| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
SCOTLAND
Retirement Flats
Mr. Gorrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons his Department is proposing a voluntary code of practice for the management of complexes of retirement flats owned by their occupants. [61083]
Mr. Macdonald:
Following representations to Ministers about the management of some owner occupied sheltered housing developments, the Scottish Office convened a meeting of interested parties in July 1996. At the meeting, representatives of developers, management companies, owners and other organisations such as Age Concern Scotland and the Scottish Consumer Council, agreed that a working group should be established to consider a voluntary code that would set out a framework for good practice in the management of owner occupied sheltered housing developments.
1 Dec 1998 : Column: 143
Mr. Gorrie:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the voluntary code of practice for the management of complexes of retirement flats owned by their occupants will include provisions relating to (a) major repair funds, (b) complaint procedures, (c) terms in deeds of conditions, (d) adherence to these conditions and (e) the implementation of an arbiter's award by managing agents. [61084]
Mr. Macdonald:
The detailed provisions of the proposed voluntary code of management practice are still under consideration by the working group established by the Scottish Office. However, it is currently envisaged that there would be clauses relating to major repair funds and complaints procedures. The terms of deeds of conditions, adherence to these conditions and the implementation of awards by arbiters are essentially legal matters to be resolved between the parties concerned.
Mr. Maclennan:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact upon crofters and other small producers of the costs of disposing of spent sheep dip as proposed under the Groundwater Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [61849]
Mr. Macdonald:
A copy of the Regulatory Impact Assessment in respect of the Groundwater Regulations 1998 was placed in the Library of the Houses of Parliament on 11 November. The Assessment notes that, in England and Wales, compliance costs for a typical farmer are likely to be £100 recurring costs per annum with non-recurring costs of £85. Broadly similar costs are expected for Scotland.
On 26 November, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency issued for public consultation their proposals for charges under the Regulations. Under the terms of section 42 of the Environment Act 1995, the approval of the Secretary of State must be obtained before a charging scheme is made. In determining whether or not to approve the scheme the Secretary of State must consider any representations or objections duly made to him and not withdrawn. He must also have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the amounts recovered by the Agency by way of the prescribed charges are the amounts which taking one year with another, need to be recovered by the Agency to meet such of the costs and expenses which it incurs in carrying out its functions as he may consider appropriate.
Mr. Maclennan:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions the Government have had with (a) Highland Council and (b) Dornoch Academy about bringing the school back into local authority control; and if he will make a statement. [61850]
Mrs. Liddell:
The Scottish Office has had continuing constructive discussions with both Dornoch Academy and Highland Council, particularly in relation to the school's annual grant. The Government remain committed to repealing the self-governing schools legislation. This, however, will now be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
1 Dec 1998 : Column: 144
Mr. Welsh:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the transfer to Moray House College of Education of the East Suffolk Road student hostels; what investigation he has made of the events surrounding this transfer and the accounting procedures involved; and if he will make a statement. [61703]
Mrs. Liddell:
I have received representations concerning the transfer to Moray House College of Education of the East Suffolk Road student hostels. A comprehensive reply has already been provided. In October, the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department received further representations, on the issue that the transfer of the student hostels to Moray House in 1979 was not correctly undertaken. Since then, officials have received numerous further representations from the same person, as have the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.
Officials are looking into the matters raised in the recent allegations. I shall write to the hon. Member when their consideration of this is complete.
Mr. Welsh:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons the new Housing Partnerships Initiative precludes local authorities in Scotland from investing the funding available in local authority owned stock without transferring ownership of this stock outside the local authority. [61678]
Mr. Macdonald:
The new Housing Partnerships Initiative aims to promote community ownership and secure private sector finance for affordable housing. Local authorities receive separate capital allocations for works to their own stock.
Mr. Welsh:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how his figure for the cost of abolishing tuition fees in Scotland was arrived at; over what period it applies; what the annual figures are; and what assumptions underlie the calculation. [61710]
Mrs. Liddell:
I am not entirely clear which figure is the subject of the question. The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department has commissioned independent research on the long term savings arising from the recent changes in policy on student support, including the introduction of a means-tested private contribution towards the cost of tuition and the replacement of grants by loans. I have arranged for a copy of an abstract of the results to be placed in the House of Commons Library.
Mr. Welsh:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement the Nitrates Directive in respect of water bodies, rivers and their catchments which exceed the limit of 50mg/l of dissolved nitrates; and if he will make a statement. [61699]
Mr. Macdonald:
This Directive is being implemented and we already monitor at all surface water and groundwater locations used for drinking water abstraction.
1 Dec 1998 : Column: 145
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is extending this monitoring network to be representative of all Scottish inland surface waters. This will be used to identify where there are exceedances of the 50 mg/l concentration limit value for nitrate. From this information SEPA will undertake a further review to determine if revised or new Nitrate Vulnerable Zones should be designated.
Before an extended network can be identified for groundwater monitoring it will be necessary to carry out a preliminary study of existing abstraction. I am asking SEPA to set up a groundwater monitoring network by the end of 1999.
Mr. Welsh:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from Scottish Natural Heritage in respect of applications for licences for the killing of barnacle geese on the Island of Islay; and if licences will be issued for land within areas designated as special protection areas under EU Directive 79/409/EEC. [61700]
Mr. Macdonald:
Advice has been given by Scottish Natural Heritage on the likely effect of limited licences to shoot barnacle geese in specified areas on Islay. Two licences to prevent serious agricultural damage have been issued for a limited period where no other satisfactory solution was available. These licences allow a maximum of 50 barnacle geese to be shot in areas designated as Special Protection Areas under EU Directive 74/409/EEC. The effect of the licensed shooting on the farms and the goose populations will be carefully monitored, and the results will be taken into account before any further licences are issued to farmers on Islay.
Mr. Welsh:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recommendations he has received from the National Goose Forum relating to geese on Islay. [61701]
Mr. Macdonald:
None. The National Goose Forum is not due to report on a national policy framework for managing potential conflicts between geese and agriculture until Summer 1999.
Mrs. May:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the actual and estimated savings quoted by his Department for the Benefit Integrity Project are savings that incorporate the full costs of the investment and running costs of the Project; [60982]
Mr. Timms:
The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
1 Dec 1998 : Column: 146
Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 30 November 1998:
Mrs. May:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what (a) the original assumptions were and (b) the current savings assumptions are for the Benefit Integrity Project in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) 1998-99; what factors were taken into account in the revision of savings assumptions for the Benefit Integrity Project for 1997-98 and 1998-99; and if the costs of the Benefit Integrity Project include the costs of appeals following decisions made under the scheme. [60983]
Mr. Timms:
The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 27 November 1998:
1 Dec 1998 : Column: 147
(2) if he will make a statement on the accounting procedures used by his Department in calculating the savings generated by the Benefit Integrity Project. [60981]
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking if the actual and estimated savings quoted by his Department for the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) are savings that incorporate the full costs of the investment and running costs of the Project, and if he will make a statement on the accounting procedures used by his Department in calculating the savings generated by BIP.
Estimates of benefit savings from BIP assume that cases with a changed award would have remained on their original level of benefit for 32 weeks. This is an assumption common to Benefits Agency activity. A proportion of total savings for cases reviewed in any particular year are allocated to the two subsequent years. This takes account of some benefit recipients being reviewed towards the end of the financial year, and the variation in the length of time recipients with a changed award would have remained on their original level of benefit. Estimated benefit savings relate solely to programme expenditure and is accounted for in the annual Vote 1 Appropriation Accounts.
The estimate includes the cost of reviews and appeals. It also takes account of additional savings from some cases losing premiums in the income related benefits, some carers losing Invalid Care Allowance, and losing access to free road tax through the loss of entitlement to the Disability Living Allowance Higher Rate Mobility Component. The cost of investment and the running costs for the project are not included in the estimate of benefit savings but form part of the Agency's overall running costs, set out in the Vote 3 Appropriation Accounts.
I hope you find this reply useful.
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what (a) the original assumptions were and (b) the current savings assumptions are for the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) 1998-99; what factors were taken into account in the revision of savings assumptions for BIP for 1997-98 and 1998-99; and if the costs of BIP for 1997-98 and 1998-99 include the costs of appeals following decisions made under the scheme.
The original estimate of benefit expenditure savings from BIP was £20m in 1997-98 and £30m in 1998-99. It was based on the results of the Disability Living Allowance Benefit Review, published February 1997. The current estimate of savings are £8m in 1997-98 and £30m in 1998-99. It is based on monitoring information from BIP and reflects the delayed start of the project in 1997 and subsequent changes to the range of people included in the exercise. The estimate takes account of the cost of reviews and appeals. It also takes account of additional savings from some cases losing premiums in the income related benefits, some carers losing Invalid Care Allowance, and losing access to free road tax through the loss of entitlement to the Disability Living Allowance Higher Rate Mobility Component.
Both estimates assume that cases with a changed award would have remained on their original level of benefit for 32 weeks. This is an assumption common to Benefits Agency activity. A proportion
of total savings for cases reviewed in any particular year are allocated to the two subsequent years. This takes account of some benefit recipients being reviewed towards the end of the financial year, and the variation in the length of time recipients with a changed award would have remained on their original level of benefit.
I hope you find this reply useful.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |