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

899917

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	Industrial Injuries: Compensation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Retail Price Index has been used to calculate inflation with regard to increasing the small claims limit for work injury claims to £2,000, instead of the Consumer Price Index.
tabling member printed	Lord Bassam of Brighton
uin	HL7581
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 HL7582 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

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

899922

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Department for Transport
answering dept id	27
answering dept short name	Transport
answering dept sort name	Transport
hansard heading	Railways: EU Grants and Loans
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they applied for funding from the Connecting Europe Facility for railway projects after 2020; if so, what projects were included; and what indications they have received that any funding would be awarded.
tabling member printed	Lord Berkeley
uin	HL7585
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>The current Connecting Europe Facility (“CEF”) fund runs until 2020. Assuming the EU agrees the Commission’s proposal to renew the CEF for a further 7 years from 2021 to 2027, the Commission will invite bids in 2021. It is not possible to bid now for funds from 2021.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Sugg question first answered 22/05/2018 11:06:13 answering member 4584 label Biography information for Baroness Sugg
tabling member	3526 label Biography information for Lord Berkeley

899926

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
answering dept id	201
answering dept short name	Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
answering dept sort name	Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
hansard heading	Financial Reporting Council: Herbert Smith Freehills
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Henley on 26 April and 3 May (HL7046 and HL7149), how much in fees was paid in each year from 31 March 2005 to 31 March 2018 by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) to Herbert Smith, the law firm at which Richard Fleck, formerly a member of the FRC board, was partner and is currently a consultant; and whether they will place details of any relevant tender processes in the Library of the House.
tabling member printed	Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
uin	HL7589
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>The fees paid (inclusive of disbursements and VAT) from the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) to Herbert Smith during the period cited are as follows:</p><p> </p><p>2004 - £5,415</p><p>2005 - £22,169</p><p>2006 - £7,683</p><p>2007 - £40,423</p><p>2008 - £85,262</p><p>2009 - £43,798</p><p>2010 - £2,420</p><p>2011 - £176,413</p><p>2012 - £651,476</p><p>2013 - £494,528</p><p>2014 - £230,664</p><p>2015 - £169,758</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The FRC have not used Herbert Smith since 2015.</p><p> </p><p>Save for approximately £62,000 incurred in 2011, all the fees relate to enforcement cases. The non-enforcement fees followed a tender process with bids received from two firms. Richard Fleck was not involved in the tender process in 2011 and he was not involved in the selection of any firm for enforcement cases.</p><p> </p><p>The selection of firms for enforcement cases was not the subject of a public tender. Since being confirmed as a public sector body the FRC has been working with the Department to review of all internal processes and practices in order to ensure that they comply with managing public money guidance. Sir John Kingman’s review of the FRC will also consider the transparency and appropriateness of FRC’s procedures in all aspects of its activities.</p> answering member printed Lord Henley question first answered 22/05/2018 15:25:03 answering member 2616 label Biography information for Lord Henley
tabling member	4562 label Biography information for Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

899927

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
answering dept id	201
answering dept short name	Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
answering dept sort name	Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
hansard heading	Financial Reporting Council: DAC Beachcroft
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 Henley on 3 May (HL7149), what was the procurement process undertaken by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) for the appointment and retention of DAC Beachcroft; what was the involvement, if any, of the FRC's Company Secretary and General Counsel, Anne McArthur, formerly an Associate at DAC Beachcroft; and whether they will place details of any relevant tender processes in the Library of the House.
tabling member printed	Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
uin	HL7590
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>The firm was instructed on discrete pieces of work only and no tender exercise was undertaken. As General Counsel, Anne McArthur was involved in some of the instructions to DAC Beachcroft.</p><p> </p><p>Since being confirmed as a public sector body the FRC has been working with the Department to review of all internal processes and practices in order to ensure that they comply with managing public money guidance. Sir John Kingman’s review of the FRC will also consider the transparency and appropriateness of FRC’s procedures in all aspects of its activities.</p> answering member printed Lord Henley question first answered 22/05/2018 15:25:53 answering member 2616 label Biography information for Lord Henley
tabling member	4562 label Biography information for Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

899928

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
answering dept id	201
answering dept short name	Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
answering dept sort name	Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
hansard heading	Financial Reporting Council: Fieldfisher
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 Henley on 3 May (HL7149), what assessment they have made of the application of the public body procurement rules to the Financial Reporting Council's adoption of Fieldfisher LLP as its "preferred legal provider since 2006"; and whether they will place details of ay relevant tender processes in the Library of the House.
tabling member printed	Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
uin	HL7591
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>The Government has made no such assessment. During the period in question, the status of the Financial Reporting Council as a public sector body was being reconsidered by the Office for National Statistics. As such the full requirements of the managing public money guidance were not applied to the FRC.</p><p> </p><p>Since being confirmed as a public sector body, the FRC has been working with the Department to review of all internal processes and practices in order to ensure that they comply with managing public money guidance. Sir John Kingman’s review of the FRC will also consider the transparency and appropriateness of FRC’s procedures in all aspects of its activities.</p> answering member printed Lord Henley question first answered 22/05/2018 15:26:19 answering member 2616 label Biography information for Lord Henley
tabling member	4562 label Biography information for Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

899929

registered interest
date	08/05/2018
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Horn of Africa: EU Immigration
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made under the EU–Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative to tackle irregular migration from the Horn of Africa.
tabling member printed	Baroness Cox
uin	HL7592
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2018 answer text <p>The Khartoum Process has made good progress to address people smuggling and human trafficking in the Horn of Africa. The UK chaired two thematic meetings in 2016 and 2017 and Egypt hosted a trilateral meeting (Khartoum/Rabat Processes and Horn of Africa Initiative) in November 2017 to understand progress to date; ongoing challenges and the solutions needed for a joined-up and concerted response.</p><p>The Khartoum Process has approved 147 programmes under its Better Migration Management (BMM) programme in this area and it also continues to implement the Regional Operation Centre of Khartoum (ROCK) which aims to improve cooperation and information sharing between law enforcement agencies to effectively disrupt the people smuggling and trafficking rings exploiting migrants. The 2018 Italian Chairmanship will build upon these efforts with further thematic and training workshops alongside a review of thematic conclusions to ensure tangible future delivery. There will also be a Joint Senior Officials Meeting in November to assess the progress made under the Joint Valletta Action Plan.</p> answering member printed Baroness Williams of Trafford question first answered 22/05/2018 11:03:42 answering member 4311 label Biography information for Baroness Williams of Trafford
tabling member	3364 label Biography information for Baroness Cox

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