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
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 attachment file name title
tabling member	label

Search

43143

	registered interest
	date	13/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much was levied in fines by each magistrates court in Greater Manchester in each of the last five years; what proportion of such fines were written off by each court; and what proportion of such fines were collected.
	tabling member constituency	Denton and Reddish
	tabling member printed	Andrew Gwynne
	uin	192142
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to identify the amounts imposed, written off and collected for individual magistrates courts as data on fines imposed is recorded by local accounting divisions. The only way data for individual courts could be obtained is to carry out a manual search of all fine accounts.</p><p> </p><p>The total amounts imposed, written off and collected in the Greater Manchester accounting division are set out below:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total imposed</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total administratively cancelled</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total legally cancelled</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total collected</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008/09</p></td><td><p>£19,635,012</p></td><td><p>£1,902,853</p></td><td><p>£2,805,105</p></td><td><p>£11,673,192</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009/10</p></td><td><p>£19,267,431</p></td><td><p>£1,973,017</p></td><td><p>£3,019,911</p></td><td><p>£11,802,052</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010/11</p></td><td><p>£22,558,446</p></td><td><p>£1,229,895</p></td><td><p>£2,847,562</p></td><td><p>£12,063,589</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011/12</p></td><td><p>£19,125,753</p></td><td><p>£2,216,073</p></td><td><p>£3,933,432</p></td><td><p>£12,265,100</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012/13</p></td><td><p>£21,654,640</p></td><td><p>£2,204,046</p></td><td><p>£4,586,675</p></td><td><p>£12,952,842</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The amounts above include all elements of financial impositions (excluding confiscation orders): fines, costs, compensation and victim surcharge. The amounts cancelled or collected in a particular year can relate to impositions from that year or any previous year.</p><p> </p><p>Financial penalties are only administratively cancelled after all attempts to collect the amount outstanding have been made, and in accordance with strict cancellation criteria. These penalties can be written back on to the system if more information is found – for instance, a new address for the offender.</p><p> </p><p>Legal cancellations can be applied after the case has been reconsidered by a Judge or Magistrate. Typically, legal cancellations are used where a case has been re-opened and the defendant has been found not guilty, following the presentation of additional information. Legal cancellations can be full or partial remittances of financial penalties.</p><p> </p><p>The table below sets out how much of the value imposed in Greater Manchester in the 2011/12 and 2012/13 financial years was collected or cancelled by the end of the same financial year which it was imposed. This data is only available from April 2011 onwards.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Imposed</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Collected</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Cancelled (administrative and legal)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011/12</p></td><td><p>£19,125,753</p></td><td><p>£6,036,385</p></td><td><p>£1,832,554</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012/13</p></td><td><p>£21,654,640</p></td><td><p>£6,537,941</p></td><td><p>£3,111,387</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The amounts above again include all elements of financial impositions. The balance amount imposed that is remaining at the end of the financial year will include amounts that were being paid by instalments or were not due for payment by that time.</p><p> </p><p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) takes the issue of financial penalty enforcement very seriously and is working to ensure that clamping down on defaulters is a continued priority nationwide. HMCTS actively pursues all outstanding impositions until certain they cannot be collected. Total collection reached an all time high at the end of 2012/13 and collection has continued to rise in this financial year. At the end of September 2013 total collection (all imposition types excluding confiscation orders) across HMCTS was higher than the same point in the previous year and the outstanding balance had reduced since the start of the financial year. On average over the last 12 month 69% of accounts have been either closed or are compliant with payment terms by 12 months after imposition.</p><p> </p><p>HMCTS are actively seeking an external provider for the future delivery of compliance and enforcement services. This will bring the necessary investment and innovation to significantly improve the collection of criminal financial penalties and reduce the cost of the service to the taxpayer.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 02/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1506 label Biography information for Andrew Gwynne

43147

	registered interest
	date	13/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of the Youth Justice Board's budget has been spent on research in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Barnsley Central
	tabling member printed	Dan Jarvis
	uin	191980
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 31/03/2014 answer text <p>The statutory functions of the Youth Justice Board (YJB) include that of identifying and promoting good practice to prevent and reduce youth crime. In undertaking this function, the YJB works closely with local services, research bodies and academic institutions.</p><p> </p><p>The table below shows the YJB's central expenditure on research for each full financial year since 2009/10 alongside the proportion of that expenditure against the YJB's overall expenditure for the year:</p><p> </p><p>No new central research was commissioned in 2012/13 to enable the completion and publication of ongoing research projects. Figures relating to YJB's research programme expenditure for 2013/14 will be published in the YJB's Annual Report and Accounts due for publication in July. This and previous reports can be found at: <a href="http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/yjb" target="_blank">http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/yjb</a>.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 31/03/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright attachment 1 file name 191980.doc title Table 1
	tabling member	4243 label Biography information for Dan Jarvis

43149

	registered interest
	date	13/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much in victim surcharge has been imposed by adult courts since October 2012; and how much of that figure has been collected to date.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	191969
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>The amount of victim surcharge imposed and collected from October 2012 to September 2013 (latest published period) is set out below:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Imposition month</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Amount imposed</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Amount collected by end of September 2013</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>October 2012</p></td><td><p>£1,253,491</p></td><td><p>£826,583</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>November 2012</p></td><td><p>£1,460,874</p></td><td><p>£941,311</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>December 2012</p></td><td><p>£1,263,756</p></td><td><p>£788,671</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2013</p></td><td><p>£1,900,543</p></td><td><p>£1,158,226</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>February 2013</p></td><td><p>£1,869,900</p></td><td><p>£1,068,110</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>March 2013</p></td><td><p>£2,086,393</p></td><td><p>£1,139,143</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>April 2013</p></td><td><p>£2,424,548</p></td><td><p>£1,240,960</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>May 2013</p></td><td><p>£2,543,344</p></td><td><p>£1,201,270</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>June 2013</p></td><td><p>£2,556,998</p></td><td><p>£1,096,358</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>July 2013</p></td><td><p>£2,982,204</p></td><td><p>£1,096,130</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>August 2013</p></td><td><p>£2,707,508</p></td><td><p>£776,618</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>September 2013</p></td><td><p>£2,626,937</p></td><td><p>£357,217</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£25,676,496</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£11,690,597</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The balance of the amount imposed that is remaining at the end of the period will include amounts that are being paid by instalments or were not due for payment by that time. The closer to the point of imposition the greater the proportion will be that remains outstanding as many offenders will be paying by instalments.</p><p> </p><p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) takes the issue of financial penalty enforcement very seriously and is working to ensure that clamping down on defaulters is a continued priority nationwide. HMCTS actively pursues all outstanding impositions until certain they cannot be collected. Total collection reached an all time high at the end of 2012/13 and collection has continued to rise in this financial year.</p><p> </p><p>HMCTS are actively seeking an external provider for the future delivery of compliance and enforcement services. This will bring the necessary investment and innovation to significantly improve the collection of criminal financial penalties and reduce the cost of the service to the taxpayer.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 02/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

42815

	registered interest
	date	12/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many individuals convicted of (a) murder or (b) attempted murder in each of the last 10 years have been released with exclusion zones forming a part of their licence arrangements.
	tabling member constituency	Liverpool, Walton
	tabling member printed	Steve Rotheram
	uin	191826
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer these questions without carrying out a manual search through all relevant individual offender files, at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Conditions such as an exclusion zone may be applied to an offender's licence where it is necessary to manage the risk that the individual offender poses following release into the community - and where it is proportionate to that risk. Where qualifying victims have exercised their statutory right to make representations about the offender's licence conditions, the exclusion zone set will take into account those representations. In each case, the supervising officer proposes conditions as appropriate and requests these from the appropriate authority, which applies it to the licence on behalf of the Secretary of State. In the case of determinate sentence prisoners, the authority is the prison governor; in the case of indeterminate sentence prisoners, or others whose release is on the direction of the Parole Board, the authority is the Parole Board.</p><p> </p><p>These conditions must be kept under review, and are intended to be flexible to the possible resettlement needs of an offender in the community and any new risks that arise.</p><p> </p><p>An exclusion zone will rarely be absolute, as it is recognised that there may be exceptional reasons why the offender needs to enter the exclusion zone. Thus, where an exclusion zone is included in the offender's licence, it will usually be open to the supervising officer to grant the offender permission to enter the exclusion zone, for a temporary period and for a specific purpose.</p><p> </p><p>As this is a purely localised decision, there is no national record of the number of occasions such permission has been given. It is, therefore, not possible to answer the questions regarding how many times an offender has been granted permission to enter the exclusion zone applied to his licence.</p><p> </p><p>Data from the last 10 years is not available in the required electronic format to answer the question relating to numbers of offenders with exclusion zones included in their licence. To provide such information would again require a manual interrogation of offenders' records and this would incur disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 191781 191795 question first answered 09/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	4035 label Biography information for Steve Rotheram

42820

	registered interest
	date	12/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, on how many occasions an individual on licence for an attempted murder conviction has been granted permission to enter an exclusion zone which has been formed as part of their licence arrangement in each of the last 10 years.
	tabling member constituency	Liverpool, Walton
	tabling member printed	Steve Rotheram
	uin	191781
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer these questions without carrying out a manual search through all relevant individual offender files, at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Conditions such as an exclusion zone may be applied to an offender's licence where it is necessary to manage the risk that the individual offender poses following release into the community - and where it is proportionate to that risk. Where qualifying victims have exercised their statutory right to make representations about the offender's licence conditions, the exclusion zone set will take into account those representations. In each case, the supervising officer proposes conditions as appropriate and requests these from the appropriate authority, which applies it to the licence on behalf of the Secretary of State. In the case of determinate sentence prisoners, the authority is the prison governor; in the case of indeterminate sentence prisoners, or others whose release is on the direction of the Parole Board, the authority is the Parole Board.</p><p> </p><p>These conditions must be kept under review, and are intended to be flexible to the possible resettlement needs of an offender in the community and any new risks that arise.</p><p> </p><p>An exclusion zone will rarely be absolute, as it is recognised that there may be exceptional reasons why the offender needs to enter the exclusion zone. Thus, where an exclusion zone is included in the offender's licence, it will usually be open to the supervising officer to grant the offender permission to enter the exclusion zone, for a temporary period and for a specific purpose.</p><p> </p><p>As this is a purely localised decision, there is no national record of the number of occasions such permission has been given. It is, therefore, not possible to answer the questions regarding how many times an offender has been granted permission to enter the exclusion zone applied to his licence.</p><p> </p><p>Data from the last 10 years is not available in the required electronic format to answer the question relating to numbers of offenders with exclusion zones included in their licence. To provide such information would again require a manual interrogation of offenders' records and this would incur disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 191795 191826 question first answered 09/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	4035 label Biography information for Steve Rotheram

42821

	registered interest
	date	12/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many times a convicted attempted murderer released on licence has been allowed to enter an exclusion zone formed as part of their licence arrangement within one week of their release in each of the last 10 years.
	tabling member constituency	Liverpool, Walton
	tabling member printed	Steve Rotheram
	uin	191795
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer these questions without carrying out a manual search through all relevant individual offender files, at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Conditions such as an exclusion zone may be applied to an offender's licence where it is necessary to manage the risk that the individual offender poses following release into the community - and where it is proportionate to that risk. Where qualifying victims have exercised their statutory right to make representations about the offender's licence conditions, the exclusion zone set will take into account those representations. In each case, the supervising officer proposes conditions as appropriate and requests these from the appropriate authority, which applies it to the licence on behalf of the Secretary of State. In the case of determinate sentence prisoners, the authority is the prison governor; in the case of indeterminate sentence prisoners, or others whose release is on the direction of the Parole Board, the authority is the Parole Board.</p><p> </p><p>These conditions must be kept under review, and are intended to be flexible to the possible resettlement needs of an offender in the community and any new risks that arise.</p><p> </p><p>An exclusion zone will rarely be absolute, as it is recognised that there may be exceptional reasons why the offender needs to enter the exclusion zone. Thus, where an exclusion zone is included in the offender's licence, it will usually be open to the supervising officer to grant the offender permission to enter the exclusion zone, for a temporary period and for a specific purpose.</p><p> </p><p>As this is a purely localised decision, there is no national record of the number of occasions such permission has been given. It is, therefore, not possible to answer the questions regarding how many times an offender has been granted permission to enter the exclusion zone applied to his licence.</p><p> </p><p>Data from the last 10 years is not available in the required electronic format to answer the question relating to numbers of offenders with exclusion zones included in their licence. To provide such information would again require a manual interrogation of offenders' records and this would incur disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 191781 191826 question first answered 09/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	4035 label Biography information for Steve Rotheram

42822

	registered interest
	date	12/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of (a) magistrates' courts, (b) County courts and (c) County Court money claims centres use higher-rate telephone numbers.
	tabling member constituency	Birkenhead
	tabling member printed	Mr Frank Field
	uin	191689
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>The information held centrally on how many and what proportion of (a) magistrates' courts, (b) County courts and (c) County Court money claims centres use higher-rate telephone numbers is as follows:</p><p>(a) Magistrates' courts: 33 out of 330 courts</p><p>(b) County Courts: 17 out of 216 courts</p><p>(c) The County Court Bulk Centre in Northampton which centrally</p><p>manages money claims, also uses higher rate telephone numbers.</p><p>Some of the individual numbers are used for more than one court.</p><p>As stated in previous answers to parliamentary questions, the Department's approach is not to use 084 or 087 for non-geographic numbers and instead, wherever possible, to assign 0300 numbers, for which the tariff is similar to calling an 01 or 02 (geographic) number, whether the caller is using a fixed line or a mobile phone —see: <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130423/text/130423w0004.htm#130423w0004. htm_wqn27" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130423/text/130423w0004.htm#130423w0004. htm_wqn27</a></p><p>and</p><p><a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?ids2013-11-20a.175002.h&amp;s=Vaz+0845#g175002.q0" target="_blank">http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?ids2013-11-20a.175002.h&amp;s=Vaz+0845#g175002.q0</a></p><p>The number of 08 numbers used by the department has fallen by 55% since December 2009.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 10/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	478 label Biography information for Lord Field of Birkenhead

42553

	registered interest
	date	11/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of (a) men and (b) women convicted of benefit fraud in each of the last five years received a prison sentence; and what the average prison sentence was for those of each gender so convicted.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	191465
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>The Department for Work and Pensions operates a tough series of specific penalties for benefit fraud that run alongside the criminal justice system. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 toughened penalties for those who commit, or attempt to commit benefit fraud. We have introduced a financial administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution which, for the first time, can be applied to attempted fraud.</p><p> </p><p>The Government has also introduced a tougher loss of benefit penalty to restrict benefits to people convicted of benefit fraud or who have accepted an administrative penalty. Benefits can be reduced for periods of 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 3 years, dependent on the number of benefit fraud offences committed within a specified period, where the latest offence results in a conviction.</p><p>Judges make their decisions independently of Government based on the facts of each case. The maximum penalty for fraud is 10 years in prison.</p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to benefit fraud, with sentencing outcomes and the average custodial sentence length by gender, in England and Wales, from 2008 to 2012 (latest data available) can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Please note that court proceedings statistics for the year 2013 are planned to be published by the Ministry of Justice in May 2014.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 191466 question first answered 09/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright attachment 1 file name 191466.XLS title Table 1
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

42554

	registered interest
	date	11/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) men and (b) women convicted of benefit fraud in each of the last five years received (i) a conditional discharge, (ii) a fine, (iii) a community order and (iv) a suspended prison sentence.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	191466
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>The Department for Work and Pensions operates a tough series of specific penalties for benefit fraud that run alongside the criminal justice system. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 toughened penalties for those who commit, or attempt to commit benefit fraud. We have introduced a financial administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution which, for the first time, can be applied to attempted fraud.</p><p> </p><p>The Government has also introduced a tougher loss of benefit penalty to restrict benefits to people convicted of benefit fraud or who have accepted an administrative penalty. Benefits can be reduced for periods of 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 3 years, dependent on the number of benefit fraud offences committed within a specified period, where the latest offence results in a conviction.</p><p>Judges make their decisions independently of Government based on the facts of each case. The maximum penalty for fraud is 10 years in prison.</p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to benefit fraud, with sentencing outcomes and the average custodial sentence length by gender, in England and Wales, from 2008 to 2012 (latest data available) can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Please note that court proceedings statistics for the year 2013 are planned to be published by the Ministry of Justice in May 2014.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 191465 question first answered 09/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright attachment 1 file name 191466.XLS title Table 1
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

42556

	registered interest
	date	11/03/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the action by barristers on (a) 6 January 2014 and (b) 7 March 2014; and what his policy is on imposing a costs sanction on the barristers involved.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	191468
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/04/2014 answer text <p>We have not yet made an estimate of the cost to the taxpayer of the action by barristers on 6 January and 7 March 2014. The question of costs is a matter for judges to consider in individual cases under the provisions set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (as amended).</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 01/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies