HC Deb 24 February 1969 vol 778 cc1201-17
Mr. Carmichael

I beg to move, That Clause 10 be divided into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (5) and the second of subsections (61 to (8).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

With this Motion we can also discuss Amendments Nos. 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 27, 28 and 30.

Mr. Carmichael

Because of the agreement in Standing Committee the Clause has become very long, and the Motion proposes to split the Clause into two separate Clauses, the first comprising subsections (1) to (5), and the second subsections (6) to (8). The Amendments are consequential upon this.

Question put and agreed to

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 10, line 9, after ' this insert ' and the following '.

Mr. Carmichael

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in line 11 at end insert— '. whether or not it is still a mechanically propelled vehicle '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment we can also discuss the Amendment to Amendment No. 14. in line 1, leave out ' whether or not ' and insert 'if, plus Amendments 18, 21 to 26, 29, 43, 44 and 47.

Mr. Carmichael

These Amendments are taken together because corporately they make provision for the position of non-mechanically propelled vehicles under continuous liability. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on the debate on Clause 10 at the Fourth Sitting of the Committee. As a result it has been decided to make special provision for such vehicles.

The hon. Member asked about the provision under continuous liability of vehicles derelict, and perhaps unable to move or be propelled, or those which were laid up in a barn throughout a conversion period, and thus not subject to the reminders from the computers following the introduction of continuous liability. An analogy can be drawn between these vehicles and vehicles laid up for which notification of laying-up can be given under Clause 10(2)(b).

For some non-mechanically propelled vehicles a notification of laying-up would not be appropriate, for example if a vehicle were being used on the road as a trailer. This vehicle under Clause 10(1) would be subject to continuous liability because it was originally, that is when it was mechanically propelled and used on the road, chargeable for Excise duty. Similarly, a derelict vehicle kept by the side of the road would be subject to continuous liability under the Bill as at present drafted. It has been decided that exemptions from liability should be possible for vehicles which ceased to be mechanically propelled. These vehicles have not been subjected to excise in the past and it seems right to provide exemptions for them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Does that mean that derelicts which have their wheels removed will not be liable for a licence?

Mr. Carmichael

This is the point. There are problems, if the hon. Member would wait and see. This is a rather complicated definition of what is a non-mechanically propelled vehicle. It is proposed to use the analogy of laying up and to provide that a keeper should be able to notify the Minister that his vehicle has become non-mechanically propelled. Such a notification will be made in accordance with regulations. If a vehicle for which a notification of not being mechanically propelled has been given becomes mechanically propelled again, the keeper will be under the obligation to revoke the notification and the vehicle will become subject to liability again.

There is a national need, not least for the police in detecting stolen vehicles, for a complete record to be maintained of all mechanically propelled vehicles. Deliberate failure to make this revocation by some one who puts a vehicle on the road and has made it mechanically propelled would be an offence. If a vehicle notified as not being mechanically propelled is found to be mechanically propelled, then unless it is also covered by a notification of laying up, the exemption of the current keeper from liability will be forfeited back to the date of original notification or the later date of acquisition of the vehicle where in the meantime there has been a change of keeper.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Would the hon. Gentleman explain how this is in any way a concession? Surely if we did not have these new arrangements for giving notification of a vehicle becoming non-propelled, people could have obtained the same exemption by indicating that they would not use their vehicle.

Mr. Carmichael

Once the computer is installed, if a normal mechanically propelled vehicle were involved and if in the circumstances discussed in Committee, someone goes abroad or becomes ill and the vehicle is put away, we would ask the central office annually whether the vehicle was still to be used on the road. With a non-mechanically propelled vehicle, once we had notification that it was not mechanically propelled this would be the end of the matter until we received word that the person had put the vehicle back into service again. It is not a simple matter to define a non-mechanically propelled vehicle.

If a vehicle notified as being non-mechanically propelled is found to be mechanically propelled, the new process of continuous liability will operate. Regulations will be made covering various details of notification that it is not mechanically propelled in a manner analogous to notification in connection with laying up. The Minister will be able to deem a notification of not being mechanically propelled to have been given, but it is envisaged for the convenience of the public that notification will be of indefinite duration rather than the maximum 12 months' period of a notification of laying up. We intend that at the time continuous liability is introduced, which we expect to be 1975, there will be a large publicity campaign to make keepers of vehicles which have ceased to be mechanically propelled aware of their duty to notify that fact to the Minister, and vehicles for which a notification has been given will be brought on to the record and exempted from duty.

Mr. Heseltine

Would the hon. Gentleman clarify the point which he is making? As I understand it, the owner of any vehicle for which a licence has been held since 1962 but which subsequently may have become derelict will have to register the fact that the vehicle is derelict to avoid the obligation of continuous licensing.

Mr. Carmichael

This would be a matter for the regulations. They are unlikely to go back as far as 1962. They may, but by 1975 a large number of vehicles will have been written off and a continuous record will hardly prove——

Mr. Heseltine

I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to be saying that when this system comes in there will be a considerable period of perhaps five or six years previous to the introduction——

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Report is a little more formal than Committee. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Heseltine

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Are derelictions which occurred during the previous period now to be accounted for by the owner of the vehicle?

Mr. Carmichael

This will be covered in regulations. There will, of course, be a large publicity campaign to make keepers of motor vehicles which cease to be mechanically propelled aware of their duty to notify——

Dr. Winstanley

What does the Minister mean by "keeper"?

Mr. Carmichael

This was discussed upstairs on a previous Clause.

The keeper is the person registered as the owner of the vehicle, the person who is responsible for it. There has frequently been the problem of the difference between the keeper and the owner. In the Bill we are substituting "registered keeper" for "registered owner". There is frequently a problem about who owns the vehicle as distinct from the person who is in charge of it—for example, in the case of vehicles owned by hire-purchase firms. In this instance, we mean the person who has the log book and is the keeper of the vehicle.

The short period of transition will be covered by regulations, and there will be publicity to make people aware of the need to notify whether a vehicle is not mechanically propelled. In this way, keepers of vehicles which are derelict at the time when continuous liability is introduced should not suffer from the continuous liability provision. They will be given every opportunity to notify the state of their vehicle at the time the continuous liability becomes operative.

Mr. Speaker

The House may, perhaps, be reminded that with the Amendment we are taking also Amendments Nos. 18, 21 to 26, 29, 43, 44, 47 and the Amendment to the Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

If I may move the Amendment to the Government's Amendment——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have not selected it to be moved. It can be discussed with the Government Amendment.

Mr. Taylor

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may discuss the meat of what we hoped to say if the Amendment had been selected.

The Government Amendment creates a nonsensical situation, as I wish briefly to explain. In Committee, I put forward propositions to the Minister about whether someone who had a car in, say, 1963 or 1964 which was just able to struggle along the road but thereafter ceased to be able to do so and was used, perhaps. in a remote croft in the Highlands, not for driving along the road, but possibly for keeping hens or the like, would be liable, when the Bill became law, for the duty of £25 a year unless he took the trouble of writing a letter to the Government office to say that the vehicle would not be used on a road. From what the Minister has said, and from the Government's Amendment, it appears that that will be the case.

With the Government Amendment, sub section (1) of the Clause will read as follows: Subject to the provisions of this and the following section, a person who for any period keeps a vehicle in respect of which duty under the Act of 1962 has at any time become chargeable shall, whether or not it is still a mechanically propelled vehicle, be liable to pay duty". This will be retrospective. If the sin of omission is discovered in 1990, that person will be liable to pay £25 at least for every year between the date that it had to be licensed to 1990. This is nonsensical.

We have co-operated with the Government whenever they have tried to catch deliberate evaders. We can therefore expect some help from them when we try to stop them making idiots of themselves with a proposal which will be nonsense in law and practice. The Government have defended themselves by saying——

Mr. Manuel

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it will not be nonsense once the Bill becomes law? The Parliamentary Secretary has explained that these other cases, which the hon. Member, with his usual over-statement, is trying to highlight, will be dealt with by regulations. Recognising that, after the Bill becomes law, they will receive automatically not just one notice but two if they do not renew their licences, would not the hon. Gentleman think that that is a big enough safeguard, without bringing in hen houses and old buses and things lying on the scrap heap?

Mr. Taylor

I have been trying to be brief, but when I tried throughout the Committee to do so I was often interrupted by having to explain the facts of life to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshirs (Mr. Manuel), and it looks as though I shall have to do so again.

The Minister himself explained that, when the Regulations are brought in, there will be a date, perhaps 1962, perhaps 1964 or 1965. Whatever the operative date, any car which became derelict and was used in the hon. Member's constituency or anywhere else for keeping turkeys or hens would be liable to taxation for all time until and unless the owner of the wreck sent a note to the Ministry.

The Government have talked about their publicity campaign, which will probably consist of some announcements on radio current affairs programmes, occasional newspaper advertisements, perhaps something on television and even an announcement in the House. But, with so many weighty affairs occupying people's minds, particularly in agriculture, some might not know of this campaign and their obligations and might take no action.

In these circumstances, the Amendment will require people to pay road fund licence for a car which cannot go, which has not been on the road for many years and which will never go on the road again. The Government should at least say what a non-mechanically propelled vehicle is, in their opinion. Where will we stop? If someone has just the body work in the back of a barn, or a vehicle with only two wheels, or one with no engine, will all these be covered by that term? The Government may say that they will apply this sensibly, but how many times have we heard this, only to see them apply the full rigours of the law totally unreasonably? We are not here to pass law which is nonsense, as this will be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) asked about "a keeper" under Amendment No. 22. What is meant by the words at the end of the Amendment: …and in any other case the earlier notice shall be deemed not to have been given"? What case is he thinking of?

As far as I can see what this means is that if someone has a vehicle which does not work and cannot go, whose engine does not operate, and he sells it for scrap to someone else who, three, four or five years later, perhaps for stock-car racing, but for whatever purpose, makes it again a vehicle which can go, he will be deemed liable to pay tax on that vehicle not just from the time it was made to go again but as from the time he took over ownership of that vehicle. I wonder whether the Minister could say exactly what new subsection (2)(b) means, and, in particular, what is meant by the words and in any other case the earlier notice shall be deemed not to have been given. Surely the simple, sensible way is to do as we suggest, and that is to put in the word "if" into Amendment No. 14. People should be liable to pay tax on a vehicle which can go, which has engines which work, which has four wheels which turn.

We have heard from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), with his usual eloquence, talk about vehicles which can and do go on the roads without tax being paid on them, so it seems utter nonsense that the Government should be bringing in an Amendment which could in certain circumstances enable people to be charged tax over a period of years for vehicles which do not go, which have engines which do not work, and which have wheels which do not turn. We are in danger of making ourselves look nonsensical, and I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider these words and perhaps change them in another place.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

There is always another side to a picture. There is the picture hanging on the wall, which can be seen, but it has another side and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not looked at that. I very strongly support the Government on this Amendment.

There are, as the hon. Member says, a number of people who deliberately evade, and have for years deliberately evaded, the payment of tax. There are people who, rather than be in danger of being caught up with, Mr. Speaker, deliberately leave their vehicles to become derelict. Of course, they do not leave them outside their own houses very often. They leave they outside your house, or they would if they could, or the Minister's house—anybody's house but their own. There they stay for years on end. The engines begin to fall out, the wheels are taken off. They become incapable of movement. If people have not paid tax on those vehicles—and the object of the exercise of leaving them to become derelict is to evade tax—why should they not be chased up?

I had an old car which became dere-list, but I did not leave it on the highway. I notified the licensing authority and said that I wanted to get rid of it. I paid £1 and it was taken to a dump and properly done away with. There is no question of the tax I paid being paid back, because I paid up to the date when I notified the authority. I have a record of it, that two or three years ago, whenever it was, I notified the licensing authority that the car had become derelict and that it had ceased to be a moving vehicle.

The hon. Member mentioned derelicts being left on a farm. I have had at least six cases of children having their faces hurt because they played with a derelict vehicle; they played with the petrol in the tank, dropping matches in. It was wrong of them, no doubt, but boys will be boys. They should not have done it, but they had their faces very severely damaged. It is wicked to leave a vehicle like that. We have this problem in London, and I have no doubt that it exists in Glasgow and elsewhere. People deliberately leave their unwanted cars in side streets and this causes congestion. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is a bachelor. If he were married, with children, he would certainly notify the authorities and claim an allowance.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is not a mechanically propelled vehicle. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis

It is an excellent analogy, Mr. Speaker.

A person who is entitled to tax relief is quick to inform the Inland Revenue of the facts. A person who owns a vehicle which is no longer a runner need only notify the appropriate authority and his road tax liability will cease. I complain about people who do not notify the authorities but simply dump their derelict cars outside people's houses. I wish that eventually, perhaps two or three years later, when those unwanted cars are removed the owners were presented with road tax bills backdated to the time when the vehicles were dumped.

Mr. Carmichael

With the permission of the House, I will answer some of the points that have been made.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is correct in saying that if a car is taken off the road in the manner he described the appropriate authority should be informed and the log book surrendered. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) spoke in pleasant terms about derelict vehicles. He said that it was nice to see chickens running in and out of them as they rusted away on farming land. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North was right to point out the other side of the coin—vehicles left in streets or abandoned where they cause hazards, particularly to children, and especially if petrol explodes in tanks, causing children to be burned.

It is difficult to define "vehicle" and "mechanically propelled" in law. If definitions were embodied in the Statute they would raise more problems than they would solve. For this reason we do not define these two concepts, although they are vital since if a vehicle ceases to be a vehicle it is not subject to duty. Something that looks like a vehicle might not be a vehicle—for example, if its wheels have been removed.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

What advice would the Minister give the general public on this matter? If a person has a wreck in his possession or on his land, how can he determine whether it is a vehicle under the law, and what advice can he get?

Mr. Carmichael

If it is not a mechanically propelled vehicle the necessary notification can be given and exemption from duty is provided. It is likely in the early days of the provisions that the courts will be asked to make practical pronouncements in individual tests cases. In the past the courts have made judgments on these matters and gradually a body of case law has been established. This will occur in this case, and this will give us and the courts guidance on defining these matters.

Mr. Heseltine

Is the Minister aware that we should know what we intend the courts to do rather than leave it to them to discover how the law should be interpreted?

Mr. Carmichael

There are many gradations in this matter. One must per haps decide whether or not a lump of metal is a vehicle and whether or not it is mechanically propelled. It is difficult to put this into words.

The keeper of a derelict vehicle may escape liability in three main ways. A notice of non-mechanical propulsion can be given—this is obviously the safest way. Again, if the vehicle is so derelict that it can no longer be said to be a vehicle—if it is just a piece of scrap iron lying in a field, as we so often see—it is no longer a vehicle. Or the Minister may deem a notice to have been given. This procedure would cover the very difficult case. Under the legislation the Minister would be the only person who could institute proceedings; so the matter is in his hands. Again, if someone ceases after a time to look after a vehicle, he is no longer the keeper of the vehicle.

The broad effect relates to the non-mechanically propelled vehicle which cannot readily be made mechanically propelled. There is such a wide scope, such a gradation from the vehicle which is a total wreck, and the vehicle which, though not mechanically propelled, can, with very little effort, be made mechanically propelled. Therefore, in order to safeguard the whole question of continuous liability, I believe that our Amendments, which we thought met the proposals raised in the Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Cathcart, should be accepted.

Mr. Heseltine

The give away to the problems the Government now face is this talk of a substantial publicity campaign which will be necessary to try to draw the attention of the public to the scheme when it comes into being. At no time during Second Reading or in Committee was there any talk of a substantial publicity campaign. I defy the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us where in the original discussions there were references to an allocation for publicity. I do not know of any. I believe that this idea has been put in to answer the difficulties which have been drawn to the Government's attention.

The whole question of derelicts arises from a need to establish a very tidy system in order to make the computer system work. Tonight we have exposed completely the real difficulties and hardships facing ordinary people in trying to comprehend what is going on. I was appalled to hear the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that this House should give up the attempt to legislate clearly and concisely and should leave it to the law courts to find a satisfactory definition of a mechanically-propelled vehicle. It is axiomatic that it is our job so to define legislation that the job of interpretation is made easy for the courts. To leave definition, as is suggested, to the courts is not a satisfactory way of making good law.

The more we probe, the more anxious we are made by the answers we get. I want to put what I believe to be a constructive suggestion. I see no reason why it should be necessary for a further notice to be given of a derelict's return to the roads. All that is necessary is for the application form for a Road Fund licence to have on it a small box requiring ticking if the applicant has reason to believe that the vehicle had been on the roads in the past. The computer processing staff would then immediately be alerted to the fact that somewhere in the records in the computer at some date the vehicle had been registered. There would then be no need to have a special system of forms to bring a vehicle back on the road from the state of dereliction which it has reached.

The confusion surrounding the position of derelicts is evident when one thinks of someone buying a farm and finding a derelict vehicle. He is not aware, despite the publicity campaign that may have been waged by the Government, that there is need for special forms to be filled in to bring that vehicle back on the road. He renovates it at his expense and in his own time and brings it back on the roads, having obtained a licence to do so. He would find himself guilty under the secondary procedure, and a fine of £50 could be imposed because in applying for the licence he did not draw attention to the fact that the vehicle had been derelict.

Why is it not possible to refer to the owner of the vehicle if "the owner" is meant? Why use the word "keeper"? A broken-down jalopy on a farm may have been dumped. The fact that it has been dumped by an owner means that liability for that car remains with the owner. The farmer may want to renovate it, and he would assume that it belonged to him or to the previous owner of the farm. He would bring it back on to the roads and the liability rests with the owner.

Mr. Manuel

Is not "keeper" a safer word? Many cars are bought on hire purchase. Finance houses are the owners because they advance the money and collect the contributions. The man in the process of paying for the car is the keeper. The person who may leave the car in a derelict state is far removed from the actual driving of the car.

Mr. Heseltine

That is a different set of circumstances because under the hire-purchase arrangements the car would be virtually new. The problem we are discussing is that of a derelict.

In Amendment No. 22, which is one of the group of Amendments we are discussing, there is the proposition that the keeper shall be liable if he "knowingly fails" to give notice. I cannot understand the purpose of the words "knowingly fails". I thought that if one were guilty of a breach of law it was one's job to be aware of the law. By the drafting of this Amendment one would be able to say, "I did not know what the law was."

We have not had an answer to the case in which a person owns a derelict, brings it back on to the roads and fails to give notice and is then guilty of an offence. By failure to give notice he invalidates the original notice creating the derelict. He is, of course, liable for the back duty, which would become due because the original notice had failed, and, therefore, the exemption excluding the liability had also failed.

It is possible that a previous owner could have given the first notice and, therefore, the exemption of the earlier owner could also have failed. The earlier owner or keeper who believed that he gave the correct notice, which was invalidated by the present owner, could find himself liable for duty. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point and will let me know whether this danger exists.

I hope that we can persuade the Government to accept that they should look again at the Clause. We are not against the Clause or the Amendments in principle, but we believe—and the fact that Amendments of this complexity have had to be introduced on Report indicates that we were right—that wide areas of difficulty and doubt still exist. The Government should take the opportunity in another place to tidy up the matter still further.

Amendment agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 10, line 13, at end insert: ' unless he has not used or kept the vehicle on a public road during that period '. The principle involved in this Amendment was well ventilated in Committee and I shall not go into it in detail. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what consideration he has given, since the Committee, to the hard cases we discussed. He said in Committee that hard cases make bad law, and that is understandable. How does he intend to deal with the hard cases which he referred to and which, as the Clause stands, would be liable and continuously liable to motor taxation?

A specific case raised in Committee was that of someone who takes out a licence for a period and then goes abroad indefinitely. Reminders come in from time to time, perhaps over a period of a year, but to no effect unless there is someone responsible or able to take action. In cases like that, or perhaps of cases of change of address, what is to be the situation?

Is someone who is moving with his car under an obligation to advise the Ministry so that it can change the records accordingly? What about the person who, through no fault of his own, but through circumstances like those referred to in Committee, fails to pay duty but does not use the car anyway and clearly could not have been in a position to do so? Is there to be flexibility so as to give protection for those in special circumstances?

Mr. Marsh

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), in his usual reasonable way, asks a number of questions without challenging the basic principle of the Clause because, as he rightly says, we had a long discussion in Committee on this matter.

If the Amendment were made, the position would be exactly the same as now. I think that hon. Members on both sides are anxious to do as much as we can to take the tax dodger off the back of the ordinary motorist. So we are really not discussing the merits of the Amendment, because it would achieve that which neither side wants.

The hon. Gentleman raised the problem of the cases of hardship, however. We have gone into this in some detail. Clause 10(7) says: The Minister may by regulations make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section including, without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by this subsection, provision … (e) for deeming notice to have been given in relation to a vehicle in respect of any period if in the circumstances of any particular case the Minister considers it reasonable to do so. This is a very wide power. If we add to it the power for deemed notifications of non-mechanical propulsion we have gone as far as we can to meet cases of hardship which will arise from time to time, without making exceptions to the principle of continuous liability if it is to be a proper tool of enforcement, which we all want it to be. There is no disagreement between us about this provision. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is in the provision I have quoted, which gives me power to meet the point he raised.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 10, line 14, leave out 'following provisions of this ' and insert: ' provisions of this and the following '.

No. 17, in line 21, leave out ' subsection (7) of this ' and insert ' the following '.

No. 18, inline 23, at end insert: (c) for any period when the vehicle is not a mechanically propelled vehicle and a notice stating that it has ceased to be such a vehicle has, in accordance with regulations under the following section, been given to the Minister and not revoked in pursuance of subsection (2) of that section.

No. 19, in page 12, line 3, leave out ' provisions of this '.

No. 20, in line 5, leave out ' this ' and insert ' that '.

No. 21, in line 6, leave out 'the contrary is shown ' and insert: ' it is shown to have been a mechanically propelled vehicle of some other class or description during that period '. No. 22, in line 9, at end insert: (2) When a vehicle in respect of which a notice has been given in pursuance of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the foregoing section becomes a mechanically propelled vehicle, its keeper for the time being shall forthwith give to the Minister a further notice revoking the earlier notice; and where a person required to give such a further notice does not do so, then—

  1. (a) if he knowingly fails to give it he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act; and
  2. (b) in a case where he became the keeper of the vehicle after the earlier notice was given it shall be deemed to have been revoked on the date when he became the keeper of the vehicle, and in any other case the earlier notice shall be deemed not to have been given.
No. 23, in line 11, leave out 'of subsection (2) of this section ' and insert: ' or (c) of subsection (2) of the foregoing section or the foregoing subsection '. No. 24, in line 15, leave out from ' of to ' and ' in line 16 and insert: ' and the particulars to be included in a notice under those provisions, the manner of giving such a notice '. No. 25, in line 18, after 'notice' insert: ' under the said paragraph (b) '. No. 26, in line 22, after ' notice ', insert: ' under the said paragraph (b) '.

No. 27, in line 31, leave out ' this ' and insert ' the foregoing '.

No. 28, in line 32, leave out ' that section ' and insert ' the said section 12 '.

No. 29, in line 36, leave out '(b) of this ' and insert: ' (b) or (c) of the foregoing '.

No. 30, in line 36, leave out second ' this ' and insert ' that '.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Forward to