HC Deb 17 July 1962 vol 663 cc327-34

Sections two hundred and thirteen and two hundred and fourteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 (in so far as they relate to payment for the emergency treatment of traffic casualties), shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ronald Bell

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The purpose of this new Clause is to make an Amendment to Sections 213 and 214 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, in so far as they relate to a demand for the emergency treatment of traffic casualties. This may seem a small matter, but it affects a large number of people.

The present law is that, irrespective of blame, if a person is injured by coming into contact with a motor car the owner of that car has to pay 12s. 6d. for the emergency treatment of that person. This is an absolute obligation. For example, a person may leave his motor car parked in the road at a parking meter. A pedestrian may stumble on the pavement, fall against the oar, and injure himself. The motorist then has to pay 12s. 6d. towards the medical treatment of that person. It is a very odd provision. It dates back a long way. The probable explanation is that it was passed before there was a National Health Service, and it was thought desirable that a basic charge should be paid by anyone owning a motor car on the road, if anybody was injured, in connection with it.

It is impossible to make out any moral case for such a provision. The best that can be said about it is that it is in force, and perhaps ought to be left alone. In fact, it is not only lacking in moral foundation; it is also an absurdity in practice. It is very tiresome to collect. It has to be demanded within seven days of the occurrence, which imposes a great burden upon the administrative staff which has to collect it. I believe that it has to be demanded by registered post, and sued for as a civil debt in a county court if it is not paid, and all that sort of thing. The result is that the cost of collection is so high that virtually no margin is left to justify this procedure

I cannot see any reason why this provision should continue in force. When the Minister of Health was asked a Question about it in June, 1961, he said that it was an anachronism since the Health Service had come into force, but that legislation would be required to alter it. We now have a Road Traffic Bill. This is the occasion to alter it by legislation. I can make a very short introductory speech, because I cannot see any arguments being put forward against it.

When I introduced the new Clause in Committee it was defeated by two votes —I believe inadvertently. That is not an unfair comment, because in Standing Committees there occasionally arrive moments when Members are outside in the corridor for various good reasons, and when Divisions are called they may not know altogether what they are voting on.

Mr. Marples

Oh.

Mr. Bell

My right hon. Friend says, "Oh". I will not embarrass Shim by asking which way he would vote if he were a back bencher. I know the answer. At least it is a reasonable inference, in view of what the Minister of Health said in answer to a Question on the matter. It is still with us, and unless the House shows a general sentiment in favour of a change it will be with us for another six years or so, until we have another Road Traffic Bill, when better fortune might attend it.

When the Parliamentary Secretary went through the motions of resisting the proposal in Committee the only argument that he put up was that the Treasury could not agree to this in the then national economic situation. There is some dispute as to how much money is concerned. It could be £4,800 or £8,400. But that is the sort of figure that we are concerned with. We have to consider that against the background of the terrific waste of time that it involves. We all know how many road accidents involving motor cars occur each year. In almost every case some official has to go through all the complicated motions of claiming this 12s. 6d. within seven days from someone whose identity he must discover. It is fantastic that, at a time when it is rather important to the national economy to save manpower and to avoid entirely self-defeating operations, this strange argument should be put up by the Treasury.

I know that the Ministry of Transport has to put the argument forward because the Treasury says that it has to. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary does not think that the present national economic situation prevents the acceptance of the Clause. I hope that on this occasion the House will assert itself and proclaim that this is the greatest nonsense in the world, and that it is time to get rid of it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page

In Committee, I gave some figures in support of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I do not want to go through them again, but the House ought to know something about the figures. I want to quote from an investigation carried out by a research team from the Manchester branch of the Council of the Association of Chief Financial Officers of Hospitals. The investigation was carried out in 1958–59 and the figures show that the average cost of collection of these fees amounted to 89.5 per cent. of the amount collected. That meant that there was only a 10.5 per cent. profit—if one can call it that —from the collection of these fees.

In an average case, the fees for emergency treatment totalled £82,000 a year and the cost of collection was £73,000, leaving a slight profit of £9,000. But that was only the average case. In many hospitals the cost of collection was over 100 per cent. of the amount collected. In 37 out of 127 hospitals investigated the cost of collection was over 100 per cent. of the amount collected, so that it was a dead loss. In 21 other cases the cost was between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. of the amount collected. Hospitals should be relieved of having to collect fees when it means that they are involved in a dead loss.

Every year there are about 200,000 claims. One can imagine the administrative work involved. No less than 10 per cent. of the claims have to be written off. But hospitals still have to initiate these claims and go through the motions of writing off about 20,000 claims a year. The position has become quite farcical. I (hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter reasonably and relieve hospitals of this administrative burden.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

I congratulate my 'hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) on raising this point. I do not know whether anybody has calculated the number of man-hours spent by the clerical staffs of hospitals trying to collect the money. We have heard that there are about 200,000 claims each year. Surely each one must take 20 minutes or half an hour to initiate in the proper form. Then somebody must posit the claim. That takes another five minutes. Probably there has to be another application later on, and then there is the collection of the registration forms. I suppose that altogether about 500,000 man-hours are absorbed each year. If we want to become a wealthier nation, we must, I think, cut out some of this wastage of time and money.

Mr. Marples

I must toll my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) that the number of man-hours wasted is very small. It may toe that the number of "woman-hours" wasted is higher, because clerical staffs are mainly composed of women. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) moved his Motion in a reasonable way and I appreciate his point of view. He said that irrespective of who was to blame, the motorist had to pay 12s. 6d. He said that he would not embarrass me by asking me which way I would vote were I on the back benches. I will not embarrass my hon. Friend by asking him which way he would vote were he on the Front Bench.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is very skilful. He referred to the high cost of collection. He said that the gross revenue was £100,000, and probably 90 per cent. of that sum was spent on collecting. That is a powerful point. But it is not only the hospitals which receive money under this legislation. Individual doctors receive payments under the provisions of Section 213.

Mr. Graham Page

Surely if it costs some hospitals over 100 per cent. to collect, it would cost the doctors a lot more.

Mr. Marples

If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe anything. He can take it from me that a doctor, acting with a secretary, can collect debts much quicker and much more cheaply than can a hospital employing a large staff. There is no doubt that an individual collecting his own debts is much quicker on the ball. He gets the money in more cheaply. I think I take the whole House with me on that. Once a bureaucracy is engaged it is difficult. What the doctors receive is not known. But a calculation based on accident statistics suggests that the gross figure is also in the region of £100,000 a year. I believe that the costs of collection are very much less—

Mr. Ronald Bell

indicated dissent.

Mr. Marples

My hon. Friend may disagree, but I am told that the amount received by them is much greater than the amount received by the hospitals.

Mr. Ronald Bell

The doctors would have to go through the same procedure in order to collect the money. They would have to find the name of the motorist and claim the money by registered post within seven days. They axe faced with the same difficulties, and it is probable that they write off an even higher proportion of these debts than the hospitals.

Mr. Marples

The interest of the doctors would be greater. They would lose by not collecting these sums. A clerk employed by a hospital has not the same incentive to collect as a doctor would have. I am certain that my hon. Friend would agree that a doctor would be very much on the ball when it comes to collecting cash.

This is an evenly balanced argument and sooner or later what my horn. Friend desires will, I think, come about. But I should not like that to happen tonight. On another occasion it may well happen. Under Section 213 of the 1960 Act the user of any motor vehicle involved in an accident has to pay a fee of 12s. 6d. plus an emergency allowance to any doctor or hospital if first-aid is rendered. Section 214 of the Act contains a special provision about the way in which claims by the hospital should be made and recovered.

There are two points to be borne in mind. First, by virtue of the provision in Section 203 (2, b) of the Act, the user of a vehicle must be covered by insurance. Drivers are not required to settle claims out of their own pockets. It is done by an insurance company. The second point is that if a user has paid a charge and someone else is responsible for the accident, he may recover the amount from that person under the provisions of Section 213 (3) of the Act.

When he moved this Clause in the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire South was defeated. I have a lot of sympathy with him and I will not deny it, but I hope that at this late stage in the proceedings he will not press this Motion.

There would be a number of repercussions. It is not only the loss of income to the National Health Service which would arise under the Clause but the fact that acceptance of it would endanger a much larger sum, approaching £½ million—£400,000 net—paid by insurers under the related Section 212 of the Act, for treatment. Under that Section insurers are required to pay a maximum of £50 for in-patient treatment or a maximum of £5 for out-patient treatment.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this new Clause because there could be very grave repercussions. It is not a big matter because we are considering road safety as distinct from the cash involved. I should like to consider this question in whatever legislation is introduced by the Department another time. I ask him not to press this matter now certainly because I do not think that a case has been entirely made, but principally because of the repercussions which would follow. I have tried to give the proposal sympathetic treatment. I hope that is sufficient to enable my hon. Friend to withdraw his Clause.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I am sure that we all sympathise with the object which the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has in mind. We discussed this in Committee and, looking back to the 1960 Act and having listened to the debate then and what the Minister has said tonight, I think most of us would agree that this is not the time nor the way to make this change.

These payments have ceased to be of the value they used to be. The value of money has gone down. Obviously it will go down even further in the next year or so if this Government last for so long. Even if we put in figures now or made changes now they would probably be out of date very soon. Therefore I hope that the House will agree with what the Minister has said and pass on to the next new Clause, leaving this to the appropriate time when proper legislation covering the whole question can be introduced.

Mr. Ronald Bell

With the permission of the House I speak again. In answer to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) I should point out that this is not a question of the amount of the sum but of the fact that the charge itself is an irrelevance. Now that there is a National Health Service it has no meaning. Even if the amount were doubled or trebled it would not be—

Mr. Glenvil Hall

The medical practitioner who now gets 12.6d. under the 1960 Act is entitled to something even though we have the Welfare State and the National Health Service.

Mr. Bell

He gets something out of the National Health Service. I think that there is general consent that this kind of charge ought to go. It is an absurdity. The cost of collection is disproportionate to anything which might be yielded by it.

However, one has to be practical and there is no point in taking this matter to a Division unless it would be carried. From sundry indications I gather that it would not be carried. I am also persuaded by what the Minister said that he will do something about it next time round. I might even have a go myself before next time round.

In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause. by leave, withdrawn.