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 attachment file name title
tabling member	label

Search

1652736

registered interest
date	13/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Asylum: Legal Opinion
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made a recent assessment of the adequacy of the legal advice available to people making an asylum claim.
tabling member constituency	Leicester East
tabling member printed	Claudia Webbe
uin	194090
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/07/2023 answer text <p>Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, all immigration advisers must be registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) or be regulated by a Designated Qualifying Regulator (DQR). The OISC and the DQRs are responsible for ensuring immigration advisers are fit, competent, and act in their clients’ best interests.</p><p>The DQRs include legal services representative bodies who designate regulatory responsibilities to legal services regulators. Legal services regulation is independent of Government and the relevant regulators are responsible for ensuring quality and standards for providers of legal advice.</p><p>The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is a DQR and responsible for the regulation of solicitors and ensuring that all solicitors meet required standards. In November 2022, the SRA published a thematic review of immigration and asylum services as well as updated immigration guidance to help solicitors understand their obligations when providing immigration advice. The guidance is available here: <a href="https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/immigration-services/guidance-and-support/" target="_blank">https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/immigration-services/guidance-and-support/</a>.</p> answering member constituency Finchley and Golders Green answering member printed Mike Freer question first answered 21/07/2023 11:58:35 answering member 4004 label Biography information for Mike Freer
tabling member	4848 label Biography information for Claudia Webbe

1652860

registered interest
date	13/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prisons: Education
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer on 28 June 2023 to Question 190933 on Prisons: Education, whether Treasury guidance on the application of Fair Deal Pensions policy will be circulated to relevant stakeholders before the conclusion of the Prisoner Education Service tendering process.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	193873
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/07/2023 answer text <p>Following the procurement process, the Ministry of Justice expects to award new contracts for Prison Education in Autumn 2024. The MoJ will circulate the relevant HMT guidance, including any updates on the application of Fair Deal Pensions policy, to stakeholders at all stages of the procurement.</p> answering member constituency East Hampshire answering member printed Damian Hinds question first answered 18/07/2023 14:33:36 answering member 3969 label Biography information for Damian Hinds
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1652886

registered interest
date	13/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Ministry of Justice: Artificial Intelligence
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what (a) algorithmic and (b) other automated decision making systems his Department uses; and for what purposes.
tabling member constituency	Barnsley East
tabling member printed	Stephanie Peacock
uin	194023
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/07/2023 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice is still at the early stages of assessing where the uses of algorithmic models and automated decision-making tools might help drive greater efficiency and deliver maximum value for the taxpayer, as part of the Government’s digital transformation journey.</p><p> </p><p>Work done to date has primarily been around the use of Actuarial Risk Assessment Instruments (ARAIs) in HM Prisons &amp; Probation Service to assess the risks posed by, and needs of, an offender by combining actuarial methods of prediction with structured professional judgement.</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice recognises that the use of AI in the justice system raises important ethical considerations, such as bias in the data used to train algorithms and the potential for automated decision-making to perpetuate existing inequalities. Therefore, any implementation of AI in the UK Ministry of Justice must be done carefully and transparently, with appropriate safeguards in place.</p><p> </p><p>Any use of automated decision making will be done in compliance with provisions in GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, including the right of individuals to request a new decision is made that is not based solely on automated processing.</p> answering member constituency Finchley and Golders Green answering member printed Mike Freer question first answered 21/07/2023 11:57:30 answering member 4004 label Biography information for Mike Freer
tabling member	4607 label Biography information for Stephanie Peacock

1652906

registered interest
date	13/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Ipsos MORI
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the contract agreed by his Department with Ipsos (Market Research) Limited on 5 June 2023, procurement reference 336036/1227987, if he will publish (a) the deliverables specified in Annex F of that contract and (b) the (i) multiple choice and (ii) other questions asked in the public survey procured through that contract.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	193876
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/07/2023 answer text <p>In line with the Government Social Research (GSR) protocol, the intention is that the findings from this research will be published on GOV.UK, following independent peer review and quality assurance. This publication would include the content from the deliverables that will be provided by Ipsos (Market Research) as well as details of the experiment (including questions).</p> answering member constituency Finchley and Golders Green answering member printed Mike Freer question first answered 18/07/2023 13:14:47 answering member 4004 label Biography information for Mike Freer
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

1653054

registered interest
date	13/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prisons: Travellers
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the findings of The Traveller Movement's report Available but not Accessible Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers: barriers in accessing purposeful activities in prison, published on 27 March.
tabling member printed	Baroness Whitaker
uin	HL9357
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 26/07/2023 answer text <p>As part of the HMPPS Gypsy, Roma &amp; Traveller (GRT) Strategy, we are committed to fully considering the Traveller Movement Report ‘Available but not Accessible’. This activity is ongoing, and will include consultation with the Traveller Movement, and potentially, other GRT-associated third sector organisations.</p><p>The associated action plan will be updated to incorporate necessary activity in association with further HMPPS evidence-based assessments also currently under consideration. The review is expected to be fully completed by Autumn 2023.</p> answering member printed Lord Bellamy question first answered 26/07/2023 14:13:11 answering member 4941 label Biography information for Lord Bellamy
tabling member	2510 label Biography information for Baroness Whitaker

1652278

registered interest
date	12/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Courts: Fines
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 court fines have been written back in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Croydon North
tabling member printed	Steve Reed
uin	193601
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2023 answer text <p>Financial penalties imposed by the courts will often consist of multiple elements including, amongst others, compensation, victim surcharge, prosecutor’s costs and a fine.</p><p>The Government takes the recovery and enforcement of all financial impositions very seriously and remains committed to ensuring impositions are paid. The courts will do everything within their powers to trace those who do not pay and use a variety of sanctions to ensure the recovery of criminal fines and financial penalties.</p><p>In very limited scenarios, HMCTS may decide to administratively write-off the debt, the circumstances in which this can happen are severely restricted and occur only when there is no opportunity for the debt to be collected, for example, when a company has been dissolved with no distributable assets. The debt is written off for administrative purposes only, the imposition is still legally enforceable and if in the future it becomes apparent that assets are available to pay the debt then the account is written back. In 2016-17, HMCTS commenced a project to enforce accounts that had previously been written off, this resulted in a period of three financial years where a large number of accounts were written back. There also remain specific and limited situations where the Court can legally cancel any debt.</p><p>The table below details the estimated volume and value of the fine element of an imposition that has been administratively written back for each financial year from 2013-14 to 2022-23. Data is not readily available prior to 2013.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Financial Year</p></td><td><p>Estimated volume of accounts (estimated due to complexity of consolidated accounts)</p></td><td><p>Value of fine accounts written back £</p></td><td><p>Value of fine accounts written off £</p></td><td><p>Value of fines written back as percentage of amounts written off in year</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2022-23</p></td><td><p>1,888</p></td><td><p>605,307</p></td><td><p>12,748,036</p></td><td><p>4.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2021-22</p></td><td><p>1,974</p></td><td><p>616,156</p></td><td><p>9,096,490</p></td><td><p>6.8%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2020-21</p></td><td><p>1,584</p></td><td><p>645,262</p></td><td><p>9,411,764</p></td><td><p>6.8%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2019-20</p></td><td><p>2,986</p></td><td><p>1,480,343</p></td><td><p>10,938,117</p></td><td><p>13.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2018-19</p></td><td><p>69,322</p></td><td><p>16,583,176 – larger value due to historic debt project</p></td><td><p>8,261,350</p></td><td><p>200%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017-18</p></td><td><p>297,269</p></td><td><p>56,548,650 - larger value due to historic debt project</p></td><td><p>12,107,194</p></td><td><p>467%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016-17</p></td><td><p>Data not currently available</p></td><td><p>20,782,112- larger value due to historic debt project</p></td><td><p>3,057,882</p></td><td><p>679%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015-16</p></td><td><p>Data not currently available</p></td><td><p>7,854,674</p></td><td><p>37,582,739</p></td><td><p>20.9%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014-15</p></td><td><p>Data not currently available</p></td><td><p>2,457,203</p></td><td><p>47,801,989</p></td><td><p>5.1%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-14</p></td><td><p>Data not currently available</p></td><td><p>2,292,379</p></td><td><p>70,505,888</p></td><td><p>3.2%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Finchley and Golders Green answering member printed Mike Freer question first answered 17/07/2023 11:20:06 answering member 4004 label Biography information for Mike Freer
tabling member	4268 label Biography information for Steve Reed

1652337

registered interest
date	12/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Trials
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 court trials for (a) rape, (b) sexual assault, (c) violence against a person, (d) murder, (e) theft, (f) possession of weapons and (g) fraud have been delayed each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Croydon North
tabling member printed	Steve Reed
uin	193615
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/07/2023 answer text <p>We have interpreted your request as being for ineffective trials, which is where the trial does not commence on the due date and requires rescheduling. This could be due to a variety of reasons, such as the absence of a defendant or a witness or adjournment requests from either the prosecution or defence.</p><p>The tables attached set out the data held by the Ministry of Justice on ineffective trials for each offence type, in volume and against the total listed trials for that offence type.</p><p>Crown Court data is available from 2014 onwards.</p><p>The Covid-19 pandemic affected the Crown Courts’ ability to effectively list trials. The ineffective trial rate notably increased in 2020, primarily due to increases in defendant illness or absence, and overlisting (55% of all ineffective trials were for these reasons combined).</p><p>Across 2022, the proportion of ineffective trials in the Crown Court for all offences increased significantly as a result of the impact of the Criminal Bar Assocation (CBA) action.</p><p>‘Lack of defence advocate availability’ was the largest reason for all ineffective trials throughout 2022 (35%) and accounted for 22% (484 trials) in Q4 2022 once CBA action had ended, down from 67% (2,498 trials) in the previous quarter recorded during the barristers’ strikes. The CBA action ended in October 2022.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Finchley and Golders Green answering member printed Mike Freer question first answered 20/07/2023 16:51:22 answering member 4004 label Biography information for Mike Freer attachment 1 file name 2023-07-20 PQ 193615 table.xlsx title Ineffective trials for each offence type
tabling member	4268 label Biography information for Steve Reed

1652341

registered interest
date	12/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Theft: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of theft cases in which the victim or witness no longer supported the prosecution were stopped on the day of trial in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Croydon North
tabling member printed	Steve Reed
uin	193619
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/07/2023 answer text <p>The percentage of cases where prosecution offers no evidence because the victim or witness no longer supports prosecution for theft, fraud, robbery and possession of weapons offence can be found in the below table.</p><p>The table details the cases in which the victim or witness no longer supports prosecution on the day of trial (%) by selected offence group, England and Wales, 2014-2023 (data for 2023 covers only the period from January to March, the latest available).</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>All offences</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Robbery</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Theft offences</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Possession of weapons</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Fraud offences</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>1.8%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>2.6%</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>1.9%</p></td><td><p>3.4%</p></td><td><p>2.6%</p></td><td><p>2.9%</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>2.3%</p></td><td><p>3.2%</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2018</p></td><td><p>1.9%</p></td><td><p>3.3%</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>3.2%</p></td><td><p>0.4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2019</p></td><td><p>1.9%</p></td><td><p>2.8%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>3.0%</p></td><td><p>0.4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2020</p></td><td><p>1.7%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2021</p></td><td><p>1.5%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>1.8%</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2022</p></td><td><p>1.4%</p></td><td><p>3.0%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td><td><p>1.4%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2023</p></td><td><p>1.5%</p></td><td><p>3.7%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The data presented covers trials which do not go ahead on the listed trial data as the &quot;prosecution offers no evidence because the witness/victim no longer supports prosecution&quot;. This is measured as a proportion of all listed trials in that period, excluding trial vacations.</p><p>The data is first published as part of the National Statistics series ‘Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly’, latest data available to March 2023. The data is only available from 2014 onwards.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar grouped question UIN 193622 193625 193627 question first answered 19/07/2023 10:07:06 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	4268 label Biography information for Steve Reed

1652344

registered interest
date	12/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Fraud: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data his Department holds on the percentage of fraud cases which did not proceed due to a victim or witness no longer supporting the case for prosecution on the day of trial in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Croydon North
tabling member printed	Steve Reed
uin	193622
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/07/2023 answer text <p>The percentage of cases where prosecution offers no evidence because the victim or witness no longer supports prosecution for theft, fraud, robbery and possession of weapons offence can be found in the below table.</p><p>The table details the cases in which the victim or witness no longer supports prosecution on the day of trial (%) by selected offence group, England and Wales, 2014-2023 (data for 2023 covers only the period from January to March, the latest available).</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>All offences</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Robbery</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Theft offences</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Possession of weapons</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Fraud offences</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>1.8%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>2.6%</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>1.9%</p></td><td><p>3.4%</p></td><td><p>2.6%</p></td><td><p>2.9%</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>2.3%</p></td><td><p>3.2%</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2018</p></td><td><p>1.9%</p></td><td><p>3.3%</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>3.2%</p></td><td><p>0.4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2019</p></td><td><p>1.9%</p></td><td><p>2.8%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>3.0%</p></td><td><p>0.4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2020</p></td><td><p>1.7%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2021</p></td><td><p>1.5%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>1.8%</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2022</p></td><td><p>1.4%</p></td><td><p>3.0%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td><td><p>1.4%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2023</p></td><td><p>1.5%</p></td><td><p>3.7%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The data presented covers trials which do not go ahead on the listed trial data as the &quot;prosecution offers no evidence because the witness/victim no longer supports prosecution&quot;. This is measured as a proportion of all listed trials in that period, excluding trial vacations.</p><p>The data is first published as part of the National Statistics series ‘Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly’, latest data available to March 2023. The data is only available from 2014 onwards.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar grouped question UIN 193619 193625 193627 question first answered 19/07/2023 10:07:06 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	4268 label Biography information for Steve Reed

1652347

registered interest
date	12/07/2023
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Robbery: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what percentage of robbery cases were ended where a victim or witness no longer supported the case for prosecution on the day of trial in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Croydon North
tabling member printed	Steve Reed
uin	193625
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/07/2023 answer text <p>The percentage of cases where prosecution offers no evidence because the victim or witness no longer supports prosecution for theft, fraud, robbery and possession of weapons offence can be found in the below table.</p><p>The table details the cases in which the victim or witness no longer supports prosecution on the day of trial (%) by selected offence group, England and Wales, 2014-2023 (data for 2023 covers only the period from January to March, the latest available).</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>All offences</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Robbery</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Theft offences</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Possession of weapons</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Fraud offences</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>1.8%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>2.6%</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>1.9%</p></td><td><p>3.4%</p></td><td><p>2.6%</p></td><td><p>2.9%</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>2.3%</p></td><td><p>3.2%</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2018</p></td><td><p>1.9%</p></td><td><p>3.3%</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>3.2%</p></td><td><p>0.4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2019</p></td><td><p>1.9%</p></td><td><p>2.8%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>3.0%</p></td><td><p>0.4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2020</p></td><td><p>1.7%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2021</p></td><td><p>1.5%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>1.8%</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2022</p></td><td><p>1.4%</p></td><td><p>3.0%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td><td><p>1.4%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2023</p></td><td><p>1.5%</p></td><td><p>3.7%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The data presented covers trials which do not go ahead on the listed trial data as the &quot;prosecution offers no evidence because the witness/victim no longer supports prosecution&quot;. This is measured as a proportion of all listed trials in that period, excluding trial vacations.</p><p>The data is first published as part of the National Statistics series ‘Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly’, latest data available to March 2023. The data is only available from 2014 onwards.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar grouped question UIN 193619 193622 193627 question first answered 19/07/2023 10:07:06 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	4268 label Biography information for Steve Reed