I will chair the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) on 11 October 2005. The Paymaster General, the right hon. Dawn Primarolo MP, will represent the UK. Items on the agenda are as follows:

Implementation of the stability and growth pact; the Commission will update the Councilon Hungary's excessive deficit procedure.

Competition policy: sectoral inquiries; Commissioner Kroes will present the latestprogress financial services.

Financial services: Post-FSAP; ECOFIN will agree conclusions on the Commission'sGreen Paper on Financial Services Policy (2005–2010).

Progress and opportunities for better regulation, where the chairs of the three Lamfalussycommittees of experts will report to ECOFIN for the first time, including on their role inpromoting better regulation and making supervision in the financial services industry moreproportionate and effective.

EU-US Economic relationship, where ECOFIN will consider a joint paper from the UK,Austrian and Finnish presidencies, which identifies the potential benefits of closertransatlantic economic cooperation.

Economic regeneration of the West Bank and Gaza Region, where CommissionerAlmunia and EIB President Maystadt will give an oral report on progress in projects tosupport regeneration in the West Bank and Gaza.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has made the following written ministerial statement.

On 10 August 2005 I published the Department's response to the consultation paper Making Simple CFAs a Reality published on 29 June 2004.

The paper New Regulation for CFAs—A summary of responses to the consultation paper Making Simple CFAs a Reality, DCA's conclusions and new regulations sets out the Department's conclusions on the simplification of the CFAs and related secondary legislation. The paper includes drafts of the regulations, which revoke the current secondary legislation governing CFAs, collective conditional fee agreement regulations (CCFA) and new set of simplified membership organisation regulations. These regulations will be laid before Parliament separately.

The current CFA regulations are unnecessarily complex and opaque and duplicate regulation already performed by the Law Society. Removing unnecessary regulation will apply to all CFAs which are used across a range of civil cases and will put into place the Government's commitment to introduce better regulation and strip out unnecessary legislation.

The existing CFA and CCFA regulations will be revoked and the new simplified Membership Organisation regulations introduced from 1 November 2005.

The primary legislation (section 27 of the access to Justice Act 1999) will provide the minimum government legislative framework needed for the use of CFAs by legal representatives.

Primary responsibility for client care will be focused on solicitors through Law Society's regulation.

DCA has been working closely with the Law Society on improvements to its guidance and rules and the Law Society plans to amend its rules and publish new CFA model agreements to coincide with the changes to regulations.

Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available on the Department for Constitutional Affairs' web-site www.dca.gov.uk/.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following written ministerial statement in the other place today.

"The Department for Constitutional Affairs has published a consultation paper, which sets outproposals for increases to certain civil and family court fees. The purpose of the consultationis to—

(1) identify whether the package of proposed increases is the most apt to raise fee income and to cover costs; and

(2) seek views on whether a particular increase in an individual fee might have specific untoward consequences.

Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and canalso be obtained free on the Department's website at the following web address—

http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/civilfam/civilfam.htm

The closing date for consultation is 18 November."

On 1 September we published a consultation paper: "Hearing the Relatives of Murder and Manslaughter Victims".

The Government believe that while all criminal justice agencies are making progress, for example through the "No Witness, No Justice" programme, more needs to be done to inform and engage victims and their families.

Our consultation paper outlines proposals for piloting ways of providing such assistance to bereaved relatives of homicide victims by:

(a) providing advice and support to relatives during the trial, and;

(b) helping bereaved relatives make an oral statement to the court after

conviction but before sentencing about the effect of the crime on them.

The Government intend that the pilot should address a broad range of options for delivering these functions, offering the maximum possible choice to the bereaved. The choices should include an independent advocate, for either or both functions.

This initiative is part of a larger package of measures to support the victims of crime, which will be announced as they become ready.

Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Government have today laid before Parliament the following instrument: Solicitors (Compensation for Inadequate Professional Services) Order 2005.

The Order, made under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1A to the Solicitors Act 1974, will raise the maximum limit on the compensation which the Law Society's Council may direct a solicitor to pay on a complaint of inadequate professional service. The limit is raised from £5,000 to £15,000 with effect from 1 January 2006.

From 1 January, consumers seeking compensation for inadequate professional service will be able to benefit from the increased compensation level which the Law Society can order and avoid the necessity of automatically having to take court action in order to claim redress in those cases.

The revised limit will apply to those cases where a complaint of inadequate professional service is made to the Law Society by the complainant after 1 January 2006.

My Department and the Law Society are in agreement that raising the compensation level would be in the interest of, and welcomed by, the consumer.

At present, if the compensation claimed is greater than £5,000 the Law Society cannot deal with it. This means that a complainant frequently has to retain the services of a further solicitor in order to get redress from the solicitor who generated the original complaint. This can be a lengthy and expensive process for a consumer. Raising the limit will enable a far greater proportion of complainants to obtain adequate redress without the need to resort to court proceedings.

A copy of the Order to raise the compensation limit has been placed in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following written ministerial statement in the other place today.

"Today I have deposited copies of "The Freedom of Information Act 2000—Statistics onImplementation in Central Government April June 2005" in the Libraries of both Houses.

This is the second quarterly bulletin produced by DCA monitoring the performance of centralGovernment and associated bodies under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It shows thatthe performance of Government in meeting the statutory time limits for replying to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has improved significantly sincethe first quarter."

A Royal Air Force study has been conducted to determine the appropriate size, shape and disposition of the university air squadrons. The study was commissioned against the background of proposed changes to the future size of the RAF, and of the planned tri-service military flying training system in partnership with industry. The results of the study have been carefully considered and I have decided that university air squadron students will no longer undertake elementary flying training while at university, and that elementary flying training will take place on a standard basis for all pilots, after initial officer training.

There are 14 university air squadrons located at 12 airfields across the UK, with a total undergraduate membership of some 1,000. Presently, the main university air squadron roles are to attract high calibre graduates into the RAF and to deliver the RAF's elementary flying training task. Elementary flying training is the first stage of RAF pilot training and is currently undertaken by all pilot university air squadron members during the course of their degrees and by direct entrant RAF pilots over a six-month period following initial officer training.

The study concluded that university air squadrons should continue to play an important role in engaging university students in RAF experience, but their focus should subtly shift to put more effort into leadership and personnel development training, nurturing recruitment to all branches. Flying will be available to all university air squadron members on a voluntary basis, but undergraduates will no longer be required to undertake formal elementary flying training during their university period. Up to 10 hours a year of structured light aircraft flying will still be available to all university air squadron undergraduates, including those in ground branches. In future, ex-university air squadron graduates joining the RAF as pilots will now undertake elementary flying training alongside other direct entrant pilots.

Overall, the changes will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the flying training pipeline and, for the university air squadron undergraduates, lessen the conflicting pressures to achieve a good degree and the highest standard during elementary flying training. They will create a fairer system, and resolve the inherent inefficiencies caused by undergraduates' elementary flying training being spread over such a long period. University air squadrons will now be able to concentrate on the recruitment and personal development of all potential officers regardless of branch preference.

With effect from autumn, the following airfields will no longer be used for elementary flying training and overall flying hours are expected to reduce: RAF Benson, RAF Cosford, RAF Leuchars, RAF Colerne, RAF Leeming, Glasgow Airport, Boscombe Down, RAF Woodvale and RAF St Athan. RAF Cranwell will see a slight reduction in flying due to a reduced requirement to train instructors, whilst RAF Wyton and RAF Church Fenton will see some increase due to the establishment of new training squadrons to meet the elementary flying training task.

Light aircraft flying for university air squadron members will, however, continue and in some cases, particularly for those in ground branches, be enhanced. If implemented in full, these changes will result in a reduction of 21 RAF posts, but I do not envisage any other significant job implications.

Because of the wider role that the Deputy Prime Minister may take in relation to the delivery of the 2012 London Olympics, and in order to ensure that the advice set out in the "Guidance on Propriety Issues in the Handling of Planning Decisions in ODPM" is followed, it has been decided that any planning decisions which fall to Ministers to take in respect of Olympics related developments will be taken by Baroness Andrews, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State ODPM.

The Government announced on 20 September 2005 an extension of the scope and length of Sir Michael Lyons' independent inquiry into local government funding so that he can consider issues relating to the wider functions of local government and its future role.

Sir Michael Lyons has discussed with Ministers his work so far and his initial conclusion is that well founded recommendations on possible reforms to the funding of local government cannot sensibly be made in isolation from proper consideration and understanding—not only by Government but by the population at large—of the developing role and functions of local government. He has made clear that any proposals for reform of the funding system raise complex issues, and the Government have agreed that they need to be set firmly and explicitly within the wider context of a clear, shared understanding of the role of local government, and of councils' accountability to service users, residents, and taxpayers. My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have therefore extended the terms of reference of Sir Michael's inquiry so that he can consider issues relating to the functions of local government and its future role, as well as, and prior to, making recommendations on local government funding. His work will inform the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007.

Sir Michael will issue a series of discussion documents and produce his final report at the end of 2006. To set the scene for this work, Sir Michael will in Autumn 2005 set out his preliminary thinking and publish research and analysis undertaken so far, drawing out the relationship of local government function to finance.

The Government have also announced that they intend to introduce legislation to postpone the revaluation of council tax in England. The case for council tax revaluation—that it is right to maintain a fair alignment between house prices and council tax bands—is linked to wider questions about the structure of the council tax, and to the operation of council tax benefit. It is also relevant that there are a number of other imminent changes in the local government finance system, including the move to three year budgets, the review of the local government finance formula, and the creation of a dedicated schools budget. We have reached the view, therefore, that to proceed with the current timetable for council tax revaluation in England would not be sensible. We propose to legislate to substitute for the current revaluation date of 2007 a power to set a date for revaluation by secondary legislation. This will provide for revaluation to take place in such a way as to take full account of Sir Michael Lyons' work on the functions of local government as well as its financing. The Government do not believe that revaluation will occur during this Parliament. I regret that the Government could not make this announcement while Parliament was sitting. However, having reached the decision to postpone revaluation, it was necessary to announce it immediately so that the preparatory work could be stood down and costs kept to a minimum. A copy of the press notice issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which announces the Government's decision, and which includes the extended terms of reference for Sir Michael Lyons' inquiry, has been placed in the House Library.

The future of local government is critical to the future of the country, and the Government are determined to ensure that a sustainable and secure funding base supports the changing and challenging role for local government now being developed.

The Government are today publishing the detailed programme for commencement of parts 1–4, 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 2004. Appendix 1 sets out a phased introduction of the provisions from November this year leading to a common commencement date of 6 April 2006 for all these provisions except for certain enforcement measures and the new tenancy deposit arrangements, which will follow later in 2006.

The Government have previously announced a provisional timetable for introducing these provisions as from late autumn 2005. We are now in a position to confirm the full timetable, starting with the laying of the HHSRS regulations next month and completing tenant deposit protection in October 2006. This will maintain the momentum established with local authorities and landlord bodies over recent months to equip each to carry out their responsibilities effectively and at least cost to local taxpayers and tenants as from the due commencement date.

By announcing this timetable, we are able to give certainty as to when the new provisions will be coming into force and enable all sides to prepare fully. The Government will continue to work with local authorities and landlords through the IDeA to complete the current training programme and to extend the extensive local authority/landlord series of discussions that have proved so successful locally in getting the two sides to agree the basis on which applications are to be handled and funded.

Making the secondary legislation available early in draft form, alongside guidance, and then laying the instruments in good time will do a great deal to inform discussions and ensure a wider understanding of the details and operation of the new system than would have been the case with an earlier commencement date.

ODPM is to appoint a contractor who will undertake work with local authorities to establish a baseline as from later this year and to monitor and measure the impact of the new licensing regime on the private rented sector. Officials will write to local authorities when an appointment has been made and provide details of when the main fieldwork periods will be.

Large areas of North Yorkshire experienced exceptional storm and flood damage on 19 June 2005. Given these circumstances I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified. A scheme will therefore be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grants will be paid to the authorities to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold, which they have incurred in dealing with the storm and flood damage.

I have arranged for copies of the Council of Europe's Third Summit declaration and action plan to be placed in the Library of the House.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister represented the United Kingdom at the summit held in Warsaw on 16–17 May 2005.

At the summit, heads of state and Government adopted a declaration and action plan focusing the future work of the Council of Europe on its core areas of promoting and protecting human rights, rule of law and pluralist democracy.

A Council of Europe Committee has been set up in Strasbourg to supervise follow-up action to the declaration and implementation of the action plan.

The Government have decided to nominate four replacement UK members of the EU Committee of the Regions, to fill vacancies which had arisen in the UK delegation. The new members are: Councillor Sharon Taylor (East of England Regional Assembly); Councillor Dave Quayle (North West Regional Assembly); Councillor WJ Williams (Isle of Anglesey County Council); and Councillor David Parsons (Leicestershire County Council and East Midlands Regional Assembly). In accordance with the established procedure, all the nominations have been approved by the Council.

The Government made the nominations following the usual consultation process with local and regional government. It has paid particular attention to maintaining the appropriate regional, political, gender and ethnic balance of the UK delegation. This balance is not affected by the nominations.

The Committee of the Regions was established by the Maastricht Treaty, as a consultative body with limited powers to give non-binding opinions on EU draft legislation. The UK delegation comprises 24 full members and 24 alternates.

The 2005 UN world summit took place in New York from 14–16 September. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs attended for the Government. At the initiative of the UK and other UN member states, the summit included a session devoted to financing for developments.

Overall, the summit delivered a worthwhile package of reforms and commitments. The full text of the outcome document is available at www.un.org/summit2005. Negotiations on the document were at times difficult, reflecting the ambitious agenda and divergence of views between UN member states on several issues. As EU presidency, the UK played an important role in these negotiations. Follow-up work is now underway in several areas to implement the agreements reached.

The reforms agreed included:

Agreement on the responsibility to protect, acknowledging that the international community should act if states fail to protect their populations from the worst atrocities:

genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity;

Good language on development and climate change, with several important Gleneaglesoutcomes endorsed and new EU commitments welcomed by the broader UN membership.These include the need to accelerate progress towards the millennium development goals andto address the special needs of Africa;

Agreement to create by the end of this year a new peace-building commission, to close an institutional gap in the UN's conflict architecture and assist countries emerge from conflict;

Agreement to establish a new human rights council, to replace the much-maligned Commission for Human Rights;

Endorsement of further work to strengthen UN effectiveness in operational activities for tackling humanitarian crises and to ensure more coherent international institutional arrangements for environmental action;

Endorsement of UN secretariat reforms underway and a mandate to the Secretary-General to make proposals for further reforms in such areas as ethics, accountability/oversight, and financial and human resource management; and

Unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestation and, separately, unanimous adoption by the Security Council of the UK's Security Council resolution to prohibit by law incitement of terrorism.

In some areas the outcome text did not meet our aspirations. Stronger language on terrorism, stating that the targeted killing of civilians is never justified and constitutes an act of terrorism, proved out of reach. Efforts to secure strong language on non-proliferation and disarmament (following disappointment at the non-proliferation treaty review conference) were unsuccessful. The EU pushed for more extensive reforms of the UN secretariat. Furthermore, opposition from some countries prevented more detailed modalities being agreed for the new human rights council.

Some have criticised the summit's outcome document as modest. However, as the Prime Minister said in his speech at the summit, "if we did what we have agreed on doubling aid, on opening up trade, on debt relief, on HIV/AIDS and malaria, on conflict prevention so that never again would the world stand by, helpless when genocide struck, our modesty would surprise. There would be more democracy, less oppression. More freedom, less terrorism. More growth, less poverty."

The Government are committed to the full and early implementation of the reforms. We will continue to work towards achieving reforms where we wanted to see greater progress.

The Government's response to the Health Committee's fifth report of session 2004–05 on the use of new medical technologies within the NHS, Cm 6656, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires me to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on my exercise of the control order powers during that period.

The 2005 Act came into force on 11 March 2005. The second three month period ended on 10 September. During the period 11 June to 10 September, I made an order with the permission of the court under section 3(1) (a) of the 2005 Act on 5 September 2005 in respect of a British national.

I have revoked nine of the orders which I made in the previous quarter against individuak who were formerly certified under section 21(1) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

There are therefore three control orders currently in force.

I have refused three requests to modify the obligations in the control orders which I have made. A right of appeal exists in section 10 of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State not to modify an obligation contained in a control order. None of those subject to a control order has exercised this right in respect of the refusals mentioned above.

The Government have decided not to implement the Civil Aviation Authority's recommendation for a £1 levy on all air passengers departing the UK.

The Government wish to thank the CAA for the enormous effort it has put into its analysis. But the attractions of the CAA scheme are outweighed by the disadvantages.

First, the levy would be compulsory. The Government do not believe that it should compel citizens to protect themselves against the failure of an airline. The Government do not require citizens to take out medical insurance or an E111, although it is wise to do so. We do not require people to insure their house contents, although most people choose to do so. Even in car insurance, the legal requirement is limited to third party liabilities.

Secondly, there is no logical reason why the State should organise refunds for this one group of consumers. The Government do not have schemes to refund those who order furniture from a store which goes bankrupt, or lose money to cowboy workmen, or make unfortunate stock-market investments.

That is why, on balance, we do not think it right to extend ATOL beyond the requirements of European law although we do wish to reduce its bureaucracy.

ATOL stems from the early 1970s when a family holiday abroad tended to be organised as a package and travel abroad was infrequent. It involved putting at risk a significant proportion of family income in advance of the holiday being taken. These days overseas travel is a lot more routine. UK residents made a record 41 million holiday trips abroad in 2003 compared with fewer than 7 million in 1971.

Next, the levy would reduce but not eliminate the difference in protection given to package and independent travellers. There would still be a 2-tier system, as people who assemble their own packages would have cover for their flight but not for loss of accommodation or car hire.

The Government appreciate that the Package Travel Regulations impose costs on tour operators which they see as an unfair competitive advantage for scheduled airlines. But the levy would replace this imbalance with another. The same £1 would purchase cover for the traveller who buys a low-cost flight to Europe for under £30 and for the traveller (perhaps the more affluent person) who books a 2-week package in the Far East or the Caribbean. The budget traveller pays a much higher percentage of his outlay to ensure there is enough money in the pot to refund to the long-haul package passenger should his tour operator fail.

The Government wish to respond to the two arguments it has heard why airline passengers should be given special protection compared to other consumers in the economy.

First, some travellers think they are protected when they are not, especially as the distinction between a package and independent travel is not always clear. The Government has committed itself to reduce regulatory burdens on business and only regulate where necessary in a light touch manner . A levy is a heavy-handed instrument to solve the problem of informing a population which has easy access to a multitude of information sources. Travellers are showing increasing sophistication in shopping around on the internet; and 170,000 households now have a holiday home abroad, about double over 10 years. Travel-in Europe has become particularly familiar since we have been part of the European community—whether for school trips, sports events, weekends, holidays or business.

The Government have already been working with the CAA and the airline industry to improve consumer information about insurance cover when booking flights. UK airlines have helped us develop a basic message for passengers making online bookings, and some have told us of plans to offer specific insurance as well as posting a message.

This is in addition to the information that is already available from the Air Transport Users Council, the CAA and other sources including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The FCO is going to update its website shortly to explain the protection available under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 if flight tickets are paid for by credit card. And some tour operators "sell" the protective benefits of a package more vigorously than others.

The second reason why air passengers are said to need special protection is that they may become stranded abroad in large numbers. The Government realise that not all travel insurance covers insolvency, but some does. The CAA's assessment and the example of EUjet this summer show that people will generally find their way home by other routes. Of course, they may incur some expense and inconvenience, particularly if they are not insured, but it is not fair to impose a levy on all air passengers just to provide cover for this. In the case of EUjet other, low-cost airlines stepped in to help and have told the Government they intend to learn lessons from the experience to improve the effectiveness of future voluntary rescue efforts. Similarly, when Swissair arid Sabena failed, other full-service airlines honoured the homeward tickets of passengers abroad.

The Government have been encouraged by the willingness expressed by airlines to put in place improvements to ensure travellers are able to make informed decisions about the need for insurance, and by airlines1 assurances that they would continue to take voluntary action on repatriation. The Government will be talking further to airlines in the coming weeks to ensure that effective voluntary measures are put in place as quickly as possible.

Nevertheless we recognise that the current bonding system for tour operators can be a barrier to market entry and tie up capital. The Government are therefore asking the CAA to review whether the system of ATOL bonds could be replaced with a less burdensome means of meeting tour operators' obligations to package holiday-makers under the Package Travel Directive, while at the same time replenishing the Air Travel Trust Fund following the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill.

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Allerdale borough council was published on 22 September 2005 and is available in the Library.

In 2003–04, Allerdale borough council administered some £22 million in housing benefits, about 36 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. Overall, the inspection found that Allerdale borough council was performing to a good standard. However, the report raises concerns about significant areas of weakness in claims administration, overpayments and resource management.

Allerdale borough council took 46 days to process new claims for housing benefits in 2004–05 against the DWP standard of 36 days. Inefficient practices were creating unnecessary delays at each stage of the claims process and the council was failing to ensure that the evidence provided by its customers met the requirements of the verification framework. The percentage of claims decided within 14 days of receiving all information and the time taken to process changes of circumstances had both deteriorated during 2004–05.

There had been a significant increase in the volume of overpayments identified, and a decline in overpayment recovery performance. BFI concluded that a lack of strategic direction and accountability, inconsistent practices and inadequate levels of assurance had led to major failings within overpayments.

An anti-fraud policy and strategy document supported by a business plan and realistic operational targets had been set for the Fraud Investigation Unit. An analysis of selected fraud files showed that the standard of investigation work was good in most cases.

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.

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Bridgnorth district council was published on 22 September 2005 and is available in the Library.

In 2004–05, Bridgnorth district council administered some £8.3 million in housing benefits, about 31 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. The council was one of nine councils inspected by BFI as part of its examination of local authorities' response to the security against fraud and error (SAFE) scheme.

Bridgnorth district council had a strong anti-fraud culture and gave a high priority to combating benefit fraud. The council had a history of prosecuting fraudsters even before the introduction of financial incentives through the SAFE scheme.

Benefit assessment staff generated a high number of fraud referrals and there were a number of good practices within the fraud team, such as well-structured interviews under caution. Although there were no written procedures covering counter-fraud work and limited management checking, the fraud team was well motivated and had achieved a high output of sanctions and prosecutions, particularly in relation to the caseload. This was very impressive in comparison with other similar sized local authorities. There were some weaknesses in earlier fraud investigations but BFI was satisfied that these had since been addressed. BFI was also satisfied that payments under the SAFE scheme had been properly claimed.

Some improvement was needed in the way that fraud files were maintained and in the recording of decisions on sanctions. The council also needs to do more to recover administrative penalties and publicise successful prosecutions.

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.

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Broxtowe borough council was published on 22 September 2005 and is available in the Library.

In 2004–05, Broxtowe borough council administered some £17 million in housing benefits, about 44 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. In April 2005, BFI carried out an inspection on the council's housing benefit and council tax benefit administration and counter-fraud arrangements.

Inspectors found there was a great deal of commitment and professionalism in the council's efforts to administer HB and CTB and counter-fraud work, together with a determination to improve on good performance achieved.

By processing new claims quickly and accurately, the quality of service provided to the council's customers and key stakeholders was of a high standard. The council ensured delays and errors in the assessment of new claims were minimised by making good use of management information to monitor the amount of work received, processed and outstanding.

However, delays occurred in the assessment of changes of circumstances. The council needed to minimise these delays, which increase the number and level of preventable overpayments. The council also needed to improve the management of HB and CTB overpayments to control the level of outstanding debt and increase overpayment recovery.

The council's performance in verifying new claims and changes of circumstances was very impressive. As information and evidence was routinely verified and crosschecked the risk of fraud and error at the outset and during the life of a claim was significantly reduced.

The absence of clear management responsibility and accountability for counter-fraud work undermined the council's approach to the detection, investigation and deterrence of fraud. Better checking and review of investigators' work is necessary to help ensure that investigations were of appropriate quality.

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.

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefot Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report inspection report on Inverclyde council was published on 22 September 2005 and is available in the Library.

In 2004–05, Inverclyde council administered some £34.9 million in housing benefits, about 13 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. In May 2005, BFI carried out a focused inspection on the processing of new claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit by Inverclyde council.

The council was selected because it was taking on average 71 days, against the national standard of 36 days, to process new claims for the period April to June 2004. Since January 2005 the council has shown consistent improvement in its performance, achieving 33 days by April 2005. However, the council's focus on improving speed of processing has meant that other areas have lacked attention, particularly accuracy levels. The council could also do more in terms of performance monitoring, making effective use of internal and external audit reports and staff training..

The council lacked correct management information, key performance targets and objectives and did not monitor performance well. However, staff are committed to tackle the problems and said they will use the BFI report to complement an existing service improvement initiative.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to BFFs findings.

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on West Lindsey district council was published on 22 September 2005 and is available in the Library.

In 2003–04 West Lindsey district council administered some £13.7 million in housing benefits, about 46 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. The council was selected for inspection following BFFs comprehensive performance assessment in October 2003, which highlighted weaknesses in claims processing, overpayments and counter-fraud activity. A number of major improvements had been successfully implemented since then, including a new benefits IT system and organisational changes. West Lindsey district council had improved the speed of processing new claims from an average of 46 days in 2003–04 to 39 days at the time of BFFs inspection in February 2005, just outside the DWP standard of 36 days. Although the council had not fully introduced the verification framework, the evidence gathering to support a claim was generally sound. But the council reported paying the right amount of benefit in only 93 per cent. of cases, which puts it in the bottom quartile for all local authorities. BFI concluded that improvements in the speed of processing new claims had to some extent been at the expense of quality.

The number of counter-fraud sanctions, including prosecutions, had increased from 12 in 2003–04 to 43 in the 10 months up to January 2005. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report and may ask the council for proposals in response to BFFs findings.

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on North Wiltshire district council was published on 22 September 2005 and is available in the Library.

In 2004–05, North Wiltshire district council administered some £19.6 million in housing benefits, about 40 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. The council was chosen for a focused inspection because it reported that it was taking 123 days on average to process new claims for benefit for the quarter ended 31 December 2004. This level of performance was in the bottom quartile of all reported performance. However, because of long term IT problems, the Department had granted the council exemption from completion of quarterly management information returns from January 2005.

The loss of a number of experienced staff during the early part of 2004–05 put further pressure on the service and led to a backlog of claims. This was cleared in January 2005 when the old IT system was closed down, but data conversion problems meant that when the new benefits IT system went live in March 2005, a further backlog existed. Despite continuing IT problems, the council were working hard to clear a backlog of benefit cases and, if the backlog is excluded, the council were clearing new claims within the DWP standard of 36 days. The standard of verification of claims was good.

Management reports and performance monitoring systems were being developed as the council was becoming more familiar with its new IT system. However, these management controls need to be linked to systematic management checking and individual and team targets to ensure that the performance improvements are sustained.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to BFFs findings.

Today we publish the Department's principles of welfare reform, which contain the values and principles which shape the Government's vision of the future welfare state. A copy has been placed in the Library, and copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

Our values of equality, opportunity, fairness and social justice underpin these principles. We have already moved away from a passive social security system which could be caricatured as encouraging welfare dependency. The next stage of welfare reform will be designed not only to help people to return to work, but also progress in work.

The Government will help people achieve success for themselves and their families by building the necessary skills and assets for future personal security. It will provide support, nationally and locally, and help individuals fulfil their potential.

Our core principles are to:

help people to help themselves by offering a ladder to self-reliance and self-determination, not merely a safety net in time of need;

see work as the best route out of welfare;

promote understanding and enable people to make informed choices for themselves;

balance rights with responsibilities, while recognising the need for support and care where appropriate;

recognise our mutual interdependence and obligation to each other, promoting solidarity between generations, and the importance of using the resources of Government to help people cope with rapid economic and social change;

ensure the role of the state is active, liberating and enabling;

address the root causes of poverty and overcome intergenerational disadvantage and exclusion;

contribute to a stable and growing economy through investment in the potential of every individual, and flexibility of support in and out of work.

The foundations we help build will widen economic opportunity, support improvement in productivity and prosperity, and assist with continuing economic growth and social inclusion.