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 answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

169005

registered interest
date	09/12/2014
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, pursuant to the Answer of 10 November 2014 to Question 213487, what the total value is of outstanding financial impositions in each local criminal justice board area.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
uin	217822
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/01/2015 answer text <p /> <p>This Government takes recovery and enforcement of financial impositions very seriously and remains committed to finding new ways to ensure impositions are paid and to trace those who do not pay. This is why there has been a year on year increase in the total amount of financial penalties collected over the last three years. The amount of money collected reached an all time high of £290 million at the end of 2013/14 and collections continue to rise. In 2013/14 the total outstanding balance of financial impositions reduced by £26.7m (5%) in the year.</p><p> </p><p>The table below shows the value of financial impositions outstanding as at the end of March 2014; the first column of figures represents the balance outstanding of the impositions made during the 2013/14 financial year and the second shows the total value outstanding regardless of imposition date. The ‘in year outstanding value’ is included within the total outstanding value figure.</p><p> </p><p>The ‘value outstanding’ figures include accounts that were not due to be paid by the end of the period specified (either because they were imposed close to the end of the year or because they had payment timescales set by the courts for beyond the end of the financial year) and those that were being paid by instalments on agreed payment plans. These figures include fines, compensation orders, victim surcharge orders and prosecution costs orders.</p><p> </p><table><thead><tr><td><p><strong>Area</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Value outstanding of the impositions made in 2013/14 as at end of March 2014</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total value outstanding regardless of imposition date as at the end of March 2014</strong></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Avon and Somerset</p></td><td><p>£5,619,129</p></td><td><p>£12,553,883</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Bedfordshire</p></td><td><p>£1,993,428</p></td><td><p>£4,089,206</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cambridgeshire</p></td><td><p>£2,703,891</p></td><td><p>£7,038,014</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cheshire</p></td><td><p>£3,399,702</p></td><td><p>£9,244,929</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cleveland</p></td><td><p>£2,402,047</p></td><td><p>£5,032,666</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cumbria</p></td><td><p>£2,640,263</p></td><td><p>£4,375,845</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Derbyshire</p></td><td><p>£2,510,078</p></td><td><p>£4,900,253</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Devon and Cornwall</p></td><td><p>£3,156,574</p></td><td><p>£6,884,992</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Dorset</p></td><td><p>£2,310,086</p></td><td><p>£6,195,513</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Durham</p></td><td><p>£1,694,578</p></td><td><p>£3,437,278</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Dyfed Powys</p></td><td><p>£1,655,354</p></td><td><p>£3,339,862</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Essex</p></td><td><p>£5,109,102</p></td><td><p>£11,727,731</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gloucestershire</p></td><td><p>£1,090,372</p></td><td><p>£3,000,161</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Greater Manchester</p></td><td><p>£13,289,385</p></td><td><p>£36,689,144</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gwent</p></td><td><p>£2,469,746</p></td><td><p>£4,921,206</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Hampshire &amp; IOW</p></td><td><p>£5,702,306</p></td><td><p>£16,166,430</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Hertfordshire</p></td><td><p>£4,957,126</p></td><td><p>£11,020,506</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Humberside</p></td><td><p>£3,952,318</p></td><td><p>£10,095,165</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Kent</p></td><td><p>£7,019,646</p></td><td><p>£18,527,317</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lancashire</p></td><td><p>£6,510,390</p></td><td><p>£12,622,950</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Leicestershire</p></td><td><p>£2,635,809</p></td><td><p>£4,459,648</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lincolnshire</p></td><td><p>£2,845,002</p></td><td><p>£5,008,456</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>London Central &amp; South</p></td><td><p>£21,953,798</p></td><td><p>£51,113,995</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>London North East</p></td><td><p>£11,947,473</p></td><td><p>£30,347,785</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>London North West</p></td><td><p>£12,824,734</p></td><td><p>£32,678,929</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>London South West</p></td><td><p>£687,694</p></td><td><p>£13,433,436</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Merseyside</p></td><td><p>£7,663,814</p></td><td><p>£29,436,895</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Norfolk</p></td><td><p>£2,617,344</p></td><td><p>£6,313,368</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>North Wales</p></td><td><p>£2,651,292</p></td><td><p>£5,871,714</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>North Yorkshire</p></td><td><p>£1,845,893</p></td><td><p>£3,706,423</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Northamptonshire</p></td><td><p>£2,402,450</p></td><td><p>£5,079,815</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Northumbria</p></td><td><p>£6,458,612</p></td><td><p>£14,394,158</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nottinghamshire</p></td><td><p>£4,528,741</p></td><td><p>£7,142,505</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>South Wales</p></td><td><p>£7,917,616</p></td><td><p>£12,277,550</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>South Yorkshire</p></td><td><p>£6,124,833</p></td><td><p>£12,989,876</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Staffordshire</p></td><td><p>£4,494,258</p></td><td><p>£10,973,530</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Suffolk</p></td><td><p>£2,637,989</p></td><td><p>£6,411,105</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Surrey</p></td><td><p>£3,171,345</p></td><td><p>£7,425,288</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sussex</p></td><td><p>£3,823,916</p></td><td><p>£12,189,588</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Thames Valley</p></td><td><p>£6,700,496</p></td><td><p>£18,575,082</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Warwickshire</p></td><td><p>£3,141,110</p></td><td><p>£4,877,725</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>West Mercia</p></td><td><p>£4,537,306</p></td><td><p>£9,479,843</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>West Midlands</p></td><td><p>£11,689,675</p></td><td><p>£30,516,365</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>West Yorkshire</p></td><td><p>£9,630,393</p></td><td><p>£17,079,786</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wiltshire</p></td><td><p>£1,826,437</p></td><td><p>£5,165,096</p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 13/01/2015 17:25:01 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

169008

registered interest
date	09/12/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Judicial Review
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the contribution of the Secretary of State for Justice on 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 73, on how many occasions in the last two years each government department has been threatened with judicial review; and in each such case, whether judicial review proceedings were subsequently (a) launched and (b) successful.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
uin	217847
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/12/2014 answer text <p>This information is not available. A ‘threat’ of judicial review could range for example from a pre-action letter sent to a central government department to an oral suggestion made at a stakeholder meeting.</p><p> </p><p>It is crucial that judicial review continues to hold public authorities to account for the right reasons. The Government’s reforms strike a fair and sensible balance between limiting the potential for the abuse of judicial review and protecting its vital role as a check on public authorities.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 15/12/2014 15:27:53 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

169009

registered interest
date	09/12/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Judicial Review
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the contribution of the Secretary of State for Justice on 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 72, what the evidential basis was for his statement that minor technicalities in process have been used as an excuse to bring judicial review.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
uin	217848
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/01/2015 answer text <p>The Government accepts that failures of procedure can amount to substantive unlawfulness, and that judicial review is a crucial mechanism by which such unlawfulness is considered and remedied by the court.</p><p> </p><p>However, we are concerned by the continuing potential for a judicial review to be brought on minor technical points which could not have, or which were highly unlikely to have, substantially affected the outcome for the applicant.</p><p> </p><p>The potential for this type of challenge has been recognised by the courts, which have developed an approach in case law under which, if the outcome would inevitably have been the same even if the alleged defect had not occurred, the court can refuse the remedy sought – see, for example, <em>R v The Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police, ex parte Cotton</em> [1990] IRLR 344.</p><p> </p><p>However, in the Government’s view the ‘inevitable’ threshold is too high to deal effectively with claims brought on minor technical points. Consequently, in clause 64 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (as introduced into the House of Lords), the Government is legislating to provide for a ‘highly likely’ threshold.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 19/01/2015 16:59:01 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

169010

registered interest
date	09/12/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Judicial Review
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the contribution of the Secretary of State for Justice on 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 71, what assessment he has made of when and how the system of judicial review ceased to be based on common sense.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
uin	217849
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/12/2014 answer text <p>The Government has always been clear that judicial review, when used properly, can be a crucial component of the rule of law.</p><p> </p><p>But in the Government’s view, too often the system is open to abuse, and the common sense reforms, which, following two consultations, the Government has implemented and is seeking to implement, are needed to rebalance the system of judicial review.</p><p> </p><p>In the Government’s view, for example, the creation of a Planning Court, with the assistance of the judiciary, to speed up the consideration of challenges to key projects, is a common sense reform. That reform is now delivering significant improvements. The available evidence suggests planning judicial reviews are now significantly quicker as a result of the reforms which followed the first consultation and the introduction of the Planning Court in April 2014, which followed the second consultation. For those which reach a substantive hearing (i.e. excluding those refused permission or otherwise determined earlier in the process) the average time fell by around 30% from 54 weeks in the 12 months to April 2013 to 39 weeks in the 12 months to September 2014. This is a substantial improvement in advance of the rest of the reforms taking effect.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 17/12/2014 14:02:29 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

169011

registered interest
date	09/12/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Ministry of Justice: Written Questions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to answer Question 213688, tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith on 6 November 2014 for answer on 11 November.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
uin	217807
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/01/2015 answer text <p /> <p>Question 213688 was answered on 8 January 2015 but I have reproduced it here, for ease.</p><p> </p><p>Without incurring disproportionate cost it is not readily possible to distinguish those judicial review cases which were successfully brought against specific policies or measures from the total number of judicial review cases which were successfully brought against the Ministry of Justice.</p><p> </p><p>My letter dated 7 January 2015 answering Question 211301 (which can also be found in the Libraries of the Houses and on www.parliament.uk) sets out the numbers of judicial review cases successfully brought against the Ministry of Justice in each year from 2010 to 2012.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 08/01/2015 12:06:33 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter