1-9 of 9 results for subject:Conduct
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.227 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Conduct
- We searched for
- subject_t:Conduct OR subject_ses:90668
Primary member
X
Cameron of Chipping Norton, Lord
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Cameron of Chipping Norton, Lord (9)
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Statement on the report of the Leveson Inquiry.
Statement on the report of the Leveson Inquiry.
Lead member
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
Department
Prime Minister
Type
Ministerial statements
Notes
Statement also made by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Subjects
Data protection; Conduct; Sky; Business interests; Incentives; Ethics; Journalism; Police; Press; Regulation; Takeovers; Self-regulation; Conservative; Politicians; News International; Corporate hospitality; Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry
Date
29 November 2012
Reference
554 cc440-469
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Statement on phone hacking.
Statement on phone hacking.
Lead member
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
Department
Prime Minister
Type
Ministerial statements
Subjects
Criminal investigation; Corruption; Conduct; Career development; Sky; Ethics; Prime Minister; Police; Newspaper press; Mergers; Ministers; Media; Metropolitan Police; Resignations; Telephone tapping; Conservative; Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Politicians; News Corporation; Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry; Coulson, Andy; Gloucester, Bishop of; News of the World; Stephenson, Paul; Wallis, Neil
Date
20 July 2011
Reference
531 c918-62
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Jim Philippson and sending our condolences to his family. Our troops are doing difficult work in Afghanistan, and they have our support.
In the past 40 days, the new Home Secretary has been hard at work. He potentially undermined his Department’s deportation proceedings, he shelved his anti-crime campaign at the last minute, he misled the public about the employment of illegal immigrants in his Department and now he has criticised judges for their implementation of new Labour law. Can the Prime Minister detect any early signs that this Home Secretary will be any better than the last?
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Jim Philippson and sending our condolences to his family. Our troops are doing difficult work in Afghanistan, and they have our support.
In the past 40 days, the new Home Secretary has been hard at work. He potentially undermined his Department’s deportation proceedings, he shelved his anti-crime campaign at the last minute, he misled the public about the employment of illegal immigrants in his Department and now he has criticised judges for their implementation of new Labour law. Can the Prime Minister detect any early signs that this Home Secretary will be any better than the last?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
14 June 2006
Since the right hon. Gentleman and his shadow Home Secretary have been complaining about life sentences and prisoners being released early after being sentenced to life, I want to explain to the House how that has come about. Of the 53 prisoners, the vast bulk were given automatic life sentences under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997—before we came to office. The automatic life sentences were given for second offences. We changed the law in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow indeterminate sentences to be given. Since April 2005, when the Act came into effect, there have been 1,000 of those sentences. Six of those people have been considered for parole and no parole has been given.
However, that is not the point that I wanted to make. I wanted to make the point that, when the Criminal Justice Act came before the House, the Conservative party voted against it.
Legislation
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Subjects
Administration of justice; Conduct; Home Office; Parole; Ministers; Life imprisonment; Sentencing; Sentencing Guidelines Council
Date
14 June 2006
Reference
447 c761-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Let us go straight to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and consider the Home Secretary’s attack on the judge who gave the paedophile a sentence that could turn out to be as little as six years. Is not it the case that the 18-year sentence was reduced by a third because of the Sentencing Guidelines Council that the Prime Minister introduced? Is not it also the case that the individual could be let out halfway through his sentence—only six years—under the 2003 Act that the Prime Minister introduced and we voted against?
Let us go straight to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and consider the Home Secretary’s attack on the judge who gave the paedophile a sentence that could turn out to be as little as six years. Is not it the case that the 18-year sentence was reduced by a third because of the Sentencing Guidelines Council that the Prime Minister introduced? Is not it also the case that the individual could be let out halfway through his sentence—only six years—under the 2003 Act that the Prime Minister introduced and we voted against?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
14 June 2006
The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish. The Sentencing Guidelines Council was supported across the House. The individual whom he mentions and others do not now need to be released because of the powers in the Act. Before the 2003 Act—he can check this with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—someone who was sentenced to more than four years’ imprisonment was automatically paroled at the two thirds point, irrespective of what happened. Under the Act, that right to automatic parole was taken away. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted against that as well.
If we are going to talk about facts—and I am happy to talk about antisocial behaviour, about which he attacked us and again dismissed as a gimmick, even though the powers are doing good in communities throughout the country, or assets recovery, which his lot tried to water down—the truth is that he and his hon. Friends talk tough in the media and vote soft in Parliament.
Legislation
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Subjects
Children; Administration of justice; Conduct; Home Office; Protection; Parole; Ministers; Life imprisonment; Paedophilia; Sentencing; Sentencing Guidelines Council
Date
14 June 2006
Reference
447 c762
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The point about the 2003 Act is that it means that criminals are released halfway through their sentence. I know a thing or two about the 2003 Act— [ Interruption.] I know a thing or two about the 2003 Act because I sat on the Bill Committee. Let me tell the House something that I said at the time:
““If there is one thing that undermines people’s confidence in the criminal justice system, it is the feeling that time after time sentences are handed down but people are released halfway through them.””— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 February 2003; c. 954. ]
That is why we opposed it.
Can the Prime Minister confirm something else? The only reason that this case— [ Interruption.] They are shouting because they do not like it. They know that they are on the wrong side. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the only reason that this case can be sent back to the Court of Appeal for a tougher sentence to be considered is the Criminal Justice Act that we passed and that he voted against?
The point about the 2003 Act is that it means that criminals are released halfway through their sentence. I know a thing or two about the 2003 Act— [ Interruption.] I know a thing or two about the 2003 Act because I sat on the Bill Committee. Let me tell the House something that I said at the time:
““If there is one thing that undermines people’s confidence in the criminal justice system, it is the feeling that time after time sentences are handed down but people are released halfway through them.””— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 February 2003; c. 954. ]
That is why we opposed it.
Can the Prime Minister confirm something else? The only reason that this case— [ Interruption.] They are shouting because they do not like it. They know that they are on the wrong side. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the only reason that this case can be sent back to the Court of Appeal for a tougher sentence to be considered is the Criminal Justice Act that we passed and that he voted against?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
14 June 2006
Again, all that we have done is to toughen the ability of the Attorney-General— [ Interruption.] Yes, we have, as a matter of fact. I want to go back to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is completely wrong. Under the 2003 Act, if someone is sentenced to more than four years in prison—in other words, if it is a serious offence—they can no longer be paroled at the two-thirds point. Since April 2005, 1,000 indeterminate sentences have been handed down and no one has been paroled because of that Act. The right hon. Gentleman says that he and his colleagues support tough measures, but I have before me a press release put out just the other day by the shadow Leader of the House. We remember debating the 90 days or the 28 days for the detention of suspected terrorists. We were forced, because of the right hon. Gentleman’s votes, to have the 28 days. The shadow Leader of the House then attacked us for not introducing this measure quickly enough. The reason that we are unable to introduce it quickly is that the Conservatives insisted on a longer consultation period, which prevented us from doing that. So at every stage, whether it involves antisocial behaviour, assets recovery, the Criminal Justice Act or terrorist legislation, the right hon. Gentleman talks tough but he votes soft.
Legislation
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Subjects
Administration of justice; Conduct; Parole; Ministers; Life imprisonment; Sentencing; Sentencing Guidelines Council
Date
14 June 2006
Reference
447 c762-3
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Why does not the Prime Minister understand that the reason that criminals are not let out two thirds of the way through their sentence now is that, under his legislation, they are let out halfway through their sentence? In the past 40 days, the Home Secretary has blamed the judges, blamed the civil servants and tried to blame the public. Will the Prime Minister tell him to stop trying to blame everyone else and to get on with his job?
Why does not the Prime Minister understand that the reason that criminals are not let out two thirds of the way through their sentence now is that, under his legislation, they are let out halfway through their sentence? In the past 40 days, the Home Secretary has blamed the judges, blamed the civil servants and tried to blame the public. Will the Prime Minister tell him to stop trying to blame everyone else and to get on with his job?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
14 June 2006
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman repeats the point that he is getting wrong. Since April 2005, 1,000 indeterminate sentences have been given, six have been considered for parole, and no one has been paroled. Those are the facts. As for the rest of the Tory attack, the fact is that, on all these pieces of legislation, they have either voted against them, dismissed them as gimmicks or refused to support them and tried to dilute them. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be bringing forward further measures, and we will then have the chance to see whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are prepared to back up their tough talk by changing the habits of opposition and actually voting for the legislation that does the job.
Legislation
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Subjects
Administration of justice; Conduct; Home Office; Parole; Ministers; Life imprisonment; Sentencing; Sentencing Guidelines Council
Date
14 June 2006
Reference
447 c763
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in what circumstances he is able to exercise his power to investigate the personal conduct of members of the judiciary.
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in what circumstances he is able to exercise his power to investigate the personal conduct of members of the judiciary.
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Wills
(Labour)
Answering body
Lord Chancellor's Department
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
14 March 2002
For answer on
10 April 2002
Answered on
10 April 2002
Mr. Cameron: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in what circumstances he is able to exercise his power
to investigate the personal conduct of members of the judiciary. [44424]
Mr. Wills: As Head of the Judiciary the Lord Chancellor is able to consider and investigate complaints about the personal conduct of
individual judges and other judicial office holders.
It is not open to the Lord Chancellor to comment on, or to intervene in relation to, complaints received about decisions made by a
judge or any steps in the process of reasoning underlying his or her decision, or other matters involving the exercise of judicial
functions.
The criteria for investigating complaints about personal conduct of members of the judiciary are set down in procedures drawn up in
1998. The system for investigating complaints has developed over the last four years and the procedures are now being revised to
take these developments into account. Details will be made available to the public once the revised procedures have been finalised.
Subjects
Complaints; Conduct; Judiciary; Judges
Date
10 April 2002
Reference
44424; 383 c43W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many acting members of the judiciary have been the subject of complaints for their work as solicitors in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement; what powers he has to investigate the conduct of members of the...
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many acting members of the judiciary have been the subject of complaints for their work as solicitors in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement; what powers he has to investigate the conduct of members of the...
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Wills
(Labour)
Answering body
Lord Chancellor's Department
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
14 March 2002
For answer on
26 March 2002
Answered on
26 March 2002
Subjects
Complaints; Conduct; Judiciary; Solicitors
Date
26 March 2002
Reference
382 c843W;382 c837W; 44606;44425
House
House of Commons
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, What plans he has to amend the Ministerial Code of Conduct; and if he will make a statement. (Failed OPQ). - Inc ref to 381 c875-6W, 13 March 2002.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, What plans he has to amend the Ministerial Code of Conduct; and if he will make a statement. (Failed OPQ). - Inc ref to 381 c875-6W, 13 March 2002.
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Prescott
(Labour)
Answering body
Cabinet Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
27 February 2002
For answer on
13 March 2002
Answered on
13 March 2002
Mr. Cameron: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the ministerial code of conduct; and if he will make a
statement. [40133]
The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of: State: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend earlier today
to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).
Subjects
Codes of practice; Conduct; Ministers
Date
13 March 2002
Reference
381 c1069W;381 c1071W; 40133
House
House of Commons