| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Details of earlier meetings that may be relevant were included in a reply given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Sport (Richard Caborn) in his reply to the honourable Member for North-East Cambridgeshire on 20 December 2005 (cols. 2654 -6W). One further meeting has been identified, which was inadvertently omitted from that reply: Richard Caborn and DCMS officials met Detlef Kornett, managing director of the Anschutz Group in London, on 7 July 2003. The minute of this meeting was published on the DCMS website www.culture.gov.uk as part of a response dated 26 July 2005 to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act.
Details of further potentially relevant meetings with overseas casino operators which took place between 1 January 2004 and July 2005 have been published in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. Where available, minutes of meetings held between these dates have been published on the DCMS website, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Since January 2003, there have been many more meetings with different companies already operating in the UK casino market and their representative bodies. Details of all these meetings could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the contribution which a regional casino licence could make to regeneration of the Millennium Dome area.[HL6758]
Government Departments: Special Advisers
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 10 July (WA 89), how many assistants currently support special advisers to Ministers in the Department of Health; and what is the nature of their services.[HL6937]
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): The two special advisers within the Department of Health are supported by one assistant who provides support of a non-political nature in accordance with the code of conduct for special advisers.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 10 July (WA 89), how many assistants currently support special advisers to Ministers in HM Treasury; and what is the nature of their services; and [HL7013]
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 10 July (WA 89), how many assistants currently support special advisers to Ministers in HM Revenue and Customs; and what is the nature of their services.[HL7032]
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The special advisers to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are supported by three full-time staff.
There are no special advisers to the Treasury Minister responsible for HM Revenue and Customs, the Paymaster General.
Support to special advisers is provided in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 10 July (WA 89), how many assistants currently support special advisers to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office; and what is the nature of their services.[HL7030]
Lord Rooker: There is currently one member of staff working directly to the special advisers. This member of staff is employed to provide support of a non-political nature in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. The special advisers also receive support from Private Office staff.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 10 July (WA 89), how many assistants currently support special advisers to Ministers in the Department for Transport; and what is the nature of their services.[HL7033]
Lord Davies of Oldham: There are three staff in the special advisers support team. Staff are employed to provide support of a non-political nature in accordance with the code of conduct for special advisers.
20 July 2006 : Column WA205
Immigration
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have increased or intend to increase the period required before legal migrants into the United Kingdom may settle permanently; if so, what their reasons are for making such a change; and whether any change will have retrospective effect.[HL6637]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): The minimum qualifying period for settlement was increased from four years to five years on 3 April. The change to five years brings us in line with other European countries on length of residence criteria. The Government do not feel that there are any benefits to be had by maintaining a different provision in the UK from that which applies elsewhere in the EU. The Government also feel that settlement should be based on a degree of attachment to the United Kingdom similar to that currently required for citizenship, and should form the later part of a journey towards integration. We feel that the increase in the qualifying period supports this. Those who have already qualified for settlement are allowed to keep their settled status subject to continuing to be ordinarily resident here. The change only affects those who have still not qualified. The change is not therefore retrospective.
Ivory
Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What views they have expressed in international bodies on the proposed ivory stockpile sales from Botswana, Namibia and South Africa; and whether they will resist all future calls to re-open the trade in ivory; and [HL6807]
What representations they have made and what steps they are taking to combat the continuing decline in the number of African elephants, particularly in respect of (a) the illegal ivorytrade conducted through London; (b) habitat degradation; and (c) the bushmeat trade. [HL6808]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): The international ban on trade in ivory remains firmly in place and is fully supported by the UK Government. We remain clearly of the view that the illegal and unsustainable trade in ivory should not be permitted. We will not support any resumption in the commercial trade in ivory until we are satisfied that this will not result in an increase in the illegal killing of elephants, or undermine the conservation of elephant populations elsewhere in the world.
The UK has been closely concerned in the debate surrounding proposals for one-off sales of stockpiled ivory, through our involvement in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
20 July 2006 : Column WA206
To assist any considerations, my colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Biodiversity (Barry Gardiner) has asked the International Fund for Animal Welfare to prepare estimates of the cost of improving conservation measures to combat elephant poaching commensurate with ensuring that any stimulus such one-off sales of stockpiled ivory might give to the black-market trade would be more than offset by the improved conservation.
From 20 March 2006, all applications for Article 10 certificates for un-worked ivory tusks are being refused regardless of origin or acquired date, unless there are very exceptional circumstances.
Last year officials prepared a specific guidance note for antique dealers, in consultation with the British Antique Dealers Association, concerning the control of trade in endangered species. It contains information concerning the requirements that must be complied with by dealers when they are engaged in the sale of antique items in the UK or their export overseas, and the ramifications of non-compliance with the regulations. This was distributed to trade associations and to applicants and enquirers with antique queries.
The findings of Care for the Wild's report, Ivory Markets in Europe, produced by Dr Esmond Martin and Dr Daniel Stiles last year, states there is no evidence of a large illegal market in ivory products in the UK or Europe as a whole. Although the scale of the UK’s worked ivory market was ranked ninth out of 33 countries surveyed, the report concluded that most of this ivory trade was legal.
Statistics from the Elephant Trade Information System (a global monitoring system established to track and assess the scale of illegal trade in ivory) have not revealed any significant problems of illegal ivory trade in the UK. We believe that there are far more serious ivory issues than that represented by the UK trade.
We are working, within the context of the UK’s commitment to reduce poverty in developing countries, to secure public and animal health here, and to meet a commitment to stem the loss of biodiversity globally. An interdepartmental ministerial body on biodiversity issues has commissioned a study into the importance of bushmeat to poverty alleviation and biodiversity loss. It is expected to report in Summer 2006. Improved forest governance and reduction in illegal logging are also seen as key to the sustainable management of forests and forest resources, which include bushmeat.
20 July 2006 : Column WA207
Lower Earnings Limit
Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many women who have a part-time job earn less than the lower earnings limit; and how many adults caring for a disabled person on any disability benefit for more than 20 hours per week have a part-time job and earn less than the lower earnings limit.[HL6697]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Evidence from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) suggests that around 1.4 million women working part-time in 2003-04 earned less than the lower earnings limit (LEL) from their main or only job. This figure includes women covered by national insurance credits and women protected by home responsibilities protection who may be building up entitlement to basic state pension (BSP) and state second pension (S2P).
We estimate that there may be fewer than 50,000 adults reporting themselves as caring for 20 or more hours per week, who also have a part-time job and earn less than the LEL in their main or only job.
The FRS, on which the information provided is based, is “point in time” analysis, so only provides a snapshot of the number of people in these particular circumstances at the time the data are collected. Individuals may not, of course, be in these circumstances all of their working lives.
As a result of our proposed reforms to the BSP, including the reduction in the number of qualifying years to 30, we estimate that by 2025, over 90 per cent of women and men reaching state pension age will be entitled to a full BSP. The extension of childcare credits in S2P to parents until their youngest child turns 12 means that from 2010 around an extra 780,000 women and 30,000 men will be accruing S2P.
People reaching pension age from 2010 will have far greater opportunity to build BSP and S2P entitlement over their working life. Provision of care or spells of employment with earnings below the LEL should no longer compromise this opportunity.
- 3 Due to small sample sizes these figures are subject to a high degree of variability and should be treated as indicative only.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many women currently receive home responsibility protection (HRP) for a youngest child over the age of 12 years; and how many women currently eligible for, or in receipt of, HRP are in jobs which pay them (a) less than the lower earnings limit (LEL); and (b) more than the LEL; and [HL6698]
How many women currently in receipt of home responsibility protection for children over 12 years are in jobs which pay them (a) less than the lower earnings limit (LEL); and (b) more than the LEL. [HL6699]
20 July 2006 : Column WA208
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Evidence from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) suggests that approximately 300,000 women currently have their basic state pension (BSP) position protected through home responsibilities protection (HRP) for the youngest child over the age of 12 years.
This evidence also suggests that there may be around 600,000 women in jobs that pay below the lower earnings limit (LEL) who have their state pension position protected through HRP for caring and parenting responsibilities.
Around 100,000 women have their BSP position protected through HRP for children over 12 years and who are in jobs which pay them less than the LEL.
Women in jobs which pay them more than the LEL qualify for BSP and state second pension (S2P) through their earnings, and so do not require HRP.
The FRS, on which the information provided is based, is “point in time” analysis, so only provides a snapshot of the number of people in these particular circumstances at the time the data are collected. Individuals may not, of course, be in these circumstances all of their working lives.
As a result of our proposed reforms to the BSP, including the reduction in the number of qualifying years to 30, we estimate that by 2025, over 90 per cent of women and men reaching state pension age will be entitled to a full BSP. The extension of childcare credits in S2P to parents until their youngest child turns 12 means that from 2010 around an extra 780,000 women and 30,000 men will be accruing S2P.
People reaching pension age from 2010 will have far greater opportunity to build BSP and S2P entitlement over their working life. Provision of care or spells of employment with earnings below the LEL should no longer compromise this opportunity.
- 2 Due to small sample sizes, these figures are subject to a high degree of variability and should be treated as indicative only.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many women have two or more jobs which each pay less than the lower earnings limit (LEL), but which added together pay more than the LEL; and, of these, how many (a) have a youngest child under 12; (b) have a youngest child between 12 and 16 years; and (c) do not have a dependent child.[HL6729]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information requested is not available.
Evidence from the Labour Force Survey suggests that in 2005 there were fewer than 50,000 women who had two or more jobs that each pay less than the lower earnings limit (LEL) but which added together pay more than the LEL.
Due to the small sample sizes available in this dataset, we are unable to provide the additional information about this group.
20 July 2006 : Column WA209
The Labour Force Survey on which the information provided is based on “point in time” analysis, so only provides a snapshot of the number of people in these particular circumstances at the time the data are collected. Individuals may not, of course, be in these circumstances all of their working lives.
As a result of our proposed reforms to the basic state pension (BSP), including the reduction in the number of qualifying years to 30, we estimate that by 2025, over 90 per cent of women and men reaching state pension age will be entitled to a full BSP. The extension of childcare credits in state second pension (S2P) to parents until their youngest child turns 12 means that from 2010 around an extra 780,000 women and 30,000 men will be accruing S2P.
People reaching pension age from 2010 will have far greater opportunity to build BSP and S2P entitlement over their working life. Provision of care or spells of employment with earnings below the LEL should no longer compromise this opportunity.
- 2 Due to small sample sizes, these figures are subject to a high degree of variability and should be treated as indicative only.
Marine Safety: Navigation
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the responsibilities of a competent harbour authority whose port is adjacent to marine enhanced high risk areas and whose access channel runs between such areas or through particularly sensitive sea areas in respect to changes to the navigational safety regime of that authority; and whether the Department for Transport would expect to be consulted on any proposed changes to this regime.[HL6979]
Lord Davies of Oldham: The fact that a port is adjacent to marine environmental high risk areas, or that its access channel runs between such areas or through a particularly sensitive sea area, does not add to the responsibilities of that port's competent harbour authority.
There is no requirement for my department to be consulted on proposed changes to harbour authorities' navigational safety regimes. Harbour authorities are, however, expected to ensure that any changes are consistent with the Port Marine Safety Code.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |