CLAUSE 1.—(Licensing of goods vehicles.) (Hansard, 19 July 1933)

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, after the word "process," to insert the words "or treatment."
1878 This is largely a drafting Amendment. The word "process" was criticised in Committee upstairs as being too limited. We, therefore, propose to insert the words "or treatment," thus following the wording of the Merchandise Marks Act.

Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert the words: (d) the carriage of goods in a vehicle in respect of which a licence has been taken out by a manufacturer or dealer under Section nine of the Roads Act, 1920, or by a repairer under Section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1922, in accordance with the regulations applicable to that licence; (e) the carriage of goods in a vehicle by a manufacturer, agent, or dealer, whilst the vehicle is being used by him for demonstration purposes. This Amendment has been put down in order to meet a point which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) during the Committee stage. The first paragraph is intended to meet the case of the tradesman who in the exercise of his profession and carrying what is known as a trade plate, does something which is, technically, carriage of goods for hire or reward, but in fact, may only be the conveyance of some essential for his own business. The first paragraph provides that where a vehicle is used under a trade licence the conditions prescribed elsewhere in the Bill shall not apply. The second paragraph deals with a different point. This relates to the practice of manufacturers sending out lorries for demonstration purposes, often for considerable periods. Under this practice a lorry may go to a man, to whom it is intended subsequently to sell it, for an extended trial and it seems hard on the manufacturer that he should have to obtain a licence to cover that vehicle as though it were in his own use. The second paragraph which we propose to insert here will make it plain that if a vehicle is sent out for that purpose that shall not be deemed to constitute a carrying of goods for hire or reward and will not therefore necessitate the obtaining of a licence by the owner.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
With regard to the second part of this Amendment, do I understand that it is intended to cover the carriage of goods by a person to whom a vehicle has been sent for demonstration purposes? I think the Minister may find that the words which he proposes to put in here do not carry out his intention. What he proposes is to limit this to the carriage of goods "by a manufacturer, agent or dealer." There is also the question 1880 of carriage by the person to whom the vehicle is lent.

Mr. STANLEY
I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that point. It is a legal point as to whether there is still use by the manufacturer when the lorry is sent to the prospective customer for demonstration purposes, possibly with his own driver. In certain circumstances it might be argued that that was still use by the manufacturer. I shall certainly look into it.

§ Sir G. RENTOUL
I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, after the word "Act," to insert the words "the carriage of goods by the Crown and"
As the Bill stands, vehicles in the service of the Crown are exempted from its provisions and regulations. The object of the Amendment is to bring goods vehicles used by Government Departments under the licensing provisions of Part I by which they would require to have "C" licences. This point was raised in Committee and the Minister then suggested that in regard to vehicles of this class there was a remedy open which was, in itself, a sufficient safeguard, in that it is possible to attack the Minister in charge of a Department, on the Floor of the House of Commons. He argued that that fact put Government Departments in a different position from public and local authorities. If the security provisions in Clause 8 to which the Minister rightly attaches so much importance are to be generally applicable, there seems to be no justification for not applying them to vehicles in the service of the Crown, especially as the Minister now proposes, by an Amendment which stands later on the Paper, to extend this exemption to vehicles used by persons acting in pursuance of contracts for the Crown for the carriage of goods for public purposes. Thus not only goods vehicles directly under Government Departments but the vehicles of Government contractors are to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill and the safety regulations.
Surely it is important, that regulations as to overloading, hours of labour and so forth should apply to vehicles in the Government service as well as to other 1881 vehicles whether privately-owned of owned by local authorities. It is to be remembered that a large number of vehicles are used by the Post Office in the conveyance of mails and stores, by the Office of Works in the conveyance of building materials, and the transport of furniture, by the Stationery Office and by other Government Departments. Parts I and III of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, were expressly made to apply to vehicles in the service of the Crown in spite of considerable opposition and objection, and the purpose of this Amendment is simply that vehicles in the service of the Crown shall be placed on the same footing as other vehicles in relation to the valuable security conditions in this Bill.

§ Mr. GUY
I beg to second the Amendment.
It may be said by the Minister that Government vehicles should not be made subject to licensing and to the security conditions laid down in the Bill, but I would point out to him that under Clause 15 and 16 examiners of goods vehicles will be entitled to examine Government vehicles, and if a Government vehicle were found to be defective, the examiner would be entitled to prohibit its use on the road. If an examiner is entitled to prohibit the use of a Government vehicle, is there any reason why the security conditions should not apply to Government vehicles as well as to the other vehicles covered by the Bill?

Lieut.-Colonel HEAD LAM
This subject was discussed in Committee ustairs. I may say at the outset that we do not see our way to put this obligation upon the Crown. Indeed, as the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul has pointed out, we are going further, because we have put down an Amendment providing that vehicles used by persons acting in pursuance of contracts with the Crown should also be outside the licensing provisions of the Bill. Serious difficulties would arise in the public service if this licensing obligation were forced upon the Crown. For instance, the War Office in the case of Army manoeuvres employ hired vehicles and it would be very awkward if they had to be responsible for the licensing of those vehicles. The proper course 1882 seems to be to exempt from the licensing provision all vehicles used in the public service. The use of such vehicles, I would point out, is of necessity subject to the fair wages condition which is I think the principal matter of concern in this connection and other means can be found of securing the observance in their use of the safety conditions under the Bill, outside the licensing system. In the circumstances, we do not feel that the Amendment is desirable, and we hope that the hon. and learned Member will withdraw it.

§ Captain STRICKLAND
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state what other means may be employed to enforce these conditions on Crown vehicles?

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
There may be the loss of the contract if the contractor engaged by the Crown does not comply with the obligations of the law.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
The reason given for refusing this Amendment seems an extremely poor one. There does not seem to be any argument why the Crown should not be subjected to the same conditions with regard to safety, and so on, as other people. The case of the War Office has been mentioned, but, if it is necessary for the War Office to be exempt, then words can be devised to exempt the War Office. If you take the vast majority of the services of the Crown—the Post Office, the Stationery Office, and the rest—there is no reason why they should not be subjected to the same conditions as everybody else with regard to these regulations. This is the sort and type of bureaucracy which is so very undesirable—that Crown vehicles should be dealt with differently from others with regard to safety, merely because the Crown says that there are other means whereby we can enforce regulations if there is any trouble. This Amendment should be considered in its present form, or some form which will leave out, if necessary, the War Office vehicles. These, conceivably, might give rise to some difficulty.

Mr. STANLEY
I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite appreciated the argument for the omission of Crown vehicles. We are not, in this Bill, altering the position to any 1883 great extent, except with regard to fair wages which are already covered. The law which is imposed upon vehicles by the Act of 1931 is imposed upon Crown vehicles; the only difference is the part relating to safety and its enforcement by means of the withdrawal of licences. It would be rather absurd to put in the Crown, and make it possible for the licensing authorities to withdraw licences from the Secretary of State for War, thus preventing the Army having any mechanical transport at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the enforcement of these conditions by the withdrawl of licences is quite impossible in the case of the Crown, and there is no object in putting it in. The Minister in charge is here to be attacked in the House, and the fair wages conditions are always complied with. In so far as the position is extended by the Amendment to be moved later, there will be power to withdraw the contract, if these conditions are not complied with, and so keep the contractor within the bounds of the Act.

§ Captain STRICKLAND
I hope there will be support for this Amendment. The answer which has been given by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and his hon. and gallant Friend, is not of a very convincing or satisfactory character. The Minister has quoted a ease as to the absurdity of taking away licences from Crown vehicles. I want an assurance as to how far this is bound up with his own Amendment later, which incorporates any vehicles on contract to the Crown. If you have Brown, Smith, or Robinson, a haulage contractor, conveying a load of bricks from Watford to somewhere else, is he to be exempt from losing his licence because he is a contractor to the Crown? If he exceeds the speed limit for some private firm, he is to be proceeded against. It is a poor consolation to a man crippled or injured by a Crown vehicle to know that the Crown contractor is going to lose his contract, whereas, if it had been an ordinary haulage contractor, he would have been amenable to the processes of the law. The Crown should be included so far as contract work is concerned, as distinct from vehicles owned by the Crown.

§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
I apologise to the Minister for not being 1884 here a few minutes earlier. I was detained by urgent business in another part of the House. I wish to support this Amendment for a reason which I do not think has been given already, and which I wish to put before the Minister. It is not only a question of the safety provisions themselves; it is also a question of the records. In reading the proceedings in the Committee stage of the Bill, I notice that, in connection with another section the Minister himself made the point that the effect of certain persons having to take out a "C" licence was that they were liable to keep records. It was the keeping of records, in the Minister's own opinion, that made it possible for inspectors to ascertain whether or not the licence holders had observed the conditions laid down in Clause 8. I am sure that the Minister himself would wish that all those driving vehicles in the Government service should keep these conditions which are necessary with regard to public safety, at least as carefully as drivers of any other lorries.
Drivers of Government vehicles are human beings. I know of one case where it is the Post Office van that has the reputation of driving fastest over a certain stretch of road. I am not wishing to make any complaint in that particular case. It is obvious that Government drivers are human beings like other people. If they have "C" licences they have to keep records, and if they keep records then, in the Minister's own opinion, there is even a better check that they observe the other conditions. I give that brief reason in reinforcement of what has been brought forward by the supporters of the Amendment.

§ Sir G. RENTOUL
I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert the words: (b) a trade or business carried on by a holding company or any subsidiary company of that holding company within the meaning of section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Companies Act, 1929, shall be deemed to be carried on by the other of them and by any other subsidiary company of that holding company. 1885 The purpose of this Amendment is, of course, to permit a company which is carrying goods for itself, or for any subsidiary or associated company, to avail itself of the "C" licence without having to go to the trouble, and difficulty, of obtaining an "A" or a "B" licence. Such a company is in the position of a single firm or company. It is carrying goods for itself and others associated in the same business. During the Committee stage the Minister found himself unable to accept certain words. As he pointed out—and I agree with him—they went rather too far, and rather beyond the intention my hon. Friends and I had in mind. We have endeavoured to achieve our real purpose by putting down this Amendment in the form in which it now appears on the Paper. It will be noticed that the Amendment refers to Section 127 of the Companies Act, 1929. I always have the strongest objection to legislation by reference where it can be avoided, but it is really very difficult to find a form of words which carries out the intention one has in mind, and nothing more. It may be a convenient course on this occasion to include reference to that particular Section of the Companies Act. By that Section a holding company and a subsidiary company are clearly defined. A holding company is a company where (a) the amount of the shares so held is at the time when the accounts of the holding company are made up more than 50 per cent. of the issued share capital of that other company or such as to entitle the company to more than 50 per cent. of the voting power in that other company; or (b) the company has power …directly or indirectly to appoint the majority of the directors of that other company. That does very clearly define the kind of association that one has in mind. Where companies are thus associated, they are in effect one concern, and there is prima facie no more reason why they should not operate under a "C" licence than any other single firm or company which would be entitled to do so as a matter of course. They should not, in my submission, be subjected to the discretion of the licensing authority as they would be if they had to apply for an "A" or a "B" licence. They should not be compelled to face possible opposition from competing road hauliers who wanted their business or from a railway company, when all that they desire to do 1886 is to carry out their own transport for themselves in the same way that anyone else would be entitled to do. If something of this kind is not done, it seems to me to be a considerable interference with legitimate progress and enterprise.
The Minister was good enough to admit, when this matter was raised in the Committee, that it presented "a perfectly fair case," but at the same time he emphasised the difficulties, which, quite frankly, I fully appreciate, and this Amendment is a sincere effort to overcome those difficulties. Even now I would not like to suggest that it is a perfect form of words, but I think it comes very near meeting the objections that the Minister had and presenting a fair case. It does not cover every situation that might arise, and from that point of view it is not as completely satisfactory as I should have liked, but I trust that, as some concession towards the views of those who attach very great importance to this matter—large groups of companies carrying on big businesses throughout the country—the Minister may see his way to accept this Amendment, and agree that it meets the undesirable effects which he anticipated, and is a legitimate attempt to avoid the worst difficulties that might otherwise confront those big trading concerns.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I beg to second the Amendment.
I noted, in reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage, that the Minister stated that the case was one of practical effect, but that he thought it was substantially met by the Bill as it stood. I read the rest of his speech with some care, especially that part in which he said that a company would be able to apply for a "B" licence on the condition that it carried only for those particular specified companies. That may be the case, but I do not think it really meets the legitimate case put forward by the companies. I think this Amendment should be able to do so, and I am sure that those who want to have quite a legitimate concession given them would very much appreciate it if this Amendment were, accepted.

Mr. STANLEY
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) for one thing. 1887 I remember on one point in Committee receiving a very severe castigation from him on the subject of legislation by reference, and I am glad to see that he is not completely immune from these temptations. Hon. Members will realise that the Amendment with which we are now dealing appeared on the Paper for the first time this morning, and I think that not even my hon. and learned Friend who moved it would expect me at such short notice to be able to give a final opinion on a matter which is bound to be of considerable complication. It is true to say that when my hon. and learned Friend made this point in Committee he was raising a fair point. On the other hand, it is equally true to say that I think it is a point that will in. fact have little practical importance. I do not believe that, even if the Bill were allowed to proceed as it now is, any of those dangers which are feared by those instructing my hon. and learned Friend would in fact be experienced.
The claim is that when you have an associated group of companies, if you have one of those companies which is doing the whole transport work for all the others, it should be able to operate under a "C" licence instead of under an "A" licence, as it would have to do as the Bill stands; or, otherwise, that if there is a practice by which the various component parts of a group use their own transport partly for their own work and partly for carrying the goods of the other members of the group, instead of having to take out a "B" licence, as they would under the Bill, they should be able to take out a "C" licence. My hon. and learned Friend said that they are frightened of the risks of applying for an "A" or a "B" licence and of the discretion of the authority being exercised against them. I cannot believe that where a company or a man applied for a licence to carry goods limited to certain specified individuals, the opposition from competing firms of transport would in fact prevail or that the licensing commissioner would be likely to pay much attention to it. Still, I agree that if they have a theoretical danger that faces them, we ought to deal with It if we can, though I would say that, in view of what I consider to be the small practical effect of this proposal, I certainly should not accept any Amendment 1888 to deal with this question if I had any fear that it might, by some unforeseen method, lead to a considerable weakening of the Clause.
When my hon. and learned Friend moved quite a different Amendment in the Committee stage to deal with this point, I was able to convince him that to have accepted it would almost have driven a coach and four through the "A" and "B" licence provisions in the Bill. I certainly agree with him that this new Amendment, in so far as I have been able to study it this morning, represents a very great advance and certainly is a sincere effort to meet a danger of which he is himself convinced. I am not quite sure that there is not another difficulty which has been overlooked, and that it would not be possible under this new Amendment for a kind of composite licence to be taken out, which would then present great difficulties if it were desired to proceed for breaches of licence against one particular member of a group of companies. But I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will not expect me to say more than that, in the short time that I have bad to consider this Amendment, I think it goes a long way to meet the dangers which were anticipated from his previous proposal, and that I can promise him that, before the Bill is dealt with in another place, I shall certainly look most closely at this Amendment and that, unless I can find that it contains dangers which at present I do not see, something on these lines will be proposed in another place.

§ Sir G. RENTOUL
In view of my hon. Friend's undertaking, for which I am greatly obliged, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the words "in the case of which," and to insert instead thereof the words: (including a trailer drawn thereby) in any case where. This Amendment needs to be considered in connection with the next Amendment on the Paper, to insert the words "in respect of the vehicle," and the effect of the two Amendments is to make the opening words of the Subsection read: 1889 This section shall not apply— (a) to the use of a vehicle (including a trailer drawn thereby) in any case where the excise duty in respect of the vehicle under Section 13"— and so on. The object of these two Amendments is to include in the exemption from the licensing provisions of the Bill the trailer which is drawn by an agricultural vehicle, always supposing that the trailer is used subject to conditions similar to those that apply to the vehicle drawing it.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out from the word "in," to the word "for," in line 43, and to insert instead thereof the words: sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 4, or in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 5, of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act 1920, as amended by the Finance Act, 1933, or any subsequent enactment. This is a drafting Amendment, and its effect is to replace the reference to earlier Finance Acts by a reference to the Finance Act of this year, which is now on the Statute Book.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out the words "and their effects."

§ Sir PHILIP DAWSON
I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words: (c) to the use of a vehicle constructed for the carriage of not more than seven passengers and adapted or equipped for the carriage of samples of goods by a commercial traveller or agent where no goads except samples are carried in the vehicle, and where the weight of the goods so carried does not exceed three hundredweights. The object of this Amendment is to facilitate the use of what may be called 1890 ordinary motor cars by commercial travellers. The objection that was taken upstairs to the Amendment then moved was that it might be possible for a commercial traveller to have such a heavy vehicle that he might also use it for the carriage of goods, and in order to avoid that objection, the Amendment has been altered to the form in which it now appears. From what the Minister said upstairs, I gather that he thought that under no circumstances whatever could an ordinary motor car, adapted and used by a commercial traveller to take his samples about for showing to prospective customers, be classified as a vehicle applying for hire or reward. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give his careful consideration to this Amendment, which will make it more certain that the commercial traveller will not be interfered with and will have the least possible difficulty put in his way in the course of his ordinary daily work.

§ Captain STRICKLAND
I beg to second the Amendment.
This is an Amendment that should commend itself to the House. It proposes to exempt from the licensing system under the Bill the private car which is converted for the use of a commercial traveller in taking his goods round for exhibition. There is a distinct difference between the goods vehicle which conveys goods for sale and the type of vehicle I have in my mind which is merely used for the purpose of displaying samples. One might imagine that such a vehicle would be excluded from the start from the provisions of the Bill, but unfortunately the wording of Sub-section (2) is: In this part of this Act the expression 'goods vehicle' means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, and so on.
The type of commercial traveller I have in my mind may have a private car from which, for the accommodation of his goods, he may have removed the back seats and put up racks or a case or some form of covering for the goods that he takes round for exhibition purposes. If some Amendment is not made it can be argued that this particular type of vehicle must come under this Bill, whereas they are really private cars belonging 1891 to the traveller himself, although he is in fact conveying goods for somebody else, namely, his employer. The point was raised in Committee, and the Minister at the time used these words: I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree that the mere fact of putting some racks to carry dresses in the back of a private car would not bring that car within the definition of a goods vehicle and, therefore, would not bring it within the scope of the Act. … there can be no need for apprehension that a traveller who merely fits up the back of a private car for the carriage of his samples will bring himself within the scope of the Bill. Unfortunately instructions have been issued to the local authorities which issue motor car licences that a private car adapted for the carriage of goods, which would include the rail for dresses or the locker or boxes, are to be classed as goods vehicles for the purposes of licence duty. Then the Minister used these words: I will certainly tell the Committee that we are at one on this that we all want to exclude from the operation of the Bill the man who merely puts samples in the back of his private car, and, although I am advised that the position is clear now, I will make quite certain between now and the Report stage that in fact a case of that kind is covered. Later he said: The promise that I give is with regard to the ordinary passenger car which may have been adapted for the carriage of samples. I give no promise whatsoever with regard to the ordinary goods vehicle which may or may not be said to be adapted for the carriage of samples, but which can in fact be used for the carriage of goods in the ordinary way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 18th May, 1933; cols. 63–67.] I am suggesting to the House that it should be made certain in the Bill that the ordinary commercial traveller's private car which is changed or adapted for the carriage of goods not his own should be excluded from the purview of the Measure in accordance with the promise made by the Minister, and particularly in view of the instructions given to the local authorities that such vehicles shall be classed as goods vehicles. In view of the Minister's pledge upstairs, I hope that he will see his way to adopt this Amendment. It will in no way cripple the Bill or go contrary to it. It is not moved with a view to obstruction, but solely to help a worthy type of commercial 1892 gentleman on whom so much of our trade depends and who is worthy of the consideration of this House in every respect.

§ Mrs. COPELAND
If this Amendment is accepted, may I have an assurance that it will not affect commercial travellers who are carrying pottery? Pottery is very heavy, and if we were to limit the application of the Amendment to goods not exceeding 3 cwts., it might affect some of our pottery commercial travellers who are going round the country with samples of their goods.

§ Sir B. PETO
I should like to know how the Amendment can ever be carried into effect. Who is to settle that the goods carried in any case exceed 3 cwts., and how are you going to differentiate between goods carried for exhibition and goods which may be left for sale to a customer? The Amendment is not only unworkable, but may cause a breach in the clear distinction between passenger and goods vehicles.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
This matter was considered upstairs, and the Minister promised to look into it carefully. He has done so, and he does not think that an Amendment of this kind is necessary in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has pointed out, it would be extremely difficult to enforce even if we were willing to accept it. The remark made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mrs. Copeland) shows how difficult it would be to differentiate in the matter between loads carried by commercial travellers and loads carried by salesmen. This matter is really governed by the provisions of the Finance Act. A goods vehicle under this Bill is the same as under the Finance Act. If a private car is utilised for the purposes of a commercial traveller, it is licensed under the horse power class unless the extent of the adaptation that is made for the purposes of a commercial traveller would cause it to fall within the definition of a goods vehicle. It is a question of fact that has to be decided in each instance. No serious difficulty has been found in the operation of the Finance Act in this matter, and no difficulty is anticipated in connection with the present Bill. If the 1893 vehicle is so comprehensively reconstructed or adapted as to make it a goods vehicle, there is no sufficient reason for exempting the owner from the requirement to take out a licence as laid down in this Bill. In the other case where the alteration is not so great, it would not be necessary for him to take out a licence under this Bill.

§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS
Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland), who said that instructions had been issued to the local authorities that a private car adapted for the carriage of goods has to be classified as a goods vehicle? There seems to be some conflict between the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary and the giving of these instructions.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I am afraid that I cannot give any other answer than that which I have given. I assure hon. Members that it is perfectly possible to work this under the Finance Act definition. If the adaptations are not of such a large scale as to make a complete change in the vehicle, the vehicle will not require the licence under this Bill.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN
May I ask whether the fact that a licence has been paid for under the Finance Act will be sufficient evidence that it will not be necessary to get a licence under this Bill? Will the Minister make it clear that there will be no conflict between the two authorities under which a car may come?

§ Captain STRICKLAND
What would be the Minister's interpretation of Subsection (2) of the Bill, which defines the expression "goods vehicle"? If a back seat of a car is taken out, is that not an adaptation of the vehicle for the carriage of goods? I would like an answer to that point because it all turns upon that irrespective of what may be in any other Act. This Bill lays down definitely that if there is an adaptation of a passenger vehicle so that it can carry goods it shall be classed as a goods vehicle.

Mr. STANLEY
In reply to the hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) I will look into the matter again with a view to making it 1894 clear that similar considerations would apply. I think it is most important that a man should feel that if the matter has already been settled under the Finance Act it is also settled under this Bill. With regard to the point of the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland), I am certainly not going to give here an interpretation of a particular definition under an Act of Parliament. These particular words "constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods" are the words of the Finance Act, and the result must depend on the facts of each case. When I am asked to deal with goods weighing 3 cwts. and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mrs. Copeland) asks me not to be so mean as to accept only 3 cwts., but let it go higher in the Potteries, where it may reach something like 3 tons, it is clear that we are getting outside the radius of any possible exceptions and are getting into a class of vehicle which should certainly come under the licensing provisions of this Bill.

§ Captain STRICKLAND
In view of the Minister's promise to look into this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert the words: (f) to the use of a vehicle by a person acting in pursuance of a contract with the Crown for the carriage of goods for, public purposes. This point has already been mentioned in connection with the Amendment moved by one of my hon. Friends as to rendering Crown vehicles liable to the same incidence as vehicles in the possession of private persons. That Amendment was not accepted, but, as was then stated, the Government propose by the Amendment which I am moving to go even further in the opposite direction than the Bill as it originally stood. It is elementary that an Act of Parliament never binds the Crown except by express mention, and this Bill does not bind the Crown. The purpose of the Amendment is to relieve contractors who are acting in pursuance of a contract with the Crown for the carriage of goods for public purposes from the necessity of complying 1895 with the provisions of this Clause. It will be apparent to anybody on a moment's reflection that the conditions under which contractors to the Crown carry goods for the Crown are really very different in character from the conditions under which persons carry goods for hire or reward for private persons.
The position of vehicles hired by the War Office in times of military manoeuvres was mentioned just now, and one or two hon. Gentlemen were rather inclined to think that that was not a very adequate illustration for excepting contractors for the Crown from the requirements of this Clause. It is but one illustration, but I think it is a very good illustration, because it would be quite impossible for these contractors who are specially hired in a time of military manoeuvres, to comply with the requirements of the Bill as to the conditions under which licences are obtainable.
It may be said that there is no reason why contractors for the Crown should not be liable to precisely the same conditions as other people. Hon. Members who are inclined to take that view should remember that, as the Minister has already reminded the House the Minister is here answerable for anything that is done by persons who contract with the Crown to carry goods on behalf of the Crown. In that respect those persons are in a different position from private contractors. The Minister can be asked questions, he can be made answerable for any faults or omissions of which they may be guilty. There is also this further consequence of any misdeed on their part, that they will most certainly, under the exposure which will always be made in this House, be faced with the consequence of the loss of their contract. In all the circumstances, having regard to the practical impossibility of making these people comply with the conditions on which licences are granted, and to the fact that the Minister is always here to be made answerable for their sins and omissions, I hope that the words propose will be inserted.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is always persuasive in the way in which he presents a case, but it seemed to me that he touched 1896 on this one rather too lightly. He said the Minister would be answerable. Which Minister? The Minister of Transport will not not be answerable in respect of a baker's cart which is delivering bread to a Territorial camp in connection with a contract with the Crown. There is no person who is answerable for such a contractor, and I see no reason at all why vehicles in private ownership which happen to be engaged for the time being in supplying goods for the Crown should be excluded from the various provisions of this Bill, to which they would be liable if this Amendment were not carried. It is a dangerous thing to push too far the principle of excluding Government Departments and their subsidiaries from the normal conditions which apply to the rest of us. I quite agree that the ordinary military vehicle, from the very circumstances under which it has to be maintained, can quite properly be exempt from the Bill, but here we are exempting vehicles—I am not quite certain what the legal interpretation would be—which sometimes would be engaged on ordinary work and at other times be engaged in pursuance of a contract with the Crown for the carriage of goods for public purposes. Indeed, they might be simultaneously engaged on both errands, because the baker on his rounds might deliver so much bread to a camp in pursuance of a contract with the Crown and then come on to my house and deliver bread to me, and when he had unloaded the supply of bread for the Crown—

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I do not accept the hon. Member's illustration of a baker delivering bread under an ordinary contract to sell bread to the Crown, but if he was using the vehicle also in his own business he would, of course, have to obtain a licence for the purpose of his private work.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
If he happened to be discovered contravening the provisions of the Measure at the moment when he had on his cart the load of bread for the Crown, he would have a perfectly good defence, and I think it is perfectly improper to carry the protection which the Crown gives to its own vehicles to the point of protecting anybody who, for the moment has a contract with the Crown. This is a dangerous principle, and I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made out a better case for the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN
I wish to join in the protest which has been made, and to say that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the point when dealing with War Office vehicles which he wants exempted. A case that comes to my mind is that of vehicles hired out to the War Office by contractors for use in manoeuvres or by Territorial units. I know of two Territorial units which this year hired such vehicles. Two of the vehicles overturned when they were not in state of complete mechanical upkeep such as would be required under this Measure, and two others broke down for the same reason. Those are cases which actually happened during the last five weeks, and as a Territorial officer I strongly urge that those vehicles should come under this Measure, so that we can be protected against the possibility of such dangerous vehicles being issued by contractors to Territorial units.

§ Mr. ALED ROBERTS
The point we are now discussing was touched upon, I think, when we discussed the first Amendment to Clause 1, but I am very far from satisfied with the explanation which the Minister gave on that occasion. I see no special justification for exempting from the conditions as to mechanical fitness any vehicle which is working for the Crown under contract. A vehicle belonging to a contractor which is mechanically unfit may hit something or somebody when going along a road and cause damage or kill a person. Its unfitness could have been discovered had it been stopped and examined by an examiner; but if it happens to be working for the Crown it cannot be examined. The contractor may be running a vehicle which is in an unfit condition and to the public danger without there being any chance of checking him. Whatever case there may be for exempting vehicles which belong to the Crown I can see no justification for exempting vehicles belonging to contractors, and I hope the House will reject this Amendment.

§ Mr. AMERY
The House ought to be quite clear as to the scope of this Amendment. Let me take the case of a contract made by the Crown with a firm of shipbuilders for the building of a battleship. 1898 In pursuance of that contract there would be a great deal of cartage to the shipyard of parts constructed at some armament works some distance away. There would be a cartage of special timber, special metal, an enormous amount of cartage, all of it under conditions different in no essential from the cartage involved in the construction of an ordinary commercial vessel or a battleship for a foreign country. In the same way the Crown might be erecting a fresh block of buildings. A great deal of cartage would be involved under conditions in no respect different from those to which this Bill is specifically intended to apply. Are we to understand that in all the cases I have indicated there is to be complete exemption from the provisions which otherwise would apply under this Bill? If there is to be such exemption it seems to me that a dangerously wide gap is being driven into the provisions of the Bill, and that we are introducing a very unsatisfactory in-and-out condition as regards responsibility and licences. If it be desirable to make special provisions for transport engaged on manoeuvres, and so on, surely it should be possible to draw up an Amendment of much narrower cope. I hope the Minister will carefully consider that point.

§ Sir REGINALD BANKS
It seems to me that there is some substance and force in the observations made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), but is he not forgetting the fact that the Bill as it stands says that this Clause shall not apply to the use of a vehicle by a local authority or any person acting in pursuance of a contract with a local authority? I may be making a mistake, but it occurs to me that the illustration he has just given will apply to the contracts with local authorities. The gentleman who is carrying loaves—

Mr. STANLEY
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has not realised that the exemption in the case of local authorities is restricted to vehicles used for certain purposes, such as road watering.

§ Sir R. BANKS
I misapprehended that point. It seemed to me, if we were going to allow this exemption in favour of local authorities, that it was rather like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel to object to similar provisions in the case of contracts with the Crown.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
If I may speak again by leave of the House, I think hon. Members give a much wider interpretation to the words than they really bear. The case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was far outside the meaning of the words, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) envisaged cases which are not covered by the words in question.

§ Mr. AMERY
I was inquiring.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The words in question deal with the use of a vehicle, in pursuance of a contract with the Crown for the carriage of goods for public purposes. In my view those words do not cover a case where a person is, for instance, building a battleship or erecting a building for the Crown and, for the purpose of completing his contract, has to carry bricks or stones or steel plates or iron girders. All that is intended to be covered is a contract for the carriage of goods for public purposes, and the Amendment does not cover the carriage of goods by persons who are carrying out a contract with the Crown such as the erection of a building or the building of a battleship. The intention of the Minister is far from what has been suggested, namely, that there should be a general freedom from restriction, without proper conditions, for all people who would come within the class of cases mentioned this afternoon; and the Minister authorises me to say that he will most certainly see whether the Amendment can be drawn in a much narrower form, so as to cover those cases which I think everybody has recognised ought properly to be excluded.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I would like to ask whether the Minister will introduce the Amendment he has promised—the Amendment in a narrower form—in another place, because I am bound to say that in its existing form it still appears to be so wide that it would include a great many kinds of work in respect of which one would imagine a person ought not to enjoy immunity from having to procure a licence. I can well understand that while it would not serve to cover a person carrying goods to complete 1900 an object which he was making for the Government, it well might cover that person, carrying exactly the same class of goods, if he were carrying them to a Government factory which was making exactly the same object. If the Government were constructing a naval vessel in the West of England I cannot believe that a person who was carrying material for that vessel to the Government dockyard would not enjoy immunity under this Amendment, whereas if precisely a similar vessel was being made by contract, the person who was carrying the material for the company to make it would not get any immunity. I am sure that that is not intended. There are other points which could be put, but which I will not put to-night. If the Minister could tell us what he proposes to do, we should be grateful. I assume that this is to be put right in another place, and perhaps I may ask this question without losing any of my right to make a further criticism.

Mr. STANLEY
I think that the House has made a genuine attempt to decide this Amendment upon its merits. We realise the point that it is desired to meet, and our only anxiety is that, in meeting that point, we should not go far beyond it. In view of what has been said, I think that the most satisfactory course would be that I should now ask leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment. In another place, I should not be precluding myself in any way from putting down the same Amendment again, if I cannot find narrower words to cover my point. As the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) suggested, I will see whether I can find a form of words to cover the object which, we all agree, should be covered.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after the word "refuse," to insert the words: night-soil or the contents of cesspools, or for the purposes of the enactments relating to weights and measures or the sale of food and drugs. The word "refuse," is not wide enough to include such matters as the contents of cesspools. The first part of the Amendment is therefore put in to remove any doubt on this matter. The second 1901 part of the Amendment deals with the special vehicles used by local authorities in the discharge of their duties, not only in regard to cesspools, but also in regard to weights and measures under the Food and Drugs Act. It is perhaps unfortunate that food and drugs should be asociated with refuse, but the Amendment is necessary for clarity's sake.

Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert the words: or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety. The point was specially raised in Committee by an hon. Member as to a "C" licence-holder who came upon a lorry which had been broken down and its goods perhaps scattered all over the road. He would, under the Bill as drafted, only be allowed to pick up those goods and take them away to some place of safety and dispose of them, at any rate so far as the public highway was concerned, if he had taken no money for doing it. It is clearly to the advantage of the general public that, if a thing of that kind does happen, goods should be disposed of at the earliest possible moment. We make it possible by this Amendment for a "C" licence-holder to do a bit of salvage work of that kind, even for money, without bringing himself into the ambit of the "A" licence-holder.

§ Mr. McKEAG
I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after the words last inserted, to insert the words: (i) to the use of a vehicle specially constructed and exclusively used as a hearse. It is rather an unhappy and gruesome subject, and I propose to deal with it with as much brevity as possible. I have put down the Amendment as the result of an undertaking which was given by the Minister when this matter was raised in Committee. I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that, on that occasion, the Minister said: I think, whatever the logical view may be, that probably the Committee will agree with me in accepting, not necessarily finally in this form of words, some form of words which will exempt vehicles engaged for funeral purposes from the scope of this Bill."—OFFICIAL REPORT, (Standing Committee A), 18th May, 7933; col. 77.] 1902 All I am asking now is that the undertaking then given should be carried out. In passing, I would like to call attention to the very definite nature of the words of the Amendment. They prevent the possibility of any vehicle used for the dual purpose being excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I understand that the Minister has been somewhat embarrassed during the last few days by representations which have been made to him suggesting that it is not the desire of the members of the Undertakers' Association that they should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I want to clear up any misapprehension there may be in the Minister's mind as to that. I am able to assure him that the Parliamentary Committee which was appointed by the annual Conference of the British Undertakers' Association—

Mr. STANLEY
When?

§ Mr. McKEAG
I cannot give the exact date of the annual conference, but the Parliamentary Committee of the British Undertakers' Association decided—and even approached the Minister on it, I believe—that motor hearses should be excluded from the operation of the Bill, Subsequently, a minority section of the association opposed that decision, and, as a result, a Parliamentary Committee was held, and was attended by Members from the dissenting areas, for the purpose of deciding the matter. They were specially co-opted to the Parliamentary Committee. The result was to reaffirm the previous decision of the Committee by a considerable majority. I understand that the view of the Parliamentary Committee has received further support from influential motor-hearse owners in Scotland.
In round figures, the Parliamentary Committee is in favour of exclusion to the extent of 80 per cent. of the actual owners of funeral transport, as against 20 per cent. dissenters, who are, I understand, principally job masters, and not undertakers in the real sense of the word. I cannot escape the conclusion that any section which desires to be brought within the provisions of this Bill must have an axe to grind. I have taken some trouble, since then, to ascertain what is exactly the position. I have to-day been waited on by Members of both sides, and I have been able to come to some decision in my own mind. It is clear to me that the real motive of those who 1903 desire to be included within the scope of the Bill is that they hope they may be placed in a position to be able to object to any licence being granted to any other person for the use of a motor hearse in future. By this means, I suppose, they hope to enjoy what would be a virtual monopoly. That, I submit, is a selfish interest which this House should not encourage.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so because of the strong representations which I have received from my constituents. In the last few days, the transport of my constituents while they are alive has come under the London Passenger Transport Board. It was previously in the hands of private operators in the municipality, and my constituents have lost the opportunity of being transported, except by an institution over which the Minister has a certain amount of control. They feel that, when they take their last journeys as passengers, they might escape this control for the only possible time that they will have. Seriously, there is very strong opposition. It is partly sentimental, and we all sympathise with it. It is a little difficult to find out what the position actually is, because some of the people concerned call themselves undertakers, some funeral furnishers, and those who have been to America call themselves morticians. There seems to be a material degree of disagreement among them, especially so far as they may happen to come from Yorkshire. The real objection to our Amendment comes from Yorkshire. Yorkshire is a county which contains both Hull and Halifax; that may explain to some extent why they hold these very strong views. One of the objections from Yorkshire to not being brought into the Bill was the bad state of trade. In those circumstances, they ought to be moving the reduction of the salary of the Minister of Health.
It appears, so far as I can find out, that 80 per cent., or 90 per cent., of those engaged in this industry desire that these vehicles should be excluded from the Bill, largely, as I have said, on sentimental grounds. Because a small minority carry on their business in a way which is not typical of the majority, they themselves 1904 not being vehicle owners, I do not think that that minority should be permitted to overrule the great majority. I am told, in a document which has been lent to me and which comes from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the British Undertakers' Association, that, so far as they can find out, there are not more than 5 per cent. of the actual undertakers of the country who are in opposition to the Amendment which I am now seconding. I understand that the Minister is perfectly willing to agree to the Amendment, provided that he is satisfied that it substantially represents the point of view of the industry. As it now substantially represents the point of view of the industry, I hope that he will see his way to accept it.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "constructed" to insert the words "or adapted."
I should like to support the Amendment which is before the House, and if it is to be accepted by the Minister I hope that he may see his way to accept the manuscript Amendment, which I have handed in and which I am now moving. I do this for practical reasons, and in order to give equality of opportunity among the owners of hearses. A vehicle can be exclusively used as a hearse, and only so exclusively used, not only if it is so constructed, but if it is so adapted afterwards. I can give the House my own experience. Up to last Christmas, I was using a motor car constructed for the ordinary use of passengers. I had a somewhat bad accident, and I disposed of the motor car this spring. It is now being used as a hearse.

HON. MEMBERS
Too late.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
It is possible that it might have served a more deadly purpose previously, if I had not been driving with exceeding care. It is now being exclusively used as a hearse, and it is so adapted that it can only be used for that purpose. I think that in these circumstances, whether my proposed words are inserted here or in another place, it would be well worth while for the Minister to give this concession. It is true that, as has been said by the Mover and Seconder of the 1905 Amendment, the overwhelming proportion of these undertakers are in favour of the concession, and it is one which, if the Minister could see his way to grant it, would be incapable of extension, and in which a line of discrimination could easily be drawn, so that a similar privilege could not be asked for in respect of anything else.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)
Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move the insertion of these words as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment?

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Yes, Sir; if I may be allowed to move these words, and if they would be accepted by the Mover of the Amendment, I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "constructed," to insert the words "or adapted."

§ Mr. McKEAG
I have no objection to the insertion of these additional words, provided that it does not prejudice the Minister's acceptance of the Amendment which I originally moved.

§ Sir JOSEPH LAMB
Would they mean that the concession would apply to a vehicle adapted for permanent use as a hearse, or only for purposes of temporary use?

§ Mr. LEVY
I want to oppose both the original Amendment and the proposed Amendment to it, because the information which I have is in complete conflict with that which has been given to the House by both the Mover and the Seconder.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I think it would meet the convenience of the House if we first disposed of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and then got back to the Amendment itself. Perhaps the Minister will express his view on the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY
I am going to ask the House to reject both the original Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment to it. Frankly, I have not had time to consider whether the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would add to the value of the original Amendment if it were accepted. All I can say is that, as I am at present advised, the addition 1906 or omission of the words proposed by my right hon. Friend would not alter my purpose.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
As the Mover of the original Amendment appears to think that my proposed Amendment might conceivably prejudice the consideration of his case, on which we have yet to hear the Minister's final decision, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

§ Mr. LEVY
I want to oppose this Amendment, because, as I was saying, the information which I have is in direct conflict with the information given to the House by both the Mover and the Seconder. Early this afternoon, a deputation of the British Undertakers' Association waited upon me, and I understand that 80 per cent. of the trade are in favour of being allowed to remain, and hope to be allowed to remain, in the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) says that this is a Yorkshire proposition, and that the number in favour of being in the Bill is infinitesimal, may I say that the Yorkshire area, the Lancashire area, and the Eastern area constitute three-fifths of the whole of the members of the association, and my information is that 80 per cent. of the trade desire to be in the Bill? With the permission of the House, I would like to read the resolution which has been passed, after very careful consideration of the Bill. I might mention in passing that the Amendment was only put on the Paper last night, and they regard this as so grave a matter that they journeyed from Yorkshire to London for the purpose of asking me, as a Member for a constituency in Yorkshire, to oppose the Amendment. This is the resolution which has been passed: That the meeting of the Council of the British Undertakers' Association, after having carefully considered the Road and Rail Traffic Bill, are of the unanimous opinion that the best interests of the public at large and the trade in general would be best served by the inclusion of the motor hearse in the Bill, as proposed by the Minister. I do not propose to labour the point, because it is certainly a morbid subject, but I hope that the Minister will not 1907 accept this Amendment. By not accepting it he will be doing what I understand is desired by 80 per cent. of the trade.

Mr. STANLEY
I have noticed a rather strange phenomenon in connection with this Amendment. While I think that those who listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag), when he was introducing it, realised that the company which he has been keeping during the last few days has had a considerable effect upon his general demeanour and the manner in which he moved the Amendment, the tendency on the part of other Members of the House has been to treat this question, not, of course, with levity, but without that morbidity which one might possibly have expected in connection with such a subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) has just said, it is indeed a grave matter.
I am, of course, in considerable difficulty with regard to it. It is quite true that during the Committee stage I gave an undertaking—or perhaps it would be better to say a promise—that I would exclude these vehicles from the operation of the Bill; but I did so, of course, on the understanding, which was certainly conveyed to me by my hon. Friend at that time, that the industry as a whole wanted them to be excluded. I naturally understood that he was speaking on their behalf. It is a matter of considerable regret to me now to find that there does not exist in this profession the harmony which would be more in keeping with the solemn functions which it has to perform. The idea that the hand of the mortician should be raised against the undertaker, and that both, apparently, should be opposed to the funeral furnisher, is an idea which gives one considerable pain, but the fact is that, since I made that promise in Committee, I have received resolutions from what I understand to be the three biggest branches of the Undertakers' Association—the Northumberland and Durham Branch, the Yorkshire Branch, and the Lancashire Branch; and all those resolutions were passed, two unanimously and one by a large majority, for the purpose of inducing me to leave to these gentlemen the, advantages of the Bill, and of protesting against their exclusion at the instance of what they claim is a quite non-representative central body—or, perhaps, 1908 I had better say central committee—in London. I am informed that the membership of these branches constitutes not an insignificant minority of the total of the Undertakers' Association but something like 55 per cent.
There is clearly here a conflict of evidence. I am prepared to stand by the promise that I gave in Committee provided it can be shown that the general desire of the association lies that way. I certainly should not allow myself to be deterred from that by a really insignificant minority. On the other hand, I am faced with the assertion that this I.L.P. in the funereal world commands a majority of the whole association. In these circumstances I should not be prepared to go forward, and I feel that it is not possible at the moment to accept the Amendment. I will confer with the hon. Member as to how we can arrive at a real knowledge of the state of opinion in this profession. Of course, it will always be possible for me, when something more approaching unanimity is reached, to provide for it either in another place or, if they should not reach unanimity in time for that, there would remain the alternative of dealing with the matter by Regulation.

§ Sir J. LAMB
I should like to know how this would affect anyone residing in a remote country district who uses a farm vehicle for the conveyance of a coffin.

Mr. STANLEY
If my hon. Friend looks at the Amendment, he will see that the vehicle has to be specially constructed, and, unless the farmer whom he has in mind constructs his farm vehicle specially for use as a hearse, it will not come within the Amendment.

§ Sir J. LAMB
That is the Amendment, which is not going to be accepted. I want to know whether these vehicles will come under the Bill and will require a licence.

Mr. STANLEY
They will be under the Bill, presumably, as agricultural vehicles.

§ Mr. McKEAG
Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to have a joint meeting of both sections of the association with some official of his Department to decide which section speaks for the larger number?

Mr. STANLEY
That will, perhaps, be the best solution.

§ Mr. McKEAG
I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, after the word "used," to insert the word "knowingly."

Mr. STANLEY
On a point of Order. May I ask what the hon. Member is moving?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It is a manuscript Amendment.

§ Mr. McKEAG
I handed it in at the Table, and I expected it would have reached the Minister.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
Is an hon. Member who has not handed a copy of his manuscript Amendment to the Minister to be allowed to discuss it? We handed in a manuscript Amendment in Committee, and, because the Minister had not received a copy of it, it was pushed on one side for the time being.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
What may have happened in Committee upstairs is no concern of mine, and I am not informed whether a, copy has been banded to the Minister or not. There is nothing disorderly in the Amendment, and there is no reason why it should not be selected.

§ Mr. McKEAG
The Minister is familiar with the Amendment, because a similar one was moved in Committee, though in a somewhat different form. A Division was taken and it received sufficient support to justify me raising it now. I was supported in the Division by Members of the official Opposition and I ask them to support it again. It simply requires that there shall be guilty knowledge on the part of anyone charged with committing an offence under the Act. The Attorney-General in Committee suggested that a. man who was charged would only have to say that he had contravened the provisions of the Act unknowingly to be acquitted. That, of course, is not the case. It will be a matter for the magistrates themselves to decide and, if they felt that the man had acted in disregard of the Act, all his protestations that he had acted unknowingly would be of no avail at all. Then there is the case of the employé who is ordered by his master to proceed on a journey with a goods vehicle which ought to be licensed. Is he required to address to his master all sorts of interrogatories as to whether this or that requirement of the Act has been fulfilled 1910 or not? That is an impossible position, and it would be a monstrous thing for a man to be punished in such circumstances. On the other hand, you have the case of a master whose servant takes out a vehicle without the authority and knowledge of his master. It would be a grave injustice if the master were to be convicted in such circumstances, especially when one bears in mind that, not only might he be convicted, but, if he were convicted in those circumstances, it might jeopardise his licence under the provisions of the Act. It is too serious a matter to be left in the wording at present in the Bill. It should be left to the discretion of the magistrates. They should not be compelled to convict in cases which would inflict real hardship simply because of the rigidity of these words. I was much heartened in my advocacy of this Amendment upstairs by the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who spoke with all the experience of a King's Counsel, a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and a Recorder. He said, after the learned Attorney-General had spoken: Surely the speech of the learned Attorney-General does not do him justice. The word 'knowingly' here has nothing to do with knowledge of the Act of Parliament. It is a question of whether a man knowingly takes out a vehicle that is not licensed. Suppose an employer says to his man, 'You take this vehicle'"—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I must point out to the hon. Member that his Amendment as he has moved it, would not affect the person who takes out a vehicle, but only the purpose for which it is to be used.

§ Mr. McKEAG
I must bow to your Ruling, but I am simply pointing out that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead definitely dealt with the word "knowingly." This is what he said as to that: The English law of old always required what is called mens rea; that is to say, he must have a knowledge that he was doing wrong, and the knowledge that he was doing wrong does not mean knowledge of the law. He is presumed to have that knowledge. It means knowledge of the fact. Every driver of a vehicle is to be liable to a penalty here, where he is misled. This would be a gross injustice, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, in which case I shall support him."-[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 23rd May, 1933; col. 107.] 1911 Surely the Minister will be influenced by this expression of very experienced opinion and permit the word "knowingly" to be inserted in the Bill. It would not weaken the effect of the Bill at all, but would certainly prevent the creation and infliction of hardships and injustices.

§ Mr. MALLALIEU
I beg to second the Amendment.
I am thinking especially of the hardship which would be caused by the Bill as it stands in the case of an agent about to have some work done by a man to whom he gives a contract. In the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a similar Clause to this was inserted, and it is almost common form now to insert it in such a Bill as this. If under the present wording of the Bill a man were to contract out the use of a vehicle thereby permitting it to be used, even if he made proper inquiries of the person to whom he was giving the job and said, "Are all the licences in order," and the person replied, "Yes, they are in order," if they were not in order, he would apparently be liable to considerable penalties. It seems to be contrary to what I imagine is the intention of the Minister on this point. Now that legislation and the knowledge of the facts necessary to constitute an offence are so complicated, I hope that the Minister, at any rate, will make it plain that nobody is to suffer the penalties of the Act unless he knows or should know that he has committed an offence under it.

Mr. STANLEY
The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment asked for my serious consideration. I would point out to him that the consideration I should have been able to give to it would have been much more serious and fruitful if I had been given a little longer notice of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman says that he handed it in to the Chair in manuscript form. As he knows, it is common courtesy to do that. But it is not only common courtesy but common desire in order to have your own case properly met, to give the Minister notice as well. Until the hon. Gentleman rose neither I nor the House knew of the existence of this Amendment.

§ Mr. McKEAG
Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that I fully believed that, having handed in the Amendment at the Table, it would reach the Minister.

Mr. STANLEY
Certainly, but I am only telling the hon. Gentleman that it did not in fact happen. Until the hon. Gentleman got up to move the Amendment I had no knowledge of it. I think that probably the House is under the same difficulty. I doubt if there are many hon. Members who, if suddenly challenged, would know exactly where the word "knowingly" was to come in, and it makes a lot of difference. My hon. Friend says that he moved the Amendment in Committee, but as far as I can judge from the look I have had at the manuscript Amendment which he has handed in, when he moved the word "knowingly" in Committee, he moved it in a different place. He now wants to put it in so that the provision shall read: If any person uses a vehicle, or causes or permits a vehicle to be used, knowingly.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
After the comma, "knowingly."

Mr. STANLEY
It is after the word "used"—"to be used knowingly."

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
Before the comma, or after the comma?

Mr. STANLEY
I do not think that my hon. Friend specified that. It raises considerable difficulties wherever it is. The House will realise that on a clearly technical and legal matter of this kind my right hon. and learned Friend, who has been in attendance all the evening, had he known that the Amendment was to be moved, would have been here to give the House the benefit of his advice. I cannot myself attach a meaning to the Amendment as it is now moved, and I must rely, therefore, upon the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made to the Committee when this word was moved at a different place, and, I think, at a place which would have covered the whole of this Sub-section. My right hon. and learned Friend said that lie felt that the addition of this word would not in fact be necessary in the interests that we all have of seeing that the innocent man does not suffer penalties. 1913 I do not think that anyone would really say that a court would apply a penalty to anyone in the sort of circumstances that have been quoted in support of the Amendment. On the other hand, speaking as a layman, I can see considerable difficulty in definitely inserting the word "knowingly." It would seem to me to put upon the prosecution a bigger onus of proof than they ought to bear and to enable the man who has allowed his driver to break the law, with full knowledge, to get off, because it would be impossible for the prosecution actually to prove knowledge, which anyone who heard the case would properly assume from the circumstances. It is most unfortunate that I, not being a lawyer—

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
Not a lawyer?

Mr. STANLEY
Well, a lawyer of very modest pretensions, should have to advise the House on this subject, but I do feel that to insert the word where it is proposed to insert it would mean nothing at all, would be but little protection to the innocent man and might lead to considerable evasion by just the type of employer we want to get at under this Act.

§ Mr. G. HALL
Although we did support an Amendment in Committee which asked for the insertion of the word "knowingly," we had two similar Amendments down later in the Bill which we did not move for the reasons explained in Committee. Therefore we do not propose to-night to follow the hon. Member if he takes the Amendment to a Division.