§ Mr. Denzil DaviesTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) of 7 March,Official Report, column 70, on Pepper v. Hart, what estimate has been made of the additional cost of litigation arising from the case; and what issues regarding such cost are being taken up with the governing bodies of legal practitioners.
Mr. John M. TaylorNo formal estimate has been made of the additional cost of litigation directly attributable to the decision in Pepper v. Hart. The primary issues to which my earlier answer referred concern the availability ofHansard, the costs to those outside Government of tracing proceedings which might be relevant, and the ways in which such costs might be kept to a minimum.
763W
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) of 7 March,Official Report, column 70, on Pepper v. Hart, if he will list the practical steps which are being put into practice to correct mistakes in ministerial statements during the passage of legislation; and in what manner such corrections will be published.
Mr. John M. TaylorIf it proves necessary to correct any inadvertent ambiguity or error in a ministerial statement made during the passage of a Bill, the aim is to do this as promptly as possible at an appropriate point during the further consideration of the Bill. The best means of doing so and reading such a correction into the official record will depend on a number of factors, including the stage which the Bill has reached and the nature of the proceedings at that point.