|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Onslow : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals for estuarial barrages in England and Wales are currently known to his Department ; and what is the present status of each of them.
Barrage and Status
Mersey--Feasibility studies in progress
Severn--A number of studies have been completed
Cardiff Bay--Studies completed--Bill before Parliament
Swansea (River Tawe)--Construction started in 1989
Usk (Newport)--Feasibility studies in progress
Loughor--Feasibility studies completed
Conway--Feasibility studies in progress
Rhyl (River Foryd)--Feasibility studies completed. Scheme shelved.
Column 660Tyne Tees--Feasibility studies completed. Bill before Parliament. (Strictly this is a river barrage rather than an estuarial barrage).
Sir John Stanley : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of his current guidance to planning inspectors on their conduct of local public inquiries into planning appeals ;
(2) if he will place in the Library a copy of his current instructions to the planning inspectorate as to which planning appeals may be determined by a planning inspectorate without being referred to Ministers.
Mr. Howard : Guidance on the conduct of planning inquiries is contained in chapter B3 of the planning inspectors' handbook. The criteria for recovery of planning appeals for decision by the Secretary of State are set out in paragraph 36 of the "Planning : Appeals, Call-in and Major Public Inquiries--the Government's response to the fifth report from the Evironment Committee, Session 1985-86" (Cm. 43). Both documents are in the Library.
Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the categories of representations he has received about the payment of the community charge by teachers in residential schools.
Mr. Chope : I have received a number of representations from such teachers about the operation of the standard community charge. Amendments recently made to the Local Government and Housing Bill will enable local authorities to provide relief from the standard charge to teachers who are required to live at their school, as I announced on 9 October.
Mr. John Evans : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to make extra funds available to people with severe disabilities, independent of income support criteria, for the purpose of poll tax rebates in regard to major house adaptations ; and if he will make a statement with special reference to the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978.
Mr. Chope : Rate relief under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 was given to avoid disabled people having to pay more than people in similar property as a result of adaptations which increased the rateable value of their home. There is no question of disabled people having to pay more community charge than their neighbours, and no equivalent relief is therefore necessary. The community charge rebate system will provide extra protection for disabled people, who will be able to qualify for benefit at higher levels of income than people who are not disabled. The Government have announced that there will be special provision for disabled people in the transitional relief scheme.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the administrative implications of his proposals for transitional relief associated with the community charge ; and if he will request specific local authorities for their assessment of issues raised by their implementation including the availability of sufficient information.
Mr. Chope : My officials are in discussion with the local authority associations about the administrative implications of the Government's proposals for transitional relief. In addition, we have sent details of the proposals to all authorities and invited them to make representations.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley [holding answer 20 October 1989] : Waste minimisation and recycling are important in reducing pollution and conserving natural resources. Although the United Kingdom has a good record in certain areas--recycling lead, for example--there is much progress to be made in recycling domestic waste. We shall therefore be working with industry, local authorities and voluntary groups to secure a substantial increase in the proportion of waste being put to productive use with the aim of recycling half our recyclable domestic waste by the end of the century.
The improved controls over waste disposal, on which we hope to legislate shortly, will ensure that the costs of disposal are properly identified and compared with the costs of recycling. We are helping to support Wastewatch and projects such as Recycling City in Sheffield, which is using a range of separation, collection and recycling techniques. We shall also be working with industry to help encourage the market for recycled and recyclable products.
Ms. Short : To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of accidents on YTS, fatal, major and minor, for the latest available three-month period, and how many YTS placements were closed or not accepted in that period and in the three preceeding months.
Table A |Accidents<1> -------------------------------------------- Fatalities |Nil Major injuries<2> |139 Minor injuries |654
Table B provides the closure and non-acceptance figures for the quarters 1 April 1989 to 30 June 1989 and 1 July 1989 to 30 September 1989. These figures are provisional.
Table B |1 April 1989 to 30 June|1 July 1989 to 30 |1989 |September 1989 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Placements Closed |2 |14 Placements not accepted |3 |2 <1>Training Agency figures have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, the Training Agency's figures will include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which may not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been employed. <2>Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett : To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the difficulties married women have in enrolling for employment training schemes because they are not entitled to assistance with child minding ; and whether he will consider amending the regulations to ensure that assistance is given on the basis of family income and not marital status.
Mr. Nicholls : A number of representations have been received. However, our overall experience of the way the programme is operating does not indicate that married women are being deterred from joining employment training. There are no plans to extend child care payments to groups other than lone parents.
Mr. Fowler : Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made. The cash limit on class VII, vote 1 (training programmes) will be reduced by £4,081,000 from £2,623,417,000 to £2,619,336,000. This is the net effect of a token £1,000 vote and a decrease of £4,082,000 partly to offset the increase sought on class VII, vote 2 for National Dock Labour Board administration.
The cash limit on class VII, vote 2 will be increased by £7,078,000 from £633,931,000 to £641,009,000. The increase is offset partly by a £4,081,000 reduction in the cash limit on class VII, vote 1. The increase is the net result of increased provision of £3,018,000 (running costs) and £108,000 (capital costs) under the end-year flexibility arrangements for capital and running costs to carry forward unspent provision from 1988-89 to 1989-90 as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 July 1989 ( Official Report, cols. 258-62) ; of £10,000,000 increased provision for certain residual costs of the National Dock Labour Board (partly offset by £5,000,000 reductions elsewhere on vote 2) ; of the transfer of £919,000 to the Training Agency (class VII, vote 1) in connection with the earlier organisational changes within the Employment Department group which resulted in the Training Agency taking on responsibility for some enterprise and small firms functions ; of the transfer of £33, 000 to the Central Statistical Office (CSO) (class XIX, vote 18) for certain statistical functions previously transferred to them in the 1989-90 Revised Estimates ; and of increased receipts of £96,000 from CSO (class XIX, vote 18) in respect of statistical and administrative support work done by the Department of Employment on a repayment basis.
As a result of these changes there will be an increase of £2,985, 000 in the class VII, vote 2 running costs limit which will be increased from £642,144,000 to £645,129,000.
Column 663The net effect of these changes will be met from the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister if she raised the issue of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference during her attendance at the Commonwealth Conference in Malaysia in October.
Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on discussions she had with other heads of Government and state presidents on the issue of global warming and the threat of sea-level rises, at the Commonwealth summit in Kuala Lumpur.
Mr. Onslow : To ask the Prime Minister when she expects that the Departments concerned will be in a position to respond to the recommendations of the report of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee ; and if she will make a statement.
The Prime Minister : A number of Departments have an interest in the matters raised by the report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has asked his officials to prepare a co-ordinated analysis of how the JNAPC's recommendations bear on individual departments' responsibilities. Ministers will then consider collectively an appropriate response to the recommendations. Work will proceed as quickly as possible.
The Prime Minister : Both the overall cash limit and the running costs limit for Cabinet Office : Other Services (class XX, vote 2) have been reduced by £178,000 : from £16,639,000 to £16,461,000 and from £18,083,000 to £17,905,000 respectively. These decreases go to offset corresponding increases in the cash limit and running costs limit for the Central Statistical Office (class XIX vote 18) and reflects the transfer of part provision between the Cabinet Office and the Central Statistical Office as a result of the reorganisation of the statistical services which I announced on 5 April 1989.
Mr. Wigley : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take immediate steps to amend the Social Security (Overlapping Benefits) Regulations so as to end the present rule whereby a widow, who prior to her
Column 664husband's death was in receipt of invalid care allowance, has that allowance immediately terminated when she becomes eligible for a widow's pension ; and if he will make a statement.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard : No. Invalid care allowance and widows benefit are both personal income maintenance benefits, intended to help meet an individual's day-to-day living expenses. To pay invalid care allowance in full in addition to widow's benefit would mean that provision was being made twice from public funds to cover the same needs.
Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for the latest year for which records exist, how many of those in receipt of a war widows' pension from his Department were also in receipt of (a) housing benefit, (b) income support and (c) other state benefits.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard [holding answer 25 October 1989] : It is estimated that at the end of 1988 about 20 per cent. of war widows were in receipt of housing benefit and about 1 per cent. in receipt of income support. Information is not available on the other state benefits that war widows may receive.
Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown of those categories of persons entitled to make trace and inquiry accesses to his Department's central index ; and if he will indicate for what purposes in each case.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard : There are four facilities currently offered by the central index. These are an inquiry service, the tracing of national insurance numbers (NINOS), the allocation of national insurance numbers and the ability to check on the social security benefits a customer is receiving. All DSS and Employment Department staff who have personal identification devices, without which they cannot access the system, can use the inquiry service. The remaining facilities can be broken down into the following categories : 1. Inquiries only DSS regional offices (of which only the North West region and Scotland have access to the strategy at present), Support sections at HQ, Lytham-St-Annes Social Security auditors 2. Trace NINOS Employment Department local Offices, Employment Department fraud offices, Northern Ireland (only certain offices at present)
3. Trace NINOS/check benefit position Newcastle Central Office, North Fylde Central Office, Family Credit Branch, Glasgow Social Security Centre
4. Trace NINOS/check benefit position/allocate NINOS Social Security local offices
Column 665service men stationed (a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in the British Army of the Rhine and (c) elsewhere, for the latest year for which records exist and for the three preceding years ; (2) how many wives of service men were in receipt of unemployment benefit in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) British Army of the Rhine and (c) elsewhere, for the latest year for which records exist and for the three preceding years.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each year from 1959 to the present day the number of deceased service men whose death was attributable to their service and which resulted in the award of a war widow's pension.
|Numbers --------------------------- 1959 |1,961 1960 |1,964 1961 |2,120 1962 |2,017 1963 |2,151 1964 |1,942 1965 |2,124 1966 |2,210 1967 |1,920 1968 |2,070 1969 |2,010 1970 |2,090 1971 |2,339 1972 |1,997 1973 |2,154 1974 |1,990 1975 |1,937 1976 |1,615 1977 |1,411 1978 |2,237 1979 |1,393 1980 |1,918 1981 |1,469 1982 |1,637 1983 |1,381 1984 |1,330 1985 |1,247 1986 |1,440 1987 |1,342 1988 |1,448 1989 |<1>1,165 <1>Up to quarter ending 30 September 1989.
Mr. Flynn : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many persons aged 16 and 17 years have (a) applied for and (b) been granted crisis loans under the social fund for each of the last 12 months ;
Column 666(2) how many persons aged 16 and 17 years in receipt of income support have applied for grants or loans from the social fund in each of the past 12 months.
Mr. Flynn : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many persons aged 16 and 17 years have been considered for receipt of income support under the rules for severe hardship (a) prior to and (b) following the changes announced in July ; (2) how many persons aged 16 and 17 years have been refused income support in each of the past 12 months.
|Number |Per cent. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Until 7 July 1989 Granted income support |7,428 |65 Refused income support |4,040 |35 |------- Total |11,468 From 10 July 1989 to 13 October 1989 Granted income support |3,913 |69 Refused income support |1,763 |31 |------- Total |5,676 Notes: 1. Based on 100 per cent. count of applications received. 2. Information relates to the number of applications received rather than to the number of individual young people involved. Some individuals may have made more than one application.
The total number of 16 and 17-year-olds who have been refused income support in each of the past 12 months is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Flynn : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons aged 16 and 17 years who are living in night shelters or are otherwise homeless have applied for grants, loans or income support in each of the past 12 months.
Mr. Flynn : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department intends to issue further guidance to local offices of the rules governing income support for persons aged 16 and 17 years and the changes made in July.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard : Following the announcement in March of the improvements to help 16 and 17-year-olds claiming income support, special training was provided for all staff dealing with young people. A number of voluntary organisations were involved in the preparation of the training package, which emphasises the need for sensitivity when dealing with young people who may have been physically or sexually abused. There are standing arrangements for new staff to receive the training.
There is no evidence to suggest that this special training is inadequate but the Government are committed to monitoring the effects of the provisions for young people. If that indicates a need for further guidance, we shall make appropriate arrangements.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard : The latest information is for the end of July when the family credit case load was just over 320,000. Precise information is not available about the number of families with members on employment training at the time of the claim for family credit, but indications are that there are likely to be no more than a few hundred.
Mr. Flynn : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if his Department has issued, or intends to issue, fresh instructions to offices on the operation of paragraph 11 of schedule 2 to the Family Credit (General) Regulations concerning the disregard of premiums paid to those on employment training ;
(2) in how many cases the training premium for employment training has not been disregarded for calculation of family credit entitlement, contrary to paragraph 11, schedule 2 Family Credit (General) Regulations in (a) Cornwall and (b) the rest of Great Britain ; (3) what is the total loss suffered by each individual who has been deprived of part of their family credit entitlement because the premium due to their familes under employment training has not been disregarded.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard : Instructions about the correct treatment of training premiums were issued to all staff of the family credit unit on 3 May 1989, and the correct disregard should have been applied in all appropriate cases dealt with since that date.
Action is already in hand, using computer records, which will indentify many of the cases dealt with incorrectly before that date. The remainder are cases which cannot be traced in this way and consideration is still being given to what action can be taken to identify them. Until these exercises have been completed, we shall not know the number of cases where the training premium was not disregarded or the amount of the loss suffered by individuals. However, all the indications are that the number of cases is likely to be small.
Mr. Cohen : To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all immigration adjudicators showing when they were first appointed and what qualifications they have for the post ; and what information is kept on their political affiliations.
The Attorney-General : The names, dates of first appointment and legal professional qualifications of all full-time and part-time immigration adjudicators are listed below. No information is kept on their political affiliations.
Immigration adjudicators Full-time |First appointment |Qualification -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |1 March 1970 |(as Chief Adjudicator M. Patey MBE |1 August 1984) |- Lady Anson |29 December 1986 |Barrister J. R. Bright |18 August 1982 (as part- | time 1 April 1970) |Solicitor V. Callender |1 August 1982 |- R. G. Care |29 January 1988 (as part- | time 11 August 1980) |Solicitor Mrs. J. Chatwani |14 December 1987 | (as part-time | 11 August 1980) |Barrister W. J. Coley |1 March 1970 |Solicitor I. M. S. Donnell |1 March 1970 |- R. P. Gilbert |6 September 1976 | (as part-time | 1 April 1970) |Solicitor A. F. Hatt |20 June 1988 (as part- | time 11 August 1980) |Solicitor E. J. T. Housden |1 March 1970 |Barrister D. J. Parkes |15 July 1987 |Barrister C. O. Richards |1 August 1976 |- Part-time D. K. Allen |9 March 1989 |Barrister G. Alis |2 January 1979 |Solicitor J. I. E. Arnold |11 August 1980 |Barrister A. B. Auckland |1 April 1970 |Solicitor D. N. Bowen |9 March 1989 |Solicitor J. S. Brodwell |5 July 1976 |Solicitor G. S. Cobbett |11 August 1980 |Barrister H. Concannon |26 November 1985 |Solicitor Professor K. Counter |1 October 1987 |Barrister Mrs. A. C. Davies |1 September 1974 |Barrister J. R. Disley |1 July 1983 |Solicitor Mrs. D. Drew |12 June 1989 |Barrister Mrs. D. A. Friedman |11 August 1986 |Barrister J. B. Forge |27 September 1982 |Solicitor J. Freeman |9 March 1989 |Barrister R. W. Gann |11 August 1980 |Solicitor I. Guild CBE |15 February 1988 |Solicitor P. Gulbenkian |12 June 1989 |Solicitor J. R. T. Holt |22 August 1983 |Barrister J. A. W. James |19 August 1987 |Solicitor E. J. Jenkins |26 November 1981 |Solicitor Mrs. C. M Kennedy |11 August 1980 |Solicitor M. I. Khan |1 August 1983 |Barrister D. S. Kirwan |23 August 1983 |Solicitor Mrs. M. C. Kreitman |15 February 1988 |Solicitor D. Markwick-Smith |15 July 1987 (as full- | time March 1970 to | July 1987) |- Mrs. J. Marco |15 February 1988 |Solicitor M. F. Meredith-Hardy |11 August 1980 |Barrister J. F. Myers |1 September 1974 |Barrister T. Oddy |26 November 1985 |Solicitor D. S. Pearl |11 August 1980 |Barrister G. H. N. Peel |1 September 1974 |Solicitor M. W. Rapinet |12 June 1989 |Solicitor J. A. Rennie |1 July 1976 |Barrister Mrs. H. C. Rose |11 August 1980 |Barrister P. B. Rose |16 February 1987 |Barrister C. P. Rushton |1 September 1974 |Solicitor W. B. Scott |1 September 1987 |Barrister N. Selwyn |16 February 1987 |Barrister J. M. Simons |1 July 1983 |Solicitor C. R. Sinclair-Morris |1 September 1974 |Barrister R. R. G. B. Smedley |11 August 1980 |Barrister J. G. Storry |12 June 1989 |Barrister Mrs. P. A. Symons |11 August 1980 |- J. M. Timmons |16 February 1987 |Solicitor A. L. Whitaker |11 August 1980 |Solicitor P. J. Wynne |1 September 1974 |Solicitor
Mr. Cohen : To ask the Attorney-General what steps he has taken to ensure the impartiality of immigration adjudicators and to ensure their freedom from pressure from any source to disallow more appeals brought before them ; and if he will make a statement.
The Attorney-General : Immigration adjudicators are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I have no reason to believe that the immigration adjudicators, who are independent judicial officers, are other than impartial or that they have been subject to any form of pressure to disallow more appeals.
Mr. Cohen : To ask the Attorney-General what is the purpose of question 16 on political views on the form entitled "Particulars of Candidate for Appointment as a Justice of the Peace" ; how this information is used ; and if he will list for (a) Waltham Forest, (b) London and (c) nationally the number of justices of the peace, broken down by political views where they are known.
The Attorney-General : The purpose of question 16 is to ascertain the political views of a candidate so that the advisory committee can take this into account in its endeavour to bring before the Lord Chancellor a list of recommendations which meets his wish that the composition of each bench should broadly reflect the area it covers. Candidates do not have to answer this question if they do not wish to do so. At the last count the political allegiance of the members of the Waltham Forest bench was as follows :
--------------------------------------- Conservatives |36 Labour |26 SLD/SDP (incorporating Liberal and SDP parties) |11 Independent or not known |19
These figures are based on information provided at the time of appointment. Figures for London and England and Wales could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Devlin : To ask the Attorney-General what policy has been formulated with regard to the abduction of children to jurisdictions which do not have reciprocal enforcement agreements with the United Kingdom.
I am fully aware of the distress that these cases cause to all parties involved.
Where children have been abducted to countries which have ratified the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction and the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children and on restoration of custody of children, it is open to those concerned to seek the advice of the Lord Chancellor's Department which is the appointed central authority under the terms of the conventions.
In countries where the conventions are not applicable, actions can properly be taken only through the courts of the country concerned. We have no formal standing in what are essentially family matters. Where children have dual nationality and are in the country of their second nationality, international law prevents us from making formal representations on their behalf. Such children are viewed as being in their own country, and are subject to their own country's law.