Advertising: The Guardian

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Julian Smith]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department spent on advertising with (a) The Guardian newspaper, (b) The Guardian website and (c) The Guardian Media Group in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11, (iii) 2011-12 and (iv) 2012-13.

[Official Report, 29 October 2013, Vol. 569, c. 417W.]

Letter of correction from Shailesh Vara:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) on 29 October 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Vara]

The information requested is set out in the following table:

[Mr Vara]

The information requested is set out in the following table:

Criminal Justice (North Wales)

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for the kind comments he made at the outset of his remarks about my appointment. I assure him that it is no inconvenience for me to be here today, notwithstanding the fact that it is the last debate before the Christmas recess. I congratulate him on securing this debate. It is an important issue—all the more reason why I am pleased to be here—not only for the hon. Gentleman but for his constituents. That is evident from the number of parliamentary questions he has submitted, the correspondence in which he has engaged, and the fact he has secured this debate.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues, and I hope that during my speech I will address some of his concerns. I apologise that the letter he wrote to me received a reply that was sent by e-mail only yesterday. As a colleague, I appreciate how many e-mails we all get, but it is somewhere in the system and I apologise for the delay, which should not have happened. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has had difficulty trying to arrange meetings with local judicial staff and, as far as I am able, I will try to assist to facilitate that meeting for him and his colleagues.

It is important to recognise two issues. We are talking about the potential merger of two benches, which is a matter for the judiciary. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that constitutionally, the judiciary is independent of the Executive. A potential merger of benches is a matter for the magistrates to come to a conclusion on, working with the justice clerk. The management of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service falls within the Ministry of Justice, so there is departmental responsibility at our end. As I proceed with my remarks, I hope I will address some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Let me be clear at the outset: the delivery of criminal justice is a crucial priority for the Government. That is why, among other measures, we are investing in the digital courtroom, as part of the strategy and action plan for reform of the criminal justice system. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that effective magistrates courts are the cornerstone of our justice system. They deal with 95% of the criminal cases that go through the courts in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

[Mr Vara]

The work that magistrates do in north Wales and across the court service is absolutely vital. The partnership between the magistracy and officials who manage the courts is an essential prerequisite for the successful operation of our magistrates courts. In the case of magistrates courts, this partnership is built up through regular meetings between bench chairs and officials, providing the opportunity to discuss the conduct of court business, including listing arrangements. It is therefore to be expected that the chairs of Wrexham and Mold benches would discuss the potential arrangement of local justice areas in north Wales during meetings with officials.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the local justices issues group concluded in late 2012 that the reorganisation of local justice areas, including the merger of the Wrexham and Flintshire local justice areas, would provide the most efficient framework for the administration of justice in north Wales.

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman took the time and trouble to respond in detail to the consultation. However, as he will be aware, the consultation was suspended when it became clear that the wider proposals for north Wales no longer had the support of all the bench chairs, as had been previously understood. Following further consideration, the proposals were withdrawn. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take away from that the fact that the voice of the people who took the trouble to take part in the consultation was heard. This is a decision based on views taken in by outsiders, and not on decisions taken at the top.

[Ian Lucas]

On that point, the difficulty is that steps were taken subsequently, in terms of the transfer of business between the two courts, that seem to pursue the agenda suggested in the withdrawn consultation.

[Mr Vara]

I appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the listing of cases is a matter for the judiciary to decide as it sees best so that it can get the business done and hear as many cases as possible. It is important to recognise that distinction. As far as the consultation is concerned, it was pulled. I understand that there is talk among the magistrates—not at the Ministry of Justice end, but among the magistrates—that there may be another consultation, but that is a matter I hope he will be able to address in direct communications with them. As I said at the outset, I will try to facilitate a meeting for him.

It is important to appreciate that any new proposals to merge local justice areas in north Wales would be subject to a consultation. I am aware that the bench chairmen for Flintshire and Wrexham are keen to consult on mergers, because they believe they will result in a more efficient and effective structure for the magistracy in north-east Wales.

If a consultation does go ahead, all local magistrates, local authorities, members of the local criminal justice board and other interested parties—including, of course, all local MPs and other locally elected officials—will be able to comment. It would be for the justices clerk and the local justices issues group to consider the responses to the consultation and, should there be a case for merger, they will then formulate their final recommendation in respect of the new structure.

In considering changes to local justice areas, account will of course be taken of access to justice and how to deal effectively with the business of magistrates courts. This will include the needs of local communities and the wider criminal justice system infrastructure, the deployment of magistrates and their need for support, and the workload and deployment of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff.

I emphasise that changes to local justice areas take place periodically and are driven by the need to create listing efficiencies and deploy magistrates as efficiently as possible. If a new consultation on changes to local justice areas in north Wales takes place, it should not be viewed as an automatic precursor to the closure of a courthouse. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, North Wales police has announced plans, following public consultation, to improve service provision in north Wales, but these will not automatically lead to the closure of magistrates courts. We are aware that the police will vacate their existing premises in Wrexham in 2016-17, which will have implications for the court and how it deals with custody cases, but when circumstances change in this way, the Courts and Tribunals Service will need to assess the most appropriate way for criminal cases to be effectively delivered in the area.

The hon. Gentleman might feel that the lack of cells will automatically lead to the closure of the court, but that is not the case. He did not dwell on this in his speech, but he will be aware of it and the consultation by the local police. I can reassure him that an open and transparent consultation process is used when deciding whether to close a court. Crucially, any proposals on the future of a court are considered with emphasis on the local area and how justice is best served there. Several factors will be taken into consideration before starting a consultation, including an assessment of the work load and utilisation of the court. The Courts and Tribunals Service also takes into account whether a suitable alternative location for the work is available and whether it could be accommodated elsewhere without a detrimental impact on service levels. If a consultation is published, it is important that local stakeholders and partners and elected officials be properly engaged to ensure that all relevant views are taken into account.

There is then a full analysis of all responses received before any decision is made. The response to the consultation is always accompanied by an impact assessment. I hope that this reassures the hon. Gentleman that when there are proposals to change the deployment of magistrates or the court estate, proper and distinct processes are followed, ensuring that decisions are made only once the views of relevant parties have been considered through the open and transparent consultation processes. I stress that the Government are committed to providing court users in north Wales with proper and effective access to justice. In so doing, hard-working taxpayers rightly expect us to reduce the cost of operating courts and tribunals while maintaining an effective service for court users.

In this country, we have one of the best justice systems in the world. Whatever decisions are taken, it is always central to our thought process that we ensure this world-class justice system continues. On that note, I conclude by wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the court officials and the hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas. Also, I extend a special greeting to the security staff, who look after us while we do our work and ensure we can do it safely.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effects of reductions in funding for civil legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency keep the legal aid scheme under constant review, in terms of both expenditure and the impact of reforms. The Government will undertake a post-implementation review of the legal aid provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 within the next three to five years.

[Jessica Morden]

Since the Government’s legal aid cuts, more of my constituents have had to represent themselves in family courts against former partners who can afford a solicitor, and local cases are being deferred by judges because they do not feel that the litigant in person is sufficiently prepared. Does the Minister agree that it is time to be transparent and produce figures showing the number of litigants who have appeared in person and the number of deferred cases that have taken place since the changes, so that we can judge the impact on our courts for ourselves?

[Mr Vara]

The reforms did not come into effect until earlier this year, and we need to give them a bit more time. As I have said, we will be reviewing the position, but it is currently too early to form a proper assessment.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of family mediation services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to tackle rogue payment protection insurance claim companies and nuisance calling by those companies.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Our priority is to protect the public by rooting out and punishing bad practices by claims companies. The claims management regulator is expanding its resources and consulting on a new set of toughened rules to crackdown on abuses, and later next year claims companies will face fines for rule breaches.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that so many rogue companies have been plaguing constituents, what effect have the Government’s actions had on the number of claims firms?

[Mr Vara]

I am happy to say that there has been a positive impact on the numbers. Between January and November 2013, the total number of authorised claims management companies decreased by 718; the total number of personal injury claims management companies fell by 917; and the total number of PPI claims management companies fell by 85. That is clear evidence that the Government’s tough measures are having an impact.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

23. I serve on the Transport Committee, and we have just completed an inquiry into the effect of fraudulent whiplash claims on the cost of motor insurance. Will the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to stop bogus claims by rogue firms driving up the cost of insurance premiums for drivers?

[Mr Vara]

The Government have introduced various measures, one of which, on whiplash, is to have an accredited panel of medical experts. We want to make sure that there are proper experts who deal with this issue. The AA has reported that, as of October this year, the average comprehensive insurance for motor vehicles has gone down by £80.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to reduce the use of cautions for repeat offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T5. The forfeiture rule precludes a person who has been convicted of unlawfully killing another person from acquiring benefit in consequence of the killing. However, if the deceased person is a close family friend, a spouse or a close family member, their killer can use and abuse the estate until they are convicted. Will the Government consider addressing that issue? Will the Minister meet me to explore whether the rule can be improved in that respect?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

T7. Will the Secretary of State confirm that neither G4S nor Serco will be considered for any further contracts with the Ministry of Justice while the fraud inquiries are continuing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

T8. I listened with interest to the question that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) asked about PPI claims. It is excellent news that the Competition Commission is taking action to address market failure in the car insurance industry. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Transport and the Home Office are all making a contribution. Is there anything more that the Ministry of Justice can do?

[Mr Vara]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Given that the Competition Commission is undertaking that inquiry, it is probably best to listen to what it has to say, take note and see whether we can improve on its suggestions.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

T10. Given that new entrants will potentially be coming into an immature private probation market, will the Secretary of State guarantee that low and medium- risk prisoners will be managed correctly when their risk level increases so that public safety is not compromised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State indicated earlier that he was planning a consultation on mesothelioma victims. Does he accept that the review that his Department recently carried out simply did not fulfil the requirements of section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012?

[Mr Vara]

We had a consultation, and we have come up with the preliminary report. As was said earlier, we will come up with a fuller report in due course.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that if an alternative location can be found for the Felmores approved premises in Basildon, his Department is still willing to relocate it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman on the subject, and I can assure him that there will be a covenant to ensure that the monument is preserved, and not temporarily.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons, and what steps are being taken to send them back to secure detention in their own countries?

HM Courts and Tribunals Service Trust Statement

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has prepared a trust statement providing an account of the collection of revenues which are due to be paid to HM Treasury. The statement includes the value of fines and confiscation orders imposed by the judiciary; fixed penalties imposed by the police; the value of collections; the balances paid over to third parties including victims of crime, the Home Office and HM Treasury; and the balance of outstanding impositions.

We welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (C&AG) report on the trust statement which recognises the improvements in financial reporting made by HMCTS. The C&AG has, for the first time and subject to two specific exceptions, given an opinion that the trust statement presents a true and fair view of the transactions and balances reported.

The statement shows that we have continued the year-on-year improvement in the levels of collection. During 2012-13 more than £495 million has been collected from offenders, an increase of £11 million compared to 2011-12. Almost £59 million in compensation was paid to victims of crime—of which £25 million was funded by criminals’ cash and assets recovered through confiscation orders. In addition, following a change to the victim surcharge HMCTS is able to report increased receipts for victim support with £11 million being collected and paid in the year to support this work.

Confiscation orders are one of the key mechanisms available to the Government to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crimes. The value of the order imposed, which is often very high, is based on the criminal benefit attributed to the crime and may, therefore, exceed the value of realisable assets that are known to the court at the time of imposition. Crucially, an outstanding order stops the criminal benefiting from the proceeds of crime and ensures that, if the assets are discovered in the future, they can be seized.

Confiscation orders comprise 70% (£1.4 billion including interest) of total outstanding impositions. All available actions and sanctions are taken to recover this debt and bring it to account as expeditiously as possible. However, around one half of this amount—excluding interest—cannot be collected as it includes £109 million (8%) relating to individuals who are deceased, deported or who cannot be located, £84 million (6%) relating to orders which are being appealed and cannot be enforced while under appeal; and £136 million (10%) relating to orders where all the assets have been assessed as hidden following the conclusion of financial forensic investigations. In addition there is a further £339 million (24%) of interest accrued on confiscation orders which are outside agreed payment terms.

Cracking down on those who do not pay is an absolute priority. The agencies involved in the enforcement of confiscation orders, including the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service take every step to tackle outstanding debt including the addition of interest and imprisonment for those who do not pay. In relation to the outstanding fine debt the sanctions include taking deductions from offenders’ benefits or their earnings and seizing and selling their property and goods. Those who do not pay can also be imprisoned.

Criminals go to extraordinary lengths to hide the proceeds of their crimes by transferring funds abroad and concealing them with friends and family, but we are succeeding in recovering more money every year. The agencies responsible for enforcement are building better relationships with overseas authorities and engage specialist forensic teams to track down hidden assets. The 2012-13 trust statement analyses the confiscation order debt value by lead agency to assist the users’ comprehension of the contribution made by agencies involved in the enforcement of confiscation orders.

HMCTS recognises the importance of the recommendations made by the National Audit Office value-for-money study on confiscation orders and will work with our partner enforcement agencies to address those recommendations and ensure that criminals continue to be deprived of the proceeds of crime.

Legislation to allow HMCTS to obtain data from HMRC and DWP to be used for the purposes of setting fines and enforcing outstanding payment amounts came into force on 11 December 2013 and will allow HMCTS to increase the use of the attachment of earnings sanction. HMCTS has also rolled out a programme to implement the use of direct debit payments which can be used where outstanding fines are paid in instalments. The direct debit payment process will be easier for enforcement staff to administer than standing orders and should help to improve collection rates.

HMCTS has recently published an OJEU notice seeking a commercial partner to help increase collections, reduce enforcement costs and, importantly, ensure more criminals pay. A new national system has been implemented to manage the collection of fixed penalty notices, with all of the police forces having transferred to the new platform by June 2013.The continuing improvement the agencies are making combined with our future plans will ensure that more criminals pay and that taxpayers get better value for money.

Presumption of Death Act 2013

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

On 20 June 2013 the then Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) announced she would make a further statement regarding the timing of commencement of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 (“the Act”) before the end of 2013—[Official Report, 20 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 39WS].

When my hon. Friend made her statement in June regarding the Act it was expected that the work on the rules of court, regulations and associated procedures necessary to bring the Act fully into force would be completed in time for commencement to take place in April 2014. However, as my hon. Friend stated, this was not certain. In the event, the necessary work has not yet been completed. The proposed commencement of the Act will therefore be delayed until the next available common commencement date, 1 October 2014. I will make a further announcement to confirm the actual commencement date of the Act in due course and in any event before the summer recess.

On the same date, my hon. Friend also announced that the Ministry of Justice intended to publish a consultation paper on the possible creation of a status of guardian of the property and affairs of missing persons in 2013—[Official Report, 20 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 39WS]. Work on this paper is progressing and publication will take place as soon as possible in 2014. I will make a further announcement in relation to the publication of the paper in due course and in any event before the Easter recess.

Mesothelioma

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Mesothelioma is a tragically aggressive and terminal occupational disease. It kills approximately 2,200 people in England and Wales each year, with sufferers having a median life expectancy of only seven to nine months from diagnosis. Yet claims for compensation for mesothelioma are often subject to delays and fraught with procedural and evidential difficulties, made all the more acute by the imminence of the claimant’s death.

The Government have conducted a consultation on proposals intended to improve the speed and efficacy of the process for claimants to recover compensation in cases where a liable employer or insurer is traced. That consultation, which closed on 2 October 2013 and elicited over 100 responses, also incorporated the review required by section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 regarding the application to mesothelioma claims of conditional fee agreement reforms contained in part 2 of that Act.

The Government have reformed the way in which no-win-no-fee conditional fee agreements operate. It has always been the Government’s intention that those reforms should apply to all areas of civil litigation, including personal injury compensation. Those reforms came into force generally in April 2013, although not in respect of proceedings for mesothelioma claims. Extending the reforms to those proceedings was delayed until a review had been undertaken and published in accordance with section 48 of the LASPO Act.

The Government have carefully considered the responses and have concluded that they intend to apply sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act to mesothelioma cases, as for all other personal injury cases. The Government do not believe that the case has been made for mesothelioma cases to continue to be treated differently, in particular by comparison to other personal injuries, which can also have profound consequences for the sufferer.

To ensure that key changes to the mesothelioma claims process are addressed in a synchronised manner, we propose to apply the LASPO provisions from July 2014, at the same time as the compulsory payment scheme for victims of mesothelioma is planned to come into force under the Mesothelioma Bill, subject to Royal Assent. Under the Bill, introduced into Parliament in May 2013 by the Department for Work and Pensions, victims of mesothelioma who are unable to trace their liable employer or their employer’s insurer would be eligible to claim compensation from a dedicated fund even though it is not possible to trace the persons actually liable to compensate them.

The Ministry of Justice has also carefully considered responses to its other consultation proposals. We have declined to take forward a dedicated Mesothelioma pre-action protocol supported by a fixed recoverable costs regime as they currently stand on the grounds that there is not a strong enough case that they will meet the Government’s declared aim of ensuring that mesothelioma compensation claims are settled quickly—where necessary —and fairly. In light of our consultation response the ABI will wish to reconsider the final consultation proposal, an electronic Secure Mesothelioma Claims Gateway, which they had proposed to host and fund.

At this stage we still hope to identify potentially valuable reforms to mesothelioma claims process from the responses to the consultation and the Government will work closely with interested parties to discuss how these can be taken forward.

The Government will publish their response to the consultation, and the report under section 48 of the LASPO Act, shortly.

Civil Court System Fees

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s consultation “Court Fees: Proposals for reform” (Cm 8751).

For many years, the civil court system has operated under the principle that those who use the courts should pay the full cost of the service they receive. However, this has not yet been achieved in practice, and, last year, the deficit was more than £100 million. In a time when we have made deficit reduction our top priority, the Government do not believe that the courts can be immune from the tough decisions we have had to take in order to bring public spending in line with what we can afford.

With that in mind, this consultation outlines the Government’s approach to reducing the cost of the court service to the taxpayer. We seek to do this in two steps.

The first seeks to align court fees with the cost of the service provided, to move closer to our long-term goal of cost recovery through fees. The remissions system will, of course, remain in place, to protect access to justice for those who cannot afford to pay a fee.

However, the Government believe that, in some cases, it is right that those who use the courts pay more than what it costs, where they can afford to do so. The second step of our proposal seeks the introduction of enhanced fees, which will ensure that the taxpayer does not subsidise cases involving sums of money far in excess of any proposed fees.

There will, of course, be measures in place to protect against setting excessive fees and our proposals include scrapping the £75 application fee for domestic violence injunctions which will help thousands of women seeking non-molestation and occupation orders. The Lord Chancellor’s existing duty to protect access to justice will continue to apply and he will also be required to consider the overall financial position of the courts and the impact of any fee changes on the legal services market, so that they do not risk our competitive position. Any enhanced fees which, following this consultation, the Government decide to introduce will be subject to a full parliamentary debate before they come into force.

The consultation lasts for seven weeks, during which time the MOJ will actively engage with stakeholders.

Copies of the Government consultation will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

An online version of this consultation will be available at: www.gov.uk/moj.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

8. What steps he has taken to reduce motor insurance fraud to help motorists with the costs of driving.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

On 23 October the Government announced a package of reforms to ensure the availability of good-quality medical evidence in whiplash cases. Our reforms will create a robust system that deters speculative and fraudulent claims. They will lead to reduced costs for insurers and lower premiums for honest motorists.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank the Minister for that reply. How will he ensure that the medical panels are independent and will help to stop bogus claims?

[Mr Vara]

I can assure my hon. Friend that our reforms will see experts commissioned jointly by both the claimant and the defendant and paid regardless of the outcome of the claim. The measures will help ensure independence, and the new examination and reporting scheme will result in fewer speculative and fraudulent claims.

[Margot James]

A constituent of mine was involved in an accident in which the car in front of her made an emergency stop. She swerved to avoid it and the two vehicles made contact without significant impact, yet her insurers agreed to pay out a £4,000 claim for whiplash, which could not possibly have resulted from the accident, without informing her, let alone consulting her. Will my hon. Friend look into the case to see whether there are wider lessons to be learnt?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual cases and am not aware of any plans by the insurance industry to make information of that sort available. However, I can say that I very much hope that the reforms we are putting in place will ensure that fraudulent and speculative claims of the sort she refers to are weeded out in the first instance.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Has the Minister made any assessment of the different levels of fraudulent claims in the regions of the United Kingdom? Has he discussed the issue with the Northern Ireland Executive, particularly given that many of the insurance firms are based in the rest of the United Kingdom, rather than Northern Ireland, where it is a major issue?

[Mr Vara]

I am aware of certain figures showing that some areas have a higher propensity for claims than others. We are in the process of consulting a broad spectrum of stakeholders. If there are any we have missed, I am more than happy for the right hon. Gentleman to contact me so that we can include them.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Did the Minister read the e-mail sent to us both yesterday by the victim of a whiplash sting? His insurer, without consulting him or any medical evidence, paid out £2,700, £1,600 of which went to a claims management company, and then more than doubled his premium. Rather than blaming genuine victims for the cost of motor insurance, why has the Minister not tackled the claims management companies and insurers whose actions encourage fraud? Is it because of the millions they give the Tory party every year?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly out of date. If he did his research properly, he would be aware that since January this year 800 CMCs have closed. This is an issue where we are trying to do good and where all stakeholders are working together for the greater good of the public. It is regrettable that he is resorting to type and cannot recognise that he should be working to do good rather than being his usual destructive self.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

6. What steps he has taken to increase the voice of victims in the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The Law Society is one of 10 approved regulators for which the Legal Services Board has oversight responsibility. It is independent of the Government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is responsible for investigating alleged breaches of its conduct principles.

[Simon Danczuk]

I raise this question because my constituent Paul Cowdrey now risks losing his home because the Law Society advised him that if he raised his complaint he would not be liable for costs. He has now been ordered to pay more than £100,000 to the solicitor whom he complained about. The Solicitors Regulation Authority condemned the solicitor’s actions as morally reprehensible, but claimed it was unable to take action. Does the Minister agree that a regulator that is unable to prevent solicitors from abusing their position is not fit for purpose, and will he investigate this case on behalf of my constituent?

[Mr Vara]

I am well aware that this is an ongoing case about which the hon. Gentleman corresponded with my predecessor. However, the legal regulators and the legal ombudsman are independent of the Government and neither the Justice Secretary nor any of his Ministers have the power to intervene and it would be inappropriate for us to do so in any individual case. The hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Mr Cowdrey, needs to take independent legal advice.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the primary role of the Law Society is to represent solicitors, and that the proper channel for consumer complaints is the Legal Ombudsman?

[Mr Vara]

Various channels are available for those dealing with the conduct of solicitors, as well as the service provided by them. Yes, there is provision and appropriate methods that need to be pursued.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

11. What his policy is on the future of the probation service.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

20. What progress he has made on his reforms to the treatment of whiplash claims; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

On 23 October, the Government announced a package of reforms to ensure the availability of good-quality medical evidence in whiplash cases. Our reforms will create a robust and independent system of accredited experts to help the genuinely injured, and deter dishonest claimants from making claims.

[John Pugh]

I congratulate the Government on all they have done, which has been encouraging, but when will the number of whiplash cases in the UK reach anything like the EU average?

[Mr Vara]

The purpose of the measures is to try to ensure a reduction in the number of whiplash claims. At the moment, we have the highest whiplash claims in Europe. Given the quality of driving in some other countries—I will not name them—we have to accept that the number of whiplash claims is seriously flawed. That is what we are trying to address, and that is why we are introducing these measures.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

23. What steps he has taken to reduce reoffending and relieve pressure on the courts system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

A previous Justice Minister announced in a Westminster Hall debate that I secured just over a year ago that the Office of the Public Guardian had launched a fundamental review of the supervision of court-appointed deputies. Will the Minister tell us what changes will be made as a result of that review?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

This is an ongoing matter, and we are looking into it. I am happy to take on any comments that the hon. Gentleman might have, and I will look into it.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

South Yorkshire probation trust has reduced its reoffending rate by 13.4% over its target, and it attributes that in part to its use of impact teams. However, privatisation is likely to blow apart that collaborative working. Why are the Government pushing ahead with that plan?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Last week, a devastating report entitled “The Payment of Tribunal Awards” was published. It found that less than 50% of people received full payment of an award following a successful employment tribunal. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to enforce these claims? Will he meet me, my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on citizens advice and representatives from Citizens Advice to find ways to resolve this shocking injustice?

[Mr Vara]

I am, of course, happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents. I would say, however, that in the context of the tribunal, there are two individual parties and none of the damages is owed to the state, so we have to be careful. We can provide advice and, where possible, assistance, but at the end of the day, enforcement has to be dealt with by the two parties concerned. As I say, I would be happy to see my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My moustache and I are most grateful, Mr Speaker. More seriously, I remain optimistic that the Secretary of State will have a change of heart over Fenton town hall, which was used by the magistrates, and give it back to the people of Stoke-on-Trent. If he does not, what assurances can he give that the buyer that we think is waiting in the wings and subsequent purchasers will protect the first world war memorial that is located in that building? Many thousands of people are concerned about its future.

[Mr Vara]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his patience. I can assure him that, in the event of any transfers of the building, there will be a covenant to ensure that the new owner preserves that very important and historic monument, which is a tribute to all who paid the ultimate price in the first world war.

Motor Insurance (Whiplash)

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Slaughter]

It is difficult. There is a lot of rhetoric out there, and I have said what I want to say: that we should be concerned about fraud per se, and, in the context of personal injury actions, about soft tissue injuries, because it is easier to make fraudulent claims on them. The issue is how we deal with that.

I am delighted that the Committee’s report highlighted two issues. One of those is third-party capture, which is an open invitation to fraud. We know why insurance companies use it. They think they can settle a claim quickly and cheaply by offering a sum of money that is probably a fraction of what a genuine injury is worth. Usually because the victim does not know what it is worth, or needs money in a hurry, or perhaps because they do not want to have the case tested in court, they will settle for the sum—perhaps a few hundred pounds or £1,000—offered in an unsolicited phone call from the insurers. That must be wrong. Lawyers and medical experts have been saying that for a long time.

I am glad that the issue has been highlighted, and even more pleased that the Government appear to have accepted it. I hope that the Minister will say a bit more about what action will be taken. I have tabled parliamentary questions, and the Minister has answered some of them, but I do not think that he dealt with that issue, and it would be useful if he would.

The other issue that I was pleased to see highlighted in the report was how often fraud is pleaded by insurers defending claims. The answer is rarely. I cannot give a percentage, but from talking to practitioners—I do not think that this is denied—I understand it is rare to raise the issue of fraud in defence. If that is not being done, it is difficult for insurers to claim that they are aware of fraud.

Fraudulent claims can and should be challenged, and not only for the sake of the individual cases; if that happened more commonly it would, one might think, discourage fraud. What the insurance industry has been looking for, which the Government were going along with until recently, is a quick and dirty solution, which might deal with the problem but would throw out the baby with the bathwater. It would also prevent victims from getting fair compensation and encourage bad practice. It would encourage third-party capture and would also be likely to encourage the intervention of claims management companies.

Right hon. and hon. Members present will probably all be clear about the noxious effect that the claims management industry has had in its expansion in many areas of public life in the past few years. Having been restricted in some areas, it is looking for others to expand into, and it has its eye on the one that we are considering. If the small claims limit had been raised, with the result that claimants could no longer get representation, they would have been easy prey for claims management firms, who would say, “Let us handle it for you. We will take 30% or 50%,” and would purport to negotiate with the insurers on the claimant’s behalf. I hope that resisting the temptation to raise the limit will deal with that.

I have no particular problem with independent medical panels, if they work. However, I do not think that they will make a dramatic difference, and I am not sure that they are the simplest or right solution. Neither am I sure what evidence the Government have about fraudulent and dishonest practice by medical practitioners at the moment. The Minister might want to explain that.

When the panels have been used in other countries—Australia is the obvious example—they have rather become the captives of the insurance industry. I hope that that will not happen here and that they will be genuinely independent. Also, they seem like a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They will be a great new piece of bureaucracy and I am not sure that we could not have achieved the same objective of being sure we were getting reliable, robust and testing medical reports simply through registers of medical practitioners who were accredited as independent. That would have been cheaper, probably as effective or more effective, and more independent. We shall see where the approach leads.

There has been a progressive erosion of claimants’ rights in personal injury. I do not believe that personal injury claims, on the whole, can be brought by litigants in person. If 90% of claimants had been unable to get representation, it is likely that their claims would have been settled disadvantageously to them.

That is not just my opinion—that was the Government’s opinion last year, three months, I think, after they decided not to proceed with any change to the small claims limit for personal injury claims. They started a new consultation in April. I think it was in February that the previous report found against going ahead. The Government decided to go ahead and raise the limit to £10,000 for non-personal-injury cases, and that is probably right. We can argue about the exact figure, but it was somewhat overdue.

I do not think that, if the Government had decided, to allow for inflation, to raise the personal injury limit to £1,500 or £2,000, anyone would have had much of a quarrel. It is somewhat perverse that, having wanted to raise the limit to £5,000, they have now decided not to increase it at all; after they dismissed the matter in February there cannot really be any explanation for their proposing consultation in April, other than that they wanted to go ahead and have now been dissuaded.

However, it was not just that report: every report in the past 15 years, under the Labour Government as well as the present Government, that has considered small claims limits, as well as independent judicial reviews of the matter, found that it would not be sensible to increase the limit as the Government proposed. I think that, having got everything it wanted through the insurance summit at Downing street and so forth, the insurance industry decided it was on a roll. Having got the Jackson concessions and similar things, it was looking for an opportunity to go further. This was the prize that insurers really wanted, because they thought that it would almost entirely destroy the personal injury lawyers, save for catastrophic and major injuries.

If one looks at other countries to learn lessons, with Australia being the obvious example, one can see that such changes lead to wholesale restrictions on the rights of claimants. In Australia, there is something called whole-person impairment that has quite a high threshold below which no personal claims can be made. In other words, a person has to be substantially injured before they can bring a claim. There is also no-fault compensation, under which the onus is effectively passed to the state rather than being on insurers.

There is a proposal in Australia, not due to come in for another five or six years, simply to ban the common law right to sue for personal injury. I find it perverse that a Conservative Government might start to walk down that track. The losers would be not only the victims, but the state, which will end up picking up the tab through the increased costs of the NHS and benefits, and in other ways. The proposal would effectively nationalise the liability for personal injury.

The winners here are clearly the insurers, whose shareholders and profits are the major driving force. Are motorists winners? So far, there is no evidence that they are. Although the Minister’s predecessors said—it will be interesting to hear whether he repeats this—that insurance premiums will come down as a consequence of the measures, the insurance industry never says that. It says that it hopes that insurance premiums will come down. They have come down, I think, by 12%.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at what the AA has said—that average insurance premiums for comprehensive cover have gone down.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think that there is a misunderstanding. No one denies that insurance premiums have been going down. They have been going down for some time, and were doing so before any of the Government’s changes were implemented in April. I refer the Minister to an answer he gave. I asked,

“with reference to his…announcement of 23 October 2013, how much of the 12 per cent reduction in motor insurance premiums over the last year is attributable to the reforms to civil litigation funding and costs brought in April 2013.”

I am afraid that the answer was that it is

“too early to assess the full impact of the reforms”,

but that AA Insurance has ascribed the reduction

“to anticipated savings to the Government’s reforms.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 255W-256W.]

But we are asking for evidence, which was my starting point.

[Mr Vara]

With respect, the shadow Minister has slightly moved the argument. The first comment to which I replied was simply that insurance companies do not say that insurance premiums have gone down, and I gave him a simple response—that the AA has specifically said that insurance premiums have gone down by an average of about £80 for comprehensive cover. That was all I was addressing, but he has moved on to a slightly different point.

[Mr Slaughter]

With respect to the Minister, my point was whether insurance companies say, whenever changes are implemented, that insurance premiums will go down. If he has evidence of an insurance company saying, “We expect insurance premiums to fall by 10% in the next year as a consequence of proposals introduced by the Government in response to the whiplash consultation”, I will be sceptical, but impressed, and I will monitor that to see whether it is true.

I asked the Minister a series of questions about where the Government were going on the announcement, specifically in relation to medical panels and fraudulent claims. I am grateful to him for today’s answers, but I am not sure that they take us much further. I asked when he proposes to implement the new independent medical panel scheme for whiplash claimants, and he replied that there was “no set time frame”.

I asked the Minister whether the scheme would apply to all personal injury claims, to which his reply was that it

“will apply to similar road traffic accident soft tissue injury claims”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 259W.]

With respect, that is a bit vague. I take from that that it will not apply to all personal injury claims, but to those for whiplash and similar claims. The Government need to be more precise and to define exactly what the medical panel will deal with. It would be helpful if the Minister did that today, but if not, I am sure that he will write to me about the issue.

I asked what steps the Minister was taking to ensure that insurers did not make offers to settle whiplash claims without medical evidence. I made that point earlier, and he may have misunderstood me, but I do not think that he has replied to it, specifically in relation to third-party capture and how that can be prevented. There could simply be a ban—for example, on unsolicited approaches by insurers, without the benefit of medical evidence. That issue was not covered in the answers I received today, so I would be grateful for that reply.

I asked the Minister how the new independent medical panel scheme for whiplash claimants will be funded. I am afraid that his answer was:

“We are keen to talk to stakeholders about funding opportunities which would meet the costs of setting up and running the new system”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 259W.]

I take that as, “I don’t know at the moment,” but if I am wrong, will he let me know?

[Mr Vara]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I hope that he agrees that it is very important to get this measure right and, in doing so, to consult all the relevant stakeholders. That is what we propose to do, rather than shoot from the hip. I gave a frank and honest reply, in the expectation that we will come up with the right answer for the public, for whom this is an important matter.

[Mr Slaughter]

This early in the Minister’s tenure, I am perfectly happy to accept his answer as it stands. However, we need to know at least the timetable for where this is going. To me, the response has the smell of a climbdown. I am sure that the Minister is absolutely sincere in wanting to tackle fraud in this area, but having gone along with how it was presented by the Secretary of State, we now need to know, factually, where we are going. The issue is important not just to victims—and to motorists and insurers—but to how the system works. Many hard-working practitioners are now scratching their heads about how things will change.

I asked the Minister what further proposals he was considering to reduce fraudulent or exaggerated whiplash claims, which was alluded to in the announcement. The answer was that the

“primary focus is on…implementation of the measures outlined in the 23 October announcement”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 259W.]

I think that that means there are none at the moment.

I also asked the Minister what steps he was taking to ensure that insurers shared more of their data on suspected fraudulent or exaggerated whiplash claims. Again, I take it that the answer is that he is looking at the matter and will come back with further proposals. Finally, I asked him for how long he has deferred any increase in the small claims threshold for personal injury claims. I take from his other answers that there are no plans to do that, at least until there has been a full review of the Jackson proposals, to which he has linked the issue, and that will some three to five years hence.

I do not want to put the Minister completely on the spot, because I appreciate that such things are not an exact science, but some certainty is needed. As I said, there has been a huge amount of rhetoric in this area, with puff stories in the Sunday papers for many years—the Government are entitled to do that—but the serious business of litigating and settling injury claims must be dealt with.

If the Government say, as they clearly now are saying, that they will not increase the limit, but might do so in future, they should state at least a minimum time that will have to pass before that can happen. I take it from the answers that until there has been a full review of the current changes—Jackson, the portal and so on—we will not return to that subject again. The fact that the Minister answered those questions has shortened my contribution, but I would be grateful for any further clarification.

In conclusion, the Government need to be more even-handed in relation to this matter. If they are, they will get a better response from all sides. The insurers feel that they have been on a roll so far. We must have no more summits with the Prime Minister or anybody else to which only one side is invited. I think we can all agree that that was a serious error of judgment; only listening to one side is never a good idea if we are to make sensible policy. The Conservative party needs to place less reliance financially on the insurance industry, which is a very substantial donor, because that is not a helpful way to go.

All of us want motor insurance premiums to continue to decline. I think the figure of £90 in the average premium is given in relation to whiplash and soft tissue injuries. That is a substantial sum, but it is far smaller than the amount spent on repair costs, car hire costs and many other areas that are open to abuse. I hope the Government will turn their attention to that matter and not be put off by the fact that the insurers are often complicit in those areas. Credit hire and inflated repair costs are a scandal. They cost far more than personal injury costs in relation to insurance premiums, and that is something that should be tackled.

One reason why there are a lot of soft tissue claims is that car safety has improved immeasurably over the past 20 or 30 years. I am talking about the structure of vehicles, the compulsory use of seat belts and other matters of that kind. People are suffering moderate soft tissue injuries where previously they would have suffered catastrophic injuries. That improvement is to be welcomed, so let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us bear down on fraud, whether it is in the area of whiplash or credit hire, and on excessive profit taking, whether that is done by claims management companies, insurers or lawyers.

We must also ensure that victims’ voices are heard. I am sure that the Minister, in many other areas of his brief, would be the first to say that that should be the case. We must not prevent the victims of road traffic accidents or of other personal injuries from being able to mount a claim and get representation, proper redress and fair compensation. The Government have been singing from one side of the hymn sheet, and it is about time they took into account both sides.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Robertson, to speak in a debate that is chaired by your good self. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this timely debate. Indeed, this is my second debate as a Justice Minister and the second debate that I am replying to that has been secured by the hon. Lady.

On 29 October, the hon. Lady asked a number of questions in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice. I will try to address some of those issues in my remarks today. If there is any shortfall, I will expect her to have a reply very soon.

I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) was so critical of everything that the Government seek to do, particularly as this is something that will actually benefit the public. He asked me who the winner will be. Let me assure him that, at the end of the day, it will be the public. I hope that when I have finished my comments, he will be slightly persuaded that this is actually a good news story, rather than a negative one.

There have been some real challenges for the Government in seeking to put right some of the imbalances in the criminal justice system. Such imbalances have led to a disproportionate growth in personal injury claims, especially whiplash claims, and in the considerable costs of dealing with them. Too many claims are being brought inappropriately. We know that reported road traffic accidents have fallen from 190,000 in 2006, to 150,000 in 2012—a reduction of more than 20%. Yet at the same time, the number of personal injury claims resulting from road traffic accidents has risen from 520,000 to 820,000—an increase of almost 60%. That is a clear indication that there is a problem.

[Mr Slaughter]

I will not interrupt the Minister every five minutes, but does he accept that whiplash claims fell by about 60,000 in the last year that figures were available, which is, I think, 2012-13? They are now down to the sort of levels of 2008-09.

[Mr Vara]

If the hon. Gentleman would give me the opportunity to speak, he will find that I address a little bit later the disparity of numbers and what is a genuine whiplash claim now compared with what it was before.

It is worth noting that the proportion of road traffic accident claims that relate to whiplash has dropped to 58% recently. However, further study of Department for Work and Pensions statistics suggests that that is misleading and that a change in claims labelling may be responsible. Many claims are now labelled as soft tissue neck injuries when notified to the DWP. When those claims are considered with those labelled “whiplash”, the figure increases to around 87% of claims. Even though the number of accidents is falling, there has been a large increase in the number of personal injury claims, which is real evidence of a system crying out for reform.

[Sir Greg Knight]

As the effects of whiplash are normally felt within seven days of the accident and usually do not last more than a year, will the Minister address the point raised by the Transport Committee, which suggested that the period of limitation in such cases be reduced from three years to one year? If he cannot cover that matter today, will he write to me on that specific subject? There is a case for reducing the limitation period for these claims.

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. The Government did indeed consider that recommendation, but we do not intend to take any action on it. The limitation period is of long standing and applies to wider personal injuries than just those in road accidents. It is important to bear that in mind. This debate is specific to whiplash claims.

The Government accept that many claims may be genuine, but many speculative, exaggerated or even outright fraudulent claims are clearly being made. It is not right that people who cheat the system should get away with it and force up the price of insurance for honest, hard-working motorists. I make no apology for targeting the exaggerated claims of whiplash fraudsters to drive down premiums.

People seemingly now claim for whiplash injuries sustained in the most minor of incidents, and Government data show that more than 1,900 claims a day are made. According to the Association of British Insurers, the cost to the industry from whiplash claims is £2 billion, resulting in £90 being added to the average motor insurance premium. That is why the Government were committed to reducing the number and cost of whiplash claims at the Prime Minister’s insurance summit last year. We need to take action to tackle speculative, fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims, but we must not lose sight of the needs and legitimate expectations of those who have suffered a genuine injury. A reduction in the number of such claims will lower the costs for insurers, which will in turn allow them to continue to reduce motor premiums for consumers.

Motor insurance premiums are beginning to fall. Figures published by the AA’s British insurance premium index in October, as I said earlier, show that quotes for annual comprehensive car insurance have fallen by 12% over the past year. Incidentally, regarding some remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I refer him to what the Association of British Insurers said in oral evidence to the Transport Committee. The ABI said that it expects savings from the Government reforms that have been implemented to result in a decrease in insurance premiums.

That is a good start, but the Government fully expect insurers to continue to meet their commitment to pass on the savings from the Government reforms that are driving down the costs of civil litigation. In December last year, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation seeking stakeholder views on the creation of independent medical panels to support better diagnosis of whiplash and options for increasing the small claims threshold for personal injury claims to £5,000.

The consultation closed on 8 March. I thank all the individuals and organisations who took the time and trouble to contribute. A healthy 292 responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders, providing the Government with a strong evidence base to inform our decisions for reform.

The Government published our response to the consultation and to the Transport Committee report, “Cost of motor insurance: whiplash”, on 23 October. Our response detailed the Government’s direction of travel on whiplash reform and announced a number of reforms to the medical evidence and reporting system for whiplash claims. Exaggerated and speculative compensation claims have helped force up insurance premiums, and such unnecessary and costly claims will be targeted by the Government’s new and robust medical evidence scheme.

The new system will ensure that only evidence from fully accredited medical professionals qualified to carry out thorough medical examinations can be considered when pursuing a claim, so people who aim to cheat the system will be deterred, while victims with genuine injuries can still get the help that they need. Improvements to the system to support medical experts will include an approved accreditation scheme, new best practice guidance, better accident information and access to medical records, where appropriate, and an improved medical report form to speed up settlements.

The Government are particularly pleased that representatives from the insurance, legal and medical sectors have put aside their differences and submitted a consensus approach to improving medical evidence and reports. Such a consensus can only be positive for all involved and provides the Government with a clear mandate for our reforms. We look forward to working closely with stakeholders to build an effective and rigorous new system on that solid base of agreement. Ministers plan to meet representatives from key stakeholder groups to outline the way forward and identify experts to work with officials on the detail of the new system. It is both important and sensible to involve industry experts when designing the detailed changes. Such input will be invaluable as we work up an appropriate and effective accreditation process, methods to control the use of pre-medical offers, robust examination techniques and best practice guidance and an improved medical reporting process and report form.

Details of the most appropriate funding method for the new scheme are still to be developed, but the Government believe that there are areas of common ground with the industry. We will talk to stakeholders about funding opportunities for meeting the costs of setting up and running the new system and for ensuring that the Government achieve our intention that such costs should not fall on the taxpayer. We aim to work at pace with stakeholders on those and other issues, and we intend to start implementing improvements to the system next year. I assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith that we are actively considering a timetable for implementation.

In addition to the work on the new medical reporting scheme, the Government will also work with stakeholders to improve the provision of data relating to whiplash. As the Committee indicated in its report, accurate data and statistics are needed to have a baseline to work from. Ministry of Justice officials will be working with colleagues in other Departments and with representatives from the insurance and legal sectors, including Claims Portal Ltd, to identify and compile baseline data. That will ensure that future work in this area can be underpinned by a robust evidence base.

[Mr Slaughter]

I appreciate all that, but in considering the cost of insurance premiums, will the Minister also consider insurance company profits? Admiral has just said that it is delivering £80 per policyholder to its shareholders—a sum equivalent to whiplash costs—and Direct Line has just announced that its overall operating profit has risen 73% in the past nine months.

[Mr Vara]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to get this right, and we are speaking actively with all stakeholders: insurance companies, lawyers, claimants, defendants and the judiciary where applicable. I hope that there will be consensus, and that we will get it right. If he wishes to have any input other than this debate, I will certainly welcome it. He is welcome to write to me, as indeed he has done with all the questions that I have helpfully answered in this debate.

The Government are also keen for the insurance sector to work with the claimant lawyer groups to share available data on fraudulent claims. Doing so would enable many such claims to be stopped at source. Ministry of Justice officials will work with stakeholders to assess the work undertaken so far, consider the issues on both sides that are slowing agreement and identify solutions to enable both sides to reach agreement on this vital issue.

The sharing of data on fraudsters will be of immeasurable help to claimant lawyers when considering whether to take on a case and will be a considerable step forward in the fight against fraudulent claims. However, the Government consultation document contained a further proposal on whether the small claims threshold for personal injury claims should be raised from £1,000 to £5,000. Right hon. and hon. Members already know that, following a thorough assessment of the evidence submitted to the Government from both consultation responses and from other sources, we decided to defer the raising of the small claims threshold for now. For the moment, more work is needed to support litigants in person, consider how best to regulate the personal injury claims sector, mitigate any impact on the online portal used to process road traffic accident claims where liability is admitted and assess the impact on the market of other Government reforms.

As Members will also be aware, the Government have undertaken a major programme of reform to civil litigation and costs with significant impacts on the personal injury litigation sector. The implementation of part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 on 1 April introduced major changes to no win, no fee conditional fee arrangements, the provision of after-the-event insurance and a ban on the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases.

Those reforms, and the subsequent changes to the road traffic accident pre-action protocol and associated fixed recoverable costs, have already begun to have an impact on the personal injury market. However, the Government believe that time is needed for the changes to bed in completely and for the savings that they will create to be fully realised before further reform to the sector is undertaken. I ought to make it clear that the Government have not ruled out further reform to the personal injury market. The consultation document and the Transport Committee inquiry both highlighted areas where further reform would be possible, and the Government may wish to consider such proposals in due course. However, our primary focus for now is on the effective implementation of the measures outlined in the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor on 23 October.

It is also our desire to identify and eradicate dysfunctional behaviour by those who operate in this sector, and we would like all stakeholders to work together with us to address this issue. In addition, we await with interest the Competition Commission’s forthcoming report and recommendations on the personal motor insurance market.

There is an opportunity now for insurers, claimant lawyers and others to build on the recent spirit of co-operation that was shown in agreeing a sensible consensus position on medical evidence. I call on all interested parties in this market to come together to build a personal injury process that deters speculative and fraudulent claims, while providing the genuinely injured with the help and support that they need to recover from an accident.

I thank the Transport Committee for its valuable inquiry and report on the cost of whiplash claims on motor insurance premiums. The report was well-balanced and thought provoking, and it provided much useful evidence that helped to inform the Government’s final decisions on whiplash reform.

As Members are no doubt aware, Ministers helpfully agreed to defer the publication of the consultation response to allow the Committee’s recommendations to be considered in full. The Committee published its recommendations on 31 July, and my predecessor wrote to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside on 25 September to propose that a combined response to the consultation and the Committee should be published. I understand that the Committee was content with this approach, and the response was published on 23 October.

As I have already mentioned, the Government agreed with a number of the Committee’s conclusions, such as those on improvements to medical reporting, data sharing and evidence gathering and on whether to raise the small claims threshold for personal injury claims, so I will not go into them again now. I should point out that the Committee’s report addressed areas where the Government felt, on balance, that change was either not required or not appropriate.

Whiplash is a complex issue and all options, including whether it would be proportionate and appropriate to make changes to primary legislation, were looked at before final decisions on the way forward were made. For example, the Government considered the Committee’s recommendation on whether to amend the limitation period for whiplash claims, and I have already dealt with that issue. As I said, the limitation period is long-standing and applies to all personal injury actions arising from negligence or breach of duty. However, the Government decided that the available evidence did not at present support such a change.

As I said in my opening remarks, we have received the letter of 29 October from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, and we hope to reply to her more substantively very shortly.

I conclude by noting that the Transport Committee issued a further call for evidence on Tuesday relating to the publication of the Government’s response document. The Government will, of course, provide an appropriate contribution, and I look forward to the Committee’s further report.

Civil Service Council/Family Justice Council (Triennial Reviews)

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:

In March 2011 the Government responded to the Public Accounts Select Committee report “Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango state” setting out the coalition’s plans for reforming the public bodies sector. It included the requirement to undertake triennial reviews of Executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).

The Civil Justice Council (FJC) was established under the Civil Procedure Act 1997. It is responsible for overseeing and co-ordinating the modernisation of the civil justice system and for providing advice to the Lord Chancellor and others on the effectiveness of aspects of the civil justice system. It also makes recommendations to test, review or conduct research into specific areas.

The primary role of the Family Justice Council is to promote an interdisciplinary approach to family justice and it is an advisory body to the Family Justice Board. The Council also monitors how effectively the family justice system delivers the service the Government and the public need, providing advice to the Family Justice Board. The FJC was not established under statute.

To deliver the coalition Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability across our public bodies, the Civil Justice Council and the Family Justice Council will each be subject to a triennial review. The Judicial Office, which is undertaking the triennial reviews, has today launched a consultation which will last until 25 November 2013 inviting views. In line with Cabinet Office guidance, the reviews will consider the following:

the continuing need for the Civil Justice and Family Justice Councils—both their functions and their form; and

where it is agreed that the bodies should remain, to review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that these public bodies are complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.

In conducting the triennial review, officials will be engaging with a broad range of stakeholders and users of the Civil Justice Council and the Family Justice Council. The review will be aligned with guidance published by the Cabinet Office: “Guidance on Reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies”. The final report and findings will be laid in this House