---

11 Oct 2004 : Column 71W—continued

Insurance

Mr. Battle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve regulation of the insurance industry; and if he will make a statement. [189950]

Mr. Timms: The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is responsible for regulating financial services in the UK. The FSA has identified prudential regulation of the insurance sector as a priority and has developed a comprehensive strategy to address this issue. In addition, the FSA will regulate the selling of general insurance business from 14 January 2005.

Royal Residences

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the accommodation formerly occupied by the late HRH Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in Windsor Great Park consists of. [188550]

 
11 Oct 2004 : Column 72W
 

Mr. Timms: The accommodation occupied by HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother within Windsor Great Park was:

(a) Royal Lodge consisting of the main house including staff accommodation, gardens and grounds of 40.3 hectares including tennis court and the miniature Welsh cottage;

and within these grounds:

(b) Gardener's cottage;

(c) Chapel lodge;

(d) No. 6 Lodge Cottages;

(e) Police security accommodation.

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans have been made for the future use of the cottage previously occupied by the late HRH Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in Windsor Great Park; and what, other than accommodation, is included in the lease for the cottage in Windsor Great Park. [188551]

Mr. Timms: Royal Lodge has been leased to HRH The Duke of York with effect from 16 June 2003 for a period of 75 years. The lease is for all of the accommodation identified in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question 188550.

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors determined the length of the lease for the cottage in Windsor Great Park previously occupied by the late HRH Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. [188552]

Mr. Timms: The lease to HRH The Duke of York for Royal Lodge is for 75 years.

The length of lease was agreed as a suitable period, taking into account the refurbishment of the property which the tenant is required to meet at his own expense in the first two years of the lease.

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the basis of valuation of the lease for the cottage in Windsor Great Park previously occupied by the late HRH Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was; and who carried out the valuation. [188553]

Mr. Timms: The terms and valuation of the lease were negotiated between The Crown Estate as landlord and HRH The Duke of York as tenant. Agents were appointed by both parties and were required to agree the terms of the lease on a commercial basis for the lease period of 75 years.

The rental valuation was to take into account the requirement of the landlord for the tenant to restore and modernise the property at his own expense to an agreed standard.
 
11 Oct 2004 : Column 73W
 

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current value of the lease for the cottage in Windsor Great Park previously occupied by the late HRH Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is, using Treasury discounting figures. [188554]

Mr. Timms: The lease was granted on a commercial basis. It also takes into account the refurbishment of the property which the tenant is required to meet at his own expense in the first two years of the lease.

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what financial basis the cottage in Windsor Great Park previously occupied by the late HRH Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother had previously been occupied. [188555]

Mr. Timms: The Duke and Duchess of York (later King George VI and Queen Elizabeth) were granted occupation of Royal Lodge by King George V in 1931, without charge.

The property reverted to The Crown Estate on the death of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother in 2002.

Average Mortality Rates

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average mortality rate for (a) professional groups and (b) manual groups in (i) Hartlepool Primary Care Trust and (ii) England was in the last year for which figures are available. [189266]

Mr. Timms [holding answer 16 September 2004]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 11 October 2004:

As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the average mortality rate for (a) professional groups and (b) manual groups in (i) Hartlepool Primary Care Trust and (ii) England was in the last year for which figures are available. (189266)

The most recent available mortality rates for sub-national areas by Social Class, based on occupation, are those which use populations from the 1991 Census. Figures for the period 1991–1993 were published for England and its constituent Government Office Regions (GORs) for males aged .20–64. Figures are not available for smaller geographic areas. Those based on populations from the 2001 Census, and deaths in the years
 

11 Oct 2004 : Column 74W
 

around that Census, are not yet available. Figures for 1991–1993 are included in the table below for England and the North East GOR (which includes the area covered by Hartlepool Primary Care Trust).

Mortality rates⁽¹⁹⁾ by social class, males aged 20–64, England and the North East Government Office Region,⁽²⁰⁾1991–1993 3

Social class	England	North East GOR
Non manual	315	351
I—Professional	271	293
II—Managerial and technical/intermediate	293	326
IIIN—Skilled non-manual	418	463
Manual	516	663
IIIM—Skilled manual	489	577
IV—Partly skilled	486	636
V—Unskilled	786	1,285
All men	425	546

⁽¹⁹⁾ Death rates per 100,000 population age-standardised to the European Standard Population.
⁽²⁰⁾ Usual residents of these areas.
⁽²¹⁾ Deaths registered in each year.
Source:
Griffiths C. and Fitzpatrick J. Geographic Variations in Health, Decennial Supplement No 16, TSO London, 2001.

Children (Expenditure)

Jean Corston: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each of the years 1996 to 2004, what the estimated expenditure was for all children and per child, in current and in real terms, on (a) family credit, (b) working families tax credit, (c) child benefit, (d) children's allowance, (e) child maintenance premium for parents with care on income support and (f) in total; and if he will express the total expenditure on children as a percentage of gross domestic product. [187122]

Dawn Primarolo: The information requested is provided in the following tables. The figures for child benefit, child allowances in Income Related Benefits (IRBs—income support, jobseeker's allowance and minimum income guarantee/pension credit) and family credit are for Great Britain; those for working families' tax credit (WFTC) and child tax credit are UK wide. There is no Government expenditure on the child maintenance premium in income support because it is funded by payments from the non-resident parent.
Table 1: Aggregate expenditure, nominal terms £ billion nominal

	Child Benefit	Child allowances in IRBs	Family Credit 1	WFTC 1	Child Tax Credit	Total	Total (Percentage GDP)
1996–97	6,941	2,650	1,014	—	—	10,605	1.4
1997–98	7,088	2,480	1,119	—	—	10,687	1.3
1998–99	7,295	2,465	1,161	—	—	10,921	1.3
1999–2000	8,283	2,670	953	549	—	12,455	1.4
2000–01	8,660	3,125	—	2,503	—	14,288	1.5
2001–02	8,795	3,482	—	3,162	—	15,439	1.5
2002–03	8,945	3,945	—	3,466	—	16,356	1.6
2003–04(22)	9,400	3,847	—	(23)—	8,889	22,136	2.0

 
11 Oct 2004 : Column 75W
 

Table 2: Aggregate expenditure, real terms £ billion real terms (2004–05 prices)

	Child Benefit	Child allowances in IRBs	Family Credit 1	WFTC 1	Child Tax Credit	Total	Total (Percentage GDP)
1996–97	8,413	3,212	1,229	—	—	12,855	1.5
1997–98	8,415	2,944	1,328	—	—	12,688	1.4
1998–99	8,360	2,825	1,330	—	—	12,515	1.3
1999–2000	9,198	2,965	1,058	609	—	13,830	1.4
2000–01	9,512	3,432	—	2,749	—	15,693	1.6
2001–02	9,351	3,702	—	3,362	—	16,415	1.6
2002–03	9,352	4,124	—	3,624	—	17,100	1.7
2003–04(22)	9,663	3,955	—	(23)—	9,138	22,755	2.2

Table 3: Expenditure per child, nominal terms £ per week nominal

	1996–97	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04 1
Family Credit(23)	704	732	738	881	—	—	—	—
WFTC(23)	—	—	—	800	1,121	1,258	1,283	(24)—
Child Benefit	543	558	576	653	684	697	712	722
Child allowances in IRBs	807	878	915	1,013	1,225	1,397	1,634	1,644
Child Tax Credit	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	847

Table 4: Expenditure per child, real terms £ per week real terms (2004–05 prices)

	1996–97	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04
Family Credit(23)	854	869	846	978	—	—	—	—
WFTC(23)	—	—	—	888	1,231	1,337	1,341	(24)—
Child Benefit	658	662	660	725	751	741	744	742
Child allowances in IRBs	978	1,042	1,049	1,125	1,346	1,486	1,708	1,690
Child Tax Credit	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	870

⁽²²⁾ Figures for 2003–04 are estimates.
⁽²³⁾ The values for expenditure on family credit and WFTC are not total expenditure on these credits, but the amount of expenditure attributable to the children in the household.
⁽²⁴⁾ Some payments of WFTC were made in 2003–04 but these related to 2002–03 awards.

Jean Corston: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) following Chart 3.3 in his Department's Child Poverty Review for July 2004, what the total expenditure was in real terms and total expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product on (a) child benefit, (b) tax credits and (c) other income-related benefits for children in (i) 1997, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2004 (estimated); and what the respective amounts were for each for the first, sixth and tenth decile groups; [187123]

(2) for (a) economically active and (b) non-economically active households with children what the total expenditure was on children for (i) child benefit, (ii) tax credits and (c) other income related benefits for children in (A) 1997, (B) 2000; and what the estimated figures are for 2004. [187124]

Dawn Primarolo: The figures requested are in the following tables. The figures for child benefit, child allowances in Income Related Benefits (IRBs—income support, jobseeker's allowance and minimum income guarantee/pension credit) and family credit are for Great Britain; those for working families' tax credit (WFTC) and child tax credit are UK wide.

We do not have analysis by decile for 2000–01 and to produce it would incur disproportionate cost.

We classify individuals, rather than households, as economically active or non-economically active, so cannot provide the additional analysis requested.
 
11 Oct 2004 : Column 76W
 

Table A: Total Expenditure in real terms (2004–05 prices) £ billion

	Child benefit	Family credit/tax credits	Other income-related benefits for children
1997–98	8,415	1,328	2,944
2000–01	9,512	2,749	3,432
2003–04(25)	9,663,	9,138	3,955

Table B: Total expenditure as a percentage of GDP

	Child benefit	Family credit/tax credits	Other income-related benefits for children
1997–98	0.9	0.1	0.3
2000–01	1.0	0.3	0.4
2003–04(25)	0.9	0.9	0.4

Table C: Breakdown of expenditure by decile £ billion

	(i) 1997–98
Net equivalised household income	Child benefit	Family credit	Other income-related benefits for children
Bottom decile	1,200	510	1,300
Sixth decile	850	13	20
Top decile	530	11	0

 
11 Oct 2004 : Column 77W
 

(ii) 2003–04 1

Net equivalised household income	Child benefit	Tax credits and other income-related benefits for children(26)
Bottom decile	1,300	3,700
Sixth decile	980	600
Top decile	600	25

Table D: Breakdown of expenditure by decile (as a percentage of GDP)

	(i) 1997–98
Net equivalised household income	Child benefit	Child elements of family credit	Other income-related benefits for children
Bottom decile	0.13	0.06	0.15
Sixth decile	0.10	0.00	0.00
Top decile	0.06	0.00	0.00

(ii) 2003–04 1

Net equivalised household income	Child benefit	Child elements of tax credits and other income-related benefits for children(26)
Bottom decile	0.13	0.36
Sixth decile	0.09	0.06
Top decile	0.06	0.00

⁽²⁵⁾ The figures for 2003–04 are estimates.
⁽²⁶⁾ The model we use to produce estimates by decile is not able to distinguish between child elements in tax credits and other incomer-related benefits for 2003–04.

---