| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Refugees
Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total expenditure by his Department on refugee children by each local authority since April 1994 within the terms of the Children Act 1989. [9715]
Mr. Burns: The Department has established special grants for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and children in families for 1996-97. Under the conditions of both grants, allocations and payments will be made in 1997 to individual authorities who qualify for support. In previous years the Department has not made separate financial provision to local authorities for asylum- seeking children.
Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings have been held with organisations representing refugees concerning the health needs of children and vulnerable adults. [9714]
Mr. Burns: Officials have held two meetings during 1996 with representatives of the Refugee Council to discuss the progress of a project which the department has funded with section 64 grants.
A third meeting was held this month to discuss the aims of a potential new bid from the Refugee Council for more section 64 money that will address the health needs of refugees.
18 Dec 1996 : Column: 709
Mr. Llew Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the carcinogenic properties of formaldehyde. [9567]
Sir Paul Beresford:
I have been asked to reply.
The Health and Safety Executive on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission reviewed the health effects and occupational exposure of formaldehyde for the purpose of setting an occupational exposure limit in 1984.
In 1993, a study carried out for HSE by the Medical Research Council toxicology unit concluded that formaldehyde was not a carcinogen.
There are no on-going research projects into the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde.
Mr. Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the risk to human health from the inhalation of formaldehyde fumes.[9564]
Sir Paul Beresford:
I have been asked to reply.
The Health and Safety Executive on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission reviewed the health effects and occupational exposure of formaldehyde in 1984. HSC'S advisory committee on toxic substances agreed that the inhalation of formaldehyde fumes causes severe irritation of the eyes and upper respiratory tract. However, there was no evidence that the inhalation of formaldehyde fumes causes occupational asthma and the evidence for causing nasal tumours was considered equivocal.
The Department commissioned the Medical Research Council institute for environment and health to review the available data on exposure to formaldehyde in typical UK homes and assess the likely impacts on the health of occupants. This assessment was published by the institute in May 1996; the conclusions on health effects of formaldehyde were:
1. The irritant effects reported in some of the US studies from the 1980s related to mobile homes and relatively high levels of formaldehyde exposure, and are not relevant to the current situation in the UK.
2. Chamber studies with normal adults or those with pre-existing asthma have not demonstrated any dysfunction to mean formaldehyde levels currently found in UK homes by the Building Research Establishment study (0.020-0.025 mg/m 3 , 0.017-0.021 ppm) or even at levels several times higher.
3. Epidemiological studies have not demonstrated any increase in respiratory symptoms or lung function at estimated current levels of formaldehyde in UK homes. However, there is a suggestion of an increase in asthma and chronic bronchitis among children living in homes with formaldehyde levels above 0.07 mg/m 3 (0.06 ppm).
4. There is no evidence to suggest that current domestic exposures to formaldehyde in the UK pose a carcinogenic risk.
Mr. Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department has collated on the incidence of accidents involving the release of formaldehyde into the environment from industrial premises. [9566]
Mr. Clappison:
I have been asked to reply.
18 Dec 1996 : Column: 710
| England | Wales | |
|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 194.700 | 93.880 |
| 1995 | 215.200 | 37.230 |
I understand from the Environment Agency that none of the recorded releases was the result of an accident.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Disorder
Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from the charity Miracles in relation to recognition of multiple chemical sensitivity disorder in the United Kingdom and other issues; what response he is making; what action he plans to take; and if he will make a statement. [9425]
Mr. Horam [holding answer 17 December 1996]: One letter has been received from the charity Miracles regarding multiple chemical sensitivity disorder in the United Kingdom. We will be responding in due course.
HOME DEPARTMENT
Animal Rights Extremists
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his letter of 2 December, Ref. POD/96 2/1/85 PO 13428/96, when he plans to announce his response to the recommendation made by Lord Lloyd that actions of animal rights extremists should be treated as terrorism. [8369]
Mr. Howard: The Government intend to respond in the new year to Lord Lloyd's report of his inquiry into legislation against terrorism, including his recommendation concerning the actions of animal rights extremists.
Tagged Offenders
Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of the 48 offenders who have been sentenced to a curfew order and tagged after conviction for theft, how many were persistent shoplifters and how many were first offenders. [8631]
Mr. Sackville: Information is not yet available about the previous convictions of offenders who have only recently been given curfew orders. In the first full year of the trials, nobody sentenced to a curfew order for theft was a first offender.
Central records do not allow shoplifting to be distinguished from other offences of theft. As a result, it is not possible to say how many of those receiving curfew orders have been persistent shoplifters.
18 Dec 1996 : Column: 711
Mr. Alex Carlile:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the correlation between statistics collected by his Department and those of the Lord Chancellor's Department concerning the number of people imprisoned for failure to pay fines imposed for the non-payment of television licences in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [8890]
Miss Widdecombe
[holding answer 17 December 1996]: The statistics on the number of people imprisoned for failure to pay fines imposed for the non-payment of television licences are taken from the Prison Service receptions data. The latest figures were given in a reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), Official Report, columns 385-86.
The Lord Chancellor's Department does not have a separate source for this information and has written correcting information previously supplied to certain hon. Members.
Mr. Ainger:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many television licence fine defaulters were imprisoned in 1995; what was the average sentence they served; and what are the equivalent figures for 1996. [9325]
Miss Widdecombe
[holding answer 16 December 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 18 December 1996:
Mr. Ainger:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily cost of imprisoning television licence fine defaulters in (a) 1996 and (b) 1995. [9324]
Miss Widdecombe
[holding answer 16 December 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 18 December 1996:
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many television licence fine defaulters were imprisoned in 1995, what was the average sentence they served and what are the equivalent figures for 1996.
Provisional information for January to October 1996 shows that 293 people were received into prison for defaulting on a fine after conviction for using a television without a licence. Information for 1995 is published in "Prison statistics England and Wales" (table 7.2 of the 1995 edition, Cm 3355, a copy of which is available in the library) and shows that 735 (500 males and 235 females) were received for this offence over the year. The average time served by fine defaulters is about one week.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |