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
type
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 attachment file name title previous answer version answering member constituency answering member constituency answering member printed answering member printed answering member label answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100080

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many judicial reviews there were involving Government departments according to records held by the (a) Treasury Solicitor and (b) Administrative Court Office in each of the last four years; and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each such year.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	211271
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Treasury Solicitor’s Department holds records relating only to those cases in which it has acted. The Treasury Solicitor represents most, but not all, government departments in litigation. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally conducts its own litigation. According to records held by the Treasury Solicitor, the number of judicial reviews involving government departments in which it has acted in each of the last four years is as follows:</p><p>2010 – 8,566</p><p>2011 – 9,603</p><p>2012 – 10,274</p><p>2013 – 16,449</p><p>Information relating to how many of those reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each year is not held centrally and could not be created without incurring disproportionate cost.</p><p><del class="ministerial">The Administrative Court Office does not collate the information requested centrally and determining the number of reviews and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part would incur a disproportionate cost.</del></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The information requested in respect of the Administrative Court Office is published online at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls</a> . The 2013 data is not currently available.</ins></p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 28/10/2014 15:10:43 question first ministerially corrected 05/01/2015 17:35:17 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 24759 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

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
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	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

524189

	registered interest
	date	09/06/2016
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Gurpal Virdi
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how and why the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) joined the Metropolitan Police in announcing that retired police sergeant Gurpal Virdi was charged with misconduct in public office and with indecent assault on a person under 16 years; what publicity the CPS recorded as resulting at the time; when the memorandum of a conviction proved 1 April 1987 for offences on 7 November 1986 of a defendant born on 5 September 1970 with informant or complainant recorded as PC Markwick came to the attention of the CPS; what steps were taken to put right the effect of the wrong statement; when those steps were taken; and what the results of those steps were.
	tabling member constituency	Worthing West
	tabling member printed	Sir Peter Bottomley
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	40180
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/06/2016 answer text <p>A press release was issued by the Metropolitan Police Service which stated that the complainant was under 16. The CPS was not a party to this release and did not issue any other release. The CPS does not retain records of publicity resulting at the time.</p><p> </p><p>When the case was reviewed in 2014 for charging, the complainant and the witness clearly stated that the complainant had been 15 when the incident took place in 1986.<del class="ministerial"> In addition Mr Virdi also said in interview that the complainant had been 15 at the time of the incident.</del> The police summary stated that the complainant was 15. However the complainant’s date of birth and the date of his arrest were known and this mistake should not have been made.</p><p> </p><p>The CPS was supplied with the memorandum of conviction referred to on 17 September 2014.<del class="ministerial">The indictment was formally amended thereafter.</del></p><p> </p><p>No steps were taken to publicise the fact that the charge was later amended in open court to remove the assertion that the complainant was under 16.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 14/06/2016 13:53:54 question first ministerially corrected 24/06/2016 09:44:08 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright previous answer version 3723 answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	117 label Biography information for Sir Peter Bottomley

705510

	registered interest
	date	27/02/2017
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Attorney General: Procurement
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the procurement spend of the Law Officers' Departments was in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hemsworth
	tabling member printed	Jon Trickett
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	65676
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/03/2017 answer text <p>The following figures, based on <del class="ministerial">published</del> accounts for <ins class="ministerial">the financial years from</ins> <ins class="ministerial">April</ins> 2010 to <ins class="ministerial">April</ins> 2016, show the procurement spend (all expenditure on goods, assets or services, not including expenditure relating to the remuneration of employees, non cash costs such as depreciation and local/national taxes such as rates and excluding any case settlement costs) for the Law Officers’ Departments. <ins class="ministerial">Figures for the financial year from April 2016- April 2017 are not yet available. </ins></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> Value </ins> <ins class="ministerial">(£000s)</ins></p></td><td><p>2010<ins class="ministerial">-11</ins></p></td><td><p>2011<ins class="ministerial">-12</ins></p></td><td><p>2012<ins class="ministerial">-13</ins></p></td><td><p>2013<ins class="ministerial">-14</ins></p></td><td><p>2014<ins class="ministerial">-15</ins></p></td><td><p>2015<ins class="ministerial">-16</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">2016</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GLD*</p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">52,300</del> <ins class="ministerial">49,533</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">49,533</del> <ins class="ministerial">52,426</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">52,426</del> <ins class="ministerial">47,070</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">47,070</del> <ins class="ministerial">60,167</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">60,167</del> <ins class="ministerial">70,649</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">70,649</del> <ins class="ministerial">68,804</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">68,804</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>AGO</p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,800</del> <ins class="ministerial">1,589</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,589</del> <ins class="ministerial">1,520</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,520</del> <ins class="ministerial">1,457</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,457</del> <ins class="ministerial">1,348</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,348</del> <ins class="ministerial">1,470</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,470</del> <ins class="ministerial">1,354</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,354</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>HMCPSI</p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">821</del> <ins class="ministerial">893</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">893</del> <ins class="ministerial">1,032</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,032</del> <ins class="ministerial">417</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">417</del> <ins class="ministerial">409</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">409</del> <ins class="ministerial">388</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">388</del> <ins class="ministerial">419</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">419</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>CPS</p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">315,581</del> <ins class="ministerial">307,168</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">274,816</del> <ins class="ministerial">270,597</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">269,612</del> <ins class="ministerial">255,429</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">244,121</del> <ins class="ministerial">252,916</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">284,482</del> <ins class="ministerial">289,727</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">347,658</del> <ins class="ministerial">258,876</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">325,560</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>SFO</p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">21,696m</del> <ins class="ministerial">21,696</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">18,968m</del> <ins class="ministerial">18,968</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">17,884m</del> <ins class="ministerial">17,884</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">31,689m</del> <ins class="ministerial">31,689</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">26,887m</del> <ins class="ministerial">26,887</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">22,358m</del> <ins class="ministerial">22,358</ins></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">21,904m</del></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>*The Treasury Solicitor’s Department until 31 March 2015.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 06/03/2017 17:33:33 question first ministerially corrected 07/03/2017 17:48:21 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 38730 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	410 label Biography information for Jon Trickett

