HC Deb 27 June 1916 vol 83 cc765-70

(1) A person shall not obtain or attempt to obtain a supply of motor spirit unless he is the holder of a licence for the time being in force under this Section, or in excess of the amount with which he is authorised to be supplied by the licence.

(2) A person shall not supply motor spirit to a person unless he is the holder of a licence for the time being in force under this Section, or in excess of the amount authorised to be supplied by the licence.

(3) A person supplying motor spirit shall, in such manner as may be directed by Regulations made under the preceding Section of this Act, enter on the licence of the person supplied the name and address of the supplier, the amount supplied, and the date on which it was supplied.

(4) A person shall not use motor spirit with which he is authorised to be supplied for any special purpose by his licence for any other purpose.

(5) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of this Section or makes any entry on a licence which is false in any material particular or makes any statement winch is false in any material particular for the purpose of obtaining a licence he shall be liable to an Excise penalty of one hundred pounds.—[Mr. McKenna.]

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

This is a penal Clause, and there are some points as to which I should like to be clear. The first is, how far there will be any liability on the holder of a licence for anything which his servant or chauffeur may do with re- gard to obtaining petrol. Most people will leave such matters as the obtaining and management of petrol to their chauffeur. The next question is as to the use of the word "knowingly." I think that this word should be inserted throughout the whole of this Clause. A new form of penalty is being created. A person shall not obtain a supply of motor spirit, a person shall not supply motor spirit, and so on. The word "knowingly" should be inserted in these cases. The small petrol dealer might be very seriously hit under this Clause by the large penalty of £100 provided later on, if he by his servant supplies petrol to a chauffeur who had either a wrong licence or a licence with a large number of entries on it, making it impossible for a dealer to find out whether the full amount of petrol has been supplied on it. The penalty for these offences, which are not very criminal matters, but merely contraventions of Regulations, is to be an Excise penalty of £100. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have discussed the question of these Excise penalties before now, and I hope that he will forgive me for saying that that is a monstrous penalty. As I understand, an Excise penalty means that the Board of Customs can themselves, without the order of any Court of Justice, inflict the penalty of £100 on any man where they have some kind of evidence to satisfy them that he is guilty of one of these offences. I am proposing to suggest an Amendment to eliminate the Excise penalty. I think that an ordinary fine not exceeding 40s., or even £10 if the right hon. Gentleman so desired, would be sufficient. Here is a new law with a new series of Regulations and a new series of semi-crimes which are invented, and necessarily invented, by the action of the Government, and to leave every owner of a motor car exposed to the risk of being fined by a Customs decision to the amount of £100 without going to a Court of Justice is monstrous. The proper course would be to alter the fine to something like 40s. or £10, and let a man at least be brought before a magistrate and let the offence be proved before a fine is inflicted.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

Surely the hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that an Excise penalty is a penalty which the Board of Customs can inflict, and that a person so fined has no remedy. If he does not choose to pay the fine, then the fine cannot be collected except the man is convicted by a Court, and then the Court has to deal with it. I do know this, that very many people who infringe these various financial enactments prefer very much to deal with the Commissioners of Customs 'and Excise than to be taken before a Police Court magistrate, and I am not at all sure that there is any real weight in the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. On the other point with regard to the word "knowingly," if it is necessary in every case for the authorities to prove guilty knowledge on the part of the person who supplies the petrol, then we might as well leave the penalties out altogether, because the thing would become practically impossible. To have provision made that it was open to the person to prove that he had taken every precaution, or that that might be taken into consideration, is one thing, but to throw the onus on the authority of proving that the person did take the precaution which he ought to have taken and in spite of those precautions did knowingly commit the offence, is quite a useless provision to have in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. McKENNA

The hon. Gentleman has answered the point so fully—

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Make him an Under-Secretary.

Mr. McKENNA

That it is quite unnecessary for me to pursue it further. It simply shifts the onus of proof. It is quite clear that if the person committed the offence unknowingly he could not be convicted, but he would have to prove this. As my hon. Friend says, to insert the word "knowingly" would render the Clause absolutely ineffective.

