HC Deb 23 October 1981 vol 10 cc201-3W

Sir John Biggs-Davison asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much agricultural land, and of what quality, would be lost if Stansted airport were to be developed as desired by the British Airports Authority.

Mrs Fenner:

My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment have appointed an inspector to consider the British Airports Authority's planning proposals to develop Stansted airport. The issues, which are raised by these proposals, are now the subject of examination at the public inquiry and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on such matters at this stage.

Timber Felling (Licences)

Mr Bob Cryer asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is undertaking any review of the criteria used when granting felling licences for timber; what representations have been made regarding timber felling; and if he will make a statement.

Table one: Families not receiving supplementary benefit
In full time work or self employed
One parent families (10) (30) (10*) (10*) (10) (40) (30) 70
Two parent families 110 250 100 230 300 690 790 1,750
Sick or disabled for more than 3 months
One and two parent families (20) (30) (10*) (30) (40) 110 70 160
Unemployed for more than three months
One and two parent families (40) 90 (10) (20) (20) (40) (30) (50)
Other one and two parent families (20) (20) (10*) (20) (30) 60 (40) 110
Total number of families and children 200 420 140 310 410 930 970 2,140

Note: * indicates that the number in the group is below 10,000.

Table Two: Families Receiving Supplementary Benefit
Sick or disabled for more than three months [10*] [10*] [10] [30]
Unemployed for more than three months [10*] [10*] 140 360
Others 310 570 [10*] [10*]
— — — —
Total 330 590 160 400
Note *indicates that the number in the group is below 10,000.

Mr Peter Walker:

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 31 July 1981.—[Vol 955, c. 1405–6.] No representations have been received regarding the criteria taken into account by the Forestry Commission when considering applications for felling licences in terms of the Forestry Act 1967.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Family Incomes

Mr. Ashley asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, at the latest time for which the information is available, how many children were living in families below the supplementary benefit level, on supplementary benefit and with incomes up to 10 per cent. 20 per cent., and 40 per cent. above supplementary benefit level, classified by the employment status of the head of the family; and whether there were one or two parents.

Mrs Chalker:

The information is shown in the following tables. For families not receiving supplementary benefit, it is not possible to break down the estimates in table one between one and two parent families, other than for those who are in full-time work or self-employed, because the samples are too small. For families receiving supplementary benefit, there is a full breakdown in table two but the right hon. Gentleman will note that the sample sizes in some of these groups are very small. I hope that figures for 1979 will be available around the turn of the year. Notes on the Tables Table One—Families not receiving supplementary benefit.

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000. Consequently the sum of the component parts may not equal the total.
  2. The estimates are based on a Department of Health and Social Security analysis of incomes and other information recorded by respondents to the Family Expenditure Survey. They are subject to statistical error. Those figures in square brackets are subject to very considerable proportionate statistical error.
  3. The estimates relate only to the population living in private households. Families and persons in institutions are not sampled in the Family Expenditure Survey.
  4. The supplementary benefit level is taken as being the supplementary benefit scale rate(s) appropriate to the family using the long term rates for pensioners only.
  5. Income refers to net income including all benefits, less housing costs, travel-to-work expenses, income tax and national insurance contributions as appropriate.
  6. The comparison is based on the family's normal income in the normal employment of the family head. For example, where the head of the family had been off work due to sickness or unemployment for less than three months at the time of the survey, the family's normal income when the head was at work was used in determining their level of income.
  7. The estimates of numbers of families with income below the supplementary benefit level do not indicate unclaimed entitlement to supplementary benefit. For example, those who are in full time work or undertaking full time further education would not normally have entitlement to supplementary benefit. For others not precluded from claiming, no regard is had in these estimates to factors such as disregarded income, treatment of capital or exceptional circumstances additions, each of which can affect payment of supplementary benefit.
Table Two—Families Receiving Supplementary Benefit. Estimates of those receiving supplementary benefit are derived from the Annual Statistical Enquiry of Supplementary Benefit Claimants.

New Cross School

Mr. Peter Griffiths asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for the future of dental therapist training and courses in dental therapy at the New Cross school.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg:

The recent report of the dental strategy review group recommended that the School for Dental Therapists at New Cross should be closed. No decisions have yet been taken. We are consulting widely on this and the group's other recommendations, and the views of interested bodies and individuals will be taken carefully into account before any decisions are made.