| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
19 Dec 2006 : Column WA269
Written Answers
Tuesday 19 December 2006
Agriculture: Set-aside
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of set-aside in the current year is respectively in single field plots and in six to 10 metre strips along field margins. [HL792]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): It is not possible for the Rural Payments Agency to answer this Question owing to the disproportionate resource and costs needed to extract the data required.
Ambulance Service: Northern Ireland
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Rooker: The cost of purchasing and equipping one front-line accident and emergency vehicle is £110,000. This includes the base vehicle, ambulance conversion and equipment such as a stretcher and defibrillator.
It costs £430,000 per annum to operate such a vehicle 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This includes twelve staff to provide two person crews and associated non pay costs such as maintenance, insurance, fuel and consumables. This does not include costs for support facilities such as control, admin, uniform and other essential emergency equipment.
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, since 1970, they have had any contractual arrangements with the voluntary ambulance services in Northern Ireland. [HL566]
Lord Rooker: There are, and have been, no contractual arrangements with the voluntary ambulance services in Northern Ireland.
Armed Forces: Joint Strike Fighter
Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the memorandum of understanding with the Government of the United States relating to further stages of the development and production of the Joint Strike Fighter, signed in Washington on 12 December. [HL853]
19 Dec 2006 : Column WA270
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): Although some Joint Strike Fighter partner countries have signed the production, sustainment and follow-on development memorandum of understanding (PSFD MOU), others are still seeking approvals within their Governments. They have until 31 December 2006, when PSFD MOU enters into effect, to sign the MOU. A copy of the MOU will be placed in the Library of the House when it has come into effect.
Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the United Kingdom, as the only Tier 1 partner in the Joint Strike Fighter project, is party to arrangements between the Government of the United States and other partners in the project. [HL855]
Lord Drayson: The UK has been a Tier 1 partner in the system design and demonstration phase since 2002 and will remain so until this phase completes in 2013. The production, sustainment and follow-on development memorandum of understanding signed by the UK on 12 December has been constructed differently in that the tier structure does not apply, but is instead based on a collaborative approach where all the participants have a role in determining how the programme is managed through life.
Armed Forces: Pensions
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Why the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation was not followed by the Ministry of Defence in respect of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2892); and whether, since the proposed legislation directly affected existing rights of appeal, the head of the tribunals policy division of the Department for Constitutional Affairs was formally consulted by the department; and, if so, when this consultation took place. [HL398]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The consultation undertaken was informal, with a limited number of stakeholders, which included the major ex-service organisations, the Council on Tribunals and the presidents of the three Pensions Appeal Tribunal jurisdictions. The ex-service organisations which comprise the statutory consultative body, the central advisory committee, had also been made aware of the policy intention to remove appeal rights for temporary awards in 2005, well in advance of the detailed drafting of the regulations.
The relevant branch of the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) Tribunal Service was approached in early September, when it was copied the
19 Dec 2006 : Column WA271
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Drayson on 1 December (WA 104), whether, and, if so, at what stages, the Ministry of Defence will consult the Department for Constitutional Affairs’s Tribunals Policy Division on drafts of any future proposed amending legislation to the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Pensions and Compensation Scheme directly affecting rights of appeal. [HL846]
Lord Drayson: The Ministry of Defence will consult the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) on the potential impact on the tribunals service of any future amendments to Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Pensions and Compensation Scheme legislation which directly affects rights of appeal. The DCA will be engaged during the development of proposals which directly affect rights of appeal, and during consultation with external stakeholders.
Army: Maximum Service
Lord De Mauley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the maximum period of service of 22 years which an enlisted soldier is allowed, in light of increasing life expectancy and the operational need to retain skilled senior soldiers. [HL361]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The longer career model was introduced for the Staff and Personnel Support Branch of the Adjutant-General’s Corps in November 2004 offering the possibility of three to five years’ extension of service beyond the 22-year point. As a result of a review undertaken by the Army into soldiers’ career structures, this is to be extended with the introduction of a new versatile engagement, which is due to replace the present 22-year open engagement on 1 January 2008. This will mean that all soldiers will be engaged on an initial short career of 12 years. Soldiers will then be selected for a full career to 24 years. Thereafter, selected soldiers will be able to serve on a long career up to the normal retirement age of 55.
Army: Resettlement Grant
Lord De Mauley asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the resettlement grant provided at the end of a soldier’s military career. [HL362]
19 Dec 2006 : Column WA272
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The tax-free resettlement grant is part of the wider remuneration and pension scheme arrangements for the Armed Forces. In part it is designed to have a “pull through” effect by encouraging individuals to complete longer service within their open engagement period. There is clear statistical evidence detailed in the DASA service manpower outflow charts that a significant proportion of personnel stay until they qualify for the grant. The relevant service points are nine years for officers and 12 years for other ranks under the Armed Forces pension scheme 2005 arrangements. While it is too early for evidence to emerge of the effectiveness of the grant under the new Armed Forces pension scheme 2005 arrangements, the opportunity was taken on the introduction of the new scheme to harmonise the qualification period for the grant to 12 years for officers and other ranks. We expect a similar “pull through” effect to be evident as statistics emerge for the new scheme.
The resettlement grant should be viewed within the context of an overall resettlement package which includes access to individually tailored resettlement training, careers advice, workshops and general job finding assistance. This overall package is designed to ensure that all service leavers make a successful transition to civilian life on completion of their time in the Armed Forces.
Assets Recovery Agency
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
In what ways the powers of the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland differ from its counterpart in England. [HL443]
Lord Rooker: The Assets Recovery Agency is a single national agency created under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, with offices in London and Belfast. While there are differences in some of the legal systems under which the two offices operate, the powers granted by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are granted to the director and can be used in both jurisdictions.
Schedule 1 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides for an assistant to the director with responsibilities in relation to the director's functions in Northern Ireland and makes provision for the agency's annual plan to set out how those functions are to be exercised in Northern Ireland.
Autism
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Further to Lord Warner’s response to the debate on autism on 20 July (HL Deb, col. 1459) in which he undertook to draw points to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when the Secretary of State is expected to respond to those points. [HL731]
19 Dec 2006 : Column WA273
Lord Rooker: A written response to the points raised by the noble Lord has now been issued by the Secretary of State. I apologise for the delay with this response.
Benefits: Winter Fuel Payment
Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What saving to the Exchequer would result if the winter fuel payment to pensioners were made taxable to those pensioners whose income places them in the 40 per cent tax bracket; and how much the payment could be increased for all pensioners from that saving. [HL594]
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Winter fuel payments are worth £200 to households with someone aged 60 or over and £300 to households with someone aged 80 or over. Estimates suggest that taxing winter fuel payments for higher rate taxpayers would raise revenue of around £80 million. This would represent an increase of around £9.40 for each of the 8.5 million households that receive winter fuel payments.
The estimation of revenue raised excludes those in residential care and relies on a number of simplifying assumptions such as 100 per cent take-up of winter fuel payments and no behavioural change. Taxing winter fuel payments for higher rate taxpayers would be administratively complicated, and this administrative cost is also not taken into account.
Bridges Community Ventures
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What have been the investment returns so far to the taxpayer from the £20 million of public funds invested in Bridges Community Ventures (BCV); and what are the arrangements for the BCV to report back to, and be monitored by, the Department for Trade and Industry. [HL951]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Truscott): To date the department has had returns of £1.04 million from its investment commitment of £20 million into Bridges Community Ventures Fund I. The fund is four and a half years into its 10 to 12-year life and further returns are expected. The fund is established as a limited partnership with Bridges Community Ventures Limited appointed as the private sector manager of the fund.
BCV, as manager of the fund, provides half-yearly reports and audited accounts to investors in line with the British Venture Capital Association's guidelines. There are two formal investor meetings each year but DTI officials can meet the fund manager as needed.
19 Dec 2006 : Column WA274
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to confirm the integrity, independence and corporate governance standards of the board of Bridges Community Ventures in view of its responsibility for £20 million of taxpayers' money. [HL952]
Lord Truscott: The Government have no reason to question the independence, integrity and corporate governance standards of the board of Bridges Community Ventures Limited. Bridges Community Ventures Limited's fund management activities are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who nominates the chairman and non-executive directors of Bridges Community Ventures (BCV); whether these nominations are subject to their approval; and, if so, whether they have the right to remove existing non-executive directors during their term of office should new circumstances arise which bring their suitability into question. [HL953]
Lord Truscott: Bridges Community Ventures Limited is a private company whose board members are appointed by its shareholders. The Government do not have a role in appointing or approving the board members.
British Coal Compensation
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 27 March (WA 91) on British Coal respiratory disease litigation, what is the current total of all expenditure incurred to date in that litigation, broken down between payments made to—(a) Capita and its predecessors; (b) medical service providers; (c) all other contractors; (d) the solicitors' co-ordinating group; (e) individual claimants' solicitors; (f) Vendside Limited; (g) the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and (h) defendants' solicitors and counsel; and what compensation has been paid to the claimants. [HL801]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Truscott): The total expenditure incurred in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation is as follows, as categorised above. However, figures for (a), (c) and (h) cannot be split between schemes so include expenditure incurred on both.
(a) £357.2 million; (b) £341.4 million; (c) £40.7 million (predominantly records storage and collection); (d) £ 16.5 million (excluding payments made in relation to individual claims);19 Dec 2006 : Column WA275
The difference in the figure at (a) compared to the equivalent in the answer given in March 2006 stems from an administrative oversight in collation of the information in March. The current figure has been checked and we believe reflects the true position.
The figure at (h) also includes sums for advice on other coal health liabilities which we are unable to separate.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 27 March (WA 92) on the British Coal vibration white finger litigation, what is the current total of all expenditure incurred to date in that litigation, broken down between payments made to—(a) Capita and its predecessors; (b) medical service providers; (c) all other contractors; (d) the solicitors' co-ordinating group; (e) individual claimants' solicitors; (f) Vendside Limited; (g) the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and (h) defendants' solicitors and counsel; and what compensation has been paid to the claimants. [HL802]
Lord Truscott: The total expenditure incurred in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation is as follows, as categorised above. However, figures for (a), (c), and (h) cannot be split between schemes so include expenditure incurred on both.
(a) £357.2 million; (b) £19 million; (c) £40.7 million (predominantly records storage and collection); (d) £6.7 million (excluding payments made in relation to individual claims); (e) £89.3 million (excluding the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) and Vendside); (f) & (g) £6.0 million (Vendside handle claims submitted by the UDM); (h) £35 million.£1,373 million compensation has been paid to claimants.The difference in the figure at (a) compared to the equivalent in the answer given in March 2006 stems from an administrative oversight in collation of the information in March. The current figure has been checked and we believe reflects the true position.
The figure at (b) is lower than the equivalent given in March 2006. This results from an administrative error in the collation of information in March. We believe that the current figure reflects the true position.
The figure at (h) also includes sums for advice on other coal health liabilities which we are unable to separate.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |