Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

433717

registered interest
date	02/12/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Fraud
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 24 November 2015 to Question 16871, what the budget allocated to the Specialist Fraud Division was in each of the last six years.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	18484
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/12/2015 answer text <p>The budget allocated to the Specialist Fraud Division in each of the last six years was:</p><br /><p>2009/10 - £7.3m</p><p>2010/11 - £23.4m</p><p>2011/12 - £22.1m</p><p>2012/13 - £26.8m</p><p>2013/14 - £25.6m</p><p>2014/15 - £23.6m</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 07/12/2015 15:35:41 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

433718

registered interest
date	02/12/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Fraud
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 24 November 2015 to Question 16871, how many full-time equivalent staff worked in the Specialist Fraud Division in each of the last six years.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	18485
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/12/2015 answer text <p>The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff that have worked in the Specialist Fraud Division in each of the last six years is shown below.</p><br /><p>March 2010 - 142 FTE</p><p>March 2011 - 134 FTE</p><p>March 2012 - 138 FTE</p><p>March 2013 - 258 FTE</p><p>March 2014 - 233 FTE</p><p>March 2015 - 230 FTE</p><br /><p>Note: The figures presented above reflect staff in post on 31 March of each year.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 07/12/2015 15:37:26 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

428971

registered interest
date	18/11/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Minimum Wage: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many cases of suspected non-compliance with minimum wage legislation were referred to the CPS in each of the last five years; and how many such referrals led to a prosecution in each of those years.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	16852
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/11/2015 answer text <p>Data held centrally by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), together with information provided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which has responsibility for enforcing the law in relation to the National Minimum Wage (NMW), shows that there were three cases which were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by HMRC in the financial year 2010 – 2011, of which two resulted in prosecution. No referrals were made in the financial years 2011 – 2012 and 2012 – 2013. No cases were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by HMRC in 2013 – 2014 and two cases were referred in 2014 – 2015, of which one resulted in prosecution. One case has been referred in this financial year (2015-2016), which is currently under consideration.</p><p>The majority of employers identified as paying below the National Minimum Wage pay arrears on receipt of a formal Notice of Underpayment. Where they do not do so, HMRC pursues recovery through the civil courts. For deliberate non-compliance or obstructive behaviour HMRC operates a policy of selective and exemplary criminal investigation action as part of a wider enforcement strategy.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 23/11/2015 13:42:29 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

428972

registered interest
date	18/11/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Minimum Wage: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many employers were (a) charged with and (b) convicted of a criminal offence by the Crown Prosecution Service for non-compliance with minimum wage legislation in each of the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	16870
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/11/2015 answer text <p>Data held centrally by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), together with information provided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which has responsibility for enforcing the law in relation to the National Minimum Wage (NMW), shows that in the financial year 2010 – 2011, no employers were charged with a criminal offence for non-compliance with minimum wage legislation but one employer was convicted from an earlier charge. One charge was made in the financial year 2011 – 2012 and one conviction was made in 2012 – 2013. No cases were charged or convicted in 2013 – 2014 and one case was charged in 2014 – 2015.</p><br /><p>The majority of employers identified as paying below the National Minimum Wage pay arrears on receipt of a formal Notice of Underpayment. Where they do not do so, HMRC pursues recovery through the civil courts. For deliberate non-compliance or obstructive behaviour HMRC operates a policy of selective and exemplary criminal investigation action as part of a wider enforcement strategy.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 24/11/2015 11:49:14 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

428973

registered interest
date	18/11/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Minimum Wage: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many Crown Prosecution Service staff worked on (a) referrals for suspected non-compliance with minimum wage legislation and (b) prosecutions for non-compliance with minimum wage legislation in each of the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	16871
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/11/2015 answer text <p>All cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for the purposes of considering a prosecution for an offence contrary to national minimum wage legislation, are dealt with by the Specialist Fraud Division. The number of people dealing with such cases at any given time depends on the number of cases received and how they are allocated.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 24/11/2015 11:50:08 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

156123

registered interest
date	17/11/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, whether the Serious Fraud Office has concluded any deferred prosecution agreements with any companies charged with fraud or corruption offences.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	214476
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2014 answer text <p>Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) became available to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) on 24 February 2014. To date the SFO has not concluded any DPAs.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 19/11/2014 12:44:14 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

155387

registered interest
date	11/11/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Fraud: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many fraud prosecutions were carried out in England and Wales in each Crown Prosecution Service business area.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	214293
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The table below shows the number of defendants prosecuted and finalised in 2013-14 by the Crown Prosecution Service in each business area and the Central Casework Division, where the Principal Offence was categorised as ‘Fraud and Forgery’.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The category of ‘Fraud and Forgery, comprises a number of offences including offences prosecuted by way of the Fraud Act 2006, fraudulently evading income tax, VAT, excise duty or national insurance, bankruptcy offences, money laundering, forgery or using a false instrument and obtaining property, services or pecuniary advantage by deception.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cymru Wales</p></td><td><p>426</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Eastern</p></td><td><p>683</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>East Midlands</p></td><td><p>570</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>London</p></td><td><p>3,196</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Merseyside &amp; Cheshire</p></td><td><p>528</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>North East</p></td><td><p>577</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>North West</p></td><td><p>931</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>South East</p></td><td><p>762</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>South West</p></td><td><p>558</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Thames and Chiltern</p></td><td><p>802</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wessex</p></td><td><p>449</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>West Midlands</p></td><td><p>824</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Yorkshire &amp; Humberside</p></td><td><p>933</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Central Casework Division</p></td><td><p>6,803</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>England</strong><strong> &amp; Wales</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>18,042</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Data Source: CPS Management Information System</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Central Casework Division includes ‘Fraud and Forgery’ prosecutions previously undertaken by the prosecution function of the Department for Work and Pensions.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Principal Offence Category is assigned at the end of a prosecution to indicate the most serious offence with which a defendant is charged at the time of finalisation. It is not possible to disaggregate the outcomes of individual offences, such as fraud, without undertaking a manual search of case records which would incur disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 17/11/2014 15:32:39 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

155390

registered interest
date	11/11/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Undocumented Workers: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many prosecutions under section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 have been (a) brought and (b) successful in each year since the introduction of that offence.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	214408
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The records held by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) indicate the number of offences charged, in which a prosecution commenced at magistrates’ courts.</p><p> </p><p>Section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 creates the offence of knowingly employing an adult subject to immigration control who has not been granted leave to enter or remain or whose leave to remain is invalid, has ceased to have effect or is subject to a condition preventing him from accepting the employment.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The table below sets out the number of offences in each year since the introduction of the offence, charged by way of Section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, in England and Wales.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>Offences Charged</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009-2010</p></td><td><p>14</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-2011</p></td><td><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-2012</p></td><td><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-2013</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-2014</p></td><td><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>Data Source: CPS Management Information System</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to disaggregate which of these offences resulted in a successful outcome without reviewing individual case files which would incur disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 17/11/2014 15:33:53 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

101519

registered interest
date	29/10/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	European Arrest Warrants
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, what recent assessment he has made of the usefulness of the European Arrest Warrant as a prosecutorial tool.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	212405
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government and the DPP are in agreement that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) offers the best way of keeping Britain safe, particularly from serious criminals and terrorists.</p><p>The introduction of the EAW has resulted in much faster processing of extradition requests, meaning that we can secure the return of fugitives wanted for serious offending in this country often in a matter of weeks, not many months or even years as was the case under previous arrangements. The Arrest Warrant is also more effective. For example, under the previous regime, the European Convention on Extradition, some Member States can refuse to surrender their own nationals, including France, Germany and Spain, which is not the position in EAW cases. Furthermore, the EAW overcomes problems of time limitation in other countries. It also means that wanted people can now be extradited to face fraud and tax charges, which was not the case before.</p><p>The Government has recently made changes in the way that the EAW is processed through our courts. These changes are designed to offer greater protection to UK citizens and other UK residents against disproportionate requests and the risk of spending unreasonable lengths of time in pre-trial detention abroad. With those changes in place, the Government is convinced that the EAW provides an effective and cost-efficient tool in the fight against trans-national crime, and it is one which prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals are keen to see preserved.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 212406 question first answered 03/11/2014 17:02:26 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

101520

registered interest
date	29/10/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	European Arrest Warrants
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, what recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the usefulness of the European Arrest Warrant as a prosecutorial tool.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	212406
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government and the DPP are in agreement that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) offers the best way of keeping Britain safe, particularly from serious criminals and terrorists.</p><p>The introduction of the EAW has resulted in much faster processing of extradition requests, meaning that we can secure the return of fugitives wanted for serious offending in this country often in a matter of weeks, not many months or even years as was the case under previous arrangements. The Arrest Warrant is also more effective. For example, under the previous regime, the European Convention on Extradition, some Member States can refuse to surrender their own nationals, including France, Germany and Spain, which is not the position in EAW cases. Furthermore, the EAW overcomes problems of time limitation in other countries. It also means that wanted people can now be extradited to face fraud and tax charges, which was not the case before.</p><p>The Government has recently made changes in the way that the EAW is processed through our courts. These changes are designed to offer greater protection to UK citizens and other UK residents against disproportionate requests and the risk of spending unreasonable lengths of time in pre-trial detention abroad. With those changes in place, the Government is convinced that the EAW provides an effective and cost-efficient tool in the fight against trans-national crime, and it is one which prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals are keen to see preserved.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 212405 question first answered 03/11/2014 17:02:26 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry