HC Deb 14 May 1963 vol 677 cc1269-73

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. du Cann

In reply to the strictures of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I can certainly accept that it is the duty of a junior Minister to seek to assist the Committee in getting the business through. That being the case, I shall speak only briefly on the purpose of this Clause.

The Clause deals with a minor matter, but I hope that the Committee will think it a sensible one. Part 2 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1960, deals with the sampling by Customs officers of the fuel supplies of road vehicles and of oil in storage tanks. In certain circumstances, it allows a certificate by an authorised analyst—that is to say, an analyst from the Government laboratory—to be admissable in evidence in certain prosecutions under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. The present provisions confine the certificate procedure to samples of heavy oils, and the Clause would extend that procedure to cover also samples of light oils. The present provisions also confine the procedure to criminal prosecution under only two sections of the Customs and Excise Act. The Clause would extend it to all criminal and civil proceedings under that Act.

I hope that in sum the Committee may think it appropriate that if prosecution and defence both agree that it is not necessary to call for the personal attendance of an authorised analyst in court, it must be appropriate in these cases for the analyst to give a certificate. In certain cases one could visualise otherwise journeys of one hundred miles or more. This seems to us a useful revision of the law. It removes an obvious anomaly, in that Parliament has agreed in one case and we suggest that now it should agree in the generality. This will certainly result in a saving of time and money. I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Mitchison

The provisions as regards heavy oils are required to ensure whether the heavy oils have received rebate or not. If any hon. Member cares to look at the Schedule in the Finance Act, 1960, he will find that all these provisions bear the side-note "Rebated Heavy Oils". The question that puzzles me a little, and I ask the Economic Secretary to enlighten us on the matter, is what is the rebate in respect of hydrocarbon oils, or what other reason is there to extend this provision from heavy oils to hydrocarbon oils? Has it, for instance, anything to do with the next Clause which is concerned with pipelines? We should have been told why the provision in the 1960 Act is confined to heavy oils and why it is now found necessary to extend it to hydrocarbon oils.

On the second point mentioned by the Economic Secretary, I entirely agree that what is reasonable in a criminal prosecution is in matters of Customs and Excise even more reasonable in civil proceedings. They may have something of a criminal character in them in this connection, but they are, nevertheless, matters where the type of evidence required in civil proceedings does not require the strictness called for in criminal proceedings. Therefore, if any relaxation in the ordinary rules by not requiring an analyst to be called applies already in criminal proceedings it should certainly be extended to civil proceedings which are substantially of the same character.

Here again, I ask how it came about that these provisions in the 1960 Act were originally confined to criminal proceedings only. It may be that this is only another Government slip. I hesitate to come to that conclusion, but to those who say that an accidental ommission was made one is ready to allow the filling up of the gap afterwards. I do not know what the circumstances were here, but the Economic Secretary should not be deterred by anything that has been said earlier in the debate from getting up in the middle of the debate and giving a fuller explanation than he gave at the beginning.

Mr. du Cann

I am obliged for that invitation, and I shall do what I can to satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

The fact is that the certificate procedure applies only to samples of heavy oils, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. The results of his researches are entirely accurate. I said a little more about it in my introduction, and I shall not go over that part again.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why we now come forward with this proposal. Is there something we have missed? Have the Government been idle, slack, lacking in foresight? The answer, of course, is "Certainly not". It is merely a matter of practical experience evidencing that it would be wise to take these powers. As the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises, this is really not a major matter. Practical experience has shown that an authorised analyst has had to go to court to give evidence in person in a number of cases in which neither side would have required his attendance had any other course been possible.

I will give examples of the types of case. The first is the case involving a fraudulent mixture of rebated heavy oil, for example, paraffin, with petrol in order to make the petrol go further as a vehicle fuel, the resulting mixture being a light oil as defined by Section 195 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. As I said—I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has the point—the Clause, if passed, would allow the certificate procedure to apply to light oils as well as to heavy oils.

Now, the second example. The certificate procedure applies only in criminal cases under the two main sections of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, which deal with the matter. Section 200 which prohibits the use of rebated heavy oil as road fuel, and Section 208, which prohibits the unauthorised mixing of light and heavy oils. Offences under these Sections are only summary offences punishable by fine. Experience has shown that in certain cases where frauds have been larger and systematic, the Customs has been advised that proceedings can be taken under the more severe indictment provisions of the Customs and Excise Act dealing with fraudulent evasion, and cases have been so instituted. As time went on, it seemed to us, in the light of experience, that it might be appropriate to take the certificate procedure.

Furthermore, a vehicle in which rebated oil is used as fuel may be forfeited to the Crown, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know. The Customs and Excise Act provides that, in certain cases, the Customs must take court proceedings for the condemnation of the forfeited vehicle. These proceedings are not criminal but civil. That is the explanation of the final point about which the hon. and learned Gentleman asked. In the circumstances, I hope that he will say that he is satisfied.

Mr. Mitchison

On one point I am satisfied. This Clause has not very much connection with the impending General Election. That I do understand. When we come to anything more, I am not sure that I see the point.

The reason for having this arrangement in connection with heavy oils was that, in certain circumstances, there was a rebate on those heavy oils and the putting in of a marker was a method of identifying the heavy oils which had already received a rebate. I quite understand that. If they had not been identified, they might, as it were, have voted twice in the same Lobby and got two rebates, and we could not allow anything like that. But we have had no explanation of why it is necessary in regard to other things, except, I gather, that, if one mixes a heavy oil and a light oil, one may produce something which, for one reason or another, requires to be marked.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. I noted nothing which could have occurred since 1960 and not before 1960, and, in spite of all he has said, I come to the conclusion that in this instance the Government were not quite as perfect as he represented them to be. They had forgotten about the other cases and they had confined this to the most obvious case, that of the rebated heavy oils.

I think that the explanation on the other point was quite sufficient and satisfactory. All we can do here is to mourn once more the lack of foresight in Finance Bills and to say that it is very sad that we should be asked now, in 1963, to deal with something which has passed for three years unnoticed and unprovided for. I suppose that that is not an argument for not providing for it now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.