Prepared: 21:16 on 16 January 2006
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Don Touhig): As part of the Government’s continuing commitment to investigate Gulf veterans’ illnesses openly and honestly, data on the mortality of veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict are published regularly. The most recent figures for the period 1 April 1991 to 31 December 2005, are published today as a National Statistic on the Defence Analytical Services Agency website.
The data for Gulf veterans are compared to that of a control group known as the “Era cohort” which is made up of armed forces personnel of a similar profile in terms of gender, service, regular/reservists status and rank, who were not deployed to the Gulf. As in the previous release, the “Era” group has been adjusted for a small difference in the age-profile of those aged 40 years and over, to ensure appropriate comparisons.
Key points to note in the data are:
There have been 755 deaths among the Gulf veterans and 765 in the age-adjusted era comparison group.
The 755 deaths among Gulf veterans compare with approximately 1,206 deaths which would have been expected in a similar sized cohort taken from the general population of the UK with the same age and gender profile. This reflects the strong emphasis on fitness when recruiting and retaining service personnel.
These statistics continue to confirm that UK veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict do not suffer an excess of overall mortality compared with service personnel that did not deploy.
The full notice can be viewed at www.dasa.mod.uk
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Copies of the reply to a freedom of information request relating to the decision to close the British Embassy in Nicaragua in 2003 have been placed in the Library of the House.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Hain): I wish to announce that with effect from 23 January 2006, in accordance with the powers conferred on me by Rule 5(1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, that the boundaries of Hydebank Wood Prison are hereby altered to include that part of Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre known as Beech House. The area to be included is indicated on the site map, which I have to-day placed in the Libraries of both Houses, by the words ‘Beech House’.
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Alun Michael): I am pleased to announce that today, with Edwina Hart AM MBE, the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration, I am publishing the analysis of our consultation, held last year, on “Improving Payment Practices in the Construction Industry”.
The consultation proposed a number of amendments to Part II of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998. In the light of the consultation response I am proposing to:
introduce a requirement that certification of the sum due, by one of the contracting parties or a third party, becomes an essential feature of contractual payment mechanisms;
remove the section 110(2) requirement for a payer notice;
introduce a right to apply for payment where a certificate is not issued by the due date;
make certain payment mechanisms including pay-when-certified clauses ineffective;
enhance the existing right of suspension under the Construction Act to allow the suspending party to claim for loss and expense;
prohibit the use of trustee stakeholder accounts for awards made by adjudicators;
make “final and conclusive” clauses unenforceable where they apply to decisions under the contract that are of substance to interim payments only;
take forward the Government’s existing commitment to make contractual agreements on adjudication costs unenforceable and to provide a statutory framework for allocating them, including cases where adjudicators resign in response to a challenge to jurisdiction.
Our aim is to improve upon the existing legislative framework, which is generally recognised as making a valuable contribution to fairness in the way construction contracts are agreed and operated. The legislation is largely working as was intended, thanks to the willingness of the construction industry and its clients to develop their culture in the light of a changed legal framework. This is in the context of an ongoing process of change and improvement in the construction industry.
The consultation has demonstrated strong support for continued regulation of construction contracts and the current process improving the current framework. We have received 356 consultation responses—a startling demonstration of the level of interest in these issues in the construction industry and among its stakeholders. We are very grateful to all those who responded. They have had to consider some difficult and complex issues, which have required careful analysis and innovative solutions. Launching this consultation last year, my predecessor as construction Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), observed that “Fair payment practice is something everyone agrees with and a fair payment culture underpins any progressive and modern industry”. That is something all the responses have recognised.
The analysis also sets out the next steps we intend to take, working with the construction industry over the coming months, to ensure the package of amendments is based upon a clear and thorough understanding of all the issues, when it is published for further consultation. The DTI has already asked a sounding board of key figures in the industry to assist in the development of the proposals to ensure they match the needs of the construction industry and its clients, as well the strict requirements of the Regulatory Reform Order framework. The sounding board members are:
Richard Bayfield—Immediate past chairman of the Society of Construction Law, a Chartered Civil Engineer and project management consultant on dispute avoidance and resolution. He is an adviser on the DTI sponsored Constructing Excellence programme.
Chris Dancaster—Chairman of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ Dispute Resolution Faculty Board and an adjudicator, arbitrator and mediator. Both he and Richard Bayfield were members of the adjudication group during Sir Michael Latham’s review of the Construction Act.
Richard Haryott—Chaired the payment working group during Sir Michael Latham’s review of the Construction Act. He is chairman of the Ove Arup Foundation, having been a Director of Arup for over 20 years with extensive experience of the design and implementation of major projects.
Sir Michael Latham—Chaired the review of the Construction Act, which led to the DTI/Welsh Assembly Government consultation last year. Author of the 1994 report “Constructing the Team”.
His Honour Humphrey LLoyd QC—Barrister and arbitrator specialising in construction law until he became a judge of the Technology and Construction Court in 1993. Having retired from the bench in 2005, he continues to act as an arbitrator.
Peter Rogers—Director and Co-founder of Stanhope plc and Chairman of Constructing Excellence. He has recently stepped down as chairman of the Strategic Forum for Construction and is chairing the taskforce on the construction industry’s contribution to the 2012 Olympics.
The sounding board will advise Ministers as the DTI develops the proposals in detail and improves its understanding of their potential impacts. The members are not intended to represent specific sectors within the construction industry.
I am looking forward to involving the sounding board in a process of dialogue over the coming months with the construction industry and its stakeholders. This will include a post-consultation event, which I will be hosting on 14 February. Assuming it is possible to implement these measures via a Regulatory Reform Order, the DTI then intends to issue a further consultation on a final package of amendments in the Spring.
The analysis is available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/construction/hgcra/hgcralead.htm
The Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks): On 8 January 2004, in a written ministerial statement, Official Report, columns 13–14WS, the then Energy Minister launched the second phase of a three-phase strategy addressing the issue of future changes to the quality of gas imports to Great Britain. I can now inform the House that assessment of the available policy options, under phase two of the exercise, is complete. All of the available evidence points to a strong case for retaining the current gas quality specifications, and during the Christmas recess the Government launched a public consultation on this basis.
Phase 1 of this exercise, an independent scoping report commissioned by Government, was completed in November 2003. It confirmed that the Wobbe Index specification of certain anticipated gas imports is, before processing, likely to fall outside the current limits of the Health and Safety Executive’s Gas Safety (Management) Regulations (GS(M)R). In light of Great Britain’s increasing dependence on imported gas, phase 2 of the exercise was launched to identify an appropriate policy response.
As stated in previous announcements, our broad policy options appear to be: to retain the current specifications, requiring off-specification imports to be blended or processed so that the gas composition complies with existing limits, or to amend the current specifications to reflect more closely the expected quality of future gas supplies.
During the course of phase 2 the Department has let a variety of independent technical research contracts, and officials have worked closely with key stakeholders, to evaluate these options. The results show that treating off-specification imports is technically feasible and relatively cost-effective, but that the investment required risks deterring certain supplies at the gas quality margins. Alternatively, amending Great Britain’s gas quality specifications could improve access to more diverse sources of supply, thus safeguarding against supply shortfalls and maintaining competition in the British gas supply market. However, introducing such changes would pose a potential threat to the safety of many gas appliances, and would risk increasing environmental emissions. Changes to Great Britain’s gas quality regulations could not therefore be implemented without first undertaking a nation-wide programme to manage at-risk appliances. This would be extremely expensive. The Government therefore propose to retain the current gas quality specifications and have moved to public consultation on this basis.
During the consultation period the Department plans to hold a workshop, to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to register their interest, and to brief them.
I shall report to the House in due course on the outcome of this consultation, and on the timetable for the remainder of the exercise.
This exercise has been developed by the DTI as a member of the Sustainable Energy Policy Network (SEPN) which is working to deliver the Energy White Paper “Our Energy Future—creating a low carbon economy”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on Bromsgrove district council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
In 2004–05, Bromsgrove district council administered some £10.5 million in housing benefits, about 33 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. There had been sustained improvement in the reported time taken to process new claims, from an average of 50 days in 2003–04 to 44 days in 2004–05 and 42 days for the first quarter of 2005–06. However, this performance was still below the Department’s standard of 36 days.
BFI found that a lack of prioritisation and inefficient practices were creating unnecessary delays at each stage of the claims process. This was compounded by a failure to ensure that the evidence provided by its customers met the minimum requirements of the Department’s Verification Framework.
Members and senior officers were not aware of very poor performance in preventing and recovering benefit overpayments and overpayment debt had increased by almost 400 per cent. between 2002–03 and 2004–05. Very little action was being taken to minimise avoidable overpayments.
Performance in the application of sanctions against benefit fraudsters was found to have improved. The council applied 11 sanctions in 2002–03, increasing to 37 in 2004–05. However, it had failed to prosecute offenders in nine instances where fraud had been proven. This was due to delays within its Legal Services Department.
The inspection revealed that management information provided to Members, senior officers and the Department was often inaccurate with performance being overstated in some instances. Inspectors found minimal management checks being carried out, inadequate audit coverage and a failure to act on audit recommendations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report and may ask the council for proposals in response to BFI's findings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on Falkirk Council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
In 2004–05 Falkirk council administered some £37.7 million in housing benefits, about 10 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. The inspection focused on the council’s counter-fraud arrangements, as it reported to the Department that it had not applied any sanctions between April 2003 and March 2005.
BFI found that the council had strengths in its processes to limit the opportunities for fraud and error to enter the benefit system. In particular, claims were consistently verified to the standard of the Department’s verification framework and effective arrangements were in place to carry out claim reviews and data matches.
However, while the council had a prosecution policy, the inspection found that it did not apply it in practice. Its failure to administer any form of counter-fraud sanction had undermined the council’s ability to create an anti-fraud culture and send a clear message to benefit fraudsters.
The inspection also revealed that the council lacked key management controls over its counter-fraud activities. Its investigation work and file management were ineffective and there was a need to improve the monitoring of performance and analysis of casework within the fraud team.
Falkirk council has acknowledged its shortcomings in this area and there is a commitment to improve performance, which includes developing an action plan to address the recommendations made in BFI's report.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on South Northamptonshire Council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
In 2004–05 South Northamptonshire Council administered some £8.7 million in housing benefits, about 20 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. The inspection focused on the council’s arrangements for processing claims, as it was taking an average of 104 days to process new claims for housing benefit in 2003–04.
BFI found that the council’s performance in processing new claims had significantly improved. The average time taken had reduced from 104 days in 2003–04 to 81.5 days in 2004–05, and 43.5 days in the first quarter of 2005–06. While this remained longer than the Department’s Standard of 36 days, there had clearly been a considerable improvement in the council’s performance.
The inspection revealed a similar situation in the time taken to process changes of circumstances, which had improved from an average of 44 days in 2003–04, to 19.7 days in 2004–05, and 18.7 days in the first quarter of 2005–06. Again, this performance was below the Department’s Standard of nine days, but represented a significant improvement.
The council’s lack of workload prioritisation and forward planning was causing unnecessary delays. In particular, it had not set any internal targets for Benefits staff. This was compounded by a lack of procedural guidance throughout the Benefits service, leading to inconsistent working practices. Inspectors found that this was one of a number of Internal Audit recommendations that the council had failed to act upon.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on Bridgend county borough council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
In 2004–05 Bridgend county borough council administered some £33.3 million in housing benefits, about 14.8 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. The inspection focused on the council’s arrangements for processing claims, as it was taking an average of 58 days to process new claims for housing benefit in 2004–05.
The council introduced a new benefits IT system in April 2004. The subsequent transfer of data and issues with installation resulted in the IT system being inaccessible for six weeks. This led to backlogs of work. Senior management and Members were supportive of the need to address this and employed temporary staff to clear the work.
BFI found that the outstanding work on new claims had been cleared by April 2005 and that processing performance in this area had since improved to 30 days. The inspection identified no other backlogs of work.
Inspectors found that the council had largely overcome difficulties with the implementation of the new benefits IT system and had many good practices in place. The main aspect of performance that required attention related to processing changes of circumstances, which remained below the Department’s standard.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings.