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 question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

101519

registered interest
date	29/10/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	European Arrest Warrants
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, what recent assessment he has made of the usefulness of the European Arrest Warrant as a prosecutorial tool.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	212405
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government and the DPP are in agreement that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) offers the best way of keeping Britain safe, particularly from serious criminals and terrorists.</p><p>The introduction of the EAW has resulted in much faster processing of extradition requests, meaning that we can secure the return of fugitives wanted for serious offending in this country often in a matter of weeks, not many months or even years as was the case under previous arrangements. The Arrest Warrant is also more effective. For example, under the previous regime, the European Convention on Extradition, some Member States can refuse to surrender their own nationals, including France, Germany and Spain, which is not the position in EAW cases. Furthermore, the EAW overcomes problems of time limitation in other countries. It also means that wanted people can now be extradited to face fraud and tax charges, which was not the case before.</p><p>The Government has recently made changes in the way that the EAW is processed through our courts. These changes are designed to offer greater protection to UK citizens and other UK residents against disproportionate requests and the risk of spending unreasonable lengths of time in pre-trial detention abroad. With those changes in place, the Government is convinced that the EAW provides an effective and cost-efficient tool in the fight against trans-national crime, and it is one which prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals are keen to see preserved.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 212406 question first answered 03/11/2014 17:02:26 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

101520

registered interest
date	29/10/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	European Arrest Warrants
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, what recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the usefulness of the European Arrest Warrant as a prosecutorial tool.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	212406
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government and the DPP are in agreement that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) offers the best way of keeping Britain safe, particularly from serious criminals and terrorists.</p><p>The introduction of the EAW has resulted in much faster processing of extradition requests, meaning that we can secure the return of fugitives wanted for serious offending in this country often in a matter of weeks, not many months or even years as was the case under previous arrangements. The Arrest Warrant is also more effective. For example, under the previous regime, the European Convention on Extradition, some Member States can refuse to surrender their own nationals, including France, Germany and Spain, which is not the position in EAW cases. Furthermore, the EAW overcomes problems of time limitation in other countries. It also means that wanted people can now be extradited to face fraud and tax charges, which was not the case before.</p><p>The Government has recently made changes in the way that the EAW is processed through our courts. These changes are designed to offer greater protection to UK citizens and other UK residents against disproportionate requests and the risk of spending unreasonable lengths of time in pre-trial detention abroad. With those changes in place, the Government is convinced that the EAW provides an effective and cost-efficient tool in the fight against trans-national crime, and it is one which prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals are keen to see preserved.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 212405 question first answered 03/11/2014 17:02:26 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

101616

registered interest
date	29/10/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Sham Marriage: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has brought on breaches of immigration law arising from sham marriages in each of the last five financial years.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	212437
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/11/2014 answer text <p>Offences of breaching immigration law may be prosecuted by way of Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 (assisting unlawful immigration to a European Union Member State) or by way of Section 1 of the Criminal Law Act (conspiracy).</p><p>The offence created by Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 encompasses both the offence of assisting illegal entry (whether by smuggling someone in a vehicle or by providing false documents for presentation at a port) or by assisting someone to remain by deception (for example, by entering into a sham marriage) which facilitate a breach of the immigration laws. Conspiracies to facilitate breaches of immigration law are charged by way of Section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.</p><p>The records held by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) indicate the number of offences charged, in which a prosecution commenced at magistrates’ courts for assisting unlawful immigration or conspiracy. However it is not possible to disaggregate which of these offences relate to sham marriages rather than other immigration law breaches without reviewing individual case files which would incur a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 04/11/2014 14:31:53 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

101296

registered interest
date	28/10/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	GPT Special Project Management
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, whether the Serious Fraud Office has sought his assistance with securing evidence from the Ministry of Defence in relation to its investigation into GPT Special Project Management Ltd.
tabling member constituency	Glasgow Central
tabling member printed	Anas Sarwar
uin	212318
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/11/2014 answer text <p>The Attorney General and I meet the Director frequently to discuss a variety of issues. However, as was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s policy to provide details of all such meetings.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Serious Fraud Office announced in August 2012 that the Director had opened a criminal investigation into allegations concerning GPT and aspects of the conduct of their business in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, however it would not be appropriate to give a running commentary on the progress of current investigations.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland grouped question UIN 212319 212320 212325 question first answered 04/11/2014 14:39:09 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	3981 label Biography information for Anas Sarwar

101298

registered interest
date	28/10/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	GPT Special Project Management
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many meetings staff from the Serious Fraud Office have had with officials of the Ministry of Defence in relation to its investigation into GPT Special Project Management Ltd; and on what dates those meetings took place.
tabling member constituency	Glasgow Central
tabling member printed	Anas Sarwar
uin	212319
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/11/2014 answer text <p>The Attorney General and I meet the Director frequently to discuss a variety of issues. However, as was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s policy to provide details of all such meetings.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Serious Fraud Office announced in August 2012 that the Director had opened a criminal investigation into allegations concerning GPT and aspects of the conduct of their business in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, however it would not be appropriate to give a running commentary on the progress of current investigations.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland grouped question UIN 212318 212320 212325 question first answered 04/11/2014 14:39:10 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	3981 label Biography information for Anas Sarwar

101011

registered interest
date	27/10/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Private Finance Initiative
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many private finance initiative projects the Law Officers' Departments contracted for in each year from 1997 to 2010.
tabling member constituency	Brighton, Kemptown
tabling member printed	Simon Kirby
uin	212091
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/11/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has had two private finance initiative (PFI) contracts between 1997 and 2010 as follows.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong><em>Information Technology (IT) managed service</em></strong></p><p> </p><p>The Department's IT service is provided through a PFI managed service contract with CGI (formally Logica) which was let from 1 April 2002. The contract currently runs until 30 November 2015 and provides for further extension options until 31 March 2017.</p><p> </p><p><strong><em> </em></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><em>Communications managed service</em></strong></p><p> </p><p>The Department's communications are provided through a managed service PFI contract with Level 3. This was let from 1 April 2006 and the contract runs until 30 November 2015.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The remaining Law Officers’ Departments have not contracted any PFI projects during the specified period of time.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 03/11/2014 17:21:33 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	3929 label Biography information for Simon Kirby

100491

registered interest
date	22/10/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Stalking
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many people have been charged under the provisions of section 4a of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 since 25 November 2012.
tabling member constituency	Mid Bedfordshire
tabling member printed	Nadine Dorries
uin	211534
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>I refer the Hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd on 23<sup>rd</sup> October 2014 (questions, 211141, 211143 and 211144). The previous answer included tables detailing the number of offences charged under Sections 4A(1)(a)(b)(i), Sections 4A(1)(a)(b)(ii) and 2A(1) of the 1997 Act broken down by each police force in England and Wales.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland grouped question UIN 211533 question first answered 28/10/2014 13:17:54 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	1481 label Biography information for Ms Nadine Dorries

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
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

92103

registered interest
date	26/09/2014
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Performance Appraisal
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many officials in the Law Officers' Departments completed the Civil Service Employment Policy Performance Management System in 2013-14; how many and what proportion of those officials received the (a) exceeded, (b) met and (c) must improve performance mark; and how many and what proportion (i) did and (ii) did not qualify for a bonus under that process.
tabling member constituency	Wentworth and Dearne
tabling member printed	John Healey
uin	209643
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The following tables contain information on performance marking and any performance awards for officials in the Law Officers’ Departments in the 2013-14 reporting year.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>All of the Law Officers’ departments have a non-consolidated performance award pot funded according to HM Treasury guidance. The amount is set as part of departmental pay remits agreed by the Attorney General.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Crown Prosecution Service</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Rating</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Headcount</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>%</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Exceeded</strong></p></td><td><p>737</p></td><td><p>12.9%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Achieved (Met)</strong></p></td><td><p>4900</p></td><td><p>85.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Not Achieved </strong></p><p><strong>(Must Improve)</strong></p></td><td><p>94</p></td><td><p>1.6%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>(1) Only 15 (0.3%) Crown Prosecution Service officials qualified for a performance bonus in 2013/14. These were Senior Civil Servant grades or equivalent and their performance bonus was managed in line with the Cabinet Office Performance Management arrangements for the Senior Civil Service. </em></p><p> </p><p><em>(2) Of those completing the CSEP Performance Management Process, 5716 officials (99.7%) did not qualify for a performance bonus.</em></p><p> </p><p><strong><em>(3) </em></strong><em>The source data has been extracted from the CPS e-PDR database using the base data report of 29/09/14. Consequent change to data input may mean that this data will change at some point in the future.</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><p><strong> </strong></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p> </p><p><strong>Treasury Solicitor’s Department (TSol)*</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Rating</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Headcount</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>%</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Exceeded</strong></p></td><td><p>352</p></td><td><p>27.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Achieved (Met)</strong></p></td><td><p>862</p></td><td><p>67.9%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Not Achieved </strong></p><p><strong>(Must Improve)</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p></td><td><p>55</p></td><td><p>4.3%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>* TSol data also covers officials employed by the Attorney General’s Office and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. This includes the DWP/DH team who merged with TSol on the 1<sup>st</sup> April 2014.</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Awarded performance award in accordance with the TSol pay settlement*</strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p><strong>Received award</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Did not receive award</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>TSol</strong></p></td><td><p>317</p></td><td><p>831</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proportion </strong></p></td><td><p>27.6%</p></td><td><p>72.4%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>* This data does not include the DWP/DH legal team. </em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Awarded performance award in accordance with reserved rights to the DWP/DH pay settlement*</strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Ex DWP/DH legal team</strong></p></td><td><p>117</p></td><td><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proportion of team</strong></p></td><td><p>96.7%</p></td><td><p>3.3%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>*The DWP/DH legal team operated under their previous appraisal policy in 2013-14. From 2014-15 these staff will be covered by the standard TSol performance system.</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><p><strong> </strong></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p><br></p><p> </p><p><strong>Serious Fraud Office</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Rating</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Headcount</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>%</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Outstanding (Exceeded)</strong></p></td><td><p>65</p></td><td><p>23.64%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Effective (Met)</strong></p></td><td><p>202</p></td><td><p>73.45%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Unsatisfactory (Must Improve)</strong></p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>2.91%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>(1) All staff rated as Outstanding or Effective qualified for a performance award. The amount available to the SFO for performance awards was split accordingly.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 28/10/2014 14:52:15 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	400 label Biography information for John Healey