INTERPRETATION (Hansard, 22 April 1977)

§ Mr. Moate
I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 20, line 18, at end insert: '"insurance broker" means a person who, acting with complete freedom as to his choice of undertaking brings together, with a view to the insurance or reinsurance of risks, persons seeking insurance or reinsurance and insurance or reinsurance undertakings, carries 653 out work preparatory to the conclusion of contracts of insurance or reinsurance and, where appropriate, assists in the administration and performance of such contracts, in particular in the event of a claim'. I feel it necessary to remind the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page)—but particularly the Minister—of the important words in the proposed amendment. I am still surprised that the Minister has not put these words in the Bill. We discussed this matter in Committee in an indirect form, and I should have thought it was self-evident that there was a need for the definition of "insurance broker" to be present in the Bill.
The term "insurance broker" is used in the Bill but there is no definition of it. There are definitions of "registered insurance broker" and in relation to corporate bodies, and all the other bodies referred to in the Bill, but not of "insurance broker". We know that in future it is the intention that an insurance broker shall be a registered insurance broker, and that it will be unlawful for him to call himself an insurance broker unless he is so registered. But that is for the future. In the interim the Bill is defective in not providing a definition of "insurance broker". I say that because there is a requirement placed upon an individual to prove, prior to the date of the Bill getting Royal Assent, that he has been employed by an insurance broker.

§ Mr. John Page
The fear of sudden and imminent death concentrates the mind. Would I be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in saying that if I agreed to accept this amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) might agree to remain seated for the rest of the afternoon? On that basis I should be prepared to stick my neck out—I do not know how far—and accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Moate
Although I appreciate the intention, bargaining of that kind at this stage is not helpful. There are other amendments to be considered. My hon. Friend knows in his mind, as I know, that there will be more time available for the Bill. This is not a usual situation at this stage of the Session. Admittedly, we have no knowledge, but we have a strong suspicion—

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Moate
The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head, but there are other amendments to be moved, and another hon. Member has an amendment to be debated. I do not think it would be proper at this stage to make deals of the kind suggested, even though I understand my hon. Friend's honourable intention in that respect. I really want the Minister to say it, because it is he who really has to accept the statutory responsibility of ensuring that these rules are kept.
The point I am making, and am anxious to make, is that Clause 3 of the Bill provides that a person, to gain registration, has to prove that he has been employed by an insurance broker, but the Bill does not tell us what an insurance broker is. The European Economic Community tells us what an insurance broker is, and it is the EEC's definition that I have used.
The Minister cannot complain about the words. They are basically his words that were in his White Paper, and they are in the EEC directive. If we do not define the meaning of "insurance broker", how on earth can an individual go to the registration council to prove that he has been employed by an insurance broker? It is rather like the song about the hole in the bucket. We go around in a complete circle.
At the moment a man would say "I have been employed by an insurance broker for five years. May I be registered?". The Council would reply "We are sorry, but you have to have been employed by a registered insurance broker in order to be registered". But there would have been no registered insurance brokers before the coming into force of the Act, and certainly not for five years. Therefore, if the Bill does not have a definition of this kind in it, it is totally defective.
I should be glad if the Minister would endorse the views of my hon. Friend and say that he concedes not the amendment—I am not too hopeful of that—but the argument that there should be a definition of "insurance broker" in the Bill.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
If the hon. Gentleman finds that at the end of the day he has killed the Bill, the responsibility will fall fairly and squarely on his shoulders, and his alone. I can give no guarantee that further time will be available.
655 I do not believe that a definition is necessary, or that to introduce the proposed definition could do other than to produce confusion. The present wording could not be incorporated into the Bill, because the language is not compatible with the statutory language used in the rest of the Bill. In effect, it would have to be translated. There would then be two authoritative definitions of "insurance broker", one in the EEC directive and one in the Bill. It is true that they would be the same in substance, but even so they would create endless confusion. To make the amendment would be to produce an alternative definition which is absolutely unnecessary in this context.

§ Mr. Moate
That is about the most dreadful answer I have ever heard. I have demonstrated a specific instance where it is necessary to provide a definition of "insurance broker". The Minister said that it was not necessary and just brushed it aside. Such a cavalier answer should not be satisfactory to the House.
Unless the hon. Gentleman tells us what an insurance broker is or has been prior to the date of the Bill, I do not understand how someone can prove that he has been employed by an insurance broker for a few years. Or are we saying that in future a man must prove that he has been employed by a registered broker who has met the criteria, but that before the date of the Bill anybody can have called himself an insurance broker, even retrospectively, and thereby give credibility to an individual's claim to have been employed by him? Does that mean that for five years before the date of the new regulations coming into effect any Tom, Dick or Harry can say "I was an insurance broker and employed you for five years"? That is what the Bill seems to suggest.
Unless the hon. Gentleman puts in a definition of "insurance broker" the Bill will be totally defective. It is up to him to produce better answers.
I find extraordinary the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it would be confusing to put this definition in the Bill. The wording is that of the EEC directive, amended in only one way to conform with the Bill. The directive refers to "persons". I have put my amendment in the singular, because that is how the definition clause seems generally to be 656 drafted. I fail to understand how the Minister can say that the amendment conflicts with the Bill when it is his own wording, the wording he has taken from the directive.
The Minister says that the wording does not have statutory form. Does not the EEC directive have statutory form, and is this not the exact wording of the directive? If the hon. Gentleman says that it is not, I shall bow to his judgment, but I understand that we shall soon face accepting the directive—if we have not done so already, for these things happen in a mysterious, roundabout way sometimes. The directive will become the law of the land, and the amendment is in the precise terms of that directive.
Therefore, the Minister has given a bad reply, and it will be most unsatisfactory if it is left at that. I hope that before we return to the Bill the hon. Gentleman will have had second thoughts and decided to put a definition of "insurance broker" in the appropriate clause. I am sure that there will be further occasions. I understand the hon. Gentleman when he says that he can give no assurance. I never expected that he would give a guarantee of further time, but the Bill needs further scrutiny. The Government have tabled nearly 70 amendments on a Friday—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has already been over that ground. Will he address himself to Amendment No. 81?

§ Mr. Moate
Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I felt that you might permit me to respond to the allegation that the Minister again made about my killing the Bill if we did not conclude the proceedings this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman has failed to give a satisfactory answer, and therefore it is incumbent upon him to move an amendment on this point at a later stage.