Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I will deal first with the proposal to reform the compensation for whiplash arising from road traffic accidents. Let me say at once that I agree with the remarks made by the Delegated Powers Committee in its report of last Friday. It concluded, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said, that there should be a definition of whiplash in the Bill, as should the tariff for damages. The committee says bluntly that it would be,

“an inappropriate delegation of power”,

for either of these matters to be handled by secondary legislation. The definition of whiplash is so central to any discussion of the Bill and any assessment of its consequences that I am very surprised that the Bill should have been brought before us with that definition absent. It is clear that the issue of how to define whiplash has been under consideration by the Government for some time. Surely it should be possible either to produce the definition for the Bill or to delay the Bill until the definition is available.

That is certainly a matter that we want to raise in Committee, as is the issue of the tariff and who should set it. Should it be, for example, the Judicial College? The impact assessment sets out the proposed tariff, but why is the proposed tariff not in the Bill? The structure and levels of the tariff will certainly influence our debates, and Parliament should be able to decide on the initial tariff, amendable later by secondary legislation.

In the case for reforms set out in the assessment there are many appeals to evidence, a lot of which is vigorously contested. That throws some doubt on the case for reform, but it would be very helpful if the Minister was willing to discuss these contested areas before we reach Committee. For example, there is the assertion that the number of whiplash claims is somehow too high or too fraudulent. The Access to Justice Foundation has published calculations showing that claims in total are already falling. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has pointed out, CRU data for 2016-17 shows a 10% decline in whiplash or whiplash-related claims since 2012-13. The Motor Accident Solicitors Society has strongly questioned the view that a high proportion of claims are fraudulent. It has said that, when proven and suspected fraud figures are disaggregated, proven fraud drops to 0.25% of all motor claims, while fraudulent whiplash claims will be a small percentage of that already small percentage.

The principal justification in the impact assessment for reforms is economic—specifically, that there are three market failures that must be addressed. The first failure is one of asymmetric information. Only a victim can really know the extent and duration of pain or suffering caused by a whiplash injury. The Government see this as an incentive to make false or exaggerated claims but, as I have mentioned, the incidence of such claims is highly contested.

The second market failure alleged by the Government is the creation of perverse incentives. Legal costs are recoverable by successful claimants from the defendants. The Government say that if legal fees were not, or less, recoverable, claimants would bear more of the cost of bringing such claims, which would help to bring down their volume to a level that was,

“optimal for society as a whole”.

Leaving aside the question of what “optimal” might mean or how it might be calculated in this context, there is the problem of access to justice, as noted by the Law Society in its comments on the Bill. The Access to Justice Foundation has estimated that the proposed new tariff would deny 600,000 people injured on our roads each year the right to legal advice when seeking compensation. The figure comes from a July 2017 study by Capital Economics. Then there is the question of whether, or more likely to what extent, making medical report costs unrecoverable impedes access to justice.

The third identified market failure is what the impact assessment calls, “negative externality”—a phrase that is clearly weapons-grade management speak. This refers to the practice of insurance companies settling claims without medical proof of injury. Here, I entirely agree that this drives market failure, and I support the provisions in the Bill that will ban this practice.

In addition to the reduction in access to justice likely to be brought about by these reform proposals, there is the obvious issue of fairness. If someone is involved, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said, in a road accident, under the Government’s reform proposals they would be entitled to £3,500 for a neck injury lasting 24 months. They would also be unable to recover the cost of a lawyer to assert their rights. If someone suffered an identical injury at work, they would be entitled to £6,500 and would be able to recover costs. How is this fair, reasonable or coherent? I should be very grateful if the Minister could address this issue when he replies.

In all the very comprehensive information supplied to us by the Minister and his officials, I have been unable to find any mention of vulnerable road users. They are cyclists, motorcyclists, horse-riders and pedestrians. These people seldom suffer whiplash, and I have seen no evidence of fraud, yet they will all be caught by the proposed new system. I hope that the Minister will agree to remove them from the scope of this Bill.

Then there is the question of who benefits from these proposed reforms. The impact assessment estimates a total net benefit of £130 million. Within this, motorists gain £l.l billion by way of reduced premiums; insurers gain £190 million; HMT—the Treasury—loses around £140 million; and claimants lose £980 million. The impact assessment also sets out the risks assumed in calculating these figures. It explicitly acknowledges the risk that CMCs will produce more unmeritorious claims to offset the reduction in claims pursued as a result of the reforms. We all know how very vigorous and fast moving the claims industry can be, and as we speak, the Government are busy in the other place dismantling the reforms that we voted through to try to suppress cold calling.

However, the major risk surely lies in the percentage of savings to insurance companies that is passed on to motorists in reduced premiums. The impact assessment gives a figure on this and says it will be 85%, but it does not explain why. Is it, for example, that 85% of all savings will be passed on by 100% of insurers or that 100% of savings will be passed on by 85% by value of insurers? Perhaps the Minister could tell us which it is. In either case, what grounds are there for confidence that the insurers will pass on any particular percentage?

I note that the insurance companies which wrote to the Lord Chancellor in March ended their letter by saying that they,

“publicly commit to passing on to customers cost benefits arising from Government action to tackle the extent of exaggerated low value personal injury claims”.

Leaving aside the issue of whether cost benefits are the same as savings—I have no idea whether they are—is the promise to pass on all or only some of the cost benefits? Who decides what is a cost benefit for the purpose of passing it on, and how transparent will this decision be? What mechanism will there be for checking the sums actually passed on, and what remedy will be available if they turn out to be lower than expected?

I now turn to Part 2 of the Bill, dealing with the personal injury discount rate, and I should say at the outset that I agree there is an urgent need to change the basis on which the rate is calculated. But I have several concerns. The first is to do with timing. It is clear that the current discount rate needs amending, but the process proposed in the Bill means that there would be no change until 2020. This is three years after the implementation of the minus 0.75% rate, which is obviously wrong and is causing very significant financial damage to both private and public sector organisations. For example, the Minister will know that the National Audit Office has highlighted that the estimate from NHS Resolution, at the current discount rate, will add £500 million to the cost of claims in the year 2017-18 and £3.5 billion in overall provisions accrued. Clearly, it would be better to spend this money on front-line NHS services. Why wait? Surely there is enough information held by the Government and their advisers to enable a faster change.

My second concern is with the review period of three years that is proposed in the Bill. This may be too short. It may mean that a review is undertaken unnecessarily, incurring cost and creating market uncertainty. A three-year period may also create real incentives for gaming the litigation process by whichever side believes its objectives are most likely to be met by an impending rate change. A five-year review period, I suggest, would mitigate the risks associated with this. We will probably want to discuss this further in Committee.

My third concern is with having the Lord Chancellor make the decision on the rate, as at present. Under the new system, he or she will have the recommendation of the expert panel to take into account, but this will not be binding. How is this materially different from the current situation? Of course, the basis for setting the rate will have changed, but it will still be the Lord Chancellor who decides. In fact, there is a strong case for removing the decision from the political arena altogether and handing it over to an expert panel. The impact assessment reports that, of the respondents to the consultation on the matter, 35 favoured an expert panel, 17 favoured a co-decision between an expert panel and another person, and 48 favoured a Minister, based on advice from an expert panel. To put this another way, the majority of respondents to the consultation were in favour of not having the Minister make the decision. This kind of system works well for the economy as a whole, with the MPC setting the base rate quite independently of politicians. Perhaps the Minister can say whether he has considered this option and, if he has, why he has rejected it.

Finally, I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister. He will know that many Members of this House believe that we should repeal Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which has the effect of greatly increasing the sums that the NHS must pay out in settlement of clinical negligence claims. The Public Bill Office has confirmed that any proposal to repeal this section via this Bill would be out of scope. Nevertheless, repeal is an urgent necessity, and suitable legislative vehicles are likely to be extremely rare. This Bill could be used for repeal if the Government were to agree to an out-of-scope amendment granting the right to repeal Section 2(4). In closing, I ask the Minister to consider this, and whether he would be prepared to meet to discuss this further with me and other interested Members.