Show Search Form

Search Results

human indexable	true false
published	true false
registered interest	true false
answer date	exactly: or between: and
date	exactly: or between: and
date tabled	exactly: or between: and
ddp created	exactly: or between: and
answering body
question status
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
ddp modified
hansard heading
house id
identifier
legislature
parliament number
question first answered
question text
session
session number
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
title
type
uin
version
written parliamentary question type
answer	is ministerial correction true false answer text question first answered
creator	label
publisher
tabling member	label

Search

1128446

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	04/06/2019
	date	23/05/2019
	date tabled	23/05/2019
	ddp created	24/05/2019 09:05:27
	answering body	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	90
	answering dept short name	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	answering dept sort name	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	ddp modified	24/05/2019 12:25:09 05/06/2019 10:07:01
	hansard heading	Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority: Buildings
	house id	1
	identifier	257645
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	05/06/2019 09:35:36
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, pursuant to the Answer of 20 May 2019 to Question 253493 on Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority: Location, how many staff are located in the new premises at 85 Strand; how much floor space those staff occupy; at what rate per square metre; which locations were considered outside London for new premises; and what the comparable cost would have been in locating those staff outside London.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Warley
	tabling member printed	John Spellar
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 257645
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	257645
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>I have asked IPSA to reply.</p><p>IPSA currently has 69 members of staff. It included in its office requirements space for up to 76 staff in order to provide flexibility for periods where there is a higher volume of work and therefore a need for additional temporary staff, such as General Election periods.</p><p>To disclose the size of the office or rate paid per square metre would be prejudicial to commercial interests. IPSA’s annual accounts are laid in Parliament and published each year, and will provide information about operational costs.</p><p>Before choosing its offices at 85 Strand, IPSA considered potential premises in Croydon and Milton Keynes, as well as Stratford and Canary Wharf in London, but determined that the selected location provided the prospect of better support to MPs and better value for money for the taxpayer.</p> question first answered 05/06/2019 09:35:36
	creator	318 label Biography information for John Spellar
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	318 label Biography information for John Spellar

1104926

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	27/03/2019
	date	25/03/2019
	date tabled	25/03/2019
	ddp created	26/03/2019 00:30:09
	answering body	Church Commissioners
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	9
	answering dept short name	Church Commissioners
	answering dept sort name	Church Commissioners
	ddp modified	26/03/2019 15:36:47 27/03/2019 13:58:02
	hansard heading	Church of England: Lewisham
	house id	1
	identifier	236555
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	27/03/2019 13:24:14
	question text	To ask the right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church of England has a financial interest in (a) Tidemill Green and (b) the site of Old Tidemill School in Deptford.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill
	tabling member printed	Hugh Gaffney
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 236555
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	236555
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>The Church of England, the Church Commissioners and the Diocese of Southwark have no financial interest in the site of the former parish church of Christ Church, Deptford.</p><p>The land was sold by the Church Commissioners in 1937. The parish of Christ Church was merged with St Nicholas Church in 1936 to form the parish of St Nicholas with Christ Church. Following significant bomb damage, the Christ Church buildings were demolished in 1937 and the site sold to the London Borough of Lewisham. Housing and a school building now occupy the majority of the site</p><p> </p><p>At the point of sale to the Borough of Lewisham, the usual covenants were placed on a small section of the property which formed the site of the former Church. This covenanted area is outside of the area currently used as a wildlife garden and the school. The covenanted area is to be found at the back of Frankham House. No restrictions were placed on the rest of the property to the north of Reginald Road.</p> question first answered 27/03/2019 13:24:14
	creator	4614 label Biography information for Hugh Gaffney
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	4614 label Biography information for Hugh Gaffney

1131079

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	12/06/2019
	date	10/06/2019
	date tabled	10/06/2019
	ddp created	10/06/2019 22:03:00
	answering body	Church Commissioners
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	9
	answering dept short name	Church Commissioners
	answering dept sort name	Church Commissioners
	ddp modified	11/06/2019 14:55:05 13/06/2019 15:41:01
	hansard heading	Church of England: Scotland
	house id	1
	identifier	262403
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	13/06/2019 15:10:01
	question text	To ask the right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, what estimate the Church of England has made of the profits from its operations in Scotland in the last 12 months for which information is available.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Edinburgh North and Leith
	tabling member printed	Deidre Brock
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 262403
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	262403
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>The Church Commissioners recieved a total net income of £8,858,429 from forestry and windfarms between 1st January 2018 to the 31st December 2018.</p><p>We are unable to provide a figure for profit in the equivalent period as liabilities, including for restocking, will be borne over a number of years and the cost of purchasing the asset should be taken into consideration.</p><p> </p> question first answered 13/06/2019 15:10:01
	creator	4417 label Biography information for Deidre Brock
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	4417 label Biography information for Deidre Brock

1104715

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	27/03/2019
	date	25/03/2019
	date tabled	25/03/2019
	ddp created	25/03/2019 23:57:25
	answering body	Attorney General
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	ddp modified	27/03/2019 18:15:06 02/04/2019 11:06:02
	hansard heading	Extradition: USA
	house id	1
	identifier	236253
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	02/04/2019 10:30:50
	question text	To ask the The Attorney General, for what reasons three former Credit Suisse employees, Andrew James Pearse, Surjan Singh and Detelina Vaneva Subeva who are subject to an extradition request from US authorities, have not been charged under UK law.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Birmingham, Hall Green
	tabling member printed	Mr Roger Godsiff
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 236253
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	236253
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>Charging decisions are matters for the Directors of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, who act independently. Such decisions are made by applying the Code for Crown Prosecutors. I cannot comment on individual cases.</p> question first answered 02/04/2019 10:30:50
	creator	304 label Biography information for Mr Roger Godsiff
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	304 label Biography information for Mr Roger Godsiff

1109703

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	08/04/2019
	date	04/04/2019
	date tabled	04/04/2019
	ddp created	04/04/2019 16:14:45
	answering body	Attorney General
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	ddp modified	05/04/2019 13:07:07 10/04/2019 12:16:45
	hansard heading	GPT Special Project Management
	house id	1
	identifier	240944
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	10/04/2019 11:41:42
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, when did Department received a request from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to give consent to a prosecution in relation to the SFO's investigation into GPT Special Project Management and aspects of the conduct of that organisation's business in Saudi Arabia; and what his Department's response was to the SFO's request.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Birmingham, Hall Green
	tabling member printed	Mr Roger Godsiff
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 240944
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	240944
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>I am not able to provide any specific information about an on-going investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. I can confirm that I am aware of this case and I receive regular case updates in relation to it.</p><p> </p> question first answered 10/04/2019 11:41:42
	creator	304 label Biography information for Mr Roger Godsiff
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	304 label Biography information for Mr Roger Godsiff

1109805

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	08/04/2019
	date	04/04/2019
	date tabled	04/04/2019
	ddp created	04/04/2019 16:39:36
	answering body	Attorney General
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	ddp modified	05/04/2019 13:47:56 11/04/2019 16:13:10
	hansard heading	Victims
	house id	1
	identifier	241068
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	11/04/2019 15:34:44
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what steps he is taking to ensure that victims of serious crime receive regular updates on police and CPS progress on those crimes.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
	tabling member printed	Liz Saville Roberts
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 241068
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	241068
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>In England and Wales, the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (Victims’ Code) outlines the services victims are entitled to receive, including updates on the progress of their case during an investigation or prosecution. Bereaved families in homicide cases and victims of the most serious offences will receive information within 1 working day of key developments, such as when a suspect is arrested or released without charge. Victims will also be informed how often they will receive updates on the status of the case following discussion with the police.</p><p> </p><p>In the first cross-government Victims Strategy, published in September 2018, the Government committed to amend the Victims’ Code and we intend to consult on the changes shortly. We also committed in the strategy to hold agencies to account for compliance with the Victims’ Code through improved reporting, monitoring and transparency on whether victims are receiving entitlements.</p> question first answered 11/04/2019 15:34:44
	creator	4521 label Biography information for Liz Saville Roberts
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	4521 label Biography information for Liz Saville Roberts

1124161

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	08/05/2019
	date	01/05/2019
	date tabled	01/05/2019
	ddp created	01/05/2019 18:10:18
	answering body	Attorney General
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	ddp modified	02/05/2019 13:15:08 08/05/2019 09:18:02
	hansard heading	Prosecutions: West Midlands
	house id	1
	identifier	249931
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	08/05/2019 08:46:56
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, in how many cases did the West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service decide not to charge a suspect on the grounds of (a) the evidential test and (b) the public interest test in each of the last five years.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Birmingham, Edgbaston
	tabling member printed	Preet Kaur Gill
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 249931
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	249931
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	NamedDay
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the number of suspects referred to prosecutors for a pre-charge decision and the number of decisions not to prosecute suspects following the charging decision.</p><p>When prosecutors make decisions on cases, they refer to The Code for Crown Prosecutors. The Code contains a two stage test which has to be met before a suspect can be charged; the evidential stage followed by the public interest stage. When deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge, prosecutors must consider whether evidence can be used in court and is reliable and credible, and there is no other material that might affect the sufficiency of evidence. Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a &quot;realistic prospect of conviction&quot; against each defendant. At the public interest stage the prosecutor must consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that the public interest factors tending against prosecution outweigh those tending in favour.</p><p>The table below shows the volume and percentage of decisions not to prosecute for evidential and public interest reasons for the West Midlands Area in each year from 2013/14 to 2017/18.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td colspan="2"><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td><td colspan="2"><p><strong>2014-2015</strong></p></td><td colspan="2"><p><strong>2015-2016</strong></p></td><td colspan="2"><p><strong>2016-2017</strong></p></td><td colspan="2"><p><strong>2017-2018</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>Volume</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Volume</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Volume</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Volume</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Volume</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>%</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>No Prosecution - Evidential</p></td><td><p>4,760</p></td><td><p>18.8%</p></td><td><p>5,396</p></td><td><p>16.1%</p></td><td><p>4,580</p></td><td><p>18.7%</p></td><td><p>4,479</p></td><td><p>17.4%</p></td><td><p>3,589</p></td><td><p>13.8%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>No Prosecution - Public Interest</p></td><td><p>152</p></td><td><p>0.6%</p></td><td><p>584</p></td><td><p>1.7%</p></td><td><p>165</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td><td><p>164</p></td><td><p>0.6%</p></td><td><p>183</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total of Evidential &amp; Public Interest</p></td><td><p>4,912</p></td><td><p>19.4%</p></td><td><p>5,980</p></td><td><p>17.8%</p></td><td><p>4,745</p></td><td><p>19.3%</p></td><td><p>4,643</p></td><td><p>18.1%</p></td><td><p>3,772</p></td><td><p>14.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Total Decisions Made</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>25,360</strong></p></td><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>33,600</strong></p></td><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>24,542</strong></p></td><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>25,708</strong></p></td><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>26,026</strong></p></td><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p>Data Source: CPS Management Information System</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr></tbody></table> question first answered 08/05/2019 08:46:56
	creator	4603 label Biography information for Preet Kaur Gill
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	4603 label Biography information for Preet Kaur Gill

1125592

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	13/05/2019
	date	09/05/2019
	date tabled	09/05/2019
	ddp created	09/05/2019 16:54:23
	answering body	Attorney General
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	ddp modified	13/05/2019 11:55:11 16/05/2019 15:20:02
	hansard heading	Rape: Disclosure of Information
	house id	1
	identifier	252498
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	16/05/2019 14:49:01
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what recent assessment he has made of the effect on victims of rape of CPS rape and sexual offence legal guidance in relation to disclosure of medical records and counselling notes.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Newcastle-under-Lyme
	tabling member printed	Paul Farrelly
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 252498
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	252498
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>All complainants are entitled to protection from unnecessary and unjustified invasion of their private lives. Medical records and counselling notes will routinely engage an individual’s Article 8 ECHR right to privacy.</p><p> </p><p>CPS guidance is clear that where it is a reasonable line of enquiry in the investigation, the police should obtain the complainant’s informed consent to gain access to these records and, in the limited circumstances where it is appropriate, to enable disclosure of material to the defence. Where records amount to unused material, prosecutors will robustly apply the relevant statutory provisions when deciding whether such material should be disclosed to the defence.</p><p> </p><p>The CPS is working with the police and stakeholders to ensure complainants are aware of why their records are required and how they will be used to allow them to make an informed decision.</p><p> </p> question first answered 16/05/2019 14:49:01
	creator	1436 label Biography information for Paul Farrelly
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	1436 label Biography information for Paul Farrelly

1126136

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	15/05/2019
	date	13/05/2019
	date tabled	13/05/2019
	ddp created	13/05/2019 18:30:28
	answering body	Attorney General
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	ddp modified	14/05/2019 13:55:12 21/05/2019 08:38:01
	hansard heading	Attorney General: Brexit
	house id	1
	identifier	253465
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	21/05/2019 08:06:53
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many staff of his Department who were transferred or seconded to work (a) in other Departments and (b) on other departmental briefs on preparations for the UK to leave the EU have since returned to his Department.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Carshalton and Wallington
	tabling member printed	Tom Brake
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 253465
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	253465
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>The Attorney General’s Office had one employee who joined DExEU on loan to support work on preparations for the UK to leave the EU. The employee subsequently moved permanently to another department and will not return to the Attorney General’s Office.</p> question first answered 21/05/2019 08:06:53
	creator	151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	151 label Biography information for Tom Brake

1126592

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	20/05/2019
	date	14/05/2019
	date tabled	14/05/2019
	ddp created	14/05/2019 19:15:23
	answering body	Attorney General
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	ddp modified	15/05/2019 16:25:06 20/05/2019 10:56:01
	hansard heading	Prosecutions: West Midlands
	house id	1
	identifier	254257
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	20/05/2019 10:24:38
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 8 May 2019 to Question 249931 on Prosecutions: West Midlands, what the average time was for the CPS to reach a decision in the West Midlands in each of the last five years.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member constituency	Birmingham, Edgbaston
	tabling member printed	Preet Kaur Gill
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 254257
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	254257
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	NamedDay
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>Records held by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), provide data showing the average time (in calendar days) from receipt of the pre-charge case to the decision to charge.</p><p> </p><p>The table below shows the average number of days from the date a charging decision is requested by the police to the date the decision to charge is taken for the West Midlands Area in each year from 2013/14 to 2017/18.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014-2015</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2015-2016</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2016-2017</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2017-2018</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>West Midlands</p></td><td><p>10.54</p></td><td><p>10.95</p></td><td><p>11.65</p></td><td><p>14.41</p></td><td><p>17.31</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><em>Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System</em></p><p> </p><p>During this period there has been a shift in the type of pre-charge decisions referred to the CPS. For example, in the period between 2013/14 and 2017/18, there was an increase of over 26% in rape flagged pre-charge decisions referred to CPS West Midlands. Rape and serious sexual offences investigations can be highly complex in nature and typically involve the review of a large quantity of evidence resulting in an increase in the amount of time required for the CPS to come to a charging decision.</p> question first answered 20/05/2019 10:24:38
	creator	4603 label Biography information for Preet Kaur Gill
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	4603 label Biography information for Preet Kaur Gill