MOTOR VEHICLES (PASSENGER INSURANCE) BILL (Hansard, 23 June 1961)

§ Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough)
I should be very glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have your guidance. It was my intention to move, That the Order be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn. There are, I believe, certain difficulties arising on which I should like to have your help. As the House knows, this Bill has some rather unusual features, in that it requires the co-operation of insurance companies. Both sides of the House, I think, are very anxious to know what will be the cost to persons affected—

§ Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it right that the hon. Gentleman should make a speech about the Bill? Surely we are now considering the Report stage of the Bill. He should not start a speech on whether the Bill should be withdrawn or about the insurance companies.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)
I understand that the hon. Member is to move a Motion.

§ Mr. Cronin
Further to that point of order. I was addressing you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker on a point of order, and I am not aware that it is proper for hon. Members to intervene when a point of order is being raised. It is essential that we should have this information before I actually move the Motion. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I have been to great trouble to try to obtain this information, which is vital for the 1922 consideration of the Bill. Unhappily, it was only the week before last that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary received a communication from the—

§ Mr. C. Pannell (Leeds, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not think that my hon. Friend is on a point of order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I was going to point out that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) did not seem to be proceeding on a point of order.

§ Mr. Cronin
My information was that the charges were excessive.

§ Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)
Is that a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

§ Mr. Cronin
I will now come to the actual point of order. I understand that it is not possible to have a debate, or it has not been so in recent years, on this Motion. It is particularly necessary that there should be a debate.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
There can be a debate on the Motion, That the Order be discharged.

§ Mr. Cronin
I am glad to have your reassurance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on that point. In that case, I will address you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the Motion, That the Order be discharged. I hope that hon. Members will extend to me the courtesy of allowing me to make my speech.

§ Mr. Pannell
On a point of order. Is it not a fact, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that before anyone withdraws a Bill he should consult the sponsors? As one who has sponsored the Bill, I have not been consulted. That would be a discourtesy, to put it no higher. I thought that the mover of the Bill could not withdraw it without the consent of his sponsors.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is a question of responsibility for the hon. Member who moves the Motion.

§ Mr. Wigg
May we be told what is the Motion before the House?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The Motion is, That the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.

§ Mr. Pannell
Is it debatable?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The Motion is debatable.

§ Mr. Cronin
It is essential that hon. Members on both sides of the House should have an explanation of the Motion. I should like to express my thanks to hon. Members who have been helpful and I am grateful, in particular, to those hon. Members who have sponsored the Bill. If hon. Members listen to me, I think they will see cleanly why it has been necessary to take this action. I do not think that it is necessary for me to dilate at any length on the nature of the Bill, of which hon. Members are aware. It is for the purpose of providing that all passengers of motor vehicles are insured.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. I should point out that it would be out of order to discuss the merits of the Bill.

§ Mr. Cronin
I will carefully abstain from that. I assume that it is in order to give my reasons for moving the Motion.

§ Mr. Pannell
On a point of order. We are in a difficulty, and I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you sympathise with hon. Members in their difficulty. Did I understand you to rule that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) could not discuss the merits of the matter? How precisely do you intend to rule? One might make a passing reference to the merits and to the forces which have been brought to work to cause my hon. Friend to adopt this line.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It is in order to discuss the merits of the Motion whether the Bill should be withdrawn, but it is a well-established rule that on that Motion hon. Members may not discuss the general merits of the Bill.

§ Mr. Wigg
On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) mentioned a point which may well be raised if the House finds itself involved in a procedure which is nearly irregular. He referred to forces which have been brought to bear to compel the withdrawal of the Bill. I played my part in doing this, but I resent the innuendo that I have done anything improper.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
I never said that my hon. Friend had.

§ Mr. Wigg
If it is possible to insert that innuendo into a procedure which is on the borderline of being irregular, then those of us who have played some part here should have a right to state our side of the case.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Nothing irregular has occurred so far. The hon. Member for Loughborough has said nothing out of order.

§ Mr. Cronin
If hon. Members show some patience I think we can deal with the matter much more expeditiously and with much more clarity than would otherwise be the case. As hon. Members know, a very large campaign has been mounted against the Bill. I received about a thousand letters, and I know that many of my hon. Friends have received many letters on this subject. It is particularly important that Members of Parliament should not give way to any campaign if they consider that the principles involved are just, and until I had this special information, which I received the week before last, I had no intention whatever of withdrawing the Bill, because I thought then, and I still think, that the social principles of the Bill are impeccable.
There have, however, been two points about the Bill which have given me some anxiety. One is the question of spouses. I understand that under the Bill it will not be possible for spouses to recover damages if they are involved in an accident which is caused by the negligence of their husbands.

§ Mr. Dudley Williams
The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Bill. As I understood your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing the Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not think that the hon. Member has said anything out of order. I thought he was giving the reasons for withdrawing the Bill.

§ Mr. Cronin
That is precisely what I am doing. It occurred to me that some unfairness to spouses might be involved by the Bill if it reached the Statute 1925 Book. That unfairness would be mitigated if the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee were implemented and it became possible by subsequent legislation for spouses to sue each other in tort. That legislation has not yet even been considered, let alone reached the Statute Book. I therefore consider that some real hardship would be caused if the Bill reached the Statute Book in its present form.
I turn now to the most important reason why I propose to withdraw the Bill. That is the cost to the persons involved. The cost might well bear very heavily on members of the lower income groups who own motor cars, motor cycles or motor scooters, particularly the latter two categories. As an Opposition Member, I regard myself as having a special duty to look after the interests of those members of the lower income group.

§ Mr. Dudley Williams
Why did not the hon. Member think of that earlier?

§ Mr. Cronin
The hon. Member has asked a very pertinent question, and I will answer him. I did not know. It is as simple as that. I have been to immense trouble to try to find accurate figures to place before hon. Members before they give further consideration to the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary, who I hope will shortly address the House, has also been to much trouble to attempt to find accurate figures to place before the House.

§ Mr. Wigg
On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May we have an assurance that my hon. Friend, who is already taking charge of the proceedings, will not also be allowed to select the speakers?

§ Mr. Cronin
I must apologise if I have offended the Parliamentary susceptibilities of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I should have said if the Parliamentary Secretary has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand that the week before last he received a communication from the Accident Offices Association. He let me know the figures, but on the understanding that they were in confidence and that I should not impart the information to anyone. I understand that he was given permission by the insurance association concerned to 1926 announce to the House what the figures were. The Parliamentary Secretary and I are the only two people in the House who have in their heads accurate figures of what this might cost the unfortunate owners of motor cars, motor cycles and motor scooters.
I have formed the view that the extra premium involved would be too heavy a burden. That is my personal view. If the Parliamentary Secretary has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and states these figures, hon. Members on both sides may well form the same opinion. In fairness to insurance companies, I want to make it clear that I do not think that these figures are necessarily excessive. They may well represent the real high cost of insuring this type of risk, because it is a very large risk. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not implying that insurance companies are in any way taking advantage of the situation and trying to impose heavy premiums. I must be fair. Nevertheless, I consider that the cost is too high.
I shall not refer to the merits of the Bill, but there can be little doubt that there is a serious social evil to remedy. Thousands of people are injured on the roads every year but are unable to obtain any redress or damages. It will be necessary for the Government to take some effective action to remedy this evil at an early date, but I do not think that the evil could be remedied by the Bill I have in mind without placing a very heavy burden on the insurers of motor cars, motor cycles and motor scooters in the lower income groups.
Without delaying the House any further, I reaffirm my certainty that the Bill cannot seriously be questioned as to its social principles. Nevertheless, in its present form it would place too heavy a burden upon motorists and motor cyclists in the lower income groups. For that reason alone, I beg to move, That the Order be discharged.

§ Mr. Dudley Williams
I wish to object very strongly to the statement made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). I do not say that the plea that he has made is bogus, because I should probably be out of order if I did so, but I have never heard 1927 such a weak case put forward by any hon. Member for seeking to withdraw his legislation. I believe that his real reason for wishing to withdraw it is simply that he knows that he has put his hand into a hornet's nest, and that tremendous pressure has been put upon him by people outside the House. He realises that he will be very unpopular if he proceeds with his Bill, and he wishes to get out of it.

§ Mr. Cronin
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that it was out of order to put any improper imputation of motive upon an hon. Member's conduct.

§ Mr. Speaker
I regret to say that I was consulting about my duties, and I did not hear what was said.

