---

New Deal

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders serving custodial sentences have taken part in the New Deal scheme through the Prison Service; how many offenders completed the scheme and obtained employment following participation in the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [82455]

Mr. George Howarth: Offenders are not eligible for the New Deal while serving custodial sentences, but they can take part in the Prison Service's Welfare to Work programme for 18-24 year olds running in selected prison establishments. This aims to improve their employability and help them gain the most from the New Deal Gateway, to which they have immediate access on release.

In the 12 months from April 1998, 2,430 inmates joined the Prison Service programme in the 11 establishments piloting it, and 1,625 had completed it by the end of that period. Early results from an evaluation of the programme indicate that within 6 months of leaving prison, 28 per cent. of those who complete the programme go on to join the New Deal Gateway, compared with 11 per cent. of a control group. A survey of probation officers also indicates that 42 per cent. of programme completers have some employment and 6 per cent. go into education or non-New Deal training within four months of release. These percentages are similar to the control group.

The programme is now continuing into its second year and the number of establishments has been increased to 13.

PRIME MINISTER

Civil Servants

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the civil servants who worked in No. 10 Downing Street, broken down by department, on (a) 1 April 1998 and (b) 1 April 1999; and if he will make a statement. [80059]

29 Apr 1999 : Column: 239

The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 April 1999]: Civil servants working in No.10 Downing Street on the dates referred to were as follows:

	1 April 1998	1 April 1999
Private Office	11	12
Policy Unit	16	18
Press Office	11	14
Strategic Communications Unit	8	9
Appointments and Honours	7	9
Support Staff	84	89

Yugoslavia (NATO Bombing)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the extent of collateral damage caused by NATO forces in Yugoslavia and of the percentage of bombs and missiles which miss their targets. [80616]

The Prime Minister: We both assess the risk of collateral damage in advance of UK airstrikes and monitor the results afterwards on a case by case basis. Our pilots train intensively to ensure the greatest possible accuracy in bombing attacks and NATO as a whole has made every attempt to reduce the risk of collateral damage. The cases of injury and death among civilians which have nevertheless occurred have been acknowledged by NATO and are deeply regretted. But the accidental civilian casualties caused--despite these stringent precautions--by NATO bombing, contrast sharply with the deliberate and calculated slaughter of Kosovar civilians instigated by Milosevic in pursuit of ethnic cleansing.

Under the terms of paragraph 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, I am not prepared to release data on the percentage of bombs and missiles which miss their target. It would be wrong to assume that bombs and missiles which miss their target necessarily cause collateral damage.

United Nations

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances it is possible for intervention by a member state of the UN or a regional organisation in the territory of another UN member state to be authorised by the UN on the basis of a resolution passed by a majority vote in a specially convened session of the General Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [82665]

The Prime Minister: General Assembly Resolution 377(V) provides for the General Assembly, in certain circumstances, to make appropriate recommendations for collective measures for the maintenance of international peace and security. Details on the Resolution (known as the Uniting for Peace Resolution) are available in the Library of the House.

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister on what authority a state, or regional organisation of states, can be empowered to intervene in the territory of another UN member state, under the United Nations Charter, on the basis of its intervention being in response to a humanitarian catastrophe; and if he will make a statement. [82667]

29 Apr 1999 : Column: 240

The Prime Minister: Under international law a limited use of force can be justifiable in support purposes laid down by the Security Council but without the Council's express authorisation when that is the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. Any such case would in the nature of things be exceptional and would depend on an objective assessment of the factual circumstances at the time and on the terms of relevant decisions of the Security Council bearing on the situation in question.

Kosovo

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals were conveyed by President Chirac to NATO partners in the months prior to the commencement of the bombing of Serbia by NATO forces with the objective of making Kosovo the first test of NATO/Russian understanding and collaboration; when such proposals were made; and if he will make a statement. [82666]

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any such proposals.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Default Summonses (Gravesend)

Mr. Pond: To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many (i) liquidated and (ii) unliquidated default summonses were issued by Gravesend County Court in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [82300]

Mr. Hoon: Gravesend County Court issued 841 liquidated and 151 unliquidated summonses in 1997. The figures for 1998 were 781 and 145 respectively.

Mr. Pond: To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many default summonses were issued by Gravesend County Court between (a) 1 April 1997 and 30 September 1997 and (b) 1 April 1998 and 30 September 1998. [82301]

Mr. Hoon: Gravesend County Court issued 528 default summonses between 1 April 1997 and 30 September 1997; and 478 default summonses between 1 April 1998 and 30 September 1998.

Mistakes of Law

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on (a) the reform of the law relating to the mistake of law rule at common law and (b) the Law Commission report (1994 No.227) entitled "Restitution: Mistakes of Law, Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments". [82308]

Mr. Hoon: The House of Lords decision in Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Lincoln City Council last October means that it is no longer necessary to bring forward legislation to implement the first part of the Law Commission report No. 227 on "Restitution: Mistakes of Law, Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments", which dealt with the common law aspects of mistake of law.

29 Apr 1999 : Column: 241

Part 2 of the report proposed changes to the law to ensure that citizens had effective remedies in circumstances where tax was paid but not due. However, developments since the report was published, including the procedures associated with self-assessment of tax liabilities, have created an acceptable balance of rights and responsibilities between the taxpayer and the state. Therefore, the Government have concluded that it is no longer necessary to implement Part 2 of the report.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Pensions

Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, for each of the next 20 years, the size of the gap in pounds per week between the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee, assuming price indexation of the basic pension and earnings indexation of the minimum income guarantee. [82056]

Mr. Timms: We have announced our intention to update the basic state pension annually at least in line with prices, and to increase the minimum income guarantee over time, as resources allow, in line with earnings. The information requested on the basis of the assumptions stated in the question is in the table.

Difference between the basic state pension and minimum income guarantee for a single pensioner aged 65

Year	Difference (£)
1999	8.25
2000	9.35
2001	10.50
2002	11.70
2003	12.85
2004	14.05
2005	15.25
2006	16.50
2007	17.75
2008	19.00
2009	20.30
2010	21.60
2011	22.90
2012	24.25
2013	25.65
2014	27.00
2015	28.40
2016	29.85
2017	31.30
2018	32.75
2019	34.25

Notes:

1. The difference is shown in constant April 1999 prices.

2. The figures assume that earnings grow by 1.5 per cent. per year above prices.

3. Figures rounded to the nearest £0.05.

---