HL Deb 10 May 1971 vol 318 cc628-9

3.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Cover for liability in respect of passengers to be compulsory]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved the following Amendment:

Page 1, line 7, at end insert— ( ) Where after the commencement of this Act a person uses a motor vehicle in circumstances such that under section 201 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 there is required to be in force in relation to his use of it such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, then, if any other person is carried in or upon the vehicle while the user is so using it, any antecedent agreement or understanding between them (whether intended to be legally binding or not) shall be of no effect so far as it purports or might be held—

  1. (a) to negative or restrict any such liability of the user in respect of persons carried in or upon the vehicle as is required by section 203 of that Act to be covered by a policy of insurance; or
  2. (b) to impose any conditions with respect to the enforcement of any such liability of the user;
and the fact that a person so carried has willingly accepted as his the risk of negligence willingly accepted as his the risk of negligence on the part of the user shall not be treated as negativing any such liability of the user. For the purposes of this subsection references to a person being carried in or upon a vehicle include references to a person entering or getting on to, or alighting from, the vehicle, and the reference to an antecedent agreement is to one made at any time before the liability arose.

The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to redeem a promise I made on Second Reading and to abolish contracting out of the liability which is now compulsory. As I think my noble friend behind me told the House on Second Reading, a recent decision of Mr. Justice Ackner, in a rather peculiar set of circumstances, drew attention to, rather than established, the fact that contracting out of this liability was possible. I do not throw the smallest doubt upon the correctness of the decision, which I specifically endorse. I also think that so long as insurance was not compulsory it was rational and legitimate that people should be allowed to contract out of liability; but now that social policy is to be altered by rendering insurance compulsory, I believe that public policy demands that we should abolish contracting out. For that reason I beg to move.

LORD GARDINER

My noble friends would wish to support this Amendment for the reasons so clearly expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

This matter was discussed on Second Reading. The reasons for it have been outlined again by my noble and learned friend and supported by the noble and learned Lord opposite, so I do not think that I should take up time except to recommend that the Committee should accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.

Forward to