HC Deb 29 October 1909 vol 12 cc1318-32

(1) As from the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine there shall be charged, levied, and paid on motor spirit imported into Great Britain or Ireland a duty of Customs at the rate of threepence per gallon.

(2) As from the first day of June nineteen hundred and nine there shall be charged, levied, and paid on motor spirit made in Great Britain or Ireland, an Excise Duty at the rate of threepence per gallon, and there shall be charged on a licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer of motor spirit and by a dealer in motor spirit an Excise Duty of one pound and an Excise Duty of five shillings respectively.

(3) Where a licence is taken out under this provision by a manufacturer of motor spirit, it shall not be necessary for him to obtain any further licence in respect of any still kept or used by him solely for the purpose of the manufacture or refinement of motor spirit.

(4) The provisions of Section ninety-eight of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, which relate to the charging of duty at the time of the actual delivery of goods, shall apply to motor spirit as they apply to the specially excepted goods mentioned in that Section.

(5) The Excise Duty on motor spirit may be charged in such manner and at such time during the process of the manufacture of motor spirit as the Commissioners may determine.

(6) Where motor spirit or any article in the manufacture or preparation of which any motor spirit has been used is exported from Great Britain or Ireland as merchandise, or shipped for use as ship's stores, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the Excise Duty on motor spirit has been paid in respect of the motor spirit or in respect of the motor spirit used, as the case may be, a drawback shall be allowed equal to the amount of duty paid in respect of the motor spirit, or in the case of an article in the manufacture, or preparation of which motor spirit has been used, equal to the duty on the quantity of motor spirit which appears, to the Treasury, to have been used.

(7) Sections eight and nine of the Finance Act, 1901, as amended by Section two of the Revenue Act, 1903, shall apply with respect to the manufacture of and dealing in motor spirit as they apply with respect to the manufacture of saccharin, and any provisions of the Spirit Act, 1880, or any Acts amending that Act, may be applied by regulations made in pursuance of this Sub-section to motor spirit.

(8) In this Part of this Act, the expression "motor spirit" means any inflammable hydrocarbon (including any mixture of hydrocarbons and any liquid containing hydrocarbon) which is capable of being used for providing reasonably efficient motive power for a motor car, and the expression "manufacturer of motor spirit" includes a refiner of motor spirit and a person otherwise preparing motor spirit.

(9) The Commissioners may by regulations prescribe tests for the purpose of determining whether any inflammable hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons, or liquid containing hydrocarbon, is motor spirit within the meaning of this provision.

Mr. HAROLD PEARSON moved to leave out the Clause.

During the last six months I have listened to various interests taking up cudgels on their own behalf. I have listened to landlords on both sides of the House speaking against the Land Clauses, and I have listened to brewers speaking against the Licensing Clauses of the Bill. Therefore I feel I have ample precedent for raising my voice, as one who is interested in the importation of motor spirit into this country, against the Clause in the Bill which imposes the duty on motor spirit. I hope, however, to show that I object to this Clause more as a taxpayer and as an owner of motor cars than as one who is interested in the importation of the spirit. I may say that I heartily support the principle of raising £600,000 for the purpose of the Development Bill, but I object most strongly to the extravagant way in which it is proposed to raise the money. Do hon. Members realise that this 3d. is going to be increased to at least 3½ per gallon, and possibly 4d.? I think the best way to realise that this is inevitable is to follow a cargo of spirit from the time it reaches this country. Take the case of an average sized cargo of 4,000 tons. At 3d. per gallon it works out at £15,000 as the tax which the importer has to pay. From the time the petrol is taken out of bond to the time the seller receives his money for it is a period of at least four months. Therefore interest on that sum during that period has to be reckoned, and, in addition to that, there is a loss on the handling of the spirit as it is moved from tank to tank till it is finally placed in selling cans. I think that could on an average be stated at about 5 per cent., so that there is 5 per cent. on £15,000 which the seller of the spirit has paid in taxes, but which evaporates and brings him in no return. To be added to that there is the additional loss he suffers by reason of bad debts which may be incurred. The total of these various items works out at at least ½d. per gallon, and in practice I should think it will probably be found to be nearer 1d. per gallon. Hon. Members may say that a ½d. per gallon on a 3d. tax is not a very serious matter.

But this is not the worst part of the expense. The cost to the Excise authorities has still to be reckoned. In the figures I have already given I have been able to estimate fairly accurately what the cost is likely to be, but with regard to the burden which will be thrown on the Excise authorities I have no figures available, and it must therefore be a much rougher estimate. Bearing in mind what the Excise authorities will have to do, I do not think it is putting it at all too high to say that the cost will be 1d. per gallon at least. First, the duty has to be collected either at the port of entry or when the spirit is taken out of bond. That is quite easy, but in addition to that the shale refineries in Scotland will have to be visited, and where the chief expenditure will come in will be in visiting gas works throughout the country to ascertain how much, if any, benzol is produced. I think, therefore, in estimating the cost at 1d. per gallon I am not very far wrong. This means that while the taxpayer is going to pay 3½d. per gallon extra for his spirit, the revenue will receive only 2d.—the taxpayer will pay £350,000 and the Exchequer will receive only £200,000. I know that the answer to my estimate of 1d. may be that it is not intended that the Excise authorities should visit the gas works throughout the country, or take any notice of the manufacture of benzol. But I cannot believe that this Free Trade Government is going to protect the industry in so flagrant a manner. It must be remembered that benzol is an active competitor with petroleum spirit; it is nearly as efficient as ordinary motor spirit, and can be produced by any gas company which cares to instal a simple plant. Therefore, if this preferential treatment is given to it it will rapidly oust petroleum spirit from the market. Since the introduction of the Budget there have been many instances where regular customers have cancelled running orders for petroleum spirit in favour of benzol. In many parts of the country, I am told, during the last few months, the output of benzol has increased 30 per cent. Some months ago when the President of the Board of Trade, made some innocent remark about it not being inconceivable that in certain circumstances a retaliatory duty would not be inconsistent with Free Trade principles, he was hailed by hon. Gentlemen opposite as a convert to Tariff Reform. I should like to ask the Opposition why they have not paid the same compliment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he not merely theorises on ethics, but he absolutely materialises the principle of Tariff Reform in his Budget. The probable reason is, they feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have protected not merely some of his friends, who happen to be of a chemical turn of mind, but that he should have been logical and also protected the shale industries in Scotland. This, at any rate, would have had the advantage of making a saving in the cost of collection. I must add that I am surprised that hon. Members who represent Scotch constituencies have not risen in their wrath and condemned this threatened attack against their constituents and in favour of benzol.

I said at the beginning of my speech that I was fully in favour of the collection of this £600,000. If, in conclusion, I may hazard an opinion, I believe that the whole of this money could easily be collected by a direct tax on motor cars, and in that connection I should like humbly to suggest that in determining the cost of a licence, not only the horse-power of cars be taken into consideration, but also the weight of the vehicle itself. The objection to the proposal I have made is that a man who uses his car a great deal is penalised no more heavily than the man who uses his car a little. It seems to me that this objection could to a large extent be obviated by issuing quarterly licences, so that the man who lays by his car during part of the year will effect a saving. The cost of collecting this tax would be practically nothing. Doctors and other favoured beings could be exempted without any difficulty. If the Government do not see their way to accept this, I think they could modify the evil of their proposed tax by only slightly raising the cost of licences and by having a flat rate of 1½d. on petrol, and in that case any rebates which they wish to give to motor cabs or 'buses could be given, not on the petrol, but in the cost of the licences. In the case of manufacturers who use spirit in their business it would be a comparatively simple matter to give them the full rebate, as they are few in number. I venture to think, nevertheless, that the scheme of putting the whole of the tax on the licence is the better one, and this, because, as I have said before, the cost of collection would be practically nil. The graduation for those to whom you want to give rebates would be easy, and the tax could be made to apply not only to petrol-driven vehicles, but to those forms of motor which now escape, namely, steam cars, electric cars, and that abomination which, for damage to roads and general nuisance, passes all the rest combined—namely, the heavy traction engine. To sum up, Sir, my objection to this tax is that either a flagrant form of Protection must be incurred, or out of the 3½d. collected 1½d. will disappear in the cost of collection.


I rise to second the proposal for the rejection of Clause 85. I do not propose to repeat the speeches I have given on previous occasions with regard to petrol. But I think I must make one final protest against the imposition of this new tax, not so much on the ground that it imposes a penalty on owners of pleasure motor cars, but on the ground that it is a tax upon the commerce of this country. You are dealing here in petrol with a spirit which to all intents and purposes is raw material. It is impossible to say that petrol, so far as Great Britain is concerned, is a manufactured article. You cannot eat or drink it; you can only consume it as the raw material of some other industry. The Government, by this Budget, proposes to put a tax on raw material amounting to 50 per cent. of the value of the raw material imported. It is quite true that the private owner pays 10d. or 1s. per gallon for petrol spirit, but the petrol spirit imported into this country in large quantities is bought by those who use it in large quantities at 5½d. or 6d. per gallon. That is admitted by previous Debates in this House, and therefore the Government is proposing to put a tax, and I want the House to realise it, of 50 per cent. upon the value of imported raw material which can only be utilised in the commerce of this country. Then, as the hon. Member who moved the omission of this Clause stated, in addition to that there is a tax of either a halfpenny or a penny—I am bound to say it must be a penny—which the importer charges in addition to the tax in order to cover loss in interest and expenses and so on, and which does not go into the Exchequer but amounts to one-third of the tax, or in any event at least to one-sixth. The Government are putting a tax of 50 per cent. on raw material and allowing the importer to put on another tax which does not go into the Exchequer of at least 15 per cent. upon material imported, and that under a Free Trade Government. A tax of this nature must seriously affect the motor industry and on behalf of it, although I have no interest in its financial side, as the House knows, I object to this impost as one which will tend more and more to prevent the using and buying of motor cars. I was very much struck on the occasion of the last Debate by a speech from the Labour Benches by a Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), who, speaking for the engineers, said that while he desired to support the Budget as far as he could he wanted to vote against this tax because it interfered with one of the branches of the engineers' work which is prosperous, and when it is realised that 12.1 per cent. of the Amalgamated Engineers are out of work I think it is a pity that the Government should put a duty upon one branch of that industry which must tend to decrease the use of motor cars in England and to increase unemployment among the engineers. I do not want to draw the red herring of Tariff Reform over this Debate, but I am bound on this, the last occasion on which we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Petrol Tax, to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer again that in regard to a tax for revenue and not for protective purposes, if it is fair to put a tax upon imported petrol it is fair to put a tax on imported motor cars. It was admitted that £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 worth of cars every year were imported, and for the purpose of revenue I suggest it would be far better and much less damaging to the trade of the country to put a tax of 10 per cent. on that sum and realise your £400,000 or £500,000 per annum on foreign bought cars rather than to put it upon petrol which is and cannot be otherwise than a tax upon the commerce of the country. It is said that this makes a preferential tax upon motor-cars as compared with steam cars, and that is perfectly true. The large number of steam lorries which one sees about the streets of commercial districts and about the country districts are to be untaxed, although they are referred to from time to time as doing damage to the roads of the country. I, for one, strongly object to the idea that the roads of the country are to be paid for by any particular class of traffic. That is nothing more nor less than a reversion to the old system of turnpikes. If you want to make those people who use the roads and damage thorn pay for them, then go back and admit that you are a Tory of Tories, and reintroduce, as I daresay the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London would reintroduce, the turnpike, and then the coach and four which he drives would undoubtedly contribute its share to the damage of the roads as well as the commercial and pleasure motor car.

This money is not going to be raised for the general revenue of the country, but is to be used for the purpose of the Mew Roads Bill, and if it is really right that you should place a tax upon the motor car shod with rubber tyres which undoubtedly does less harm to the road than the heavy farm cart, you are logically bound to place a proportionate tax on every kind of vehicle and return to the old days of the turnpike and charge every kind of vehicle. But that is not what you are going to do, you are only going to charge pleasure and commercial motor cars. We do not want special roads, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given up largely the idea of special motor roads. We are entitled at this stage to consider the purpose to which the tax is going to be devoted. It was going to be devoted originally under the Development Bill to the provision of motor roads, but the Bill has gone through this House, and in the Committee upstairs it has been so modified that it is not now for the provision of motor roads, but for the development and improvement of all roads for all road traffic. That is perfectly clear, and I say it is absolutely wrong to use money obtained from a tax placed upon a commercial industry and commercial motor cars for the benefit of all road traffic. You are going to improve roads on a principle which is totally wrong, because I think the road user is himself a ratepayer. I do not propose, on this Motion, to deal with the question of the omnibus traffic, in which the House knows I am somewhat interested, and which I am bound to say a word on on another Amendment, but in regard to the ordinary road user and the commercial road user I do suggest that everyone of them are ratepayers. Shoolbreds, who have a fleet of motor vans, and other firms, are increasing the number of them, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that is unfair competition with the railways. The railways pay rates, and these men use vans, and are enabled to deliver goods more cheaply than the railways, and they ought to pay something for the roads; but after all it is a tax upon the consumer, who is a ratepayer. It is the consumer of the butter and eggs which is delivered who gets the benefit of the cheap transit. Messrs. Shoolbreds and other firms would be bound to lower their price if they get cheaper traction in any particular form, and so the cost of traction must come down to the consumer. In the old days a man who lived 20 miles from town had to pay for delivery of his goods, but now he gets them by motor van, and if you put a tax upon the van because it goes over the roads you put a tax upon the consumer, who will have to pay. This is a tax upon the consumer, who is himself a ratepayer, and pays for the upkeep of the roads of this country. I do not think the Chancellor's argument therefore is sound or holds water, and as this is the last occasion on which one will have an apportunity to enter a protest against this tax, I wish to say that it is on wrong lines and on a totally false basis, and one which sooner or later will come upon the commerce of the country, which certainly does not need at the present time any additional tax laid upon it.


I do not object on principle to a tax upon motor spirits or on motor cars. What I object to is the amount of the tax. It amounts practically to about 50 per cent. of the imported petrol spirit. I object to that because it brings out very forcibly another characteristic of the taxation of a Radical Government. Instead of spreading their taxation over a large number of articles they pick out three or four like tobacco, spirits, and this motor spirit, and place a very heavy duty upon them. That means driving the small men out of the industry and driving the trade more and more into the hands of great monopolies and trusts. And the result is that this imported trade is in the hands of two or three wealthy trusts, principally foreigners, who control the business. They are enormously wealthy. They have the oil fields, they have their own fleets of steamers and their own oil tanks at all the great ports, and they control the whole of this traffic. It simply means that they are enabled by the imposition of 3d. a gallon tax to charge the consumer, not 3d. but 4d. That is a very serious addition to a 3d. tax, and that penny practically goes into the hands of these already wealthy capitalists. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain away that point. It is a serious tax upon an industry, and while no one would have objected to a penny, which would have amounted to somewhere about a 15 per cent. tax, I most strongly object to this enormous amount of 3d. It is proposed, I understand, to hand over the proceeds of the tax to the local authorities for road development. I should like to know if the gross amount is going to be handed over or will it be handed over less the cost of collection. If the latter, instead of getting £350,000 they will only get some £200,000. This is undoubtedly a tax upon an industry in this country. It seriously affects the engineering industry, in which there are a large number of skilled mechanics already out of employment. If we place this enormous tax upon the power that drives the engine, what would have been the effect if in addition we had placed a similar tax upon the engine itself? I cannot imagine that that would have had such a serious effect upon the industry as simply placing this tax upon the fuel which drives the engine, and whether it be Tariff Reform or anything else, I think when the Government were taxing an industry of this description they might, at any rate, have protected the industry from the importation of some £4,000,000 worth of foreign motor cars.

