Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, following the publication on 11 December 2024 of the procurement notice Review on the State of Digital Government (2024/S 000-039897), what assessment they made of Bain & Company's compliance with monitoring conditions; whether the Cabinet Office had final approval over the participation of Bain & Company in the framework mini competition; and what safeguards there are to ensure that firms subject to monitoring cannot use procurement intermediaries to bypass Government scrutiny of monitoring conditions.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Cabinet Office’s use of procurement intermediaries is governed by the Cabinet Office Commercial Directorate and any requirements commissioned via this route remain subject to the same level of assurance and governance as it would if it had been undertaken in-house.
As part of this specific procurement competition, the Cabinet Office Commercial Directorate confirmed with Government Commercial Function that Bain & Company were meeting all applicable conditions that permit them to be included in this mini competition.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 17 February (HL4611), what are the 11 central government organisations that submitted business cases for pay flexibility under the Civil Service Pay Remit Guidance 2024–25, published on 29 July 2024; and which of those businesses cases (1) have been approved, (2) have been rejected, or (3) are still under consideration.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
For 2024/2025, the Cabinet Office has now received 12 business cases. Of these, four have been approved to date, one has been rejected, and seven are ongoing.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 10 March (HL5055), how many other commitments in the Civil Service People Plan 2024–27 that are due for completion by the end of March have not yet been met; which specific commitments have not been delayed, downgraded or abandoned; what governance and accountability mechanisms have been used to track delivery; whether any funding allocated to undelivered commitments has been reallocated or returned to the Treasury; and what the revised implementation timelines are for each unmet commitment.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
As committed to in the Civil Service People Plan, an Annual Review has been conducted to monitor its progress and to ensure effective delivery. We intend to publish the key findings of the review in due course.
Quarterly progress reports are also provided to the Cabinet Secretary and to the Civil Service People Board to ensure senior level oversight and scrutiny.
We are taking steps to ensure the Plan remains aligned to the government’s priorities and meets the evolving needs of the Civil Service.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to reform the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, and what the current timetables are for the publication of the final proposals and implementation of the changes.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Government remains committed to ensuring that the Civil Service Compensation Scheme is fair to individuals and delivers best value for money for the taxpayer.
We are reviewing the consultation launched under the previous administration on reforms to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, and will provide an update in due course.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Twycross on 28 January (HL3970), why the financial restatements in the Government Property Agency Accounts 2022–23 resulted in both an increase and a decrease in right of use assets; and whether there are any inconsistencies in the application of IFRS 16 across the head lease and sub-lease transactions.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The financial restatements of the Government Property Agency Accounts 2022/23 resulted in both an increase and a decrease in right of use assets because they related to two separate changes to lease terms for different properties at different stages of their lease lifecycle.
The surrender and grant of a new head lease in July 2022 related to a vacant property undergoing major refurbishment as part of the GPA’s Whitehall Campus Programme. The new head lease resulted in an increase to right of use assets because there was no corresponding finance sub-lease during the refurbishment. The GPA therefore retained all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of the right of use asset.
The Deed of Variation in March 2023 to extend a sub-lease term by 12 years to align with the head lease resulted in the classification of the sub-lease being reassessed as a finance lease rather than an operating lease. This was because the sub-lease term now represented in excess of 75% of the expected useful economic life of the underlying right of use asset. The reclassification resulted in a decrease in right of use assets because the GPA derecognised the asset previously retained when the sub-lease was classified as an operating lease.
On that basis, we are satisfied that IFRS 16 has been applied appropriately across the head lease and sub-lease transactions.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the remit of the Procurement Review Unit includes oversight of subcontract awards under 'neutral vendor frameworks', 'managed service provider frameworks' and similar intermediary procurement models.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
In accordance with section 10 of the Procurement Act 2023 ("the Act"), the Procurement Review Unit (“PRU”) only has oversight of the activities of contracting authorities under the Act.
Any procurement carried out under framework agreements managed under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 does not fall within the remit of the PRU.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 18 February (HL4855), given that the deed of variation amends Clause 1.1 of contract 2887470\5 to remove the UK-only restriction on training services, on what basis they consider that this modification does not materially change the contract’s scope; and if international training was already covered in the original tender, why it was necessary to amend Clause 1.1 to permit it.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The original Emergency Planning College Bidders’ Brief makes multiple references to international training and overseas markets and was subsequently covered within the initial contract.
The change within the deed of variation to amend the UK-only constraint was necessary to clarify that international training may require the delivery of face-to-face training at overseas locations, in order to fully meet the contractual requirements for international training.
The UK-only constraint continues to apply to services provided to the Authority under the contract.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 18 February (HL4855), on what grounds they determined that the removal of the non-compete clause (Clause 65) from contract 2887470\5 did not constitute a material modification under regulation 72 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, and whether an assessment was conducted to ensure that this change did not distort competition or provide the incumbent contractor with an unfair advantage.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Cabinet Office concluded that the removal of the non-compete clause (Clause 65) from contract 2887470\5 did not constitute a material modification under regulation 72 of the Public Contracts Regulations because it did not materially alter the nature of the contract or the obligations thereunder.
The Government recognises the value of competition in marketplaces and believes that removing the clause ensures that there is fair competition and supports equal treatment of market participants.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether individual subcontract awards made under 'neutral vendor frameworks', 'managed service provider frameworks', 'prime contractor procurement models' or similar intermediary procurement models are subject to the same transparency and reporting requirements as contracts directly procured by public bodies.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Many intermediary procurement models are straightforward public contracts where there is no requirement to publish subcontracts under either the Procurement Act 2023 or the Public Contract Regulations 2015.
Where contracting authorities are awarding contracts using frameworks awarded under the Procurement Act 2023, they will need to follow the Act’s noticing provisions. In the case of most Public Contracts this will normally include publication of both a Contract Award and then a Contract Details Notice on the Find a Tender platform, which is the publicly available portal for all transparency information on procurement. Furthermore, notices contain linking information that allows notices to be connected- enabling detailed data analysis on how frameworks are being used. All this information on public procurement is in the public domain and can be searched by the citizen, free of charge in an accessible way.
Where contracting authorities are awarding contracts using framework agreements awarded under the previous procurement regime, they are required to publish an Awarded Opportunity Notice on the Contracts Finder platform.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 17 February (HL4608), which ministerial department failed to produce a strategic asset management plan (SAMP) in 2024; what consequences or enforcement measures are in place for departments that do not produce such a plan; and which departments are included in the Government Property Agency’s office portfolio SAMP instead of having their own standalone plans.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Departments are responsible for their own SAMPs, and required to update these plans yearly. Guidance and tools are provided to ensure consistency and effectiveness.
In the event an updated asset plan is not produced,the Government Chief Property Officer can write to the Principal Accounting Officer alerting them to the requirement.
Last year, all ministerial departments produced an updated asset plan except the Department for Business & Trade (DBT), although plans for the offices occupied by DBT were set out in the Government Property Agency’s office portfolio SAMP. DBT will produce a plan for 2025.
By agreement, HM Treasury and Department for Education did not produce a 'stand alone' departmental asset plan but featured in the Government Property Agency's office portfolio SAMP as onboarded clients.