Clause 19.—(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.) (Hansard, 20 February 1967)

§ Mr. Swingler
I beg to move, Amendment No. 56, in page 27, line 13, to leave out from "different" to the end of line 15 and to insert provision may be made by the regulations for different cases". This Clause enables the Minister to make different regulations in respect of different classes of vehicles. The purpose of the Amendment is to give greater flexibility to the power to make regulations by giving the Minister scope to exempt certain classes of persons from the need to comply with the provisions of the Act in prescribed circumstances. For example, it may be considered desirable to exempt drivers who are entitled to a "claimed" licence under the transitional provisions in Schedule 15 of the principal Act, as amended by paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 of the Bill, from the need to undergo medical examination as 1303 well as from the need to take a driving test.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The next Amendment selected is No. 27.

§ Mr. Swingler
I beg to move, Amendment No. 57, in page 27, line 43, to leave out Expressions used in the last foregoing and insert: 'In the last foregoing section and this section "full licence" means a licence under Part V of the principal Act other than a provisional licence and other expressions used in that'. This Amendment is required to provide a definition of the term "full licence" as used in Clauses 18 and 19, and is consequential on a series of Amendments.

§ Mr. Carlisle
On a point of order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Amendment No. 57. I thought that you called Amendment No. 27, the one immediately before it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I called Amendment No. 27.

§ Mr. Swingler
I am sorry. I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 27, line 15, at the end insert: (2) Any person who contravenes a provision of regulations under this section, a contravention of which is declared by the regulations to be an offence, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20. The regulations to be made under Clause 19(1) of the Bill will, in the main, refer to administrative matters. The Minister may want to create offences, for example, preventing a person holding more than one licence. The Bill, as drafted, makes no provision for a breach of the regulations to be an offence or for any penalty for the offence. The Amendment is required in order to remedy the omission.

§ Sir D. Renton
Earlier this evening I was blaming the Government for trying to have minimum offences, but on this I feel that the maximum sentence proposed of £20 may not be enough to cover the worst type of case. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that most of the matters mentioned in Clause 19(1,a-k) are fairly minor administrative matters. But the one to which he specifically referred, 1304 namely, the one under subsection (1, f) making provision for preventing a person holding more than one licence and for facilitating the indentification of licence holders; could be a very serious matter.
I could imagine circumstances in which a maximum penalty of £20 might not be enough, even at the present value of money. If the value of money should go down with any rapidity over the next five years it could become quite a trivial fine to cover the worst type of offence. I realise that there is nothing that we can do at the moment but agree to the Amendment, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the possibility of another place making this fine as much as £50. He could find that the holding of more than one licence enabled people completely to circumvent the somewhat elaborate provisions in this part of the Bill, and we should be careful about that.

§ Mr. Carlisle
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could explain further Clause 19. As I understand it, it lays down powers for the Minister to make regulations, which presumably would be done by orders subject to the negative or affirmative procedure of the House. In the Bill there is no reference to any offence being committed at all, and then at the Report stage we get this Amendment making it an offence to contravene the regulations under this Clause.
Are the powers already in existence which would make it an offence to be in breach of a regulation made under this Clause, and are we merely concerned with the maximum penalty which could be involved, or has the Minister decided at this stage to make an additional criminal offence which did not previously exist?
I would have thought that, under the Construction and Use Regulations, it has always been an offence to be in breach of regulations made by the Minister. I wonder what the normal penalties were for such breaches and why we have to have this specific Clause.

§ Mr. Swingler
Offences and penalties are contained in different provisions of the Bill and, of course, in previous Acts. Here we are dealing solely with regulations to be made under Clause 19(1). I admit straight away that an error has 1305 occurred in so far as the Bill as it stands makes no provision for a breach of the regulations to be an offence and makes no provision for a penalty for such an offence. This omission we have repaired after further consideration. We will certainly take into account what has been said in the light of previous discussions on Report, which, I am sure, impelled the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the point about what the penalties should be for certain types of offence. Therefore, my right hon. Friend will certainly consider his point about whether the maximum penalty should be increased by an Amendment in another place.

§ Mr. Graham Page
The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who asked whether there was any penalty under the 1960 Road Traffic Act for breach of regulations. The Minister is given power in Clause 19 to make regulations to effect the provisions of Part V of the principal Act, which also grants the Minister the regulation-making power. Surely there were penalties under the 1960 Act for offending against regulations. We wanted to compare the figure of £20 in the Bill with any figure which there may have been in the 1960 Act.
I cannot believe that regulations made under the 1960 Act could be offended against without there being any penalty. Although I have the Act in my hand, I cannot put my finger on the Section imposing penalties for offences against regulations under the Act. However, I will continue looking and talking while the Parliamentary Secretary looks at the message which has come along the row to him.
I am sure that there must be some penalty under the 1960 Act for anyone offending against regulations. If it is less than £20, I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on having raised it to £20; if it is already £20, it should be more in the Bill; if it is more than £20 in the 1960 Act, why are we raising it in the Bill?

§ Mr. Swingler
Under the 1960 Act—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will already know, as he seems to have it off by heart—Section 239 makes a breach of the regulations under that Act an offence, for which the penalty is a maximum fine of £20. I am advised that that does not 1306 apply to regulations under Clause 19 of the Bill, which shows that my original exposition was correct, and we are dealing simply and solely with Clause 19(1) and the regulations which my right hon. Friend may make under it. But that does not mean that no offences or penalties are provided for under the principal Act of 1960, Section 239, which also provided a maximum penalty of £20.
The hon. Gentleman might find that a little confusing, but he will see that we are directly following the provision for regulations under the principal Act.

§ Mr. Swingler
I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 27, line 43, to leave out 'Expressions used in the last foregoing' and insert 'In the last foregoing section and this section "full licence" means a licence under Part V of the principal Act other than a provisional licence and other expressions used in that'. This Amendment is required to provide a definition of the term "full licence" in Clauses 18 and 19. It is consequential on the series of Amendments which we have just discussed.

§ Sir D. Renton
I can well see the need for this Amendment, but on the matter of the convenience of those who will have to study this rather complicated legislation in the years to come, might I ask if it would not be better that all these definitions should be in the interpretation Clause which appears later in the Bill? If we have definitions scattered throughout the Bill, it would seem to me that much more time will have to be spent in understanding the Bill. One will have to spend much more time on research if the Bill goes through as it is than if definitions were gathered all in one place.
If one turns to Clause 26, one finds a number of definitions under the heading 'Supplemental', and in Clause 27 there are further definitions with the marginal note, 'General provisions as to interpretation etc.' I would, therefore, constructively suggest that all these definitions should be in the one interpretation Clause because then everyone would find it at least a little easier to follow the intention and purpose of the Bill.

§ Mr. Swingler
I think that the place which is most convenient for this is in the section of the Bill to which it refers. 1307 I take note of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the convenience which is served by having those interpretations which deal with the whole of the Statute in one part of the Bill for purposes of convenience. I promise him that I will see what action we can take to tidy up the Bill in that respect.