Civil Liability Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Stringer. I would like to make a similar declaration, because I used to practise as a personal injury barrister.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Stringer. I declare the advice that I have received from Thompsons Solicitors, which will be entered in the register.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Stringer. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on insurance and financial services, and as a former insurance broker.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. The selection list for today’s sitting is also available in the room.

Clause 1

“Whiplash injury” etc

[Gloria De Piero]

I beg to move amendment 8, in page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1 and insert—

“Definition of whiplash injury

(1) In this Part ‘whiplash injury’ means an injury, or set of injuries, of soft tissue in the neck, back or shoulder that is of a description specified by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health.

(2) For the purposes of this Part a person suffers a whiplash injury because of driver negligence if—

(a) when the person suffers the injury, the person—

(i) is using a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle on a road or other public place in England or Wales, or

(ii) is being carried in or on a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle while another uses the vehicle on a road or other public place in England or Wales,

(b) the injury is caused—

(i) by the negligence of one or more other persons, or

(ii) partly by the negligence of one or more other persons and partly by the negligence of the person who suffers the injury, and

(c) where the negligence of the other person or persons consists in an act or acts done by the person or persons while using a motor vehicle on a road or other public place in England or Wales.

(3) The fact that the act or acts constituting the negligence of the other person or persons is or are also sufficient to establish another cause of action does not prevent subsection (2)(b) being satisfied.

(4) For the purposes of this section references to a person being carried in or on a vehicle include references to a person entering or getting on to, or alighting from, the vehicle.

(5) In this section—

‘act’ includes omission;

‘motor cycle’ has the meaning given by section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988;

‘motor vehicle’ means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads;

‘road’ means a highway or other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes.”

This amendment would require the Chief Medical Officer to define “whiplash injury”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(iii) unless in respect of 4(a)(i) or (ii) the person is in a motor vehicle during the course of their employment, in which case Clause 1 shall not apply.”

This amendment would exempt people suffering a whiplash injury during the course of their employment from this definition.

New clause 9—Exemption for vulnerable road users and people injured during the course of their employment—

“(1) Nothing in Part 1 of this Act other than Clauses 6 and 7 shall apply to a claim made by—

(a) a pedestrian, cyclist or horse rider; or

(b) a person injured in the course of their employment.”

This new clause would exempt vulnerable road users and people injured in the course of their employment from the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill, except Clauses 6 and 7.

Clause stand part.

[Gloria De Piero]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. With amendment 8, we seek to address the Government’s perplexing lack of faith in experts and their overweening belief that their own judgment is right. In the Bill, the Government have chosen to sideline doctors and, as we will see later, judges—two groups rightly held in high esteem in our society. Apparently, the Government know better than them. Quite simply, with this amendment, we say, “This is a medical issue, so ask a doctor.”

Although we have seen the same arrogance that the Government know best and a lack of respect in other areas of policy in recent years, this is the most gratuitous and egregious example I can recall. The only explanation that I can think of as to why they do not want experts involved is that they think that their knowledge is greater and better—or perhaps this is an example of the nanny state that they say they do not believe in.

The Government have chosen not to ban all compensation for whiplash, which indicates that they accept its validity as a medical condition, but they attempt to define it themselves. If they accept that it exists as a medical condition, surely it needs a medical definition. The Minister may tell me that the definition in the Bill comes from doctors. If so, might I ask who? They make no mention of any input from medical experts. Could it be that they have not mentioned their sources because the adviser in this case was all too familiar from almost every other aspect of this Bill? And might the definition of a medical condition in this Bill possibly have come from the insurers, who stand to profit enormously from this huge shift in the law?

On Second Reading in the Commons, the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), alluded to the possibility that in certain parts of the Bill the Lord Chancellor might be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, although I note that the Minister did not respond to that suggestion. However, even if that were the case, although he might be required to act independently he would not be transformed into a medical expert, which is what is required here.

Before I talk about amendment 9 and new clause 9, can the Minister confirm that vulnerable road users will be exempted from the Bill and from the small claims limit? Also, will he define who a vulnerable road user is?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

Vulnerable road users will be excluded from the Bill and from secondary measures on the small claims court limit. A vulnerable road user is anybody who is neither driving a motor vehicle nor a passenger in one; in other words, the definition includes pedestrians, horse riders, motorcyclists or anyone else on the road who is not in a motor vehicle.

[Gloria De Piero]

I thank the Minister for putting that on the record.

We absolutely agree that there is a need to act against insurance cheats; no one supports fraudsters. The amendment would not affect the pursuit of those who are claiming fraudulently. By accepting this amendment, the Government can still hit their target. Through this amendment, we simply want to protect those who are injured in the course of their work through no fault of their own. Before it is suggested that this somehow drives a coach and horses through the Government’s intentions, we are not talking about huge numbers of cases.

Thompsons Solicitors deals with workers’ injuries day in and day out. The majority of its work is for the trade unions. Just 16% of its case load consists of injuries from road traffic accidents, and of that number whiplash cases comprise less than 20% of the total. Once we eliminate the large number of these claims that are not work-related, we are left with a tiny percentage of claims related to whiplash that people have suffered in the course of their work.

I have seen no complaint of fraud levelled by the Government against workers nor any suggestion that they are anything to do with the compensation culture of which there has been so much talk, although notably Lord Young said in his report, “Common Sense, Common Safety”, that in any case that view was a perception and not a reality. The Association of British Insurers, which has been very active around this Bill, has produced no examples of fraudulent claims by workers.

This amendment is an opportunity for the Government to exempt employers’ liability claims from the Bill and at the same time exclude them from the small claims limit. If the Government refuse to exempt workers, are they saying that any whiplash claim is evidence of fraud, whoever it is made by? If so, why have they not banned all whiplash claims? If they refuse to exempt workers, are they saying that the police officer, the paramedic, the school bus driver or the firefighter who suffers whiplash while working hard for our communities is scamming it?

Given that the Government have exempted vulnerable road users—horse riders, pedestrians and cyclists—from both the Bill and the associated small claims changes, what is their justification for not exempting workers? Are they saying that vulnerable road users are worthy of more protection than workers? Perhaps the justification is that the cyclist, the pedestrian and the horse rider do not take out motor insurance for their road use, but neither does the professional driver. If the justification for the exemption of vulnerable road users is that they are uniquely exposed, surely the professional driver is, too? For instance, there is the police officer in a high-speed chase or the HGV driver who is on the road for eight hours a day. The reality is that the Government have exempted vulnerable road users because including them would be politically untenable.

[Craig Tracey]

I just do not see any reason why someone who drives as part of their employment should recover a different sum to somebody else—one of our constituents, for example—who is driving in the normal daily course of their life, because they can still claim loss of earnings. The Bill does not change that, so they can still be compensated if they lose money as a result of being unable to work.

[Gloria De Piero]

It would be grotesque nonsense for a cyclist or a pedestrian injured through no fault of their own to find themselves subject to a tariff and a £2,000, let alone a £1,000, small claims limit when the target is whiplash and, in turn, apparently fraud. The same applies to workers. What on earth have they to do with whiplash for the purposes of fraud? If the Government will not move on this point, the only conclusion one can draw is that there is one rule for the small number of those wealthy enough to own a horse and another for the tens of thousands who drive for a living, many of them not in well-paid jobs—say, the paramedic or the refuse collector—who run the risk of whiplash when going about their jobs.

It is deeply disappointing that the Government are sneaking through crucial parts of their changes via a statutory instrument in order to avoid this sort of scrutiny. I wish to make perfectly clear today where the Opposition stands on workers for the entire package of measures. Workers, like vulnerable road users, should be excluded from both the Bill and the small claims increases.

[Rory Stewart]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Thank you again for the serious involvement that has gone into the debate. It has been a real privilege, as somebody who is not a legal specialist, to see how many well informed and distinguished colleagues we have on both sides of the House contributing to these interesting questions of definition.

Many of the amendments we are dealing with today reflect the work of the House of Lords and, in fact, of Opposition Members of the House of Lords—Labour Members, Liberal Democrat Members and Cross Benchers—who introduced many of the clauses into this Bill, which were not originally there and which we are now discussing. With your permission, Mr Chair, I will move quickly through amendments 8 and 9 and new clause 9 and then discuss why we feel clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

The definition of whiplash, which is dealt with in amendment 8, was placed in the Bill after extensive debate pushed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords. In the initial version of this Bill, we had not sought to define whiplash. The DPRRC argued carefully and at great length that it felt strongly that it was inappropriate to have legislation of this sort if a definition was not in the Bill. The Committee felt it was not appropriate for any individual, whether a Minister or a chief medical officer, to make this definition on their own. It should be made by Parliament as a whole and it should be made fully explicit.

After a great deal of debate in the House of Lords, we conceded this point. The clause was inserted and everybody—Cross Benchers, Opposition Members of the House of Lords—nodded the amendment through. It was then inserted. The reasons for this are both those brought forward by the DPRRC and, I would add, to assuage some of the concerns put forward by the Opposition. Clause 2 also allows for a review of the definition by the chief medical officer, along with others, every three years to make sure it remains in touch with medical science and medical expertise. The definition is in the Bill and not purely provided by medical experts because, as the House of Lords argued, this is a medico-legal definition. In other words, it is not simply a question for medical specialists; it relates to the operation of law and the way in which the law of tort would operate.

The final reason for which I ask that amendment 8 be withdrawn is that I am afraid it refers only to the chief medical officer for England, whereas, of course, the legislation applies to England and Wales. That is why we feel strongly that clause 2, which refers to the chief medical officer for England and the chief medical officer for Wales and, indeed, the Lord Chief Justice and the Law Society in consulting on the definition of whiplash every three years, is the appropriate way to proceed. On that basis, I respectfully ask that amendment 8 be withdrawn.

It is easy to understand why amendment 9 was tabled and that the Opposition would be concerned. Again, we would respectfully argue that the key point is that the injury has occurred and not why the individual is in the car. The question of why they are in the car would be a distinction without a difference. There are many pressing reasons why somebody might be in a car. I, like many Members here, represent a rural area. Somebody might be in a motor car, for example, because they were having to drive their child urgently to a hospital. They might be in a motor car for any number of reasons that left them with little choice but to be in the car. It would seem invidious to distinguish between them and somebody else who is in the car for the purpose of employment, purely on the basis of the injury. The key is the injury and the fact that the third party who is liable for that injury is held liable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

The key point, which goes against both Government and Opposition Members, is not the likelihood of having an accident. That should not affect the level of compensation that someone receives. That should be relative to one thing only: the nature of the injury and the prognosis. It should not be relative to why someone is in the car, how well or how frequently they drive or why they are driving. On that basis, I politely ask that amendment 9 be withdrawn.

New clause 9 reiterates some of the arguments in amendment 9; in other words, it focuses on the question of people injured during the course of their employment. However, it also references vulnerable road users. I have attempted to argue the relevance of someone driving a vehicle in the course of their employment in our discussion on amendment 9. On vulnerable road users, we respectfully request that new clause 9 be withdrawn for the reason I gave in my intervention on the hon. Member for Ashfield—vulnerable road users are already exempted by the Bill, so new clause 9 will be otiose.

On that basis, I respectfully ask that clause 1 stand part. This was a good and serious reform introduced with strong cross-party support by the House of Lords, driven by the DPRRC, which provides a much more accountable, transparent and predictable definition of whiplash to guide the legislation. We owe the Lords a huge debt of gratitude for that. We ask, on the basis that Members of the House of Lords from the Labour party, the Lib Dems, the Cross Benches and the Conservative party all agreed to it, that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

[Gloria De Piero]

I have listened to the Government’s arguments, but do not accept them. The Bill’s objective is to reduce fraud. I have not heard anybody suggest that workers injured in the course of their employment are scammers. However, I have heard from Labour Back Benchers that workers drive all day and do not have a choice about whether to drive. I will divide the Committee on the amendments.

[The Chair]

Before the hon. Lady concludes, does she wish to divide the Committee on amendments 8 and 9?

[Gloria De Piero]

Yes.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Damages for whiplash injuries

[Gloria De Piero]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, leave out “two years” and insert “twelve months”.

This amendment would limit the tariff to injuries lasting less than one year.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 11, in clause 3, page 3, line 22, leave out “two years” and insert “twelve months”.

This amendment would limit the tariff to injuries lasting less than 1 year.

[Gloria De Piero]

The Bill says that if someone’s whiplash injury goes on for up to two years, or if it is thought that it might go on for up to two years, or if it goes on for up to two years because of their failure to “mitigate” their loss—that is, act to get themselves better by taking up an offer of physio, for example—they are eligible for fixed-tariff damages only.

Since 1999, special damages have been exempted from the calculation of whether a claim falls within the small claims limit. I will take this opportunity to nail down the ongoing argument about when the last increase in the small claims limit was. The Government say 1991, which is disingenuous and borders on the dishonest. I can provide quotes from the White Book if the Minister would like to see them. The limit has remained at £1,000 since 1991 but the method of calculating whether a claim falls within that limit changed in 1999 after the Woolf report. If any doubt remains, the evidence can be found in extracts from the White Book before and after the change.

From 1999, a definition of what was included in the £1,000 limit excluded special damages. It contains a helpful example that leaves no doubt that only general damages should be considered to see if a case is within the limit, and special damages are exempted from that time. I am told that special damages in a case add 20% to a claim on average, which means that the change in 1999 increased the limit by 20%. I shall assume that we have now laid that matter to rest and that any calculation from now on will be from 1999, not 1991. We may argue about the appropriate inflation index, or even the percentage increase from the changes made, but there should be no argument about the date from which it applies.

The impact of the clause is that someone could be off sick and losing wages, or having to work reduced hours, because of their whiplash complaint for up to two years before they are taken out of tariff damages. The Office for National Statistics says that the average wage in the UK was £27,200 in 2016-17, so an injured worker could lose more than £50,000 in earnings and still be subject to tariff damages. Someone on the minimum wage of £7.38 who works 35 hours a week for 48 weeks a year might earn £12,400, so they could have no income at all to support themselves and their family for up to two years.

[Ruth George]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed tariff takes no account of victims’ circumstances? A whiplash injury will have a greater effect on someone in a manual job, who is less likely to be able to perform that job, than someone in a sedentary position, who is more likely to be able to continue to work through minor injury. Someone in a manual job is also likely to have lower wages and be less able to sustain a certain level of loss.

[Gloria De Piero]

My hon. Friend is completely in touch with the reality of life for working people. That is the argument that we seek to make. In tabling amendments 10 and 11, which bring that two years down to 12 months, we concede that people recover and that that can take time. We are not suggesting a short period, but a reasonable one, and we hope that the Government will concede that it is fair and proportionate.

On amendments 12 to 16, it is proposed that the Lord Chancellor should set the tariffs for pain, suffering and loss—

[The Chair]

Order. Those are amendments to the next clause—sorry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Lady puts her finger exactly on the current situation. Currently, the decision is in the hands of the insurance companies. The argument in the legislation is to take that decision away from the insurance companies; it will prohibit them from making an offer without a medical report. That was supported by the Opposition as well as the Government, and that is exactly the intention of the legislation. That is another reason why we will resist amendments 10 and 11.

[Gloria De Piero]

Does the Minister accept that, although the small claims limit has remained at £1,000, the way that was calculated changed in 1999?

[The Chair]

Order. Can I just say to the hon. Lady that the Minister had sat down? It is appropriate to intervene when the Minister is on his feet. If the Minister wishes to make a statement in response, I will take it.

[Rory Stewart]

This is a good challenge. It is not, respectfully, relevant to amendments 10 and 11, but relates to the question of something that will be done by the Procedure Committee, if it were to proceed through secondary legislation—a proposal to raise the limit from £1,000 to £2,000. The hon. Lady is correct that in 1999, changes were made to how the £1,000 limit was calculated, which adds an extra level of complication.

There is also a debate between us on whether CPI or RPI should be used to move that initial 1991 definition and, if so, to what amount. Should the hon. Lady wish to proceed, that is appropriate—not for this amendment or the Bill, but for subsequent measures.

[Gloria De Piero]

We do not intend to divide on this but we will raise these issues again on Report and Third Reading.

[The Chair]

Does that apply to amendments 10 and 11?

[Gloria De Piero]

It does, and I thank you for your advice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Gloria De Piero]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 3, page 3, line 26, leave out from “amount” to end of line 5 on page 4 and insert

“determined in accordance with the 14th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases or any subsequent revision to these guidelines.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out subsections (3) to (7).

This amendment, together with Amendments 14 to 16, would replace the tariff with the Judicial College Guidelines for the assessment of damages.

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 4, line 7, leave out

“to which regulations under this section apply”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out

“(subject to the limits imposed by regulations under this section)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

Government amendment 4.

Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (11).

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

[Gloria De Piero]

The Bill proposes that the Lord Chancellor, rather than judges, should set the tariffs for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. In view of the opposition from those who are judicially qualified and the upholders of the law, can the Minister not see the sense in the point that no politician should be making decisions for which the judiciary is rightly responsible?

To go down that path sets a dangerous precedent. It may be justified by Government when they are the paymasters in the criminal injuries compensation scheme, for example, but in any other sphere of injury compensation it takes away an integral role of the judiciary and introduces another layer of bureaucracy.

The current calculation of damages by both sides—claimant and defendant—is made using the Judicial Studies Board guidelines. Those are based on what judges have awarded in the past—on what is fair. They are used by the parties to guide settlement out of court and by judges in court at trial. That makes the JSB the best guide to what is just and proper in terms of damages awarded. The Government are throwing all that out in favour of the Lord Chancellor—someone with far less expertise and a political agenda.

A lot of people would say that the JSB guidelines are what is just, or that they represent justice for the victim, although I have my doubts about that. After all, although special damages for losses and expenses can put someone back in a position financially, as if the injury had never occurred, general damages can only apologise for what someone has been through and may continue to suffer; they cannot make anyone better. That is at least, for now, something that the courts decide is appropriate; it is not a figure plucked out of the air.

The Government’s attitude is, “What would experts know? It might be a basic tenet of English common law that people are compensated fairly and judges are best placed to assess that but, so what? Let’s rip it up!” That is to ignore Lord Woolf, who said:

“The effect of whiplash injuries, with which we are concerned, can vary substantially according to the physical and mental sturdiness of the victim. This means that the appropriate amount of damages for a whiplash injury can vary substantially…I suggest they are not suited to a fixed cap, as proposed by the Government.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1593.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

The answer is exactly for that reason. Because they are so hard to detect, they are almost impossible to fight, and therefore insurance companies have historically made that decision. They often do not even get a medical report because it hardly seems worth while to do so. When somebody comes forward with a whiplash claim, the procedure has often been to settle without going to court in order to reduce the legal fees and the associated costs, exactly because it is incredibly difficult.

Whiplash claims are extremely controversial medically. A lot of articles are written about this—I quoted the New England Journal of Medicine in the House, which is particularly stark. Cassidy’s article argues very strongly that the absence of compensation for pain and loss of amenity is associated with a much improved prognosis and reduced duration in the whiplash injury itself. In other words, the New England Journal of Medicine points to the fact that this is not purely a medical phenomenon. It has social and legal dimensions, of which compensation is a part.

[Gloria De Piero]

Is the Minister familiar with the quote from the head of the City of London police insurance fraud enforcement department? He said in the Insurance Post:

“It would be wrong to say that I believe there is a compensation culture or an insurance fraud culture in general.”

Another expert denied?

[Rory Stewart]

Such arguments would be more powerful if Opposition Members could explain why the number of whiplash claims has gone up by 40% since 2005, when the number of motor vehicle accidents has declined by 30% and cars have got much safer? A lot of things have been introduced in cars since 2005. Nearly 85% now have the safety features specifically designed to reduce whiplash that only 15% had in 2005. There are fewer accidents and much better protection around the individual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

Fundamental to decisions that the Ministry of Justice has to make under any Government is the need to think seriously about balancing different types of interest—in this case the interests of the claimant, the third party and the taxpayer, as well as those of road users and people who take out motor insurance. It is therefore appropriate for us to question the overall cost of the system, and—particularly for motorists in rural areas—the fact that the premium could be as much as £35 a year extra, and considerably more for a young driver, because of the hundreds of thousands of people each year who make whiplash claims.

[Gloria De Piero]

Insurers have never mentioned fraud as a material risk in their financial report. If it were such a serious concern, would they not be required to report it to the Financial Reporting Council?

[Rory Stewart]

The question of what constitutes a material risk in a financial report is driven primarily by the financial stability of the company, so the question of whether fraud is defined in that way relates purely to the cost of the fraud. The question is a financial one, not one of honesty.

Amendments 12, 13, 14 and 15 relate to the Judicial College guidelines. This debate has had quite a long consultation period—it has been going on for more than three years. We are grateful to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and many others, including the Law Society, who have fed in to this consultation, and we have arrived at a compromise. The Opposition were extremely uncomfortable with the initial proposals, and we have made a lot of concessions—that is why I will be asking hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

The initial proposals by the Chancellor of Exchequer in his Budget speech were to remove general damages entirely, and for no compensation to be offered for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. There was also a proposal to have no judicial involvement whatsoever in setting levels of compensation, and the third element of controversy was about whether it was appropriate to have tariffs at all.

We have made significant concessions on the first two points—in the House of Lords for the second proposal, and before that stage for the first proposal. Under pressure from many people, including Opposition Members, we have accepted that there should be general damages, and that principle has been reinserted. Secondly—this is why I will ask for support for clause 4—we will push ahead with the proposal that the Lord Chief Justice should be consulted on the level of the tariffs. That brings in the judiciary so that it will not be done purely by the Lord Chancellor, which brings us to the question of whether there should be tariffs at all.

A tariff system is relatively unusual in English common law although, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate pointed out, an equivalent exists for criminal injury compensation cases, which creates some paradoxes and contradictions. At the moment, someone who suffers a criminal injury could receive a different level of compensation than if they suffer exactly the same injury without a criminal act. The same is true if someone in a motor vehicle suffers from a terrorist attack. The Government could give someone considerably more compensation if they are the victim of a terrorist attack than if they suffer the injury in a different way.

However, tariffs are not unusual: they have been introduced very successfully in Italy, France and many other European jurisdictions. Under the proposals in the Bill, there will be judicial discretion on the tariffs. That is judicial discretion that we have consulted on closely and will return to under later amendments. It is in line with what the European Court of Justice believes should be the appropriate degree of judicial flexibility when applied to a tariff system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

This goes to the heart of the concerns that the judiciary raised when the first criminal injury compensation schemes were introduced and, indeed, when compensation for a terrorist act was introduced. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is perfectly legitimate to question whether, within the tradition of tort in the English common law, it is appropriate to distinguish between an injury suffered at the hands of a criminal or a terrorist and an injury simply suffered at the hands of another third party who is liable, but that is a much deeper philosophical jurisprudential debate than I think we can proceed with here. With that, I respectfully request that the amendments be withdrawn or not pressed and I ask the Committee to support Government amendment 4.

[Gloria De Piero]

I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the Minister. We feel so strongly, because we are led by the independent experts, by the Select Committee on Justice and by some people in the Minister’s own party, whom I quoted earlier, that we believe that the Committee needs to divide on amendments 12 to 16.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

As I indicated, we have debated clause 3 sufficiently not to require any separate stand part debate.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Uplift in exceptional circumstances

[Gloria De Piero]

I beg to move amendment 18, in page 4, line 30, leave out Clause 5 and insert—

“Power of court to uplift the amount of damages payable

(1) A court may—

(a) determine that the amount of damages payable for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in respect of a whiplash injury or a minor psychological injury is an amount greater than the tariff amount relating to that injury;

(b) determine that the amount of damages payable for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in respect of a whiplash injury and one or more minor psychological injuries, taken together, is an amount greater than the tariff amount relating to those injuries;

(c) in a case where the court considers the combined effect of—

(i) an injury or injuries in respect of which a tariff amount is specified by regulations under section 3(2) or (4), and

(ii) one or more other injuries, determine that an amount greater than the tariff amount is to be taken into account when deciding the amount of damages payable for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in respect of those injuries.

(2) In this section ‘tariff amount’ means—

(a) in relation to a whiplash injury, the amount specified in respect of the injury by regulations under section 3(2);

(b) in relation to a whiplash injury and one or more minor psychological injuries, the amount specified in respect of the injuries by regulations under section 3(4).”

This amendment would allow judges to increase the amount of damages payable where they determine the tariff amount to be insufficient compensation, rather than capping judges ability to increase compensation awards to a percentage specified by the Lord Chancellor as the Bill currently does.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Gloria De Piero]

This amendment would allow judges to increase the amount of damages payable where they determine the tariff amount to be insufficient compensation, rather than capping judges’ ability to increase compensation awards to a percentage specified by the Lord Chancellor, as the Bill currently does. Once again, I want to point out the long-standing tradition of trusting judges, rather than having politicians interfere with the discretion of the courts—a tradition that the Government are inexplicably undermining with this Bill.

Clause 5(3) states that if the court thinks there should be an uplift from the tariff because of the severity of the injury, the amount by which the court can increase the payment is limited according to a cap set by the Lord Chancellor. Not only are the courts being fettered by a tariff, but when they consider the tariff to be inappropriate, they will get their judicial wings clipped again. This reduces judges to little more than errand boys for the Lord Chancellor.

Many Lord Chancellors these days are not lawyers. They will rely on the advice of their officials, who need not have legal training either. If the Tories do not trust the judges, who do they trust? What are they scared of? What evidence do they have that judges will behave badly and award huge sums? What court cases can they point to in which that has happened? I can find none at all, and nor can the experts whom my team and I have consulted.

I suspect the insurers fear that without a cap, every tariff award will be taken to court, where judges will apply an uplift and blow up their tariff. If that is what they fear, it suggests that they secretly accept that the proposed tariffs are too low. Perhaps the reason for all these restrictions—all these fetters on what a judge can decide for themselves—is that the Government and the insurance industry are running scared that judges will, indeed, rebel against them. Not because judges are intrinsically rebellious—far from it, some would say; they are conservative with a big and a small c—but because they have a duty to be impartial and deliver justice, and the Government’s proposed tariff does not even remotely do that. Amendment 18 would restore judges’ lost autonomy.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her speech. This amendment relates to the fundamental question of the tariff system and the relationship between the judiciary and the tariff system. Clause 5 provides a pragmatic compromise between a strict tariff system and judicial discretion by allowing the judges to lift that tariff in exceptional circumstances. However, as the European Court of Justice accepted in the arguments made in the Italian case, there needs to be a limit. If there were no limit to judges’ discretion, the tariff system would become unworkable.

In so far as we disagree about whether there should be a tariff system in the first place, I completely understand where Opposition Committee members are coming from. However, given that the fundamental cornerstone of the Bill is that there should be a tariff, we need to strike a pragmatic compromise between the tariff and giving some discretion to judges. Therefore, we propose that the Lord Chancellor will set a percentage of discretion for judges to uplift the tariff. We also propose that he will consult the Lord Chief Justice on the appropriate level of discretion. We will look carefully at the rulings of the European Court of Justice and the decisions that it has made in other countries where tariffs exist to arrive at that figure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

Clearly, a system of the sort we propose, which is modelled on the existing tariff systems in places such as France and Italy, is designed to set in law, through the actions of an accountable Minister, the level of the tariff. The argument is absolutely right. As the hon. Lady suggests, that will remove discretion from judges except in exceptional circumstances. The reasons for that are to do with our policy objective of dealing with the whiplash claim culture. Our intention is to reduce the damages paid for minor whiplash injuries, which are defined in the Judicial College guidelines as those that last less than two years. That will result in general damage payments lower than those currently awarded by judges. However, in exceptional circumstances, judges will be able to increase the award.

[Gloria De Piero]

What is the fear here? Is it that judges will make awards above the tariff set?

[Rory Stewart]

The Judicial College guidelines are simply a historical record of awards by the courts. It is a fact that those awards to date have been higher than the awards we propose in the tariff. The policy intention is to reduce the general damages paid, particularly for people at the three-to-six-month level. As we get closer to the two-year level, awards under the tariff come closer to the Judicial College guidelines, but at the lower end, as was suggested, there is a disagreement between the Government and the current practice of judges about the appropriate award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

There has been a lot of discussion about experts, but right hon. and hon. Members must remember that we are discussing general damages, not money for loss of earnings or to pay for physiotherapy. We are discussing a judgment of exactly how many pounds and pence someone should receive for a whiplash injury—for the subjective experience of pain in their neck or shoulder. It is difficult to argue that there is particular expertise on the question of the subjective experience of pain. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate suggested, it is impossible for anyone—whether they are a Minister, a judge or a doctor—to suggest that the money that is paid can remove the pain. The pain remains. Money paid in general damages is intended simply as an acknowledgement of the existence of pain, suffering or loss of amenity. It cannot, as would be the case with special damages, remove the pain itself. On that basis, I politely request that the amendments be withdrawn and the clause be accepted.

[Gloria De Piero]

We do not accept the Minister’s arguments, so will divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Rules against settlement before medical report

[Gloria De Piero]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 6, page 5, line 37, after “injuries” insert—

“provided by an accredited medical expert selected via the MedCo Portal”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 20 and 21, would ensure that any medical evidence of a whiplash injury must in all cases be provided by a person registered on the MedCo portal website.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 20, in clause 6, page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (3)

See explanatory statement for Amendment 19.

Amendment 21, in clause 6, page 6, line 22, at end insert—

‘(7) In this section, the “MedCo Portal” means the website operated by Medco Registration Solutions (company number 09295557) which provides a system for the accreditation of medical experts.’

See explanatory statement for Amendment 19.

New clause 3—“Recoverability of costs in respect of advice on medical report, etc.—

‘(1) For the purposes of civil procedure rules, the costs recoverable by a claimant who recovers damages in a claim for a relevant injury which is (or would be if proceedings were issued) allocated to the small claims track include the costs of the items set out in subsection (2).

(2) The items are—

(a) legal advice and assistance (including in respect of an act referred to in paragraph (a) or (d) of section 6(2)) in relation to the quantum of damages in the light of a medical report or other appropriate evidence of injury; and

(b) in a case where liability for the injury is not admitted within the time allowed by any relevant protocol, legal advice and representation in relation to establishing liability.

(3) For the purpose of ascertaining the amounts recoverable in respect of those items, the claim is to be treated as if it were allocated to the fast track.

(4) In this section “relevant injury” means an injury which is an injury of soft tissue in the neck, back, or shoulder, and which is caused as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 1(4) (negligence while using a motor vehicle on a road, etc.), but does not include an injury in respect of which a tariff amount is for the time being prescribed under section 2.’

This new clause would ensure that a successful claimant is able to recover costs incurred for legal costs in respect of advice sought in relation to determining the quantum of damages following a medical report or the establishment of liability where it is in dispute.

[Gloria De Piero]

The amendments would ensure that any medical evidence of a whiplash injury must in all cases be provided by a person registered on the MedCo portal website. The Government say in clause 6 that cases should never be settled until the claimant has been medically examined. We fully agree, but amendments 19 to 21 would go even further. The Government say that the Lord Chancellor can decide what constitutes appropriate evidence, but it is very simple. The only form of appropriate evidence must come from a proper doctor registered as such on the portal website of MedCo, the umbrella organisation through which doctors in all personal injury cases are currently chosen. Why on earth would the Government not go through the currently accepted route for all other personal injury cases and the same process that insurers accept in every other case? The only people to gain from offers without a medical are defendant insurers who get cases off their books at an undervalue.

Lawyers for the claimant are obliged to put any offer to the client. Reputable lawyers will always advise against acceptance until there is a medical, but some clients are desperate and reject their advice. Unsurprisingly, and heartbreakingly, it tends to happen when a client’s sick pay runs out or perhaps near Christmas when people have been off sick and are desperate. Any downgrading of the requirement for a medical certificate by a medical registered doctor—this is the risk without the amendments —is just another way that vulnerable workers who have to take time off because of their injuries could be harmed by insurers who make record profits.

We suspect that the vagueness about what qualifies as proper medical advice might be an attempt to allow the use of physiotherapists for the evidence. Insurers have long pushed for that. Physiotherapists are great people doing wonderful work in an extremely important part of post-accident rehabilitation, but they are not doctors and are not able to assess and provide a long-term prognosis.

We fear that if we do not specify in the Bill who should provide the medical reports we will have injured people being prescribed a couple of sessions of physiotherapy and then being described by the insurers as malingering when they are not back to full health following the limited treatment, when in reality their condition might require far more intense rehabilitation efforts over a longer period. In some cases, the insurers might see a financial gain to employing a physiotherapist or owning a rehabilitation company. Without the amendments, that would suggest the insurers control not only the payment of damages, but the medical process leading to the award. Let us avoid that conflict. Let us trust doctors and specify where a medical report should come from. Any deviation from the gold standard of a medical doctor would negate the good that is done by effectively banning the settlement of whiplash claims without medical evidence, as this part of the Bill attempts to do.

On new clause 3, the Government say that the cases they intend to sweep into the small claims track are minor, straightforward and simple. We do not think that that is so, or that the injured claimant left on their own to fight insurance companies—let us be in no doubt that insurers will fight—will think that their cases are either small or simple. The new clause would ensure that, at the very least, when the injured person gets a medical report, as the Government in clause 6 rightly say they should, they can get independent legal advice on what the report means in terms of the value of their claim, so that, if they remain fighting on their own, they settle at an appropriate sum. How else would they know what their case is worth?

The Government might say that insurers will not rip people off and that they always pay what is fair. If that is the case, they have nothing to fear in ensuring that the injured get advice paid for that reassures them that that is the case. There is a societal benefit. If people settle at an undervalue or their conditions are not properly recognised, they will fall back on the state—the NHS or the benefits system—and the taxpayer will foot the bill that should properly have been met by the negligent party. The polluter will end up not paying and we will all pay through our taxes.

The same principle applies to cases where the insurers do not admit liability. The Government think that, when a claimant chooses to fight a case, the injured person will have the confidence to fight on. Facing a denial of liability, the claimant will, the Government think, be equipped to fight on, but, without help, we do not think they will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

Perhaps we can return to that very interesting point on Report. It has not been raised in any of the amendments tabled so far, but I would be very interested to see an amendment tabled and to discuss the matter outside this Committee.

On the basis of the arguments I have made about MedCo, I respectfully request that the Opposition withdraw amendments 19, 20 and 21.

[Gloria De Piero]

Will the Minister say a bit more about the advice he has received from counsel and about why he will not accept the amendments?

[Rory Stewart]

It is pretty straightforward. MedCo is a non-profit organisation set up relatively recently as a portal funded by the insurance industry. We intend the Bill, like any law we pass, to have sustainability and resilience. Potentially, it will last 50 or 100 years. It is very difficult, looking forward over that period, to be confident that the exact portal or organisation by which doctors qualify to provide an assessment of whiplash will be called MedCo—it may be called something else. The measure provides the flexibility, through regulations from the Lord Chancellor, to define the form of evidence, the person, the accreditation and the regulation necessary to proceed. We think it would give a hostage to fortune to put the brand name of a specific non-profit on the face of the Bill. On that basis, I request that amendments 19, 20 and 21, and new clause 3, be withdrawn.