| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Stakeholder Pension Schemes
Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if contracted-in stakeholder pension schemes will be deregistered. [21441]
Mr. McCartney [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority has written to the four stakeholder pension schemes that are not contracted-out, and they have the opportunity of applying for contracted-out status.
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 384W
Pensions
Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish draft regulations to facilitate the equalisation of benefits for pensions schemes being wound up. [23771]
Mr. McCartney: We do not propose to publish draft regulations. Equalisation of benefits in pension schemes is a matter for the trustees of schemes.
Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the reports by the Pension Provisions Group entitled (1) "Pensions and the Labour Market"; [23772]
- (2) "Pension Provision and Self-Employment". [23773]
Mr. McCartney: We welcome the "Pensions and the Labour Market" report. We are pleased to note that the group has concluded that our pension reforms, together with measures to encourage and facilitate paid work,
- "should improve the overall level of pension provision".
We also welcome the group's report on pension provision and self-employment. It makes a useful contribution to the debate on this important issue.
Tax Credits
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost savings arising from the simplification of income support and the income based element of the jobseeker's allowance as a consequence of the provisions of the Tax Credits Bill. [23998]
Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Paragraph 210 of the explanatory notes to the Tax Credits Bill says that there are expected to be annual reductions in expenditure across DWP policy responsibilities amounting to £4 billion, arising from the abolition of the child related elements of IS/JSA, the new deal 50 plus employment credit and child dependency increases.
Benefits (South Shields)
Mr. Miliband: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in South Shields are claiming (a) incapacity benefit, (b) working families tax credit and (c) children's tax credit. [23770]
Mr. Nicholas Brown [holding answer 18 December 2001]: The available information is in the table.
| Benefit/tax credit | Number |
|---|---|
| Incapacity benefit(19),(20),(21) | 5,600 |
| Working families' tax credit(20),(21) | 2,500 |
(19) Excludes a small number of cases held clerically.
(20) Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.
(21) Estimates based on 5 per cent. samples and are subject to error.
Notes:
1. Incapacity benefit figures are for August 2001. Working families tax credit figures are for May 2001.
2. Children's tax credit figures are not available by parliamentary constituency.
Incapacity Benefit Quarterly Statistical Inquiry August 2001.
Working families' tax credit quarterly statistical Inquiry May 2001.
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 385W
Means-tested Benefits
Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will give the latest annualised cost of means- tested benefits for those also in receipt of a retirement pension, broken down by (a) minimum income guarantee payments, (b) housing benefit, (c) council tax benefit, (d) disability benefits and (e) other benefits. [23329]
Mr. McCartney [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Forecast expenditure for 2001–02 on income-related benefits for the pensioner group 1 is given in the table:
| £ million(23) | |
|---|---|
| Minimum income guarantee(24) | 4,530 |
| Housing benefit | 4,460 |
| Council tax benefit | 1,390 |
| Social fund | 35 |
| Total | 10,415 |
(22) Statistics for the pensioner group in income-related benefit include benefit units in which the claimant is a man aged 60–64 as well as those in which the claimant is over pension age.
(23) Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million and are consistent with social security totals published in the pre-Budget Report 2001.
(24) Expenditure on minimum income guarantee includes premiums related to disability where relevant.
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
Judges' Accommodation
Mr. Stinchcombe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 840W, on judges' accommodation, if he will publish (a) the terms of reference and (b) the comparison made of the value for money provided by judges lodgings undertaken as part of the triennial review of judges lodgings. [23912]
Mr. Wills: The notional comparison referred to in my previous reply was undertaken merely to test the overall assumption that lodgings should continue to be the main method by which accommodation is provided. The terms of reference were to compare the cost of lodgings with alternative forms of accommodation providing appropriate standards of security, privacy and comfort. Hotel costs were calculated on the assumption that the judge and his clerk would be accommodated in a high quality hotel, that the judge would occupy a suite of rooms consisting of a double bedroom, a lounge/study and en-suite bathroom facilities, and that the clerk would have a single room with en-suite bathroom facilities. Allowance was also made for other associated costs e.g. transport to and from court.
This comparison was an academic exercise using notional representative costs and only formed a small part of the triennial review. Additionally, the costs attributed to hotel use excluded any additional security costs that would inevitably be required to provide the safe and secluded environment provided by lodgings. It would therefore be misleading to publish the comparison.
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 386W
Mr. Stinchcombe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the average cost of running judges' lodgings per judge accommodated at each of the individual lodgings in the Lodging Estate for the financial years (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [24128]
Mr. Wills: It has not been possible in the time available to provide the average cost per judge accommodated for each lodgings. However, the following four tables show the average cost per judge week for each of the lodgings based on:
- Total costs;
Total costs excluding capital charge; and
Costs solely attributable to judicial occupation.
| Lodgings | Total cost | Total cost (ex. capital charge) | Judicial cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Birmingham | 3,533.91 | 2,699.39 | 1,575.38 |
| Leicester | 4,762.45 | 4,762.45 | 2,014.00 |
| Lincoln | 4,243.80 | 4,243.80 | 1,394.48 |
| Nottingham | 4,390.58 | 3,673.53 | 1,713.84 |
| Northampton | 6,656.09 | 6,656.09 | 2,957.22 |
| Oxford | 7,151.67 | 7,151.67 | 3,027.67 |
| Stafford | 4,795.15 | 4,795.15 | 1,475.21 |
| Warwick | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Worcester | 4,156.39 | 4,156.39 | 2,494.23 |
| Hull | 1,531.60 | 1,531.60 | 531.60 |
| Leeds | 3,396.48 | 3,396.48 | 1,875.43 |
| Plawsworth | 3,609.13 | 3,162.78 | 1,577.22 |
| Sheffield | 5,648.90 | 4,930.35 | 1,887.64 |
| Carlisle | 2,894.76 | 2,894.76 | 1,380.47 |
| Liverpool | 2,572.33 | 2,572.33 | 1,464.24 |
| Manchester | 3,545.65 | 3,204.06 | 1,768.03 |
| Preston | 4,923.96 | 3,774.42 | 2,345.18 |
| Chelmsford | 8,006.79 | 8,006.79 | 1,325.09 |
| Lewes | 7,324.39 | 7,324.39 | 1,851.19 |
| Maidstone | 9,562.82 | 6,599.90 | 1,624.16 |
| Norwich | 7,668.02 | 5,859.42 | 1,443.11 |
| Reading | 7,879.09 | 4,609.15 | 2,750.35 |
| St. Albans | 6,517.64 | 4,086.66 | 2,154.30 |
| Caernarfon | 4,621.95 | 4,621.95 | 2,365.17 |
| Cardiff | 3,765.72 | 3,348.43 | 2,056.06 |
| Chester | 7,678.89 | 6,800.42 | 2,408.72 |
| Mold | 9,141.94 | 9,141.94 | 2,546.64 |
| Swansea | 5,662.69 | 5,005.88 | 2,362.40 |
| Bristol | 4,591.42 | 4,591.42 | 1,676.56 |
| Exeter | 2,214.01 | 2,214.01 | 972.89 |
| Plymouth | 3,568.68 | 3,568.68 | 1,857.96 |
| Truro | 3,317.57 | 3,317.57 | 1,026.95 |
| Winchester | 4,615.57 | 2,899.21 | 1,666.25 |
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 387W
| Lodging | Total cost | Total cost (ex. capital charge) | Judicial cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Birmingham | 2,856.91 | 2,357.07 | 1,487.28 |
| Nottingham | 2,802.23 | 2,404.89 | 1,615.48 |
| Leicester | 3,769.64 | 3,769.64 | 2,103.60 |
| Oxford | 5,284.32 | 5,284.32 | 3,234.05 |
| Worcester | 3,491.08 | 3,491.08 | 1,546.46 |
| Lincoln | 3,988.73 | 3,988.73 | 1,313.98 |
| Northampton | 5,021.86 | 5,021.86 | 2,567.08 |
| Stafford | 5,306.43 | 5,306.43 | 817.91 |
| Warwick | 1,644.05 | 1,644.05 | 1,392.05 |
| Leeds | 3,852.17 | 3,852.17 | 2,169.48 |
| Plawsworth | 3,840.67 | 3,271.12 | 1,580.26 |
| Sheffield | 6,252.50 | 5,679.93 | 1,948.07 |
| Carlisle | 2,648.33 | 2,648.33 | 1,336.01 |
| Liverpool | 3,892.21 | 3,892.21 | 1,899.50 |
| Manchester | 2,830.63 | 2,568.57 | 1,764.47 |
| Preston | 6,479.53 | 5,403.21 | 2,529.82 |
| Chelmsford | 3,038.26 | 3,038.26 | 693.29 |
| Lewes | 5,464.20 | 5,464.20 | 2,454.96 |
| Maidstone | 7,834.84 | 6,568.36 | 1,625.89 |
| Norwich | 4,596.76 | 3,873.48 | 1,434.15 |
| Reading | 6,621.13 | 4,953.60 | 2,883.90 |
| St. Albans | 8,558.11 | 5,916.78 | 2,237.04 |
| Caernarfon | 5,356.68 | 5,356.68 | 1,740.05 |
| Cardiff | 3,516.80 | 3,136.46 | 1,981.07 |
| Chester | 5,834.61 | 5,150.78 | 2,857.79 |
| Mold | 5,641.53 | 5,641.53 | 1,438.88 |
| Swansea | 11,842.66 | 10,507.26 | 3,123.63 |
| Bristol | 2,983.57 | 2,983.57 | 1,528.26 |
| Exeter | 4,102.47 | 4,102.47 | 1,241.47 |
| Plymouth | 3,377.18 | 3,377.18 | 1,749.64 |
| Truro | 2,821.11 | 2,821.11 | 1,209.87 |
| Winchester | 3,962.79 | 3,163.77 | 1,747.46 |
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 388W
Mr. Stinchcombe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the capital value of the leasehold Lodging Estate in which his Department accommodates judges on circuit. [23705]
Mr. Wills: Of the leasehold Lodgings Estate only two have a notional capital value (as the rents are nominal and/or historic). These are the lodgings at Birmingham and Winchester, with a combined estimated capital value of £2.75 million. The remainder are held under leases where the rents are reviewed frequently and which therefore have no capital value to the Department.
Mr. Stinchcombe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer given on 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 840W, on judges' accommodation, how many (a) butlers, (b) cooks and (c) security personnel are employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department to look after judges on circuit. [23916]
Mr. Wills: Details of the numbers of butlers and chefs/cooks employed to look after judges on circuit were provided in my earlier answer given on 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 840W. The answer also states that we do not employ dedicated security staff at lodgings. All staff are expected to be vigilant and ensure that the lodgings are secure at all times.
Mr. Stinchcombe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his definition is of a guest house of the Wolsey Lodge variety; and how it is differentiated from other forms of accommodation for judges on circuit. [24100]
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 389W
Mr. Wills: I am advised that "Wolsey Lodges" are a consortium of privately owned homes providing a small number of quality rooms for temporary rental. While the properties vary in size and style, they are essentially a public hotel chain. As such Wolsey Lodges are completely different from the network of private lodgings maintained by the Court Service to provide accommodation for High Court judges while on circuit.
Mr. Stinchcombe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 840W, on judges' accommodation (a) if the comparison made of the value for money provided by judges' lodgings examined each judges' lodgings individually and (b) which judges' lodgings were assessed not to provide value for money. [23911]
Mr. Wills: As stated in my earlier answer, the notional comparison undertaken as part of the triennial review was merely to test the overall assumption that lodgings should continue to be the main method by which accommodation is provided. It did not form the main value for money examination within the review.
While a comparison was made for each judges' lodgings individually, the 'hotel alternative' costs were indicative only and did not include additional security costs which would necessarily be incurred for the protection of Her Majesty's High Court judges. It would therefore be misleading to base any decision on the future viability of individual lodgings on this comparison and to publish details of the same.
It should also be recognised that, when discussing alternatives to lodgings, cost is not the only issue. The availability and proximity of suitably secure, private and comfortable accommodation has also to be considered.
Mr. Stinchcombe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 840, on judges' accommodation, what action has been taken since publication of Lord Justice Auld's report to assess the value for money provided by individual judges' lodgings; and what action will be taken in respect of judges' lodgings assessed not to provide value for money in line with the recommendations of the Auld report. [23917]
Mr. Wills: As my hon. Friend is aware, Sir Robin Auld's report was only published on 8 October. Public consultation on his recommendations takes place up to 31 January 2002.
Consequently, no new assessment of the value for money provided by individual lodgings is being considered until this period of consultation has concluded. The Lord Chancellor will then decide on a course of action with regard to lodgings in the light of this and the findings of the triennial review.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |