HL Deb 26 May 1948 vol 155 cc1013-31

2.36 p.m.

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

My Lords, I rise to move that this Report be now received. Before we deal with the Amendments on the Paper I would like to make a few remarks dealing with matters which are not covered in the Amendments. First, I want to apologise to your Lordships for having led some of you astray. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a question on Clause 4 about the phrase appearing in the top line of page 4, regarding the business of acquiring and selling motor spirit. On the spur of the moment I expressed the view that that would hit at anybody—for instance, a motor dealer who had some other business and who would not be able to acquire motor spirit for the purpose of that other business. On looking at the clause again, and being instructed, I realise that I was wrong, and mat I was reading the clause as if it were "acquiring or selling" when, of course, the words are "acquiring and selling"—acquiring, that is, for the purpose of sale. I think it is dear that if what the dealer does is to acquire, not with a view to selling but with a view to using in some other business that which he acquires, there would be no prohibition under that clause. That is the opinion which I can now give the noble Lord. I think it is better than the first opinion, because it is an opinion which has been arrived at after deep thought and after I have been instructed.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful to the noble and leaned Viscount.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I apologise for having led the noble Lord astray. The next matter with which I want to deal arises on Clause 3. The question was whether we should leave out the words "or the Petroleum Board" which your Lordships will find in line 29. I do not care very much whether we do or not, but the Petroleum Board is coming to an end on June 30, and the only question is whether we shall insert these words to cover that period of time. The functions of the officials of the Petroleum Board, so long as they continue, will be to prepare commercial petrol; that is to say, to put into petrol the appropriate dye and the appropriate chemical. If we do not have those words, of course, the Ministry of Fuel and Power would have to authorise the people to act. On reflection, I am satisfied that they are not covered by the words done for the purposes of the enforcement of this Act. Enforcement, to my mind, can arise only after the red petrol has come into existence, and I do not think the making of the red petrol can by any means be said to be enforcement of the Act. Therefore, I advise your Lordship?—I do not think there is anything controversial about this point—that it is better to retain the words "or the Petroleum Board," in order to avoid the necessity of the Ministry of Fuel and Power having to authorise all these people to act.

The only other point I would mention, apart from those which will arise on specific Amendments, is with regard to the clause dealing with directors. I looked into that to see how the position stands, and I find that this clause has been, dare I say, hallowed and sanctified (it depends upon what your Lordships think of the Acts I am going to mention) in other Acts. At any rate, it is common form in many Acts. It started in the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, and to come to more recent years the clause in its present form is to be found in the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, the Civil Aviation Act, the Atomic Energy Act, the Exchange Control Act, the Transport Act and the Electricity Act, and is also included in several Bills of the present Session. I admit that I was induced to make an exception in the case of the Companies Act. That was because it occurred to me that the only thing a director of a company can do with regard to the accounts of the company is to instruct a properly qualified person. That is rather a special case. Apart from that, we have the form, and I say frankly that I should be reluctant to depart from it.

I have this satisfaction, however, and I think I can give satisfaction to your Lordships, too. It has been arranged that so far as prosecutions of directors are concerned, they will be undertaken only after the matter has been referred to the Minister of Fuel and Power himself. I understand that chief constables and the Metropolitan Police are perfectly prepared to take that line. When such a matter comes before the Minister of Fuel and Power, the line he will take will be to ask for information as to which director of the concern is responsible for that class of business. The Ministry cannot know it, of course, and it would not do to put the onus on the prosecution in this matter, since the facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the company. But they will ask the company who is the director responsible for that sort of business; and, normally, if they think there is a case for prosecution, they will prosecute that director, leaving it to him to find, if he can, the appropriate defence. I say "normally" because, of course, there may be the case of a dishonest company who either conceal the fact or put in a wrong name. In the case of a well-known and reputable company, the line I have mentioned will be that which will be followed. We shall bring into the prosecution only some director who is concerned more nearly than any other director with this particular branch of the business. I think that all the other matters which we discussed yesterday are covered by specific Amendments on the Paper, and we can discuss them when we get to that point. But I thought it convenient to make these few remarks in regard to matters which are not covered by the Amendments. I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That this Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the trouble he has taken in the night watches to elucidate these matters and for the very clear explanation he has given us this afternoon. I think he has cleared up quite satisfactorily the "selling" point; that is, that a man will not be prevented from using the petrol in his own business, but only from retailing it as a pump owner. That seems to be satisfactory. As regards the Petroleum Board, there seemed to be some doubt, as the Bill was drafted, whether the officers of the Board will be enforcement officers. Apparently they are not enforcement officers. As regards the director point, I do not much care what precedents are being followed. One can find these or similar words in many Acts of Parliament. What we have to look at is whether the circumstances to which those words apply in other Acts are similar to the circumstances which exist in this Act. I venture to say that there are no circumstances in any Act of Parliament in the past similar to those of this rather odd Bill which we have before us at the present time. On the other hand, it is only common sense that one should not go haling off all the board of directors of reputable companies to police courts all over the country.

