---

Pensioners

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current cost to public funds of increasing the 25p addition for pensioners over 80 years old by whichever was the highest of either

22 Mar 1996 : Column: 351

earnings or prices since its introduction; and what would be its cost if its current value were increased by (a) 50p, (b) £1 and (c) £1.50. [22482]

Mr. Heald: The cost to public funds of increasing the age addition by the higher of earnings or prices is estimated to be £310 million.

The other costs are as follows:

(a) £40 million.
(b) £90 million.
(c) £130 million.
Note:
All costs are in 1996-7 prices, rounded to nearest £10 million.
Source: Government Actuary's Department.

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of paying from public funds the full cost of all standing charges for telephones, domestic electricity and gas bills, and water charges, for (i) all pensioners, (ii) pensioners on income support, (iii) pensioners over 75 years and (iv) pensioners over 80 years. [22483]

Mr. Heald: The estimated cost to the public funds of subsidising the full cost of all standing charges for telephones, domestic electricity and gas bills per annum is:

(i) £990 million
(ii) £260 million
(iii) £440 million and
(iv) £230 million.

Information is not available on water charges.

Notes:
1. Information for (i), (iii) and (iv) is based on pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the husband, or head is over SPA. The number of pensioner units in the various age groups and the proportion of pensioner units with utilities is taken from the Family Expenditure Survey 1993.
2. The number of pensioners on income support (ii) is based on the May 1995 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and, therefore, a pensioner on income support is defined as those over the age of 60.
3. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million and are in 1995-96 prices.

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the value of the Christmas bonus for (a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples if it has been uprated in line with the higher of either earnings or prices, since its introduction; and what would be the cost to public funds if its current value was increased by (i) £5, (ii) £10 and (iii) £15 for (1) single pensioners and (2) pensioner couples. [22480]

Mr. Heald: The £10 Christmas bonus, introduced in 1972, is paid to individuals entitled to a qualifying benefit. If it had been uprated by the higher of earnings or prices since its introduction, it would be £120.20 at December 1996. The estimated cost to public funds of increasing the bonus by (a) £5, (b) £10 and (c) £15 would be (i) £50 million, (ii) £100 million, and (iii) £150 million respectively.

22 Mar 1996 : Column: 352

Notes
1. Estimated cost to public funds based on increasing the bonus for recipients of retirement pensions only.
2. Figures rounded to nearest £10 million.
Source:
Government Actuary's Department.

Contributions Agency Review

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the locations of the feasibility study and trial periods as part of the 1995 review of the Contributions Agency; and if he will make a statement. [21572]

Mr. Heald: The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Faith Boardman to Mrs. Ray Mitchie, dated 21 March 1996:

As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency.
I have been asked to reply to your question regarding the locations used for the feasibility study and trial periods as part of the 1995 review of the Contributions Agency.
The Business Unit Implementation Feasibility Study examined existing statistical data from all Field Operations locations and conducted research into specific work and organisation by statistically sampling locations across the entire Field network. Representatives from all five Sectors participated in the development of the proposed reorganisation.
The recommendations from the feasibility study were piloted in Kent and Severn Estuary Divisions from 19 June 1995, with the inclusion of Manchester Division from 24 July 1995. The locations chosen represented a mixture of rural and inner city offices. Initial evaluation of the pilots was conducted on 31 October 1995, with ongoing evaluation thereafter until 31 March 1996.
The locations involved in the pilots were:
Kent
Dartford
Chatham
Maidstone
Gravesend
Dover
Ashford
Sittingbourne
Tunbridge Wells
Ramsgate
Canterbury
Orpington
Severn Estuary
Cardiff
Bristol
Bridgend
Weston Super Mare
Manchester
Farnworth
Manchester
Rochdale
Bury
I hope you will find the information provided helpful.

22 Mar 1996 : Column: 353

TREASURY

Customs Waivers

Sir David Steel: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discontinue the use of waivers by customs officers in accordance with the recommendations of the Scott report. [21300]

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: All administrative waivers operated by Customs which were still in use have already been replaced by open general export licences with two exceptions. These remaining two waivers--for goods exported to the continental shelf and for goods in transit mail--are in the process of being replaced by an open general export licence and by an amendment to the open general transhipment licence, both of which will be issued by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Paymaster Agency

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to announce the results of his review into the work of the Paymaster agency. [21442]

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) 18 March 1996, Official Report, columns 53-55.

Landfill Tax

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what response he has received from the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance and the Housebuilders Federation in connection with his recent consultation about possible exemption from the landfill tax for contaminated land; if that response was supportive of his proposals; and if he will make a statement; [22291]

(2) if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government policy on the clearing and developing of contaminated sites; and what part the proposed landfill tax will play in implementation of this policy. [22292]

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Government wish to encourage the development of brownfield rather than greenfield sites and has concluded that the imposition of the landfill tax on certain wastes arising from contaminated land would be contrary to this objective. I therefore announced in the debate on the Finance Bill in Standing Committee E on 8 February 1996, Official Report, column 209, that we would consider whether we could identify and ring-fence an exemption from landfill tax for historically contaminated land. I said that if it proved possible to develop a suitable exemption, this would be introduced at Report stage on the current Finance Bill.

Customs have consulted widely on a draft clause linking the exemption to planning approval, in order to provide an objective criterion for eligibility to the exemption. This consultation included those involved in clearing up contaminated land and other interested trade concerns, including the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance and the House Builders Federation. Although the House Builders Federation welcomed the intentions behind the drafting of the clause, it and other bodies concluded that the clause would not achieve its

22 Mar 1996 : Column: 354

intended aims. This is because in most cases involving the removal of contaminated land for development, no planning permission is required. The view was also expressed in other replies to the consultation and it is now clear that the proposal would not meet all those cases where exemption is appropriate.

We now propose to provide an exemption for the waste from the clearance of contaminated land where clearance of all or part of the contamination is necessary to allow the land to be used for the intended purpose when the development or work on the land is complete. The exemption will apply to waste arising from the reclamation of the land but current polluters will not be able to benefit from it. To help landfill site operators to know whether or not waste qualifies for the exemption, we envisage that there will be a system of certification by Customs.

---