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 Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many eDirect products ordered through the NHS Supply Chain have been delivered more than one month late in each of the last 12 months.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The rolling 13-month eDirect service level is 89.7%; this means that 89.7% of product lines are delivered in accordance with the purchase order and lead time set out in the catalogue.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many instances there have been in each year since 2007 of the NHS Staff Council recommending a higher pay increase for NHS England staff than the pay award recommended by the relevant pay review body, broken down by NHS workforce category; and in each such instance, whether they accepted the Staff Council's higher recommendation.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The NHS Staff Council is a partnership body that maintains and negotiates changes to the Agenda for Change (AfC) terms and conditions. It does not have a formal role in recommending annual pay increases to government.
Uplifts in pay for staff employed on the national AfC contract in England are confirmed by the Department. This typically follows recommendations from the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB).
There are instances when the NHSPRB is not asked for a formal pay recommendation and annual pay rises are set via other means. In 2008, a multi-year pay deal over three years was reached with the NHS Staff Council which incorporated NHSPRB’s recommendations on pay for 2008/2009. In 2018, the NHS Staff Council negotiated a three-year deal with the government covering the period 2018-2021. In 2023, the Government agreed a pay deal with the NHS Staff Council to resolve the national dispute at the time.
Asked by: Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many times NHS trade unions in England have threatened or balloted for industrial action of NHS staff in relation to pay and non-pay issues in each year since 2005, broken down by (1) union, (2) category of NHS staff, and (3) type of industrial action, whether the industrial action went ahead, and the outcome of any ballots held.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department does not hold this information. National Health Service trade unions may ballot their members at a local level as well as national, and that information is not held centrally.
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.