HC Deb 19 December 1946 vol 431 cc2219-22
The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 14, line 35, to leave out lines 35-37, and to insert: (b) the certificate is not deposited with that other person in a locked or sealed receptacle from which he is not entitled to remove it without the authority of a person other than himself. The Amendment is designed to clarify the lines in the Bill, and, in particular, the word "satisfied." That word relates back to Subsection (6, b). On reconsideration of the Clause—I do not think this matter was discussed during the Committee stage—it appeared to us that the word "satisfied" was pot clear, and that the matter would be clearer if what is virtually Subsection (6, b) were again-repeated in this Subsection. As a matter of reading I think this alteration very much improves the text. I would, therefore, ask the House to accept the Amendment

Mr. Stanley

I was surprised to hear the Solicitor-General say that these words would clarify the position. I have been puzzling for some time to see the effect of this Amendment. Is the Solicitor-General certain that the Amendment is correct in the form in which he has moved it?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

It is in the wrong Clause.

Mr. Stanley

The words in Subsection (6) to which the Solicitor-General has referred read: The certificate is deposited. In the proposed Amendment we read that the certificate is not deposited. I cannot make head or tail of it.

The Solicitor-General

There is a double negative.

Mr. Stanley

Where is the other negative? The Amendment reads: The certificate is not deposited with that other person in a locked or sealed receptacle from which he is not entitled to remove it without the authority of a person other than himself. Surely, what the Solicitor-General means is that the certificate is deposited.

The Solicitor-General

Yes.

Mr. Stanley

Then would it not be clearer if we left out the two negatives? Is it necessary, merely for the purpose of clarification, to put in two negatives?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)

It keeps continuity with the other paragraphs in Subsection (6). They are also in the same sense, the negative sense.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

Paragraph (b) is not.

Mr. Stanley

No. This paragraph, in Subsection (6), reads: The certificate is deposited with him in a locked or sealed receptacle from which he is not entitled to remove it without the authority of some other person I understand that the intention of the Amendment to Subsection (7, b) is to reproduce Subsection (6, b), but now we get another negative put in with the new words, and it would appear to alter the sense.

In any case, would it not be possible in another place—I see the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) chafing at the bit to give us an explanation—to have another shot at clarifying this Subsection? Would it not be possible to put it in a form which will be readily understood by anybody, if possible avoiding double negatives, which I have always understood were not the most desirable form of wording?

The Solicitor-General

Perhaps I may speak again, with the permission of the House. We will bear in mind the suggestion made when the matter is before another place. It is not quite as bad as the right hon. Gentleman says. The object of the Amendment is that where a certificate of title is held by some agent, for an authorised depositary, the Clause shall not be satisfied when the agent keeps the certificate in a locked or sealed receptacle from which he is not entitled to remove it without other authority. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that there are two negatives and that it would be better if those were left out. We shall certainly reconsider the wording from that point of view. I would not like to say that it will be satisfactory without further consideration. The Amendment is, however, an improvement on what was there before, and I ask the House to accept it, because it is intended to be an improvement. We will look at the further suggestion to see whether the wording can still further be improved.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

In response to the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) I would like to say that I think the matter is quite clear. Subsection (7) says: It shall be deemed to be in the custody of an authorised depositary if "— and then will go on to say, in the proposed Amendment: the certificate is not deposited with that other person in a locked or sealed receptacle. The rest of the wording is parenthetical.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

Not at all.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

It says: from which he is not entitled to remove it without the authority of a person other than himself." It is quite clear, if read that way.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to ask the leave of the House to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, which leaves me, I must confess, in just as much confusion as I was before. The explanation showed great legal acumen. I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman must have been consorting with some of the highest in the legal world.

Amendment agreed to.