Cost of Motor Insurance

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

May I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for missing the first few moments of her introduction to the debate? I commend her and the Committee for the excellent work they have done in this timely report. As she mentioned, the motor car has moved a long way from being a luxury to being, although not quite a necessity, something that is critical to the economic and social well-being of many millions of people across the country. Issues relating to cars clearly have a wide impact in every constituency.

The issue of young drivers concerns everybody. The difficulty that many of them have in obtaining insurance is only one part of that. I remember when I bought my first car back in—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

A Model T?

[Jim Dowd]

No, it was not a Model T—it was a Mini, back in 1968. It was six years old and it cost me just over £100. By the time I had got my insurance, which was £60, plus four-months’ road tax—as it was then and as the rest of the world calls it, or vehicle excise duty as we call it now—and an MOT certificate, I had spent as much on those three items as the car had cost me. I was quite young at the time and that was probably reflected in the premium, but none the less it was a shock to have to spend as much on ancillary costs as on the vehicle itself.

Today, we hear stories of young people having a vehicle costing a few hundred pounds and insurance premiums of more than £1,000. It is not the cost of the vehicle that is the issue; it is the risk of using it on the road. Effectively, motor insurance is a public liability insurance; one does not necessarily have to insure one’s property but one does have to insure against damage to other people’s property and, indeed, to other people. It is the scale of the problem that we need to look at. As has been said, there are more than 30 million cars on the road and it does not take a genius to work out that as the number of cars on the road rises, so the likelihood of accidents rises in similar proportion. However, I believe that this country has a very good, but still improvable, record on reducing road accidents and certainly road casualties.

One shock that I had in 1992 when I was first elected to the House—apart from having been elected to the House—was the fact that for the first time in more than 20 years I had to buy my own car. I had experienced the comparative luxury of having a company car in the intervening 20 years and precisely because I did not have a personal insurance record—a no-claims bonus, as everyone knows it—at that time, the first insurance quote I got was more than £1,200 for a very medium-range car, which my former company kindly sold to me. It was only when I got the company to provide me with a certificate saying that I had had blemish-free motoring for 10 years or more that the insurance company reduced the figure, but it still only came down to £800—and that was the better part of 20 years ago. The problems with increased costs in insurance and the increased likelihood of people driving uninsured, as well as the risks posed to those people and, more particularly, to everybody else, are intolerable.

Motor insurance is a curious entity in that it is one of the few examples, although not the only example, of a statutory obligation to purchase a product from a private supplier. There may be far more than one supplier, but one has to have motor insurance to drive on public roads. That places on the motor insurance industry particular responsibilities that it should meet but that would not otherwise arise. I think the situation implies that the industry should have the most stringent, open, transparent—I think a Government Member said that transparency was a key issue—and fair standards of behaviour towards customers because it has a captive market. I accept that people can move from one provider to another, but one thing they have to have to drive on public roads is motor insurance. If one’s household contents insurance premium becomes unsustainable or extortionate, one can either go to another supplier or take the risk on oneself. One can say, “The premiums are not worth what I’m paying: I’ll take the risk on myself. I don’t have to have it,” but the same is not true of motor insurance. If one wants to drive on a public road one has to be insured.

The industry is confronted by a number of problems, to which others have referred. For example, there is the rise in personal injury claims, almost all of which seem to include claims for whiplash injury, as well as the issue of referral fees, which the report has looked at and which others have mentioned. There is also the growth of the no win, no fee—or ambulance chasing, as it is known in some circles—industry, and the business of downright fraudulent claims. All these issues have to be grappled with by the industry, which is an extensive one, and I am sure that people will have different views about how well it is dealing with them.

The report covered a number of areas, including personal injury claims, referral fees, uninsured drivers and fraud, but it did not cover an area that I want to make particular reference to on behalf of one of my constituents. He is 73 years old, and he has been working as a minicab driver for a number of years. He has a state pension, although not a full one, and that is his only other income, so he is keen to carry on working. In August this year, his then insurer advised him not that it was putting up his premium but that it was cancelling his hire and reward cover. It gave no other reason than the fact that he was now 73, as though he had just gone across some magical threshold. It was not even prepared to take on the risk at a higher price.

My constituent quite understands that, as people grow older, so they might become a bigger risk and therefore have to pay a bigger premium, but the insurer would not increase the premium. It simply would not accept the risk, for no other reason than his age. His wife is somewhat younger than him, but she, too, is past retirement age. She is still working, however, so his recourse to benefits would be somewhat limited. He contacted other insurance companies and brokers, but to no avail. He got no offers at all to renew his hire and reward cover, which is essential for anyone wishing to work as a minicab driver.

My constituent’s social, domestic and pleasure policy was unaffected, except for a marginal increase in price. I could understand if the insurer felt that he was a danger to the public and should therefore not be on the road. I would not agree with such a proposition—I do not think that any sensible person would—but it would at least have the characteristic of consistency. As things stand, however, it is perfectly legal for him to drive on the roads as a private citizen in his very unglamorous minicab, but it is no longer possible for him to pursue his livelihood as a minicab driver.

The majority of the population have a driving licence, and I quite understand why they expire on the licence holder’s 70th birthday. The assumption is that we need to consider whether people are still fit to drive on public roads. The primary consideration must be safety, not least the safety of other road users, and it is perfectly reasonable to check people’s eyesight and reaction times more as they get older, to ensure that they can still drive safely. We are told that we have an increasingly ageing population, so this is going to become more and more of an issue. There is no question but that everyone who drives on public roads should be deemed fit to do so, but I cannot understand the distinction between my constituent driving as a private individual and driving for gain as a minicab driver.

After my constituent had been to see me, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the director-general of the Association of British Insurers. I got a reply from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in which he states:

“Some age-based practices, such as the use of broad age bands combined with significant price increases between age bands, may appear arbitrary. Insurers, however, use age bands as a means by which to price the risk of insuring a variety of individuals, and the transaction costs involved. The effects of age bands will, however, be reflected in the premium charged to an individual should they enter a new band.”

As I have said, my constituent has been denied that opportunity, as he has not been put into a new band. His premium has not been increased; it has been refused.

I also received a response from Mr Otto Thoresen, the director-general of the Association of British Insurers. I will read out a point that supports exactly what the Committee says in its report. He says:

“In 2010, motor insurers paid out £1.21 in claims and expenses for every £1 received in premiums. A combination of high legal costs, rapidly increasing personal injury claims, fraud, and a stubbornly high level of uninsured driving have driven the industry to a point where, after price stability and, in many cases, falling premiums in the middle of the last decade, they have now had to rise.”

The Committee makes that point as well. Mr Thoresen went on to say that there were issues relating to the taxi insurance business, and that

“evidence across the market has shown that the probability of being involved in an accident worsens as drivers reach their mid-70s”,

as my constituent is now doing.

One of the objections to the way in which insurance companies conduct their business is that, when it suits them to do so, they treat people as individuals, and if an individual has a particularly poor record, they will suffer the consequences. However, when it suits them, they also treat people as part of a group that has an alleged poor record, and increase the premiums accordingly. This never seems to work in the opposite direction.

Mr Thoresen suggested that my constituent continue to try to secure insurance through a specialist broker, and he very kindly gave me the details of four specialist companies for him to approach. My constituent contacted me again in the middle of October, having contacted all four companies. Of the four, three would not offer him insurance at all, and the one company that did so wanted about £750 a month. That amounts to well over £9,000 a year. I have absolute confidence that my constituent is an excellent minicab driver, and I am sure that his customers must be among the happiest in south London, but I am also fairly certain that he does not make enough money to pay £9,000 a year in insurance costs.

In the Financial Secretary’s response, he also said:

“Research has indicated that no age groups are specifically excluded from the insurance market”.

I suggest to him that it is unnecessary specifically to exclude anyone if they are being offered a price that is completely and utterly unaffordable. Theoretically, everyone in this country can go and stay at the Savoy—there is not a sign outside saying “No riff-raff”—but most people would not consider doing so because they cannot afford it. Similarly, in this case, that insurer made the cover so unaffordable that it might just as well have banned my constituent from having it. He and I have no objection to the need for an increase, but we object to the scale and disproportionate nature of that increase. All he wants to do is continue to pursue his livelihood and not have to depend on benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I am not aware of all the details. I am aware only that compensation claims are down. The value is down, as well as the numbers. That indicates that we deserve consideration when it comes to premiums. That is the point I am making.

A number of the factors that are thought to have contributed to the rise in the cost of insurance premiums in England and Wales are absent from Northern Ireland—again, it is important to draw the comparison. The absence of no win, no fee agreements means that those in Northern Ireland who are seeking compensation must invest their own funds—perhaps that explains the previous point—before a legal claim can be brought. Alternatively, a solicitor’s practice may be willing to fund the outlays. This dissuades unmeritorious litigants. Furthermore, in England and Wales a successful plaintiff’s solicitor can claim a success fee, which can increase legal costs by up to 100%. There is no provision for success fees in Northern Ireland.

The insurance market in Northern Ireland shares a number of characteristics with England and Wales. The same advertisements are shown on TV. Admiral Group advertises on TV, as does Churchill, but underneath, the wee small print says, “Not available in Northern Ireland.” So although Churchill says, “Oh, yes” to every question he is asked, that does not apply to Northern Ireland, so there is clearly an issue to be addressed. The insurance market in Northern Ireland shares a number of characteristics, but not the price. That is the point we want to make.

Some time ago I had the opportunity to go with some of my constituents to meet the Department of the Environment in relation to a suggestion we were making. Perhaps the Minister in his response, as well as the Committee, will take this on board to see how we could reduce premiums and fees in Northern Ireland. One of the suggestions that was made concerned a new scheme that exists in parts of America and Europe, whereby a gadget, for want of a better word, is put in cars that monitors the speed and the mannerisms of the driver. That feeds back to a central place. That reduces fees because if drivers transgress, on the principle of “Three strikes and you’re out,” they lose their premium reduction. That might be a way of addressing some of the issues.

[Mike Penning]

It is not for me to publicise which companies do that, but, as we heard from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), at least one of them does, and there are several available on the market.

[Jim Shannon]

It is not for me to advertise those firms either, but I understand that they do good work and there are good possibilities for young drivers.

We want to make it clear, first, that the number of insurance providers operating in the market is lower than in England and Wales, restricting choice for consumers and reducing competition within the market. Secondly, there is a small number of accident management companies operating in Northern Ireland. There is some suggestion that costs are higher when accident management companies are involved. Despite the point that was made earlier, that may be a contributing factor and requires consideration. Lastly, the fact that Northern Ireland is a rural community with a dense road network and high levels of social need requires specific consideration.

Northern Ireland Members of Parliament have a duty tonight to highlight the imbalance in insurance premiums between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We believe that, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside said in her submission, a review is needed. Northern Ireland needs to be part of that cross-departmental ministerial committee. We look forward to its conclusion and to a reduction in fees for car drivers and for those who have to pay such high insurance premiums in Northern Ireland. I support the proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this important and well informed debate, and to the Committee on producing its excellent and timely report?

The eye-watering rises in the cost of motor insurance in the past few years have been one more burden on families already hit by high prices at the pump, food inflation and soaring energy costs. Earlier in the year, annual increases in insurance premiums were running as high as 40%. Although the AA reports that by September the figure had dropped to around 16%, premium increases still far outstrip inflation. The average premium of £921, which my hon. Friend highlighted, means that more than half an average monthly take-home salary is used simply to insure a car.

We know that those likely to be earning least are paying most for their insurance. As we have heard, average premiums for young drivers are more than £2,000. Understandably, motorists resent those huge increases. The overwhelming majority of careful, responsible drivers feel that they are subsidising the careless, the reckless and the uninsured. Increasingly, they are aware that their premiums are increasing as a result of fraudulent or frivolous personal injury claims for non-existent or pre-existing conditions.

Although the Government should not get into the business of setting insurance premiums, Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that the market works fairly and in the interests of consumers. The insurance industry has made a strong case that the 75% increase in the number of compensation claims in the past five years is a key factor in driving up premiums. Increased access to legal redress for genuine injury is a good thing, but responsible motorists paying for insurance fraud is clearly not.

For many, the car is and will remain the essential way of getting around. For some—and, as we have heard, particularly young people—the fast-rising cost of insurance could make the difference between taking up a job that requires a car and being a burden on taxpayers by living on benefits. With job vacancies so scarce, transport to access opportunity needs to be affordable—that relates to motor insurance just as it relates to bus and rail fares.

The sky-high cost of motor insurance for young people has been an important part of the Opposition’s policy review. We urge the Government to implement the Committee’s recommendations to improve the education and safety awareness of young drivers and to consider further changes to the driving test.

It is important to stress that all drivers will benefit from having safer younger drivers on the road—that point was well made in the debate. Equally importantly, much has been heard about the potential of the black box and the relative lack of take-up so far. I am sure that the Minister will join me in praising insurance providers that use black boxes, but will he make clear what he is doing to encourage greater take-up of the technology among providers?

There is no excuse for breaking the rules, but as premiums rise we know that related criminal behaviour is at risk of increasing, potentially undermining the progress that the previous Administration made in tackling fraud and driving without insurance. The Association of British Insurers recorded a 9% increase in fraud.

[Mike Penning]

Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell the House what measures the previous Administration took against uninsured driving? This Government introduced the continuous insurance policy.

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the continuous insurance policy was a measure that was set out by the Labour party and which he has taken forward, which we welcome. According to the Motor Insurers Bureau, however, there has been a 25% fall in insurance fraud and uninsured driving over the past five years, which we welcome and want to see continue.

On tackling uninsured drivers, the Minister mentioned the continuous insurance enforcement scheme, but to work effectively that needs the necessary tools to do the enforcing, so will he tell the House, either now or during his speech, what level of resource the DVLA has put aside to pursue and enable the prosecution of transgressors, and how many drivers who ignore official reminders that their insurance has expired have so far been given a fixed penalty notice under the new scheme?

Last week, the House had the opportunity to debate referral fees paid by claims management companies and personal injury lawyers to insurance firms in return for the details of potential claimants. For the past five or six years, these fees have greased the wheels of a perceived compensation culture, encouraging claims that have little realistic chance of success or which are simply fraudulent. The cost of those claims feed directly back into the premiums that all motorists pay, so I, too, pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on this issue. His investigation into the scale of the problem and his private Member’s Bill put pressure on Ministers to add clauses on referral fees, at the last moment, to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill last week. However, as we made clear then, the Government have so far missed the opportunity to crack down adequately.

I shall list what measures the Government have so far rejected: making the soliciting for and payment of fees in road traffic accident cases a criminal offence; outlawing the blight of unsolicited phone calls and text messages; strengthening the rules on data protection and third-party capture; and tightening the rules for whiplash claims. It is unfortunate that as industry practice has been shown to be driving up costs for law-abiding motorist, the Government are ducking their responsibilities on this issue. If the Minister is serious about keeping premiums as low as possible, I hope that, even at this late stage, he will prevail upon Justice Ministers to change the Government’s position.

The Select Committee made the sensible suggestion that the Government examine international experience on restraining claims numbers. It is disappointing that Ministers have refused its idea of a proper study. I hope that they will reconsider. The Committee also rightly pointed to the importance of road safety as another key factor influencing insurance premiums. Despite last week’s horrific tragedy—the Minister visited the scene, at the M5 in Somerset, at the weekend—Britain continues to have the safest roads in Europe and among the safest in the world. However, the first two quarters of this year have seen increases in deaths compared with the same point the previous year. A continuation of that trend would mean 2011 would be the first year since 2003 to see a rising death toll on Britain’s roads.

It is worrying that these upward ticks in road deaths have come at a time when spending on road safety campaigns has been cut. If the trend of safer roads were to reverse, the country’s principal concern—everyone’s principal concern—would, of course, be the tragic human cost seen so vividly this week. We know that a knock-on effect of less safe roads would be further upward pressure on insurance premiums. That raises this question: has the Minister estimated what the impact would be on road safety and on premiums of his proposal to scrap the annual MOT—a move that could lead to 800,000 cars that are dangerous to drive being left on the roads for up to a year longer?

Motorists are feeling the squeeze. Many face being priced out of their cars and, by extension, out of their jobs. As the Transport Committee has so effectively set out, those motorists want to know that their Government are doing what they can to enable lower insurance costs. If Ministers wish to prove that they are not out of touch with those concerns, they need to set out how they will go further.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

For colleagues who have been here throughout the debate, may I say—I know it is not my brief to do so—that my thoughts and prayers go to the family of the Red Arrows pilot who was killed this afternoon? Our servicemen do a lot for us. I say this as colleagues might not know that, sadly, this pilot died—the second fatality in the Red Arrows this year.

This afternoon’s debate has been excellent—led brilliantly by the Chair of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). In general, the debate has been sensible, measured and useful to our constituents. I cannot say that about parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), particularly when it became party political. That is not what this evening’s debate was about, especially considering that the previous Administration were in government for 13 years and many of the measures he now asks us to bring forward could have been introduced then. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), a former Front-Bench Transport spokesman was much better in his tone; he never used to read out a speech that was written before and that did not contribute anything to the debate.

To answer what was probably the only sensible point that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness raised—about continuous insurance enforcement—60% of all those written to, having been shown to be uninsured, have responded positively and were either given a statutory off-road notice or said that they would insure. About £122,000 has been picked up in fines, and 250,000 penalty notices have been issued—in excess of what we expected at this stage of the new piece of legislation.

Let us move on to the general debate, led so excellently by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside. Everyone will be pleased to know that we shall not divide the House on the motion. There is an issue about the committee that is being formed, but I will come back to that in a few moments. Many of the issues I see in my constituency correspondence have been alluded to brilliantly in this evening’s debate.

To add to the anecdotal evidence, a member of my own staff was in a road traffic accident the other evening. She was hit from behind; the person got out of the car and was very amenable. My staff member said, “How are you? Are you okay? Do you want to go through the insurance process?” The other lady said, “I’d like to pay you privately because otherwise my premiums will go through the roof.” Everything was sorted out fine; no contact was made with the insurers or the police. However, she received a text message asking “Would you like to claim for the injury that you had?” A member of the public had obviously informed those whom I described to the Committee as ambulance chasers. Apparently it is not just the insurers who are passing information around; others also think that they can secure substantial earnings from such events.

Several Members paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). I thank him, in his absence, for contacting me to say that he could not be present this evening. We have worked closely for many years on many subjects when our respective parties have been in opposition and in government, and I believe that the motion has opened the Government’s eyes to the possibility of using his Bill for this purpose. There will of course be attempts to find loopholes, but it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that any legislation is fit for purpose.

I believe that 11, if not 12, Members spoke in the debate—that does not include those who have intervened—and it will be impossible for me to respond to all the points that they raised, but I will of course write to all those whose questions I have not had time to answer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) made an important point about uninsured drivers. Uninsured driving is a criminal offence, and I am sure that no Member would condone it, but given that it contributes only £30 to the average premium, there must be many other factors in the market. I see that the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) is present, and I shall comment on the position in Northern Ireland shortly, but the fact remains that that £30 is not the reason that premiums have been shooting through the roof—although we have seen some reduction in recent months.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding our concern about the size of premiums, we must in no circumstances condone uninsured driving, which plagues not only our constituents who pay their premiums but the police. Like the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), I have been out with the local police force many times, and I am sure that anyone else who has done so will confirm that when the police pull drivers over for being uninsured, they will almost certainly pick them up for another offence which, in many cases, will have nothing to do with driving offences. People who wish to break the law in that way often wish to break it in other ways. We must help the police in every possible way to ensure that such fraud is dealt with, because driving without insurance is indeed fraudulent.

We must also help the insurers, who will doubtless be monitoring this debate and will realise that they are the pariahs: the nasty, horrible people to whom we must pay our premiums. I suppose that I should declare an interest at this stage. I have two daughters between the ages of 17 and 25, and the premium is high. I am proud to say that they have managed to work hard throughout their time at university, and that the work that they have done has helped to pay the insurance. I have not had to bear the whole burden.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) mentioned the crass decision by the European Court of Justice that gender could not be taken into account by insurers deciding premiums, although, as we all know, premiums are based on risk. I find that astonishing, because the figures clearly show that, sadly, boys aged between 17 and 25 are 10 times more likely to be involved in accidents than girls of a similar age. One of the most frightening pieces of evidence that has been given to me while I have had the honour of being the Minister responsible for these matters is that the most dangerous activity in which a young lady can engage in this country is sitting next to a boy aged between 17 and 25 who is driving a car.

[Jim Dowd]

Is not the problem with the European approach the assumption that every member of a certain group will behave in a certain way? It is a generalised rather than a personalised approach. The assessment is being made not on the basis of what a particular individual who wants to buy a particular product is likely to do, but on the basis of what people in a particular category are likely to do. Even if there is no evidence against an individual, that individual will be subject to the same penalty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I completely agree—just as I often agreed with the hon. Gentleman during the many years when we served on the Health Committee together. The actuaries have to be able to look at risk in general; otherwise we will all be put into the same pot, which is unfair to those who are in lower-risk categories. I have concerns that addressing this issue will lead to premiums being increased, not reduced.

Many colleagues, including the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), have said we need to do more about the insurers, and I agree. I certainly do bring the insurers around the table, and I give them a very hard time. After all, they want things from me. They wanted the continuous insurance; they have been calling for that for years, and they have got it. They also want access to DVLA data in order to try to alleviate fraud, both intentional and unintentional.

People ask me, “What do you mean by ‘unintentional fraud’?” Well, I am a dad, and I was asked whether I would put my daughter on the insurance as an additional driver. I had to look very carefully at whether she was an additional driver or the main driver, but most parents would not know the difference, so we need to educate them on that. They think they are helping their young people by naming them as an additional driver in those circumstances, but if their son or daughter is, in fact, not the additional driver, that insurance will be invalid, and the insurer will almost certainly find that out—and if the son or daughter is involved in a crash, they will almost certainly not be covered, and anybody else involved in the accident with them will also be penalised.

Some Members who were present for the debate have moved on to other things, so our proceedings now feel a little like an Adjournment debate, where people have not returned for the concluding speeches. That is a shame, because this is not an Adjournment debate; it is, rather, a proper debate of the House with a motion before it. Perhaps as Members get more used to debates such as this, more of them will return to hear the concluding remarks.

I certainly will work with the devolved Governments in respect of their responsibilities. Responding to the comments of the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), I have serious concerns about the market as it operates in Northern Ireland. I am not responsible for the market, however; that is a Treasury matter, which is why the Treasury took the recent debate. I also understand that the Northern Ireland regulators are conducting a review, and I can assure the hon. Lady that if there is any evidence of collusion in the market—if any cartels are operating there or here—we will come down on them like a ton of bricks, as would be only right and proper.

As the Transport Committee has concluded, there is not just one simple solution to this problem. I agree, for instance, that there is a postcode lottery. In some ways, that is similar to the gender issue we have just discussed. Some postcodes cover large areas; that is certainly the case in my part of the world. It is fundamentally wrong for people to be penalised because of the road or neighbourhood in which they happen to live. Insurance calculations used to be based on theft and damage rates, but modern cars are very difficult to steal. Joyriders still steal ordinary cars, but most vehicle thefts are of high-value cars that are stolen to order. That is a completely different kind of theft from the thefts that affect premiums.

Let us consider why premiums are so high. It is not just to do with uninsured drivers. It is also to do with ambulance chasers. Some 50% of all personal injury claims are made on car insurance. How can that be right when, as we have heard this evening, we have some of the safest roads in the world, and certainly the safest roads in Europe? Our killed and seriously-injured rates are extremely low, although we need to get them even lower. The truth of the matter is that most of these claims, many of which are fraudulent, are not reported to the police. Very often they are reported after the incident; Members have referred to constituents saying people followed up on incidents the following day. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) touched on this in his speech. The police would never have been called in such cases; it will never be on the records of the police that that sort of thing has taken place. Some countries in Europe, including Germany, have carefully considered the speed that someone would have had to be travelling to be in an accident before they can claim for whiplash. I was with the relevant German Minister at a conference recently, and we discussed this and other measures, particularly priority. The evidence is that this does not appear to be working in Germany simply because people are increasing the speed that they claim they were travelling at before the accident.

[John Woodcock]

I just want the Minister to set out why he has rejected our calls to restrict whiplash claims, given the seriousness of this problem in forcing up insurance premiums. Will he not reconsider?

[Mike Penning]

I have not rejected that; this was done by a colleague in the Ministry of Justice, as it is a legal matter. However, I completely agree with my colleague, as he is a legal person and I am not. There are legal differences between Germany and this country. Everything is possible, and this Parliament can do whatever it wants to do. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is not the case—I see some of my Eurosceptic friends in the House this evening. There are certain things that I would like to be doing in my Department that Europe prevents me from doing.

As we have heard across the House today, insurers have to take responsibility and say, “No, we’ll take you to court and we will challenge this.” They should not just settle out of court because it happens to be cheaper than the possible consequences of going to court. Immediately we start to do that, the no win, no fee ambulance chasers will look very carefully at their cases, and people who should genuinely get their compensation will get it and those who are swinging a leg, as my grandfather would say, will not. I shall refer back to my time on the Select Committee on Health, because it is not just in this area that we have this problem with insurance. Our hospitals, in particular, tend to settle out of court rather than challenging claims, and that is costing the taxpayer and the NHS an absolute fortune, so this is a culture that we have to turn around.

Hon. Members have touched on other aspects in the report and the evidence to the Select Committee. I have significantly changed the driving test, the practical and the theory, since my appointment, and I intend to change it even more. I have said it before and I will say it again that people are currently taught to pass a test; they are not taught to drive. They are not taught to drive safely for themselves and for others, and we have to make sure that we have qualified driving instructors and that everybody knows they are qualified when they get into that car. One change we are going to make—I hope that the Select Committee will agree with me on this—is that someone who is not a qualified driving instructor will not be able to take someone out on their own to teach them to drive. I am not going to stop parents, grandparents and sisters doing that, but someone who gets into a car marked “driving instructor” should not have to look for a little badge on the windscreen that says that the person is a trainee. These people should be qualified driving instructors. The industry supports me on this and we will do this. There also has to be an ongoing training programme for driving instructors. Some instructors took their qualifications many years ago, and we need to make sure that they are au fait with what we want from the driving test, although we also want them to earn an income.

As we have heard today, there are also things that happen to people suddenly when they pass their driving test. Clearly, some people—young people in particular, but not all of them—appear to have some kind of lobotomy when they get behind the wheel of a car. I am talking about highly intelligent young people who are perfect role models in every other aspect of their life, and then they get behind the wheel of a car. Sadly, as has been discussed, testosterone is one of the leading factors. Drink and drugs are involved, but testosterone is one of the big problems here.

In my constituency, the place where most people pass their test is St Albans. Between my constituency and St Albans is a rather large motorway called the M1, and to get back from the test centre, people have to cross it. That means that someone could be driving for the first time on their own and as they turn left or right to come off the A414 they will be on the M1. I think we need to give people, particularly young people, the opportunity to learn how to drive on the motorway before they pass their test. That is why we will pass regulations to allow qualified driving instructors to take learners on to motorways. Can I make that compulsory? No, I cannot because some counties have no motorways, so it would be discriminatory to do so, but we will give qualified instructors the opportunity to do that.

We need to make sure that the test is not the endgame, but not—in my opinion or that of the Government—to make it compulsory to take post-test qualifications. Pass Plus was a partial success, but was never really rolled out properly.

[Jim Dowd]

Before I came to the House, I used to drive extensively on the motorway network—in my company car, for those who were listening earlier—and the idea of the odd learner turning up on the motorway is strange. Traffic on our motorways travels at much higher speeds generally. Would it not be better to allow people to pass the traditional test and then take an additional period of tuition on the motorway, rather than allow someone who might have been behind the wheel of a car for only two or three hours suddenly to turn up on a motorway alongside juggernauts and fast-driving cars? The Minister will know better than anyone that the average speed on motorways is much higher than the 70 mph limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Minister, I realise that driving on motorways is a very important subject, but I have a feeling that you were going to bring the debate back to the cost of motoring.

[Mike Penning]

An integral part of driving and the cost of insurance is how people are qualified to drive. That is why qualifications, as well as the ordinary driving test, are specifically mentioned in the report we are discussing, which is why I was speaking to the issue. However, I shall take your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and steer towards more detailed work on the black box.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am very sorry, but I was trying to ensure that the Minister stayed where he wanted to be, whereas the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) was tempting him away. I do not need a gentle rebuke from the Minister; I thought I was helping him.

[Mike Penning]

I know you too well ever to rebuke you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would never be led astray by the hon. Gentleman.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have a situation in which young people—or, indeed, anyone—passing their test today can go on the motorway. There are no restrictions on that, and we need to give them the necessary skills. I have a full car, full motorbike, HGV and tank licence to boot, and I have driven on the motorway in all types of vehicle, so I understand. I have an H licence. The hon. Gentleman was indicating from a sedentary position, “What is a tank licence?”—it is an H licence for tracked vehicles.

Let me touch on issues of technology. As we heard earlier, some insurers have been using technology, particularly the black box. The Co-operative insurance company, which was mentioned earlier, has a scheme that encourages people to take the box in their car, and it monitors very carefully what speed one is travelling at, what time of day one is driving—nearly everything. I have been pushing quite extensively with insurers to roll that out further. It is the obvious way forward. If people are given the responsibility of a driving licence, they can be given the opportunity of responsibility. However, insurance companies have to be transparent. We have to know why the premiums are what they are and how they can best be broken down so that the public, when they look at their premium, know exactly what they are getting for their money. If there is a discount, we need to know exactly what it is and that if the person who takes out that policy sticks rigidly to the agreement their premium will not shoot up the following year or month.

In conclusion, I think this has been a very sensible debate. I welcome the report from the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and I think that we can agree on most things. We have many, many Committees sitting already; one more would be quite difficult. We meet regularly on a cross-party basis to discuss these matters, and myriad Departments can be involved, depending on the issue in question.

At the moment, we are doing a great deal of work on penalties, which I have not yet touched on, and on the question of whether fines are the answer. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already announced that he is going to allow fines to be increased for those on benefits. At the moment, the figure is £5, but that will increase to £25. I personally think that, as well as looking at increasing fines, we need to look at the points. In most cases, people will be prepared to pay a fine, but they might find the prospect of getting additional points on their licence more of a deterrent. They might decide that getting an extra six points, rather than just three, might mean losing their licence. I hope that such a move might prevent more people from driving while uninsured.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying about points. Is there not also a need to make it socially unacceptable to drive while uninsured? Would it perhaps be prudent to consider a prison sentence for people who seem determined to do it three, four of five times or who have been involved in a serious accident while uninsured?

[Mike Penning]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. We will continue to look at the penalties involved. Those of us who came through the drink-driving campaigns of the ’70s and ’80s will remember how we turned drink-drivers into pariahs, but that involved educating the public first, then using a big stick. We did the same with seat belts, and we now need to do it with drug-driving as well as with uninsured driving. We will continue to look at this, but, at the end of the day, it is for the magistrates and the courts to decide how they interpret the law. They have a degree of autonomy, which is why so many drivers who have more than 12 points have kept their licence. It is a matter for the courts to interpret the special needs of the people involved, and perhaps the lawyers who represent them are also a factor. I was shocked when I saw the figures, and it was my own Department that released them.

I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside is going to respond to the debate. Her Committee has produced an excellent report, and we have had an excellent debate. I look forward to implementing many of the measures that have been mentioned, so that our roads can continue to be the safest in Europe and among the safest in the world.