At the same time, if we were to put into the clause words which I suggested yesterday, it would be up to the Ministry or the police to find out who was the responsible director. In the case of a reliable company they will be told who that is. But it is not the reliable company, probably, that will be getting into this sort of trouble. The kind of company that will get into trouble is the company who say they are not going to disclose who is responsible. I have only one suggestion to make. I am sure that this undertaking will be carried out, but I do not know for how long this Bill will be in force. As a general rule, where a definite principle is to be followed, the whole of that principle is down in the Bill. I think it is quite a common form in Bills that where the prosecution for a particular offence is to be undertaken only with the consent of the Public Prosecutor or the appropriate Minister concerned that is stated in the Act of Parliament. I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that it would be convenient, so that the intention is made perfectly clear, to adopt that course here. To that end, perhaps a manuscript Amendment might be moved to-day.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I should like to ask one question of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. The most important word in this Bill is the word "proof." We have a very clear definition of that laid down in the case of Carr-Braint. That case was decided in the Court of Criminal Appeal. But the Court of Criminal Appeal is not authoritative for the whole of the United Kingdom. I should like to ask what will be the position outside the areas where the Court of Criminal Appeal is authoritative. I should be grateful if something could be said on this point.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, may I express to the noble and learned Viscount my great appreciation of the manner in which he has dealt with the points I raised on the Committee stage?

On Question, Motion agreed to.

2.50 p.m.

Clause 2:

Offences by private motorists.

2.—(1) If at any time commercial petrol is present in the tank of a private motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and the person (if he is a different person) then in charge of the vehicle shall each be guilty of an offence:

Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with such an offence to prove—

(b) that he was present or in charge of the vehicle when the petrol was pat into the tank, but that he did not know that it was commercial petrol and exercised all reasonable diligence to prevent such petrol being put into the tank;

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in proviso (6) of subsection (1), to leave out "exercised all reasonable diligence" and insert: did not neglect to take any step which in the circumstances he might reasonably have been expected to take. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is to meet a point which was raised yesterday by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. I was asked to put the clause into this negative form. I hope that this meets with he noble Viscount's approval. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, leave out (" exercised all reasonable diligence ") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, I have carefully considered the Amendment. Small as the alteration in language is, I think it is of considerable value to a person who does not realise the possibility of wrong petrol being pumped into his tank. For my part, I would strongly advise the House to accept this Amendment, and I should like to thank the Lord Chancellor for agreeing to alter the clause to the form in which it will now stand.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

Other offences.

3. If any person— >(a) puts commercial petrol into a pump used for the purpose of the supply by retail of motor spirit, not being a pump marked in the prescribed manner with the wood "Commercial";

he shall be guilty of an offence:

Provided that

  1. (i) it shall be a defence for any person charged with the offence mentioned in paragraph (b) hereof to prove that he acted in the reasonable belief that the vehicle was not a private motor vehicle; and
  2. (ii) anything done by a person authorised by the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Petroleum Board or done for the purposes of the enforcement of this Act or in connection with any proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act shall not constitute 1019 any such offence as is mentioned in paragraph (c), paragraph (d), paragraph (e) or paragraph (f) hereof, and

LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to the proviso: and (ii) anything done by an inspector of weights and measures or a person acting under his direction, for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, or any regulations made under those Acts, shall not constitute any such offence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) hereof. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg formally to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, at this stage, may I point out that by a printer's error there is inserted on page 3 of the Bill at line 35 the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It is inserted there in error. We must assume that that paragraph is not in the Bill. The question is whether or not it should be put in.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, when the noble Lord moved this Amendment yesterday, I promised to look into one or two of the points which he made. The first one was that he wished to have the inlet valve of the pump labelled as well as the outlet, and he suggested very cogently that that would be a considerable safeguard. I have had inquiries made into that matter, and I find that in fact it is already the practice, therefore I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied in that regard. Then, in order to safeguard the position of inspectors of weights and measures, the noble Lord was anxious that they should not be required, after a test had been completed, to return to the tank the petrol which they had withdrawn for the purpose of that test. In regard to that matter, I find that the law requires that the petrol must be handed back to the garage proprietor. Obviously it is a substantial quantity which is being withdrawn, and it would be quite wrong that it should not be returned to the owner. The inspector's obligation is to give him a written certificate to that effect. However, the Ministry are discussing the matter with the Board of Trade, and it seems that a satisfactory way out can be arrived at under which the garage owner will, in return for the certificate which he receives from the inspector, give a certificate to the inspector certifying that he has in I fact received the petrol back and has replaced it in the correct tank. In that way the inspector will be covered, because in those circumstances it would be practically impossible for anyone to contend that he had not taken reasonable care in carrying out his duties. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied and will not press his Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I wish to express my appreciation for the way in which the Minister has met the points made by me yesterday. I now withdraw my Amendment without hesitation.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

What is the position now? Paragraph (iii) ought never to have been in the print of the Bill. Has some formal step to be taken to delete it, or are we to treat it as though it were not there?

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

My Lords, paragraph (iii) has been inserted in the Bill as now presented to your Lordships' House. Surely the proper procedure to be followed now is to vote on the deletion of that paragraph. Having voted on that and deleted it in the proper way, then the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can re-introduce it in his Amendment. I think it is quite incorrect that we should proceed, as we are doing at present, with a Bill in which has been written the word "delete" by somebody whose authority I do not know. I think that that is quite incorrect. The clause is presented to us with paragraph (iii) inserted. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has told us that it should not have been put in. Therefore I cannot help thinking that, from the point of view of order, your Lordships should by a vote delete that paragraph, and having done that then the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can re-introduce it in his Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I can only advise your Lordships, but I do not think the noble Earl is right in what he says. This paragraph ought not to be in the Bill at all; it is not there with any authority. None of your Lordships has authorised its insertion. It is there in error and I think we should treat it as though it were not there. If we want it inserted there, we can put it in.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

My Lords, I cannot get over the fact that it should not be there. But it is there. Surely we should delete it. If we do not, in future anybody will be able to introduce anything in a Bill at any moment he chooses and then just put the word "delete" against it.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, this question of order is of some importance. I agree with what has fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. This is not an Act of Parliament; this is a Bill. It is something which the House has ordered to be printed. What the House has ordered to be printed is the thing with which we are dealing in our debate. Ultimately, it may become an Act of Parliament, but at the moment no order has been given that this particular paragraph should be printed in the Bill; and the printer therefore had no right to print it. When the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack says that we should treat it as if it were not there, I entirely agree with him.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am advised that that is right. If we want to comply with what the noble Earl has suggested, we should move that the House do not agree with the printer.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

If I had the honour of his acquaintance, I would tell him so.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause: (2) Where the owner or the person in charge of a private motor vehicle discovers that commercial petrol is in the tank of the vehicle he shall, notwithstanding that the circumstances afford him a good defence to a charge under Section two of this Act, take steps, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to remove the petrol from the tank, and if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is the one which I indicated to your Lordships yesterday I might move. I think your Lordships all agree that it is a reasonable Amendment and, having discussed it yesterday, I need do no more than formally move it. It means simply that a man, however innocent he may be, must not profit by an irregularity. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, at end of clause insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount, is there any source from which the man can be recompensed? After all, he has paid for this petrol, and he is in fact suffering a loss if he has to give it up and receives no other.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

He may be suffering a loss, but I think he is getting rid of something which it is very dangerous to have.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4:

Disqualification of retail dealers for twelve months after conviction.

(7) Where any person would, by reason of the disability imposed by any of the first three subsections of this section, be prohibited from carrying on the business of acquiring and selling motor spirit, or acquiring and selling commercial petrol, as the case may be, at any premises, and the court by which that person was convicted is satisfied, on his application, that it is expedient in the public interest, by reason that other facilities for acquiring motor spirit or, as the case may be, commercial petrol are not available within a reasonable distance, not being less than seven miles by road, of those premises, that he should be permitted to carry on the said business at those premises, the court may direct that the said disability shall not have effect or, in the cafe of a disability imposed under subsection (3), shall not have effect as respects those premises, and in that case the said person shall, without prejudice to the imposition of any penalty under the following provisions of this Act, forfeit the following sums:

  1. (a) in a case where the disability arises under subsection (1), or subsection (3), the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds for each pump used or capable of being used at the time of the commission of the offence for supplying motor spirit; or
  2. (b) if the disability irises under sub section (2), the sum of one hundred and twenty-five pounds for each pump used or capable of being used at the time of the commission of the offence for supplying commercial petrol;
and the payment of those sums shall be en forced and they shall be applied in the same manner as a fine imposed by the court.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved in subsection (7), to leave out "seven" and insert "five" The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as the Lord Chancellor explained yesterday, there must be some hard and fast rule laid down so that all Benches do the same thing. I think we all agreed yesterday that to make people drive seven miles over a hill is asking too much. I would have suggested three, but I am quite agreeable to five. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 16, leave out (" seven ") and insert (" five ").—(Viscount Swinton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am happy to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (7) (a) to leave out "used at" and insert "in use at or about." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I am sorry to say that there is an error, not in the Bill but in the form of the Amendment. I should have preferred to move the Amendment in this form—namely, to leave out not merely the words "used at" but the words "used or capable of being used at "and to substitute the words" in use at or about." That will apply to both paragraphs (a) and (b), and the clause will read as follows: (a) in a case where the disability arises under subsection (1), or subsection (3), the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds for each pump in use at or about the time of the commission of the offence for supplying motor spirit… I think that meets the point which your Lordships had in mind yesterday, and if I move the Amendment in that wider form I think in effect it gives what I was asked for. I therefore beg to move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 27, leave out (" used or capable of being used at ") and insert (" in use at or about.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think that exactly meets the point we had in mind.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move the corresponding Amendment to (b).

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 31, leave out (" used or capable of being used at ") and insert (" in use at or about.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5:

Disqualifications and special penalties in respect of offences by private motorists.

5.—(1) If any person, being the owner of a private motor vehicle in respect of which he holds or ought to hold a licence under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, or under that section as it applies in Northern Ireland commits an offence under Section two of this Act in respect of that vehicle and is convicted of that offence, then—

  1. (a) if the court decides that he remains the owner of the vehicle at the time of the conviction, any such licence which he holds in respect of the vehicle shall cease to have effect, and it shall not be lawful, for a period of twelve months after the conviction, for him or for any other person to hold or obtain such a licence in respect of the vehicle; and
  2. (b) in any other case he shall, without prejudice to the imposition of any penalty under Section eight of this Act, forfeit such sum as may be determined by the court to be equal to half the value of the vehicle, and the payment of that sum shall be enforced and the sum shall be applied in the same manner as a fine imposed by the court.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that if a private motor vehicle was at the date of the conviction subject to a hire purchase agreement and before the expiration of the said period of twelve months the person from whom the vehicle was hired recovers possession of it under the hire purchase agreement paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not apply to the vehicle. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to protect concerns selling cars on the hire purchase system. At the present time, the effect of this Bill will be that the owner of a car who is convicted of an offence under Clause 2 will be unable for twelve months to obtain a licence for that car, with the possibility of a reduction to six months if the court so allows. The owner of the car is defined in the Bill as the person in whose name the car is…registered, but where a car is bought on the hire purchase system the ownership remains with the hire purchase company until the option to purchase is exercised by the hirer through the payment of the final instalment. If anybody acquires a motor car on the hire purchase system, then commits an offence and subsequently defaults on the instalments of his car, the hire purchase company repossess that car, according to their rights; but the hire purchase company would be penalised (and I think penalised unfairly), by the fact that they would be unable to obtain a licence for that car and resell it.

