| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Damages Bill [Lords] and the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.
Damages Bill [Lords]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 13, at end insert--
'(8) Where--
(a) an agreement is made settling a claim or action for damages for personal injury on terms whereby the damages are to consist wholly or partly of periodical payments;
(b) the person against whom the claim or action is brought (or, if he is insured against the claim, his insurer) purchases one or more annuities; and
(c) a subsequent agreement is made under which the annuity is, or the annuities are, assigned in favour of the person entitled to the payments (so as to secure that from a future date he receives the payments as the annuitant under the annuity or annuities),
then, for the purposes of section 4 above, the agreement settling the claim or action shall be treated as a structured settlement and any such annuity assigned in favour of that person shall be treated as an annuity purchased for him pursuant to the settlement.
(9) Subsections (2) to (7) above shall apply to an agreement to which subsection (8) above applies as they apply to a structured settlement as defined in subsection (1) above (the reference in subsection (6) to subsection (1)(b) being read as a reference to subsection (8)(b)).'.
The purpose of clauses 4 and 5 is to enhance the protection conferred on structured settlement beneficiaries by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 from 90 to 100 per cent. When a new settlement is set up, an annuity is purchased for the beneficiary, and there is no problem. Clause 4 will give him 100 per cent. protection in the unlikely event--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is too much noise. Those who are wanting to engage in conversations, please go outside.
Mr. Streeter:
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the voices are a chorus of support.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for tabling an amendment in Committee to draw attention to doubts about whether the clauses would always operate as they were intended to. There is doubt about whether the clauses would increase the protection in cases where the settlement had originally been set up on a different basis and the annuity was formally assigned to the beneficiary at a later date. That will most often be so when a settlement was made before the reforms that we introduced in the Finance Act 1995. Since those reforms, the parties to existing settlements can modify their arrange-ments, and usually it is sensible and more convenient for all if the annuity is assigned to the beneficiary.
This is a technical amendment to ensure completely that the enhanced policyholders' protection conferred by clause 4 will apply regardless of whether the person entitled to the payments becomes the policyholder of the
annuity that is central to the structured settlement. The amendment makes a good Bill better, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South):
The Opposition welcome the Government's positive response to the amendment that we tabled in Committee. It is a worthwhile and useful Bill and we wish it well.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
As amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.
Order for Third Reading read.--[Queen's consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified.]
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Mr. Michael Alison (Selby):
I rise to present a petition on behalf of approximately 5,000 signatories from the district of Selby in North Yorkshire. The petition reads:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Bates.]
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside):
I welcome the opportunity to speak on an important constitutional matter. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Wednesday 3 July that, on the advice of Ministers, the Queen had agreed that the Stone of Destiny--which I call the Stone of Scone--should be returned to Scotland, I asked him a question, which I now repeat:
I notice that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), who is in her place, has been getting some copy in the local press. She has given the impression that the city of Perth has a claim to Scone. I should make it quite clear that Scone is in my constituency and will remain in my constituency after the boundary changes. The hon. Lady has been getting what I consider to be not very good publicity for the Stone of Scone, when she was reported in The Courier last Saturday as saying:
I find it even more sad and depressing that the hon. Lady should write to me, on stationery on which the signature is obviously printed, asking me to support a petition launching a request for the Stone of Scone to be returned to Perthshire. That is a bit much, given that Scone is in my constituency--
Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth and Kinross):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker:
No, I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] This is an Adjournment debate, and one does not give way in an Adjournment debate unless one has previously made arrangements to do so.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Walker:
I even welcome those who were less than enthusiastic--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. There is a point of order.
Mr. Salmond:
Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is an Adjournment debate, with the rules attending to an Adjournment debate, and that we are not
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Tunisia) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
That the draft Explosives (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
That the draft Local Authorities (Charges for Overseas Assistance and Public Path Orders) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.
10.20 pm
That traffic congestion in the town of Selby severely disrupts its social and economic life and inhibits inward investment in the town.
The statutory procedures will be completed in the late summer, before the House returns in the autumn. Therefore, it is essential that the construction is put in hand as soon as practicable after that.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House persuade the Department of Transport to construct a new bypass for the town as soon as the statutory bypass procedures have been completed.
10.21 pm
"My right hon. Friend will be aware that Scone is in my constituency. The ancient capital of Scotland would be proud to have the stone back and I hope that, when consideration is given to its location, its roots will be remembered."--[Official Report, 3 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 974.]
As I was the first hon. Member to be called after the Front-Bench spokesmen, I can justifiably claim to be the first person to request that the stone be returned to Scone. I welcome the fact that many individuals and groups have since joined me in my request.
"We ask for jobs and they give us a stone."
I find that quite sad and depressing.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |