The Growth Plan

Debate between Mike Wood and Kwasi Kwarteng

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We are always looking at infrastructure projects and measuring their benefit to cost ratio. Investment zones are, of course, naturally allied to key bits of infrastructure and they have to be co-ordinated. That is one of the purposes of what we are announcing.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Investment zones have the potential to make a massive contribution to levelling up in areas such as Dudley South. Will the Chancellor reassure my constituents that the more liberalised planning regulations will not mean that communities have to sacrifice precious green belt as the price of an enterprise zone?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is absolutely right. The whole premise and basis of the investment zone conversation is mutual consent. There has to be mutual consent—they will not be imposed in any area. Absolutely, local residents and councils will have a huge say in how the investment zone develops.

Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and Battery Manufacturing Strategy

Debate between Mike Wood and Kwasi Kwarteng

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am fully aware and conscious of the difficult time that we are going through, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that these are ongoing conversations —ongoing sensitive negotiations—and I am not going to be prepared to enter into the details on the Floor of the House. Once we have a reached a decision—a conclusion—with the company, we can then have a fuller discussion. I am very committed to landing the right result in this conversation.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]]

JLR is leading the way in committing to an all-electric future, boosting our strong manufacturing base in the west midlands, so it was disappointing that Labour discounted the west midlands from its plans. Will my right hon. Friend demonstrate his superior judgment by backing the campaign by west midlands Conservative MPs and our fantastic Mayor, Andy Street, for a west midlands gigafactory so that the west midlands truly can be the engine for growth?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am not sure whether that was a yes or no question, but yes to my hon. Friend’s point. Andy is doing a great job. MPs in the region, my right hon. and hon. Friends, are really driving progress in this area. I would be very happy to help them and support them in that endeavour.

European Council: Article 50 Extension

Debate between Mike Wood and Kwasi Kwarteng

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), I am not getting into hypo- theticals. I have said that we hope to have a meaningful vote—let us see, Mr Speaker, if you decide that it is in order—and then we can test the will of the House.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding last night’s agreement, the article 50 period will only be extended if the House votes for a statutory instrument to give effect to such an extension?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The Government would have to lay a statutory instrument and the House would have to debate and vote on it.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mike Wood and Kwasi Kwarteng

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

[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.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

So a former Labour Lord Chancellor suggested that he would ban this compensation entirely. What on earth possessed him to suggest that as a policy?

[Mike Wood]

Reading through The Law Society Gazette, I see that Jack Straw’s actual comment was:

“Whiplash is an innovation of fertile legal minds which has no real foundation in medical knowledge. Everybody knows the vast majority of whiplash claims are completely unjustified. I support any measures to eliminate soft-tissue injuries.”

I understand that he was referring to compensation for soft tissue injuries, rather than eliminating the injuries altogether.

Hon. Members have spoken about the apparent paradox when we have the long-term reduction in the number of road traffic accidents, the increasing safety of more of the cars on the road and the long-term reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries as a result of road traffic accidents, and yet the number of personal injury claims for whiplash and other minor injuries having increased significantly—it has gone up by 30% in 12 years. That enormous statistical increase cannot be dismissed as coincidental.

It has been suggested that the idea of a compensation culture is more about perception than reality, but how many of us have not had regular phone calls inviting us to claim for an accident that we have not had, encouraging us with the idea that a fortune was surely around the corner if only we referred the case to the firm that was ringing us up. I have no problem with solicitors—some of my best friends are solicitors, as they say. Indeed, many years ago my wife worked with one of the country’s leading personal injury solicitors’ firms, mostly doing administration on road traffic accident claims. But we need to look at the state we are now in. All the empirical evidence suggests that the initial intentions behind addressing no-win, no-fee claims for personal injuries have generated a spiralling increase in claims that are not the result of pecuniary loss—they are about not loss of earnings or quantifiable losses, but a figure being placed on pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

Previous studies have suggested that, contrary to what others have been saying, the amounts awarded by courts in England and Wales are significantly higher than those awarded in most other European jurisdictions for personal injury claims. When there is a serious injury, especially if the effects are permanent or long-lasting, or even if it results in disability, clearly no one disputes that it is right that there is compensation, especially for the loss of opportunity and amenity caused by that injury. However, shorter-term soft-tissue injuries do not really fall within that category. That is why it is proportionate for the Bill to introduce a tariff that sets out the amounts payable for certain categories of minor, non-permanent injuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

The Minister, as ever, speaks straight to the point that bringing this system in line with the criminal injuries compensation scheme is actually making parallel systems more consistent, and it is entirely logical that they should operate on similar tariff-based systems. One of the flaws in the current system is that, as the Judicial College is setting its guidelines, the awards it uses for deciding the amounts in the guidelines are not the overall amounts that are payable in the event of a road traffic accident leading to personal injury, but are based on the awards made by the court in the relatively small proportion of claims that proceed to trial and are then adjudicated by a judge. The system does not consider the very large number of claims that are settled at an earlier date when the figure would tend to be lower.

Clearly, cases that proceed to full trial are more likely to be the more complex ones. This has the effect of institutionalising an inflationary element within the guidelines as they are reviewed, because the review is only ever based on those types of claim that actually end up being the higher awards anyway. It can only ever lead to an increasing amount. The impact of that falls clearly on our constituents. We rightly insist on mandatory motor insurance. As hon. Members have said, motor insurance premiums increase rapidly. One reason why they increase rapidly is that there has recently been a large increase in the average amounts paid out for personal injury claims. If we fail to take this sensible action, those amounts can only increase, and we can expect premiums to continue to increase at around 10% annually, quickly putting them out of reach.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is making this point. What is his view on whether the Lord Chancellor should be setting the tariff? Does that not bolster what my hon. Friend suggests—that there is a role for the Government in trying to keep insurance premium costs low?