§ Mr. Williams
If I have transgressed in any way I certainly withdraw my remarks, but I do not believe that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) would have attempted to withdraw the Bill. He would have stood by it, because of the political courage for which he is well known in the House.
As I have said, the case made by the hon. Member for Loughborough was one of the weakest that I have heard. First, he said that he could get no protection for the spouse of the rider. That consideration also applies in the case of the ordinary motor-car insurance. Most of us carry an effective insurance against claims by our passengers. We are very unwise if we do not. Secondly, the hon. Member expressed concern about the cost involved, but we have known for many weeks that that cost would be very heavy. Estimates have been given in the Press. There is nothing very secret about it. We have only to ring up the local branch of our insurance company in order to be told that it would be between f15 and £25 extra. There is no reason why the hon. Member should come here at the last minute—

§ Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)
I read with interest the report of the Committee proceedings. My recollection may be at fault, but my impression is that at that stage the Parliamentary Secretary was unable to provide figures.

§ Mr. Mitchison
I see that the hon. Member agrees. In those circumstances, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) must have facilities which do not appear to be open to the Government or to other people.

§ Mr. Williams
The only facility I have is the telephone. Anyone has only to ring up the local branch of his insurance company in order to be given a pretty shrewd idea of what it will charge to cover this risk.

§ Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)
That may be true as far as the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is concerned, but not for the ordinary person. If the insurance company knew the hon. Member's name they would probably be entitled to quote a high figure.

§ Mr. Williams
I am sure that I have no better facilities than anybody else for finding out the approximate cost, for the mere cost of a telephone call. We have known for weeks that the charge would be heavy.
I should not have minded if the hon. Member had not given adequate consideration to this matter before drawing up the Bill and had sought to withdraw it after a reasonable period, but he should not seek to do so at the last minute. It is known that many hon. Members feel strongly about the Bill, and have come here today at great inconvenience to see that it is killed.

§ Mr. Cronin
Perhaps the hon. Member did not hear what I said. Information was available to me only the week before last. It will be available to hon. Members on both sides of the House if, as I said, the Parliamentary Secretary has an opportunity of catching Mr. Speaker's eye.

§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)
On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) has made the imputation that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) is with drawing this Bill under pressure. Would I be in order in suggesting that hon. Gentlemen opposite are acting in this 1929 way merely because of the pressure that they have been subjected to from outside?

§ Mr. Speaker
That would not be a point of order.

§ Mr. Williams
I am against this Bill because I think it is a rotten Bill, and for no other reason. As hon. Members will know, I have stood up to outside pressure on many occasions when I have opposed Private Bills. They will also know that I am not frightened of receiving letters from within or outside my constituency. As I have said, it is a bad Bill and I intended to oppose it for that reason. I strongly object, however, to the fact that the hon. Member for Loughborough has said that he knew ten days ago about the cost involved. Why did he not withdraw it earlier?

§ Mr. Cronin
This matter has aroused an enormous amount of interest and I should have been failing in my duty if I had not given the House an opportunity of debating the subject. That is why I did not contemplate formally withdrawing the Bill until today.

