posted 07-04-2004 06:51 AM            

I found it very interesting and it certainly explains in more depth what has happened to the Hallmarking system.

The following will get you started

quote:

---

Hallmarking (Hallmarking Act Amendment) Regulations 1998
Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Mr. Jim Cunningham in the Chair
Wednesday 10 February 1999

4.30 pm

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Hallmarking (Hallmarking Act Amendment) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2978).

It is a pleasure to move the motion under your chairmanship, Mr. Cunningham.

The Opposition prayed against the regulations so that we could have a proper discussion about them. There is much confusion about the Government's policy on hallmarking. Are the Government introducing the regulations because they have to or because they want to? Michael Winwood, the secretary of the British Hallmarking Council said:

"We have had to accept the situation. We had no choice."

I hope that we will find out from the Minister how the regulations interact with the European Union's proposed directive on precious metals. Do the Government support the directive, which would force all EU countries to use the same hallmarking system and require all silver and precious goods to have the E symbol on them?

The starting point for our debate is that article 30 of the European Union treaty promotes the free movement of goods. Who would have presumed that that article would, 20 or 30 years later, be interpreted in such a way as to outlaw the ancient and revered practice of hallmarking in this country? Hallmarking is one of the original ways in which we ensured consumer protection. We have had a British lion silver hallmark uninterrupted since 1544 for more than 450 years. Is that simply to be abolished and replaced by symbols that nobody understands and which have no tradition, relevance or meaning for the British consumer? Is this yet another example of the erosion of our sovereignty, which Europe continues to salami-slice away?

The regulations make the situation much more complicated for the ordinary consumer, who is familiar with the concept of sterling silver. It now appears that we will have many varieties of silver. We will not quite know what they are unless we look at the detailed number on them. Many varieties will come from other countries in the European Economic Area. Some will be manufactured to different levels of fineness from the old sterling silver. Will that benefit the consumer or will it lead to consumer concern and confusion?

Consumer protection is at the heart of the issue. It is an offence for any trader to sell or describe an article in gold, silver or platinum unless it is hallmarked. Hallmarking provides the customer with a guarantee of the fineness of the precious metal content. The most recent changes to hallmarking system, which incorporated platinum into it, were introduced by the Labour Government in 1975.

Our concern is that the present system of clarity is being replaced by one of confusion. It will no longer necessarily be possible for consumers to know the date on which a precious item was manufactured. They will find that items that are not manufactured in this country can carry the lion hallmark, but they will know that it is purely a decorative symbol. There is much concern that if the next directive, which is currently being discussed, comes into effect, it will prevent the use of the lion on English silver altogether.

So we would like the Government to answer quite a few questions this afternoon. In particular, we would like them to confirm that they still believe that manufacturers' self-certification, as practised in some continental countries, offers a lower form of guarantee to consumers than does the independent marking of precious metal articles, as practiced by the UK assay offices.

The issue is causing people outside much concern. What proposals has the Department to enlighten the British consumer about the contents of the regulations, which have already been passed into law, notwithstanding our prayer?

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): While accepting that there is a terrible shambles, I hope that my hon. Friend is not saying that it is the Government's fault or is he?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend asks me to ascribe responsibility and blame; I shall not do so. My hon. Friend knows more about this matter than any member of the Committee. What appears to have happened is that when we signed up to the European Union single market, we had not realised all of its implications. We have had to comply with rulings of the European Court of Justice, especially in the Dutch case that lies behind the regulations, which appear inconsistent with the original basis on which we entered the single market and accepted its system.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should not place all the responsibility on the broad shoulders of the Minister, and that responsibility goes wider in particular with respect to the way in which European jurisprudence enables the European court of Justice to interpret European treaties in a way that no one intended when we signed them.

4.37 pm

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I join the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in saying how good it is to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Cunningham. This is the first time that it has happened to me and, I am sure, to many other members of the Committee.

The hon. Member for Christchurch focused on the most crucial issue: whether we will be able to help consumers to understand what they are purchasing and to make the right decisions. That ought to underpin any consumer strategy of any Government.

If I may, I shall give an account of what we have done through the Hallmarking (Hallmarking Act Amendment) Regulations 1998, and what we have not done, to remove any confusion that may have arisen in the minds of members of the Committee.

The regulations, which amend the Hallmarking Act 1973, were made for three reasons. First and foremost they were made to align UK law with European Union rules on the free circulation of products in the single market. We have ensured that UK legislation reflects the existing position in Community law. That is therefore a matter of clarity.

Secondly, the regulations are intended to ensure that United Kingdom manufacturers are not disadvantaged by the new freedom to trade in articles of precious metal in Europe on the basis of national hallmarks indeed, to ensure that they can take full advantage of it. That is important: it is a question not just of the validity of imported precious metal but of our ability to export.

Thirdly, given the need to amend the Hallmarking Act 1973 in line with European rules, we have also taken the opportunity to update the Act to take account of long-standing concerns of the British Hallmarking Council and of a part of the trade.

I should stress at the outset that there is no question of reducing the high level of protection that hallmarking and the Hallmarking Act 1973 afford to consumers in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Christchurch was right in that respect we must be very careful. Some of the amendments made by the regulations will, however, increase consumer choice and make hallmarks more readily understandable to consumers. I hope that both those factors will strengthen the value of hallmarking in the future. Greater freedom of movement of hallmarked articles of precious metal will be of benefit to UK exporters, given that UK hallmarks will be accepted throughout the EEA.

I shall briefly list the changes that the regulations have made to the Act. The definition of "approved hallmarks" in section 2 of the Act has been amended to allow for the recognition of specific hallmarks from other EEA states. that follows the 1994 Houtwipper judgment at the European Court of Justice and earlier case law, which made clear that our hallmarking legislation, like that of other hallmarking states, was in breach of article 30 of the EC treaty. We will, however, recognise only hallmarks that have been struck under the law of another member state by an independent body, and which provide information equivalent to that provided by our own hallmarks and which is intelligible to consumers in the United Kingdom.

Sir Teddy Taylor rose

Dr. Howells: Of course I shall give way; I was looking in the hon. Gentleman's direction.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the legislation will make a total and complete shambles that will leave consumers unprotected? While he is rightly trying to preserve the advantages of the hallmarking system for which I praise him consumers will see goods coming from at least 10 other European states where self-certification is permitted. How the blazes will the consumer judge one or the other? Will we have notices? Will not unscrupulous people who sell things be able to take consumers for a ride? Will not the protection that we have had for years simply fade away because of the new competition, for which I certainly do not blame the Minister?

Dr. Howells: I accept that the hon. Gentleman's anxiety has a great deal of validity, and I am glad that he expressed it. I just said that no item imported into Britain without a valid mark made by an independent and mutually recognized marking organization such as the British Hallmarking Council will be allowed to be sold. Self marking done by firms themselves will not be allowed. The matter is not to be confused with the regulations' remit, although it is important.

Currently, an EC directive is being considered that would do away with the need for hallmarking. I understand that it is the subject of a stalemate, which is not surprising. Under the directive, we would be confronted with imported goods that might or might not have hallmarks, but it would not matter, because they would have to be sold, accepted and so on. That is a real danger, but it dos not concern the regulations.

..... Continued (click here)

---