| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Contact Orders
Mr. Gapes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February, Official Report, columns 718-19, if he will now instruct the court service to begin to collate information of the number of cases where parents with care have been imprisoned following non-compliance with a contact order made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. [17774]
Mr. Jonathan Evans: No. On any item of legislation there is a profusion of information which it may or may not be useful to collect. The collection of statistical information places considerable demands on the time and resources of the Court Service, and thus must focus on the areas of central importance. My answer of 23 February gives details of the statistics collected on contact orders and other section 8 orders.
Mr. Gapes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February, Official Report, columns 718-19, what plans his Department has to monitor (a) the workings of the Children Act 1989 and (b) legal cases arising from section 8 orders under the Children Act 1989. [17775]
Mr. Evans: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 February 1996, Official Report, column 323.
SCOTLAND
Police Officer Numbers
Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors, other than population, determine police officer numbers per division in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland. [18054]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is for individual chief constables to decide the factors which are used to determine police officer numbers in their divisions.
4 Mar 1996 : Column: 74
William James McKay
Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Crown Office in the case before Lord Hope in the Court of Criminal Appeal on 28 February. [18685]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The case concerned a note of appeal by the Lord Advocate in terms of section 228A(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. On 5 December 1995 William James McKay pled guilty in the High Court at Glasgow to four charges of possessing quantities of controlled drugs with intent to supply them to another and one charge of unlawfully possessing a controlled drug. Following upon a plea in mitigation to the effect that the accused was now drug free and counselling young drug addicts, the trial judge deferred sentence for six months for good behaviour. The trial judge stated that were he to sentence the accused on the basis of his record of previous convictions and the offences to which he pled guilty, the sentence that he would have been thinking of imposing would have been one of seven years.
On 6 December 1995 the Lord Advocate became aware of the trial judge's decision to defer sentence in light of that plea in mitigation. On 11 December 1995, on the instructions of the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office wrote to the clerk of court asking to be provided with copies of all reports and documentation which were available to and placed before the trial judge. A written note, incorporating information provided by the trial advocate depute, was prepared by a Crown Office official for the Lord Advocate.
Appeals under section 228A(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 require to be taken within 28 days. On 27 December 1995 the Lord Advocate decided to proceed with an appeal on the basis of the information available at the time. On the basis of that information it appeared to the Lord Advocate that, having regard to the whole circumstances of the case, the deferment of sentence by the trial judge had been inappropriate.
On 29 December 1995 a note of appeal was lodged on behalf of the Lord Advocate. It contained grounds of appeal to the effect that the deferment of sentence was inappropriate having regard to the gravity of the offences of which the accused had been convicted, the value and quantities of the various drugs referred to in the indictment, the fact that the accused was found in possession of the drugs in Her Majesty's prison Barlinnie, on the day following the imposition of a sentence of 18 months imprisonment in respect of a previous contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the criminal record of the accused.
The grounds of appeal did not invite the court to lay down minimum sentences in respect of contraventions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 committed in prisons. The trial judge's report about the case was sent to the Crown Office on 22 February 1996. It was accompanied by the documentation requested on 11 December 1995. When an appeal is taken under section 228A(a) of the 1975 Act, the Lord Advocate's position in respect of the appeal is reviewed after the trial judge's report becomes available. On receipt of the trial judge's report on the present case the papers were reviewed by Crown counsel. They were
4 Mar 1996 : Column: 75
then placed before the Lord Advocate. After studying the trial judge's report, the documentation which had been before the trial judge and a further report dated 16 February 1996 from the Glasgow community drugs project, the Lord Advocate decided not to proceed with the appeal which had been taken.
Mr. Ian McCartney:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how employment levels in the Benefits Agency will be affected by the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance; [9792]
Mr. Roger Evans:
The Benefits Agency will be taking over payment of the contributory element of what is currently unemployment benefit when jobseeker's allowance is introduced. There will be no jobs cut in the Benefits Agency as a result of the implementation of jobseeker's allowance nor will there be any surplus staff.
Ms Lynne:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claims ceased within four weeks of liable relatives action in each year since 1989. [14457]
(2) how many surplus staff there will be in the Benefits Agency as a result of the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance. [9791]
| Year | Number |
|---|---|
| 1989-90 | 47,122 |
| 1990-91 | 60,056 |
| 1991-92 | 80,261 |
| 1992-93(11) | 16,142 |
| 1993-94 | 24,383 |
| 1994-95 | 12,937 |
| 1995-96(12) | 15,186 |
(11) Figures for 1992-93 onwards relate to spousal maintenance and sponsored immigrants only.
(12) To December 1995.
Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of how many claims involving liable relatives income support ceased within four weeks in (a) 1989-90 and (b) 1990-91. [15831]
Mr. Mitchell: The information is not available.
Child Support Agency
Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the benefit savings attributable to the Child Support Agency if a multiplier of 21 weeks were used when considering the savings due to the withdrawal of income support claims. [15754]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The information is as follows:
1993-94: £327 million
1994-95: £348 million.
These figures include savings where:
4 Mar 1996 : Column: 76
- the level of child maintenance reduced the amount of income support in payment;
the level of child maintenance removed the need for income support;
the claim for income support was withdrawn following Child Support Agency involvement;
and resultant housing benefit, council tax benefit, family credit and disability working allowance savings.
- (2) who has responsibility for the collection of money when an employer has failed to comply with a detachment of earnings order. [17707]
Mr. Mitchell: Absent parents who have a liability to make payments of child support maintenance remain liable until the payment in question is made to the appropriate person irrespective of the way in which that payment is collected. However, employers have a duty to pass on, to the Secretary of State, moneys collected direct from an absent parent's earnings under a deduction from earnings order. Payments must be made by the 19th day of the month following the month in which the deduction is made. Failure to comply with the requirements of a deduction from earnings order is an offence punishable by a fine.
Where, for any reason, a deduction from earnings order proves ineffective as a method of collecting payments of child support maintenance it is for the Secretary of State to consider what further action may be appropriate.
Ms Lynne:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 January, Official Report, column 568, relating to the financial memorandum of the Child Support Bill, how he intends to quantify long-term effects on expenditure resulting from the activities of the Child Support Agency; and how he will ensure that any savings are solely the result of the activities of the agency. [18169]
Mr. Mitchell:
As part of the process of evaluation of child support policy, estimates will be made of the possible pattern of public expenditure if the scheme had not been introduced. These will attempt to isolate the behavioural changes arising from the child support scheme compared with, for example, those resulting from other changes made in the benefit system, and demographic changes. Such an evaluation is necessarily long term, because of the staggered take-on of the Child Support Agency's caseload, and because the full impact of the new departures system will not be apparent for several years.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |