Motor Insurance (Whiplash)

Debate between Graham Stringer and Louise Ellman

Thursday 7th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Young people’s attitudes before they are behind the wheel should be addressed as well. That might be done in schools or in after-school clubs.

Another area of concern that we identified, which is within the Minister’s remit, relates to the activities of claims management companies and, in particular, cold calling. We are told that cold calling is illegal, but the problem seems to be growing. We have all received phone calls or text messages urging us to make a claim because of an assumed or real recent accident. What action is being taken to clamp down on cold callers? Have any firms been prosecuted?

In our most recent report, we looked at another factor that explains the rise in the cost of motor insurance: claims for whiplash injuries. A whiplash injury is a soft tissue injury to the neck caused by a sudden, forceful jerk, such as can be caused by a road accident. Symptoms can last for a few weeks or months. In a minority of cases, symptoms can last for longer, especially if exacerbated by a pre-existing condition. There is no generally accepted test for a whiplash injury. They do not show up on X-rays or MRI scans. However, the medical evidence that we received confirmed that the injuries are real and can have debilitating consequences for those who suffer from them. There are about 500,000 motor insurance claims for compensation arising from whiplash injuries each year, although the number is coming down.

The official figures on road safety show a welcome reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured. In 2012, there were a total of 195,723 casualties in all the road accidents reported to the police, which was 4% lower than in 2011. Some 1,754 people were killed—an 8% decrease from 2011—and 23,039 were seriously injured, down 0.4% from the previous year. Those reductions are welcome, but every individual serious accident is a tragedy for the individual and the family concerned. It is not clear, however, exactly how the number of claims relates to the number of accidents, as the statistics on road traffic accidents are not comprehensive. There is widespread agreement that a significant proportion of the claims are fraudulent or exaggerated, but there is no authoritative data, perhaps because of the very nature of the issue. The Government are right to be looking seriously at the problem.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the cost of motor insurance has gone up is that insurance companies have irresponsibly paid out claims without any evidence that the person is suffering from whiplash?

[Mrs Ellman]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I will shortly refer to that issue.

The Government proposed whiplash claims of up to £5,000, which would cover most of them, should be dealt with in court by using the small claims track. That approach was strongly backed by insurers, but rejected by most solicitors. The Transport Committee opposed that change, because many people who use the small claims track would have to represent themselves, and we thought that that would impair access to justice, especially as insurers would, of course, be legally represented. It was also not clear how expert evidence would be accommodated in the system. I am pleased that the Government accepted those arguments and rejected making that change at present.

We recommended the accreditation of independent medical practitioners to provide medical reports on whiplash claims. There have been claims that reports are of variable quality and that the doctors who issue them are not up to date with current requirements or are sometimes biased towards the claimant. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the recommendation in principle, although they have stated that they will enter into further discussion on implementing it.

We did, however, ask a number of other questions that have not yet been answered. For example, is there a role for existing regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council, in auditing or peer reviewing reports or dealing with complaints? Should practitioners who prepare reports be provided with information about the accident and the claimant’s medical record? We have written to the Ministry of Justice about those issues, but I welcome answers today if the Minister can give them.

We were disturbed to find that insurers frequently offer to settle claims before any medical evidence is submitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made that point. It would be hard to imagine a clearer incentive to making a fraudulent claim. The Government have said that they will consider prohibiting the practice. Can the Minister tell us what work is being done on that and whether it requires legislation?

We also recommended that the Government look at ways to make whiplash claimants provide additional information at the time of their claim, such as proof that they saw a medical practitioner shortly after their accident. Will the Minister give us his view on that? Will he also comment on the debate arising from the Summers case about whether the courts can strike out claims where exaggeration is proven, but where there has also been a genuine injury?

Those complex issues have been created by the dysfunctional motor insurance market. It cannot be good practice for insurers to settle whiplash claims without medical evidence. It is unacceptable that ways are still found for insurers, solicitors, doctors, garages, car hire firms and others in this merry-go-round to make money out of claims, often by inflating the work necessary to address them. For years, insurers have found ways to increase the costs paid by their rivals, and the result has been higher premiums for the ordinary motorist.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Debate between Graham Stringer and Louise Ellman

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

Again, I think it is for the Minister to answer those questions. This specific amendment deals with networks. The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about the costs and the contingencies and how they will be put together, but that is a matter for the Minister and for broader debate than for discussion on this specific amendment.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

When the Transport Select Committee went to France to look at the economic impact of high-speed rail, we found that there was a huge economic benefit in Lille and most other cities. The fact is that the Department for Transport assessments do not capture that economic benefit. Talking about people working on trains really misses the point about the economic impact and the economic benefit that will come from high-speed rail. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mrs Ellman]

I do agree. When the members of the Select Committee went to France and elsewhere in Europe to look at high-speed rail there, we were struck by the success of the system and by the enthusiasm with which it was greeted by people living in the areas that it served. Indeed, what struck us was they wanted more: more stops, more stations, more access to high-speed rail. That made a considerable impact on us.

Rail 2020

Debate between Graham Stringer and Louise Ellman

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend makes a relevant comment.

As Network Rail’s debt has grown, more money is being spent on servicing that debt than ever before, and train operating costs have increased. Rail subsidy is necessary. Few rail lines would be profitable on a commercial basis, and even potentially profitable lines would lose passengers if the national network was cut back. There are good environmental and social reasons to subsidise the railway, and we were pleased to hear that the Government share that view.

Although the Government want to cut the subsidy, it is not clear what level of reduction they seek and under what time scale. Neither is it clear exactly where the subsidy goes at present. The Department should articulate more clearly why it subsidises rail and what taxpayers get for their money. We recommended that the Government consult on and publish a clear statement of what the rail subsidy is for and where it should be targeted. The Department’s reply was disappointing and focused on practical difficulties because of current funding arrangements. There is scope for much more work in that area.

This issue illustrates the lack of transparency in the rail industry. That has now started to change with recent work by the Office of Rail Regulation and the disclosure of wide variations in the financial performance of different routes and operators. Establishing why those variations occur will be crucial to ensuring that the rail subsidy is well spent.

Securing the efficiency savings indentified by McNulty will be challenging, particularly as they require different parts of the industry to work together in new ways. More than £1 billion is expected to be saved from train operating costs. I am concerned, however, that the savings have been put at risk by the Department’s problems with franchising. In many cases, existing franchisees will be awarded new contracts to run services for as long as four years. The Department will struggle to drive a hard bargain with existing operators without going to the market. I ask the Minister whether the Department’s decision to prioritise the re-tendering by 2015 of the east coast main line, currently operated by the Department’s company, Directly Operated Railways, will weaken the Department’s bargaining power as it seeks to extend franchises. It is clear that the Department does not want trains to be run by the public sector.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she agree that the Government are trying to privatise the east coast main line for completely ideological reasons, and not for reasons of financial benefit? The east coast main line gives £563.4 million back to the Exchequer, which is almost twice as much as Virgin gave back over a two-year period. It also gets only one seventh of the subsidy per passenger mile, so there can be no other reason than ideology. The plan is undermining the Government’s negotiating position as they extend the other franchises by nearly 26 years.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. The Minister was questioned in the Select Committee and it became apparent that the Government’s decision was to do with Government policy. I, for one, did not hear a compelling value-for-money reason for the decision.

There are a number of ways of assessing whether a franchise delivers value for money. The letter that the Minister sent to the Committee on 4 June stated that, over the three years 2009-10 to 2011-12, the inter-city east coast franchise produced a net return to the Department of £563 million. The letter also stated that, over the same period, the west coast main line made a net return of £290 million. The Minister certainly did not accept that that meant that the east coast franchise produced better value for money, but I am simply presenting the facts in the letter as a contribution to the debate. One consequence of the decision has been the postponing of the re-letting of the west coast franchise by 29 months, to April 2017. The previous timetable had been announced as recently as November. It is a matter of concern that such constant change is unsettling for the industry.

We have already seen two direct awards to current operators, and neither has demonstrated how the Government can secure a better deal for passengers or taxpayers. In the case of the west coast franchise, we were told that there might be new services to Blackpool and Shrewsbury, but they have not materialised. The old Essex Thameside franchise paid money into the Department. The new one, a directly awarded contract to run until September 2014, will cost the taxpayer money. Will the Minister acknowledge that there will be problems in achieving the McNulty savings in the light of the franchising fiasco and its aftermath?

The Committee recommended that the Department should strengthen its commercial capability in relation to assessing franchises, that it should consider franchises being let and managed by a Department agency or arm’s length body, and that it should consider spreading premium payments over the full length of the franchise. We suggested that franchise periods of seven to 10 years would be appropriate while the situation was being reviewed. Indeed, a review is now taking place, and we hope to hear the Government’s conclusions shortly.

During our inquiry, the rail unions argued that the privatised structure was the main cause of inefficiency in the industry, and that renationalisation would bring costs down. McNulty rejected that argument, saying that renationalisation would

“take years to complete, cause major diversion of effort, incur massive costs, and delay progress on improvements”

that were under way.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Graham Stringer and Louise Ellman

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

This group of amendments draws attention to the importance of the passenger experience. The Transport Committee has looked at that theme a number of times over the years. Some improvements have been made, but there are still major questions, some of which are raised by the amendments.

Overriding the specific points made by the amendments is the general question of who speaks for passengers. The previous organisation, the Air Transport Users Council airport consultative committee, stopped being responsible for airing passengers’ views. It was suggested that Passenger Focus might take up that responsibility, but that did not materialise. When the Transport Committee questioned the CAA in our pre-legislative scrutiny, it told us that it was setting up a panel. When we asked what form the panel would take, how its members would be chosen and how it would operate, the answers were unclear. There is still a big question mark over whether there is effective representation for air passengers. Such representation does not seem to be enshrined in the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point about who represents passengers. Does she agree that a flaw in the Bill is that it does not state not only who represents passengers but what the interests of passengers are? If that major flaw is not corrected today, I hope it will be corrected in the other place.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to some important points. I agree that the matter needs further thought, and I hope that the Minister can respond on it.

The Select Committee’s work also drew attention to some problem areas in the allocation of responsibility for looking after passenger experiences. Key passenger concerns, particularly about passport and immigration issues, the time it takes people to get into the country and baggage handling, are not necessarily the responsibility of the airports, but they are, in reality, seen as responsible for them. We have heard examples recently of long queues, which are the responsibility of the UK Border Force, yet happen in the airport and are part of the air passenger’s experience. There do not seem to be any means of addressing that dual responsibility in the Bill, and that needs attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred to the Select Committee’s earlier work on the implications of bad passenger experiences and the need for passenger welfare plans. The problems that air passengers experience at times of disruption during otherwise fairly normal periods are a long-running issue, and there has also been the near-breakdown of the service in situations such as very bad weather. We produced a report drawing attention to the matter and Ministers told us, or certainly implied, that the new licence conditions could contain requirements for passenger welfare plans to be put into practice, so that there would be clear responsibility for looking after passengers and giving them information in times of severe disruption. That does not seem to be happening in the Bill.

I know that the Civil Aviation Authority, in laying down what I think it calls its indicative licence conditions, has said that passenger welfare issues are part of the licensing process. However, it is extremely unclear whether the conditions will be enforceable, how clear they will be and whether there is to be a further consultation period before any such conditions are laid down. That is another area of concern.

All the points that I have made relate to the amendments, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The experience of passengers travelling by air is extremely important, and it is time that it became a focus of our attention.