| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hutton: The Government have already very carefully considered all those issues of principle. We believe that the arrangements that we have established in the Bill, and the way in which we plan to implement them, are the fairest and most sensible way of proceeding. The entire purpose of the exercise is to ensure that the national health service properly recovers the costs of treating road accident victims, and that has always been the principle behind the legislation. We are simply ensuring that that principle--which has been accepted in the House for 70 years--operates in practice. The beneficiaries of the arrangements will be the NHS and those who use it, our constituents.
A significant extra sum will be collected for the NHS because of our proposed arrangements. The fundamental reason why we cannot accept amendment No. 2 is that it would strike at the very heart and purpose of the Bill, by denying the NHS significant new resources for a further considerable time. We are not prepared to allow that to happen.
Mr. Hutton:
I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made it sound as though our announcement on 2 July was made in an insignificant
place. It was not. The announcement was made in the House, during the Chancellor's Budget statement. In such circumstances, it was therefore perfectly reasonable to say to the insurance industry, "You have been given sufficient notice of our intention to proceed on those lines." That is our view.
Mr. Hutton:
I shall not give way.
The Government are therefore unable to give the assurance sought by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge--that we might review the operation of that aspect of the Bill. We do not intend to do so.
Mr. Hammond:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton:
With very great respect, we need to make some progress. The issues have already been discussed in Standing Committee, and hon. Members are anxious to conclude the proceedings.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge also mentioned the Motor Insurers Bureau. The point is that, for the first time, the MIB is being introduced into the arrangements, which is a significant change. We have therefore decided to propose the arrangements outlined in the Bill. As it is a new departure, we believe that our proposed arrangements are the appropriate and most sensible way of proceeding.
Dr. Harris:
The Minister's answer was entirely unsatisfactory, as it did not deal with the points that I made or the points that were made so clearly and precisely by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). It is not adequate for the Government simply to say, "We're not going to be fair to the insurance industry. We'll be quasi-retrospective about it, because we want to maximise income." The issue is not one of income maximisation. If it were, why do we not simply set unfair higher fees, which would be another way of maximising income?
I listened very carefully to every word that the Minister said. At no point did he address the substantive issue of dates; indeed, no date other than 2 July passed his lips. Our amendment to change the date on which the changes will apply will not strike at the Bill's "heart and purpose" but merely create the appropriate date on which the changes should apply. It is difficult for me to be persuaded by the Government's argument if they do not deal with the substantive points that have been made.
I should like to know whether the official Opposition feel that the Minister's reply dealt with the arguments that they made. Merely reciting the Bill's purpose is not a sufficient way of debating significant concerns about retrospectivity. It is a matter of fairness. The Government of course want to maximise income, but if that is the only principle they are pursuing, they will be riding roughshod over the principle of natural justice.
As the Minister has not addressed the substantive issues raised by me and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, the Liberal Democrats shall press the amendment to a vote. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has just finished making a very clear speech, which the Minister entirely failed to answer. It is therefore incumbent on Conservative Members to put their votes where they mouths are, and not continue to abstain in Divisions on substantive legislation simply because they want to spend more time on Thursday afternoons shoring up their constituencies. We did not change the hours of the House so that they could abstain in Divisions, as they did in the previous one.
It is still mid-afternoon, and Liberal Democrat Members are keen to engage the Government in debate. When I press the amendment to a Division--as I shall if the Minister has nothing further to say--I hope that Conservative Members will support us with their votes and not only with their words.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I should tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that the tradition in the House is that the hon. Member who moved the amendment should be the last to speak to it, so that he or she may be able to withdraw it.
Mr. Hammond:
I should like merely to respond to the point that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can do so on another occasion.
Question put, That the amendment be made:--
The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 225.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |