Cost of Motor Insurance

Julian Sturdy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Committee did not look specifically at that point, but I fear that if there is to be equity, it will be equity upwards, rather than lead to a lowering of premiums.

High premiums have a major impact on the lives of our constituents. Motor insurance is rightly compulsory, but for many people driving a car is a necessity, perhaps for getting to work, to college or to hospitals for appointments, as well as for visiting friends and family, doing the shopping or taking children to school.

I and other Members have received a great deal of correspondence from people wanting to give examples of the problems they have experienced. I received a letter saying the following:

“My partner has just tried to insure me again on our vehicle which is not a sporty flash car, to be told that it would cost him an extra £1,370.”

A lady from Birmingham wrote:

“My car was involved in an accident where a lorry collided with my car. The driver accepted it was his responsibility…My renewal was due and my premium had increased from £700 to over £2,000.”

These stories illustrate why the Government must act.

Surprisingly, the recent increase in premiums has coincided with significant improvements in road safety, which is part of a welcome trend of falling numbers of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Why have premiums risen so much, therefore?

There is better access to justice, with no win, no fee arrangements. Those arrangements are being changed, but we must not return to a situation in which justice is available only to the rich.

There is also cold calling, where claims management companies canvass for claims, often using personal information obtained from unknown sources. Where is the regulation of data protection that is supposed to be in place? Claims management firms deserve special scrutiny. They encourage people to claim, and to make multiple claims when they might not otherwise have done so. Premiums in the north-west are 50% higher than the national average, apparently because of the activities of these companies.

Referral fees have been in the news. They are paid to a number of players in the industry as a reward for passing on business, thereby encouraging claims and sometimes inflating bills. They are not paid to insurers alone; a number of bodies are involved, including insurance companies, solicitors, car hire firms, claims management companies, medical experts and vehicle repairers. Although the Government have started to act on referral fees, what they are doing does not encompass all those sectors of the industry, and neither does it take into account how companies might try to get around the abolition of referral fees. There are now alternative business structures, where non-lawyers can buy legal practices. How will the Government ensure that companies do not get around the ban on referral fees through taking such steps?

Fraud is a major concern, including the staging of accidents by criminal gangs. That adds £80 to the average premium.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making some powerful arguments on issues that the Transport Committee has addressed. Does she agree that we need greater transparency in the industry if we are to drive down the costs of motor insurance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Remarkably, my hon. Friend picks up on the second point of my plan. Secondly, we should have an insurance sticker on every windscreen, just as we do for the current tax disc, that proves that a car is insured. Thirdly, we need far tougher sentences for those caught driving uninsured, with the minimum fine in each area being the double the average insurance cost in that area for the age and gender of the person caught. Fourthly, where someone is caught and prosecuted for driving uninsured, they should automatically lose their driving licence for a set period, perhaps at least one year. That should certainly be the case for a second offence and perhaps the period should be longer—say five years—for subsequent offences. Fifthly, when someone is caught and prosecuted for driving uninsured for at least the third time, they should perhaps go to prison—only for a short time—and be given a lifetime driving ban. Sixthly, if someone causes a serious accident while driving uninsured, they should go to prison and be given a lifetime driving ban. Seventhly, juries and magistrates should be made aware of whether false vehicle insurance claims had been made by those making a subsequent vehicle insurance claim that has reached the court.

Eighthly, those making false insurance vehicle claims that reach the courts should be prosecuted and actively pursued by the relevant police force. My penultimate point is that the names and addresses of those prosecuted for driving uninsured should be published widely. Finally, we must support both the clampdown on insurers being able to trade personal data of those involved in accidents and the regulation of the monopoly and sharp practices currently engaged in by insurers and the legal profession that see the motorist paying through insurance premiums and general taxation for their unwillingness to stamp out fraudulent and speculative claims, such as personal injury and hire car charges. These moves are just the start, and throughout my time in Parliament I am going to continue to campaign for justice for the insured drivers of our country.

[Julian Sturdy]

I agree with my hon. Friend that tougher action is required. Is he surprised to hear that 10% of drivers aged under 34 do not realise it is compulsory to have motor insurance?