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 previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member
tabling member	label

Search

78635

	registered interest
	date	17/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Law Officers' Departments
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, which regulations of the Law Officers' Departments are under review; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	206416
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2014 answer text <p>No regulations are currently under review.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 01/09/2014 13:56:14 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

106349

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Sexting: Children
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many cases including the sending of a nude or sexually explicit electronic image of an individual under the age of 18 where the perpetrator of the crime is under the age of 18 have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service in the last three years; how many such cases have been taken forward for prosecution; and how many such prosecutions have been successful.
	tabling member constituency	Basingstoke
	tabling member printed	Maria Miller
	uin	213364
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/11/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not collect specific data on suspects referred to the CPS for a charging decision where the sending of sexually explicit images of children is alleged. However, data is available to indicate the number of offences charged, in which a prosecution commenced at magistrates’ courts, for offences of involving indecent images of children.</p><p> </p><p>The two main offence provisions for the prosecution of offences relating to indecent images of children are section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (making, distributing, showing or advertising indecent images of children) and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent images of children).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The table below sets out the number of offences charged by way of the above legislation, in each of the last three years, in England and Wales.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2011-2012</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-2013</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection of Children Act 1978 { 1 }</p></td><td><p>15,599</p></td><td><p>14,694</p></td><td><p>15,574</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Criminal Justice Act 1988 { 160 }</p></td><td><p>3,885</p></td><td><p>3,849</p></td><td><p>4,265</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Data Source: CPS Management Information System</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to disaggregate offences which relate to indecent images sent by way of an electronic device as opposed to other indecent image offences, cases where a conviction was obtained or the age of the perpetrator without reviewing individual case files incurring disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 07/11/2014 11:21:16 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1480 label Biography information for Dame Maria Miller

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

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

93087

	registered interest
	date	14/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Crown Prosecution Service
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many and what proportion of local authorities in England and Wales have adopted the new information-sharing protocol between the Crown Prosecution Service, police and councils.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	210546
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/10/2014 answer text <p>Implementation of the measures in the national protocol is secured through agreement of local arrangements. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains no central records of the number of local authorities that have adopted the national 2013 Protocol. However, in a recent survey of Chief Crown Prosecutors, the CPS found that, following the publication of the national multi-agency 2013 protocol, 82 of the 174 Local Authorities responsible for children’s services have so far signed local disclosure protocols.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 21/10/2014 16:10:41 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright previous answer version 22626 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland answering member 4106
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76970

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	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, how many and what proportion of all (a) Crown Prosecution Service and (b) Serious Fraud Office cases were prosecuted by external counsel in 2013-14 and each of the five preceding years; and what the cost to each agency was of such counsel in each such year.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205096
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2014 answer text <p>Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) cases are not prosecuted exclusively by self-employed advocates or in-house advocates. Many cases are transferred between self-employed and in-house advocates and therefore it is not possible to report on the number or proportion of cases prosecuted solely by one type of advocate or the other.</p><p>However, the CPS does record the proportion of work undertaken across the 13 CPS Areas in the Crown Court by self-employed advocates by value, in accordance with the graduated fee scheme (GFS). CPS records show:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p><strong>Crown Court Advocacy (13 Area position)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td><p><strong>SELF-EMPLOYED ADVOCATES</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td><p><strong>% of prosecutions by GFS value</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008-09</p></td><td><p>78%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009-10</p></td><td><p>75%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-11</p></td><td><p>72%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>69%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>70%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-14</p></td><td><p>71%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The cost to the CPS of fees paid to self-employed advocates in relation to Crown Court and Higher Court advice, preparation and advocacy for each of the last six years is:</p><p> </p><p>2013-14: £114,606,541</p><p>2012-13: £110,608,524</p><p>2011-12; £111,041,044</p><p>2010-11: £134,194,869</p><p>2009-10: £135,296,368</p><p>2008-09: £127,132,677</p><p> </p><p>Note: Figures include VAT and are all fees paid to self-employed advocates not just those paid under the graduated fee scheme.</p><p>All of the cases prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office in the Crown Court are prosecuted by external counsel. Costs associated with this are detailed in the following table.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p>2008/09</p></td><td><p>2009/10</p></td><td><p>2010/11</p></td><td><p>2011/12</p></td><td><p>2012/13</p></td><td><p>2013/14</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Fees to counsel relating</strong></p><p><strong> to prosecution work</strong></p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£3,146k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£2,313k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£3,651k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£4,008k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£3,548k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£4,167k</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 01/09/2014 14:06:48 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76987

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Magistrates' Courts
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many and what proportion of cases at the magistrates' court in (a) 2013-14 and (b) each of the previous five financial years were subject to a (i) decision by the prosecution to discontinue the case, (ii) decision in committal proceedings to discharge the defendant, (iii) decision by the magistrate to dismiss the case on grounds of no case to answer and (iv) dismissal after trial.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205185
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the outcomes of prosecutions, on a defendant basis, at magistrates' courts. Prosecution outcomes comprise convictions; guilty pleas, convictions after trial and cases proved in the absence of the defendant. Unsuccessful outcomes represent all other outcomes and include prosecutions dropped (discontinuances, withdrawals, prosecutions stayed and no evidence offered), discharged committals, dismissals and administrative finalisations.</p><p>The table below shows the volume and proportion of defendants whose proceedings were discontinued by way of a written notice under Section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, discharged at committal, dismissed no case to answer by magistrates and dismissed after a full trial, in each of the last six years.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2008-2009</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2009-2010</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-2011</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-2012</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-2013</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(i) Discontinued</p></td><td><p>30,226</p></td><td><p>30,665</p></td><td><p>32,532</p></td><td><p>30,217</p></td><td><p>26,600</p></td><td><p>23,083</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Discontinued</p></td><td><p>3.3%</p></td><td><p>3.5%</p></td><td><p>3.9%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>3.6%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(ii) Discharged</p><p>Committal</p></td><td><p>1,984</p></td><td><p>2,252</p></td><td><p>1,690</p></td><td><p>1,308</p></td><td><p>1,270</p></td><td><p>308</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Discharged</p><p>Committal</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.3%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(iii) Dismissed No</p><p>Case To Answer</p></td><td><p>1,707</p></td><td><p>1,605</p></td><td><p>1,525</p></td><td><p>1,362</p></td><td><p>1,224</p></td><td><p>1,433</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Dismissed No</p><p>Case to Answer</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(iv) Dismissed</p><p>After Full Trial</p></td><td><p>18,682</p></td><td><p>20,322</p></td><td><p>19,517</p></td><td><p>17,681</p></td><td><p>17,168</p></td><td><p>17,805</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Dismissed</p><p>After Full Trial</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>2.3%</p></td><td><p>2.3%</p></td><td><p>2.2%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>2.8%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>TOTAL </strong></p><p><strong>PROSECUTED</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>928,708</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>872,585</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>840,983</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>787,547</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>700,423</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>633,306</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/07/2014 15:24:05 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76988

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Crown Court
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many and what proportion of cases at the Crown Court in (a) 2013-14 and (b) each of the previous five financial years were subject to (i) a decision by the prosecution to offer no evidence, (ii) a judge-ordered acquittal, (iii) a judge-directed acquittal and (iv) an acquittal after trial.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205186
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the outcomes of prosecutions, on a defendant basis, at the Crown Court. Prosecution outcomes comprise convictions; guilty pleas and convictions after trial. Unsuccessful outcomes represent all other outcomes and include judge ordered acquittals (discontinuances, indictment stayed, charges left on file and no evidence offered), judge directed acquittals, acquittals after trial and administrative finalisations.</p><p>The table below shows the volume and proportion of defendants as a total of the 13 CPS Areas, where the CPS offered no evidence, where a judge ordered or directed an acquittal and where the defendant was acquitted after trial, in each of the last six years.</p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p><strong>2008-2009</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2009-2010</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-2011</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-2012</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-2013</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(i) Offer No Evidence</p></td><td><p>9,734</p></td><td><p>10,537</p></td><td><p>12,433</p></td><td><p>10,543</p></td><td><p>9,106</p></td><td><p>7,795</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Offer No Evidence</p></td><td><p>9.4%</p></td><td><p>9.6%</p></td><td><p>10.6%</p></td><td><p>9.8%</p></td><td><p>9.5%</p></td><td><p>8.3%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(ii) Judge Ordered</p><p>Acquittal</p></td><td><p>12,198</p></td><td><p>12,930</p></td><td><p>14,958</p></td><td><p>12,527</p></td><td><p>11,099</p></td><td><p>10,714</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Judge Ordered</p><p>Acquittal</p></td><td><p>11.7%</p></td><td><p>11.7%</p></td><td><p>12.8%</p></td><td><p>11.7%</p></td><td><p>11.6%</p></td><td><p>11.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(iii) Judge Directed</p><p>Acquittal</p></td><td><p>990</p></td><td><p>1,048</p></td><td><p>1,101</p></td><td><p>857</p></td><td><p>774</p></td><td><p>620</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Judge Directed</p><p>Acquittal</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td><td><p>0.9%</p></td><td><p>0.8%</p></td><td><p>0.8%</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(iv) Acquittal After Trial</p></td><td><p>5,703</p></td><td><p>6,316</p></td><td><p>6,810</p></td><td><p>6,290</p></td><td><p>5,998</p></td><td><p>5,584</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Acquittal After Trial</p></td><td><p>5.5%</p></td><td><p>5.7%</p></td><td><p>5.8%</p></td><td><p>5.9%</p></td><td><p>6.3%</p></td><td><p>6.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>TOTAL </strong></p><p><strong>PROSECUTED</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>103,890</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>110,146</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>116,898</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>107,244</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>95,862</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>93,446</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/07/2014 15:21:23 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76992

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Crown Prosecution Service
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what steps he plans to take in response to the funding of HM Chief Inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in his Annual Report 2013-14, page 4 that the background of continuing resource reductions is now having an impact on the ability of the CPS to deliver effectively across the whole range of its activity.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205211
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has a comprehensive cost reduction strategy to 2015-16 that is fully aligned to, and supports, CPS priorities and objectives. The strategy will ensure that the department meets the SR2013 savings targets.</p><p>In their annual report for 2013-14 the Inspectorate acknowledged that CPS had improved its performance on serious and complex cases and also highlighted CPS success in hate crime cases and those involving violence against women and girls. The report was largely based on cases completed more than a year ago and more recent data shows performance improvements across the board since then. For example, magistrates' courts are seeing more guilty pleas and fewer cases dropped while the Crown Courts are showing increasing conviction rates – now at 81% across England and Wales. The challenges mentioned in the report are being addressed but they should be seen in the context of an improving prosecution service across the country.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/07/2014 15:11:39 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright previous answer version 10485 answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

90584

	registered interest
	date	04/09/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the (a) highest and (b) lowest full-time equivalent salary paid by (i) the Law Officers' Departments and (ii) its public bodies was in (A) 2010-11, (B) 2011-12, (C) 2012-13, (D) 2013-14 and (E) 2014-15; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Harrow West
	tabling member printed	Mr Gareth Thomas
	uin	208301
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>The following tables contain details on the highest and lowest payments made to full-time equivalent civil servants in the Law Officers’ Departments between 2010-11 and 2014-15.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p><strong>Treasury Solicitor’s Department (TSol) *</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>FTE salary</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014-15 (to date)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Lowest</strong></p></td><td><p>£18,000 - £18,500</p></td><td><p>£18,000 - £18,500</p></td><td><p>£20,000 - £20,500</p></td><td><p>£21,000 – £21,500</p></td><td><p>£20,500 - £21,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Highest</strong></p></td><td><p>£155,000 – £159,999</p></td><td><p>£155,000 – £159,999</p></td><td><p>£155,000 – £159,999</p></td><td><p>£160,000 – £164,999</p></td><td><p>£160,000 – £164,999</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>* TSol data also covers the Attorney General’s Office and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p><strong>Serious Fraud Office</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>FTE salary</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014-15 (to date)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Lowest</strong></p></td><td><p>£19,500- £20,000</p></td><td><p>£19,500- £20,000</p></td><td><p>£20,000- £20,500</p></td><td><p>£19,500- £20,000</p></td><td><p>£19,500- £20,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Highest</strong></p></td><td><p>£165,000 - £169,999</p></td><td><p>£165,000 - £169,999</p></td><td><p>£180,000 - £184,999</p></td><td><p>£180,000 - £184,999</p></td><td><p>£180,000 - £184,999</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p><strong>Crown Prosecution Service *</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>FTE salary</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014-15 (to date)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Lowest</strong></p></td><td><p>£14,000 -£14,500</p></td><td><p>£14,000 -£14,500</p></td><td><p>£14,000 -£14,500</p></td><td><p>£14,000 -£15,000</p></td><td><p>£14,000 -£15,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Highest</strong></p></td><td><p>£210,000 -£215,000</p></td><td><p>£210,000 -£215,000</p></td><td><p>£195,000 – £200,000</p></td><td><p>£195,000 – £200,000</p></td><td><p>£200,000 -£205,000</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>* The source data for this question has been extracted from the CPS ‘Trent’ database using the base data report as of 05/09/14. Consequent change to data input may mean that this data could change at some point in the future.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In line with standard reporting requirements and for protection of personal data the salary for the highest paid individual has been shown within a £5K boundary and a £500 range has been applied for lower paid staff.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 09/09/2014 13:33:15 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	177 label Biography information for Gareth Thomas