proposed to stop or interrupt the uniformity of hallmarking which we have been able to achieve with the Bill.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on his handling of a Report stage lasting four hours with 85 amendments, three new clauses and a new schedule. He did it on his own without back-up from either civil servants or the Opposition's secretariat. That takes hard and dedicated work.

The present law has been criticised for well over a century. The first Select Committee to begin the criticism sat in 1856 and reported the same year, and a Select Committee in 1879 again recommended action, but we had to wait for Wiggin in 1972 before the action was begun. It is only necessary to look at the list of repeals in the Bill to see the complexity of the subject. We start with an Act of 1696, in the reign of William III, going on to another Act, passed in the time of Queen Anne, dealing with the assay of imported watch cases. Provisions of the Common Informers Act are also repealed, and there is even the repeal of an Act of George III dealing with Ireland. The law has obviously been completely out of date, unenforceable and unenforced.

I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend for his work, and I believe that we are sending to another place a workable and sensible Bill which will be understood and will protect the consumer. The Bill also protects the trade. By prohibiting the misdescription of substandard ware in all precious metals, I believe that we are taking a considerable step forward in the consumer protection in which the present Government are making a fine reputation—a greater reputation for consumer protection than that of any previous Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave you advance warning that I am in a difficulty here. As I understand it, it is impossible to discuss this Bill. I am in difficulty because the only Scot present is the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie)—

Not so.

I am apprised of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. No point of order can arise on this. I am expressly enjoined by the Standing Orders that unless there is a blocking motion tabled, even if the time be before four o'clock I must put the motion without debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that in this case there is an amendment, new Clause 1, which I understand has not been selected. I wish to raise two points on that. I know that we cannot discuss Mr. Speaker's selection or non-selection but in Committee the Minister gave cer- tain undertakings to examine matters which had been raised—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will understand that undertakings given by Ministers in Committee cannot form the basis of a point of order to me now. I am enjoined by the Standing Orders to treat this Bill in the same way as the previous Bill. I should say "There being no amendments on consideration, Third Reading on what day?" The motion is then moved and the Question is put at once. I cannot entertain any points of order, since none can arise. I must put the Question now.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out first '9' and insert '11'.

I am grateful to the House for accepting the motion of my hon. Friends and myself that this Bill should be considered in a Committee of the whole House. This Bill has widespread support on both sides of the House and there is a general wish to facilitate progress. When seeking leave to introduce the Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure on 6th February I said that an hour or two of parliamentary time would allow us to make (he necessary amendments to the General Rate Act.

This amendment needs very little explanation because it is purely a drafting amendment. In the original Bill we inadvertently inserted a reference to paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 of the General Rate Act 1967 when we meant paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 deals with areas of exclusion from assessment of income while paragraph 9 deals with areas of inclusion.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in line 6, after ' 1967 ', insert:

'and (as respects Scotland) of section 7(3) of the Rating Act 1966 '

With this we can also discuss Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 13.

The amendments effectively extend the Bill to Scotland and therefore they are very largely drafting amendments.

It is always with some temerity that English and Welsh hon. Members attempt to extend any legislation to Scotland, with its different tradition in law, but, with the collaboration and help of the Department, we have decided that the Bill should be extended to Scotland. The purpose of the Bill, as set out in the Long Title, is to disregard payments of attendance allowances as income under the General Rate Act 1967. That Act extended only to England and Wales. Rate rebates in Scotland, the terms of which match exactly those afforded to domestic ratepayers in England and Wales, are granted under the Rating Act 1966, and clearly it would be inequitable if domestic ratepayers in Scotland were denied the benefit of the Bill if it became law.

The purpose of the amendment is to extend the Bill's provisions to domestic ratepayers in Scotland. On 3rd April last we approved an Instruction in the name of the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Committee that it should have power to add attendance allowances to the matters listed in Section 7(3) of the Rating Act 1966.

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 10, after second 'of', insert 'any'.

With this we can also discuss Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 12.

As drafted, the Bill provides for the disregard to rate rebate purposes of the attendance allowances payable under the National Insurance Acts, and particularly those payable since December 1971 to the most severely disabled. The constant attendance allowances are payable under the War Pensions and Industrial Injuries Schemes and currently about 10,000 allowances are being paid. The Bill does not cover the recipients of those allowances and the Government have kindly intimated to me that they would propose to extend the Bill to cover them.

The purpose of the amendment is to extend the provisions of the Bill to include the constant attendance allowances payable under the War Pensions and Industrial Injuries Schemes. Treatment of all attendance allowances for rate rebate purposes will then coincide with their treatment for rent rebate and rent allowance purposes under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Housing Finance Act 1972.

I am sure that it is entirely right that the amendment should be made, and I welcome it on behalf of the Government. As the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said, constant attendance allowances payable under the War Pensions and Industrial Injuries Schemes cover about 10,000 people. I doubt very much whether such a number of people will benefit from the amendment, but I am glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the amendment should be made.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State on supporting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about extending the effect of the Bill. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it will cover both sets of allowances—constant attendance allowance by day and by night, and the more recently introduced allowance by day or by night?

It is my hope that they are covered by the Bill. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will intervene to correct me. It was my intention that they should be covered when I introduced the Bill.

That is my understanding of the position, but it would be wise if I were to make sure and to let my hon. Friend the Member for New-bury (Mr. Astor) know before the Bill completes its passage in another place.

I beg to move, Amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'the' to 'Act' in line 16 and insert 'Rate Rebate'.

With this we will take Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

This group of amendments is simply to simplify the title of the Bill and make sure it covers Scotland.

The other night the House agreed an Instruction to the Committee that the Bill should be extended to cover Scotland. I know that that was always the intention of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I think it is entirely right that it should cover the entire Kingdom, and indeed I am quite sure that our friends to the north of the Border would be horrified if it did not. On behalf of the Government I am very glad to accept the amendment.

From the Front Bench on this side we would wish to accept the amendment moved by my hon. Friend. We are delighted that Scotland should be covered and we should feel very deprived if it were not.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I should like to say a little about this. The House will understand that in the absence of any provision being made to the contrary in this Bill it would come into operation on the date of Royal Assent, but the calculation of rent rebates in England and Wales is assessed by reference to the rates payable in the half-yearly periods beginning on 1st April and 1st October. It was on one such calculation, on the period of 1st October last, that a constituent first brought these matters to my attention.

In Scotland, however, the financial year of rating authorities begins on 16th May —or later, although I think that is correct, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) must interrupt me if my ignorance of Scottish matters shows through. The rate rebate periods in Scotland are 16th May and 16th November, 29th May and 29th November, and 1st June and 1st December.

Responsibility for the administration of the rent rebate scheme rests with local authorities. Local authorities may not have retained copies of applications for rebates made by domestic ratepayers which have been refused, as many have been, on the grounds, for example that the applicant's income exceeded the prescribed qualifying income limits because he was in receipt of an attendance allowance. We know of many examples of this having happened. It was one such example which brought this anomalous situation to my notice in the first place.

Under Section 49(1) and (4) of the General Rate Act 1949 and Section 5(1) and (4) of the Rating Act 1966 in the case of Scotland, a domestic ratepayer is entitled under the scheme to a full rebate in the appropriate half-yearly rate rebate period, provided that he makes application two months before and not later than one month following the beginning of the rebate period.

If an application is made more than one month after the beginning of the rebate period, the local authority may reduce proportionately any rebate payable under Section 49(2) of the General Rate Act in England and Wales and Section 5(2) of the Rating Act 1966 in the case of Scotland. No rebate is payable if an application is made after the close of the rebate period to which it relates.

The objective of the new clause is to ensure that attendance allowances are disregarded for rate rebate purposes from the beginning of any rebate period starting on or after 1st April this year, a date which has already passed. But, for the reason given to the House already, it is not practicable to place upon local authorities responsibility for the recalculation of applications for rebate already dealt with. The new clause places the onus on the ratepayer to re-apply for a rebate following the passage of this legislation.

Since this is a somewhat obscure Bill, covering only a fairly small area, and there are only a comparatively few people involved who perhaps already have had their applications turned down, I hope that something can be done. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us that he will see that the new conditions for re-application are publicised as much as possible, so that ratepayers may know that attendance allowances will no longer count as income for rate rebate purposes. I should like the terms of the Bill publicised as much as possible, should it pass today. I hope that the Minister will tell us what he has in mind in that direction.

So that this disregard will be available from 1st April last, it is also necessary to disapply the provisions of Section 49 of the 1967 Act and of Section 5 of the 1966 Act to which I have referred. Subsection (4) of the new clause provides accordingly. In the absence of such a provision, a local authority would have discretion to reduce proportionately the rebate granted as the result of an application under the Bill.

Subsection (1) applies the Bill's provisions to each rebate period beginning on or after 1st October 1973. Subsection (2) provides that these provisions shall apply to the rate rebate period beginning on 1st April 1973, or on 16th or 29th May or 1st June in the case of Scotland. The rebates will not be reduced because the application is made after the beginning of that period.

Subsection (3) allows a ratepayer to make a second application for a rebate in the current rebate period following the passage of the Bill. We hope that many will do so if the terms of the Bill and the new clause are adequately publicised. Any rebate granted will, however, take account of any rebate already afforded under the 1967 and 1966 Acts.

Subsection (4) disapplies, in the case of the current rebate period only, the provisions of Section 49(2) of the 1967 Act, which permits a local authority to pay a proportionately reduced rebate to a late applicant.

Having outlined the reasons for the new clause and, I hope, trailed my coat a little to the Minister in terms of the arrangements which may be made if the Bill is successful both here and in another place, I should now like to invite the Minister to intervene and to tell us how the Bill may be publicised in the event of its success.

I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and the new clause. Clearly one should be a little hesitant in supporting a clause which includes an element of retrospection. But in this case it is fully justified.

When the constant attendance allowance was introduced, we all understood that it would be exempted from means tests or tax. Perhaps it was because of the lack of co-ordination that this provision was not included in the previous legislation.

I fully support the hon. Gentleman in this attempt to ensure that disabled people will be entitled to this benefit.

In commenting upon the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. White-head), I should say something about the general background of the Bill.

The background essentially is that rate rebates are payable as of right to ratepayers in England, Wales and Scotland provided that their gross income does not exceed certain prescribed limits. In 1971–72, the latest year for which I have figures, over 800,000 ratepayers in England and Wales benefited under the scheme and in Scotland just under 100,000 ratepayers benefited. The total cost of the rebates granted in 1971–72 was almost £22 million, 75 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme being met by the Exchequer and the balance coming from the general body of ratepayers in the communities in question.

With one exception—the £10 bonus paid to pensioners and others just before last Christmas—the relevant legislation has not previously defined income for rate rebate purposes. At present, attendance allowances under the scheme introduced in December 1971 have been regarded as income for rate rebate purposes. The background to the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman very fairly described it on Second Reading, was to disregard these attendance allowances as income for rate rebate purposes.

In saying to the hon. Gentleman that his new clause is welcome, I ought to put on record that it is very difficult indeed to estimate the number of ratepayers who will benefit under the Bill. Although we know the total number of persons receiving attendance allowances, we do not know for sure how many of those people are ratepayers and, therefore, how many will benefit under the Bill. However, I estimate—I stress that this is an estimate —that about 6,500 people will benefit. I estimate that the total cost of the relief granted will be about £170,000 in 1973–74. and possibly rising beyond that. For that reason, 75 per cent. of the total cost, that is, about £130,000, will be met from national taxation. That is why my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury agreed the Financial Resolution.