During the Committee stage yesterday, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack pointed out that the reduction to six months of the period of suspension would largely mitigate any unfairness which operated against the hire purchase company, but it seems to me that there should be a specific Amendment to protect these hire purchase companies, because, even a six months' suspension would be unfair to them. It may be that someone has bought a car on the hire purchase system and within the first month commits an offence, for which the licence of that car is suspended. Because the purchaser has failed with his instalments, that car is repossessed by the hire purchase company, and for five months at least—and possibly for eleven months—the company cannot dispose of the car. It might be in the autumn, when the new models are coming out, and during that period of suspension the value of the car might fall severely. This is a case where this Bill will bear unfairly on a small class of business people, and since we want to see as fair treatment as possible for the whole community, I move this Amendment, in the hope that the Government will be able to see their way to remedy this matter.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 10, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. As he has pointed out, it is designed to protect the position of people selling cars on the hire purchase system, and it is possible that occasionally hardship might arise in the way that he has indicated. On the other hand, I think the possibilities of difficulty, the possibilities of riding round the Bill, and also the administrative difficulties, which I will indicate in a moment, on the whole show that there is a balance of argument and convenience against accepting this Amendment.

In the first place, of course, the difficulty can arise only in cases where the hire purchase company do not get the car back before the conviction. It is only in cases where the road fund licence has been endorsed by the court that the difficulty can arise. In most of those cases—and there is no reason to suppose that they will be many in number—obviously it would be to the advantage of the convicted person to keep up his instalments during the time the car is immobilised because, as we all know, cars are very difficult to obtain and they will continue to be difficult to obtain. Therefore, it will be only in the occasional cases, where a man cannot pay his instalments, that the hire purchase company would want to take the car back into their possession. In that type of case, if the hire purchase company have to go to court to get the car back, it will take the better part of six months to get it back, so that there no special hardship will be involved. The only case where they can get the car back quickly will be by arrangement with the convicted person. Obviously, in that type of case there is a possibility of a bargain being struck between the hire purchase company and the hirer, by which they can get back something which they can dispose of profitably in the market. They might therefore pay the man who was being convicted by the court quite a substantial sum to be free of his bargain in order to get this car back into their possession for the purpose of selling it to somebody else. In that case the man would actually gain pecuniarily from the fact that he had committed an offence, so I think your Lordships will realise that it is hardly worth while opening up that sort of possibility in order to safeguard the hire purchase companies against the very small risk of loss.

There is another administrative difficulty. When the road licence has been endorsed by the court with the conviction that remains effective for twelve months, unless, at the end of six months, the court removes it. There are no provisions for removing it, and the noble Lord, in his Amendment, has not provided any means by which it can be removed. Obviously, therefore, without some further Amendment, providing some special method of removing the endorsement in this particular case—which will, clearly, be a cumbersome and complicated matter to provide, especially at this late hour—there is no effective method by which administratively the object which the noble Lord has in view can be achieved. I think that in the light of these difficulties, and in view of the fact that it is unlikely that there will be many of these cases, he will probably wish to withdraw his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

My Lords, if I may, I would add a word in support of this Amendment. And may I say that I do so with not a little experience of the hire purchase situation in regard to the sale and ownership of motor cars? I would like to correct two aspects of the case as put forward, as I understand them, by the noble Lord who has just spoken. In the first place, to contend that the question of repossession of the car by the hire purchase company, or the trouble which may be associated with repossession, is likely to occur before conviction is, I think, wrong. I believe that the type of man who is convicted of a serious crime is the very person who will require to depossess himself of the motor car after he is convicted. In the second place, a reference was made which, I think, is even more important for your Lordships' consideration—it was the reference to the repossession of the car by the hire purchase company taking, possibly, six months, owing to legal complications. To the best of my knowledge and belief—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—I think the system whereby a hire purchase company repossess a car is not a legal one. It is simply a case of repossessing a car, according to an agreement; it does not require enforcement of any kind.

THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON

My Lords, I would just say a word in support of the last speaker's remarks. What he has said with regard to bona fide hire purchase agreements is correct.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I am sorry that the Government will not accept this Amendment. I do not feel able to press the matter, I will only express my regrets and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9:

Institution of proceedings.

9. Proceedings for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted in England and Wales except by a constable or by or with the consent of the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after "Act" to insert: except subsection (4) of the last preceding section. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I am obliged to move manuscript Amendments, arising out of what took place just now and the suggestion that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, made about directors of companies. He said, in effect, that if these prosecutions are to be instituted with the authority of the Minister, the Bill should say so. I have here two small manuscript Amendments which have that effect. I would remind your Lordships that this could not be done on the Third Reading, but we can do it on the Report stage. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 9, page 10, at the bottom of the page you will see this: Proceedings for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted in England and Wales except by a constable or by or with the consent of the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am proposing these two Amendments to that section, and I will read the section as it will read when the Amendments are made: Proceedings for an offence under this Act, except subsection (4) of the last preceding section, shall not be instituted in England and Wales except by a constable or by or with the consent of the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Director of Public Prosecutions "— and then I go on: and proceedings for an offence under the said subsection (4) shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Director of Public Prosecutions. In that way it is made plain that an offence under subsection (4) is not an offence under the jurisdiction of the police but one which comes directly under the jurisdiction of either the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Director of Public Prosecutions. If that meets with your Lordships' wishes, I will now move the first of these manuscript Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 43, after (" Act ") insert ("except subsection (4) of the last preceding section ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, I am very much obliged. I am sure that these Amendments are entirely satisfactory.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I now beg to move the second of the manuscript Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 45, at end insert (" and proceedings for an offence under the said subsection (4) shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Director of Public Prosecutions ").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.17 p.m.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with:

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Charley.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, before the Bill is actually read a third time, may I venture to express a protest against something which, so far as my memory goes, is unusual in the course of our passing of an Act of Parliament? The objection which I have is one which I mentioned quite shortly in the course of the debate—namely, that, as I understand the Bill, it creates offences the nature of which and the very existence of which cannot be determined until rules or regulations have determined the meaning of the phrases "commercial vehicle" and "private vehicle." I say at once that I did not in any way press my objection, because I know that it is desirable that this Bill should become law as soon as possible and I understood that it was desired to give it its Third Reading to-day. But the case is, indeed, a somewhat unusual one. The general principle ought to be—and I hope the Government will agree that this is the right general principle—that in creating offences which may lead to imprisonment or to large fines, the nature of the offences should be clearly pointed out in the Bill which is approved by both Houses of Parliament and which receives the Royal Assent. In my view, it cannot be right, except in a very unusual set of circumstances, to leave the question of the liability to which I have referred to be determined by rules and regulations which have not received and will not receive the approval of the Houses of Parliament—and which, in fact, may be altered from time to time. A man ought not to go to prison because, according to a rule or a regulation of some kind, an act turns out to be one for which he is liable to the penalties which I have mentioned.

The main point with which I am concerned is this: that under this Act—if it becomes an Act—the fact that commercial petrol is present in the tank of a private motor vehicle becomes an offence committed by the owner or the person in charge. It is true that he has certain defences, but they may not be available. One cannot tell what are private motor vehicles which are of such a character and carry out such conditions until one has seen the rules and regulations which define them. For all I know, when this Bill becomes law, there will be plenty of people with motor vehicles in their garages or yards as to which they will not know whether they are public or private. If there should be commercial petrol in those cars, those people are liable to all sorts of penalties. Such a state of affairs is, in a general way, a breach of what I suggest is the principle which should animate any Government in creating by Act of Parliament offences of a serious character.

I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack can give us an assurance that though in this case, for various reasons, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not agree with, it was necessary to leave it for regulations to designate what is a public and what is a private vehicle, this Bill will not be treated as a precedent for leaving it to a rule or regulation to determine whether a thing is subject to a penalty and to imprisonment or not. If I were to give rather an extreme illustration, I would say, supposing you are framing an Act under which certain penalties were attachable to larceny, that it would be quite wrong to say that you propose to define larceny in rules and regulations at a future date. You would have to define it in the Act. That may be an extreme example, but it is the sort of thing I have in mind when I say that this Bill ought not to present a precedent for leaving crimes, offences and misdemeanours to be determined by rules and regulations.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords. I quite agree with the general principle which the noble and learned Viscount has enunciated. The trouble is that it is very difficult to draw the line of demarcation between a private car and a public car. Although we know that the vast majority of cars will fall on one side of the line or the other, there may be some sort of strange vehicle which rather sits on the fence. I am afraid I have mixed my metaphors. But that is the reason why we ask for the powers contained in Clause 12 to make regulations defining the position. As a general principle, however, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount, and I will never hereafter rely on this as a precedent to justify my doing this again.

On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.