HC Deb 25 June 1980 vol 987 cc692-4

Lords amendment: No. 86, before clause 52, in page 48, line 33, at end insert— J. At the end of section 148 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (avoidance of certain exceptions to policies or securities, etc.) there shall be added the following subsections—

  1. "(5) To the extent that a policy or security issued or given for the purposes of this Part of this Act—
    1. (a) restricts, as the case may be, the insurance of the persons insured by the policy or the operation of the security to use of the vehicle for specified purposes (for example, social, domestic and pleasure purposes) of a non-commercial character; or
    2. (b) excludes from, as the case may be, that insurance or the operation of the security—
      1. (i) use of the vehicle for hire or reward; or
      2. (ii) business or commercial use of the vehicle; or
      3. (iii) use of the vehicle for specified purposes of a business or commercial character, then, for the purposes of that policy or security so far as it relates to such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, the use of a vehicle on a journey in the course of which one or more passengers are carried at separate fares shall, if the conditions specified in subsection (6) below are satisfied, be treated as falling within that restriction or as not falling within that exclusion, as the case may be.
  2. (6) The conditions referred to in subsection (5) above are—
    1. (a) the vehicle is not adapted to carry more than eight passengers and is not a motor cycle;
    2. (b) the fare or aggregate of the fares paid in respect of the journey does not exceed the amount of the running costs of the vehicle for the journey (which for the purposes of this paragraph shall be taken to include an appropriate at in respect of depreciation and general wear; and
    3. (c) the arrangements for the payment of fares by the passenger or passengers carried at separate fares were made before the journey began.
  3. (7) Subsections (5) and (6) above apply however the restrictions or exclusions described in subsection (5) are framed or worded; and in those subsections "fare" and "separate fares" have the same meaning as in section 2(4) of the Transport Act 1980.""

Mr. Fowler

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 93 and 133.

Mr. Fowler

This relates to car sharing. Some people are still concerned that if they take money from passengers in car sharing that will invalidate their insurance. That is not the true position. Insurers gave full undertaking two years ago, and there have been no problems, but the other House decided that greater certainty was required, hence the amendment.

We welcome the amendment as helping to dispel doubts and worry. The undertaking will continue in force and goes wider than the personal injury liabilities with which the Road Traffic Act 1972 is concerned. I think that the amendment manages to clarify the position on car sharing, and anything that encourages car sharing is welcome to us.

2 am

Mr. Booth

I shall relieve Conservative Members by giving them advance notice that I shall discuss only Lords amendment No. 86 and not the other two. Lords amendment No. 86 changes the Road Traffic Act 1972 in a way that requires all those who drive cars on the road to have an insurance for car sharing. It prevents an insurance company from selling a policy to a driver in Britain unless that policy covers him for the car sharing provisions of the Bill.

I welcome the Minister's conversion to the idea that it is necessary to include such a measure, but I remind the House that when I raised this issue in Committee the Minister dismissed it in scathing terms. He accused me of raising unnecessary scares and suggested that there was no need for such a measure. I am glad that we have converted the Minister. I hope that we are at one, across the Chamber, in agreeing that it is necessary to have stated in our law requirements of insurance for the car sharing provisions of the Bill.

That leaves us with only two problems. The first is the way in which car sharing is defined. Would an insurance company be able to refuse a claim on the ground that the policy holder has been charging his passengers fares more than the amount necessary to cover running costs? That issue might never be resolved until the question goes to a court. Having abandoned the idea contained in the Bill on Second Reading that regulations should be made to describe what might appropriately be charged—I was critical of that provision, so I make no complaint that it has been abandoned—the Minister is now urging the House to accept a Lords amendment which still does not totally resolve the doubt, but leaves the matter open until an insurance company has to decide whether it will pay out a claim on a policy where a driver has undoubtedly been conveying passengers under the car sharing provisions of the Bill in all respects other than the amount of fare that he has charged. That will be decided on whether the insurance company takes the view that the fare was sufficient only to cover the running costs.

I suggest that the poor blighter whose policy is involved will not be likely to take the insurance company to court. If the insurance company will pay only a limited amount under the policy because it thinks that the driver is not covered by the terms because he charged too much for the passengers, the driver will be the sufferer, and he might face additional claims from his passengers.

Secondly, there is the question of whether premiums will be raised. If the insurance company comes up against somebody who can successfully contest the case and requires it to pay a claim for seven passengers in a major crash—the car sharing scheme can cover up to eight seats—a massive sum could be involved. That might lead to litigation, and the insurance company might have to pay the full claim. It would then have to decide whether premiums should be raised to cover that claim. If premiums are raised, under the terms of the Lords amendment premiums will have to be raised for every driver and not only for those who take advantage of the car sharing provisions of the Bill. While I welcome the amendment and shall not resist it. I suggest that we should be far from convinced that it will solve all the problems that arise from car sharing.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 87 and 88 agreed to.

Forward to