| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the estimated average price paid for a dwelling by first-time buyers for each of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom as a whole, in (a) 1984; (b) 1993; (c) 1997; and (d) 2003. [HL4679]
Lord Rooker: The average dwelling prices paid by first time buyers are tabled below:
Source:
Building Societies Mortgages/Survey of Mortgage Lenders
Notes:
1. The data for 1984 are calculated as simple averages derived from the 5 per cent sample survey of Building Societies Mortgages (BSM).
2. The data for 1993 and 1997 are calculated as mix-adjusted averages derived from the 5 per cent sample survey of all mortgage lenders (the Survey of Mortgage Lenders (SML)), except for the north-west. At the time, the north-west and Merseyside were separate Government Office Regions and the mix-adjusted averages were calculated on this basis. We are only able to produce simple averages for a combined north-west and Merseyside region for 1993 and 1997.
3. The data for 2003 are calculated as mix-adjusted averages derived from a significantly enhanced sample of all mortgage lenders (SML) for all countries and regions.
Right of Petition: UN Conventions
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Ashton of Upholland on 25 October (WA 108), why they decided not to accede to the right of individual petition for members of ethnic minorities under the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination. [HL4658]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): As I explained in my Answers to the noble Lord on 16 September (WA 201), and on 25 October (WA 108), the Government believe that the practical value to UK citizens of individual petition to the United Nations is unclear. They also have concerns about the levels of cost to public funds if individual petition were used extensively to explore the meaning
8 Nov 2004 : Column WA56
of the provisions of a treaty. However, they wish to consider the merits of individual petition on a more empirical basis and, to enable them to do that, they have decided to accede to the right of individual petition under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
War Pensions
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What research they have undertaken or commissioned on alleged abuse of the war pensions scheme arising from placing the burden of proof for entitlement on the Ministry of Defence, leaving the claimant only needing to raise a "reasonable doubt"; and what figures they have on the prevalence of such abuse in each of the past five years. [HL4318]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): The Ministry of Defence deals with a small number of claims that are made fraudulently or in error, but these are not the principal issue in this case. The question is whether it is right to pay awards where service is unlikely to have been the cause of death or injury and whether these resources would not be better used to improve the level of awards to the more seriously disabled who are not well served by current arrangements.
For claims made within seven years of leaving service, war pension legislation provides that there is no burden on the claimant to prove that service caused the injury or death in question and that he receives the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The claimant himself is not required to raise that doubt. For claims made more than seven years after leaving service, the burden is on the claimant, but only to the extent that he has to raise a reasonable doubt.
It is inevitable therefore, given the eligibility criteria, that war pensions will be awarded where it is unlikely—and in some cases highly unlikely—that the injury or death was caused by service. No figures are kept on the number of war pension claims which succeed because of the preferential burden of proof, though the recent analysis of the effect of the amendment to the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill proposed by the noble Lord gives our estimate of the effect of changing burden and standard of proof for the new Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. I am placing a copy of this in the Library of the House.
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What evidence the Ministry of Defence estimates that the cost to the department of abandoning the proposals to transfer the burden of proof in respect of war pension claims from the Ministry of Defence to the claimant, and to substitute "balance of probabilities" for "reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof in deciding claims, could be up to £200 million. [HL4319]
Lord Bach: Based on assumptions provided by the Ministry of Defence on the effect of deciding all compensation claims under the new Armed Forces Compensation Scheme on the basis of the war pension scheme burden and standard of proof, the Government Actuary's Department has estimated the additional cost at over £300 million over a 10-year period. I am arranging to place a copy of this letter in the Libraries of both Houses. The MoD is confident that the assumptions are a fair and realistic assessment of the effect that such a change will have on the number and levels of awards.
Water Purification Units
Lord Roberts of Llandudno asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many water purification units are held by the Ministry of Defence; and in which years they were manufactured. [HL4557]
Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence holds 182 portable water purification units which were manufactured between 1984 and 2003. In addition we have acquired and installed five static reverse osmosis purification units in support of the United Kingdom forces deployed on operations.
Cadet Forces: Funding
Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What grants are given to (a) sea cadets; (b) the Combined Cadet Force; and (c) the equivalent organisations in the other services; whether such grants are balanced amongst the three services; whether they are satisfied that the grants represent value for money; and whether any stipulation to the issuing of grants applies to the recruitment of young people, broken down by sex; ethnic origin; and by type of education (whether at state and public schools). [HL4574]
Lord Bach: The cadet forces are voluntary, community-based organisations promoting the personal and social development of young people. The focus is on bringing adventure and enjoyment, with a view to steering the cadets towards responsible citizenship. Funding is not linked to sex, ethnic origin or type of education as one of the main keystones of the cadet forces is social inclusion. The MoD funding made available for the financial year 2003–04 is as follows:
Sea Cadet Corps (SCC)—£8 million–£9 million. Funding is also provided by the Sea Cadet Association (SCA).
Army Cadet Force—£40 million. Some additional activities are funded by charity.
Air Training Corps—£21 million. Again, some additional activities are funded by charity.
Combined Cadet Force (CCF)—Each CCF is essentially a partnership between the individual school and the Ministry of Defence. The MoD, through the single services, contributed in the region of £15 million in FY 2003–04 to the CCF. In addition, the CCF benefits from the infrastructure established to support the other cadet forces. In many cases schools also provide additional funding.
The fact that cadet force funding has passed spending scrutiny year on year indicates that we believe these youth activities are of considerable value to both the Armed Forces and to society as a whole.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |