Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

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
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

909046

registered interest
date	21/05/2018
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Prosecutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many prosecutions have been initiated by the (a) Crown Prosecution Service and (b) Serious Fraud Office against corporate bodies for offences committed under (i) section 327-329 and (ii) section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2017.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	146242
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/05/2018 answer text <p>This answer is based on ‎reference having been intended to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 rather than 2017.</p><p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number of prosecutions against corporate bodies for offences committed under (i) section 327-329 and (ii) section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Nor is it possible to identify whether the defendant was a corporate body. This information could only be obtained by examining CPS case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.</p><p>The SFO has not prosecuted any cases under these sections of the 2002 Act.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 24/05/2018 14:18:18 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

869437

registered interest
date	22/03/2018
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Money Laundering
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 20 February 2018 to Question 127856 on money laundering, how many of those businesses have been fined more than once; and what the (a) average, (b) lowest and (c) highest value of those fines was.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	133951
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/03/2018 answer text <p>The ‎work of the FCA is a matter for HMT. Officials at HMT have advised that in January 2017, the FCA fined Deutsche Bank £163 million, its largest ever financial penalty for AML failings.</p><p> </p><p>All FCA fines levied against businesses are published online. The link to the webpage can be found below:</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/2017-fines" target="_blank">www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/2017-fines</a></p><p> </p><p>HMT does not hold data on how many firms have been fined more than once, the lowest fine, nor the average value of fines.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 28/03/2018 14:53:35 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 49945 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

850728

registered interest
date	27/02/2018
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Sexual Offences: Newcastle upon Tyne
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	129969
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/03/2018 answer text <p>On 23 February 2018, Newcastle Safeguarding Children Board and Newcastle Safeguarding Adults Board published their joint serious case review (SCR) for Operation Sanctuary.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p><strong> </strong></p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 08/03/2018 16:49:33 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 44759 answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

599322

registered interest
date	11/10/2016
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Corruption
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	48054
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/10/2016 answer text <p>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.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong> Recorded referrals: Bribery and corruption*</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Year Received</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>161</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>189</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>242</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016 (to date)</p></td><td><p>110</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>702</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Note: <em>These records are maintained for internal management purposes only, as such they do not form part of any official record</em></p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 17/10/2016 14:21:32 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

438152

registered interest
date	14/12/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Attorney General: Public Expenditure
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	20018
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/01/2016 answer text <p>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.</p><p>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.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Year</p></td><td><p>Consultants</p></td><td><p>Non-payroll staff</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010/11</p></td><td><p>£684,314</p></td><td><p>£392,968</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011/12</p></td><td><p>£13,347</p></td><td><p>£23,355</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012/13</p></td><td><p>£9,793</p></td><td><p>£2,861</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013/14</p></td><td><p>£960</p></td><td><p>£273,935</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014/15</p></td><td><p>£0</p></td><td><p>£1,350,317</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Between 2010-11 and 2014-15 the CPS has actually reduced its expenditure on consultants by £684,314.</p><p>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.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 04/01/2016 16:51:14 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

428970

registered interest
date	18/11/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Evidence
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	16836
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/11/2015 answer text 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. answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 23/11/2015 09:36:38 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

427434

registered interest
date	10/11/2015
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: Costs
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 22 October 2015 to Question 12365, what savings have resulted from the police-led prosecution initiative in each year since 2012-13.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	15710
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2015 answer text <p>The police-led prosecution initiative has led to a significant reduction in motoring offences prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in magistrate courts, as the following figures indicate:</p><p>Motoring offence cases finalised in the Magistrates Court</p><p>2012-13: 229,875</p><p>2013-14: 171,517</p><p>2014-15: 112,955</p><br /><p>While the reduction has led to a fall in expenditure on these low-level cases, the overall effect on CPS budgets has been cost-neutral. A high proportion of these cases are dealt with as summary first-time guilty pleas, in which the Court requires the defendant to pay the prosecution costs as part of any financial penalty. Therefore, whilst the CPS has benefitted from a reduction in expenditure, it has foregone the receipt of cost awards that are routinely made in motoring offence cases, as these awards are now payable to the police.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 19/11/2015 10:58:40 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

426981

registered interest
date	09/11/2015
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: Staff
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	15558
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2015 answer text <p>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.</p><br /><p>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.</p><br /><p>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.</p><br /><p>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.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>TABLE 1</strong></p></td><td colspan="3"><p><strong>Estimated costs of CPS Magistrates’ Courts advocacy</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><strong>Associate Prosecutor </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Crown Prosecutor</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Agent Expenditure</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p>12,164,068</p></td><td><p>29,655,623</p></td><td><p>4,098,666</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p>11,581,064</p></td><td><p>26,877,107</p></td><td><p>3,490,891</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p>9,931,437</p></td><td><p>20,121,006</p></td><td><p>7,286,085</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p>8,159,307</p></td><td><p>17,867,614</p></td><td><p>7,666,157</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2014-15</strong></p></td><td><p>7,182,378</p></td><td><p>16,812,230</p></td><td><p>7,318,740</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Notes:</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><p>1) Estimated costs of Crown Prosecutor sessions, include Senior Crown Prosecutor</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><p>2) Estimated in-house costs on three hours activity per half-day session at full-cost rates</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p>3) Agent expenditure is actual expenditure, including VAT</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>4) Expenditure data source: CPS accounting system</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p>5) Prosecutor cost data source: Sessions = CIS; Cost = Finance Directorate 6) The figures above are not inflation adjusted</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>TABLE 2</strong></p></td><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Estimated costs of CPS Crown Court advocacy</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><strong>Estimated in-house advocate costs</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Expenditure on external advocates</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p>20,020,236</p></td><td><p>134,194,869</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p>20,787,591</p></td><td><p>111,041,044</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p>20,286,293</p></td><td><p>110,608,524</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p>21,759,812</p></td><td><p>114,606,541</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2014-15</strong></p></td><td><p>15,932,453</p></td><td><p>118,522,045</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Notes:</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>1) External advocate costs include VAT</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><p>2) Expenditure on external advocates will include some advocacy in Higher Courts.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><p>3) Expenditure on external advocates includes central Casework Divisions</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p>4) In-house advocacy cost data source: CPS Corporate Information System</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>5) Expenditure data source: CPS accounting system</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>6) The figures above are not inflation adjusted</p><br /><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>TABLE 3</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>CPS estimated savings in external advocate fees by deploying in-house advocates in the Crown Court</strong></p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p>11,808,667</p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p>12,375,099</p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p>10,321,942</p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p>7,130,080</p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2014-15</strong></p></td><td><p>9,672,863</p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Notes:</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><p>1) Savings based on estimate of counsel fees saved minus full cost of deploying in-house advocate</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p>2) Savings data source: CPS Corporate Information System <br> 3) The figures above are not inflation adjusted</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>TABLE 4</strong></p></td><td colspan="3"><p><strong>CPS estimated cost of conducting half-day magistrates' courts session</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>£</p></td><td><p><strong>Associate Prosecutor </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Crown Prosecutor</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Agent </strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p>113</p></td><td><p>153</p></td><td><p>150</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p>115</p></td><td><p>156</p></td><td><p>150</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p>117</p></td><td><p>158</p></td><td><p>150</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p>117</p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>150</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2014-15</strong></p></td><td><p>117</p></td><td><p>163</p></td><td><p>150</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Notes:</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p>1) In-house costs estimated, based on 3 hours activity, at full-cost rates</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p>2) Crown Prosecutor session costs includes Senior Crown Prosecutor</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>3) Agent half-day session rate includes VAT at 20%</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>4) Data source for staff costs: Finance Directorate 5) The figures above are not inflation adjusted</p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 19/11/2015 13:16:55 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

426982

registered interest
date	09/11/2015
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: Expenditure
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	15559
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/11/2015 answer text <p>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;</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong></strong></p></td><td><p><strong>WCUs</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>VLU’s</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-11</p></td><td><p>£5,500,000</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>£4,000,000</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>£4,000,000</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-14</p></td><td><p>£4,000,000</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014-15</p></td><td><p>£2,500,000</p></td><td><p>£1,500,000</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>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.</p><p>Witness attendance rates (which are used as a proxy for satisfaction) have remained above 80%.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 20/11/2015 13:56:06 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell