| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Typical Family (Definition)
Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the definition of a typical family used by his Department; and if he will make a statement.[8247]
Mrs. Angela Knight [holding answer 11 December 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 16 December 1996:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the definition of a typical family.
The Office for National Statistics does not define a "typical family". In the General Household Survey (GHS), the source of most statistics on families, a family is defined as:
(a) a married or opposite sex cohabiting couple on their own or
(b) a married or opposite sex cohabiting couple/lone parent and their never-married children, provided these children have no children of their own.
Persons who cannot be allocated to a family as defined above are said to be persons not in a family although they could be related to one or more family members.
The type of family which is relatively most numerous depends on the classification of families which is used, but from the 1994 GHS, of all the families defined above (and where the family head was resident in Great Britain and aged under 60):
21% were married couples with no children
6% were opposite sex cohabiting couples with no children
50% were married couples with children
4% were opposite sex cohabiting couples with children
18% were lone parents families with children
(Due to rounding the percentages do not total to 100)
An analysis of the trends, numbers and characteristics of families was recently published in an article entitled Population Review: (6) Families and households in Great Britain which appeared in Population Trends 85, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.
"Financial Statement and Budget Report"
Mr. Timms: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
16 Dec 1996 : Column: 434
pursuant to his answer of 6 December, Official Report, columns 835-36, for what reason the Department of Natinal Heritage is excluded from the table. [8740]
Mr. Jack [holding answer 12 December 1996]: The Department of Natinal Heritage was excluded in error and an incorrect figure was inadvertently given for Legal Departments. The complete table should have read as follows:
| £ million | 1996-97 |
|---|---|
| Defence | 40 |
| FCO/ODA | 0 |
| Agriculture | 0 |
| DTI | (1)-- |
| DfEE | 0 |
| Transport | 550 |
| Environment | 80 |
| Home Office | 120 |
| Legal (LCD) | 10 |
| National Heritage | (1)-- |
| Health | 70 |
| Social Security | 130 |
| Scotland and Forestry Commission | 30 |
| Wales | 20 |
| Northern Ireland | 10 |
| Chancellor's departments | 30 |
| Local authorities | 50 |
| TOTAL | 1,130 |
(1) Less than £10 million.
Inland Revenue
Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the review of the Inland Revenue executive officers' framework documents is complete; and if he will make a statement. [9702]
Mr. Jack: Following completion of the next steps evaluation review of its executive office structure earlier this year, the Inland Revenue has now revised its executive offices' framework documents in line with the findings of that review.
The department's internal services have been reorganised following the transfer of information technology functions to its strategic partner--Electronic Data Systems--and the department's senior management review. This has resulted in a decrease in the number of service executive offices. From 1 January 1997 the department will have 20 operational and four service executive offices.
Copies of each of the executive offices' framework documents--which set out the statutory, policy and resources frameworks within which the offices operate--will be placed in the Libraries of the House shortly.
Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths that involved (a) ecstasy as the sole drug concerned and (b) alcohol poisoning, occurred after the victims consumed the substances (i) in clubs, (ii) in public houses, (iii) at raves and (iv) elsewhere, in each of the last five years. [6627]
16 Dec 1996 : Column: 435
Mrs. Angela Knight
[holding answer 2 December 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 16 December 1996:
(2) Deaths in which ecstasy was the only drug mentioned on the death certificate. None of these deaths included mention of alcohol.
(3) International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, code 980.
16 Dec 1996 : Column: 436
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many deaths resulted from ecstasy, or poisoning from alcohol after the victims consumed the substances in (i) clubs (ii) public houses (iii) raves and (iv) elsewhere, in each of the last five years.
ONS do not hold this level of detail as to where the substance which caused the death was consumed. The information is not recorded on the death certificate nor by the coroner, and would be very difficult to record with any degree of accuracy. Alcohol, for example, may have been consumed in a number of different places.
The following table shows, (a) the numbers of deaths where Ecstasy was the sole drug mentioned and (b) the numbers of deaths from alcohol poisoning, in England and Wales in the last five years.
Year Deaths from ecstasy(2) Deaths from alcohol poisoning(3)
1991 6 152
1992 5 126
1993 12 138
1994 10 123
1995 15 130
Fisheries Offences (Prosecutions)
Mr. John Townend: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the successful prosecutions for fisheries offences undertaken by his Department since 1 January which have resulted in fines of £5,000 or more, including details of the fishing vessels involved, country of registration and the offences committed. [9432]
Mr. Baldry: A list of the successful prosecutions and the details requested are set out in the following table. Where appropriate, the fines relate to the total fines against both the master and owner of the vessel. There are other prosecution cases, but these are the subject of an appeal and are not therefore included in the table.
16 Dec 1996 : Column: 435
| Month of prosecution | Vessel | Offence | Total fines £ | Country of Registration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| January | NORINA | Fishing logbook | 10,000 | United Kingdom |
| LADY T. EMIEL | Fishing logbook | 10,000 | UK | |
| LE DERBY | Fishing in six-mile limit | 17,500 | France | |
| ANTAEUS | Fishing in six-mile limit | 22,500 | France | |
| February | CHRISTINA | Fishing logbook and landing declaration | 27,500 | UK |
| March | NICOLA ANNE | Quota and landing declaration | 11,000 | UK |
| ZEEDUIVEL | Gear and undersize fish offences | 9,000 | Belgium | |
| TIJL | Fishing 12-mile limit | 7,500 | Belgium | |
| MARILYN JANE | Fishing logbook | 5,500 | UK | |
| April | BAFFIN BAY | Unlicensed fishing | 5,000 | UK |
| KVITSJOEN | Quota | 5,000 | Norway | |
| FISKEBERG | Quota | 6,000 | Norway | |
| VAN DIJCK | Fishing logbook | 5,000 | Belgium | |
| May | ATLANTIC C | Quota | 9,500 | UK |
| June | AROSA | Quota | 12,000 | UK |
| July | ITXAS | Fishing logbook and undersize fish | 15,000 | UK |
| MOUNT EDEN | Quota | 67,500 | UK | |
| SOPHIE LOUISE | Fishing logbook and landing declaration | 17,000 | UK | |
| August | MERCURIUS | Gear and undersize fish | 8,000 | Belgium |
| September | ROWNLEA | quota | 8,000 | UK |
| TITAN | Quota | 8,000 | UK | |
| FLOURISH | Fishing logbook | 11,000 | UK | |
| October | ATLANTIC C | Licensing and quota | 30,000 | UK |
| November | AMARADIA | Transhipment licence and statutory declaration | 34,000 | Cyprus |
| December | ALMA C | Fishing logbook and landing declaration | 10,000 | UK |
16 Dec 1996 : Column: 435
Cattle Cull
Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 November, Official Report, column 580, if he will list methods of disposal that are (a) permitted and (b) currently in operation for (i) condensate and (ii) wash water from the rendering of cattle slaughtered under the 30-month scheme. [8799]
16 Dec 1996 : Column: 436
Mr. Douglas Hogg [holding answer 12 December 1996]: Most wash water and condensate from rendering plants is discharged to sewer. Such discharges are regulated by sewerage undertakers, who are empowered by the Water Industry Act 1991 to impose a wide range of conditions on the discharge consent issued to an individual plant.
16 Dec 1996 : Column: 437
A small number of rendering plants discharge wash water and condensate, after treatment, to controlled waters or to land. Discharges of this kind are subject to regulation by the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991 or the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |