Asked by: Catherine McKinnell (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, whether his Department plans to implement any of the recommendations of the report, Joint Serious Case Review Concerning Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adults with Needs for Care and Support in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, published by the Newcastle Safeguarding Children Board and Newcastle Safeguarding Adults Board.
Answered by Robert Buckland
On 23 February 2018, Newcastle Safeguarding Children Board and Newcastle Safeguarding Adults Board published their joint serious case review (SCR) for Operation Sanctuary.
Specifically, CPS North East is working closely with Newcastle Crown Court and other partners within the Criminal Justice System to improve the experience of victims and witnesses when attending court and to ensure that the commitments to witness care set out in the Victim’s Code and the Witness Charter are properly delivered.
Child sexual exploitation is abhorrent and the crimes perpetrated in Newcastle have had a devastating impact on the lives of the victims. The Government acknowledges the seriousness of the issues raised in this serious case review and is committed to improving the national response to tackling sexual exploitation.
More broadly, the Government has already taken significant action to tackle this issue. In February 2017, the Government published its Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation: Progress Report and announced a £40m package of measures to protect children and young people from sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking, and to crack down on offenders. This included £7.5m for a new, ground-breaking Centre of Expertise that will identify, generate, and share high quality evidence of what works to prevent and tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation. The recommendations of the review cover a wide range of issues, which we will consider carefully in the context of this existing programme of work.
Asked by: Catherine McKinnell (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many allegations of bribery of overseas parties by UK companies the Serious Fraud Office has received in each year since August 2012.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does not hold a discernible record of allegations relating to bribery prior to 2013. The number of referrals for the period 2013 to September 2016 that contain allegations of bribery or corruption are provided in the following table. SFO records categorise referral data as relating to fraud and or bribery and corruption but do not differentiate between allegations of domestic or overseas bribery. To determine such information would require a manual review of each file, which would incur a disproportionate cost.
Recorded referrals: Bribery and corruption* | |
Year Received | Total |
2013 | 161 |
2014 | 189 |
2015 | 242 |
2016 (to date) | 110 |
Total | 702 |
Note: These records are maintained for internal management purposes only, as such they do not form part of any official record
Asked by: Catherine McKinnell (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 19 November 2015 to Question 15443, for what reason the (a) Government Legal Department's expenditure on temporary agency staff and (b) Crown Prosecution Service's expenditure on (i) consultants and (ii) non-payroll staff increased between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Government Legal Department (GLD) provides legal services to government. It engages temporary and contract staff as a way of managing short term variations in demand. Where an increase in demand for legal services is expected to continue for the medium or long term, the department will use temporary staff to resource the work until permanent staff can be recruited. The increase in temporary staff from 2010-11 to 2014-15 reflects increased demand for legal services and the growth of GLD as a result of the Shared Legal Services programme that has brought into one organisation legal teams from across government. As a result overall staff numbers have increased by 69% between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
As outlined in the previous answer the actual expenditure incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on consultants and non-payroll staff between 2010-11 and 2014-15 was as follows.
Year | Consultants | Non-payroll staff |
2010/11 | £684,314 | £392,968 |
2011/12 | £13,347 | £23,355 |
2012/13 | £9,793 | £2,861 |
2013/14 | £960 | £273,935 |
2014/15 | £0 | £1,350,317 |
Between 2010-11 and 2014-15 the CPS has actually reduced its expenditure on consultants by £684,314.
In 2014-15 the CPS set up a project to manage the transition from its existing main Information Technology service provider. The Project Manager and remaining team are non-CPS staff, and their costs of £1,350,317 were the only non-payroll staff costs incurred last year.
Asked by: Catherine McKinnell (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the use of hearsay evidence in court proceedings in reducing the number of unsuccessful cases due to victim or witness issues; and what estimate he has made of the number of cases where hearsay evidence has been used by prosecutors in each year since 2010-11.
Answered by Robert Buckland
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutors will apply to admit hearsay evidence where they consider it appropriate to do so and the legislation permits. However, the CPS does not record information on the number of cases where hearsay evidence has been used in the course of criminal proceedings. It follows, therefore, that no assessment of the effectiveness of the use of hearsay evidence in court proceedings in reducing the number of unsuccessful cases due to victim or witness issues is routinely conducted.Asked by: Catherine McKinnell (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what estimate he has made of Crown Prosecution Service expenditure on (a) victim liaison units and (b) witness care units in real terms in each year since 2010-11.
