Written Statement of 9 September 2003

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Council
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union from September 2003 to March 2004 is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  September 2003

  3–5

  Viterbo

  Telecommunications (Ministerial)

  4–5

  Benevento

  Informal Youth Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  5–6

  Riva del

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign)

  Garda

  5–6

  Milan

  Informal Health Ministerial

  12–13

  Stresa

  ECOFIN (Informal Council)

  12–13

  Rome

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  14–15

  Syracuse

  Informal Audio-Visual Telecoms and Culture Ministerial

  20–23

  Taormina

  Informal Agriculture Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  Competition (Internal Market, Industry & Research)

  25–26

  Lucca

  Informal Children's Affairs

  26–27

  Erice

  Community Regional Cohesion Policy (Ministerial Informal)

  29–30

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations Council (GAERC)

  29–30

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  23–25

  Cernobbio

  Informal Terrestrial Digital

  25

  Catania

  Informal Internal Market/Industry Ministerial

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  October

  2–3

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs

  3–4

  Rome

  Defence (Ministerial Informal)

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  9–10

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  13–14

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  European Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  November

  4

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  6

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  6–7

  Catania

  European Conference on Employment

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  18

  Milan

  European Conference on Immigration & Labour Market

  24–25

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  16WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  24–25

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  December

  1–2

  Rome

  Euromed Meeting

  1–2

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy Health and Consumer Affairs Council

  1–3

  Rome

  Informal Public Administration Ministerial

  4–5

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  5–7

  Rome

  Closing Conference for the European Year of the Disabled

  8–9

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  12–13

  Brussels

  European Council

  15–17

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  22

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  January 2004

  8

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  Employment & Social Policy (Ministerial Informal)

  16–17

  Ireland (venue tbc)

  Informal Employment and Social Policy

  19

  Brussels

  Eurogroup

  20

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  22–23

  Ireland (venue tbc)

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  26–27

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  February

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  19

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  23–24

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  23–24

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  26

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  March

  4–5

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs (Ministerial)

  8–9

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  9

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  European Council

  31

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Collections
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  I am today placing in the Library of this House copies of a consultation document on proposals for a new licensing scheme for public collections for charitable, philanthropic and benevolent purposes.
  17WS
  This consultation builds on the package of measures set out in our response to the Strategy Unit review of Charity Law and Regulation published on 16 July, and proposes the setting up of a new, updated and unified local authority licensing scheme for public collections to replace the present complex, outdated and fragmented legislation. The aim is to modernise the law, creating a fair and cost-effective system of licensing which facilitates responsible fundraising but deters bogus collections and prevents nuisance to the public. We want to enable a wide range of organisations to be more effective and innovative, whilst maintaining the high levels of public trust and confidence which are vital to the continued success of the sector.

PRIME MINISTER

  Annual Reports
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  I have today laid before both Houses the Annual Reports for 2002 of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Swinton Thomas, the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Lord Justice Simon Brown and the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Andrew Leggatt. Some sensitive information has been excluded from the reports of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner in accordance with Section 58(7) and 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

  I am grateful to the Commissioners for their reports and the work that has gone into preparing them.

TRANSPORT

  Crossrail
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  On 14 July, I announced that I intended to assemble an expert team to assess Cross London Rail Link's business case proposals for the East-West Crossrail project. I am pleased to announce today that Adrian Montague will lead the expert review team for the Crossrail project. He is the Deputy Chairman of Network Rail, the Chairman of British Energy and is a former head of HM Treasury's Private Finance Taskforce. He has enormous experience in both railway projects and corporate finance and is ideally suited to this important task.

  The Government remain keen on the principle of a new East-West Crossrail link. Crossrail has the potential to relieve some of the serious congestion across central London. However, the costs are substantial. A project of this size needs the appropriate level of scrutiny and it must be funded in a way that reflects the distribution of the benefits.

  I have therefore asked the team to look closely at CLRL's proposals to see whether they are likely to be deliverable to time, scope and budget, and, if so, whether they are likely to provide proper value for money. I have also asked the team to consider whether there are alternative ways of delivering a Crossrail
  18WS
  project that would offer better performance than the proposals set out in the Business Case. I have asked the team to report to me as soon as practicable and hope that its findings will be available around the turn of the year. The final report will be published.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (Castle Morpeth Borough Council)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Castle Morpeth Borough Council was published on 29 July 2003 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Castle Morpeth Borough Council against the Performance Standards. The report finds that the council is not at Standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  The council needs to make considerable improvements if it is to achieve standard in any area, and there was little awareness at senior management or member level of the key areas.

  Management information was very limited and there was little awareness of the issues affecting performance. There were significant backlogs in claims processing and overpayments, with claims taking on average 82 days to process. There was little deterrence to potential benefit fraudsters.

  In July 2002, the council began to replace its existing IT systems. This was done with very little additional resource and has had an adverse impact on the council's housing benefit and council tax benefit performance, which was already poor. The council's ability to recover overpaid benefits has been hampered by a lack of effective management and IT problems.

  The council assured BFI that it would act on the report to bring the benefits service up to standard. It had submitted bids for additional resources to the Department for Work and Pensions' Performance Standards Fund and Help Fund. In 2001–02, Castle Morpeth Borough Council administered some £3.8 million in housing benefits, about 29 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.
  19WS
  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (East Renfrewshire Council)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on East Renfrewshire Council was published on 21 August 2003 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected East Renfrewshire Council against the Performance Standards. The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  The BFI found evidence of the council's commitment to improving its benefit administration as it had provided additional resources. Responsibilities for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit administration and counter-fraud transferred to the Finance Department in 1998, when the full-time equivalent number of staff increased from 11 to 17. The council planned to increase this again by a further two staff in May 2003.

  However, this increased commitment needs to be directed by a clear vision for the benefits service supported by a broad range of formal policies and clearly communicated performance targets.

  The council also needs to undertake routine performance monitoring and regular reporting of performance results to senior managers and elected members to assure them that performance complies with regulations.

  Such arrangements should help bring about required improvements in the quality of fraud investigations much needed management assurance from regularly performed management checks, and ensure that systems are adequately safeguarded. When completed, the council will be in a better position to progress to standard in all seven functional areas of the performance standards, particularly in the area of overpayments.
  20WS
  In 2001–02, East Renfrewshire Council administered some £11.7 million in housing benefits, about 7.6 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (London Borough of Harrow Council)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) follow-up inspection report on the London Borough of Harrow Council was published on 19 August 2003 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected the London Borough of Harrow Council against the performance standards to assess progress since the first BFI inspection report, published in September 2000.

  The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  The council had fully implemented 31 and partially implemented a further 22 of the 67 recommendations made by the BFI in the first inspection report. The council's failure to implement 11 recommendations on counter-fraud contributed to poor quality investigations and the incorrect use of sanctions.

  Verification of benefit claims was strong. However, the backlog of claims outstanding had not decreased since the first inspection, with over 5,800 cases outstanding.

  The average time taken to process a new claim for benefit was 78 days and only 47 per cent. of renewal claims were processed on time. There were also delays in dealing with changes of circumstances and appeals. The level of management checks was insufficient.

  Customers experienced difficulties in contacting the council's benefits service with telephones and reception closed one day each week, and 43 per cent. of telephone calls made by customers were going unanswered.
  21WS
  The report identifies some good practices, for example in the training of staff, working relationships with registered social landlords, and document management. In 2001–02, the London Borough of Harrow Council administered some £60.6 million in housing benefits, about 16 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (Manchester City Council)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) follow-up inspection report on Manchester city council was published on 31 July 2003 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Manchester city council against the performance standards to assess progress since the first BFI inspection report, published in June 2001, and found clear evidence of performance improvements in the council's benefits service.

  The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments. However, the council had fully embraced the concept of performance standards, and had carried out a full self-assessment against them. The BFI found aspects within the individual standards where the council met or exceeded the criteria.

  Manchester city council displayed commitment and professionalism in its efforts to improve benefits administration. The benefits service had strong support from senior officers and members, and there were clear improvements in performance. Processing times for claims and changes of circumstances were markedly better. Customer services had also improved, with longer opening hours, improvements to the public counter, better training for staff, and improved decision notices.
  22WS
  The council had not adopted the national verification framework, although it had made a commitment to begin introducing part of the framework from October 2003.

  Overpayments work had improved significantly, supported by detailed business planning and improved management information. Counter-fraud activity had improved since the first inspection and the council had developed clear counter-fraud policies, and brought responsibility for prosecutions in-house to improve control. In 2001–02, Manchester city council administered some £245 million in housing benefits, about 20 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Work Programme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) has provided further details of its work programme of inspections, as part of its Phase 8 programme for 2003–04. This is in addition to the Phase 8 announcement made on 20 March 2003.

  The BFI is an independent unit within the Department for Work and Pensions that inspects and reports directly to my right hon. Friend on the standard of benefit administration and counter-fraud activity in local authorities and departmental agencies.

  As part of the additional Phase 8 activity, BFI will be undertaking a first inspection of the Isles of Scilly local authority. As this authority is unique in that the Housing Benefit team administers less than 100 claims, BFI proposes to produce a summary report.

  Follow-up inspections on 12 other local authorities will also be undertaken. Seven of these authorities have been identified from post inspection monitoring of performance. Six were judged as poor or fair for their benefits services during the Comprehensive Performance Assessments in 2002, and another has failed to implement key recommendations from the first inspection.

  The remaining five local authorities have been identified from management information provided by them. The local authorities chosen are some that have continuously been in the bottom quartile of best value performance indicators for 2002–03. These authorities have previously been inspected by BFI but have failed to improve in the administration of housing benefits.

  BFI will also be assessing 197 district local authorities as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment programme, and five Scottish local authorities as part of the Scottish best value programme.

TREASURY

  Overpaid Tax
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  For many years there has been symmetry within the direct tax system: the Inland Revenue normally has the right to go back six years to assess outstanding tax and those who have overpaid tax have the right to make claims to repayment for a similar period. A recent High Court case has the potential to upset this balance.

  Yesterday I announced that legislation will be included in Finance Bill 2004 to restore this balance. The period for claiming repayments of overpaid tax will be generally limited to six years (or five years in Scotland) from the date of the original payment. The legislation will apply to proceedings commenced on or after 8 September 2003.

  A copy of yesterday's Inland Revenue news release giving the relevant background to this measure and draft clauses for inclusion in the Finance Bill 2004 has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and is accessible on the Inland Revenue's website at http:/www. inlandrevenue.gov.uk.

SCOTLAND

  Staffing and Location (Scotland Office)
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  I have agreed to proposals by the Head of the Scotland Office, in consultation with the Permanent Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, for re-organising the Scotland Office. These will result in the number of posts reporting to me reducing from 96 to 65.
  24WS
  The reduction of 31 posts has already partly been achieved through transfers of responsibility (mainly Friends of Scotland) to the Scottish Executive and through not filling vacancies. Further reductions will be achieved by staff returning to the Scottish Executive or by redeployment with the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Individual staff will be consulted about their own future.

  I have also agreed that the remaining staff based in Scotland should be concentrated in the Scotland Office headquarters at 1 Melville Crescent, Edinburgh. The Scotland Office accommodation at Meridian Court, Glasgow will be given up.

  Thirty five legal and administrative staff will, in addition, continue to report separately to the Advocate-General for Scotland. The total of 100 posts compares with an agreed staffing level of 131 for the Scotland Office and the Advocate-General's staff together at 11 June 2003. The Advocate-General's staff in Edinburgh will continue to be based at Victoria Quay. The Scotland Office headquarters in London will continue to be at Dover House, Whitehall.

  The target date to complete these changes is 31 December 2003. Total savings to Scotland Office running costs arising from both the reduction and relocation of staff will amount to approximately £1.7 million next year. In line with the statement of funding policy agreed between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive, the savings realised will reduce the Scotland Office's total call on the Scottish assigned budget by an equivalent amount and will therefore be available to the Scottish Executive.

  The numbers and organisation of Scotland Office staff will be kept under review in the normal way in the light of workload and any further changes in responsibilities.