Car Insurance Industry: Fraud

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate. The cases she referred to make the point that everybody’s insurance premium is going up as a result of this terrible activity.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of fraud within the car insurance industry more broadly, and not just ghost brokers, which have been referred to already. I want to look at this issue through the lens of a constituent’s case that is all too real.

In July last year, Nicholas, from Cullompton, had his Škoda Octavia parked outside when another driver reversed into it. The damage was noticeable, but it was fairly minor: a golf ball-sized dent to the bumper and a cracked number plate. The car had been knocked forward no more than 12 inches from where it was parked.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the hon. Member reassure me that there are no ongoing legal proceedings in relation to the case he is referring to?

[Richard Foord]

Yes, I can.

The car was damaged, but thankfully the third-party driver did exactly the right thing: they came forward immediately with no dispute, no exaggeration and no injury. Like anyone else in this situation, Nicholas contacted his insurance company to arrange for repairs, and the insurer appointed a mechanic from a local partner in Exeter, who took up the job.

At the mechanic’s premises, Nicholas signed a form allowing a visual inspection of the car. There was no need for the car to be taken apart, so he was shocked four days later to be sent photos of his car in pieces, with parts having been stripped off. What should have been a simple repair job ended up being a nightmare for Nicholas and his wife, who were provided with a suspicious inspection document marked up with supposed football-sized dents that did not exist.

Nicholas and his wife were told quite bluntly that the car was a write-off and that it was destined to be scrapped. That raised alarm bells for Nicholas, as he knew there was nowhere near that much damage and he had taken photos at the time of the incident to prove it. He told the mechanic who brought him the document that whoever had made the assessment needed their eyes tested. In response, the mechanic chuckled and said he could only tell him what he had been told.

Nicholas was running out of options, due to the insurance company’s refusal to hear him out, but he wanted to save his car from the scrapyard enough that he got in touch with my casework team. When we got in touch with the insurer, it was suddenly prepared to arrange for a second opinion. The independent assessor found that the car was indeed not a write-off and could be repaired; in fact, they revealed that the original assessment, which had amounted to £3,600, included a respray of the bonnet and the replacement of a towbar—Nicholas was not aware his car even had a towbar. Following that second opinion, the cost was reduced to less than £2,000—much less than the initial estimate. Nicholas is still driving his Škoda today; it is unaltered, roadworthy and in much the same condition as when the insurance company claimed it needed to be scrapped. He will continue to do so for the next four or five years, and good on him. My car is approaching its 20th birthday next year and has 207,000 miles on the clock.

So what went wrong for Nicholas? Well, at best this was negligence, but at worst it raises troubling questions about incentives in the system. Are insurers or their contractors advantaged financially by declaring vehicles to be write-offs? Do customers face premium increases simply for having a write-off claim on their record? And why was the insurance company so willing to challenge my constituent when his extensive photographic evidence ought to have been enough?

Nicholas pursued those questions through a complaint to the ombudsman; after four months of chasing, he was merely offered £100, with no comment regarding the case. By its own admission, the ombudsman is plainly overburdened, but delay and process congestion cannot justify failing to interrogate in this case.

The insurer was Saga, whose slogan is “Experience is everything”. My constituent’s experience tells of his own saga—a saga of insurance companies deferring to third-party contractors and of customers pressured to submit false classifications. We need greater oversight to ensure that insurers properly audit the firms they commission. There must be greater transparency around write-off decisions, including mandatory disclosure of financial incentives tied to total-loss classification. We must ensure that the ombudsman has the resources and the duty to examine evidence rigorously.

This debate is plainly not about one car, one insurer or one constituent. If practices like this are occurring across the country, we must act to restore trust in the system, because everybody’s insurance premium will otherwise be pushed upwards.

Mountain Rescue

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. In Stirling and Strathallan we are served by three outstanding teams: Lomond Mountain Rescue Team, based in Drymen; Killin mountain rescue, operating from Killin and Callender; and Ochils mountain rescue, operating from a neighbouring constituency, but also on the hills that dominate the backdrop of the city of Stirling. Those teams are made up of highly trained volunteers—people with jobs, families and everyday lives—who are ready to respond at a moment’s notice, often in the most difficult conditions and terrain in the country.

Such teams are not an add-on to the emergency services; they are the emergency services in certain areas. They have the medical training to treat people on the mountain, but crucially they are the only ones who can get them off the mountain, to safety and further treatment.

I want to talk about some specific issues that have been raised through the volunteer rescue services all-party parliamentary group. The steps the Government are taking to regulate independent medical care at temporary sporting and cultural events are welcome and necessary. But mountain rescue teams are not properly part of the conversation, and are perhaps being unintentionally captured by an approach that was never designed with them in mind. The consequences, as we have heard, can be significant. These teams are facing new layers of bureaucracy, increased administrative requirements and potential financial liabilities that simply do not sit easily with a volunteer model.

As we have heard, the reality is that many teams are now considering stepping back from providing event cover altogether. That matters for two reasons. First, those events are a key source of fundraising for teams that rely heavily on public support to fund their operations. Secondly, it has an impact on public safety. If mountain rescue is not present at events, it is no longer able to provide immediate care. Instead, it is called out later, often when situations have become more serious. Some 10% to 15% of the UK’s geography is such that mountain rescue is the primary emergency service, because the police, ambulance and fire services cannot operate effectively in that terrain. So there is a clear and reasonable ask here: that we give serious reconsideration to how this new approach applies to mountain rescue.

There is also a wider lesson. If we want to avoid situations like this in the future, we need to involve mountain rescue and the wider search and rescue community much earlier in the policymaking process. They must be part of the conversation from the outset. Search and rescue services interface across multiple—[Interruption.]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for a Division in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

The sitting is resumed. The debate may now continue until 4.15 pm. I call Chris Kane.

[Chris Kane]

Thank you, Ms Lewell, for calling me back. Please give me one second to find out where I was—is it still Tuesday?

As I was saying, if we want to avoid such situations in the future, we need to involve mountain rescue and the wider search and rescue community much earlier in the policymaking process. They must be part of the conversation from the outset. Search and rescue services interface across multiple parts of Government—Transport, Health, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Cabinet Office all have a role. From the perspective of those delivering the service, that can feel fragmented.

There is a strong case for a single point of contact within Government—a clear champion who understands the role of volunteer search and rescue, and who can bring the different strands together. The Cabinet Office, given its co-ordinating role, might be a sensible place to consider having that, because ultimately, this comes back to people: highly skilled volunteers giving up their time, raising their own funds and stepping in when people need them most. They do not do it for recognition, but they deserve support.

When something goes wrong on the mountain, what matters is simple: that someone comes—and whether it is in Stirling and Strathallan or any difficult terrain anywhere in the country, they always do. For that they have our thanks and support, and I hope a commitment from the Minister to engage in the specific asks that our volunteer rescue teams have around Care Quality Commission registration and other issues. The Minister is always welcome at a future meeting of the APPG for volunteer rescue services to hear more.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement so far on this issue. It will come as no surprise to him that we need a cut to VAT and the maximum 20p discount for business rates applied across hospitality, not just pubs, because nobody wants to drink in a pub surrounded by boarded-up cafés, restaurants and B&Bs. Can I urge the Government to act quickly and, as a gesture of their intent, withdraw the statutory instrument that enforces the much lower 5p business rate discount this April?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her sustained and important engagement and advocacy on behalf of high street businesses in her constituency, from hospitality venues such as cafés and pubs to independent shops. She has explained to me really clearly the impact of various changes that previous Governments and this Government have announced on the businesses in her constituency. I will continue to engage with her and other strong advocates of the hospitality industry on this and other important issues that affect our high streets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

16. What steps she has taken to help increase economic growth in Derbyshire.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

21. What steps she has taken to help increase economic growth in the north-east.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

23. What steps she has taken to help increase economic growth in North Yorkshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

The Culture Secretary was pleased that the creative industries were one of the sectors included in our industrial strategy. She hosted an event with members of the creative industries taskforce in Newcastle just last week to emphasise the importance of having good cultural offers and art and museums in local communities. I am happy to sort out a meeting for my hon. Friend with the relevant Minister to discuss access to the arts and culture in Mid Derbyshire.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

As my right hon. Friend knows, South Shields is a gorgeous coastal tourist town. We pride ourselves on our small businesses and our strong hospitality industry, but she will also know they are struggling after years of neglect by the Conservatives. To help those businesses, will she outline what consideration she has given to reducing VAT on our hospitality, leisure and tourism sectors?

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing support for small businesses in his constituency. Measures in the autumn statement to help them include extending the retail, hospitality and leisure relief for another year, which will support around 230,000 properties in England. That tax cut is worth nearly £2.4 billion. Meanwhile, by freezing the small business multiplier for a fourth consecutive year, we will be protecting more than a million properties from a multiplier increase. Other announcements that could benefit his constituents include the Help to Grow, management and Made Smarter programmes and moves to tackle late payments.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The new 55-day payment rule will apply to only a few hundred companies contracted by the Government, yet microbusinesses, which do not typically have Government contracts, wait on average 68 days for payments. Those businesses make up the majority of small businesses across our country. Why will the Government not back the Micro Business Alliance’s “Pay in 30 days” campaign?

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I mentioned, we are well aware of the issue of late payments, and we are in constant dialogue with the key stakeholders in this area, as well as colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade. We will always keep an eye on the measures, but the moves we have already made to tackle late payments, as announced recently, will make a big difference.

Economic Growth

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. “Thin”, “empty”, “just depressing”,

“lost the will to lead”

and

“nothing in this for the public”.

Those are the reported words of Tory MPs describing the measures or lack of measures in the King’s Speech. Others were pleased, as the thin legislative programme gave the optimists more time to campaign in their constituencies ahead of a general election and the realists more time to look for a new job.

The PM claims he is taking difficult decisions, but it is the people in this country who are making the difficult decisions every single day, as they make sacrifices and grapple with a cost of living crisis made in Downing Street. Figures released yesterday show that not only has poverty risen in the UK but that in 2022, nearly 4 million people experienced destitution, and thousands of babies and toddlers are being admitted to hospital with lung conditions believed to be from living in damp and mouldy homes. Despite this, there was absolutely nothing in the King’s Speech to help those families. Not that long ago, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights visited the UK and found that Conservative Governments had inflicted “great misery” through

“punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous”

austerity policies driven by a political desire to undertake “social re-engineering”, rather than by economic necessity. This month, his successor reiterated those concerns, stating that UK policies continue to inflict misery.

Even in a pandemic, the Government could not prioritise children. First, we had the chaotic voucher scheme. Then Tory MPs voted to withdraw support for free school meals. The holiday activities and food programme was hard fought for from 2017 onwards, but it was not until 2021 that the Government decided to roll it out. My fully costed School Breakfast Bill would have seen nearly 2 million children start the day with full stomachs; instead, the Government introduced a scheme that provides support to only 2,500 out of the 8,700 schools they identified as eligible. My cost-neutral Healthy Start Scheme (Take-Up) (No. 2) Bill would ensure that eligible families automatically receive free fruit, vegetables and milk; instead, the Government claim that financial regulations are preventing auto-enrolment, despite the payment and card operators saying that it would be entirely possible if only the Government would co-operate.

Evidence given to the child of the north all-party parliamentary group shows that children in the north are more likely to live in poverty. We heard testimony from expectant mothers who have been forced to have abortions because they cannot afford another mouth to feed and clothe. It is estimated that 4 million children now live in poverty. In my part of the world, the north-east, we have the highest rate of child poverty in the United Kingdom, at 38%, and in South Shields that figure rises to over 42%. It is clear that levelling up, just like the northern powerhouse before it, is a vacuous, empty phrase that was never intended to, and never will, do anything to improve the life chances of the children in my area.

If the economy does not work for everyone and consigns millions of children to poverty, the Government have failed. It is time for a general election, so that my party can do as we did last time and ensure that every single child has the very best start in life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think we have got it, Minister.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The recent inquiry by the child of the north all-party parliamentary group found that, under this Government, children in the north live in greater poverty, many in destitution, and that that problem is likely to keep growing. Why is it that, when it comes to children, this Government’s mission is always to level down rather than level up?

[Jeremy Hunt]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that there has been less poverty and inequality under this Government. We demonstrated that in the autumn statement, with a huge package of support—£99 billion—for houses and families up and down the country, targeted at the lowest paid.

Financial Statement

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The household support fund exists only because, thanks to this Chancellor, people do not have enough income to eat or to pay their bills. With pensions and benefits set to rise by a measly 3.1% and the minimum wage by 59p, and with inflation peaking at over 7%, today’s uplift to the fund is more evidence of his continued failure to protect the hardest hit, isn't it?

[Rishi Sunak]

The national living wage is actually going up by 6.6%—it is one of the highest increases we have seen in the national living wage, and it will mean that someone working full time on the national living wage earns £1,000 more this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. Now is the moment for us to go full steam ahead with our transition away from fossil fuels. We are investing in nuclear, we are accelerating our progress on renewables, and we are boosting energy efficiency in homes across the country. This is how we will bring bills down, improve our energy security and tackle climate change.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

When the Government set up the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, they recklessly failed to agree any guidance on early repayments. As a result, businesses are now being charged extortionate fees and are facing bankruptcy. Why is the Chancellor putting the profits of unscrupulous lenders above the recovery of our small businesses?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

He is not doing that. The schemes were set up in various ways, depending on the size of businesses, and it will be for the individuals who borrowed money to engage with the lenders to refinance those loans on a case-by-case basis.

National Insurance Contributions Bill (First sitting)

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

No, I think we have had quite enough discussion of this topic. If the hon. Lady is going to raise a new point, of course I am happy to take the question.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I am. The Minister says that he is confident about the argument he is making, and that the Government believe they are on the right track. With these new clauses, all the Opposition are asking the Government to do is evaluate and assess the decisions that they have made. Why will the Minister not do that, if he is confident about what they are doing?

[Jesse Norman]

As I have explained, we already have in place processes of evaluation and assessment. We will be following them, and this reflects an extensive process. It is lovely to see the Labour party waking up at last after its long slumbers, but the question that the hon. Lady raises is not, in fact, a new question; it is a reiteration of the same question, so I am going to stick with the answers I have already given.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Upper secondary threshold for earnings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.