§ Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 22, line 8, leave out "and".
§ Mr. Clinton DavisI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. DavisThese amendments provide for one of my right hon. Friend's nominees to the Council to represent the interests of insurance consumers. For some time the Government have been sympathetic to the idea that the interests of insurance consumers should be represented on the Council, and one of the main purposes of the Bill, contrary to the arguments of its opponents, is to protect the interests of those consumers. I have carefully considered the arguments in favour of consumer representation that were put on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward), and I have concluded that the Bill should specify that one of my right hon. Friend's nominees should be from among those who seem to him to represent the interests of both existing and potential policyholders.
§ Mr. MoateI suppose that in that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have become a "sole trader". That is exactly the position that has prevailed throughout these very long proceedings. I am referring not just to this evening but to months before. Being on one's own, however, does not necessarily mean that one is wrong.
Even though it may be slightly out of order, may I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) on having persevered against considerable opposition? He has been tested in fire—and that is how Bills should proceed. Equally, hon. Members who disagree should use all the weapons at their disposal.
In many ways the amendment sums up some of the nonsenses in the legislation. It demonstrates some of the misleading concepts that have been put about. It demonstrates the fallacy of the proposition that there should be a consumer represented on the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. Although it is a tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward), it is not good work, because what is proposed is rather nonsensical. It is suggested that we need a consumer representative on a Council, and that by implication the insurance brokers' representatives and the nominees of the Secretary of State are not capable of representing consumer interests.
The insurance industry has successfully defended consumer interests and there is no need for this little bit of window dressing to pretend that this is an act of consumer protection, because it is not that. We have plenty of window dressing of this kind elsewhere, and I do not think we need it in the Bill—if we need the Bill at all. I do not believe it is a Bill designed to help the consumer.
The object of having the consumer representative, presumably, is that he is supposed to represent consumer interests. I say that that interest is well represented by insurance brokers, and the presence of a consumer representative is to my mind a slight on the insurance broking profession. It is not necessary. It is a charade. It is also couched in a rather odd way, because the consumer 265 representative is described as a person representing
the interests of persons who are or may become policyholders of insurance companies".Who is not such a person? Is there anyone who is not a policyholder or might not become a policyholder of an insurance company? It is an extraordinarily wide definition and would apply to every other person who is already on the Council.This is not an act of consumer protection. There is no need for a consumer representative on the Council, and this provision is just typical of the window dressing that we get from the Government, who pretend that they are interested in the consumers. The Bill is not about that; it is designed to strengthen the position of established insurance brokers against the interests of those who in future wish to establish themselves as insurance brokers, and who will now find it that much harder to do because of the restrictions and the controls in the Bill.
I would not support the amendment, but at this late stage that might seem to be a fairly academic position to adopt.
§ Mr. Michael Ward (Peterborough)The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who has just spoken to the proposal, reminds me of the secretary of the local chamber of commerce who told me some years ago that there was no need for a consumer advice centre in my town because his chamber of commerce always dealt with the complaints in the area. His annual report dealt with nine, and in the first year after the centre was opened we had 27,000 members of the public going through with complaints.
The presence of the consumer representative in the council will bring to bear a much needed special point of view. The present form of words is far superior to the amendment which I moved when the Bill was before the House, and I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State very much for honouring the undertaking he gave to consumers at that time.
§ Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)I support what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) has just said. 266 Although my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has said that everyone on the Council will have an interest in representing the consumer, it is right and sensible that there should be on the Council some person who is specifically there with this purpose in mind. I therefore support the amendment, which I think is well drafted.
As my final word, I declare an interest in this matter, having voted during our proceedings, in that I am a member of Lloyd's. Above all, however, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) on having so successfully piloted this Bill through a long and arduous Committee stage and now through a fairly lengthy piece of business on Lords amendments.
§ 3.15 a.m.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisI join with all hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) on completing a most arduous task. I hope that I and my officials in the Department have helped him to improve the Bill in certain respects, and certainly in piloting this important measure, as I believe it to be, through the House and into the law of the land.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment No. 23 agreed to.
§ Mr. John PageOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not wish to say anything until the very final words had been spoken, but I want now to thank you for your courtesy this evening, and to thank my hon. Friends, the Minister, and all hon. Members for their help. Although I still have a beam in my eye, I have much greater difficulty in getting rid of the "Moate" from the other one.
I feel that this is a time of night for prayer. We have, perhaps, gone through the night of doubt and sorrow, but I hope that in future the Bill will provide all things bright and beautiful for brokers great and small.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerHaving listened to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on several occasions, I have decided that I shall not become an insurance broker.