Electoral Commission Investigation: Vote Leave

Debate between Chloe Smith and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome that as a policy consideration that ought to be looked at in the round alongside the results of a number of ongoing investigations. I would just return to the core point, which is that we have these rules in place. It is these rules that buttress our democracy and that mean that we have an independent democracy where sanctions follow misdemeanours, and that is what the report tells us today.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the Minister will not talk about the specifics of this case, will she address a very simple general question? Can she envisage any level of corruption so gross that it would ever invalidate any referendum?

[Chloe Smith]

I am really not in a position to answer the question. The hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me with a yes or a no or a very simple question, but this is not a simple matter. There are a number of reports across a number of different investigations with a number of elements that are still ongoing. It is for that reason that I have come here and tried to be very clear, in a way I hope is understood by parliamentarians, that I cannot prejudge the investigations of independent bodies. [Interruption.] If you would bear with me for one second, Mr Speaker, I will offer a thought to the House. Those who have looked at election regulation over time—including many Members of this House who served here for some decades—have not seen fit to place in those election rules the idea that a result can be invalidated. I am simply stating the current law. That concept does not yet exist in our law. It would be a new concept, as it has not yet been seen fit to be put in place by Parliament.

Budget (North-East)

Debate between Chloe Smith and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Miss Smith]

I am afraid that I have no time. If we do not tackle our deficit, it will be worse for everybody. The really outdated view is to burden future generations with more debt, and for the Government to fail to take responsibility and consign all regions in the country to economic disaster. One need only look to the eurozone to get the picture. The Government’s actions have kept our interest rates closer to those in Germany than those in Greece, and made Britain a safe haven.

The topic of young people was raised by the hon. Members for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). I am shocked that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is patronising to believe that young people can start their own businesses and I disagree strongly. As a constituency MP, I make it my business to support Jobcentre Plus, the youth contract, the work experience programme and the Work programme—perhaps the hon. Gentleman acts differently in his constituency—and that is what I call working together to achieve things for our young people.

[Chris Leslie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

No. I am afraid that I must move on. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues wish me to talk about regional or local pay.

[Chris Leslie]

It is a very quick question. I wish simply to ask whether the Minister will utter the words, “We’re all in it together”?

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman asks me to do that as well as to respond to other hon. Members in three minutes, but I value his Back Benchers more than he does, and I wish to talk about local pay. The hon. Member for Gateshead focused much of his contribution on that issue, and I wish to reassure him about something that he already knows. At this stage, the Government are not setting out detailed proposals; they are asking experts how public sector pay might better reflect local markets. Localising pay has the potential to improve the resources available to private sector businesses that need to compete with higher public sector wages. It can improve or reduce unfair variations in the quality of public services, and tackle a limit on the number of jobs that the public sector can maintain created by having to support disproportionate wages. The principle of local pay has already been established, and I confirm, as has been mentioned, that the Labour party did that in 2007.

I will move on briefly to pasties and the sausage rolls mentioned by the hon. Member for Redcar. The point is that the Budget closes loopholes and addresses anomalies to ensure a level playing field. The National Federation of Fish Friers states:

“There should be a level playing field. Why should the UK’s fish and chip shops have to pay 20 per cent. on all the hot food they sell…when the bakery next door sells hot pies, pasties and sausage rolls free of VAT?”

The Budget seeks to introduce that level playing field.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chloe Smith and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I think a deal has been transacted on the Floor of the House. However, under the provisions of the Bill, a series of disclosures may be requested from hon. Members seeking such insurance.

My point is simply that we need to know the impact that the Bill will have on pet insurance and other discretionary insurance, but also, perhaps more importantly, on essential types of personal insurance that we all want our constituents to have, such as household insurance, flood risk insurance and motor insurance. In those cases, there is less wiggle room for individuals to decide not to take out insurance.

There are separate discussions to be had in another place about the problem of certain drivers thinking, “Well, the fine that I get for driving uninsured is less than the cost of motor insurance, so I will take my chances and drive uninsured.” In my view, the penalty for driving uninsured needs to be higher than the cost of getting insurance. That is a pretty straightforward point, but you would be surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the small fines that are sometimes issued to people who drive uninsured. I am sure that hon. Members will know of cases in which constituents have unfortunately been involved in accidents caused by uninsured drivers. When those uninsured drivers are prosecuted the fines are a pittance, which sends the message, “Why bother with insurance?” We must return to that issue, but it is a moot point whether it would fall under the scope of a review under the new clause.

Mandatory types of insurance are particularly important in the Bill. I can foresee circumstances, particularly with car insurance, in which the insurance sector feels that it is not getting much return. Many of our constituents howl with derision at the sheer expense of motor insurance—the AA recently said that it rose by about 16.4% in 2010. The Bill will make provision for the disclosure of certain extra pieces of information, even though people have no choice but to take out motor insurance if they want to drive; it is a legal requirement.

People will be surprised to find that even though motor insurance costs are escalating—that problem needs to be tackled in a number of ways—the insurance sector says that motor insurance is not massively profitable. The Association of British Insurers has described it as one of the most challenging products for insurers. I believe it has stated that premiums amounted to £10.7 billion and claims to £10.3 billion in 2010, so often the margins are not particularly great.

It is difficult for hon. Members, as non-experts in that trade, to know whether insurance companies are making significant profits, but let us take them at their word that they are not doing so. I can envisage a situation in which insurance companies say, “We want to back out”—pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker—“of the motor insurance trade.” They might feel that in order to do so, they will deter new contracts for motor insurance. One way of doing that would be by placing a series of extra hurdles in front of customers wanting to obtain such insurance.

Many young drivers will know to their cost how difficult it can be to get insurance cover for their vehicles. I do not know whether the Minister has a driving licence—

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Leslie]

She does have a driving licence.

[Miss Smith]

I have insurance as well.

[Chris Leslie]

I am glad the hon. Lady has insurance—I would expect nothing less. The Government car service will certainly have insurance. Not so many years ago, when she was under the age of 25, she might have found it extremely difficult even to find companies that would insure her. She is doubtless a very careful driver with an unblemished record, and she might find it easier to get insurance as a woman driver, but many young male drivers find getting insurance incredibly difficult. My point is simply this: we need the ability to review the impact of the Bill to test what is happening in motor insurance, particularly for those drivers who struggle to get insurance.

Additional hurdles could be placed in the way of those drivers. I do not object to the shift in the balance of disclosure in the Bill—I want to put that on the record—but it is important that we take time to recognise that there could be circumstances in which those seeking motor insurance find it more difficult to get as a result of these measures. We just do not know, which is why we need a review one year after the commencement of the legislation.

Another aspect of a review would be households subject to flood risk. Apparently—I did not realise this until I researched it—one in six homes in the UK are subject to the “at risk” category in respect of flooding. Amounts paid out by insurers since 2000 exceed £4.5 billion. A recent article in This is Money said that annual flood damage claims are running at more than £1 billion each year, and that 200,000 homes could become uninsurable by 2013 if an agreement cannot be reached between the Government and the industry on high-risk areas. That is incredibly important to the affected individuals, whether in Hull, where people recently had difficulty in gaining insurance, or elsewhere.

The changes on disclosure could well affect the ability of individuals to take out an insurance contract. Many who have taken out flood insurance might have found, unwittingly, that they were unable to receive a payment even though a catastrophe had occurred—a flood, a river bursting its banks or whatever—because they did not realise they were supposed to disclose certain aspects.

I want a review of the Act after one year. The provisions will, I hope, improve the situation and we will find that more people can take out flood insurance in a way that means they and insurers are assured that the contract will be fulfilled and that payouts can be made following floods and other such eventualities, but we do not know what the impact of the measure will be.

The Bill is relevant to flood victims, for whom the cost of insurance—if they can get flood insurance at all—could increase 500%. It is therefore very important that we have a review to see what happens in such circumstances. It is important that we see what is happening in the market for discretionary types of insurance as a result of the Bill, but we also need a review of the essential, mandatory, roof-over-the-head types of insurance. For those reasons, it would be helpful if the Minister accepted that such a review will take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I shall answer a few questions. On this amendment, I am indeed with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), as I believe that the market will assist us in this area. I shall deal with the amendment principally on that basis.

The amendment, as hon. Members will have seen, would create a duty for insurers to make disclosure requests that are proportionate to the benefits generated. Following discussion in Committee, we return to the issues today; I hope I shall be able to add to what my colleague, the Financial Secretary said there.

There is no disagreement with the principle that the burdens on consumers should be as light as possible. That applies to the group of consumers mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and, indeed, to all others who wish to purchase insurance. As the amendment rightly recognises, there is a balance to be struck between burden and benefit. The Government believe this balance is best struck by the Bill as it stands, with commercial pressures operating as a factor in that case.

I shall recap those points shortly, but I want to set out some background information on the types of questions currently asked, as I know Members were interested in that topic in Committee. They were particularly interested in the average number of questions asked when consumers enter into different types of insurance policy. I was able to take only a rough look at such things, but for some current policies it can take about 13 to 18 questions to underwrite home insurance and 12 to 18 to underwrite motor insurance. Requirements linked to these straightforward, mass-market products do not on this rough measure appear to be at all excessive. Simply counting questions, however, rather misses the point.

If insurers asked only a single question, this would be far more burdensome for consumers. I think it is much easier to answer a series of short, targeted questions—and this Bill sets out that they must be specific and clear—than it is to answer a single general question like “Has anything changed?” or “Is there anything I need to know?”

The Law Commission undertook a more sophisticated analysis of burdens on consumers, which was contained in its first discussion paper and has informed the development of this Bill. It discovered real problems in 2007 with the questions being asked in life and critical illness insurance. For example, one insurer asked, “Have you had any physical defect or infirmity, or is there any ailment or disease from which you suffer or have suffered or to which you have a tendency?” This seems impossibly difficult to answer and appears to require the consumer to begin at birth and work through every single visit to the doctor. Yet that might qualify as proportionate under this amendment because it is only one question. Reassuringly, there have been significant moves in this sector to improve the questions since 2007. The design of this Bill will further promote this improvement.

It is worth explaining briefly—I think the hon. Member for Nottingham East referred to this earlier—that different consumers face a different set of questions in order to purchase a similar policy by virtue of the channel they choose, whether it be through an aggregator, by telephone or face to face in a broker’s office. There is a need for insurers to tailor the requests they make in these different ways.

The burdens placed on consumers form the nub of the issue, and there is evidence that insurers already pay careful attention to those burdens. It has already been argued tonight that this is partly driven by market pressure, so let me add to those arguments. Clearly, a consumer has the choice to purchase from an alternative provider if disclosure burdens are too high. Indeed, some insurers have advertised products on the basis that they are easy to purchase. Comparison sites consistently study these drop-off rates and try to make the process as easy as possible.

It strikes me that no business wishes to run the risk of losing a customer entirely—the scary scenario that the hon. Member for Nottingham East has set out. No business would wish to do that because it would represent the loss of a customer. We hope that no consumer would wish to be in that position, as they would not then get the security of the product that they are looking for.

There are, of course, some savings to be made for insurers who get the right balance between getting the information they need and making it easy for consumers to purchase their product. The cost of asking another question is not insignificant, and insurers are well aware of that when they design their questionnaires. I refer the House to a PricewaterhouseCoopers report in November 2007, which considered the financial impact of the Law Commission’s insurance project as a whole. It estimated that increasing underwriting by two to three minutes per policy would equate to up to an extra £3,600 per 1 million of gross written premiums—equivalent to around an extra £150 million spent in the UK general insurance market alone. That does not include other costs associated with asking more questions, such as for the gathering and processing of the data. It is clear that there is a strong existing incentive for insurers to ensure proportionality.

I shall deal briefly with the Bill’s other provisions, in case Members do not already find the arguments about market pressures compelling enough to rely upon tonight.

Two further features of the Bill mean that if insurers impose burdens on consumers, they might undermine any right they have to refuse or reduce a claim. Under clause 4(1)(b) an insurer is not entitled to a remedy unless they can show that a consumer’s misrepresentation induced them to enter into the contract—at all or on its current terms. As a result, the Bill creates no benefit for insurers if they ask questions to seek answers on which they would not need to rely. Furthermore, under clause 3, a long and complicated questionnaire might have a bearing on whether a consumer has taken reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation. Insurers are at greater risk of having to pay claims, despite not having been given the correct information, if they make things difficult for the consumer. So in my view, there is no danger that the Bill will place extra burdens on consumers—as a result of those two measures in addition to the market forces mentioned earlier. Our impact assessment does not expect the Bill to result in significant changes to the questions asked by insurers. Rather, the Bill brings the statute into line with existing best practice and regulation. It is fair to say that we are updating the law, not altering the approach of insurers.

I do not believe that it would be beneficial for this Bill to go further than it does by seeking to change practice by prescribing the content and number of insurers’ questions. If we were to prescribe or limit the information insurers were able to seek, it might even increase premiums. Let us take, for example, the recent European Court of Justice ruling—one hon. Member has already referred to it—on the use of gender in insurance pricing, which shows that limiting the risk factors that insurers can use will increase the average cost of insurance.

Creating a duty for insurers in primary legislation would not be the appropriate solution. We continue to work closely with the insurance industry on this issue and with consumer groups on a range of issues. Where there are specific concerns about practice in certain parts of the market, the Government have worked with the industry on guidance. Accepting this amendment and creating a provision is unnecessary. It will throw out the careful balance in the Bill, and it is not the most effective way to make sure that consumers do not face excessive burdens. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Chris Leslie]

I hear what the Minister says, but I do not agree that she needed to dig through the barrel of reasons to resist the amendment. I know that officials tend to list a number of reasons—typically to address drafting or other deficiencies—but when she talks about upsetting the balance of the Bill as a whole simply to place a duty on insurers to show regard to a principle about the imposition of a burden or restriction being proportionate to the benefits, I think she is going a little too far. However, the aim of the amendment was to test the position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chloe Smith and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I know that VAT is a somewhat sensitive subject in this place, but has the Minister made an analysis of the costs and benefits and the jobs that would be created by reducing VAT on building refurbishment materials?

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

A very good question!

[Miss Smith]

It is indeed a very good question. I am, sadly, aware that many costs are associated with such a policy, but I would be very happy to discuss such things with the hon. Lady.