counsel_logo
Subscribe Advertise
×
LEGAL PERSONALITY PRACTICE TOOLSET JUSTICE MATTERS BON VIVANT CURRENT ISSUE
Jobs & Career Hub View All Jobs Career Clinic Strategic Moves Recruiters Partners Training Courses Training Course Providers
} Subscribe Advertise
  • LEGAL PERSONALITY
  • PRACTICE TOOLSET
  • JUSTICE MATTERS
  • BON VIVANT
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • Jobs & Career Hub
    • View All Jobs
    • Career Clinic
    • Strategic Moves
    • Recruiters
    • Partners
    • Training Courses
    • Training Course Providers
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Independent study shows CPS claims to save money using in-house advocates are based on “Alice in Wonderland accounting”

Independent study shows CPS claims to save money using in-house advocates are based on “Alice in Wonderland accounting”

31 August 2009
Categories: News
Printer Email

THE Crown Prosecution Service’s policy of taking more advocacy in-house will cost the taxpayer millions, according to an independent report. 

The consultants, Europe Economics, in a report commissioned by the Bar Council, reveal that the CPS’s claim to have saved £17.1m in 2007-2008 by using in-house advocates does not stand up to proper scrutiny. 

According to Europe Economics, the CPS’s calculations are flawed and do not conform to Government accounting standards – the calculations exclude much of the true costs. Europe Economics states: 

“The CPS ... compare the short-run marginal costs of deploying in-house advocates with the fees of self-employed barristers. This is plainly wrong, both economically and as a basis for policy-making. Barristers’ fees necessarily include an allowance for long-run costs and fixed overheads; the CPS incur such costs too but ignore them. Such skewed comparisons will always favour CPS advocates over the self-employed Bar, and will encourage the CPS to acquire excessive numbers of advocates and excessive accommodation and overhead costs to support them.” The consultants observe: “All in all, the CPS’s approach is so profoundly flawed that it should not be relied on.” 

Further deficiencies in the CPS’s analysis include: 

  • an inadequate allowance of only 10.5% of salary to cover direct overheads, including training, recruitment, travel and subsistence 
  • an under-estimate of CPS overheads, which should include £54m spent on ‘administration costs on HQ and central services’ and £27m spent on ‘other administration costs’ 
  • a failure to demonstrate the savings it claims to have made to the standards normally required by Government 
  • a failure to conduct a proper impact assessment by taking account of the true costs of overheads and administration 
  • failing to establish a clear link between the CPS’s quality commitment and its claimed savings 

The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have today sent the report to the cross-party Commons Justice Select Committee, the Attorney General Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Justice Secretary the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, and the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC. 

Criminal Bar Association Chairman Peter Lodder QC told the Justice Select Committee on 3 February 2009 that the CPS was failing to act transparently over its claims to be making savings through the use of in-house counsel. 

Peter Lodder QC commented: 

“I have sent the Europe Economics report to Sir Alan Beith MP, the Chairman of the Justice Select Committee. It will provide his committee with the detailed analysis necessary for a proper evaluation of the efficacy of the CPS’s advocacy services.” Desmond Browne QC, the Chairman of the Bar, added: “To claim that taking advocacy in-house will save money without taking account of the full cost smacks of Alice in Wonderland accounting. 

We have been given a variety of figures regarding the savings that the CPS claims to be making from the increased use of inhouse counsel. The one thing that they have in common is the failure to account for all the costs. Simply focusing on short term marginal cost is not enough. 

The economists’ report makes clear the utter poverty of the CPS’s financial analysis and shows that, far from saving money, the increased use of in-counsel will cost taxpayers many millions.” 

  

Tags: EU
Printer Email
Home > News > Independent study shows CPS claims to save money using in-house advocates are based on “Alice in Wonderland accounting”

Independent study shows CPS claims to save money using in-house advocates are based on “Alice in Wonderland accounting”

Date: 31 August 2009

THE Crown Prosecution Service’s policy of taking more advocacy in-house will cost the taxpayer millions, according to an independent report.

The consultants, Europe Economics, in a report commissioned by the Bar Council, reveal that the CPS’s claim to have saved £17.1m in 2007-2008 by using in-house advocates does not stand up to proper scrutiny.

According to Europe Economics, the CPS’s calculations are flawed and do not conform to Government accounting standards – the calculations exclude much of the true costs. Europe Economics states:

“The CPS ... compare the short-run marginal costs of deploying in-house advocates with the fees of self-employed barristers. This is plainly wrong, both economically and as a basis for policy-making. Barristers’ fees necessarily include an allowance for long-run costs and fixed overheads; the CPS incur such costs too but ignore them. Such skewed comparisons will always favour CPS advocates over the self-employed Bar, and will encourage the CPS to acquire excessive numbers of advocates and excessive accommodation and overhead costs to support them.” The consultants observe: “All in all, the CPS’s approach is so profoundly flawed that it should not be relied on.”

Further deficiencies in the CPS’s analysis include:

  • an inadequate allowance of only 10.5% of salary to cover direct overheads, including training, recruitment, travel and subsistence
  • an under-estimate of CPS overheads, which should include £54m spent on ‘administration costs on HQ and central services’ and £27m spent on ‘other administration costs’
  • a failure to demonstrate the savings it claims to have made to the standards normally required by Government
  • a failure to conduct a proper impact assessment by taking account of the true costs of overheads and administration
  • failing to establish a clear link between the CPS’s quality commitment and its claimed savings

The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have today sent the report to the cross-party Commons Justice Select Committee, the Attorney General Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Justice Secretary the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, and the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC.

