Written Answers
Taxis: Exterior Advertising
asked Her Majesty's Government:Under what authority the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police may license the disfigurement of London by widening the area of commercial advertising on public service vehicles plying for hire in the streets of the capital, and what Minister will be accountable in Parliament for his action.
The London Cab Order 1934, made under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 and the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907, provides that a cab licence holder shall not, otherwise than in accordance with the directions of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, display any advertisement inside or outside the cab.On 1st December 1981, the Assistant Commissioner amended his directions so as to permit the display of exterior advertisements. Each design must be individually approved. Similar provisions had already applied to interior advertisements for some years. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the 1934 order, but permission to display advertisements is a matter for the Assistant Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of that order.
The Law Reform Committee: Reports
asked Her Majesty's Government:What reports they have received since 1st January 1975 from the Law Reform Committee, and on what dates, and on what dates they published the reports.
Two reports have been received by the Government since 1st January 1975. The 21st Report, the Final Report on Limitation of Actions, was received on 21st July 1977 and published on 15th September 1977. The 22nd Report, on the Making and Revocation of Wills, was received on 12th March 1980 and published on 22nd May 1980, and is currently proposed to the House for acceptance as part of the Administration of Justice Bill. Two more references are under consideration. The first, on the powers and duties of trustees, is expected to result in a report in the autumn. The second, on latent damage, is still the subject of comment currently being received.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee: Reports
asked Her Majesty's Government:What reports they have received since 1st January 1975 from the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and on what dates, and on what date they published the reports.
The reports submitted by the committee since 1st January 1975 have been:—Report on Section 16 of the Theft Act 1968: received January 1977; published February 1977 (Cmnd 6733).Report on Offences Against the Person: received January 1980; published March 1980 (Cmnd 7844).
Prison Libraries: Rules On Treatment
asked Her Majesty's Government:What is their policy regarding the availability in prison liabraries in England and Wales of the
UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
There is no requirement for prison libraries to hold a copy of the UN Standard Minimum Rules (1955). Libraries are, however, instructed to have available a copy of the Council of Europe Standard Minimum Rules (1973) , which are more relevant to our prison system, as well as of the Prison Rules 1964 and amendments thereto.
The New University Of Ulster
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether, in view of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland's statement,
Higher Education in Northern Ireland—The Future Structure, the Government will give an immediate undertaking to all degree course students at present enrolled for studies at the New University of Ulster, and those given acceptances for October 1982, that they will be enabled to complete their studies at the New University of Ulster.
I can assure the noble Lord that all students currently enrolled at the New University of Ulster and those admitted this coming academic year will be able to complete their courses.
British Atlantic Committee: Grant
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have made a £21,000 grant to the British Atlantic Committee and whether they are contemplating increasing the sum.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has traditionally made a grant to the British Atlantic Committee to promote understanding of NATO. The original grant for 1981–82 was £21,450. An exceptional grant of £8,550 was then made to cover the cost of accommodation for the Atlantic Treaty Association annual assembly which was held in London last year. Towards the end of the financial year the grant was again increased to cover the appointment of a regional information officer, so that the total sum granted in 1981–82 was £40,000. The provision for the grant for 1982–83 is at present £44,000. Any alteration to this figure will be notified to Parliament in the usual way.
The Single Homeless
asked Her Majesty's Government:What their reply has been to the request by Anglican, Catholic and Nonconformist Church organisations concerned in social responsibility that urgent action should be taken to help single homeless people by amendment of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and more investment in council housing programmes.
The Government are currently reviewing the operation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 to see if any changes are necessary. They hope to announce their conclusions shortly. Single homelessness is one of the issues considered in the review.The needs of the homeless were taken into account in distributing the £2·5 billion made available to English local authorities for their housing investment programme in 1982–83. This is 6 per cent. more in real terms than in 1981–82 and includes the largest ever share to inner city partnership and programme authorities. How much authorities spend on meeting the needs of the single homeless is for them to decide.The single homeless will also benefit from the increased allocation of £18 million for hostels in the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1982–83.
Supplementary Benefit 1979: Take-Up Estimates
asked Her Majesty's Government:If they will now publish take-up estimates of supplementary benefit derived from the 1979 Family Expenditure Survey compared with the 1977 figures.
Information is given below, including revised estimates based on further analysis of the original data from the 1977 Family Expenditure Survey (FES).It is too early to judge whether the reformed scheme introduced in November 1980 will have a significant effect on take-up levels. However, we are already seeking actively to promote take-up in the following ways:we issue an invitation to claim to retirement pensioners and widows;we are revising the
Supplementary Benefits Handbook, the layman's guide to the scheme, directed at claimants and their advisers;
general leaflets and posters are on display at post offices and social security offices;
from the beginning of this year, leaflet SB1 has been issued to all unemployed claimants.
We also aim to co-operate as fully as possible at local level with take-up campaigns organised by local authorities, to whom in turn we look for help to ensure that the impact of extra work fits in with all the other tasks which local offices have to perform.
In the light of the new information about rates of take-up among sick and disabled beneficiaries, we now propose a further step. We are arranging for the leaflet SB1 to be issued to all sickness benefit claimants on the first review of their sickness benefit claim (not later than two calendar months from the outset). When the statutory sick pay (SSP) scheme comes into operation, the leaflet will be issued on transfer of the case to DHSS when SSP entitlement is exhausted. So far as pensioners are concerned, although the figures show some drop in percentage take-up between 1977 and 1979, the average amount unclaimed rose little in money terms and therefore fell significantly in real terms. The 7 per cent. increase (from £2·90 to £3·10) compares with a 27 per cent. increase in the long-term scale rate from November 1976 to November 1978.
The indications are that most of the additional pensioners with unclaimed entitlement are receiving housing rebates or allowances. For them in particular the introduction of housing benefit should improve the position. Our proposals include enhanced tapers for pensioners with incomes below the needs allowance and an improvement in the needs allowance for all pen-
| ESTIMATES OF TAKE-UP OF SUPPLENTARY BENEFIT FOR 1979 | |||||
Total likely to be entitled(000's) | Proportion receiving benefit
| Number eligible but not receiving benefit(000's) | £ million per annum Estimated Benefit unclaimed
| Average Weekly Amount Unclaimed
| |
| (i) Pensioners | 2,590 | 65% | 900 | 145 | £03·10 |
| (ii) Non-pensioners*—total | 1,420 | 78% | 320 | 210 | £12·70 |
| (iii) Sick and Disabled | 300 | 63% | 110 | 90 | £15·40 |
| (iv) Unemployed | 700 | 81% | 130 | 70 | £10·50 |
| (v) One-parent families not included in (iii) & (iv) | 370 | 85% | 60 | 30 | £10·20 |
| TOTAL for all groups | 4,010 | 70% | 1,210 | 355 | £5·60 |
| Original and revised estimates of take-up for 1977: (O = Original estimate, R = revised estimate) | |||||||||
Total likely to be entitled (000s) | Proportion receiving benefit
| Numbers (000's) eligible but not receiving benefit | Estimated benefit (£ million per annum) unclaimed
| Average Weekly Amount Unclaimed
| |||||
O
| R† | O
| R† | O
| R† | O
| R† | ||
| (i) Pensioners | 2,320 | 73% | 72% | 610 | 650 | 100 | 100 | £03·10 | £2·90 |
| (ii) Non-Pensioners*—total | 1,680 | 76% | 79% | 420 | 350 | 245 | 165 | £11·00 | £9·10 |
| (iii) Sick and Disabled | 290 | 87% | 73% | 30 | 80 | 15 | 40 | £8·00 | £9·80 |
| (iv) Unemployed | 950 | 81% | 79% | 170 | 200 | 90 | 90 | £10·10 | £8·70 |
| (v) One-parent families not included in (iii) &(iv) | 380 | 89% | 87% | 40 | 50 | 20 | 25 | £10·50 | £9·30 |
| TOTAL-all groups | 4,000 | 74% | 75% | 1,030 | 1,000 | 340 | 265 | £6·30 | £510 |
Footnotes
| |||||||||
*This total is slightly greater than the sum of lines (iii), (iv) and (v) since they include a small residual group of miscellaneous cases. | |||||||||
| †The original 1977 estimates included provision for an unanalysed residual group whose take-up rate was estimated to be 19 per cent. The Supplementary Benefits Commission expressed doubts about this group, and in their 1978 Annual Report indicated that the 1979 FES analysis ought to provide more information. The work has suggested that two-thirds of the group should be excluded because there were no grounds on which to base an assumption that they might have made a successful claim for benefit: and that the remaining third should be re-classified to the sick and disabled group (though all had jobs to return to, and, at interview, 66 per cent. had been absent from work for two weeks or less).Thus the main difference between the original and revised 1977 estimates is the lower take-up figure for this group. | |||||||||
sioners. These changes will lead to some reduction both in the numbers with resources below supplementary benefit level after meeting residual housing costs and in the amounts of potential entitlement of the remainder. We are actively discussing with the local authority associations possible ways of identifying, and informing, housing benefit claimants who might also have title to supplementary benefit.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before ten o'clock.