I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, leave out “two years” and insert “twelve months”.

This amendment would limit the tariff to injuries lasting less than one year.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 11, in clause 3, page 3, line 22, leave out “two years” and insert “twelve months”.

This amendment would limit the tariff to injuries lasting less than 1 year.

The Bill says that if someone’s whiplash injury goes on for up to two years, or if it is thought that it might go on for up to two years, or if it goes on for up to two years because of their failure to “mitigate” their loss—that is, act to get themselves better by taking up an offer of physio, for example—they are eligible for fixed-tariff damages only.

Since 1999, special damages have been exempted from the calculation of whether a claim falls within the small claims limit. I will take this opportunity to nail down the ongoing argument about when the last increase in the small claims limit was. The Government say 1991, which is disingenuous and borders on the dishonest. I can provide quotes from the White Book if the Minister would like to see them. The limit has remained at £1,000 since 1991 but the method of calculating whether a claim falls within that limit changed in 1999 after the Woolf report. If any doubt remains, the evidence can be found in extracts from the White Book before and after the change.

From 1999, a definition of what was included in the £1,000 limit excluded special damages. It contains a helpful example that leaves no doubt that only general damages should be considered to see if a case is within the limit, and special damages are exempted from that time. I am told that special damages in a case add 20% to a claim on average, which means that the change in 1999 increased the limit by 20%. I shall assume that we have now laid that matter to rest and that any calculation from now on will be from 1999, not 1991. We may argue about the appropriate inflation index, or even the percentage increase from the changes made, but there should be no argument about the date from which it applies.

The impact of the clause is that someone could be off sick and losing wages, or having to work reduced hours, because of their whiplash complaint for up to two years before they are taken out of tariff damages. The Office for National Statistics says that the average wage in the UK was £27,200 in 2016-17, so an injured worker could lose more than £50,000 in earnings and still be subject to tariff damages. Someone on the minimum wage of £7.38 who works 35 hours a week for 48 weeks a year might earn £12,400, so they could have no income at all to support themselves and their family for up to two years.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed tariff takes no account of victims’ circumstances? A whiplash injury will have a greater effect on someone in a manual job, who is less likely to be able to perform that job, than someone in a sedentary position, who is more likely to be able to continue to work through minor injury. Someone in a manual job is also likely to have lower wages and be less able to sustain a certain level of loss.

My hon. Friend is completely in touch with the reality of life for working people. That is the argument that we seek to make. In tabling amendments 10 and 11, which bring that two years down to 12 months, we concede that people recover and that that can take time. We are not suggesting a short period, but a reasonable one, and we hope that the Government will concede that it is fair and proportionate.

On amendments 12 to 16, it is proposed that the Lord Chancellor should set the tariffs for pain, suffering and loss—

Order. Those are amendments to the next clause—sorry.

The issue of tariffs has been set out in an arbitrary way in the Bill. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was set up in 1991. Since 1995, the scheme has set the damages received for a criminal injury at £1,000 for whiplash that lasts from six to 13 weeks. That was the same figure in 2001, when the scheme was updated, and again in 2008 when the scheme was updated, and even in the current scheme which has not been updated since 2012: the damage for whiplash is £1,000 for more than 13 weeks. That compares unfavourably with the tariff that has been set—£470 for whiplash—so there are two inconsistent schemes operating under Government auspices. Someone is better off if they are injured by another person in criminal activity—for example, during dangerous or careless driving—and then receiving money from the Government. If they are injured negligently in a car accident they would receive far less. It should not be the case that someone receives far less if someone else commits a criminal offence against them than they would as the result of an incident that has occurred through negligence.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is creating tiers of victims of personal injury, so there will be different rates for people injured in Scotland, the workplace and road traffic accidents, and as a result of a criminal act?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This leads to my next point: the way damages are calculated by judges has evolved over time through the judicial colleges. They have years of experience, yet what we have here is the Lord Chancellor plucking figures out of the air just to make things fit and to satisfy the insurance companies. That is not right. There has to be consistency, and a consistent approach. The measure makes no sense at all, and we should not be a situation in which tariffs are set arbitrarily by the Lord Chancellor that are inconsistent with other parts of the law and even other schemes within the Ministry of Justice.

I shall speak to amendments 10 and 11, which have been tabled by Opposition Mems. I stated on Second Reading that Opposition Members had expressed deep concern about the implications of the Bill and the policy agenda that the Government were operating under the cover of cracking down on fraudulent claims. Fraudulent claims are wrong, but we are not in the midst of an epidemic of fraudulent claims as Ministers would have us believe. In fact, insurance industry data show that of all motor claims, 0.17% were proven to be fraudulent in 2016. This is an extremely low percentage.

Does the hon. Lady accept that the figure of 0.17% relates to all motor claims, not just those relating to personal injury?

The point about fraudulent claimants is that it is a very low percentage, and the insurance industry has reporting duties. No insurance company has stated that fraud is a material risk. It is not correct to suggest that there is an epidemic of fraudulent claims. Such claims should be tackled, but the way to do that is to go after those who commit fraud rather than innocent victims of road traffic accidents. The implementation of the Government’s package of measures in this Bill and the forthcoming changes to the small claims limit would eviscerate access to justice for many people with genuine injuries. In its current form, the Bill would replace the long-standing and established Judicial Studies Board guidelines with a rigid tariff that would undermine judicial discretion and leave injured claimants worse off.

I agree with the conclusions of the Access to Justice group in its written submissions to the Committee, which state that the increase in the small claims limit and the introduction of a tariff system is punitive and arbitrary. The draft tariff system presented by the Ministry has shown an overwhelming reduction in payments for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for whiplash injuries. In comparison with the 2015 average pay-outs under the existing guidelines, injuries lasting 19 to 24 months would be compensated 13% less, and those lasting 16 to 18 months would be compensated 29% less, while injuries lasting 13 to 15 months would be compensated 45% less. I note that Government amendment 4 would ensure the Lord Chancellor consulted the Lord Chief Justice before proceeding with regulation changes, but it is not satisfactory and would not see access to justice delivered for injured claimants. It misses the point of what is damaging about the move from judicial guidelines.

The Bill classifies injuries dealt with by the proposed tariff scheme as minor. I am not sure by whose definition a minor injury is one that can last up to two years. By most standards, it is surely a significant injury, and I welcome the shadow Front-Bench amendments that would see injuries of more than a year removed from the scope of the tariff system. To grade an injury of up to 15 months as minor and restrict damages to nearly 50% of what they are currently is a clear, ideologically-driven assault on access to justice.

Moreover, the evidence submitted to the Committee by the Carpenters Group showed that 15% of road traffic accident injuries lasted for more than 12 months. We cannot insist that the punitive measures invoked by a move to a tariff system affect the ability of a substantial number of people to access justice. Further, on the secondary legislation changes to the small claims track from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic-related personal injury claims and to £2,000 for all other types of personal injury claim, the package of measures, of which this Bill forms part, will see thousands of injured people fall out of scope for free legal advice and potentially denied justice. Current predictions are that around 350,000 injured people will be put off pursuing a claim for an injury that was not their fault. Access to justice is on the line for thousands of genuinely injured people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of the Bill will mean that we are likely to see what happened in the employment tribunals when fees were introduced and there was a drop-off of 90%?

That is absolutely right. If the changes go through, hundreds of thousands of people will simply not be able to pursue claims with legal representation and will be deterred from doing so. The Government’s introduction of employment tribunal fees was found by the Supreme Court to be illegal because they denied people access to justice, and we seem to be going down the same route with the Bill’s further attacks on access to justice and with the related small claims measures. Amendments 10 and11 should be adopted as they provide much needed strength to the legislation and will help protect access to justice for victims of accidents.

Order. Minister, as you will have noticed, we have strayed into a stand part debate, so I do not intend to have a separate one. If the Minister wishes to say anything in response, now is the time.

I shall focus narrowly on amendments 10 and 11, which focus on the question of reducing the period from two years to 12 months. Perhaps when we move on to amendments 12 to 15, we can talk a little more about the Judicial College guidelines and the question of tariffs.

The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge questioned where the word “minor” came from, which is important. It comes from the Judicial College guidelines. The idea that injuries under two years rather than under one year should be separated reflects the process within the Judicial College guidelines and its definition of what constitutes a minor injury. Clearly, that is a legal definition; in no way does the Judicial College intend to suggest that somebody suffering two years of injury is not suffering considerable pain, distress and loss of amenity. It is simply used to make a distinction between an injury that passes over time and an injury that is catastrophic and lasts throughout one’s life. In no way is it intended to denigrate the experience during the two years.

We feel strongly that it is important for the Bill to remain consistent with the definitions within the Judicial College guidelines. In the absence of that, there would be the first problem of imposing a very unfair pressure, which could inflate, on GPs to push through the one-year barrier, but there is a more fundamental problem. Were we to accept the amendments, they would not only take about 11% of cases out, but mean that the provisions on the requirement for a pre-medical offer would then be removed for the one to two-year period. We would suddenly end up with people able to proceed without medical reports for the one to two-year period, which would undermine a lot of the purpose of the Bill.

Surely it is up to insurance companies whether they choose to make pre-medical offers. It is entirely in their hands whether to do so. Whether or not it can be done is for the applicant but the decision is in the hands of the insurance companies; it should not be in the hands of legislation.

The hon. Lady puts her finger exactly on the current situation. Currently, the decision is in the hands of the insurance companies. The argument in the legislation is to take that decision away from the insurance companies; it will prohibit them from making an offer without a medical report. That was supported by the Opposition as well as the Government, and that is exactly the intention of the legislation. That is another reason why we will resist amendments 10 and 11.

Does the Minister accept that, although the small claims limit has remained at £1,000, the way that was calculated changed in 1999?

Order. Can I just say to the hon. Lady that the Minister had sat down? It is appropriate to intervene when the Minister is on his feet. If the Minister wishes to make a statement in response, I will take it.

This is a good challenge. It is not, respectfully, relevant to amendments 10 and 11, but relates to the question of something that will be done by the Procedure Committee, if it were to proceed through secondary legislation—a proposal to raise the limit from £1,000 to £2,000. The hon. Lady is correct that in 1999, changes were made to how the £1,000 limit was calculated, which adds an extra level of complication.

There is also a debate between us on whether CPI or RPI should be used to move that initial 1991 definition and, if so, to what amount. Should the hon. Lady wish to proceed, that is appropriate—not for this amendment or the Bill, but for subsequent measures.

We do not intend to divide on this but we will raise these issues again on Report and Third Reading.

Does that apply to amendments 10 and 11?

It does, and I thank you for your advice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 3, page 3, line 26, leave out from “amount” to end of line 5 on page 4 and insert

“determined in accordance with the 14th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases or any subsequent revision to these guidelines.”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out subsections (3) to (7).

This amendment, together with Amendments 14 to 16, would replace the tariff with the Judicial College Guidelines for the assessment of damages.

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 4, line 7, leave out

“to which regulations under this section apply”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out

“(subject to the limits imposed by regulations under this section)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

Government amendment 4.

Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (11).

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

The Bill proposes that the Lord Chancellor, rather than judges, should set the tariffs for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. In view of the opposition from those who are judicially qualified and the upholders of the law, can the Minister not see the sense in the point that no politician should be making decisions for which the judiciary is rightly responsible?

To go down that path sets a dangerous precedent. It may be justified by Government when they are the paymasters in the criminal injuries compensation scheme, for example, but in any other sphere of injury compensation it takes away an integral role of the judiciary and introduces another layer of bureaucracy.

The current calculation of damages by both sides—claimant and defendant—is made using the Judicial Studies Board guidelines. Those are based on what judges have awarded in the past—on what is fair. They are used by the parties to guide settlement out of court and by judges in court at trial. That makes the JSB the best guide to what is just and proper in terms of damages awarded. The Government are throwing all that out in favour of the Lord Chancellor—someone with far less expertise and a political agenda.

A lot of people would say that the JSB guidelines are what is just, or that they represent justice for the victim, although I have my doubts about that. After all, although special damages for losses and expenses can put someone back in a position financially, as if the injury had never occurred, general damages can only apologise for what someone has been through and may continue to suffer; they cannot make anyone better. That is at least, for now, something that the courts decide is appropriate; it is not a figure plucked out of the air.

The Government’s attitude is, “What would experts know? It might be a basic tenet of English common law that people are compensated fairly and judges are best placed to assess that but, so what? Let’s rip it up!” That is to ignore Lord Woolf, who said:

“The effect of whiplash injuries, with which we are concerned, can vary substantially according to the physical and mental sturdiness of the victim. This means that the appropriate amount of damages for a whiplash injury can vary substantially…I suggest they are not suited to a fixed cap, as proposed by the Government.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1593.]

They are also ignoring another former Law Lord, Lord Hailsham, who said:

“it seems admirable that we should put into statute a requirement that the Lord Chief Justice be consulted. If the Minister says, ‘but of course he will be’, all I can say is that Ministers sometimes have a curious habit of forgetting the obvious and their obligations.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1598.]

What did experienced practitioners from the Government’s own Back Benches, such as Baroness Berridge, say?

“I have met many a claimant for whom the difference in damages now proposed by the introduction of the tariff, taking some damages from four figures—£1,200 or £1,400—down to the likes of £470 is a significant matter for many people’s incomes up and down the country. I cannot have it portrayed that this might not make a great deal of difference to many ordinary people in the country.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1611.]

“Oh,” say the Government, “and we will ignore the Justice Committee too.” The Justice Committee could not have been clearer in its criticism regarding access to justice through this and any number of other measures in the Bill. The JSB guidelines allow for an appropriate degree of flexibility and are, as the name suggests, simply a guide. The Judicial College regularly revises the guidelines, with the latest having been published just last year. The Bill removes the judicial responsibility for the assessment of damages and reduces the damages that will be received by honest claimants, because of the activities of a tiny proportion of dishonest ones. That goes against our fundamental principles of justice but, as we know, this is not really about justice—it is simply about saving insurers money.

As someone who has suffered whiplash, I can speak about the amount of pain and suffering it causes and its impact on a victim’s life. As my hon. Friend said, those things can vary from person to person and from accident to accident, but an injury to the ligaments at the bottom of one’s neck, which carry the head all day long, can have a profound effect on someone’s being able to lift anything at all.

At the time of my injury, I found it very difficult to lift my young baby. When I did so, I was in considerable pain for a long time thereafter, and the problem has continued. I am no longer able to lift very much because it gives me a severe migraine. That is the issue we are considering for people with whiplash.

If an injury continued, with migraines more than two years after the incident had occurred, it would not be classified as a minor one under the Bill and would not be subject to the tariffs. It would go through the normal court procedures, via a fast track, and the award would be made by judges.

Absolutely, but what I was going to say was that my injury was then exacerbated by physio. It might have cleared up within two years—I had hoped that it would and for most people it does—but it takes a long time and a lot of suffering to get to that point.

For the vast majority of people who suffer whiplash, and particularly when it is of longer duration where there is significant medical evidence—MRI scans and extended x-rays—the Bill, as the Minister said, will prevent pre-medical offers from being made. There will have to be medical reports showing what has been happening to someone’s neck and the impact on them.

It does not make sense that we are considering introducing a one-size-fits-all tariff at a very low rate that takes no account whatever of the amount of pain and suffering, only its duration. It takes no account of the impact on the victim’s life, including on their work and home life. If someone is a carer, works in a nursery or has another manual job, the impact on them will be far greater than on someone with a similar injury who does not have to perform such tasks.

This is an important and serious issue, so I wish to clarify something that I am sure all hon. Members on both sides of the House already understand. The legislation purely relates to general damages, which cover pain and loss of amenity. All the examples that were given, such as loss of earnings or being unable to perform a particular job because of whiplash, would be covered by special damages and are not affected by the legislation.

If an individual had an injury that prevented them from going to work, that loss of earnings would be covered under a separate special damages claim. The legislation relates purely to the subjective judgment on the pain experienced—not the physio costs or the loss of earnings. That is all unaffected by the legislation.

Those of us who have worked in the trade union movement will know that compensation for loss of earnings does not always equate to the amount that somebody loses and the impact on their job. Many employers have schemes whereby anyone who is off sick for more than a certain number of days is unable to return, or suffers some other detriment. With many schemes, people have to survive on sick pay. Even if the difference comes to a significant amount, it takes a long time for that to come through. That feeds into the impact not just on somebody’s work, but on their life. The judiciary can take account of that when they set an award, but this tariff takes no account of the amount of pain and suffering—only the duration—or of the impact on a person’s life at the time of the injury.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which the Lord Chancellor sets the tariff for, there has been no increase for whiplash claims since 1995? I fear that that is what would happen if the tariff scheme for whiplash was set by the Lord Chancellor.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was dismayed by the huge cuts in 2012 to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but the amount for whiplash remained at £1,000. Even this Government, who were looking to remove a vast proportion of the costs of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, did not seek to change the tariff for whiplash, because they accepted that £1,000 for a 13-week injury was a fair amount of compensation, even under the criminal injuries scheme paid for by the Government.

However, the Government are now proposing that insurance companies that receive far more than the amount of tariffs per year from many motorists should have to pay out less, and that for a six-month injury someone would receive perhaps £450. For many motorists an insurance premium for six months is more than £450, begging the question: what will they pay insurance for? Where is the value for money, and where is the fairness to victims of accidents in today’s proposals?

I thank the hon. Members for Ashfield and for High Peak for their powerful speeches. Before I move on to amendments 12 to 15 and Government new clause 4, I will clarify some points raised by the hon. Member for High Peak.

Many things are covered by insurance besides the ability to get compensation for whiplash. It would be absurd if the entire purpose of an insurance scheme was simply to give someone an annual pay-out for whiplash, and they paid £450 for that insurance when such claims were capped at £450. The hon. Member for High Peak is right that that would be an absurd system, but insurance covers many things besides whiplash claims. In fact, we are trying to move to a world in which the majority of someone’s insurance would cover things other than their whiplash claim.

This goes to the heart of the discussion so far, and to a point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge. Fundamentally, the number of road traffic accidents has decreased by 30% since 2005. At the same time, cars have become considerably safer: headrests and other forms of restraints have made it much safer to be in a motor car than it was in 2005. During that same period, whiplash claims have increased by 40%. Whether we define these as fraudulent or simply exaggerated, there is no doubt of the trend. There are fewer road traffic accidents and cars are safer, yet whiplash claims are going up.

We heard a number times in the Justice Committee, when taking evidence from the Minister’s colleague, Lord Keen, the question of the word “fraudulent”. Can the Minister quantify for this Committee how many fraudulent claims he expects there to be on an annual basis?

The answer is that judging fraud in whiplash is almost impossible except statistically through the measures that I have used, because for minor whiplash claims of the sort that are covered in the tariff—not the type of whiplash injury that the hon. Member for High Peak experienced—there is no way of proving whether an injury has occurred. That is why The New England Journal of Medicine has done research on this.

There has been interesting research on what happens if someone sits in a motor vehicle with a simulated accident and a curtain behind them, so that they are unable to tell whether the accident has occurred or not. It shows that 20% of people experienced whiplash without the collision actually occurring. This is clearly a complex medico-social phenomenon. The polite way of putting it is that there is an asymmetry of information. It is close to impossible for an insurance company to prove that an individual did not experience whiplash, particularly at the three-month rate.

Could the record show, Mr Stringer, that the Minister, like his colleague in the House of Lords, could not indicate how many claims per annum are fraudulent?

I am very happy for the record to say exactly that, provided we explain why that is the case. The nature of this injury is such that it is impossible to know, in most cases, whether the individual is making a fraudulent claim. In the case of the kind of injury experienced by the hon. Member for High Peak—a much more serious injury—it is possible to detect things through MRI scans, but for the majority of injuries that we will be talking about in the three-month to six-month period, no physical evidence can be adduced one way or the other.

In the end, the qualified GP has to sit down and reach some kind of judgment, through discussion with the individual and gathering the evidence of injury, that the balance of probabilities holds that the individual is experiencing subjective pain, but it is impossible to prove that through the kinds of medical evidence that one would adduce in a normal medical case.

An MRI scan will identify where there is soft-tissue injury. At any stage, the point is whether it is worth going for an MRI scan. By reducing the tariff to such a small amount, GPs in many instances, particularly up to 12 months, may well deduce that it is not worth referring a patient for an MRI scan to produce that medical evidence. The tariffs proposed will reduce the amount of medical evidence produced and may well increase the number of fraudulent claims, because there will be less requirement for medical evidence such as an MRI scan.

Many whiplash injuries are not detectable on an MRI scan. Many people are currently receiving compensation for whiplash and have experienced whiplash injury, which cannot be caught on an MRI scan. The GPs who will be asked to decide whether someone has had a whiplash injury will not be holding them to the standards of an MRI scan. Were they to do so, we believe that the number of whiplash injuries would decrease very dramatically. Nothing like 550,000 injuries a year would be recorded on an MRI scan, particularly in the three-month to six-month period.

I practiced in this area for nearly 30 years. Every day, I saw the impact of motor accidents and soft-tissue injuries on young and old people from all sorts of backgrounds. What the Minister is saying is absolute nonsense. GPs are able to determine whether someone has suffered an injury—they have been doing so for many years and will continue to do so for many years. This is simply an excuse to increase insurance companies’ profits.

There is a fundamental issue—we may get on to it later in the debate—about the different understanding of insurance companies on opposite sides of the House. Two arguments are put forward. Mr Hepburn, for example, suggested in his speech in the House that the insurance industry worked on a binary basis—that the objective of the insurance industry was simply to increase the premiums as much as possible to sky-high levels, and reduce payouts.

We would argue, as does the Competition and Markets Authority, that there is a third crucial factor—competition—in understanding the impact of the legislation. What prevents premiums endlessly going up and an insurance companies never paying out is that people simply would not go to that insurance company and would go elsewhere. The insurance markets were very carefully studied by the Financial Services Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority. They are confident that 80% of the associated savings in costs will be passed on to consumers through the mechanism of competition and agencies advertising to get customers.

One way in which we seek to demonstrate that point publicly is through inserting an amendment to get the insurance companies to come forward with clear information on the amount of money they have received and the amount they have paid out. We can then have an open debate in Parliament to discover which of us is right—whether the Competition and Markets Authority is right or whether, as the hon. Member for High Peak and the hon. Member for Jarrow argue, it is a purely binary process.

Is the Minister aware that the insurance companies settle the vast majority of whiplash claims without going to court and pay up without even trying to fight the claims? If the Minister is correct that the claims are hard to detect, why are the insurance companies not fighting more of them and taking people to court?

The answer is exactly for that reason. Because they are so hard to detect, they are almost impossible to fight, and therefore insurance companies have historically made that decision. They often do not even get a medical report because it hardly seems worth while to do so. When somebody comes forward with a whiplash claim, the procedure has often been to settle without going to court in order to reduce the legal fees and the associated costs, exactly because it is incredibly difficult.

Whiplash claims are extremely controversial medically. A lot of articles are written about this—I quoted the New England Journal of Medicine in the House, which is particularly stark. Cassidy’s article argues very strongly that the absence of compensation for pain and loss of amenity is associated with a much improved prognosis and reduced duration in the whiplash injury itself. In other words, the New England Journal of Medicine points to the fact that this is not purely a medical phenomenon. It has social and legal dimensions, of which compensation is a part.

Is the Minister familiar with the quote from the head of the City of London police insurance fraud enforcement department? He said in the Insurance Post:

“It would be wrong to say that I believe there is a compensation culture or an insurance fraud culture in general.”

Another expert denied?

Such arguments would be more powerful if Opposition Members could explain why the number of whiplash claims has gone up by 40% since 2005, when the number of motor vehicle accidents has declined by 30% and cars have got much safer? A lot of things have been introduced in cars since 2005. Nearly 85% now have the safety features specifically designed to reduce whiplash that only 15% had in 2005. There are fewer accidents and much better protection around the individual.

Will the Minister give way? Does he want an answer?

Absolutely. Let me just articulate the question and the hon. Lady can perhaps answer it exactly. Why has the number of road traffic accidents reduced dramatically—cars have got safer so people are much less likely to experience injury, and there are fewer accidents—yet the number of claims has gone up by 40%? Why is she confident that the operation of claims management companies is not associated with the extraordinary increase in whiplash claims? Presumably, we have all received calls from claims management companies. An average of 600,000 claims are made a year—almost one in 100 citizens in the United Kingdom make a whiplash claim. How can that be possible when the number of road traffic accidents is reducing?

The Minister makes an excellent argument for regulating claims management companies properly. He has made no argument for blaming and making innocent victims of road traffic accidents. On Second Reading, we heard that many people are phoned by claims management companies. In many instances, their details are given out by the insurance companies to whom they make an honest claim. The insurance companies, which are linked to those claims management companies, give those details. If the Minister wants to act on the problem of whiplash, he should look at those claims management companies and their tactics of cold calling, as the Bill does in banning pre-medical offers, and end the links between insurance companies and claims management companies, rather than making innocent victims suffer.

With permission, I will proceed. There is still no answer to why the number of claims has risen, particularly when the number of road traffic accidents has dropped. The hon. Lady suggested that she would answer the question but did not. I look forward to someone answering that question, but I would like to make progress.

In Committee, it is normal to take interventions. As a Minister I never refused an intervention in Committee. I hope the Minister will accept this intervention. He mentioned the increase in claims being made. How many of those claims does he expect are fraudulent? That is the key. If they are not fraudulent, they are genuine claims, whether they are through a claims management company or from an individual.

The statistics suggest very strongly that what happened to an individual in a motor car in 2005 would, on average, have been much more severe than what happens to an individual in a motor car in 2018. A 30% reduction in the number of road traffic accidents, combined with the improvement in safety procedures, would suggest that an individual having a motor vehicle accident today would be considerably less likely to suffer whiplash than would have been the case in 2005. Therefore, the fact that the number of claims has increased by 40% is a very peculiar anomaly that requires explanation, which nobody has produced so far. Will somebody please explain why the number of claims has increased by 40% when there has been no physiological change in the human body since 2005 and motor cars have, if anything, got safer?

The Minister still has not answered the question. How many of those additional claims does he suggest are fraudulent? If a claims management company takes forward a claim, there might be issues about the claims management company but, ultimately, if the claim is not correct it will not be approved. Therefore, how many of those extra claims are fraudulent? He needs to tell the Committee.

In 2016, there were 7,572 confirmed fraudulent motor claims and 58,576 suspected claims, resulting in 66,147 detected motor fraud claims. However, my point goes much wider. Because of the asymmetry of information and because it is impossible to prove whether the injury has occurred—particularly at the three to six-month period—it is impossible to put a precise number on it. We can be confident, through the soaring inflation in the number of these claims, that many are exaggerated, to put it mildly, even though we cannot prove the exact number beyond the 66,147 that are actually fraudulent.

I spent 20-odd years on the frontline dealing with these types of claims and acting on behalf of the client rather than the insurance company. For genuinely injured people, we found that financial compensation was a minor consideration in the overall claim. They wanted to feel better and get put right. Is it not right that insurance companies should focus on rehabilitation, treatment and proper diagnosis rather than worrying so much about value?

I absolutely agree. It is very important to keep reminding the House that we are focusing on general damages, not special damages. In other words, we are focusing on what ultimately must be a difficult, subjective judgment about the level of pain that an individual experiences, and not loss of earnings or other forms of treatment.

I repeat my declaration that I practised in this area until I was elected two years ago, and I remain a door tenant at my chambers. Having practised in this area for more than 10 years, I too have experience. Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that the Committee is confusing two issues? According to the guidance notes, the manifesto gave a commitment to

“reduce insurance costs for ordinary motorists by tackling the continuing high number and cost of whiplash claims.”

This is not solely about fraud. It is also about perfectly genuine claims where the costs have become very expensive. Are the Government seeking to provide redress for those who have been injured, but to do so in a cost-proportionate manner?

Fundamental to decisions that the Ministry of Justice has to make under any Government is the need to think seriously about balancing different types of interest—in this case the interests of the claimant, the third party and the taxpayer, as well as those of road users and people who take out motor insurance. It is therefore appropriate for us to question the overall cost of the system, and—particularly for motorists in rural areas—the fact that the premium could be as much as £35 a year extra, and considerably more for a young driver, because of the hundreds of thousands of people each year who make whiplash claims.

Insurers have never mentioned fraud as a material risk in their financial report. If it were such a serious concern, would they not be required to report it to the Financial Reporting Council?

The question of what constitutes a material risk in a financial report is driven primarily by the financial stability of the company, so the question of whether fraud is defined in that way relates purely to the cost of the fraud. The question is a financial one, not one of honesty.

Amendments 12, 13, 14 and 15 relate to the Judicial College guidelines. This debate has had quite a long consultation period—it has been going on for more than three years. We are grateful to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and many others, including the Law Society, who have fed in to this consultation, and we have arrived at a compromise. The Opposition were extremely uncomfortable with the initial proposals, and we have made a lot of concessions—that is why I will be asking hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

The initial proposals by the Chancellor of Exchequer in his Budget speech were to remove general damages entirely, and for no compensation to be offered for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. There was also a proposal to have no judicial involvement whatsoever in setting levels of compensation, and the third element of controversy was about whether it was appropriate to have tariffs at all.

We have made significant concessions on the first two points—in the House of Lords for the second proposal, and before that stage for the first proposal. Under pressure from many people, including Opposition Members, we have accepted that there should be general damages, and that principle has been reinserted. Secondly—this is why I will ask for support for clause 4—we will push ahead with the proposal that the Lord Chief Justice should be consulted on the level of the tariffs. That brings in the judiciary so that it will not be done purely by the Lord Chancellor, which brings us to the question of whether there should be tariffs at all.

A tariff system is relatively unusual in English common law although, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate pointed out, an equivalent exists for criminal injury compensation cases, which creates some paradoxes and contradictions. At the moment, someone who suffers a criminal injury could receive a different level of compensation than if they suffer exactly the same injury without a criminal act. The same is true if someone in a motor vehicle suffers from a terrorist attack. The Government could give someone considerably more compensation if they are the victim of a terrorist attack than if they suffer the injury in a different way.

However, tariffs are not unusual: they have been introduced very successfully in Italy, France and many other European jurisdictions. Under the proposals in the Bill, there will be judicial discretion on the tariffs. That is judicial discretion that we have consulted on closely and will return to under later amendments. It is in line with what the European Court of Justice believes should be the appropriate degree of judicial flexibility when applied to a tariff system.

Let us assume for a moment that we accept that the tariff system is the right one. Does the Minister not agree that the inconsistencies are just unacceptable and that there needs to be a review of the levels that have been set out, because there seems to be no rhyme or reason to them? Can he explain to me how the levels have been arrived at? I cannot see where they have come from.

This goes to the heart of the concerns that the judiciary raised when the first criminal injury compensation schemes were introduced and, indeed, when compensation for a terrorist act was introduced. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is perfectly legitimate to question whether, within the tradition of tort in the English common law, it is appropriate to distinguish between an injury suffered at the hands of a criminal or a terrorist and an injury simply suffered at the hands of another third party who is liable, but that is a much deeper philosophical jurisprudential debate than I think we can proceed with here. With that, I respectfully request that the amendments be withdrawn or not pressed and I ask the Committee to support Government amendment 4.

I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the Minister. We feel so strongly, because we are led by the independent experts, by the Select Committee on Justice and by some people in the Minister’s own party, whom I quoted earlier, that we believe that the Committee needs to divide on amendments 12 to 16.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 13, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out subsections (3) to (7).—(Gloria De Piero.)

This amendment, together with I 14 to 16, would replace the tariff with the Judicial College Guidelines for the assessment of damages.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 14, in clause 3, page 4, line 7, leave out:

‘to which regulations under this section apply’.—(Gloria De Piero.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 8, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 15, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out

‘(subject to the limits imposed by regulations under this section)’.—(Gloria De Piero.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 8, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: 4, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, at end insert—

‘( ) The Lord Chancellor must consult the Lord Chief Justice before making regulations under this section.’.—

This amendment requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Chief Justice before making regulations about the amount of damages for whiplash injuries and minor psychological injuries suffered on the same occasion.

Amendment proposed: 16, in clause 3, page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (11).—(Gloria De Piero.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 8, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

As I indicated, we have debated clause 3 sufficiently not to require any separate stand part debate.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5