Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to say a few words on this Bill. This Bill has two features. I wish to address myself to that feature of the Bill relating to the inspection and examination of motor vehicles and the granting or withholding of a certificate for compliance or non-compliance with the prescribed requirements relating to the construction and condition of the vehicle. I would like to begin by expressing my very strong support for the general principle contained in this part of the Bill. The rationale for the requirement to have vehicles inspected and examined and for vehicles to have test certificates is unquestionable. Our objectives of promoting safety on our roads and of combating air pollution are met not only by ensuring that drivers on our roads drive safely but also by ensuring that the vehicles which are driven on our roads themselves are in a safe and satisfactory condition. A motor vehicle, it goes without saying, which is faulty in construction or has faulty parts, for instance, faulty brakes, can be as lethal and dangerous on our roads as the most reckless and careless driver. This part of the Bill can, therefore, only benefit the national interest in promoting safety on the roads. And in so far as the provisions of the Bill seek to ensure pollution control, it also goes a long way to ensuring the quality of the air which we breathe. Having said that and without detracting from my support for the basic principles, I wish to make one or two observations which the Hon. Minister might wish to take note for later consideration, particularly when the rules are drafted. My first point of concern is that the criterion or purpose according to which the relevant officials will examine the vehicle and make a decision to grant or not to grant a certificate is not mentioned in the provisions. It is also not mentioned in the Explanatory Statement. It is very fortunate that we heard just now the Hon. Minister's statement where he explained that the purpose of the Bill is that of ensuring roadworthiness and of ensuring pollution control. But if I might respectfully suggest, these cardinal elements of the proposed legislation ought to have been included in the provisions of the legislation itself. It would have been desirable to state them in the legislation. Now, this omission may, at first glance, seem minor, but I would like to suggest that it is important. In my view it is important because, on principle, when Parliament enacts legislation, especially legislation which confers discretionary powers on public officials and in this particular case where it even goes so far as to confer discretionary powers on private companies, then we in Parliament must ensure that the scope of the discretionary powers must be defined as clearly as possible, The legislative intent behind the legislation should be as clear as possible. In this case, as we have noted, the legislative intent in giving discretionary power to grant or withhold test certificates is that of road-worthiness, safety factor and pollution control. I think there are at least four good reasons why these cardinal elements should have been included in the legislation that emanates from this Chamber. First of all, it will enable the relevant officials in the Ministry to draft the subsidiary legislation, the rules, without any doubt as to the scope of the statute and as to whether the rules that they are drafting come within the ambit and purview of the legislation. Secondly, there would have been better guidance for the public servants and the public companies to whom an agency role has been granted to exercise their discretionary powers under the Act. With the purpose spelt out in the provisions, there would be less ambiguity, less room for misinterpretations, and therefore, hopefully less disputes. Thirdly, when disputes arise, and let us hope that they do not arise, concerning the interpretation of the rules, or disputes arise concerning the exercise of discretionary powers, then the Courts will come into the picture, and in that case what the legislative intent is would become very crucial. Fourthly, it would be helpful also to the citizens concerned if they have no doubt as to the exact purport and intent behind the legislation. It is because of these considerations that I thought I should express this concern. To illustrate my concern, let me give a hypothetical example. Can the examiner or inspector, for instance, refuse to grant a certificate on the ground that the paintwork or upholstery is in an unsatisfactory condition? I would assume that this is not the intention of the legislature. It is not our intention that the discretionary powers should go to that extent because it may not have any relationship to roadworthiness or the prevention of pollution. But if we look at the Bill, the phrase "the prescribed requirements relating to its construction and condition" may be wide enough to cover that element. But this doubt could have been avoided if the legislation had laid down either in the provisions or in the Explanatory Statement that the purpose was to promote safety, roadworthiness and to prevent pollution. I am glad, however, that the Hon. Minister has, in his speech, brought this out very clearly and, therefore, has left us with no doubt as to the purpose according to which the discretionary powers will be exercised. Perhaps the matter might be dealt with when the rules are being drafted so that what is not explicit in the Act may be made explicit in the rules. The next point I wish to deal with concerns the provision which is proposed on the creation of offences. The proposed new section 41 (D) creates an offence; it attributes the offence to whoever uses a vehicle, any vehicle, without a test certificate, There must have been good reasons for taking this approach in the legislation. But I would like to ask a question of the Minister as to whether it might not have been a better approach to attribute the offence to the registered owner of the car and to make the possession of the test certificate an essential prerequisite for registration of the car, in the same manner that the possession of a valid insurance coverage is a prerequisite for registration of a motor vehicle so that the obligation rests with the person applying for registration of the car and the offence can also be attributed to him. I would like to ask whether that would not have been a better approach. But, as I have said, there must have been good reasons and it will be helpful if the Hon. Minister can enlighten the House on this point. In closing, let me say that these two observations which I have made do not in any way detract from the strong position of support that I wish to express for the laudable motives behind this amending legislation.