Asked by: Kenny MacAskill (Alba Party - East Lothian)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how much the Crown Prosecution Service has spent on external consultants in each of the last five years; and if she will publish a breakdown of the (a) amount paid to each consultancy contracted, (b) name of each consultancy contracted and (c) specific matters on which they were consulted.
Answered by Michael Tomlinson - Minister of State (Minister for Illegal Migration)
The spend on externally contracted consultancy services for CPS in each of the last five years, as recorded in the CPS’ published accounts, is shown in the table below:
|
Asked by: Kenny MacAskill (Alba Party - East Lothian)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how much the Government Legal Department has spent on external consultants in each of the last five years; and if she will publish a breakdown of the (a) amount paid to each consultancy contracted, (b) name of each consultancy contracted and (c) specific matters on which they were consulted.
Answered by Michael Tomlinson - Minister of State (Minister for Illegal Migration)
The Government Legal Department (GLD) spent the following amounts on external consultants over the past five financial years. This information is available in the public domain and is as follows:
2017/18 | 2018/19 | 2019/20 | 2020/21 | 2021/22 |
£79,000 | £101,000 | £144,000 | £111,000 | £342,000 |
The breakdown of this consultancy spending by each firm contracted is as follows:
Name of consultancy firm | Amount paid to firm | Specific matters on which they were consulted |
North Highland | £80,000 | Productivity improvements in legal activity delivery |
Quo Imus Ltd | £20,000 | Work on a review of shared service communications across AGO, GLD and HMCPSI |
AMEO Professional Services Ltd | £99,000 | Improvements to GLD's recruitment and resourcing strategy and processes |
TPX Ltd | £228,000 | Improvements to GLD's recruitment and resourcing strategy and processes |
Ixia Consultancy Ltd | £40,000 | Design work on programme to enhance GLD’s Leadership capability |
Mike Curtis Reward Solutions Ltd | £137,000 | Support to the development of a new pay framework for GLD |
Incendium Consulting Ltd | £57,000 | Provision of specialist legal market analysis to development of GLD’s future accommodation strategy |
Alexander Mann Solutions Ltd | £32,000 | A review of corporate services capability and design for GLD and its shared service customers |
Rainmaker Solutions | £79,000 | Development of cloud analytical solutions |
Various | £5,000 | Short-term project and consultancy support |
Asked by: Kenny MacAskill (Alba Party - East Lothian)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how much her Department has spent on external consultants in each of the last five years; and if she will publish a breakdown of the (a) amount paid to each consultancy contracted, (b) name of each consultancy contracted and (c) specific matters on which they were consulted.
Answered by Edward Timpson
For the last five years, The Attorney General’s Office has had a nil spend for external consultants*
Details of all Government contracts awarded from 2016 above £10,000 and £25,000 in the wider public sector are published on Contracts Finder. Each award notice provides information on the name of the supplier, value of the contract, its purpose and information on the type of awarding procedure used. Government departments, their individual agencies and Arm’s Length Bodies are required to publish all spend against individual suppliers above £25,000 on GOV.UK.
All Government Departments and their individual ALBs and agencies are required to follow the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 in awarding contracts.
* Whilst preparing this response the department have not considered the use of specialist counsel or short-term contractor contracts as consultancy.
Asked by: Kenny MacAskill (Alba Party - East Lothian)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how much the Serious Fraud Office has spent on external consultants in each of the last five years; and if she will publish a breakdown of the (a) amount paid to each consultancy contracted, (b) name of each consultancy contracted and (c) specific matters on which they were consulted.
Answered by Edward Timpson
The spend on externally contracted consultancy services for the Serious Fraud Office in each of the last five years is shown in the table below.
2020/21 | 2019/20 | 2018/19 | 2017/18 | 2016/17 |
£95,000 | £42,000 | £0 | £0 | £0 |
Details of all Government contracts awarded from 2016 above £10,000 and £25,000 in the wider public sector are published on Contracts Finder. Each award notice provides information on the name of the supplier, value of the contract, its purpose and information on the type of awarding procedure used.
Government departments, their individual agencies and Arm’s Length Bodies are required to publish all spend against individual suppliers above £25,000 on GOV.UK.
All Government Departments and their individual ALBs and agencies are required to follow the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 in awarding contracts.
Asked by: Kenny MacAskill (Alba Party - East Lothian)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how much HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has spent on external consultants in each of the last five years; and if she will publish a breakdown of the (a) amount paid to each consultancy contracted, (b) name of each consultancy contracted and (c) specific matters on which they were consulted.
Answered by Edward Timpson
For the last five years, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has had a nil spend for external consultants.
Asked by: Kenny MacAskill (Alba Party - East Lothian)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many cases of malicious prosecution the Crown Prosecution Service or any other previous prosecuting has [had upheld against it] since 1999.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
In respect of the two prosecuting agencies I superintend – the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) - neither have had any cases of malicious prosecution upheld against them since 1999.
Asked by: Kenny MacAskill (Alba Party - East Lothian)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 28 January 2021 to Question 143130, what the total legal costs were in the (a) Scottish Courts and (b) Supreme Court in respect of litigation relating to the prorogation of Parliament in 2019.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Government defended a petition for Judicial Review in relation to the prorogation of Parliament in 2019 raised by Joanna Cherry QC MP and others in (1) the Outer House in the Court of Session, (2) the Inner House of the Court of Session, and (3) the Supreme Court where it was joined with R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent).
The Office of the Advocate General and Government Legal Department have determined that the total legal costs incurred by the Government in relation to the Cherry litigation in the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session was £83,715 (net of VAT). The total legal costs incurred by the Government in the Supreme Court in relation to Cherry was £83,715 (net of VAT), and in relation to Miller was £142,590. These figures include Counsel fees, Government Legal Department litigator costs and court dues.
The Government also incurred £30,000 in adverse costs in relation to the Cherry proceedings. It is not possible to attribute these costs between proceedings in the different courts.
Asked by: Kenny MacAskill (Alba Party - East Lothian)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what the cost to the public purse was of the Government defending cases in the Scottish courts relating to the prorogation of Parliament in 2019.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Government defended a petition for Judicial Review in relation to the prorogation of Parliament in 2019 raised by Joanna Cherry QC MP and others in (1) the Outer House in the Court of Session, (2) the Inner House of the Court of Session, and (3) the Supreme Court, where it was joined with R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent).
The Office of the Advocate General and Government Legal Department have determined that the total costs of defending this litigation were £127,062.33 (net of VAT). This figure includes Counsel fees, Government Legal Department litigator costs and court dues. The Government also incurred £30,000 in adverse costs.