Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Huw Merriman Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Today we are discussing yet another attack from this Government on our justice system: yet another attack on the vulnerable that, perhaps not coincidentally, will enrich the Conservatives’ friends in the insurance industry. The Civil Liability Bill is presented by the Government in its press spin as being about cutting back on fraudulent whiplash claims—and, of course, who could disagree with doing that? But given this Government’s record in justice, I am sure that Ministers will understand why we do not take their assertions at face value, and why we fear that these reforms may in fact be a smokescreen—because under the Conservatives our civil justice system has been undermined all too often, with basic rights rolled back, creating a two-tier justice system.

Take, for example, the Conservatives’ unlawful employment tribunal fees, which made it harder for workers to take on unscrupulous bosses. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled them unlawful, but only thanks to the dogged campaigning of trade unions and others. Or take the Conservatives’ cuts to legal aid, which make it harder for people to take on dodgy landlords, or to challenge a flawed benefits decision that leaves people out of pocket and relying on food banks. We fear that this set of justice reforms will also undermine people’s basic rights.

This Bill attracted widespread opposition in the House of Lords, with the Government only narrowly defeating amendments that would have substantially altered the Bill for the better. But to do so the Government had to ignore pre-eminent legal experts.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I recognise that the Opposition’s job is to oppose, but would the hon. Gentleman not concede that in the past decade the number of claims in this area has gone up by 40%, whereas cars have become safer and accidents have decreased by 31%? Surely, therefore, does it not make sense that this exploitation comes to an end to benefit his constituents, as policyholders, as well as mine?

[Richard Burgon]

I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he says that this “exploitation” has to end. In fact, the trend is that whiplash claims are going down. We have heard the Secretary of State himself say, “Of course, many claims are genuine.” Even the way that that is said implies that somehow people are on the make. Most claims are genuine. [Interruption.] I do not see what is so amusing about that. There is not a compensation culture in this county, whatever the Government’s friends in the insurance industry might be telling them.

When I mentioned pre-eminent legal experts, I was including former Lord Chief Justices who expressed their concerns about the Bill’s impact on access to justice and on the independence of the judiciary. So Labour Members are clear that this Bill, in its current form, cannot be supported. Unless it is very substantially amended in Committee, we will vote against it on Third Reading. We hope that the Government will take seriously the amendments that we are tabling this week, which build on the points raised by many colleagues in the Lords.

Before I talk about our opposition to many of the measures included in the Bill, I want to draw Members’ attention to the associated statutory instruments. This Bill, as we have heard, is a part of a wider package of reforms—a package that will make it harder for workers to get compensation for workplace injuries, and harder for genuinely injured road users to get compensation. Through statutory instrument, the Government are seeking to increase—

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). He referred to my banger racing days in the village of Gawcott, which is in your constituency, Mr Speaker, just up the road from where my family live—happy days indeed!

I am pleased to contribute to this debate because I support the Bill hugely. One of my chief reasons for doing so is my concern about the cost of insurance premiums for young people and my appreciation for what the Government are doing for young people. I speak with two instances in mind. The first is the session held jointly by the Transport Select Committee, of which I am a member, and the Petitions Committee on the back of a petition from 100,000 members of the public who successfully petitioned this place to debate the high cost of motor insurance premiums for the young. The other relates directly to my constituency, a rural constituency of 200 square miles where, without the use of a car, a young person is severely limited in their ability to get to work, to find work and to have those experiences. We are losing young people in our constituency to the cities because they cannot afford to work and live there, and that is having a big effect on our demographics and ultimately on the social care issues facing us as well.

For those reasons, any legislation to tackle the high costs on young people has to be considered, and I urge the Opposition to consider the Bill on that basis. The cost of insurance for young people is almost £1,000— 10% of the average wage of an 18 to 21-year-old being paid out on insurance—and it means that young people have to decide whether they can continue to drive and therefore work or whether they have to do something less meaningful for themselves and for our economy. I am very supportive of the Bill on that basis.

The reforms that the Government have laid over the past few years to reduce the number of fraudulent claims have had some success and seen a reduction in insurance premiums by, on average, £50. There have been good reforms to the civil litigation procedure as well—reforming no win, no fee; banning referral fees and the use of benefits by claims management companies as an incentive to bring a claim; extending the fixed recoverable costs regime; and, for soft tissue injury claims, requiring that a fixed-cost medical report be provided at random by one of the approved medical experts. These measures have led to a drop in the number of claims from 780,000 two years ago to 650,000 last year.

It is clear, however, that we still have an issue with whiplash claims, which account for 85% of the 200,000 extra motor personal injury claim cases over the last 10 years. Of course, that is no surprise. It is very difficult for a defendant in one of these claims to establish whether a claimant has indeed suffered this injury, so there is a disincentive to try to disprove it. Added to that, the legal costs are so high that it is more expensive to fight a claim than to pay out. As a result—because of these settlements, one never knows because one never sees a medical report—we do not know whether that money is being paid out for genuine injury claims. As has been pointed out, given advances in technology and car and seat design, as well as the reduction in the number of road traffic accidents, it is completely illogical that claims are going up. I suggest to Opposition Members who cannot bring themselves to accept that there are fraudulent claims that they look at the evidence.

I want to touch on the small claims increase, which is long overdue and makes great sense, because it brings the amount more towards the limit for most other civil disputes. Consistency makes a lot of sense. I hope the Minister will confirm that it is still the case that a judge can decide not to refer a case to the small claims track although it is worth less than £5,000, because the complexity of the case may well mean that it should be dealt with through a more court-based process. That would, I hope, reassure the Opposition.

The measure on the discount rate makes huge sense, because it will reflect investment decisions and, therefore, the yield that claimants will actually receive. However, like other Members, I should prefer a periodic payment rather than a lump sum to be the norm, or the default option. I should also like a legal test to be introduced, requiring a claimant—and, indeed, the claimant’s family—to prove that they will be able to deal with the lump-sum arrangement and that they understand the risks involved. If that test cannot be met, the system of periodic payments should apply.

Overall, I warmly welcome the Bill. It delivers for consumers and for young people, and I think we should bear that in mind rather than some of the vested interests that have been cited as reasons for not supporting it.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Huw Merriman Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

As I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, an outright ban would be welcome—it might be something the Government are looking at in any case—but because these people are so ingenious at circumventing even the best-written rules and regulations, there would still be a problem.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—he is being most generous with his time. May I press him on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) about McKenzie friends? I am going back years now, but in my day, when I first started at the Bar, the concept worked very well: they were volunteers who accompanied people to court and assisted them, and they certainly were not paid. Surely we just need to go back to the system as was, as I suggest that things would then work very well.

[Chris Philp]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who I know has a distinguished legal background. Both he and the Chair of the Justice Committee have powerfully made the point that McKenzie friends should be voluntary and unpaid. I hope the Minister heard that excellent recommendation, which has now been made by two learned hon. Members of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. It is not just the case that we do not really know the number of fraudulent cases, although we can certainly make a very fair estimate, given that there are 200,000 extra claims and 85% of them relate to whiplash. The real issue is that we tend not to see any medical reports because of the settlements. It is not just that the cases are not defended; we never see the medical reports, so we do not know exactly what the full figure would be.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because the claims are settled upfront by the payment of, typically, £3,000 or £4,000, there is often no medical examination. There is therefore no evidence on which to assess whether the claim was fraudulent or not, which is why the 1% figure cited by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) is essentially meaningless.

One of the other provisions in the Bill, which we debated on Second Reading, is the requirement for a medical examination to take place before an offer is made. That is an essential reform. In response to an intervention from me, the Secretary of State for Justice confirmed that such medical examinations would have to be face to face. That would begin to address the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) has rightly raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

It is partly that, but the important point is that no single piece of legislation in this House can deal with every single problem. We can identify a particular problem and deal with it in a particular piece of legislation.

[Huw Merriman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we can speak proudly from these Benches about the fact that civil litigation reform over the past few years has led to changes in no win, no fee, as well as to the banning of referral fees and the use of benefits by these companies? Government Members actually have something to say on this. Those changes have also led to a reduction of about £50 in insurance premiums.

[Bim Afolami]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I reiterate that the point of this legislation is to bring down insurance premiums for ordinary people by, I think, between 35% and 40%. I look to the Minister to check whether that is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As any student of basic economics will know, in a highly competitive industry the ability to make extraordinary profits is severely reduced. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of insurers in our highly developed, highly sophisticated market. As I have said, we are a world beater in this area, and that means that we have lots of diversity in the insurance market. Lots of insurers are going bust, but many are making money because they are well managed. That is exactly what we would expect in a competitive industry that has reached a high degree of maturity, as the insurance industry has in this country.

Going back to the provisions in the Bill, I believe that the Government are trying to do a very measured and reasonable thing. We are trying to limit the fraud—or the escalation of whiplash claims to the point that they drive up pricing in insurance. We are also saying that we will engage with the courts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested. There is a role for the judiciary to play in this debate and in the management and setting of tariffs. Also, I would expect Opposition Members to be more enthusiastic about the fact that there is a role for the Government and the Lord Chancellor in ensuring that insurance premiums do not become excessive. There is absolutely a role for political engagement in the ability to cap a tariff, to ensure that premiums are low. This makes for a very reasonable and equitable set of demands, which is to be welcomed, and I hope that the Bill proceeds on its serene course through our Parliament.

[Huw Merriman]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate, and I am proud to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). I freely admit that having a tariff system in place could well result in some people receiving less compensation, but that is exactly why I support the Bill. At its heart lies an acknowledgement by those on this side of the House that insurance premiums have got too expensive and that we have to look at measures to try to reduce them.

Let us look at the logic of the position. Cars now have much safer designs and there are fewer claims overall, yet we are seeing an extra 200,000 category claims, 85% of which relate to whiplash compensation. It strikes me as completely illogical to state that there is not an issue here, when the statistics are so counter-intuitive. Something very strange is going on. The analysis shows that it is impossible to ascertain whether these extra claims are genuine, because the nature of the legal system means that it is much cheaper to settle a case and never even consider any medical evidence or reports on whether there has been an injury. To a certain extent, we could say that that is no skin off the bone for the insurers, because the cost is always paid on to the consumer. I am surprised at the Opposition’s attitude in that regard because this is one of the principles that benefits the many—those who have to pay the insurance, which is mandatory—versus the few who abuse the system. I believe that the Bill is needed.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I know that my hon. Friend has a financial background. Does he accept that, if he were managing an insurance book, it would be very tempting—indeed, almost obligatory—to reach a settlement and to make the payments? Insurers are not being vicious or in some way prejudicial if they just pay the settlement. That is how a business is managed—it just has to cut its losses at some point.

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend is spot on. In the seven years before I came to this place, I managed the legal team that was unwinding the Lehman Brothers estate. In many instances, we looked to sue, but of course, we considered the cost of the claim and then worked out whether settlement was a better option. Settlement should always be a better option. For someone running a business, it will always be the better option if it is cheaper to settle than to pursue. All businesses operate in that manner.

It is all well and good for the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who is no longer in his place, to say that there should be a duty on insurers to take those cases forward, but they will not because it is not cost-effective. In addition, it is difficult to disprove those particular injuries.

[Victoria Prentis]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is an emotional gain from settlement? Even those of us who are lawyers and enjoy the cut and thrust of the legal process know that bringing cases forward is a stressful experience for all claimants. It is important that we put energy and effort into making claims settlable at an early stage.

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend is right. When I was running the legal team, it always distressed me when we settled because, as a lawyer, I found the whole court process incredibly interesting, but those on the financial side insisted that we settle because that was the better business decision to make. However, my hon. Friend is right about the distress of individuals going through the process. Of course, insurers have to focus not just on the money, but on the valuable human resource implication—the manpower it takes to fight the claims.

That comes back to my point that it is not an issue for insurers if ultimately their costs are covered because the price of premium for everybody else goes up. It is no skin off the bone for them to settle, and that is what occurs. For change, Government action is required. Although I readily accept that a tariff situation is genuinely not to be found in common law, the position that we have got ourselves into means that we need to look at the system akin to the way that we consider the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which fixes the tariff in the same way. That is not unusual if we look at our European friends such as Italy, France and Spain, where similar systems are in place.

I represent a largely rural constituency of 200 square miles. I have many younger constituents who find the price of insurance too great. Studies show that, for those aged between 18 and 21, 10% of their wage will be taken just to cover their insurance. In a rural constituency, there is no choice. If people do not have a car, they find it very difficult to travel. The bus services are not as they were and, without a car, people cannot get from A to B or go to work. That has a knock-on effect because 28% of my constituents are over 65—the national average is 17%—so I have a lot of older constituents who need looking after. We have high social care bills. If we lose our younger people to the cities because they cannot afford to travel around a rural constituency, the balance goes completely.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thirsk and Malton also has high social care bills, so I understand exactly what my hon. Friend says. His point about reducing the cost of premiums is very important but, fundamentally, the Bill’s provisions were set out in our 2017 manifesto. The measure is a manifesto promise, and amendment 2 simply wrecks a key premise of the Bill. That is contrary to what most people would expect when we have made a promise in our manifesto.

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amendment drives a coach and horses through the Bill. Yes, of course it is right to clamp down on those who claim fraudulently, and the Bill will act as an incentive for people not to do so, but the ultimate gain is that the money saved will go back into the pockets of those consumers who are currently being overcharged because of fraudulent claims. Like him, I intend that we legislate on all our manifesto commitments, this being one of them, which is why I support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

What strikes me as perverse is that the original impetus for the initiative on which we are now legislating came from Labour Members. I remember Jack Straw waxing lyrical about the need to deliver what we are delivering now, and we are right to do so.

[Huw Merriman]

I lack my right hon. Friend’s longevity in this place to make such historical references, but it would strike anyone as common sense to look after the bulk of our constituents—our voters—by making sure they have more money in their pocket. We should all subscribe to that.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the insurance industry in Britain is something we should broadly celebrate? This idea that anyone is in cahoots with the industry, and that the industry is trying to rip off the public, needs to be addressed squarely and rejected.

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend is right. Britain is the leading country in the European Union when it comes to insurance. The top 10 insurers are based in London, and I celebrate this international market.

Of course, the insurance industry is very critical of the Conservative party for introducing and increasing the insurance premium tax, so any suggestion that this party does everything the insurance industry would like us to do is not backed up by our decisions.

It is undoubtedly the case that our cars are now much safer and that design and technology mean that injuries should not be as prevalent as we are seeing. We have also seen the growth of claims management companies, which have driven and fuelled claims. Sometimes we see such industries moving on from one sector to take advantage of another—holiday insurance is a good example; the claims management companies have already moved into that sphere. Equally, I would like to see more done with technology to address the ability of such companies to contact me and my constituents directly. People register with BT in order not to receive unsolicited calls, yet such calls still come through regularly. I hope that the technology will eventually keep pace and close down such calls.

I have made my points more than once, and I absolutely support the Bill. Although I can see that the Opposition’s intentions are good, if the amendment were accepted, it would drive a coach and horses through the very intention of this Bill, which is to reduce premiums for all our constituents and to make it easier for them to manage and live their lives.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Although I originally studied law and was called to the Bar, I never practised, so I hope I may speak in the debate without being tied to any particular interest. This debate is increasingly showing a division between those on the side of personal injury practitioners, and those on the side of the overwhelming majority of our constituents who face the costs arising from an ever-escalating number of claims, of escalating value, for relatively minor injuries. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was right to draw the House’s attention to the remarks of the former Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw. If my memory serves correctly, he told The Law Society Gazette that he was in favour of banning compensation for soft tissue injury altogether. Clearly the Bill does not go anywhere near as far as that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

I rise to speak in support of the Bill and to oppose amendment 2. First, however, I will remind the House why we need the Bill; we have heard it over and over again in the debate. I know that other Members have had similar experiences of nuisance calls from ambulance-chasing companies, and many of my constituents certainly have. As of this week, I am still receiving calls from companies telling me that they had heard I had been in a car accident that was not my fault—this must have been the 10th time that I received such a call this year. Needless to say, I have not been involved in any car accident then or since.

However, this debate is not about nuisance calls, but about the incentives behind them, which are to encourage unnecessary and, in many cases, fraudulent insurance claims that are difficult, if not impossible, to prove. If we remove the incentive for claims companies to act in this way, we will get rid of the ones encouraging fraud and probably the nuisance calls as well. So many would welcome this. Because of the actions of these companies, insurance premiums for honest, safe and sensible drivers reached a record high of £493 at the end of 2017. As other Members have mentioned, young drivers in particular already pay over double the average premium.

For so many of us, motor insurance premiums are one of the highest bills we pay. The Government have repeatedly expressed that their mission is to get a country that works for everyone, and reducing costs for the “just about managing” is one way to do that. It has also been said several times in the debate that these measures, alongside the secondary legislation, will reduce the cost of motor insurance premiums on average by around £35 a year. I know that many of my constituents would appreciate much lower motor insurance premiums.

I also echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) about the strain on public services. At present, with a discount rate of minus 0.75%, the NHS is overpaying on claims for clinical negligence, which is adding to pressure on the public purse. In 2017-18, around £400 million in additional funds had to be provided to the NHS as a consequence of the change in the discount rate. In 2016-17, the NHS spent £1.7 billion on clinical negligence cases. The annual cost has almost doubled since 2010, with an average 13.5% increase every year. Like everyone in this House, I am looking forward to the end of austerity, and perhaps this Bill can help us to get there.

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She brought up the discount rate and I could not resist the temptation to intervene. I absolutely welcome changes to the discount rate, but would she like to see a future in which, rather than one lump sum being paid out for compensation for the rest of someone’s life, we look more at doing this on an annual basis? That may make the overall costs more reasonable and make it less likely that investments will go wrong.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that very good point. This argument was made during the Justice Committee’s evidence sessions, and I am in two minds about it. There are good reasons to have both. An annual payment can help to reduce strain in the long term, but for some people, the constant payments would be a reminder of a particularly traumatic accident. Perhaps we need a flexible system that can accommodate both, depending on a claimant’s particular circumstances, but I thank him for raising that point.

I do not believe we need amendment 2. The purpose of the tariff as set out in clause 3 is to simplify the process for those who have been injured while ensuring they receive compensation that is proportionate. Not only that, but claimants will continue to receive special damages for any financial losses they suffer as a result. Similar systems are in use in countries such as Italy and Spain, which have already seen positive impacts on both the number of claims and the cost of premiums.

The Opposition are concerned that the tariff cannot be varied according to individual circumstances, but this is not the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) has already noted, the tariff is staggered to account for the duration of the injury, whether that be between four and six months or, at the highest end of the spectrum, 19 and 24 months. Furthermore, clause 5 allows judges the discretion to make awards above the tariff level when the individual circumstances merit it. Amendment 2 seeks to remove this clause, as well as clause 4, under which the Lord Chancellor can regularly review the tariff. That would not be right.

The Government have noted that about 650,000 road traffic accident personal injury claims were made in 2017-18. An estimated 85% of those claims were for whiplash-related injuries. That is over 550,000 whiplash claims. As many Members have said, however, there has simultaneously been a reduction in the number of road traffic accidents reported to the police, while improvements continue to be made in vehicle safety. This is leading to increasing premiums for my constituents, and that cannot be right.

It seems to me, from listening to this debate, that Parliament is caught in a technical argument between the insurance lobbyists and the legal services lobbyists. I speak here on behalf on my constituents. I am keen to hear from the Minister how the Government can ensure that cost savings reach the consumer and are not negated by future policy proposals. Having said that, the Bill is an opportunity for the Government to bring down premiums and let people keep more of their own money in their pockets. That is a principled and Conservative ideal. Removing clauses 3, 4 and 5 would go against all efforts to help them and the taxpayer.

[Huw Merriman]

Would my hon. Friend also recognise that we have a good track record on this? A few years ago, when the Government made changes to the civil litigation procedure, an average of £50 was knocked off insurance premiums as a result.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is something I would have liked to say earlier, and I am glad he was able to make it for me.

In conclusion, the Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment by my party and should make it easier for genuine whiplash claimants. I will be supporting it tonight, but not, I am afraid, Opposition amendment 2.