| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 July 2007 : Column 1243W—continued
Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many occasions the Youth Justice Board has placed in the Library statistics on the use of restraint in secure training centres other than in response to a parliamentary question in the last five years. [147712]
Mr. Hanson: Following a request from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we agreed to place quarterly statistics in the Library. So far, data for the final three quarters of 2006 have been placed in the Library.
Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many occasions the Youth Justice Board has released information about the use of restraint other than in response to a parliamentary question in the last five years. [147713]
Mr. Hanson: The Youth Justice Board has replied to numerous requests for information about use of restraint and it supplies quarterly statistics which are placed in the Library of the House. As the information requested covers an extended period, it could not be collated without disproportionate cost.
Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment was made of the level of risk to trainees in incidents of restraint in secure training centres examined by an external expert reporting to Northamptonshire police following the death of Gareth Myatt. [147896]
Mr. Hanson: The expert witness concerned raised a number of issues related to the system of restraint used in secure training centres. After considering the expert's report the Youth Justice Board suspended use of the double embrace technique in June 2004.
Modifications to the approved holds were subsequently assessed by the panel of experts advising the Youth Justice Board. These modifications were adopted in 2005 and the double embrace technique was permanently withdrawn.
Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on what occasions the expert panel advising the Youth Justice Board on restraint met between 1996 and 2007. [147709]
Mr. Hanson: An expert panel advising the Home Office on restraint techniques met on 27 January 1998. Expert panels advising the Youth Justice Board met on 25 November 2004, 10 March 2005 and 21 December2006.
Voting Behaviour
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of voter turnout among people with English as a second language. [147766]
Mr. Wills: The Government have not made any estimation of election turnout rates among those eligible voters whose first language is not English. The Electoral Commission has the role of evaluating election turnout, and published its report ‘Election 2005: Turnout. How many, who and why?’ in October 2005, That report indicated, based on research polls, that the turnout rate of BME groups was 47 per cent. (lower than the overall turnout of 61 per cent.). However,, this figure does not include any consideration of English as a second language, and the Commission has not included any research into this issue within its report. Such research would undoubtedly prove difficult to undertake, since it would not be clear from any direct recorded source whether an eligible voter uses another language, other than English, as his first language.
The Government, however, have taken steps to ensure that all eligible voters, including those with English as a second language, should have access to the electoral process. Sections 36 and 37 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 enable local electoral officers to provide certain documents and guidance to voters in alternative languages.
Some authorities have taken advantage of these new powers to provide guidance in a number of languages. However, ballot papers are exempted from the documents that can be translated, as this would breach secrecy rules.
Witnesses: Children
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what arrangements there are in relation to the conduct of court cases in EU countries involving minors from other member states intervention in (a) countries and (b) circumstances where it is considered the relevant court is not suitably competent; and if he will make a statement. [146934]
Bridget Prentice: Ministers have no powers to intervene in court proceedings in the UK or in the courts of other countries.
Work and Pensions
Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission
Mr. Laws:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what duty of care the Child Maintenance
and Enforcement Commission owes to parents with care in respect of maintenance entitlement; and if he will make a statement. [146139]
Mr. Plaskitt: The responsibility for paying child maintenance lies with the non-resident parent in each case, not with the administrative body (whether CSA now or the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in the future). It follows that CMEC will not have a common law duty of care to its clients in respect of child maintenance.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the proportion of non-resident parents each year who would be eligible for an adjustment to their child maintenance under the new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to reflect their incomes being (a) higher and (b) lower than in the previous tax years if the threshold for re-assessment was set at (i) 10, (ii) 15, (iii) 20 and (iv) 25 per cent.; [146181]
(2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of non-resident parents who will have their maintenance amended using the previous year's HM Revenue and Customs income data under the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. [146193]
Mr. Plaskitt: With the increased focus on voluntary arrangements and the ending of the requirement that parents with care on benefit be treated as applying for child maintenance, not all of the current Child Support Agency caseload will choose to use the statutory maintenance service. Since we do not know the precise composition of the resulting caseload, it is not possible to estimate how many non- resident parents will be eligible for an adjustment.
Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission: Fees and Charges
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his policy is on charging parents with care an upfront fee to use the new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission; and if he will make a statement; [146433]
(2) what reasons he has made it his policy that charges applied for the use of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission should only fall on the non-resident parent; what level of charges is planned; what the purpose of the charges is; and if he will make a statement. [147109]
Mr. Plaskitt: The final arrangements for charging have not yet been decided. The Secretary of State will be responsible for laying regulations on the specific arrangements for any charging scheme following advice from the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.
I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 5.48 of the White Paper: A new system of child maintenance [Cm 6979] and to paragraph 5.43 of the White Paper Consultation
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to exempt non-resident parents using the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission from paying fees if they have (a) standing orders or direct debit arrangements and (b) good levels of compliance; and if he will make a statement. [146436]
Mr. Plaskitt: The final arrangements for charging have not yet been decided. The Secretary of State will be responsible for laying regulations on the specific arrangements for any charging scheme following advice from the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.
I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 5.48 and 5.49 of the White Paper: ‘A new system of child maintenance’ [Cm 6979].
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to give the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission powers to pursue maintenance from non-resident parents who have moved abroad; and if he will make a statement. [146444]
Mr. Plaskitt: As is currently the case with the Child Support Agency, the Commission will not usually have jurisdiction to make or pursue a maintenance liability where the non-resident parent moves abroad.
The Ministry of Justice does however operate a system for administering international child and spousal maintenance cases; this is known as the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders (REMO).
Where a parent with care applies to their local magistrates' court or family proceedings court, details of the maintenance liability can be referred to the foreign jurisdiction—where the non-resident parent now resides—whom will be able to apply their domestic collection and enforcement mechanisms in order to recover the amount due. They will then refer this money back to the UK REMO administrators.
The UK has reciprocal maintenance agreements with over 100 states and territories.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what analytical mechanism underlies the choice of the shares of gross income which will be applied to calculate the child maintenance amounts under the new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission; and if he will make a statement. [146607]
Mr. Plaskitt: A tax benefit model was used to convert a range of gross incomes to equivalent net incomes based on expected tax and national insurance structures for 2009-10. Different percentages were applied to these levels of gross income. The rates were chosen so that the resultant liabilities were broadly the same as liabilities under the post 2003 scheme at the equivalent net income levels.
Mr. Laws:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what budget will be allocated to the Child
Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to assist and enable parents who have broken up to establish private maintenance arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [146609]
Mr. Plaskitt: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question on 25 June 2007, Official Report, column 444W.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |