The answer of 6 June 2018 stated there were 8 contractors in the Government Legal Department (GLD) who had worked in GLD for five or more years at 30 April 2018. Their daily rates of pay are: £167.20, £254.45, £285, £369.08, £375, £380, £389.50, and £418.

The CPS is fully aligned with the Government Commercial Function paper "Exiting Major IT Contracts: Guidance for Departments”.

The programme to disaggregate and replace ICT services delivered through a PFI contract with CGI (formally Logica) since 2002 is well advanced and will complete in 2019. Throughout the programme the CPS has worked in partnership with the Government Digital Service and the Crown Commercial Service, securing spending control approval from Cabinet Office and HM Treasury where appropriate. The CPS’s strategy ensures that it is aligned with the government’s Technology Code of Practice including the principle of cloud-first services.

In 2015 the CPS carried out a major review of its internal capability across all aspects of ICT including technical, service management, commercial and programme management. As a result a new separate ICT Commercial Team was established and a number of new roles were established and filled in its Digital Technology Services Directorate.

The CPS operates detailed programme plans and associated risk logs to manage each phase of the disaggregation including pre-market engagement, procurement, service transition and service exit.

The CPS has used pan-government frameworks, let and managed by the Crown Commercial Service to replace network, telephony, print and applications hosting and management services. It is planning to use these frameworks to replace service desk and end user computing services in 2018. As part of each procurement process, it undertakes market engagement, the extent of which is dependent on the size and complexity of the contract to be awarded.

The CPS provides ICT services to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and HMCPSI.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does not have any large outsourced single vendor IT contract in place.

It uses a multi-vendor approach, selecting suppliers based on their ability to support their specialised systems, and that is combined with in-house teams, which have grown in size in recent years as they reduce their reliance on external providers.

The SFO regularly reviews all its IT contracts taking into account the potential for disaggregation, benefits, costs, timing, risks, and overall value for money, in line with the guidance provided by the Government Commercial Function.

The largest contract currently in place is with Capita, and that contract is due to expire in July 2019. Ahead of that, a full review will take place, to determine whether it continues to outsource this service to Capita or another provider, or bring the service in house.

The Government Legal Department (GLD) does not hold any large single provider contracts worth over £20 million per year which fall within the guidance published in November 2017. GLD uses its own in-house IT services as well as using a multi provider approach when delivering any IT services. It is committed to following the principles contained within the guidance where applicable.

Since 2012 there have been no civil servants in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who are employed by the Government Commercial Function.

The Attorney General’s Office (AGO), the Government Legal Department (GLD), Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) do not have any staff who are part of the Government Commercial Function.

The Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) do not hold central records of the number of bids received for each contract (3982). In addition, while it is their policy to use frameworks (e.g. those established by the Crown Commercial Service, government departments or public sector bodies) either through direct award or through a mini-competition, we do not hold a central record that would enable us to determine the proportion of purchases/contracts made through these framework agreements (4012). We are therefore unable to provide the information without examining the detail of each contract award/purchase made and this could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

Similarly, the information requested (3982 and 4012) is not collated centrally at the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and could only be obtained through a manual search of records, which would incur a disproportionate cost.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not keep a consolidated central record of the number of bids received for each contract (3982) or of which contracts are awarded via framework agreements (4012). To answer both these questions would involve separately checking all contracts awarded since 2010 and would incur disproportionate cost (Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, part 2, clause 9).

The Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) do not hold central records of the number of bids received for each contract (3982). In addition, while it is their policy to use frameworks (e.g. those established by the Crown Commercial Service, government departments or public sector bodies) either through direct award or through a mini-competition, we do not hold a central record that would enable us to determine the proportion of purchases/contracts made through these framework agreements (4012). We are therefore unable to provide the information without examining the detail of each contract award/purchase made and this could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

Similarly, the information requested (3982 and 4012) is not collated centrally at the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and could only be obtained through a manual search of records, which would incur a disproportionate cost.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not keep a consolidated central record of the number of bids received for each contract (3982) or of which contracts are awarded via framework agreements (4012). To answer both these questions would involve separately checking all contracts awarded since 2010 and would incur disproportionate cost (Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, part 2, clause 9).

The Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) do not specifically record information centrally on those contracts that have been cancelled and retendered, but the procurement team are not aware of any contracts that have been cancelled and re-tendered since 2010.

According to Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) records held centrally, there have been no contracts that have been cancelled and re-tendered since 2010. The CPS is a devolved organisation, however, and it is possible that contracts have been awarded locally and subsequently cancelled. To collate any such contracts would involve checking large numbers of records across a number of CPS offices and would incur disproportionate cost (Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, part 2, clause 9).

The information requested is not collated centrally at the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and could only be obtained through a manual search of records, which would incur a disproportionate cost.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not keep central records of the status of suppliers and is therefore unable to verify if any contracts have been awarded to (a) charities and (b) social enterprises in each year since 2010. To identify any such expenditure would involve checking large numbers of paper records and would incur disproportionate cost (Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, part 2, clause 9).

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO), HMCPSI and the Government Legal Department (GLD) have not awarded any contracts to charities or social enterprises since 2010.

The estimated spend of the Crown Prosecution Service on managing procurement for each year since 2010 is as follows:

The figures are based upon average staff costs and the costs of external procurement services. From August 2013, the figures include an element equivalent to two full time posts which is part of a shared purchasing service to the GLD, AGO and HMCPSI and described below.

The spend by the Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) is as follows:

As noted above, the CPS Procurement Team provides procurement support and advice under a shared service arrangement. Prior to August 2012, this function was provided by a GLD Procurement Team.

Individual Serious Fraud Office (SFO) teams are responsible for the day-to-day contract management of expert services and lower value contracts that fall within their business areas. Senior members of case teams are also responsible for the management of counsel and other experts engaged on SFO cases. The SFO does not hold central records on the contract management time spent by each and every staff member involved and such information could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

The CPS does not separately record expenditure on management consultancy and the amounts in the table above represent expenditure on all consultancy services and may include non-management consultancy services such as IT, legal, HR and project management.

(a) Government Legal Department: The 330 lawyers in the Litigation Group are at Senior Civil Service, Grade 6 and Grade 7.

(b) Crown Prosecution Service: The grades of the 12.5 (FTE) members of commercial staff are shown in the below table.

(c) Serious Fraud Office: The three members of the procurement team are one Grade 6 (who also manages the Facilities Management Team), one Senior Executive Officer and one Higher Executive Officer.

Tables showing the information requested for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have been placed in the Library of the House.

The remaining Law Officers’ Departments are unable to provide any reliable estimates of the amount spent annually on contracted out services since 2009-10 without incurring a disproportionate cost.

The Transforming Rehabilitation Programme is opening up the market to a diverse range of new providers, so that we can harness the best that the private and voluntary sectors have to offer to reduce reoffending. The competition to award contracts to run the new Community Rehabilitation Companies is ongoing and in June we received bids from potential providers. We are committed to rolling out these important reforms by 2015.

The Government has been clear that we want to see a diverse market delivering probation services, rather than being dominated by just a few providers. We have set a market share restriction whereby bidders can win a maximum of 25% of market share based on the indicative contract values set out in the competition documentation. Bidders will be allowed to win multiple contracts up to the point at which their market share cap would be breached subject to meeting any other requirements set out by the Authority.

The Transforming Rehabilitation Programme is opening up the market to a diverse range of new providers, so that we can harness the best that the private and voluntary sectors have to offer to reduce reoffending. The competition to award contracts to run the new Community Rehabilitation Companies is ongoing and in June we received bids from potential providers. We are committed to rolling out these important reforms by 2015.

The Government has been clear that we want to see a diverse market delivering probation services, rather than being dominated by just a few providers. We have set a market share restriction whereby bidders can win a maximum of 25% of market share based on the indicative contract values set out in the competition documentation. Bidders will be allowed to win multiple contracts up to the point at which their market share cap would be breached subject to meeting any other requirements set out by the Authority.

On 1 June, as part of our ongoing Transforming Rehabilitation Programme of reform, the new National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) formally commenced operation. My officials have been in regular contact with the judiciary and magistracy throughout the transition process, but we have had no specific representations from them concerning service delivery.

We have made it clear throughout this process that we will manage the reforms in a controlled way and we will not proceed to share sale until thorough testing is complete and we are satisfied that it is safe to do so.

Bids to run the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies are expected by the end of June, with contract winners being announced by the end of 2014. We will announce the list of preferred bidders when the evaluation has been concluded. We are committed to the roll out of payment by results by 2015.

Bids to run the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies are expected by the end of June, with contract winners being announced by the end of 2014. We will announce the list of preferred bidders when the evaluation has been concluded. We are committed to the roll out of payment by results by 2015.

G4S and Serco decided to withdraw from the competition to select lead providers of rehabilitation services.

The tendering process is being run in accordance with standard Government procurement practice. Ministers are being kept updated on progress and throughout the programme have engaged in discussions with a wide range of stakeholders. Bids to run the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) are expected

in June 2014 and the contract winners for each Community Rehabilitation Company will be announced by the end of 2014.

No liquidated damages (financial penalties) have been incurred by Sodexo Ltd in relation to its contract at HMP Northumberland. During the mobilisation period from service commencement date 1 December 2013 to 30 May 2014 no performance points apply. The next performance quarter is due to report in September 2014.

Please find the responses to the above questions in the following tables.

It is important to note that performance points are essentially about operational efficiency, and at no point has public safety been at risk. There are no significant historical trends in the attached figures and it is fair to say that privately managed prisons achieve the majority of their contractual targets with proportionately low levels of performance points and financial remedies applied as a result. The data for each contract is closely monitored by MOJ staff and any emerging or sustained performance failures are discussed in detail with the relevant contractor in order to rectify performance shortfalls as quickly as possible.