Skip to main content

Ministerial Corrections

Volume 650: debated on Monday 3 December 2018

Ministerial Corrections

Monday 3 December 2018

Treasury

Finance (No. 3) Bill

The following are extracts from the Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, on Tuesday 27 November 2018.

The hon. Lady makes an entirely reasonable request for that information. As I indicated, I am happy to provide it to her. In fact, divine inspiration has just arrived—I have an answer; I knew it was lost somewhere in my mind. There have, in fact, been 12 opinions, all of which have been supportive of HMRC. If she would care for any further information, I am happy to provide it outside the Committee.

[Official Report, Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018, c. 28.]

If it is in order, Ms Dorries, I will give the hon. Member for Oxford East an additional piece of information on the issue of referrals to the panel. There were nine cases rather than 12; there were 12 opinions on those nine cases, all of which supported HMRC. That might explain how I had a figure of nine while the hon. Lady was focused on 12.

[Official Report, Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018, c. 29.]

Letter of correction from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury:

Errors have been identified in my responses to questions raised during the debate on clause 2, Corporation tax charge for financial year 2020.

The correct responses should have been:

The hon. Lady makes an entirely reasonable request for that information. As I indicated, I am happy to provide it to her. In fact, divine inspiration has just arrived—I have an answer; I knew it was lost somewhere in my mind. There have, in fact, been 16 opinions, all of which have been supportive of HMRC. If she would care for any further information, I am happy to provide it outside the Committee.

If it is in order, Ms Dorries, I will give the hon. Member for Oxford East an additional piece of information on the issue of referrals to the panel. There were nine cases rather than 12; there were 16 opinions on those nine cases, all of which supported HMRC. That might explain how I had a figure of nine while the hon. Lady was focused on 12.

Justice

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

The following are extracts from the Report stage of the Civil Liability Bill [Lords] on 23 October 2018.

I want to emphasise that the phrase “minor injuries” is derived from Judicial College guidelines, not from the Government or any political party. It is simply a long-standing convention to refer to injuries of under two years’ duration as minor injuries, and that relates to Sentencing Council guidelines for injuries of under two years’ duration.

[Official Report, 23 October 2018, Vol. 648, c. 216.]

Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, (Rory Stewart).

An error has been identified in a response I gave during the debate on the Report stage of the Civil Liability Bill [Lords].

The correct response should have been:

I want to emphasise that the phrase “minor injuries” is derived from Judicial College guidelines, not from the Government or any political party. It is simply a long-standing convention to refer to injuries of under two years’ duration as minor injuries, and that relates to Judicial College guidelines for injuries of under two years’ duration.

On the arguments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith about the levels of the tariffs, we have attempted to achieve a reduction in the tariff at the lower end. For example, an individual who suffers an injury of under three months’ duration could receive damages considerably less than those in the current guidelines, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, as we approach a duration of two years, the compensation offered begins to merge much more closely with the existing guidelines at a level of £3,600.

[Official Report, 23 October 2018, Vol. 648, c. 216.]

Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, (Rory Stewart).

An error has been identified in a response I gave during the debate on the Report stage of the Civil Liability Bill [Lords].

The correct response should have been:

On the arguments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith about the levels of the tariffs, we have attempted to achieve a reduction in the tariff at the lower end. For example, an individual who suffers an injury of under three months’ duration could receive damages considerably less than those in the current guidelines, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, as we approach a duration of two years, the compensation offered begins to merge much more closely with the existing guidelines at a level of £3,910.

Justice

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

The following are extracts from the Third Reading debate of the Civil Liability Bill [Lords]on 23 October 2018.

Earlier this afternoon, the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) give an example of how he was approached—hassled, in fact—by a claims management company. I, too, have been in that situation for a fictitious accident and I still get calls about that. Is dealing with this not one of the real ways that we will be able to prevent our being the whiplash capital?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which has been made by the shadow Front-Bench team and others: dealing with claims management companies is going to be a central part of this. Consultation has taken place on this, and measures have been taken against claims management companies. A significant issue remains, which we are consulting on and trying to resolve—to be honest with the House, it is the fact that many of these calls come from foreign jurisdictions, so the challenge is trying to work out the best way to deal with that.

[Official Report, 23 October 2018, Vol. 648, c. 228.]

Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, (Rory Stewart).

An error has been identified in a response I gave during the Third Reading debate on the Civil Liability Bill [Lords].

The correct response should have been:

Earlier this afternoon, the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) give an example of how he was approached—hassled, in fact—by a claims management company. I, too, have been in that situation for a fictitious accident and I still get calls about that. Is dealing with this not one of the real ways that we will be able to prevent our being the whiplash capital?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which has been made by the shadow Front-Bench team and others: dealing with claims management companies is going to be a central part of this. Consultation has taken place on this, and measures have been taken against claims management companies. A significant issue remains, which we are trying to resolve—to be honest with the House, it is the fact that many of these calls come from foreign jurisdictions, so the challenge is trying to work out the best way to deal with that.

I have the following on a formal piece of paper here, so that I can make my Pepper v. Hart statement to make sure that this is clear for the judiciary. In subsection (3), therefore, we have excluded those soft tissue injuries in the neck, back or shoulder which are part of or connected to another injury, so long as the other injury is not covered by subsection (2). The effect of subsection (3) would be to exclude, for example, damage to soft tissue which results only from the fracture of an adjoining bone or the tearing of muscles arising from a penetrating injury, which would otherwise fall within subsection (2). It has been suggested that the words “connected to another injury” in subsection (3)(a) could mean an injury resulting from the same accident. There is therefore a concern that a number of soft tissue injuries that would otherwise fall under the definition of whiplash injury will be excluded, and so not subject to the tariff of damages, simply by reason of being suffered on the same occasion as a whiplash injury.

[Official Report, 23 October 2018, Vol. 648, c. 229.]

Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, (Rory Stewart).

An error has been identified in a response I gave during the Third Reading debate on the Civil Liability Bill [Lords].

The correct response should have been:

I have the following on a formal piece of paper here, so that I can make my Pepper v. Hart statement to make sure that this is clear for the judiciary. In subsection (3), therefore, we have excluded those soft tissue injuries in the neck, back or shoulder which are part of or connected to another injury, so long as the other injury is not covered by subsection (2). The effect of subsection (3) would be to exclude, for example, damage to soft tissue which results only from the fracture of an adjoining bone or the tearing of muscles arising from a penetrating injury, which would otherwise fall within subsection (2). It has been suggested that the words “connected to another injury” in subsection (3)(a) could mean an injury resulting from the same accident. There is therefore a concern that a number of soft tissue injuries that would otherwise fall under the definition of whiplash injury will be excluded, and so not subject to the tariff of damages, simply by reason of being suffered on the same occasion as a non-whiplash injury.

Leader of the House

Business of the House

The following is an extract from Business questions in the Chamber on 22 November 2018.

On 9 May, 12 July and 6 September, I asked the Leader of the House about the whereabouts of the immigration Bill. I think that there is still no answer, but let me give her a break and ask her about a different Bill. Would not 25 November, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, be a terribly good day on which to lay the domestic abuse Bill before Parliament?

The hon. Lady will know that the Government have published a draft Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill. It is intended to be groundbreaking, and will be extremely comprehensive. We want to be sure before we introduce it that we have taken into account all considerations in our efforts to put an end to the appalling problem of domestic violence once and for all.

[Official Report, 22 November 2018, Vol. 649, c. 1035.]

Letter of correction from the Leader of the House:

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) during Business questions on 22 November 2018.

The correct response should have been:

The hon. Lady will know that the Government will publish the draft Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill later this Session. It is intended to be groundbreaking, and will be extremely comprehensive. We want to be sure before we introduce it that we have taken into account all considerations in our efforts to put an end to the appalling problem of domestic violence once and for all.