§ Mr. Williams
Perhaps the hon. Member for Loughborough will now allow me to get on with my speech. If he had withdrawn it ten days ago many hon. Members could have put the minds of many of their constituents at rest; people who were concerned about the bills that they might have to pay owing to the activities of the hon. Member for Loughborough. I also remind the House that hon. Members have many other duties to which they must attend on Fridays, but they have had to cancel them in order to prevent this Bill from going on to the Statute Book. [Interruption.] I thought that I heard an hon. Member say something about myself, and I can assure the House that I am always here on Fridays. It is no hardship for me to come here and I welcome the opportunity of helping to kill this controversial Measure. I express sympathy, however, for the hon. Member for Leeds, West who, apparently, did not know that the Bill was to be withdrawn although he is one of the sponsors of it.
As I say, I express disapproval that the hon. Member for Loughborough, having had this information for one or two weeks, should have left it until the very last minute to seek to withdraw the Bill, 1930 thus keeping hon. Members here when they might have been attending to their other engagements elsewhere.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
I object to the withdrawing of the Bill, but for reasons other than those expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams). I do not believe that the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) considers has impeccable social purposes, should be withdrawn unless an assurance is obtained from the Government that they intend to take it over and to implement its objects.
I therefore address the Parliamentary Secretary on what I consider to be a most important point; that if a principle is a good one, then everything else is secondary to it. It is fantastic, in a sovereign Parliament, that following a campaign that has been so virulent—as it has been in this case—a premium should be so high that it forces the withdrawal of a Bill. Sitting beside the Parliamentary Secretary is the hon. Gentleman who looks after shipping at the Ministry of Transport and who knows all about motor cycles. In this connection, I call in aid as one of the reasons why this Bill should not be withdrawn the number of deaths of motor cyclists in the age group 20 to 30. I could quote a lot of statistics but, for the moment, I shall deal with young men between 20 and 30, in which age group one would normally expect to see the lowest degree of mortality.
The figures are quite frightening. In 1959, in England and Wales, 1,674 men between the ages of 20 and 29 died from accidents, poisonings and violence—all external causes. The total number of deaths from all causes in this age group was 3,064. Breaking the figures down, it can be seen that 55 per cent. of all deaths in this age group resulted from accidents of violence. Taking the breakdown a step further, it is remarkable to discover the number of deaths from violence in this age group affecting motor cyclists.
If we consider the deaths in motor cycle accidents, to riders or passengers, in collisions with other motor vehicles and in collisions not involving other motor vehicles, we get some frightening figures. I could not give the whole computation but they represent about 1931 half—about 40 per cent. at least—of the deaths resulting from violence involving the age group between 20 and 30 years of age.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member should bear in mind that my predecessors have ruled that one cannot, on this Motion, have a Second Reading debate. The issue is whether the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.

§ Mr. Pannell
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I anticipated that difficulty, because I raised a point of order with your predecessor in view of the width of the observations when my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough was addressing the House. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised a similar question. I have made my point that for social reasons which are concerned with death on the roads, and in view of the 320,000 casualties on the roads, which seem to me to be an overriding consideration, the Ministry should address its mind to the subject.
I wish to address the House on the other broader considerations. The normal elements of civilised living are food, clothing and shelter. In this motoring age we have got to have another element of civilised living, and that is adequate insurance. No Member of this House would dream of taking out less than a comprehensive policy, bearing in mind his social position, the fact that he would be open to attack if he were a man of straw and were involved in trouble, and the fact that the standards that Members of Parliament set themselves must not be lower than the standards that they expect of other people. If we look at the Economic Survey and consider the breakdown of the national statistics relating to what is spent on drink, football, tobacco—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going beyond what is permissible on the Question.

§ Mr. Pannell
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think that this Bill ought not to be withdrawn. I can see that the Minister is in a hurry to get it, but I do not want him to get it now. Let me be perfectly clear about this. I was one 1932 of the sponsors of the Bill. I was not consulted about its withdrawal. Apparently information has been available for ten days. If it has been available for ten days and if I had had the information, I could have reflected on the matter soberly and could have taken a responsible attitude. It would be irresponsible of me to allow the Minister, through some Parliamentary device, to dispose of this Bill today. I want this Bill at least to be talked out. I want the Bill at least to hang fire so that we can bring our minds to bear on it, so that the Minister can reflect on the social issues involved and my hon. Friend might have some more reflection. Those who have supported my hon. Friend have been under a great deal of trade pressure—

§ Mr. Mitchison
Including three Conservative Members.

§ Mr. Pannell
My hon. and learned Friend knows me rather better than to expect me to be influenced by three Conservative Members or, indeed, by all of the Members on the other side of the House whom I was sent here to oppose and whom I conscientiously oppose every day of my life. They stand for that sort of pressure, the vested interests—

§ Mr. Mitchison
They backed the Bill.

§ Mr. Pannell
Some may have backed the Bill. I am sure that I should be out of order if I became involved in an unmannerly controversy with a Member of my Front Bench who is not behaving himself with becoming dignity. I look on my hon. and learned Friend with a great deal of indulgence and, indeed, affection.
However, let me try to finish in the few seconds which are left to me. I make this plea to the Minister. After all, he addressed the House seriously upon this issue. When all is said and done, he has many chances to speak. Whenever he bobs up he is called to speak. I have to wait many hours. I hope that the Minister is going to consider taking over the Bill, to try to meet the vested interests that my hon. Friend—