Consultants (Hansard, 19 July 1995)

§ Mr. Lang

Company	Value	Number
1993–94
Coopers and Lybrand	550,149	6
Ernst and Young	87,102	7
KPMG Management Consultants	588,870	13
Price Waterhouse	1,698,975	4
Stoy Hayward	118,000	2
1994–95
Coopers and Lybrand	225,980	3
Anderson Consulting	101,200	2
Ernst and Young	57,399	4

The figures shown relate to contracts issued centrally and do not include those let independently by the Department's executive agencies.

I have asked the agency chief executives to reply separately to this question.

Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 18 July 1995:

I have been asked to answer with respect to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist your question to the President of the Board of Trade tabled on 6 July 1995.In 1993–94 LGC did not let any contracts to any of the firms listed.In 1994–95 we let four contracts to Coopers and Lybrand. The total value of these (excluding VAT) was £241,000.

Letter from S. Reid to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:

The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to provide you with information relating to the Patent Office as part of the reply to your question about consultancy contracts for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95.According to our records, the Patent Office did not let any contracts during the period in question to Coopers and Lybrand, Peat Marwick, Ernst and Young, Arthur Andersen, Price Waterhouse, Grant Thornton, Stoy Hayward, Robson Rhodes, Pannell Kerr Forster or any of these firms' subsidiaries.

Letter from Peter Clapham to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:

I am writing in response to your question to the President of the Board of Trade about the number and value of contracts let to named consultancy organisations and their subsidiary companies in 1993/94 and 1994/95.NPL awarded one, small contract to Pannel Kerr Forster Recruitment for the services of a temporary accountant during the specified period. The value of the contract was £3,550 excluding VAT. No other contracts have been awarded to the organisations named or to any other company known to be a subsidiary organisation.

Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:

I refer to the above PQ from you to the President of the Board of Trade concerning contracts let by NEL to named consultants. I can confirm that the only contract in this category placed by NEL was to KPMG and was in respect of the installation of a Job Evaluation System. The contract was placed in 1994/95 at a value of £40,000 excluding VAT.I trust you will find this information to be satisfactory for your purposes.1574W

Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 11 July 1995: The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the number of contracts and total sum spent on employing Consultants associated with the Companies specified in your question or their subsidiaries. This Agency has not had any contracts with any of the companies named.

Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:

CONTRACTS WITH IDENTIFIED CONSULTANCY FIRMSChief Executives of DTI agencies have been asked to reply direct to your parliamentary question about contracts with a number of specified consultancy firms or their subsidiaries during 1993/94 and 1994/95 as it involves an operational matter for which they are responsible. I am replying in respect of the Radiocommunications Agency.I am aware of only one contract let by this Agency with any of the firms during the period in question. This was with Coopers and Lybrand in 1994/95. I am afraid that, in the circumstances, to disclose the amount would breach commercial confidentiality. I'm sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:

The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about contracts let to particular accountancy and consultancy firms and their subsidiaries in the last two years.The Insolvency Service has let the following:

	1993–94	1994–95
Firm	Number of contracts	Amounts £	Number of contracts	Amounts £
(a) Coopers and Lybrand	nil	nil	1	60,000
(b) KPMG (Peat Marwick)	1	45,000	nil	nil
(c) Ernst and Young	1	107,800	1	13,100
(d) Arthur Andersen	nil	nil	nil	nil
(e) Price Waterhouse	nil	nil	1	124,800
(f) Grant Thornton	nil	nil	nil	nil
(g) BDO Stoy Hayward	1	76,670	2	94,150
(h) Robson Rhodes	nil	nil	nil	nil
(i) Pannell Kerr Forster	nil	nil	nil	nil
Totals	3	229,470	5	292,050

Additionally, accountancy work on individual disqualification cases and accounting support for the work of the Agency has been provided by some of the firms you list, but it is not possible, without incurring disproportionate costs, to provide figures for such work.

Letter from David Durham to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:

You tabled the following question:To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to (a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) Peat Marwick (c) Ernst and Young, (d) Arthur Andersen, (e) Price Waterhouse, (f) Grant Thornton, (g) Stoy Hayward, (h) Robson Rhodes, (i) Pannel Kerr Forster and their subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993/94 and 1994/95.I have been asked to respond direct to you as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.The answer is none.1575W