On the specific wording of the new clause, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my Department and I are entirely content with it. In order that ratepayers may know that their attendance allowances will no longer count as income for this purpose, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that there will need to be wide and effective publicity, particularly as in many cases the ratepayers who will benefit are not people who, perhaps, in most cases, do a great deal of reading of official documents.

Therefore, it is my Department's intention to ensure that there is wide publicity, but publicity that is directed specifically to the people in question. We shall have to give some thought as to how selectively to make known the new benefits to those who will be able to take advantage of them. But I assure the Committee that, both through local authorities and in other ways through the social welfare services, we shall do our utmost to ensure that those eligible to benefit will do so.

Does the Minister consider it advisable to suggest to borough treasurers, for example, that information about the Bill might be circulated with the general rate demand sent out from their departments?

I gladly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall look at any reasonable and practicable way of disseminating this information.

This is a modest, but good measure. The Government's support for it has been made clear in the Financial Resolution and in our acceptance of the extension of the amendments and the new clause.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that if he is to ask the treasurers to send out notices with the rate demands he will have to do it quickly because the rate demands are going out any moment now?

I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend. However, it is even more complicated than that, as the hon. Member for Derby, North has pointed out.

The Government are in strong support of the Bill. The hon. Member for Derby, North and his hon. Friends can rightly claim paternity for it, but I hope that he will agree that my Department has devoted a good deal of maternal or at least foster mother's care to it. I should like to think that this has been an exercise in partnership between both sides of the House, between a private Member and the Government, and that the result is to do a good turn for a small but not unimportant group of our fellow citizens who need and will now get this help.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is almost identical with a Bill which I introduced a few years ago which then obtained a Second Reading but was subsequently withdrawn from Committee stage for reasons into which I need not go.

This is a Bill to

"authorise the creation of a National Lottery Board; to empower and require the Board to organise and operate a lottery scheme and to make grants in aid of charitable organisasions, medical research and other social and welfare purposes; and for connected purposes".

I do not wish in any way to challenge the convictions or views of those who are opposed to any form of gambling or to an extension of it in this way as an issue of moral principle. One can respect without agreeing with that point of view, which I believe is a minority one.

The House can hardly consistently support this view, since in various forms the State already benefits in one way or another, by the betting levy or savings bonds, from the gambling instinct present in the great majority of people which leads them to enjoy, without any great harm to themselves or anyone else, an occasional small flutter.

The passage of the necessary legislation to authorise other forms of gambling surely indicates the acceptance by society that it is worth while using for beneficial purposes this widespread national instinct to have a little flutter. I believe that this idea enjoys widespread support not merely in the House but outside. I estimate that it has the support of 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the population.

The Bill specifies the purposes for which the profits might be used. It is drawn widely, but it includes one category of medical research which was the number one priority which led me to look seriously at this idea and give it my support. One recognises that money itself does not solve the problem of disease. It is accepted that merely making more money available does not necessarily mean that the research will be either worthwhile or successful. But the fact remains that worthwhile areas of medical research are gravely hampered by the lack of funds. If that is not so, one wonders why so many charitable organisations with a specific interest in and responsibility for such matters as research into cancer and leukemia spend so much time and money canvassing for public support.

Knowing that such a need exists, anyone who opposes the Bill must have an uneasy conscience and owes it to himself to examine the matter very seriously and carefully. He owes it to himself to consider whether in opposing the Bill he is not doing something which is detrimental to the cause of medical research.

I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber are sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he not think that the vast sums of money which successive Governments spend on projects which many people regard as a waste of public funds should, instead, be diverted to deal with the issues which my hon. Friend has in mind instead of their having to rely on subscriptions in the form of public lotteries?

It is not for me to expect some dramatic change in the pattern of Government spending which would free resources from the purposes which my hon. Friend regards as less worth while and devote them to these which I have in mind. I have no responsibility for that. What I am doing is something unusual. I am not suggesting new ways in which money can be spent without suggesting a new way in which it can be arranged. That does not make my proposal unique, but it does mean that this is one of those rarer parliamentary occasions, and I hope that for that reason if for no other the Government will give it their blessing.

One of the commonest charges against the suggestion of a national lottery is that experience abroad shows it to be costly and wasteful. We are told that administrative costs eat up too large a proportion of the funds subscribed and too little money is left for prizes and for beneficial purposes.

Costs vary widely over a large number of such schemes operating in many countries. Only two of these national lottery schemes abroad have costs of over 20 per cent. of the turnover. I would not have thought that was an unreasonably high proportion. For instance, in Sweden the administrative costs, including the payment of commission to 4,500 local agents who help to operate the scheme, amounts to only 2 per cent. of the gross revenue.

Sometimes criticism is made that for the Government, the State or Parliament to accept a proposal such as this would achieve an increase in total gambling which might be regarded as objectionable even by the House which has in the past accepted a general principle in the form of savings bonds and a betting levy. I do not think we have a great deal of evidence that people now have such a significant amount of free money that up to now they have not been able to find any way of using but which they will suddenly begin to spend on a national lottery, drawing into gambling people who have not previously engaged in it. Certainly it will raise fresh money and it has to come from somewhere. But a national lottery would compete very successfully with existing forms of gambling and would have the merit, which the other forms do not, that the proceeds would be devoted to the categories of public service which I have broadly outlined in the Bill.

I am interested in the argument but would my hon. Friend not recollect that the same response was made to that argument in the course of the debate about premium bonds? None the less, huge sums are now invested in premium bonds without diminution in the total amount that has gone into other forms of gambling.

The element of gambling connected with premium bonds is very small. The premium bond appeals to a different kind of person, not to the traditional gambler. I would have thought that the criticism that the total amount of gambling might increase would be more applicable to premium bonds which tend to go to people who do not normally contribute to football pools and that sort of thing. My proposal would compete directly with these more traditional and more widespread forms of gambling rather than creating a new demand.

I was not here at the start of the hon. Member's speech and for that I apologise. Would not his Bill compete with the football pools on Merseyside?

Frankly, the answer is "Yes". The hon. Member represents a Merseyside seat and naturally will form his opinion accordingly. Who can blame him? The whole point of my argument is that proceeds may well be drained from the football pools, but they would be applied, as the pools do not apply them, not to profits to shareholders but to the beneficial purposes outlined in the Bill.

The hon. Member has used some hard words about those who might oppose the Bill. He said that they should search their consciences before they voted against it, because of the worthy objectives to which the money, if raised, would be devoted. Some of those who might genuinely and sincerely oppose the Bill may already be subscribing to those causes.

Of course, but the fact that one makes a subscription to such a cause does not entitle the subscriber to deny such causes an additional source of revenue, at least, not without examining his conscience and the logic of the argument.

I turn to an argument strongly advanced when a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in Committee on a Finance Bill that there should be a national lottery, although he did not specify the purposes to which the money would be applied. He simply asked the House for a decision on the general principle. The decision of the House was in the negative, many speakers, including supporters of my own Bill, not being prepared to give the Chancellor a blank cheque without having the names of any of the beneficiaries written into the Bill. That is a point of view that I accept.

Another and even more strongly argued criticism, particularly from my own side of the House, was that it was absolutely wrong that in a mature society, with a conscience and with responsibility towards its citizens, such necessary and worthwhile causes should be dependent upon the chance of a lottery, that if the needs were there, they should be met through taxation rationed out. that that was the more rational approach. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friends indicate that this proposition is attractive, but anyone who takes that view must be prepared to say why it is that so many needs still go unmet. Indeed, by this definition we are not yet a mature society, because not all needs are met. It would verge on hypocrisy to take the view that in order to pretend that we match up to this definition, this high-principled definition of a mature society, we should refuse this alternative means of raising money.

We all know the public reaction to increased taxation. Every hon. Member and every member of the public is prepared time and again to suggest new causes that should be supported by public funds, but rarely if ever is he prepared to agree, with any degree of enthusiasm to say the least, to the necessary taxation.

A merit of my proposal is that it is a form of voluntary taxation. People do not have to indulge in it if they do not want to do so. If they indulge, they would receive value for money, or they would cease to indulge. I am not a puritan about this and I see no great virtue in some sort of Spartan approach which says that paying must hurt, that finding money for worthy causes is somehow disreputable if it is done painlessly. I cannot understand that line of argument Certainly I should have an uneasy conscience if I followed that line while all around me I could see areas in which needs were entirely unmet from public funds. But even as public expenditure increases, as the public conscience is prepared to authorise such expansion in one direction or another there will always be a number of unfilled needs which will reveal themselves.

I have read the Bill carefully. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out how he would like the money spent. Is it not the case that every hon Member bringing in such a Bill would have a clause in it on how he would like the money spent? I would like to see the money spent on the arts and the hon. Gentleman would like it spent on medical research. But surely this takes a responsibility off the Government, which would be a bad thing because a Minister could say about a matter where there was need for public expenditure, "But this is the responsibility of the national lottery and not of the Government."

One can hardly say that against a national lottery which does not yet exist. I do not accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman because my proposal is that the lottery would be administered by an independent board, set up by the Minister but operating independently. The board would judge where to disburse the funds. I am sure that its members would be perfectly able to assess the various claims for funds and would also have the judgment to recognise any risk of simply easing the burden of the Treasury. But even easing the burden of the Treasury should not be regarded as essentially wrong in itself. In certain circumstances it might be worth while. I do not support the point of view which regards some assistance to the relief of general taxation as being inherently wrong.

But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that many of these charities are already running their own lotteries?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to deal with a point which I might not otherwise have been able to touch on because of the time. The question is whether the position of local lotteries or raffles run by churches, clubs and other organisations would be damaged by this proposal. The motive for buying tickets in small local lotteries is entirely different. It contains much more the element of deliberate subscription to a worthy cause than the hope of winning a cake, or a box of chocolates or a bottle of whisky, or whatever might be offered. The competition of a national lottery organised on a massive scale would be directed much more effectively against the large-scale forms of gambling and would not in my belief do any damage to the smaller charities.

I am trying to follow the argument. What evidence has my hon. Friend for his case? Let us take, for example, the Irish hospitals sweepstake lottery, which sells tickets on an international scale. Has my hon. Friend evidence to suggest that the Irish hospital service is as good as ours or as good as any financed by Governments? Is he advocating this kind of departure from our traditional forms of spending?

I am not proposing that we should begin to finance the National Health Service from a national lottery. I am trying to make the point that there is an area of need which, though perhaps not so fundamental as the National Health Service, is still worth while and important. Some areas of that need are as urgent as medical research, which I specified as being a worthwhile objective. Many other worthwhile causes do not at present qualify for support from public funds. It is worth while to consider a change in the source of finance for such causes. I do not see a national lottery as an alternative source of finance for the National Health Service.

I agree that there are many good causes which need money. I do not find it unreasonable that they should get part of their proceeds from such matters as the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, will he apply his mind to how it is to be decided how to allocate the proceeds of a lottery amongst the various charities and demands that he has mentioned?

That is a fair question. Obviously specialists would have to be chosen—perhaps including some with a knowledge of medical research—to assist. Distinguished people, some of whom are so ready to serve on various Royal Commissions and committees of inquiry, would have to be chosen. Each person would have to be selected because of his experience or knowledge of a possible area of benefit. The remaining members of the board would be drawn from the ranks of those that are gifted administratively—namely, those with promotional and advertising skill, and those with experience in commerce.