| Previous Section | Home Page |
Coastal Protection
Ms Ruddock: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people within his
Column 792
Department are employed in connection with its coastal protection function; and at what locations.Mr. Jack: Currently, 61 people are employed in the Ministry's flood and coastal defence division, dealing with food defence matters as well as coast protection. They are based in London, Cambridge, Lincoln, Taunton, Tunbridge Wells and York.
Political Affiliation
Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he seeks information on the political affiliation of candidates for appointment to paid or unpaid posts for which he is responsible (a) from within his Department or (b) from outside sources.
Mr. Jack: The Minister does not seek information on the political affiliation of candidates for either paid or unpaid posts.
Agricultural Council
Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what was the outcome of the Agricultural Council held in Brussels from 12 to 14 December; and if he will make a statement.
Column 793
Mr. Waldegrave: I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the council, which lasted from 12 to 15 December. The council's major achievement was agreement on ground rules for implementing the general agreement on tariffs and trade Uruguay round agreement on agriculture. This package, including the framework agreement on bananas, will now pass to the Foreign Affairs Council on 19 and 20 December for formal adoption along with all other GATT implementation texts. This is a very important agreement for Britain in itself. In addition, I am glad to report that I achieved a range of measures designed to meet specific British interests, notably in relation to cereals, bananas, and commitments of benefit to the processed food industry. I also made clear to the Commission that the eventual arrangements for rice, which are not yet in place, must not disadvantage United Kingdom millers of high quality rice. The council also discussed a Commission proposal to revise the agrimonetary regime. In the absence of an opinion from the European Parliament, no formal decision could be taken. But it was established that a qualified majority of the council existed in favour of a presidency compromise proposal which the Commission was prepared to support. I voted against this revised proposal because, although it abolished the potentially expensive and inflationary switchover mechanism which I strongly welcome, it also introduced unduly complex and potentially costly replacement arrangements to protect farmers in strong-currency countries against currency-induced falls in incomes. Denmark also voted against. The Commission tabled a proposal to prolong the present regime until 31 January 1995 pending a European Parliament opinion on the substantive proposal.
The council held a further discussion of the Commission's proposal on the welfare of animals in transit but was unable to reach agreement. I shall continue to press for strong and effective Community measures. But meanwhile I am introducing improved national measures to help fill the gap resulting from the absence of agreement by the council.
I voted against a council decision to continue the moratorium on bovine somatotropin until 31 December 1999 as this was without scientific justification. The decision was, however, adopted by qualified majority.
The Agriculture Commissioner, Rene Steichen, tabled a report supporting the case, for which the United Kingdom has long argued, for allowing land entered into environmental set-aside or woodland to be counted, under certain conditions, against the farmer's compulsory market set-aside requirement. The council committed itself to taking an early decision on this matter.
The council adopted unanimously proposals providing for continuation of New Zealand butter access to the United Kingdom and for continuation of sheepmeat imports from various third countries under existing voluntary restraint agreements. In both cases, these regulations apply until 30 June 1995 when they will be superseded by the GATT Uruguay round provisions.
Directive amending the fresh meat hygiene directive and milk hygiene directive, were agreed by qualified majority. On meat hygiene, I abstained, whilst the Dutch and Portuguese delegations opposed. The outcome on milk hygiene was generally highly satisfactory; however, I abstained because there were no provisions to permit the continued double pasteurisation of skimmed milk.
Column 794
Finally, I am particularly delighted to report that the council agreed unanimously a new directive on minced meat and meat preparations directive which protects traditional British products including the British banger.SOCIAL SECURITY
Income Support
Mr. Dewar: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual savings in a full year to social security expenditure from withdrawing income support assistance with mortgage interest payments from new mortgages after October 1995 for nine months assuming that (a) all income support claimants with new mortgages are affected, (b) all income support claimants except lone parents are affected, (c) all income support claimants except lone parents and pensioners are affected and (d) all income support claimants except pensioners are affected.
Mr. Roger Evans: Details are set out in the table.
IS claimants |Savings October 1995
affected
|£ million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) all IS claimants with mortgages |18
(b) all IS claimants with mortgages except lone parents |15
(c) all IS claimants except lone parents and pensioners |14
(d) all IS claimants except pensioners |17
Notes:
(1) Savings are based on information from the 1993 annual statistical inquiry, uprated to 1995-96
levels.
(2) Savings have been estimated for a 12-month period from October 1995 to October 1996.
(3) Assistance with mortgage payments is withdrawn for the first nine months of a new claim from
October 1995 for cases with new mortgages.
(4) Savings estimates exclude any estimates of behavioural effects.
(5) Figures are rounded to the nearest £1 million but are not accurate to this degree of
rounding.
Family Credit
Mrs. Wise: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the proposed family credit ceilings in 1995 96 for (a) a married couple with one child under five years, (b) a married couple with two children under 11 years, (c) a married couple with two children aged over 11 years, (d) a married couple with three children under 11 years, (e) a married couple with three children aged over 11 years and (f) a married couple with two children under 11 years and two children over 11 years.
Mr. Roger Evans: At the new benefit levels proposed for April 1995, the family credit ceilings represented by the highest amount of net earnings and other relevant
Column 795
income a family can have and still qualify for family credit at the minimum payment of 50p will be as follows:
|£
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Married couple with one child under 5 years |153.00
Married couple with two children under 11 |169.29
Married couple with two children over 11, but under 16 |190.71
Married couple with three children under 11 |185.57
Married couple with three children over 11, but under 16 |217.71
Married couple with two children under 11 and two
children over 11, but under 16 |223.29
Relevant income excludes child benefit, which is disregarded for Family Credit purposes. Therefore, in addition to the amounts above, a one-child family will have £10.40 child benefit a two-child family £18.85, a three-child family £27.30 and a four-child family £35.75. Relevant income also excludes the first £15 of any maintenance received.
Since October 1994, up to £40 a week per family in respect of formal child care charges incurred can be offset in the calculation of normal earnings for family credit. It applies where the care is for a child under 11 in the family of a lone parent, a couple where both are working, or where one is working and the other is incapacitated. This increases the potential ceilings still further.
Column 796
Social Fund
Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications were made to the social fund for (i) community care grants, (ii) budgeting loans and (iii) crisis loans for each quarter since 1988 89; and if he will give the reasons for the refusals.
Mr. Roger Evans: Quarterly information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Information on an annual basis is provided in the Secretary of State's annual reports on the social fund, copies of which are in the Library.
Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reproduce the tables in annexes 6, 10 and 14 of the annual report on the social fund 1993 94, Cm 2598, on the basis of expenditure by application purpose in a form identical to that used in the annual report on the social fund 1992 93, Cm 2274.
Mr. Roger Evans: The information requested is not available. The introduction of the social fund computer system means that the data used to produce the annual report on the social fund for 1993 94 is held in a different form from that used for previous annual reports.
Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing annexe 1 of each annual report on the social fund, broken down according to client group definitions in annexe 4 of the annual report on the social fund 1993 94, Cm 2598.
Mr. Roger Evans: The information requested is not readily available for years prior to 1992 93. The available information is set out in the tables.
Column 795
National social fund summary statistics by client group
1992-93
Pensioners
|MP |FP |CCG|BL |CL
------------------------------------------------------------
Applications received (000) |0 |15 |106|61 |9
Decisions (000)<1> |0 |18 |129|67 |8
Awards (000)<1> |0 |15 |79 |27 |7
Awards as per cent. of decisions<1> |0 |83 |61 |40 |82
Refusals (000) |0 |3 |50 |34 |1
Gross Expenditure £ million |0 |12 |20 |6 |0
Recoveries £ million |0 |0 |0 |5 |0
Net Expenditure £ million |0 |12 |20 |0 |0
Average Award £<1> |0 |786|254|211|61
Unemployed
|MP |FP |CCG|BL |CL
------------------------------------------------------------
Applications received (000) |85 |10 |323|499|498
Decisions (000)<1> |91 |11 |371|554|480
Awards (000)<1> |82 |10 |66 |298|402
Awards as per cent. of decisions<1> |90 |91 |18 |54 |84
Refusals (000) |9 |1 |305|238|76
Gross Expenditure £ million |8 |8 |14 |61 |23
Recoveries £ million |0 |0 |0 |52 |18
Net Expenditure £ million |8 |8 |14 |9 |5
Average Award £<1> |101|805|214|205|57
1992-93 Disabled
|MP |FP |CCG|BL |CL
------------------------------------------------------------
Applications received (000) |6 |3 |113|111|27
Decisions (000)<1> |6 |3 |141|125|27
Awards (000)<1> |5 |3 |65 |68 |22
Awards as per cent. of decisions<1> |90 |92 |46 |54 |83
Refusals (000) |1 |0 |76 |50 |4
Gross Expenditure £ million |1 |3 |18 |15 |1
Recoveries £ million |0 |0 |0 |11 |1
Net Expenditure £ million |1 |3 |18 |3 |0
Average Award £<1> |101|840|279|215|52
Others
|MP |FP |CCG|BL |CL
------------------------------------------------------------
Applications received (000) |180|57 |642|827|303
Decisions (000)<1> |169|46 |546|760|284
Awards (000)<1> |140|34 |112|443|240
Awards as per cent. of decisions<1> |83 |74 |20 |58 |84
Refusals (000) |28 |12 |434|284|42
Gross Expenditure £ million |14 |26 |38 |100|19
Recoveries £ million |0 |1 |0 |85 |15
Net Expenditure £ million |14 |25 |38 |15 |4
Average Award £<1> |101|784|338|226|80
1993-94 Pensioners
|MP |FP |CCG|BL |CL
------------------------------------------------------------
Decisions (000)<1> |<1 |21 |116|63 |8
Awards (000)<1> |<1 |19 |71 |25 |6
Awards as per cent. of decisions<1> |97 |90 |61 |39 |80
Refusals (000) |0 |2 |45 |31 |1
Gross Expenditure £ million |0 |16 |19 |5 |0
Recoveries £ million |0 |n/a|0 |n/a|n/a
Net Expenditure £ million |0 |n/a|19 |n/a|n/a
Average Award £<1> |101|859|261|219|60
Unemployed
|MP |FP |CCG|BL |CL
------------------------------------------------------------
Decisions (000)<1> |86 |14 |374|553|508
Awards (000)<1> |82 |13 |63 |310|413
Awards as per cent. of decisions<1> |95 |96 |17 |56 |81
Refusals (000) |4 |1 |311|222|90
Gross Expenditure £ million |8 |12 |13 |66 |23
Recoveries £ million |0 |n/a|0 |n/a|n/a
Net Expenditure £ million |8 |n/a|13 |n/a|n/a
Average Award £<1> |101|894|207|212|56
Column 798
1993-94
Disabled
|MP |FP |CCG|BL |CL
------------------------------------------------------------
Decisions (000)<1> |9 |5 |192|176|45
Awards (000)<1> |9 |5 |83 |96 |36
Awards as per cent. of decisions<1> |96 |96 |43 |54 |79
Refusals (000) |0 |0 |110|69 |9
Gross Expenditure £ million |1 |5 |24 |21 |2
Recoveries £ million |0 |n/a|0 |n/a|n/a
Net Expenditure £ million |1 |n/a|23 |n/a|n/a
Average Award £<1> |101|915|280|222|56
Others
|MP |FP |CCG|BL |CL
------------------------------------------------------------
Decisions (000)<1> |154|42 |570|786|299
Awards (000)<1> |139|35 |112|471|241
Awards as per cent. of decisions<1> |90 |83 |20 |60 |81
Refusals (000) |15 |7 |458|278|53
Gross Expenditure £ million |14 |30 |38 |112|20
Recoveries £ million |0 |n/a|0 |n/a|n/a
Net Expenditure £ million |14 |n/a|38 |n/a|n/a
Average Award £<1> |101|866|335|237|81
<1> Included in the number of awards is the number of
awards after review.
Key:
MP = Maternity Payment
FP = Funeral Payment
CCG = Community Care Grant
BL = Budgeting Loan
CL = Crisis Loan
n/a = Not available by client group.
- Excluded from the tables is information on cold weather
payments as this cannot be broken down by the client groups
requested.
- The tables for 1993-94 do not include the number of
applications as they cannot be broken down by client group
under the new computer system.
Housing Benefit
Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how his Department will determine average rents in an area following his changes to housing benefit.
Mr. Roger Evans: We are considering options and will be discussing these with, for example, the local authority associations and the Institute of Rent Officers.
Disability Living Allowance
Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what safeguards will exist to ensure that availability for work criteria are properly matched to the capability of the claimant in respect of people being transferred from disability living allowance to unemployment benefit.
Mr. Roger Evans: The Government have no proposals to transfer people from disability living allowance to unemployment benefit. However, regulation 7B of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983 currently provides that disabled people who are capable of some work may impose restrictions on their availability and receive Unemployment benefit where the restrictions are reasonable in view of their physical or mental condition.
Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make arrangements with the agency overseeing disability living allowance to ensure that offices holding claimant's files retain those files following an adverse decision on an application for disability living allowance for the period within which an appeal could be made.
Mr. Hague: The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 15 December 1994:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the retention of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) files at the office where an adverse decision was made.
The main responsibility of Disability Benefits Centres (DBC) is the processing of initial claims to both DLA and Attendance Allowance, before the centralised units in Blackpool take over the case. Since the introduction of DLA in April 1992 the Benefits Agency has looked carefully at the question of holding files at the office
Column 800
where the initial decision is made. Our research has shown that the three month period following the initial decision is the period of high activity and this also represents the prescribed time limit for applications for a review on any grounds.A pilot exercise is currently being carried out at Newcastle DBC where the file is retained and almost all of the activity that arises in the three month period following the decision on a new claim is dealt with; some work done by specialist sections, such as Motability agreements, is retained at the DLA Unit in Blackpool. If the pilot at Newcastle successfully demonstrates efficiency and an improved customer service, consideration will be given to extending the practice to other DBCs.
This pilot exercise is part of the Benefits Agency's strategy to improve customer service and to work towards the introduction of a One Stop service.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
VAT (Fuel)
Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures he is taking to protect those on low incomes from the effect of the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel in (a) in the current year and (b) from 1995 onwards; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Roger Evans: The help that was given in the April 1994 uprating will remain in place as a permanent addition to benefit rates. In addition, VAT on domestic fuel has raised the indices on which the 1995 uprating will be based and benefit levels will be higher from next April as a result. Further, social fund cold weather payments, which increased from £6 to £7 in November 1994, will rise again to £8.50 in November 1995.
Funding of the home energy efficiency scheme will be raised to £100 million per annum, £30 million of which will be over and above that announced in 1993. The total extra help made available for home energy efficiency since the levy was introduced will amount to £65 million.
Jobseeker's Allowance
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be saved under the proposed contributory jobseeker's allowance through the abolition of the adult dependent allowance in each financial year from 1 April 1996.
Mr. Roger Evans: It is estimated that, benefit expenditure will be reduced by £10 million in 1996 97 and by £20 million in 1997 98.
Column 801
Notes:1. Assumes 2.4 million unemployed; 500,000 unemployment benefit cases.
2. All estimates rounded to the nearest £10 million.
3. Estimates in cash prices.
4. Estimates are net of any effects in other benefits.
5. Based on 1993 annual statistical inquiry, 1993 and 1994 unemployment benefit statistics, and the policy simulation model using 1990 91 92 family expenditure survey data.
6. Assumes contributory entitlement lasts six months.
7. Transitional protection in operation in 1996 97.
Child Maintenance
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate has been made of the extent to which interim maintenance assessments are made under the Child Support Act 1991 which are lower than the maintenance an absent parent would pay after a full assessment;
(2) what procedures exist to ensure the accurate revision of incorrectly low interim maintenance assessments made under the Child Support Act 1991;
(3) whether the consent of the absent parent is required in order to rectify errors made in the calculation of interim maintenance assessments under the Child Support Act 1991;
(4) what arrangements exist for the compensation of families which have received an incorrectly low interim maintenance assessment under the Child Support Act due to error on the part of the Child Support Agency.
Mr. Burt: Interim maintenance assessments are imposed where an absent parent has failed to provide sufficient information about his circumstances to enable a full maintenance assessment to be made. It is not possible to estimate whether an IMA is lower than a full maintenance assessment would otherwise be, since without information on the absent parent's circumstances it is not possible to determine the level of his eventual liability.
Interim maintenance assessments are set at 1.5 times the maintenance requirement--the amount calculated to represent the basic maintenance needs of the child--and, in the vast majority of cases, are higher than the amount the absent parent would be required to pay under the normal assessment.
In cases where IMAs have been incorrectly calculated, child support legislation currently requires that absent parents make a written application before an IMA can be cancelled and a correct IMA imposed. We propose to bring forward amendments to the regulations at the earliest opportunity, to ensure that defective IMAs can be reviewed or cancelled as appropriate at the instigation of a child support officer and without a written application from the absent parent. The Child Support Agency has made its checks on IMAs more stringent to ensure that they are calculated correctly. These checks include a requirement that all IMA decisions are authorised at management level.
Claims for compensation are considered under the departmental general guidance. Each case is considered on its own merits.
Column 802
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
Sittings of the House
Sir Peter Emery: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for implementing the report of the Select Committee of Sittings of the House--HC 22(1991 92).
Mr. Newton: Following discussions over a considerable period, initially with the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and more recently with the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), agreement has been reached on a number of measures to achieve the objectives of the report. These are set out below, and where the proposals involve changes to the formal procedures of the House, the relevant motions appear on the Order Paper for 15 December, and are scheduled for debate on Monday 19 December.
1. The changes in practice and procedure will be implemented as an experiment for Session 1994 95 by sessional order--in the case of proposals marked*--rather than Standing Order amendments.
Bills
2. Voluntary timetables for Bills will be agreed through the usual channels. Guillotines will be used only when voluntary timetables cannot be agreed or break down.
3. Greater use will be made of Second Reading Committees by agreement.
*4. Law Commission Bills will be referred automatically to Second Reading Committees, but they may be de-referred on a Government motion. The Government will accede to any reasonable Opposition request for de- referral.
*5. The Committee stage of consolidation Bills may be dispensed with on a Government motion, and the question on Third Reading will be put forthwith.
Statutory instrument
*6. All affirmative statutory instruments will be referred automatically to a Standing Committee, but they may be de-referred on a Government motion. The Government will accede to any reasonable Opposition request for de- referral.
7. The arrangements for debates on "prayers" will be settled by agreement through the usual channels.
*8. Debates on de-referred affirmatives, any "prayers" taken on the Floor, and de-referred EC documents will be limited to 1 hours even if started before 10pm.
9. Debates on "prayers" will continue to finish at 11.30 pm if started at or after 10 pm.
Sittings
10. The Government will use their best endeavours to avoid late sittings wherever possible.
11. The Government will use their best endeavours to avoid taking highly contentious business on Thursdays, especially on the Thursdays before "constituency Fridays"--see 16.
12. The Government will use their best endeavours to give early notification of dates of recesses.
13. The Government will use their best endeavours to give early notification of some major debates.
Column 803
Wednesdays/Fridays*14. The House will sit every Wednesday morning for private Members' debates on the Adjournment until 2.30 pm.
*15. In exchange, the following time for private Members will be discontinued:
--Private Members' motions on 10 Fridays and 2 Monday afternoons. -- Adjournment debates following the Consolidated Fund Bill. --Debates on motions fixing dates of recesses--which will instead be decided forthwith.
--Adjournment debates on the last day before each recess. *16. The former private Members' motions Fridays will become "constituency Fridays" on which the House will not sit.
*17. Subjects for debates on Wednesday mornings will be chosen by Speaker's ballot. One or two general debates will be held between 10 am and 1 pm, and three short debates between 1 pm and 2.30 pm. Money and Ways and Means resolutions
*18. Money and Ways and Means resolutions taken immediately after the Second Reading of the Bill to which they relate will be decided forthwith.
*19. Debates on free-standing Money and Ways and Means resolutions will be limited to three quarters of an hour.
Short speeches
*20. The Speaker will have wider discretion to limit speeches by backbenchers to 10 minutes.
21. Front Benchers will strive to limit opening speeches to 30 minutes and their closing speeches to 20 minutes.
Miscellaneous
22. Second Adjournment debates will be discontinued.
23. The Procedure Committee will be asked to consider the arrangements for "set-piece" debates.
24. Where appropriate, the time allowed for debates will be regulated by business motions agreed through the usual channels and approved by the House in advance.
WALES
Air Quality
Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies he has sponsored concerning air quality and lung disease triggered by (a) vehicle emissions and (b) chimneys of large scale industrial buildings; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: Research into air pollution and health is a priority for the Government, who are taking an active part in a wide range of relevant research. The Welsh office has not sponsored any separate studies of this kind.
| Next Section
| Home Page |