Whiplash Injury Compensation

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The changes today are simple: the compensation tariffs for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in whiplash claims are being uplifted by approximately 15% to reflect inflation since the original 2021 figures were set, with a buffer to account for future inflation. These updates are welcome, but also present us with an opportunity to reflect on the broader balance we strike between tackling fraud and protecting the rights of those with legitimate injuries.

Whiplash has long been a contentious area of UK personal injury law. We have one of the highest rates of whiplash claims in the world, which has undoubtedly contributed to the rise in motor insurance costs, and whiplash claims have historically added billions of pounds to insurance costs.

In my constituency of Chichester, the picture is particularly concerning. According to a study by the Driving Instructors Association, Chichester is now the most accident-prone city in the UK, reporting 232 accidents per 100,000 residents, which is 54% higher than the national average. Even more alarmingly, Chichester has the highest fatality rate of any city, at 5.6 fatal accidents per 100,000 residents. These are not just statistics; they are lives lost and families changed forever. That underlines the real-world impact of road safety and why fair, accessible compensation for those injured on our roads is vital.

The 2021 reforms that introduced fixed tariffs and mandatory medical assessments have had an impact, and the number of whiplash claims has declined, but whiplash still accounts for a large share of personal injury claims, and the need to ensure fairness in the system remains. We must remember that behind every claim is a person, often in pain, unable to work, potentially scared to go back out on the roads and navigating an unfamiliar legal system. For them, the process must be simple, fair and accessible. Victims should never be discouraged from seeking rightful compensation because of excessive bureaucracy or overly rigid procedures. That is why the Liberal Democrats have consistently advocated for a balanced approach.

During debate on the Civil Liability Act 2018, my colleagues in the other place, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, worked hard to push for stronger safeguards. They argued that the definition of “whiplash injury” should be written into primary legislation to allow full parliamentary scrutiny, and they pushed for compensation to be based on Judicial College guidelines, not simply on fixed tariffs, to preserve judicial discretion and to reflect the severity of injuries. They also urged the previous Government to ensure that any savings made from reducing fraudulent claims are passed on to consumers through lower insurance premiums—a promise that the insurance industry has been slow to honour and which is certainly not reflected in the consumer experience. We also look forward to the findings of the review on whether those savings have been delivered to customers.

We continue to support a system that is firm on fraud but fair to victims. Yes, we need robust safeguards, such as mandatory medical assessments and closer co-ordination between regulators, insurers and law enforcement to root out dishonest claims, but that must not come at the expense of those with genuine injuries. It is critical that review mechanisms are in place not just to track inflation, but to assess whether the tariff system continues to serve justice. We believe that the Government must do more to simplify the claims process, particularly for those who do not have or cannot access legal representation.

The updated tariff is a necessary correction for inflation, but it must not be seen as the end of the matter. The long-term success of the system depends on three things: maintaining fairness for claimants, preserving judicial discretion where needed and ensuring that promised savings are felt by customers. We must remain focused on people, not just on policy.