Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

899918

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Personal Injury: Compensation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government on what basis an increase to the small claims limit to £5,000 associated with the Civil Liability Bill has been calculated.
tabling member printed	Lord Bassam of Brighton
uin	HL7582
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>It is the Government’s opinion that minor low value Road Traffic Accident (RTA) related personal injury claims are suitable to be heard in the small claims track. Claims under £5,000 are relatively minor and straightforward and are not so complex as to routinely require a lawyer. Handling these claims in the small claims track will reduce the cost of these claims for all motorists. In addition, in 2013, the then Government consulted on increasing the limit for RTA related claims to £5,000 and committed to keeping the issue under consideration for implementation when appropriate. The Government believes that it is right to return to this proportionate and appropriate measure now and that £5,000 is the right level to set for RTA related claims.</p><p> </p><p>The limit for all other types of claims will though be increased in line with inflation to £2,000, allowing the more complex employers/public liability cases to remain in the fast track. The Retail Price Index is the appropriate measure to increase the small claims track limit because it is the index used to update damage awards in the Judicial College Guidelines.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL7581 question first answered 22/05/2018 13:49:32 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	3504 label Biography information for Lord Bassam of Brighton

899921

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Personal Injury: Compensation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the response of the motor insurance market to the £1.3 billion they will save annually as estimated in the Impact Assessment to the Civil Liability Bill will be monitored; if so, how and by which independent body.
tabling member printed	Lord Bassam of Brighton
uin	HL7584
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>The Government welcomes the commitment of 84% of UK motor insurance providers to pass on to consumers savings arising from Government measures in the Civil Liability Bill and the wider whiplash reform programme.</p><p> </p><p>Motor insurance is intensely competitive on price and we expect that insurance companies will have little choice but to pass on savings, or risk being priced out of the market. Insurers have pointed to how they passed on to customers the benefits of previous Government action to cut the cost of civil litigation, without the need for regulation. The Government will continue to closely monitor the industry’s reaction to these reforms and will regularly engage with them on how they are meeting their commitment. If the industry as a whole sought to avoid passing on savings the Financial Conduct Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority would investigate.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 22/05/2018 13:59:58 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	3504 label Biography information for Lord Bassam of Brighton

899932

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Slavery: Convictions
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Keen of Elie on 30 April (HL6886), of the six appeals against conviction under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, how many (1) have been dismissed, (2) have been upheld, and (3) are pending.
tabling member printed	Baroness Doocey
uin	HL7595
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>In 2015 and 2016 there were no convictions under Sections 1 or 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 reported to the Ministry of Justice. In 2017, a total of 7 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and 8 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 2 of the Act.</p><p> </p><p>Recorded figures relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the principal offence recorded is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p>The figures appearing in the Written Answer of 30 April [HL6886 and HL 6887] were taken from the Crown Court case management system and provided a total of appeals initially lodged but not at the point of being categorised by appeal type. Consequently, these figures included cases that the Criminal Appeal Office would later have recorded as appeals against other offences. Figures taken from Criminal Appeal Office records, which do categorise appeal types, show that:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No applications for leave to appeal against conviction under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against conviction under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act has been received and is still pending.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against sentence under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act was received but was abandoned by the applicant and is now closed.</p><p> </p><p>3 applications for leave to appeal against sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received. Of those, 1 is still pending and 2 have lapsed after leave to appeal was refused.</p><p> </p><p>Additionally, the Attorney General referred 1 sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act to the Court of Appeal for review under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme; the appeal was allowed and the sentence increased. And there was 1 prosecution appeal which confirmed the Crown Court ruling and the defendant was acquitted.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL7596 HL7597 HL7598 HL7599 HL7600 question first answered 22/05/2018 15:30:40 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	4197 label Biography information for Baroness Doocey

899933

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Slavery: Convictions
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Keen of Elie on 30 April (HL6886), of the eight appeals against conviction under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, how many (1) have been dismissed, (2) have been upheld, and (3) are pending.
tabling member printed	Baroness Doocey
uin	HL7596
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>In 2015 and 2016 there were no convictions under Sections 1 or 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 reported to the Ministry of Justice. In 2017, a total of 7 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and 8 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 2 of the Act.</p><p> </p><p>Recorded figures relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the principal offence recorded is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p>The figures appearing in the Written Answer of 30 April [HL6886 and HL 6887] were taken from the Crown Court case management system and provided a total of appeals initially lodged but not at the point of being categorised by appeal type. Consequently, these figures included cases that the Criminal Appeal Office would later have recorded as appeals against other offences. Figures taken from Criminal Appeal Office records, which do categorise appeal types, show that:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No applications for leave to appeal against conviction under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against conviction under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act has been received and is still pending.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against sentence under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act was received but was abandoned by the applicant and is now closed.</p><p> </p><p>3 applications for leave to appeal against sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received. Of those, 1 is still pending and 2 have lapsed after leave to appeal was refused.</p><p> </p><p>Additionally, the Attorney General referred 1 sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act to the Court of Appeal for review under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme; the appeal was allowed and the sentence increased. And there was 1 prosecution appeal which confirmed the Crown Court ruling and the defendant was acquitted.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL7595 HL7597 HL7598 HL7599 HL7600 question first answered 22/05/2018 15:30:40 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	4197 label Biography information for Baroness Doocey

899934

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Slavery: Convictions
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many convictions there have been under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
tabling member printed	Baroness Doocey
uin	HL7597
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>In 2015 and 2016 there were no convictions under Sections 1 or 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 reported to the Ministry of Justice. In 2017, a total of 7 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and 8 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 2 of the Act.</p><p> </p><p>Recorded figures relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the principal offence recorded is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p>The figures appearing in the Written Answer of 30 April [HL6886 and HL 6887] were taken from the Crown Court case management system and provided a total of appeals initially lodged but not at the point of being categorised by appeal type. Consequently, these figures included cases that the Criminal Appeal Office would later have recorded as appeals against other offences. Figures taken from Criminal Appeal Office records, which do categorise appeal types, show that:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No applications for leave to appeal against conviction under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against conviction under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act has been received and is still pending.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against sentence under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act was received but was abandoned by the applicant and is now closed.</p><p> </p><p>3 applications for leave to appeal against sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received. Of those, 1 is still pending and 2 have lapsed after leave to appeal was refused.</p><p> </p><p>Additionally, the Attorney General referred 1 sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act to the Court of Appeal for review under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme; the appeal was allowed and the sentence increased. And there was 1 prosecution appeal which confirmed the Crown Court ruling and the defendant was acquitted.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL7595 HL7596 HL7598 HL7599 HL7600 question first answered 22/05/2018 15:30:40 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	4197 label Biography information for Baroness Doocey

899935

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Slavery: Convictions
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many convictions there have been under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
tabling member printed	Baroness Doocey
uin	HL7598
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>In 2015 and 2016 there were no convictions under Sections 1 or 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 reported to the Ministry of Justice. In 2017, a total of 7 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and 8 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 2 of the Act.</p><p> </p><p>Recorded figures relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the principal offence recorded is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p>The figures appearing in the Written Answer of 30 April [HL6886 and HL 6887] were taken from the Crown Court case management system and provided a total of appeals initially lodged but not at the point of being categorised by appeal type. Consequently, these figures included cases that the Criminal Appeal Office would later have recorded as appeals against other offences. Figures taken from Criminal Appeal Office records, which do categorise appeal types, show that:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No applications for leave to appeal against conviction under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against conviction under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act has been received and is still pending.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against sentence under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act was received but was abandoned by the applicant and is now closed.</p><p> </p><p>3 applications for leave to appeal against sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received. Of those, 1 is still pending and 2 have lapsed after leave to appeal was refused.</p><p> </p><p>Additionally, the Attorney General referred 1 sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act to the Court of Appeal for review under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme; the appeal was allowed and the sentence increased. And there was 1 prosecution appeal which confirmed the Crown Court ruling and the defendant was acquitted.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL7595 HL7596 HL7597 HL7599 HL7600 question first answered 22/05/2018 15:30:40 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	4197 label Biography information for Baroness Doocey

899936

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Slavery: Sentencing
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many appeals against sentence there have been under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
tabling member printed	Baroness Doocey
uin	HL7599
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>In 2015 and 2016 there were no convictions under Sections 1 or 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 reported to the Ministry of Justice. In 2017, a total of 7 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and 8 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 2 of the Act.</p><p> </p><p>Recorded figures relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the principal offence recorded is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p>The figures appearing in the Written Answer of 30 April [HL6886 and HL 6887] were taken from the Crown Court case management system and provided a total of appeals initially lodged but not at the point of being categorised by appeal type. Consequently, these figures included cases that the Criminal Appeal Office would later have recorded as appeals against other offences. Figures taken from Criminal Appeal Office records, which do categorise appeal types, show that:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No applications for leave to appeal against conviction under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against conviction under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act has been received and is still pending.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against sentence under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act was received but was abandoned by the applicant and is now closed.</p><p> </p><p>3 applications for leave to appeal against sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received. Of those, 1 is still pending and 2 have lapsed after leave to appeal was refused.</p><p> </p><p>Additionally, the Attorney General referred 1 sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act to the Court of Appeal for review under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme; the appeal was allowed and the sentence increased. And there was 1 prosecution appeal which confirmed the Crown Court ruling and the defendant was acquitted.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL7595 HL7596 HL7597 HL7598 HL7600 question first answered 22/05/2018 15:30:41 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	4197 label Biography information for Baroness Doocey

899937

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Slavery: Sentencing
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many appeals against sentence there have been under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
tabling member printed	Baroness Doocey
uin	HL7600
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>In 2015 and 2016 there were no convictions under Sections 1 or 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 reported to the Ministry of Justice. In 2017, a total of 7 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and 8 offenders were convicted of offences under Section 2 of the Act.</p><p> </p><p>Recorded figures relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the principal offence recorded is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p>The figures appearing in the Written Answer of 30 April [HL6886 and HL 6887] were taken from the Crown Court case management system and provided a total of appeals initially lodged but not at the point of being categorised by appeal type. Consequently, these figures included cases that the Criminal Appeal Office would later have recorded as appeals against other offences. Figures taken from Criminal Appeal Office records, which do categorise appeal types, show that:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No applications for leave to appeal against conviction under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against conviction under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act has been received and is still pending.</p><p> </p><p>1 application for leave to appeal against sentence under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act was received but was abandoned by the applicant and is now closed.</p><p> </p><p>3 applications for leave to appeal against sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act have been received. Of those, 1 is still pending and 2 have lapsed after leave to appeal was refused.</p><p> </p><p>Additionally, the Attorney General referred 1 sentence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act to the Court of Appeal for review under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme; the appeal was allowed and the sentence increased. And there was 1 prosecution appeal which confirmed the Crown Court ruling and the defendant was acquitted.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL7595 HL7596 HL7597 HL7598 HL7599 question first answered 22/05/2018 15:30:41 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	4197 label Biography information for Baroness Doocey

899985

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Personal Injury: Compensation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what independent evidence there is that the Civil Liability Bill will meet their objective of reducing the average cost of a motor insurance policy by £35.
tabling member printed	Baroness Primarolo
uin	HL7648
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>The MoJ’s impact assessment on the whiplash reforms sets out the analysis the Government has used to estimate the £35 savings for insurance premiums. The impact assessment was informed by DWP’s Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) data on the overall volume of claims and data from across the industry with more detailed information on these claims which shows estimated savings of £1.3bn to insurers. Assuming 85% is passed on to consumers, this translates, on average, to a £35 reduction per policy. Link to the impact assessment can be found here: <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0090/whiplash-IA.pdf" target="_blank">https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0090/whiplash-IA.pdf</a>.</p><p> </p><p>Data from the Department of Work and Pensions shows that there were around 650,000 road traffic accident-related personal injury claims made in 2017/18, a rise of nearly 200,000 or 40% on the figure in 2005/06. Department of Transport figures show that in the decade to 2016/17, reported road traffic accidents went down from around 190,000 to 135,000, a fall of 30%.</p><p> </p><p>The Government does not collate fraud data, as the nature of fraud makes it difficult to accurately identify the number of unmeritorious claims, meaning that not all fraud is detected. In 2016, however, the insurance industry identified around 69,000 cases of motor insurance claims which they considered to be fraudulent, worth £780m.</p><p> </p><p>The Government’s whiplash reform programme is about more than dealing with fraudulent and exaggerated claims, as the cost to all motorists from the high number and cost of these claims is too high. The Government’s reforms will reduce the incentives for making unmeritorious claims, and encourage defendants to rightly challenge claims they believe to be fraudulent or exaggerated, but without disadvantaging genuine claimants.</p><p> </p><p>The information related to the cost of insurers contesting whiplash claims is commercially sensitive and as such cannot be published.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL7649 HL7650 HL7651 question first answered 22/05/2018 14:04:11 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	217 label Biography information for Baroness Primarolo

899986

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Personal Injury: Compensation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Lord Keen of Elie on 24 April (HL Deb, col 1480), on what independent evidence they have concluded that a compensation culture exists in personal injury for (1) road traffic claims by motor vehicle drivers, (2) road traffic claims by vulnerable road users, and (3) those injured in workplace accidents; and whether they intend to publish that evidence.
tabling member printed	Baroness Primarolo
uin	HL7649
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>The MoJ’s impact assessment on the whiplash reforms sets out the analysis the Government has used to estimate the £35 savings for insurance premiums. The impact assessment was informed by DWP’s Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) data on the overall volume of claims and data from across the industry with more detailed information on these claims which shows estimated savings of £1.3bn to insurers. Assuming 85% is passed on to consumers, this translates, on average, to a £35 reduction per policy. Link to the impact assessment can be found here: <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0090/whiplash-IA.pdf" target="_blank">https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0090/whiplash-IA.pdf</a>.</p><p> </p><p>Data from the Department of Work and Pensions shows that there were around 650,000 road traffic accident-related personal injury claims made in 2017/18, a rise of nearly 200,000 or 40% on the figure in 2005/06. Department of Transport figures show that in the decade to 2016/17, reported road traffic accidents went down from around 190,000 to 135,000, a fall of 30%.</p><p> </p><p>The Government does not collate fraud data, as the nature of fraud makes it difficult to accurately identify the number of unmeritorious claims, meaning that not all fraud is detected. In 2016, however, the insurance industry identified around 69,000 cases of motor insurance claims which they considered to be fraudulent, worth £780m.</p><p> </p><p>The Government’s whiplash reform programme is about more than dealing with fraudulent and exaggerated claims, as the cost to all motorists from the high number and cost of these claims is too high. The Government’s reforms will reduce the incentives for making unmeritorious claims, and encourage defendants to rightly challenge claims they believe to be fraudulent or exaggerated, but without disadvantaging genuine claimants.</p><p> </p><p>The information related to the cost of insurers contesting whiplash claims is commercially sensitive and as such cannot be published.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL7648 HL7650 HL7651 question first answered 22/05/2018 14:04:11 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	217 label Biography information for Baroness Primarolo