Answered by Robert Buckland
It is not possible to provide the actual expenditure on Witness Care Units (WCUs) and Victim Liaison Units (VLUs) without incurring a disproportionate cost since this information is not separately captured by the CPS. However, the total budget allocated for the administration of WCUs and VLUs in each year since 2010-11 is detailed in the following table;
WCUs | VLU’s | |
2010-11 | £5,500,000 | - |
2011-12 | £4,000,000 | - |
2012-13 | £4,000,000 | - |
2013-14 | £4,000,000 | - |
2014-15 | £2,500,000 | £1,500,000 |
In each of the last four years the CPS has allocated £2.5 million of its Voted expenditure to WCUs. The remainder of the total CPS allocation was funded by income from the Ministry of Justice, via the Victims Surcharge up to and including 2013-14.
Witness attendance rates (which are used as a proxy for satisfaction) have remained above 80%.
Asked by: Catherine McKinnell (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many (a) victim liaison officers and (b) witness care officers were employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in each year since 2010-11.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The total number of (a) victim liaison officers and (b) witness care officers that were employed by the Crown Prosecution Service at the end of each year since 2010-11, can be seen in the table below.
Victim Liaison [1] | Witness Care | |
FTE | FTE | |
2010/11 | N/A | 182.5 |
2011/12 | N/A | 137.8 |
2012/13 | N/A | 118.5 |
2013/14 | N/A | 89.2 |
2014/15 |
| 76.4 |
Notes:
Data extracted from the CPS HR Database iTrent as at the 31st March in each year. Data may be subject to change due to retrospective changes in the HR database. Data may differ from previously published data due to differing specifications.
There has been a reduction in total staff numbers and the proportion of the workforce that is employed in witness care units from a peak in 2008. Witness care has been dealt with primarily by the joint CPS/police Witness Care Units. However, most of the staff in WCUs are, and have always been, police staff. Witness attendance rates (which are used as a proxy for satisfaction) have remained above 80%.
[1] Dedicated Victim Liaison Units were established by the CPS in 2014
Asked by: Catherine McKinnell (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what estimate he has made of the total expenditure on (a) in-house advocates and (b) external advocates in (i) magistrates' courts and (ii) the Crown court in each year since 2010-11; and what the average saving to the Crown Prosecution Service was from using in-house advocates in each of those years.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) estimate of costs of in-house advocates conducting magistrates’ courts advocacy and actual expenditure on agents in magistrates’ courts for each of the last five years is contained in table 1.
The CPS estimate of costs of in-house advocates conducting Crown Court advocacy and actual expenditure on external advocates in relation to Crown Court (and Higher Court) advocacy for each of the last five years is contained in table 2.
CPS estimate of savings generated by deploying in-house advocates in the Crown Court for each of the last five years is contained in table 3.
Data is not available on average or cumulative savings generated by using in-house advocates in magistrates’ courts. However, the comparative costs of Associate Prosecutors, Crown Prosecutors and agents for conducting a half-day session for each of the last five years are contained in table 4.
TABLE 1 | Estimated costs of CPS Magistrates’ Courts advocacy | ||
Associate Prosecutor | Crown Prosecutor | Agent Expenditure | |
2010-11 | 12,164,068 | 29,655,623 | 4,098,666 |
2011-12 | 11,581,064 | 26,877,107 | 3,490,891 |
2012-13 | 9,931,437 | 20,121,006 | 7,286,085 |
2013-14 | 8,159,307 | 17,867,614 | 7,666,157 |
2014-15 | 7,182,378 | 16,812,230 | 7,318,740 |
Notes: | |||
1) Estimated costs of Crown Prosecutor sessions, include Senior Crown Prosecutor | |||
2) Estimated in-house costs on three hours activity per half-day session at full-cost rates | |||
3) Agent expenditure is actual expenditure, including VAT | |||
4) Expenditure data source: CPS accounting system | |||
5) Prosecutor cost data source: Sessions = CIS; Cost = Finance Directorate 6) The figures above are not inflation adjusted | |||
TABLE 2 | Estimated costs of CPS Crown Court advocacy | ||
Estimated in-house advocate costs | Expenditure on external advocates | ||
2010-11 | 20,020,236 | 134,194,869 | |
2011-12 | 20,787,591 | 111,041,044 | |
2012-13 | 20,286,293 | 110,608,524 | |
2013-14 | 21,759,812 | 114,606,541 | |
2014-15 | 15,932,453 | 118,522,045 | |
Notes: | |||
1) External advocate costs include VAT | |||
2) Expenditure on external advocates will include some advocacy in Higher Courts. | |||
3) Expenditure on external advocates includes central Casework Divisions | |||
4) In-house advocacy cost data source: CPS Corporate Information System | |||
5) Expenditure data source: CPS accounting system | |||
6) The figures above are not inflation adjusted
TABLE 3 | CPS estimated savings in external advocate fees by deploying in-house advocates in the Crown Court | |||
2010-11 | 11,808,667 | |||
2011-12 | 12,375,099 | |||
2012-13 | 10,321,942 | |||
2013-14 | 7,130,080 | |||
2014-15 | 9,672,863 | |||
Notes: | ||||
1) Savings based on estimate of counsel fees saved minus full cost of deploying in-house advocate | ||||
2) Savings data source: CPS Corporate Information System | ||||
TABLE 4 | CPS estimated cost of conducting half-day magistrates' courts session | ||
£ | Associate Prosecutor | Crown Prosecutor | Agent |
2010-11 | 113 | 153 | 150 |
2011-12 | 115 | 156 | 150 |
2012-13 | 117 | 158 | 150 |
2013-14 | 117 | 161 | 150 |
2014-15 | 117 | 163 | 150 |
Notes: | |||
1) In-house costs estimated, based on 3 hours activity, at full-cost rates | |||
2) Crown Prosecutor session costs includes Senior Crown Prosecutor | |||
3) Agent half-day session rate includes VAT at 20% | |||
4) Data source for staff costs: Finance Directorate 5) The figures above are not inflation adjusted | |||
Asked by: Catherine McKinnell (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what estimate he has made of expenditure in (a) 2014-15 prices and (b) as a proportion of total Departmental spending on (i) temporary agency staff, (ii) consultants, (iii) non-payroll staff, (iv) administration and (v) marketing and advertising in each year since 2010-11.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The following tables contain details of the expenditure incurred by the Law Officers’ Departments in the categories requested during the last five financial years. Expenditure has not been restated in 2014-15 prices, as to do so would incur a disproportionate cost.
Expenditure – Government Legal Department 1 | |||||
2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |
Temporary Agency staff 2 | £2,921k | £3,589k | £5,248k | £9,097k | £11,935k |
% of Outturn | 2.7% | 3.1% | 4.5% | 6.5% | 6.6% |
Consultants | £9k | £43k | £11k | £4k | £24k |
% of Outturn | * | * | * | * | * |
Recruitment advertising 3 | £12k | £25k | £11k | £45k | £88k |
% of Outturn | * | * | * | * | * |
Revenue expenditure 4 | £109,102K | £116,648k | £116,128k | £139,163k | £179,816k |
% of outturn | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
1 GLD figures also cover the Attorney General’s Office and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. The information is taken from the published accounts for HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor. All GLD revenue expenditure is classified in the accounts as administration
2 GLD do not have non-payroll staff other than agency and contracted staff.
3 GLD do not routinely incur expenditure on marketing or advertising our services and do not separately capture these costs except those in relation to advertising for new staff. The amounts relating to these adverts are shown above.
4 All GLD revenue expenditure is classified in the accounts as administration.
* Proportion of spending less than 0.1% of outturn.
Expenditure – Serious Fraud Office 1 | |||||
2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |
Temporary Agency staff | £3,693k | £2,296k | £2,672k | £3,926k | £4,610k |
% of Outturn | 9% | 6% | 7% | 8% | 8% |
Consultants | £1,557k | £856k | £31k | £48k | £7k |
% of Outturn | 4% | 2% | * | * | * |
Marketing and advertising | £9k | £73k | £6k | £21k | £30k |
% of Outturn | * | * | * | * | * |
Administration | Nil2 | £7,546k | £7,019k | £7,281k | £6,237k |
% of outturn | N/A | 20% | 17% | 14% | 11% |
1 SFO do not have non-payroll staff other than agency and contracted staff.
2 From 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2011 all operating costs for the SFO were classified as programme costs. The Comprehensive Spending Review 2010, which covered the financial years 2011/12 to 2014/15, reinstated the requirement for reporting expenditure split between programme & Administration.
* Proportion of spending less than 1% of outturn.
Expenditure – Crown Prosecution Service 1 | |||||
2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |
Temporary Agency staff | £1,616,284 | £257,057 | £66,866 | £189,624 | £491,303 |
% of Outturn | 0.23% | 0.04% | 0.01% | 0.03% | 0.09% |
Consultants | £684,314 | £13,347 | £9,793 | £960 | Nil |
% of Outturn | 0.1% | * | * | * | Nil |
Non payroll staff | £392,968 | £23,355 | £2,861 | £273,935 | £1,350,317 |
% of Outturn | * | * | * | * | 0.24% |
Administration | £21,704,994 | £9,637,983 | £13,627,407 | £12,426,376 | £11,826,562 |
% of outturn | 3.11% | 1.48% | 2.18% | 2.03% | 2.07% |
1 No money was spent by the CPS on marketing and advertising in the relevant period other than when recruiting for vacant posts.
* Proportion of spending less than 0.1% of outturn.