HC Deb 19 June 1981 vol 6 cc1290-1

11 am

Mr. Mayhew

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 29, after '1960', insert ', section 169(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 and section 65(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 5.

Mr. Mayhew

Clause 12 amends the definition of the word "forges" in the Road Traffic Acts 1960 and 1972 to take account of the Bill.

The same definition of "forges" now appears in section 65(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. It is therefore necessary to amend that provision in the same way. It is really for convenience that the proposed amendment lists the three relevant provisions, which are amended rather than repealed as the forgery of things other than instruments is covered in the same subsection, thus rendering the existing subsection (2) unnecessary.

The amendment, though important, is technical in content. It is made necessary by the passage of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. Section 65(3) of that Act contains a definition of the word "forges" which is identical with the definition in the Road Traffic Acts of 1960 and 1972 and which is dependent upon the meaning of forgery under the Forgery Act 1913 which the Bill repeals. The 1960 and 1972 Acts are already being amended by clause 12. The purpose of the amendment is similarly to amend section 65(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. It is necessary for the Bill to insert a revised definition of the act of forgery into these Acts rather than simply to repeal them, which might at first sight have seemed the appropriate course, since the provisions in question deal with the forgery of items other than instruments and are therefore not duplicated by the provisions of the Bill. Since all three provisions are being amended in precisely the same way, it seemed sensible to deal with them together in one subsection. For this reason, the amendment proposes the deletion of the existing clause 12(2).

I think that that is all that I can usefully say in support of the amendment. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Miscampbell

I can be equally succinct. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, this is a technical amendment. Although it does not raise an issue of substance, the amendment is clearly necessary. I readily accept the amendment and advise the House to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 7, line 34, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Forward to