Criminal Bar Association Chairman Peter Lodder QC told the Justice Select Committee on 3 February 2009 that the CPS was failing to act transparently over its claims to be making savings through the use of in-house counsel.

Peter Lodder QC commented:

“I have sent the Europe Economics report to Sir Alan Beith MP, the Chairman of the Justice Select Committee. It will provide his committee with the detailed analysis necessary for a proper evaluation of the efficacy of the CPS’s advocacy services.” Desmond Browne QC, the Chairman of the Bar, added: “To claim that taking advocacy in-house will save money without taking account of the full cost smacks of Alice in Wonderland accounting.

We have been given a variety of figures regarding the savings that the CPS claims to be making from the increased use of inhouse counsel. The one thing that they have in common is the failure to account for all the costs. Simply focusing on short term marginal cost is not enough.

The economists’ report makes clear the utter poverty of the CPS’s financial analysis and shows that, far from saving money, the increased use of in-counsel will cost taxpayers many millions.”

 

Category: 
News [1]

Tags: 
EU [2]

*/


SourceURL:

Links:
Subscribe Advertise
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Read All
Feature image

Join us for Justice Week

As we look ahead to Justice Week 2022, the sustainability of the Criminal Bar remains a critical issue for the government to address

Job of the Week

View All Jobs
Kingsley Napley LLP

Kingsley Napley LLP

London

Regulatory Advocates

Course of the Week

View All
Liverpool John Moores University + Informa Connect

Liverpool John Moores University + Informa Connect

Online (Liverpool)

LLM in Business Law

View silk issueView silk issue
Counsel_Student-Supplement_CoverView student guide

Sponsored

Read All

Temple Church Female Choral Scholarships Academic Year 2022/23

Opportunity for female sopranos/contraltos in secondary education, or who have recently finished secondary education but have not yet begun tertiary education. Eligibility includes children of members of the Bar
 

Drug and alcohol tests: client care

Fear of the collection and test process is a common factor among clients, especially among vulnerable adults in complex family law cases. Cansford Laboratories shares some tips to help the testing process run as smoothly as possible 

Complex relationship DNA tests: which test is best?

Casey Randall explains how complex relationship DNA tests can best be used – and interpreted – by counsel

Immigration DNA testing

Casey Randall, Head of DNA at AlphaBiolabs, explores what barristers need to know about DNA testing for immigration, including when a client might wish to submit DNA evidence, and which relationship tests are best for immigration applications

The top five tax year-end opportunities

Julian Morgan reminds barristers of the top five areas to consider before 5 April

Most Viewed

Recognising and managing oppressive behaviour – in-court and out: part 2

If the Bar cannot define and prohibit bullying behaviour, what chance do we have of persuading the Judiciary to do so? Darren Howe QC and Professor Jo Delahunty QC's call to action on codification plus suggested strategies for dealing with bullying from the Bar and Bench

How to solve a problem like Brecani?

The case ofR v Brecanihas complicated matters for defence lawyers. Emma Fielding talks to gang culture expert, Dr Simon Harding about County Lines, exploitation and modern slavery

Barrister burnout – and ways to beat it

Barristers are particularly at risk of burnout because of the nature of our work and our approach to it but it doesnt have to be this way. Jade Bucklow explores how culture, work and lifestyle changes can rejuvinate our mental health...

The age of consent: Kate Parker, Jodie Comer, and the Schools Consent Project

The Schools Consent Project (SCP) is educating tens of thousands of teenagers about the law around consent to challenge and change what is now endemic behaviour. Here, its founder, barrister Kate Parker talks to Chris Henley QC about SCPs work and its association with Jodie Comers West End playPrima Facie, in which she plays a criminal barrister who is sexually assaulted

A plan of action for the Young Bar

Following the launch of the Life at the Young Bar report and a nationwide listening exercise, Michael Polak and Michael Harwood outline the Young Barristers Committees raft of initiatives designed to address your issues of concern

Partner Logo

Latest Cases

Read All
Pricewatch Ltd v Gausden (East Sussex Fire and Rescue Services) Hinrichs and others v Oracle Corporation UK Ltd Lessees and Management Company of Herons Court v Heronslea Ltd and others R (on the application of Lasham Gliding Society Ltd) v Civil Aviation Authority Hinrichs and others v Oracle Corporation UK Ltd
footer logo
LexisNexis, Quadrant House, The Quadrant, Brighton Road, Sutton, SM2 5AS.
CONTACT US
0330 161 1234
GET IN TOUCH
  • Worldwide: United Kingdom
    • Argentina
    • Australia
    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Canada
    • Chile
    • China
    • Columbia
    • Denmark
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hong Kong
    • India
    • International Sales(Includes Middle East)
    • Israel
    • Italy
    • Japan
    • Korea
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Mexico
    • Netherlands
    • New Zealand
    • Norway
    • Philippines
    • Russia
    • Singapore
    • South Africa
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
    • Taiwan
    • Turkey
    • United States
QUICK LINKS
Jobs and Career Hub
Directory
Current Issue
Features
Editorial Board
About us
Write for us
Bar Council
Wellbeing at the Bar
Bar Representation Fee
Bar Standards Board
BSB Regulatory Update
PARTNER SITES
New Law Journal
Tolley
LexisNexis
Tax Journal
Taxation
POLICIES
Data Protection
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Subscribe
Advertise with us
Protecting human rights: Our Modern Slavery Act Statement
Copyright © 2022 Bar Council LexisNexis