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 answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

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

426983

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, how many (a) victim liaison officers and (b) witness care officers were employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in each year since 2010-11.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	15560
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/11/2015 answer text <p>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<strong>, </strong>can be seen in the table below.</p><br /><table><tbody><tr><td></td><td><p><strong>Victim Liaison [1]</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Witness Care</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>FTE</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>FTE</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2010/11</strong></p></td><td><p>N/A</p></td><td><p>182.5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2011/12</strong></p></td><td><p>N/A</p></td><td><p>137.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2012/13</strong></p></td><td><p>N/A</p></td><td><p>118.5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2013/14</strong></p></td><td><p>N/A</p></td><td><p>89.2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2014/15</strong></p></td><td><p><br> 44.11</p></td><td><p>76.4</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><strong>Notes:</strong></p><p>Data extracted from the CPS HR Database iTrent as at the 31<sup>st</sup> 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.</p><br /><p>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%.</p><br /><p>[1] Dedicated Victim Liaison Units were established by the CPS in 2014</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 20/11/2015 14:00:38 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

426984

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	Attorney General: Public Expenditure
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	15443
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2015 answer text <p>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.</p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p><strong>Expenditure – Government Legal Department <sup>1</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014-15</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Temporary Agency staff <sup>2</sup></p></td><td><p>£2,921k</p></td><td><p>£3,589k</p></td><td><p>£5,248k</p></td><td><p>£9,097k</p></td><td><p>£11,935k</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of Outturn</p></td><td><p>2.7%</p></td><td><p>3.1%</p></td><td><p>4.5%</p></td><td><p>6.5%</p></td><td><p>6.6%</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Consultants</p></td><td><p>£9k</p></td><td><p>£43k</p></td><td><p>£11k</p></td><td><p>£4k</p></td><td><p>£24k</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of Outturn</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Recruitment advertising <sup>3</sup></p></td><td><p>£12k</p></td><td><p>£25k</p></td><td><p>£11k</p></td><td><p>£45k</p></td><td><p>£88k</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of Outturn</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Revenue expenditure <sup>4</sup></p></td><td><p>£109,102K</p></td><td><p>£116,648k</p></td><td><p>£116,128k</p></td><td><p>£139,163k</p></td><td><p>£179,816k</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of outturn</p></td><td><p>100%</p></td><td><p>100%</p></td><td><p>100%</p></td><td><p>100%</p></td><td><p>100%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><em><sup>1</sup></em><em> GLD figures also cover the Attorney General’s Office and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. </em><em>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 </em></p><p><em><sup>2 </sup></em><em>GLD do not have non-payroll staff other than agency and contracted staff.</em></p><p><em><sup>3 </sup></em><em>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.</em></p><p><em><sup>4 </sup></em><em>All GLD revenue expenditure is classified in the accounts as administration. </em></p><p><strong><em>* </em></strong><em>Proportion of spending less than 0.1% of outturn.</em></p><br /><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p><strong>Expenditure – Serious Fraud Office </strong><sup>1</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014-15</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Temporary Agency staff</p></td><td><p>£3,693k</p></td><td><p>£2,296k</p></td><td><p>£2,672k</p></td><td><p>£3,926k</p></td><td><p>£4,610k</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of Outturn</p></td><td><p>9%</p></td><td><p>6%</p></td><td><p>7%</p></td><td><p>8%</p></td><td><p>8%</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Consultants</p></td><td><p>£1,557k</p></td><td><p>£856k</p></td><td><p>£31k</p></td><td><p>£48k</p></td><td><p>£7k</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of Outturn</p></td><td><p>4%</p></td><td><p>2%</p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Marketing and advertising</p></td><td><p>£9k</p></td><td><p>£73k</p></td><td><p>£6k</p></td><td><p>£21k</p></td><td><p>£30k</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of Outturn</p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Administration</p></td><td><p>Nil<sup>2</sup></p></td><td><p>£7,546k</p></td><td><p>£7,019k</p></td><td><p>£7,281k</p></td><td><p>£6,237k</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of outturn</p></td><td><p>N/A</p></td><td><p>20%</p></td><td><p>17%</p></td><td><p>14%</p></td><td><p>11%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><strong><em><sup>1 </sup></em></strong><em>SFO do not have non-payroll staff other than agency and contracted staff.</em></p><p><strong><em><sup>2</sup></em></strong><em> 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 &amp; Administration.</em></p><p><strong><em>* </em></strong><em>Proportion of spending less than 1% of outturn.</em></p><br /><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p><strong>Expenditure – Crown Prosecution Service <em><sup>1</sup></em></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014-15</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Temporary Agency staff</p></td><td><p>£1,616,284</p></td><td><p>£257,057</p></td><td><p>£66,866</p></td><td><p>£189,624</p></td><td><p>£491,303</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of Outturn</p></td><td><p>0.23%</p></td><td><p>0.04%</p></td><td><p>0.01%</p></td><td><p>0.03%</p></td><td><p>0.09%</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Consultants</p></td><td><p>£684,314</p></td><td><p>£13,347</p></td><td><p>£9,793</p></td><td><p>£960</p></td><td><p>Nil</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of Outturn</p></td><td><p>0.1%</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>*</strong></p></td><td><p>Nil</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Non payroll staff</p></td><td><p>£392,968</p></td><td><p>£23,355</p></td><td><p>£2,861</p></td><td><p>£273,935</p></td><td><p>£1,350,317</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of Outturn</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>*</p></td><td><p>0.24%</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Administration</p></td><td><p>£21,704,994</p></td><td><p>£9,637,983</p></td><td><p>£13,627,407</p></td><td><p>£12,426,376</p></td><td><p>£11,826,562</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% of outturn</p></td><td><p>3.11%</p></td><td><p>1.48%</p></td><td><p>2.18%</p></td><td><p>2.03%</p></td><td><p>2.07%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><strong><em><sup>1 </sup></em></strong>No money was spent by the CPS on marketing and advertising in the relevant period other than when recruiting for vacant posts.</p><p><strong><em>* </em></strong><em>Proportion of spending less than 0.1% of outturn.</em></p><br /> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 19/11/2015 11:57:30 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 29955 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

426985

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	Attorney General: Public Expenditure
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, what estimate he has made of the amount of expected underspend for his office against departmental expenditure limits in 2015-16.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	15536
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/11/2015 answer text <p>The Departmental Expenditure Limit for HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor includes the Government Legal Department (GLD), the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The estimated underspend against the Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit is £2.69m. Total expenditure is estimated to be £190m.</p><p>GLD sets its fees and fee rates at the beginning of the year with the aim of achieving full cost recovery and in line with HM Treasury guidance <em>Managing Public Money</em>. In setting the fees and fee rate judgements about volumes of work, the impact of inflation, and cost are made and as a result it is normal for there to be a variance.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/11/2015 15:47:08 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

426986

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	Trials: Per Capita Costs
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 21 October 2015 to Question 11888, for what reason the (a) prosecution cost per defendant and (b) overall spend per completed case has increased since 2010-11.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	15538
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/11/2015 answer text <p>The increase in (a) average prosecution cost per defendant and (b) overall spend per completed case reflects the significant change in the caseload mix since 2010-11.</p><p>For example, the prosecution of low level traffic offences has been transferred to the police since 2010-11, leading to a fall of 61.1% in motoring cases. A rising proportion of the CPS workload is now geared towards larger and more complex cases, including non-recent sexual abuse cases.</p><p>The average costs are also unadjusted for inflation. If average costs for each prior year were all restated in terms of 2014-15 prices, then they would all be increased accordingly.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/11/2015 15:42:08 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell