| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DEFENCE
Pay Deductions
Mr. Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlie the length of delay between the deduction of maintenance money from serving personnel's wages and its subsequent payment to separated partners. [7714]
Dr. Reid: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member. Letter from C. G. Winsland to Mr. Gordon Marsden, dated 15 July 1997:
I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the factors which may delay maintenance payments made by Service personnel as this matter falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA).
There are 3 general processes employed by the Agency to make maintenance payments from Servicemen's pay:
(a) Automatic credit transfer through the Bankers Automated Clearing System (BACS).
(b) Payable Orders in the form of a cheque, which are sent by post and are drawn against HMPMG account.
(c) Allotment or payment books which are pre-funded and against which credits are drawn on the due date.
In each case, the method of payment is dictated by the Child Support Agency (CSA), the Court, or the dependant. The 3 systems have proven to be effective and payments are rarely delayed, other than through exceptional circumstances such as postal delays, technical failure in the BACS system or the production of the payable orders. In the vast majority of cases, payments deducted from pay due on the last working day of each month are credited to the separated partner's account or paid by cheque on the same day.
Usually, AFPAA is directed to make payment to the CSA or Magistrates Court for them in turn to issue funds to the individual. From past experience, this can be the most significant factor in any delay between the deduction of maintenance from a Serviceman's pay and subsequent payment to a separated partner. If your question relates to a specific case, I would be happy to initiate a review if you can provide the necessary detail.
Army Individual Training Organisation
Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for the review of the Royal Navy's approach to efficiency in the Army's Individual Training Organisation (a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8261]
Dr. Reid: There is no such review. I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) on 24 June, Official Report, columns 421-22.
Executive Agencies
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas of his departmental responsibility currently under consideration for defence agency status. [8132]
Dr. Reid:
There are three areas within my Department currently under consideration for Defence Agency status. These are the Defence Communications Service, Army Equipment Support and the RAF Support Management Group.
15 Jul 1997 : Column: 144
Professor Webb:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to include the Trident missile programme within his Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement. [7985]
Dr. Reid:
The Government's commitment to retain Trident is one of the policy principles on which the Strategic Defence Review is founded. Within this framework the review will examine all aspects of our deterrence requirements.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 June, Official Report, column 372, when Ministers were made aware that the plastic baton rounds being used in Northern Ireland were firing too fast. [8266]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I were informed on 14 May 1997 that tests had indicated that some of the baton rounds manufactured in 1994 exceeded the specified velocity. We decided to make an announcement as soon as we knew the results of further tests, and we did so on 10 June.
Housing Benefit Fraud
Mr. Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tenants of private landlords received housing benefit between 1 April 1996 and 1 April 1997; and how many of those were subsequently found to have committed housing benefit fraud. [7186]
Mr. Worthington: The information required to answer the question fully is not readily available at present but I will write to the hon. gentleman shortly and place a copy of my reply in the Library.
Mr. Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (a) housing executive and (b) DSS fraud inspectors were in situ between 1 April 1996 and 1 April 1997. [7185]
Mr. Worthington: Between 1 April 1996 and 1 April 1997, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive did not employ its staff as fraud inspectors. During this period, fraud investigations and prosecutions were carried out on behalf of the Housing Executive by staff of the Social Security Agency's Fraud and Prosecutions Branch and by the Royal Ulster Constabulary under the Theft Act.
During 1996-97, the Housing Executive appointed five staff to commence work on the development of a Security Strategy for Housing Benefit. Procedures operated by Housing Executive staff administering Housing Benefit include fraud prevention measures, as a result of which it is estimated that, for the six month period ended 31 March 1997, some £1.5 million was saved.
15 Jul 1997 : Column: 145
On 1 April 1996 the Social Security Agency had in place 61 staff involved in fraud prevention and detection. On 1 April 1997 the number had risen to 88, 70 of whom include the investigation of referrals from the Housing Executive in their duties.
Mr. Forsythe:
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive received housing benefit between 1 April 1996 and 1 April 1997; and how many of those were subsequently found to have committed housing benefit fraud. [7187]
Mr. Worthington:
The information required to answer the question fully is not readily available at present but I will write to the hon. gentleman shortly and place a copy of my reply in the Library.
Mr. McNamara:
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the grounds for arrest of Gearoid O'Dochartaigh on 14 June. [7369]
Mr. Ingram
[holding answer 14 July 1997]: Following a stone-throwing incident in Londonderry on 14 June 1997 Gearoid O'Dochartaigh was stopped and questioned by police as to his identity, under the provisions of section 25 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. On failing to satisfy police in this regard, O'Dochartaigh was arrested under the provisions of section 18 of the Act and taken to Strand Road RUC Station where he subsequently provided satisfactory details of his identity. He was subsequently released into the custody of his mother, who attended the station.
Mr. McNamara:
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she has taken to ensure that the rights of Irish language speakers in Northern Ireland under the law are protected with particular reference to the use of their given name. [7368]
Mr. Worthington
[holding answer 14 July 1997]: Current administrative guidelines on the use of Irish in official business in Northern Ireland recommend that officials should respect the wishes of any individual who has indicated a desire to be known by a personal name in the Irish language. Unless it appears that he or she is not generally known by that name, a personal name in Irish should be accepted for all official purposes, including correspondence and official documents.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) pursuant to her answer of 19 June, Official Report, columns 275-76, what assessment she has made of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's opinion of the need to review RUC guidelines on the use of baton guns more accurately to reflect the Association of Chief Police Officers' manual of guidance; [8529]
15 Jul 1997 : Column: 146
(3) pursuant to her answer of 19 June, Official Report, columns 275-76, what assessment she has made of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's concern in respect of the application of the existing guidelines on baton rounds to the protection of property and detection of crime. [8528]
Mr. Ingram
[holding answer 14 July 1997]: HMIC's report contains eight main recommendations relating directly to the handling of public order situations and the use of PBRs. These recommendations have been accepted by the Chief Constable. They will be taken into consideration in the current review of baton gun guidelines, which ACPO is conducting and in which the RUC is participating.
(2) pursuant to her answer of 30 June, Official Report, column 63, what assessment she has made of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's opinion on the risks involved in the routine use of baton rounds; [8530]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |