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 question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

44583

registered interest
date	24/03/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will instruct the Crown Prosecution Service to bring prosecutions relating to all cases of female genital mutilation reported in London since 2009.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL6240
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/04/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is committed to tackling cases of female genital mutilation (FGM), however it can only prosecute cases referred to it by the police which meet both of the tests outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.</p><p>The Code sets out a two stage test which must be applied when deciding whether a case should be prosecuted. The first stage is the evidential test which requires prosecutors to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If the evidential stage of the test is met prosecutors must then go on to identify the relevant public interest factors tending for and against the prosecution in order to form an overall assessment of whether a prosecution is in the public interest.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Tankerness question first answered 02/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 630 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Tankerness
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

43930

registered interest
date	19/03/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 17 March 2014, Official Report, column 370W, on legal profession: industrial disputes, whether he (a) advised on the content of and (b) approved the letter that the Director of Public Prosecutions sent to members of the Independent Bar on action against cuts to legal aid.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	192879
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 26/03/2014 answer text <p>I neither advised on the content of, nor approved, the letter that was sent by the Crown Prosecution Service to members of the independent Bar about action against cuts to legal aid. I was however aware that the letter was to be sent. </p><p> I have said on more than one occasion that there is no justification for barristers failing to honour their professional obligations to the CPS because there is no dispute with the CPS about the level of prosecution fees. It was perfectly proper for the CPS to send this letter reminding barristers of these obligations.</p> answering member constituency Beaconsfield answering member printed Mr Dominic Grieve question first answered 26/03/2014 12:00:00 answering member 16 label Biography information for Mr Dominic Grieve
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

43933

registered interest
date	19/03/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, against what corporate defendants the Serious Fraud Office has brought enforcement actions in the last 10 years; what the outcome of each such action was; what civil recovery was ordered in each successful case; what criminal fines were imposed in each successful case; and under what primary legislation each case was brought.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	192848
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/04/2014 answer text <p>The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has brought enforcement actions against 11 corporate defendants in the last ten years, as set out in the table below.</p><p>Before 2008, all successful SFO prosecutions were of individuals. The following table shows the fines and civil recovery orders (CROs) in SFO cases involving corporates since then.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td><p><em>Case</em></p></td><td colspan="2"><p><em>Penalty</em><sup>(<em>1</em>)</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2008</p></td><td><p>Balfour Beatty plc</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£2.25 million CRO</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2008</p></td><td><p>Severn Trent Water Ltd</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£2 million fine</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2009</p></td><td><p>AMEC plc</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£4.94 million CRO</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2009</p></td><td><p>Mabey and Johnson Ltd</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£3.5 million fine</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2010</p></td><td><p>BAE Systems plc</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£500,000 fine</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2010</p></td><td><p>Innospec Ltd</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>$12.7 million fine</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2011</p></td><td><p>De Puy International Ltd</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£4.8 million CRO</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2011</p></td><td><p>MacMillan Publishers Ltd</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£11.3 million CRO</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2011</p></td><td><p>M W Kellogg Ltd</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£7 million CRO</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2012</p></td><td><p>Mabey Engineering (Holdings) Ltd</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£131,000 CRO</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>2012</p></td><td><p>Oxford Publishing Ltd</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>£1.9 million CRO</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p><sup> (1)</sup> Figures are rounded</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table><p>The above proceedings marked “CRO” were commenced in accordance with Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.</p><p>Severn Trent Water Ltd pleaded guilty to an offence under the Water Industry Act 1991.</p><p>Mabey and Johnson Ltd pleaded guilty to offences under the Criminal Law Act 1977, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and United Nations Act 1946.</p><p>BAE Systems plc pleaded guilty to an offence of failing to maintain adequate accounting records under the Companies Act 1985.</p><p>Innospec Ltd pleaded guilty to an offence under the Criminal Law Act 1977.</p><p>In 2006, the SFO brought charges against five companies in relation to alleged price fixing of pharmaceutical products. The five companies were Kent Pharmaceuticals, Norton Healthcare Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd, and Goldshield Group plc. In 2008, a judge ordered the acquittal of all five companies.</p><p>If a company is to be prosecuted, it is usually necessary cases to demonstrate that the controlling minds of a company were knowing participants in the criminality being alleged. This can be difficult to prove, especially in complex cases, and so most SFO prosecutions have been of individuals rather than companies. Other outcomes are also possible. In 2010, BAE Systems plc agreed to make a £29.5 million payment for the benefit of the people of Tanzania, following a settlement with the SFO and the US Department of Justice. Last year, Oxford University Press (owners of Oxford Publishing Ltd) unilaterally offered to contribute £2,000,000 to not-for-profit organisations for teacher training and other educational purposes in sub-Saharan Africa.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North East Hertfordshire answering member printed Oliver Heald question first answered 02/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 69 label Biography information for Sir Oliver Heald
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

43330

registered interest
date	17/03/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the total cost to his Department has been of challenging the decision of the Information Commissioner on the publication of letters from HRH the Prince of Wales.
tabling member constituency	Newport West
tabling member printed	Paul Flynn
uin	192074
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 26/03/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>This case raises issues of constitutional significance, including upholding Parliament's intentions for the Freedom of Information regime and the Government's ability to protect information in the public interest. Litigation initiated by <em>The Guardian</em> newspaper has taken place over a four year period including hearings in the Upper Tribunal, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal. Eight government departments have had to work together on the Government's response, at a total cost of £274,481.16 (exc VAT). These costs encompass all costs billed by the Treasury Solicitor, including Counsels' fees and disbursements. If we are successful in the next stage of legal proceedings the Government would seek to recover a substantial proportion of these costs from the Guardian.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Beaconsfield answering member printed Mr Dominic Grieve question first answered 26/03/2014 12:00:00 answering member 16 label Biography information for Mr Dominic Grieve
tabling member	545 label Biography information for Paul Flynn