§
(1) Section thirty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which relates to requirements in respect of policies of insurance) small be amended by substituting for subsection (2) thereof the following subsection:
(2) Whether any payment is made (whether or not with an admission of liability) by—
in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road or in a place to which the public have a right of access, and the person who has so died or been bodily insured has to the knowledge of the authorised injurer or such owner as the case may be received treatment at a hospital whether as an in-patient or as an out-patient in respect of the injury so arising there shall also be paid by the authorised insurer or such owner to such hospital the expenses reasonably incurred by the hospital in affording such treatment after deducting from such expenses any moneys actually received by the hospital in payment of a specific charge for such treatment not being moneys received under any contributory scheme:
§ Provided that the amount to be paid by the authorised insurer or such owner shall not exceed fifty pounds for each person so treated as an in-patient or five pounds for each person so treated as an out-patient.
§ For the purposes of this subsection the expression 'hospital' means an institution (not being an institution carried on for profit) which provides medical or surgical treatment for in-patients and the expression 'expenses reasonably incurred' means—
- (a) in relation to a person who receives treatment at a hospital as an inpatient, an amount for each day such person is maintained in such hospital representing the average daily cost for each in-patient of the maintenance of the hospital and the staff thereof and the maintenance and treatment of the in-patients therein; and
- (b) in relation to a person who receives treatment at a hospital as an out-patient reasonable expenses actually incurred."
§ 4.53 p.m.
Mr. STANLEYI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
1179 It is a little unfortunate that the decision of the House has to be asked in these circumstances on a Clause which actually formed part of a Bill which has already been discussed in another place and gone through the normal stages of Parliamentary discussion. But as the position is before the House now I feel that I must ask it to agree with the Lords. The changes which are made in this matter, as compared with the 1930 Act, are as follows: The provisions in that Act did not extend to outpatients. The hospitals will now be able to recover up to the sum of £5 for outpatients. The maximum sum in the 1930 Act in respect of an in-patient was £25, and it is now increased to £50. Under this provision they will be able to recover up to the maximum, but they will have to deduct from it anything which they receive from the patient. In case my hon. and learned Friend has been pursuing his typographical researches, I would point out that in page 16 the words in the first paragraph do not mean the licensed motor driver but the insurance company.
§ 4.54 p.m.
§ Mr. DENMANI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for assuring us that we are hot creating a new precedent at the invitation of another place. I wish to raise a substantial point by asking when it is proposed that the provisions of the Clause should come into operation. I understand that the Clause adds to the liabilities of insurance companies and drivers, and presumably it is a risk which is not contemplated in the premium charged on existing policies. The Minister has power to bring the Bill into operation at such time as he may wish, and to bring different parts into operation at different times. It seems to be reasonable that a certain time should be given before this provision comes into operation, so that policies which run for a year may not have this new liability thrust upon them without some reasonable time being given to the insurance companies to adjust their rates.
§ 4.55 p.m.
§ Major HILLSI also want to add a word of thanks to the Minister. I always felt that the Section in the 1930 Act was insufficient. I spoke against it on Committee and on Report, and on 1180 the latter occasion I told the hospitals that I thought they would get little out of it, and that they were compromising a claim which the generosity of the House had already recognised. I was told by the representatives of the hospitals to mind my own business and that they knew their own interests best, and would I kindly allow them to arrange their affairs in their own way. Therefore, seeing that I was justified in giving that warning and that the hospitals were not receiving sufficient, I am very glad that the Minister has now increased the amount payable and added certain extra advantages also. I understand that the cost to the insured person will not be more than about 2s. or 2s. 6d. on his premium, which is a small cost for the very great charge on the hospitals due to motor accidents.
§ 4.56 p.m.
§ Mr. PARKINSONOn behalf of Members of the Opposition I desire to offer thanks to the Minister for this concession. We all know of the very great hardships placed upon the hospitals of the country owing to road accidents. It is very unfair for hospitals to have had to bear the heavy burden and to have not been able to get any return from the people who have been injured. I do not think that there is any need to quibble about the cost of the premium of insurance, as I am satisfied that there is no one in this country who runs a motor car who would object for a moment to pay the increased charge upon his insurance policy in order to meet the obligations which might fall upon him arising out of an accident on the road. I am sure that it will be a boon to hospitals throughout the country, and that the motorists will welcome it as much as anyone.
§ 4.57 p.m.
Mr. STANLEYI would say in reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) that when he knows that under the original proposals the hospitals would only receive something like £30,000 a year, he will see that the cost of this extended proposal must be considerably less, something in the nature of £15,000 a year. Although I do not know the premiums of insurance companies in respect of motor cars, it must be substantially in excess of that sum.
§ Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendments made:
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 29, line 1, agreed to.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Lords Amendments from page 29 down to page 45, inclusive, are, I fancy, drafting Amendments, and if it is the desire of the House, I will put them en bloc.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWith the approval of the House, I will put the Amendments en bloc from page 29 to page 41, inclusive.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 41, line 38, agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: After Clause 40, insert