Then I want to know how the Government are going to deal with imported petrol in bond. It has enormous bulk. It is stored in enormous tanks, and hundreds of them have to be turned into bond. Tea, which is subject to a similar duty, is subjected to most stringent bond regulations. How are they going to prevent petrol being illicitly dealt with? I cannot understand, unless they turn all these great oil-yards and oil tanks into bond. I object, not to the principle of the tax altogether, but to the enormous amount of the tax which has been placed upon this particular industry. It is most unfair to single out an industry of this importance and place such an enormous tax upon it without any idea as to what the effect is going to be. One effect which I am sure will arise is that instead of helping the British motor industry we shall be directly helping the foreign motor industry.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)

This, I think, is the fourth Debate we have had on this question, and I trust it will be disposed of without very much more discussion, I really am not quite sure what the point of view of the hon. Member (Mr. Renwick) is. He does not object to it on principle, but he objects to it in practice. His idea is that we ought to raise a smaller amount than this. That is a question which concerns the local authorities. The view they take is that the sum is quite inadequate to the amount of damage which is done by motor traffic, and I am perfectly certain it does not represent the addition to the highway rate which has been the result of the development of mechanical traction during the last few years. The Mover of the Amendment is in favour of raising the £600,000, and, therefore, he does not agree with the hon. Member opposite. The hon. Member opposite says the principle is sound, but the amount is wrong. My hon. Friend says the amount is right, but the principle is wrong. I do not complain of those inconsistent points of view. Very often people with completely conflicting arguments support or oppose the same proposition, and my hon. Friend is not responsible for the views of anyone but himself. But he says he is in favour of raising the £600,000, though, as I understand, he would double the licence. That is the only way in which he could raise it. I think he would get very few motorists to take that point of view, and he himself knows enough about it to know that there is a difficulty which you do not overcome by merely raising the licence. For instance, there is the case which he put of the motorist who uses the road very rarely although he has an expensive and heavy car. On the other hand, there is the case of the motorist who pays a very small licence, but does more damage to the road than ten 60-horse-power cars which are very seldom used. How are you to get at him? If you are going to get at any sort of criterion by which you are to get a contribution in proportion to the amount of damage done, you must introduce these two elements. It is not final by any means. Therefore the only way in which we can get at that man is to charge him on the amount of petrol he consumes. My hon. Friend suggests that you could get at him by charging a seasonal tax, but that would hardly be practicable. The only difference is that between the man who likes to "scorch" a thousand miles a day and the man who uses his car for going about town. The real difference is that one man uses his car every day in the week and another man may only use his car once a fortnight. There are very few people who could be described as seasonal motorists. There may be a few, I agree, but, as a rule, a man who has a motor car uses it summer and winter, autumn and spring, and you would not get at him in the way suggested. For the raising of £600,000 by means of taxation on the motorists of this country I cannot imagine a fairer way of doing it than that which we propose. We have arrived at this conclusion after a good deal of consultation with motorists themselves. They were strongly in favour of this method. I agree that a cheaper and more direct way would be to double your duty. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pearson) has presented his case with fairness and accuracy, and with a knowledge of the business, but when he says that the cost of collection is 1½d., he is very wide of the mark. The cost of collection is something like ¼d. That is not very high.


Does that include the cost with respect to benzol?


I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means. The whole cost of collection is £30,000. That is the sum which will be added to the expenditure of the Revenue Department in consequence of this tax.


Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the data on which he arrives at that £30,000?


How could I give the data now? I would have been perfectly prepared to give the data if I had received notice of the question. My hon. Friend knows that that is a matter which would involve close examination. I am simply giving the information I got from the officials since the point was raised.


Does that include the cost of repayment?


It is the whole additional expenditure which will be involved and placed on the Revenue Department, in consequence of this tax on petrol. That is the estimate of the Department, and they see no reason to alter it. Therefore, it is not a very expensive tax to collect. I think it is a very fair tax. It is a tax which is to be devoted to the improvement of roads even for motor purposes, and I think it will encourage motor traffic. With respect to what the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said, I think it is unfair that railway companies should be taxed heavily for the purpose of maintaining highways for the use of people who do not contribute a penny. If motor vans go down into the country 30 or 40 miles they tear up the roads, and while the railway companies pay 6d. or 1s. in the £ for highway rates, the owners of the vans do not contribute a penny. I think it is time that they should contribute something. It is fair to the local ratepayers and the railway companies, and it is not unfair to the owners of the vans.


I desire to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the case of Civil servants who own their own motor cars. Considerable advantages accrue to the public service in Ireland by the use of privately owned motor cars by Civil servants in connection with their official duties, and a large saving of official time is effected. Officers are enabled to return home at night in numerous cases where they would otherwise have been obliged to sleep away from home, thereby saving the subsistence allowances payable out of the public funds. While the cost of hire of horse-drawn vehicles in rural districts varies from 8d. to 1s. a mile, the allowance for motor cars is only 6d. per mile; and in cases where there is railway communication the equivalent of railway fare only is allowed. The officials in Ireland who are interested in this question are: 8, Local Government Board, 8 National Education Office, 5 Land Commission, 3 Board of Works, 3 Department of Agriculture, and 2 county court officers. I do say that it is a distinct hardship to those Civil servants that they should have to incur additional expenditure in consequence of this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised, in answer to a question, to consider the matter. I was advised that he could not make any reduction on their behalf. He has made a reduction on behalf of medical men, and I would ask him to reconsider this question of officials. It is very desirable that they should be able to use their own motors when doing their official duties. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to make a concession to the officials, I would ask him to consider the question of increasing their grants, so that they will not lose by the imposition of this fresh tax. They do not desire to make any profit. Their incomes will be seriously diminished if they have to pay the tax.


I speak without having had time to go into this matter, but my own impression is that it will not make any difference to them. All those things will be Treasury allowances. That is my impression. If the expenditure for petrol goes up, surely that will be taken into account. May I also point out that the price of petrol has gone down very considerably. A very considerable contract has been entered into by a Government Department this year for the supply of petrol and the cost is ½d. less, even with the duty this year, than it was without the duty at all.


I suppose we all recognise that the proposals in this Bill may be regarded as an indication of what may be proposed in future Budgets. I would like to reinforce, so far as I can, the arguments used on this side of the House in regard to petrol. Petrol is now used directly as a propelling power, but it was first introduced as an illuminant, I believe, then as fuel for raising steam. These sources of motive power are deserving of exceptional consideration and exceptional treatment. Coal is the most prominent of these. It is a producer of power which requires not national consideration but international consideration. Petrol is another, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been most unfortunate in imposing on this source of motive power what is a very serious tax, and not a nominal tax like 2s. 6d. a quarter on grain. We know how our industries depend on motive power, whether coal, petrol, or electricity.


No part of this duty is charged on petrol for motive power.


I speak of locomotive motive power. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that these engines going about the roads are doing commer- cial work. Surely he knows that. I can hardly believe that he is so shallow as not to know that. In some things he has been very shallow, but I hardly think that he possesses such a profundity of shallowness as that, or that his lack of business capacity goes quite so far as that. We have heard arguments from the Labour Benches pointing out how this affects engineering. I hope that as the representatives of the workers at engineering have been allowed to speak on this subject, a man who employs workers in engineering shops may be allowed to say something. A serious matter like a tax on our motive power should be looked at very carefully. I think that we should conserve our own motive power, and not send away our coal, at any rate, without some adequate consideration, and that we should watch carefully over the conservation of all these sources of our motive power.


My Constituency is interested in this question very strongly. I confess I do not like this tax because it does seem a tax on an industry that has come to stay, and that may be of great use. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer says "no tax on motor spirits, no repairs to roads," and as in some parts of the country, especially in the northern counties of Scotland, it is absolutely impossible to get the roads put into good order out of the rates, therefore it is absolutely necessary that Parliament and the Government should do something to assist the authorities to put the roads into a decent state so that they can be used safely by these vehicles, and I am sure that the Government has imposed this tax as the lesser of two evils. My Constituency is specially affected because we have got a very low rateable value, and 660 miles of main roads, which are affected by this traffic. It is possible that very little of this money will get as far as my Constituency, 700 miles away, yet I trust that now that the Government have come to the rescue of the authorities with a view to putting these roads in order we in the North of Scotland shall have a fair share.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of Sub-section (2), stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (2), to insert the words "But a person may sell motor spirit in a quantity not exceeding one pint at one time to one person without taking out a licence as a dealer in motor spirit."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

To leave out Sub-section (6).

At the end of Sub-section (7), to insert the words: "and the regulations may provide for the sale and delivery by duly licensed persons of motor spirit from vans at the premises of persons who are dealers therein, and buy it to sell again."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]