Major NEWMAN

I take it that the penalty provided for in the Clause does not refer to the Army and Navy, and that an officer in either Service, or a soldier or a sailor, if he is driving his car, is exempt from this penalty. Supposing an officer of the Army or of the Navy, or a soldier or sailor, when driving a car, suddenly runs short of petrol, and he seeks a further supply, does he get exemption? He must get the petrol if he is to execute his duty.

Mr. McKENNA

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaking of an officer who is driving in his private car for his own private purposes, or an officer driving a military car?

Major NEWMAN

The officer may be driving a military car, or his own car, with the sanction of the military authorities, and what is he to do if he gets hung up for want of petrol, as occurred to me a month ago, when I had to attend a court-martial. I used my own car, and the petrol ran short. I had to get a further supply, because I had important business before me. As I understand these two Clauses, I should not have been able to do that; I should not have been able to get any more petrol, unless I met a friend, which it is a thousand to one I should not have done; but, if I am an officer in the Army, or a soldier or a sailor, I take it that if I got hung up for want of petrol I could go to the nearest purveyor of petrol to get a fresh supply.

Mr. McKENNA

If the naval or military officer, or anybody else, is driving his own car for his own purpose, whether that purpose happens to be a military or a naval purpose he will be bound by the Regulation. If my hon and gallant Friend desired to attend a court-martial he should have found out that he had enough petrol, and if he had not enough then to get enough.

Major NEWMAN

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if I had not got to the court-martial the whole of the proceedings would have been hung up?

Mr. McKENNA

The hon. and gallant Gentleman could have gone by train.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Mr. LOUGH

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "not" ["shall not supply"], to insert the word "knowingly."

I think, in regard to what was said by the hon. Member behind me, that some Amendment of that sort is needed, and we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by what has been said by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones), who intervened on another Amendment.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

I did not know it; it does not appear on the Paper.

Mr. LOUGH

I think "knowingly" is quite commonly used in Acts of Parliament, and its introduction, in this instance, would not weaken the Clause at all, either in regard to the man who sells the petrol or the man who buys it. The term "knowingly" does exist in many Acts of Parliament, and I do think it might be admitted here.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I thought there was something in the Amendment which I suggested, but, after hearing the right hon. Gentleman, I think so no longer.

Sir W. BEALE

I would point out that what is wanted is that the person buying or selling petrol should take all proper precautions.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5) to leave out the words "an Excise penalty of one hundred pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words "a fine not exceeding ten pounds."

I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that for these trifling enactments and calculations there should not be a penalty that possibly might amount to £100.

Mr. McKENNA

That is the maximum.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I agree that it is the maximum, but, after all, the Customs authorities, if the person who commits the offence does not pay, can bring him before the Court. But in nine cases out of ten the Customs would have the right to impose a fine of 40s., £5, or £10. The bulk of the people who would be concerned are not like shopkeepers or chemists, or so forth, who are familiar with Customs matters; in this instance we are dealing with men who are not accustomed to Excise penalties, and have never heard of them before. In these c[...]rcumstances I suggest that the amount of the penalty should certainly be reduced, and if possible put in the form of a fine.

Major NEWMAN

I take it that the petrol cards which are to be used will contain the entries of petrol which has been obtained, and the vendor will see from those entries what balance of petrol is due to the intending purchaser. If he has petrol due to him he will be all right, but, if he has not, he will be hung up on the road. Therefore it is important that adequate precautions should be taken not to supply petrol unless petrol is seen by the card to be due, and there should be a penalty for supplying petrol in such circumstances, just as the Germans impose a penalty on the vendor who supplies meat or bread to a person who has already received his full quantity. But I do think that the fine proposed by my hon. Friend below me is enough to meet the case.

Mr. McKENNA

This maximum penalty will not be enforced except where a very serious offence is committed. It would be very unfair if we could not enforce the maximum penalty in the case of persons taking more than their share of petrol, and thus depriving others of the share to which they are entitled, because there is not an unlimited supply to dole out, but a very limited supply, and I think that any serious offence against this Clause ought to be seriously punished. If it were some trivial offence for which a heavy penalty was imposed, the matter could come before the Court, and a fine of 40s., £5, or £10 would be imposed in the ordinary way. The maximum penalty provides power, which we ought to have, to stop persons getting an undue share of petrol to the deprivation of others.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to be added to the Bill.