CLAUSE 40.—(Requirements as to production of certificate of insurance or of security.) (Hansard, 10 July 1930)

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I beg to move, in page 37, line 34, after the word "person," to insert the words: or by his duly authorised representative. If the House will turn to Clause 40 they will see that it deals with the production of the certificate of insurance. The Clause says that: Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being so required by a police constable, give his name and address, etc. … and if he fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence. And he must have produced his certificate. It also says that if the driver of a motor vehicle within five days produces the certificate in person at such police station as may have been specified by him, he shall not be convicted under this Sub-section. It may very often be extremely inconvenient for the driver of a motor vehicle to produce the certificate in person. He may be ill, or he may be going abroad the next day, or he may have an important business engagement somewhere which will prevent him from conveniently producing the certificate. Therefore, I am suggesting that he 734 should be allowed to do this through his duly authorised representative. What harm is there in that? After all, all that the authorities wish to know is whether the certificate of insurance is up to date. If objection is made that the representative may not have sufficient authorisation to ensure that such certificate is really the certificate which belongs to the person who drives the vehicle, I suggest that the signature of the man who takes out the insurance should appear on the insurance certificate, and that the man whom he sends as his duly authorised representative should take a letter signed by the individual concerned saying, in effect, "This man is bringing my certificate." The police authorities could then compare the signature on the certificate with the signature of the note. That should be sufficient for identification.
The mere fact of the man himself going to the police station does not cause the sergeant in charge of the police station to know whether he really is the man or not. His offence may be committed in Hampshire and he may say that in three days' time he will produce the certificate in Edinburgh. Surely, if he goes to Edinburgh, the police will not know whether he is the individual for whom they are looking. The simplest way is by signature. It is not suggested that the country should be put to the expense of some one who knows the individual travelling from Hampshire to Edinburgh in order to see whether the man in Edinburgh is the same person. I sense that the learned Solicitor-General will reject this Amendment not for any good reason, but because he thinks that the Home Office has given a concession in allowing the certificate to be produced in person, and he will say that he is not going to go any further. You should not call that which really is an act of justice in order to make things fair and clear a concession. You should do the thing properly and not grudgingly. Do not make it as disagreeable as possible for the man who has not got his insurance certificate with him, but let him have every facility so that he can produce it.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has almost taken the words out of my mouth. He knew quite well what I should have to 735 answer. I am very sorry indeed that I cannot forego repeating shortly the observations which he made. This is a concession and a concession upon what, after all, is really a serious matter. If a person has not got his proper certificate of insurance the matter must not be viewed lightly. I think—and I feel confident that the House will agree—that one ought not to be pressed to go further into something which after all is enabling a man, whilst he has committed an offence, to have it overlooked so long as he produces the certificate in person. We attach some little importance to producing the certificate in person because, after all, a good many things may intervene. I do not see why the police should be put into the position of having to search and make out for certain whether a representative is an authorised representative or not. It is very much more satisfactory that the individual who owns the certificate, and of whom you may ask questions which may be very necessary in the light of all the facts, should attend in person. As far as I have been able to see, there is really no reason why an alteration should be made.

§ Major GLYN
I hope the Solicitor-General will reconsider the position of a company which owns a large number of vehicles. All that is necessary is for them to produce a certificate. That is not a matter on which any cross-examination is necessary. Either the vehicle and the man who drives it on behalf of the company have an insurance certificate or they have not. The main thing is that public companies who own a large number of vehicles are insured. I doubt whether it, is practicable to keep the insurance certificate in each vehicle. Surely the proper place to keep it is at the office of the company. It is an obligation on the company which owns the vehicle, and I do not see that the chaffeur employed by the company should have this onus put upon him. It is not fair to ask the driver of a public service express vehicle to take a responsibility which ought to be the responsibility of the company which employs him. The provision is to insure that a certificate shall be produced. It does not follow that the driver of the vehicle when he produces the certificate should be cross-examined. That is 736 another matter. I ask the Government to consider whether they really think that every public service vehicle should carry this certificate, or whether the owners should not keep them at the office, and that a duly authorised representative may produce the certificate to the proper authorities. The obligation is on the employer, not on the employed person. The Amendment in my judgment is perfectly fair and will lead to the smooth working of large omnibus undertakings. As the Bill stands it will be very difficult to operate a large company without imposing great hardships on the drivers.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 37, line 36, after the word "convicted," to insert the words "of an offence."

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I hope it is understood, in connection with this and following Amendments, that the arrangement still holds good; that if there is anything of importance in them we shall be told.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Yes.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 38, line 19, at the end, to insert the words: (3) It shall be the duty of the owner of a motor vehicle to give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of a 737 chief officer of police to give for the purpose of determining whether the vehicle was or was not being driven in contravention of section thirty-five of this Act on any occasion when the driver was required under this section to produce his certificate, and if the owner fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
There is some substance in this Amendment and I should like to know why, at this eleventh hour, this new obligation is being put on the owners of motor vehicles. There is a great deal too much in this Bill in the way of imposing penalties upon people who do not give information to the police about something which somebody else is alleged to have done. I want to know from the Solicitor-General why it is necessary to put in this new Sub-section. I always thought it was a common law obligation on every individual to give information to the police if they have knowledge of an offence having been committed, and that if they did not give this information they could be brought before a court of law and punished. If that is so, why is it necessary to put in this new Sub-section which places upon the owner of a motor vehicle the obligation to give to the police information in the case of one of his cars driven by one of his employés and information as to whether that particular man held an insurance policy. Under the existing law that man is not obliged to give that information, and, if not, why is this special offence now being created? It is against the whole idea of English law that people should be compelled to give information against their own employés, and the leas that is done the better for the good feeling between employers and employed.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I am much obliged for the intervention of the right hon. and gallant Member. It is only right that I should state quite shortly how this Amendment comes to be in its present form. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (2) of this Clause they will see how the Bill was drafted. We imposed a duty upon the owner of a motor vehicle to give such information as he may be required to give as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle. On reflection that did not seem to be quite sufficient, it did not quite meet the case, so this new Sub-section has been drawn in this form and the owner is now required 738 to give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of a chief officer of police to give for the purpose of determining whether the vehicle was or was not being driven in contravention of section thirty-five of this Act. That is to say, for the purpose of enabling the police to know whether the driver was covered by a policy of insurance under Section 35. I can appreciate the force of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I sympathise a good deal with the spirit of it. It may seem to be a little bit harsh and unreasonable that we should come down upon the owner of the vehicle and say, "Now I want to ask certain questions about your employé. Is he properly insured?" One has to have regard to the liberty of the subject and also to the effective working and administration of an Act of Parliament. If you are to have an effective system of compulsory insurance it does seem to follow irresistibly that you shall be able to go to a person who has been employing one driver or a number of drivers and to say, "Please tell me, without the necessity of summoning you to a police court or anything of that kind, what is the position. Is this man adequately covered or not?"

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I take it that it is the owner who is responsible for taking out the insurance policy and not the driver?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Yes.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I see.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
And it is for that purpose, in order that one shall be able to get information from the owner, that this Clause is put in this form. After all, there are any number of other administrative instances where you ask for information from an employer. The Treasury asks for information from an employer as to the people he is employing, as to the salaries he pays them, and so on. We are not seeking to embark on any harsh or oppressive system of interrogation, but are simply putting a statutory duty upon the owner to give the information to the police in appropriate cases.