706180

	registered interest
	date	28/02/2017
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Attorney General: ICT
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much the Law Officers' Departments spent on (a) iPads and tablets and (b) paper in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
	tabling member constituency	Ellesmere Port and Neston
	tabling member printed	Justin Madders
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	65977
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/03/2017 answer text <p>GLD expenditure on IPads and tablets (including VAT):</p><p> </p><p>2012: nil</p><p>2013: nil</p><p>2014: £12,252.00</p><p>2015: nil</p><p>2016: £24,933.12</p><p> </p><p>GLD has consistently consumed 13,960 boxes (69,800 reams) of paper per annum for the last 5 years. The cost for the period 2016-17 to date was £76,241. Accurate costs for earlier periods cannot be determined except at disproportionate cost since they form part of composite billing for all stationery.</p><p> </p><p>HMCPSI Expenditure on IPads and tablets (including VAT):</p><p> </p><p>2012: nil</p><p>2013: nil</p><p>2014: nil</p><p>2015: nil</p><p>2016: nil</p><p> </p><p>Accurate costs for paper purchases cannot be determined except at disproportionate cost since they form part of composite billing for all stationery.</p><p> </p><p>CPS and AGO</p><p> </p><p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has not spent any money on iPads in the last five years.</p><p> </p><p>The CPS, including the Attorney General’s Office, spend on tablets over the last five years has been provided in the table below:</p><p> </p><p>Year Cost of Tablet including VAT(£)</p><p>2012 75,412</p><p>2013 0</p><p>2014 0</p><p>2015 46,077</p><p>2016 25,885*</p><p>*costs are estimated for 2016</p><p> </p><p>(b) The CPS estimates that it has spent the following amounts on paper over the last 5 years:</p><p> </p><p>Year Cost (£)</p><p>2012* 1,120,904</p><p>2013* 926,609</p><p>2014** 983,802</p><p>2015** 847,431</p><p>2016** 445,717</p><p>* costs for 2012 and 2013 are based on historic data provided by CPS stationery suppliers</p><p>** costs for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are estimated and based on total stationery spend for the periods.</p><p>To identify all expenditure that relates solely and specifically to paper would involve the manual checking of thousands of invoices and would incur a disproportionate cost.</p><p>Accurate costs for AGO paper purchases cannot be determined except at disproportionate cost since they form part of composite billing for all stationery.</p><p><ins class="ministerial">SFO </ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The SFO does not separately record paper costs from overall stationery expenditure.</ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>Stationery Year Cost (£) </em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2012-13 64,094</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2013-14 69,657</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2014-15 74,750</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2015-16 52,721</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2016-17* 40,916 </em></ins><ins class="ministerial"></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>iPads &amp; Tablets <em>Year Cost (£)</em></em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2012-13 0</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2013-14 10,423</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2014-15 0</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2015-16 0</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2016-17* 9,475</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>*</em><strong><em>Spend as at 31/01/2017</em></strong></ins></p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 08/03/2017 16:25:26 question first ministerially corrected 09/03/2017 14:52:28 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 39303 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	4418 label Biography information for Justin Madders

782453

	registered interest
	date	02/11/2017
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Hate Crime: Prosecutions
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government under what authority the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has agreed a definition of racially and religiously aggravated crime that is wider than the legal definition under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Criminal Justice Act 2003, as indicated in the CPS Public statement on prosecuting racist and religious hate crime published in August.
	tabling member printed	Lord Vinson
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	HL2876
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/11/2017 answer text <p>In order to charge and prosecute hate crimes, the CPS uses the legal definition provided by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Criminal Justice Act 2003. The shared police and CPS definition of hate crime is based on the perception of the victim or any other person and allows for case flagging and monitoring as well as appropriate victim support, it does not affect the charge.</p><p>This flagging definition comes from the recommended definition in the Macpherson report which was published in 1999 as a result of the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Macpherson Report found a lack of confidence within communities that hate crime was being treated seriously by the police and Criminal Justice System and recommended that the definition of a racist incident should be, ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. Putting the victim’s perception at the heart of the definition gives a clear signal that, once flagged as a hate crime, an appropriate investigation will follow and evidence to support the law on hostility will be proactively sought. The definition seeks to encourage victims to report and to increase confidence in the Criminal Justice System.</p> answering member printed Baroness Vere of Norbiton question first answered 16/11/2017 16:44:23 question first ministerially corrected 20/11/2017 11:19:23 answering member 4580 label Biography information for Baroness Vere of Norbiton previous answer version 22806 answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
	tabling member	1807 label Biography information for Lord Vinson

818588

	registered interest
	date	08/01/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	National Fund
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in enabling the National Fund charity to make appropriate donations; and whether they intend to apply to the courts for a scheme allowing the Fund to be used for its original purpose.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	HL4465
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/01/2018 answer text <p>The National Fund was created in 1928 with an initial anonymous donation of £500,000 with the aim of eventually extinguishing the national debt. It has accumulated significant funds through further donations and income over the years, as set out in the <strong><ins class="ministerial">attached </ins></strong>chart <del class="ministerial">below</del>. It is currently estimated to be worth over £460 million.</p><p>The terms of the deed of Trust for the National Fund are such that the Trustees are required to accumulate the net income and profits of the trust fund until the value of the fund along with its accumulated income, when added to the value of any other funds applicable for the same purpose, is sufficient to discharge the entirety of the National Debt. Given the terms of the trust, the money is currently ‘locked’ in the fund.</p><p>The Attorney General’s Office is working with the Charity Commission and the Fund’s trustees to help resolve this legally complicated matter.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 22/01/2018 14:42:46 question first ministerially corrected 16/05/2018 10:48:18 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie attachment 1 file name Chart 2.pdf title Chart previous answer version 35717 answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
	tabling member	4159 label Biography information for Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

824730

	registered interest
	date	17/01/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Attorney General: Procurement
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many contracts his Department holds with government strategic suppliers.
	tabling member constituency	Hemsworth
	tabling member printed	Jon Trickett
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	123531
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/02/2018 answer text <p>The Government Legal Department (GLD)<ins class="ministerial"> holds contracts with eight Government strategic suppliers</ins> and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) hold six contracts <del class="ministerial">each</del> with Government strategic suppliers.</p><p>The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) holds three contracts with Government strategic suppliers.</p><p>HMCPSI holds two contracts with Government strategic suppliers; and the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) holds <del class="ministerial">one</del> contract<ins class="ministerial">s with three suppliers</ins>.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 01/02/2018 17:39:32 question first ministerially corrected 23/03/2018 14:34:08 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 38874 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	410 label Biography information for Jon Trickett

843564

	registered interest
	date	19/02/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Attorney General: Procurement
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 1 February 2018 to Question 123531 on Attorney General: procurement, if he will list those contracts including the supplier name and value of those contracts.
	tabling member constituency	Hemsworth
	tabling member printed	Jon Trickett
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	127905
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/03/2018 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has the following contracts with the government’s strategic suppliers:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Supplier</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Contract</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Estimated Value*</strong> <strong> £</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>BT Plc</p></td><td><p>Multiple landline phones, alarms and broadband service agreements</p></td><td><p><em>143,500</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Capita</p></td><td><p>Contingent Labour ONE Call-Off</p></td><td><p>136,900</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>CGI</p></td><td><p>Payroll Call-Off</p></td><td><p>1,300,500</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>Finance and Resource Management System Call-Off</p></td><td><p>200,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>Managed ICT Services contract; and</p></td><td><p>300,000,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>Applications Support and Data Hosting Call-Off</p></td><td><p>19,000,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Microsoft</p></td><td><p>Multiple licencing agreements.</p></td><td><p><em>172,000</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Oracle</p></td><td><p>Multiple licencing agreements</p></td><td><p><em>470,000</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Vodafone</p></td><td><p>Videoconferencing service Call-Off</p></td><td><p>700,000</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>* The Estimated Value is given as the value for the contract Term where the department has signed a Call-Off Contract and the annual spend to 31 January 2018 where the department has renewable licensing arrangements.</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>For the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the contracts are:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Supplier</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2016/17</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>BT plc</p></td><td><p>£15,897</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Capita</p></td><td><p>£704,697</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Vodafone</p></td><td><p>£75,905</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>To identify overall contract values for the Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General Office (AGO) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) would require the identification and examination of all awards made to the Strategic Suppliers (as defined by the Crown Commercial Services) and this cannot be achieved without incurring disproportionate cost. However, our payments to Strategic Suppliers, for 2016-17 is set out below:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Strategic Supplier </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Expenditure</strong> <strong>2016-17</strong> <strong>GLD</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Expenditure</strong> <strong>2016-17</strong> <strong>AGO</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Expenditure</strong> <strong>2016-17</strong> <strong>HMCPSI</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Amey</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>£335,965</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>BT Plc</p></td><td><p>£1,699</p></td><td><p>£2,159</p></td><td><p>£1,308</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Capgemini</p></td><td><p>£88,914</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Capita</p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">£424,655</del> <ins class="ministerial">£6,369,832 </ins></p></td><td><p>£847*</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Fujitsu</p></td><td><p>£561,131</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Microsoft</p></td><td><p>£62,178</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Mitie</p></td><td><p>£186,854</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Oracle</p></td><td><p>£34,126</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Vodafone</p></td><td><p>£226,794</p></td><td><p>£43,763</p></td><td><p>£8,779</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>* The payment for this amount piggy backed on the contract that SFO had with Capita.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland previous answer version 45402 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland 49436 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland question first answered 23/03/2018 14:32:59 question first ministerially corrected 02/05/2018 16:36:59 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	410 label Biography information for Jon Trickett

990407

	registered interest
	date	18/10/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Money Laundering: Prosecutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions have been made by the Crown Prosecution Service under (i) Section 330 and (ii) Sections 327-329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in each of the last five years.
	tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
	tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	181274
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/10/2018 answer text <p><ins class="ministerial">The official statistics relating to crime and policing are maintained by the Home Office. Official statistics relating to sentencing, criminal court proceedings, offenders brought to justice, the courts and the judiciary are maintained by the Ministry of Justice.</ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The number of prosecutions and convictions for offences under sections 327-330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 can be found <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/738814/HO-Code-Tool-2017.xlsx" target="_blank">here</a>.</ins></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>Number of prosecutions and convictions for offences under sections 327-330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, 2013-2017</strong></ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>2013</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>2014</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>2015</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>2016</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>2017</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>Prosecutions</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section 327</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">981</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">880</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">1,063</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">841</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">878</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section 328</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">310</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">266</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">317</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">355</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">288</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section 329</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">1,050</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">944</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">921</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">797</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">737</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section 330</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">3</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">3</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">5</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">1</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">1</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>Convictions</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section 327</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">520</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">447</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">550</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">601</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">537</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section 328</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">213</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">150</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">188</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">257</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">225</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section 329</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">527</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">541</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">594</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">567</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">581</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section 330</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">6</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">4</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">2</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">3</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">1</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">(1) The figures given in the pivot table relate to defendants for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.</ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">(3) A defendant who appears before both magistrates’ court and Crown Court may not do so within the same year, meaning for a given year convictions may exceed prosecutions or sentences may not equal convictions. Defendants who appear before both courts may be convicted at the Crown Court for a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against at magistrates’ court.</ins></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><del class="ministerial">Data on prosecutions and convictions is published by the MoJ and can be found <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/733981/outcomes-by-offence-tool-2017-update.xlsx%20" target="_blank">here</a>.</del></p><p> </p><p><del class="ministerial">A breakdown of prosecutions and convictions for money laundering is as follows:</del></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>Table 1. Number of prosecutions and convictions for money laundering, 2007-2017 (1)(2)(3)</strong></del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>Money Laundering</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>2013</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>2014</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>2015</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>2016</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>2017</strong></del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>Prosecutions</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">2,349</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">2,095</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">2,307</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,998</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,906</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>Convictions</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,269</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,143</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,336</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,435</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,347</del></p></td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr><td><p><del class="ministerial">(1) The figures given in the pivot table relate to defendants for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del class="ministerial">(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del class="ministerial">(3) A defendant who appears before both magistrates’ court and Crown Court may not do so within the same year, meaning for a given year convictions may exceed prosecutions or sentences may not equal convictions. Defendants who appear before both courts may be convicted at the Crown Court for a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against at magistrates’ court.</del></p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 23/10/2018 10:41:57 question first ministerially corrected 24/10/2018 08:17:54 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 80104 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell