28 Nov 2000 : Column: 485W
Written Answers to Questions
Tuesday 28 November 2000
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
Short Money
Mr. Peter Bradley: To ask the President of the Council what mechanism exists to verify the certificates by independent auditors that Short money has been properly spent. [139026]
Mrs. Beckett: The certificates presented by the auditors are subject to audit by the National Audit Office, as part of their examination of House of Commons expenditure.
Mr. Peter Bradley: To ask the President of the Council how much Short money the main opposition party received in each year from 1995. [139023]
Mrs. Beckett: The figures are as follows:
| £ | |
|---|---|
| Labour Party | |
| 1995-96 | 1,489,749.12 |
| 1996-97 | 1,530,190.51 |
| 1997-98(1) | 129,017.97 |
| Conservative Party | |
| 1997-98(2) | 986,762.82 |
| 1998-99 | 1,112,885.74 |
| 1999-2000(3),(4) | 3,377,670.28 |
| 2000-01(5) | 3,465,131.69 |
(1) Part year 1 April 1997-1 May 1997
(2) Part year 2 May 1997-31 March 1998
(3) Includes £500,000 for Leader of the Opposition's Office
(4) In line with the recommendations of the Neill Committee
(5) Includes £513,000 for Leader of the Opposition's Office
Mr. Peter Bradley: To ask the President of the Council what recent amendments have been made to the arrangements for paying Short money; who requested these changes; what consultations took place regarding them; and under what authority they were made. [139337]
Mrs. Beckett: No changes have been made to the arrangements for paying Short money.
However, I understand that there was concern about the meaning of parliamentary business and the National Audit Office had also proposed that a letter should accompany the pro-forma audit report, to assist auditors. The Fees Office accordingly issued Notes for Auditors for the first time.
The definition of parliamentary business contained in those notes had been approved by the Clerk of the House, as Accounting Officer, and the National Audit Office. The Clerk was acting under the authority given him by the Resolution of the House of 26 May 1999 to determine the form in which auditors report.
28 Nov 2000 : Column: 486W
"Charging With Care"
Mr. Burstow: To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her oral answer of 11 May 2000, Official Report, column 1015, on the Audit Commission report "Charging with Care", what the basis was of her statement concerning the Commission's findings about Liberal Democrat councils. [138015]
Mrs. Beckett [pursuant to the reply, 20 November 2000, c. 70W]: Responsibility for home care charges rests with the Department of Health.
However, information provided for the Business Statement showed that the percentage of costs recovered through home care charges 1 for three Liberal Democrat councils was higher than the England average of 12 per cent.
- 1 Source: Department of Health
| Council | Recovery rate notified to DH |
|---|---|
| Devon | 28 |
| Somerset | 39 |
| Oldham | 39 |
SOCIAL SECURITY
Lone Parents
Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of reintroducing (a) lone parent family premium in Income Support, (b) lone parent rate of Child Benefit and (c) both of the above at their real level as at April 1997. [137055]
Angela Eagle: The information is in the table.
| Estimated annual long run cost | |
|---|---|
| Reintroducing lone parent premium in income related benefits | 150 |
| Reintroducing lone parent rate of child benefit | 110 |
| Total | 260 |
Notes:
1. Long run costs are expressed at 2001-02 levels assuming no lone parents are currently in receipt of the lone parent family premium, or the lone parent rate of Child Benefit.
2. Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million.
3. It is assumed that reintroducing the lone parent family premium in Income Support implies the reintroduction of the equivalent premia for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and Jobseekers' Allowance (IB).
4. Income Support, Jobseekers' Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit lone parent premia are uprated by ROSSI from April 1997 to April 2001 levels. The lone parent Child Benefit rate is uprated by RPI from April 1997 to April 2001 levels.
5. The Child Benefit and family premium rates in the income related benefits have increased in real terms since April 1997. If these rates had not increased in real terms, then the cost of reintroducing the lone parent premium in income related benefits, and lone parent rate of Child Benefit would have increased to some £500 million in the long run, assuming the current caseloads remain constant.
28 Nov 2000 : Column: 487W
Benefit Fraud
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the amount of Housing Benefit fraud in the United Kingdom for each year since 1992. [137128]
Angela Eagle [holding answer 14 November 2000]: Housing Benefit fraud was not measured routinely between 1992 and 1997. It is estimated, following a review carried out between September 1997 and March 1998, that confirmed fraud is £180 million but a further £430 million is suspected. We are working on introducing a consistent measure for fraud and error in Housing Benefit in all local authorities for April 2001.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what working estimate was used by his Department for benefit fraud, and what the actual figure of detected benefit fraud was, in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [139336]
Mr. Rooker: Previous estimates have shown that £2 billion a year has definitely been lost through fraud. A further £2 billion to £3 billion may have been lost in cases where fraud is strongly suspected.
No checks were made for benefit fraud before 1995.
Income Support Reviews
Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take measures to ensure that the Benefits Agency reviews entitlement to Income Support during the lifetime of a claim and that such reviews replace the responsibility of the claimant to notify relevant changes in circumstances. [139290]
Angela Eagle: The Benefits Agency regularly checks that claimants receiving Income Support remain entitled. We do not intend, however, that these review checks should replace the responsibility of claimants to notify relevant changes in their circumstances, as has been the case for many years.
Pension Credits
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how much the (a) median and (b) mean Pension Credit payments would be in the current year had the Pension Credit already been implemented based on the figures in the Pension Credit consultation paper (Cm 4900). [139117]
Mr. Rooker: The costs of the Pension Credit will depend on decisions about the detailed design following the consultation exercise--such as the nature of the interactions with other benefits such as Housing Benefit and the detail of the legislation, when it has completed its passage through Parliament. We will bring forward estimates of the Pension Credit once we have considered responses to the consultation exercise.
Mr. Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 13 November 2000, Official Report, column 526W, if he will (a) extend his projections up to 2003-04 to include the Pension Credit and (b) indicate the take-up assumptions on which his estimates are based; [139748]
28 Nov 2000 : Column: 488W
- (2) how many and what proportion of pensioners will qualify for the Pension Credit in (a) 2008-09 and (b) 2013-14 assuming that average earnings increase at an annual rate of 4 per cent. and prices increase at an annual rate of (i) 2 per cent. and (ii) 2.5 per cent. [139816]
Mr. Rooker [holding answers 22 and 23 November 2000]: The costs of the Pension Credit will depend on decisions about the detailed design following the consultation exercise--such as the nature of the interactions with other benefits such as Housing Benefit and the detail of the legislation, when it has completed its passage through Parliament. We will bring forward estimates of the Pension Credit once we have considered responses to the consultation exercise.
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library an analysis of the costs and benefits of the withdrawal taper for the savings element of the proposed pension credit being set at (a) the current standard rate tax, (b) 30 per cent., (c) 35 per cent. and (d) the current Housing Benefit withdrawal taper. [140668]
Mr. Rooker: The costs of the Pension Credit will depend on decisions about the detailed design following the consultation exercise--such as the nature of the interactions with other benefits such as Housing Benefit and the detail of the legislation, when it has completed its passage through Parliament. We will bring forward estimates of the Pension Credit once we have considered responses to the consultation exercise.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |