§ LORD SWAYTHLINGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider enacting legislation to make it a condition of any motor vehicle insurance policy that the insurer shall pay nothing to the insured in any case in which the insured, or any person driving with his permission and in his presence, is convicted of driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN)My Lords, if it were desired to increase the penalties for these grave offences, there are other more direct methods of doing so. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that it is more important to increase the likelihood of detection and conviction than to 443 increase the penalties for these offences; and measures will be laid before Parliament this Session with this aim in view.
§ LORD SWAYTHLINGMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that legislation such as I have outlined in my Question would act as a deterrent to people who might otherwise be driving under the influence of drink or drugs?
§ LORD LINDGRENYes, my Lords, it would act as a deterrent; but for 30 years or more there has been a compulsory requirement for third party insurance. As I took the noble Lord's Question, he was not referring to that but to the further additional cover which the motorist takes on voluntarily. The noble Lord's suggestion would in fact penalise the motorist who provides additional cover for himself. My information is that where persons have a bad accident record or bad record of convictions the insurance companies themselves penalise those persons by increasing their insurance premiums. Equally, of course, they can refuse insurance, and sometimes do so.
§ LORD SWAYTHLINGMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be a deterrent to people who had a clean record?—because there may be a number of people who drive under the influence of drink or drugs for the first time and who have not been convicted of other motoring offences.
§ LORD LINDGRENYes, my Lords, it is a point of view. But the point for consideration really is whether it is fair to place this duty on insurance companies rather than on the law and the courts.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the real danger would be to deprive the unfortunate person who was injured, as a result of a drunken motorist knocking him down, of the possibility of getting his money out of the insurance company?
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, I did not take the noble Lord's Question to refer to any interference with third party insurance but to additional insurance cover which the motorist provides for himself, his passengers and his car.