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 question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

387884

	registered interest
	date	06/07/2015
	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, if he will review the position of the incumbent Director of Public Prosecutions in view of the recent decision to charge Lord Janner.
	tabling member constituency	Rochdale
	tabling member printed	Simon Danczuk
	uin	5644
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/07/2015 answer text <p><ins class="ministerial">Decisions on whether or not to bring criminal charges are taken by prosecutors who are independent from government and independent from Parliament. I am confident of the independence and the integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Alison Saunders, in making the difficult judgements the job of a prosecutor involves.</ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The Victims’ Right to Review, which Alison Saunders helped to bring in, allows any victim of crime who is dissatisfied with a decision taken by a prosecutor not to proceed with their case to ask for the decision to be reviewed. This review has operated as it was designed to in the case of Greville Janner.</ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">We are world leaders in offering that safeguard for victims and since Alison Saunders has been DPP, the CPS has prosecuted and convicted more child sex offenders than ever before.</ins></p><p> </p><p><del class="ministerial">In the year to 31<sup>st </sup>December 2014, the Law Officers personally considered 469 cases and referred 128 offenders to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Leave was granted by the Court in 95% of cases which included some of the most serious violent and sexual offences, including murder, rape and sexual assault.</del></p><p><br /><del class="ministerial">The Attorney General’s Office publishes statistics for unduly lenient sentences at the end of the calendar year. This is to ensure that the figures are released in a consistent format and are accurate and quality assured. Unduly lenient sentences statistics for 2013 and 2014 are published on the Attorney General’s Office website - <a href="http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/attorney-generals-office" target="_blank">www.gov.uk/government/organisations/attorney-generals-office</a>. </del></p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 09/07/2015 12:58:22 question first ministerially corrected 09/07/2015 13:24:23 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright previous answer version 13176 answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	4059 label Biography information for Simon Danczuk

101614

	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	Prosecutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, for which offences the Crown Prosecution Service routinely monitors the number and proportion of cases that fail because of victim issues.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	212435
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2014 answer text <p>The CPS defendant case outcome records include an allocation of a reason for each unsuccessful outcome, including the number which did not proceed because of victim issues. These records are centrally collated under the following twelve Principal Offence Categories.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Homicide</p><p> </p><p>Offences against the person</p><p> </p><p>Sexual offences</p><p> </p><p>Burglary</p><p> </p><p>Robbery</p><p> </p><p>Theft and handling</p><p> </p><p>Fraud and forgery</p><p> </p><p>Criminal damage</p><p> </p><p>Drugs offences</p><p> </p><p>Public order offences</p><p> </p><p>Motoring offences</p><p> </p><p>All other offences</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 19/11/2014 12:38:15 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

147411

	registered interest
	date	10/11/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Sentencing: Appeals
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the offence committed was in each case in which the sentence was considered to be unduly lenient but not altered by the Court of Appeal in the last five years; and what the reason for not increasing the sentence was in each case.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	213917
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2014 answer text <p>The information requested is detailed below.</p><p> </p><p>2010</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to supply controlled drug of Class B</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wounding with intent</p></td><td><p>Substantial lapse of time since the offence was committed; Young age of the offender.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to traffic persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation</p></td><td><p>Offender’s poor mental health</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grievous bodily harm with intent</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grievous bodily harm with intent</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; not in the interests of justice</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2011</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>robbery</p></td><td><p>Fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order - not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wounding with intent</p></td><td><p>Compassionate grounds; offender's brother had very recently committed suicide.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sexual assault</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; not in the interests of justice</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2012</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cheating the Public Revenue</p></td><td><p>Offender’s poor health</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grievous bodily harm with intent</p></td><td><p>Compassionate grounds; fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Producing a class B drug; possession with intent to supply a class B drug x 3; possession with intent to supply a class C drug; possession of a class C drug.</p></td><td><p>Fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order; exemplary character – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Burglary</p></td><td><p>Fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to defraud</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; good progress made during detention in a Young Offenders’ Institute – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2014</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to defraud</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; offender’s mental health</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Arson</p></td><td><p>Fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order; offender in the early stages of pregnancy – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 19/11/2014 12:47:03 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

147412

	registered interest
	date	10/11/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Sentencing: Appeals
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the reason was for not pursuing each case of sentences considered to be unduly lenient but not pursued in the Court of Appeal in the last five years; and what the offence committed in each case was.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	214032
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2014 answer text <p>This information is not collated centrally and obtaining it would require my office to manually consider each file over the last 5 years which would involve a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 19/11/2014 10:51:03 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

147413

	registered interest
	date	10/11/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Sentencing: Appeals
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the reason was for withdrawing each case following an application to the Court of Appeal for a review of an unduly lenient sentence in each of the last 10 years; and what the offence committed in each case was.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	214033
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2014 answer text <p>The information requested is detailed below.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2014</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to defraud; converting criminal property; entering into an arrangement to facilitate the acquisition of criminal property.</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attempted arson</p></td><td><p>Offender deported before ULS hearing</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attempted robbery; possessing a prohibited firearm</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Manslaughter; conspiracy to rob</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Arson with intent to endanger life.</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to rob; conspiracy to kidnap; Conspiracy to possess an imitation firearm; Conspiracy to commit false imprisonment; Conspiracy to blackmail</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Child cruelty</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Child cruelty</p></td><td><p>As above</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Suspended sentence order activated before the ULS hearing.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2012</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Incest and indecency with a child</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possession of a prohibited firearm; breach of restraining order; criminal damage</p></td><td><p>Successful appeal against conviction.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Indecent assault of a child under 13 years old; indecent assault of a male.</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wounding with intent</p></td><td><p>Sentence amended before ULS hearing.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Indecent assault on a male under the age of 16</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Indecent assault</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2011</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to defraud</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery and aggravated vehicle taking</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Manslaughter</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wounding with intent</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2010</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possessing a controlled drug of Class A with intent; Possessing criminal property; Converting criminal property</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to damage property being reckless as to whether life is endangered</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to damage property being reckless as to whether life is endangered</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to damage property being reckless as to whether life is endangered</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to supply drugs</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to supply drugs</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Harbouring, concealing, carrying or dealing with goods contrary to section 170 (1) (b)</p><p>of customs and excise management act 1979</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery &amp; handling stolen goods</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possessing Class A drug with intent to supply &amp; supply of Class A drug</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of Community Order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Burglary</p></td><td><p>Offender sentenced to a custodial sentence for breaching Community Order. New sentence not unduly lenient.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Perverting the course of justice</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of Community Order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>assault by penetration &amp; sexual assault</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2009</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Manslaughter</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; Sexual assault of a child under 13; Rape of a child under 13</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possession with intent to supply Class A drugs (Cocaine) and Production of Class C (Cannabis)</p></td><td><p>Offender sentenced to a custodial sentence after breaching Community Order. New sentence not unduly lenient.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possession of Cocaine with intent to supply; Cultivating Cannabis; Abstracting electricity</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery &amp; Possessing an imitation firearm</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>This information for 2005-2008 is not collated centrally and obtaining it would require my office to manually consider each file over this 4 year period which would incur a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 19/11/2014 11:02:15 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

155389

	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	Correspondence
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how often the Law Officers' Departments reviews its processes regarding the logging of emails, letters and other correspondence received; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Brighton, Kemptown
	tabling member printed	Simon Kirby
	uin	214244
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/11/2014 answer text <p>HMCPSI’s records management policy, which covers such processes, is reviewed and published annually. The remaining Law Officers’ Departments do not have a formal schedule for regularly reviewing the logging emails or correspondence, although such processes are monitored and when required are modified to meet business needs.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>All of the Law Officers’ Departments comply with the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office on handling correspondence from Members of Parliament, Peers, MEPs and Members of devolved Administrations, which is available online at the following link - <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61196/guide-handling-gov-correspondence.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61196/guide-handling-gov-correspondence.pdf</a></p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 20/11/2014 14:04:31 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	3929 label Biography information for Simon Kirby

156122

	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	Serious Fraud Office
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what steps he has taken to ensure that the Serious Fraud Office is perceived as a fully independent body in investigations of foreign bribery cases.
	tabling member constituency	Glasgow Central
	tabling member printed	Anas Sarwar
	uin	906111
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>In all cases, decisions to investigate are made by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office who acts independently. The Protocol between the Attorney General and the Prosecuting Departments sets out the relationship between the Director, the Law Officers and the Government of the day and safeguards prosecutorial independence. A copy of the protocol can be found at; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protocol-between-the-attorney-general-and-prosecuting-departments</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 18/11/2014 14:27:17 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	3981 label Biography information for Anas Sarwar

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

156141

	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	Prisons: Crimes of Violence
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, if the Crown Prosecution Service will take steps to ensure that all assaults against prison officers are prosecuted.
	tabling member constituency	Wycombe
	tabling member printed	Steve Baker
	uin	906112
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is committed to ensuring that assaults against prison officers are dealt with robustly. The CPS considers each case on its own facts and in accordance with the two stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.The Code outlines that a prosecution is more likely to be in the public interest if the offence was committed against a person serving the public. Furthermore, the specific CPS Legal Guidance on Prison Offences outlines that, if the victim is a prison officer performing his/her duty, the public interest is heavily in favour of prosecution.</p><p>In addition to this, the new joint protocol produced by the Prison Service, CPS and Association of Chief Police Officers will set out that when there are serious assaults on prison staff, the perpetrators will be prosecuted unless there is a good reason why not.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 18/11/2014 15:30:03 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	4064 label Biography information for Mr Steve Baker

156150

	registered interest
	date	18/11/2014
	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, if he will bring forward proposals to introduce a right of appeal against a charging decision of the Crown Prosecution Service on the grounds that it is unduly lenient.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	214940
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/11/2014 answer text <p>Where a suspect is charged by the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) with a criminal offence, there are no plans to introduce a general right of appeal relating to the offence charged on the ground that it is too lenient. There are already a number of mechanisms in place to assess the quality of prosecutors’ decision making including external reviews by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and internal CPS processes such as Individual Quality Assessments.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Every charging decision made by the CPS must be in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors (“the Code”). Unless the Threshold Test is applied, there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and it must be in the public interest to prosecute every offence charged. The Code requires that charges are selected which reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending, enable the case to be presented in a clear and simple way and give the courts adequate powers to sentence. The Code also makes it clear that review is a continuing process and that prosecutors must take account of any change in circumstances that develops as the case progresses.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Victims can currently exercise their rights under the CPS Victims’ Right to Review scheme. This scheme enables victims to request a review of a CPS decision made after 5<sup>th</sup> June 2013 not to bring charges, to discontinue proceedings, offer no evidence or leave certain charges to “lie on file”. In those cases where it has not been possible to resolve the issue to the victim’s satisfaction at a local level, the decision is independently reviewed.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 25/11/2014 11:43:01 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies