Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ruth George and Simon Clarke

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

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill and speak against new clauses 1 and 2 because, whether through ending rip-off energy bills, freezing fuel duty or increasing the personal allowance for income tax, the Government’s constant focus has been to make sure that the consumer is at the heart of their work and to reduce the cost of living for millions of people.

I am therefore pleased that Ministers have identified another area in which the cost of living is artificially and unfairly inflated. At a time when our cars and roads are safer than ever, one would expect the price of motor insurance to come down. Instead, the opposite has happened. Since 2010, there has been an almost 50% increase in the cost of comprehensive insurance premiums, and a near 80% increase in the cost of third-party fire and theft insurance premiums.

[Ruth George]

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rise in the cost of insurance is, as we have heard in the debate, down to insurance companies not tackling possibly fraudulent claims, thereby creating the problem and making huge additional profits? Does he accept that consumers are also victims of accidents and will be severely affected by the Bill?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady is right to say that insurance companies have a duty to tackle fraudulent claims—that is certainly the message that the Government would send out and that I endorse—but the proportion of such claims is relatively small. We need to get the incentives in the system right so that the most serious cases receive the compensation and the attention that they deserve in the legal system and that the less serious cases receive a proportionate response. Whiplash is a horrible injury, which can be very severe, but we must ensure that the incentives in the system are not so skewed as to push all cases into the most extreme bracket. That simply does not reflect the nature of the injuries that are being suffered and it is not in the country’s public policy interest to have insurance rendered hugely more expensive, which the current system does.

[Ruth George]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the tariff for compensation for injuries, which judges currently use, is unfair and overcompensates people with more minor injuries? It covers a range of injuries, not just whiplash.

[Mr Clarke]

I am saying that there is a need for a proportionate system for compensation. The number of road traffic accident-related personal injury claims has increased by 200,000 since 2006—a rise of approximately 40%. That suggests to me that the incentives in the system are skewed. Insurers predict that, without reform, motor premiums could continue to rise at a rate of about 10% annually. That constitutes a significant burden on the cost of living for millions of us who are dependent on our cars for daily travel, especially in rural communities.

Rural Crime and Public Services

Debate between Ruth George and Simon Clarke

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend is completely right. The Opposition may deny it because it is fundamentally inconvenient to them.

[Ruth George]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I will happily give way.

[Ruth George]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. To put the record straight, the debt of which he speaks was less than £1 trillion in 2010. It is now practically £2 trillion. That is where the interest on the debt is coming from. Not only have this Government doubled the country’s debt, but they have decimated our police forces to the lowest level ever and are letting criminals back into our rural communities to run riot.

[Mr Clarke]

That is the height of economic illiteracy. It fails to distinguish between the debt and the deficit. We inherited an enormous deficit, so of course the debt continued to grow while there was a deficit. We have now virtually closed that deficit on current spending, and all that we now borrow is for investment. That is an absolute calumny in terms of economics, and it is frightening that the hon. Lady believes it.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Debate between Ruth George and Simon Clarke

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

It is the hallmark of a fair welfare system that it includes a strong and effective way of helping people who are out of work to find employment, and, by doing so, allows them to enjoy the dignity, confidence and self-reliance that comes with the ability to provide for themselves and their families. In that regard, we should never take the Government’s achievement since 2010 for granted. There are 3 million more people in work, unemployment in my constituency has halved, and our national unemployment rate is half that of the eurozone.

None of that happened by accident. It happened as a result of the hard work done by companies large and small, and as a result of carefully calibrated Government policy. That progress could—and, I believe, would—be undone in an instant were the shadow Chancellor ever to have an opportunity to unleash his programme of hundreds of billions of pounds of unfunded spending, and nationalisation with Parliament determining “fair compensation” for shareholders, all in the context of a crippling loss of investor confidence and a run on the pound. Despite the progress that we have seen, however, there is further to go, and that is precisely why I support universal credit. Its purpose is to deliver fundamental reform, and to replace a contradictory, and sometimes impossible, set of conflicting benefits with a single simplified payment.

The key question to ask about any policy is “What incentives does it create?” In the case of universal credit, the policy aligns the incentives so that work always pays. In my constituency, too many lives have been blighted for far too long by joblessness. I challenge Opposition Members to go to a ward such as Park End or Hemlington, and then tell me that it is wrong to end the perverse situation that we inherited whereby some people were losing £9 out of every extra £10 that they earned, which left them with virtually no incentive to work.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

What would the hon. Gentleman say to the nearly 7,000 families in his constituency who currently claim tax credit, and who, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, will be £2,500 a year worse off under universal credit?