Neil Gray

The two Houses spent the following amounts on repair, renovation and restoration of the Palace of Westminster in each financial year from 2007/08 to 2014/15. Figures before 2007/08 are not available.

2007/08 - £27.6m
2008/09 - £18.4m
2009/10 - £31.6m
2010/11 - £29.2m
2011/12 - £29.3m
2012/13 - £36.3m
2013/14 - £42.2m
2014/15 - £48.7m (Provisional, subject to audit)

The process by which repair and renovation of the Palace of Westminster is procured – whether for the purpose of the longer-term Restoration and Renewal Programme, the Medium Term Investment Plan, or otherwise:

1. is shaped by objectives specified in an Outline Business Case produced in accordance with the Treasury Green Book Five Case model;
2. is resolved by a contract awarded through an open and competitive tender procedure that is compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015;
3. takes into consideration whether compliant collaborative procurement options, where available, are a viable option according to the scope of the work;
4. includes a specification and range of award criteria which are representative of, and will be capable of realising, the value-for-money objectives determined by the respective Outline Business Case;
5. may be considered within a higher level Gateway Review Assurance process where considered appropriate.

The default position in the Houses’ Procurement Policy is to set evaluation criteria weightings of 70% for price and 30% for quality. We expect these ratios to be applied when procuring repair and renovation works. The House Procurement Policy goes on to provide a waiver process by which a justification and recommendation can be made to vary these weightings according to circumstances and value-for-money considerations specific to a given procurement. A contract that looks to transfer a higher level of responsibility and liability for design to the contractor is a common example of where the balance in weighting may be moved towards quality as a consequence of a waiver application.

The need for repairs is determined with reference to a number of factors: condition surveys of the Estate; an annual exercise to prioritise the portfolio of projects; inspections carried out on a quadrennial basis; advice from the House’s Design Authority; and calls to the PED Helpdesk. In particular:

1. A comprehensive condition survey of the Estate was carried out in 2008/09, the results of which fed into a 25-year plan. This survey identified a significant number of defects, the works for which were all priced and given recommended completion dates. These tasks were then packaged minor or major projects and added to the scope of existing works within the 25-year plan.
2. Following on from this comprehensive survey, there is a rolling programme of condition surveys every two years, which similarly identifies defects and further work.
3. An annual exercise is undertaken by senior managers, including the Director General of Facilities and the Finance Director, to assess and prioritise the portfolio of projects in order to inform the Medium Term Investment Plan for the following four-year period. Projects are prioritised, taking the following factors into account:

• compliance with legislative or contractual requirements;
• business objectives;
• mitigation of the risk of failure to services;
• conservation of the fabric of the buildings.

The Medium Term Investment Plan is then considered by the Finance Committee before being approved by the House of Commons Commission.

1. The Palace of Westminster is a Grade 1 listed building, and PED follows best practice by ensuring that an inspection is carried out every four years by the Conservation and Architectural Team. These inspections identify tasks which should be carried out to ensure the fabric of the building is maintained properly.
2. The PED Design Authority, established in 2011, is committed to “ensure consistent standards, value for money, statutory compliance and user satisfaction”. Practically, it concentrates on the lifecycle of the engineering assets, ensuring that initial and replacement capital costs are balanced with the ongoing operating and maintenance costs, and with identified business needs. It acts as a Central Engineering department, and advises on the requirements for works and systems and services across the Parliamentary Estate.
3. PED has a helpdesk system which receives and handles building faults reported by Members, Members’ staff, and staff of the House. These faults are prioritised according to service level agreements.

The Director General of Facilities would be happy to brief the hon. Member in more detail, should he wish.

The process by which repair and renovation of the Palace of Westminster is procured – whether for the purpose of the longer-term Restoration and Renewal Programme, the Medium Term Investment Plan, or otherwise:

1. is shaped by objectives specified in an Outline Business Case produced in accordance with the Treasury Green Book Five Case model;
2. is resolved by a contract awarded through an open and competitive tender procedure that is compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015;
3. takes into consideration whether compliant collaborative procurement options, where available, are a viable option according to the scope of the work;
4. includes a specification and range of award criteria which are representative of, and will be capable of realising, the value-for-money objectives determined by the respective Outline Business Case;
5. may be considered within a higher level Gateway Review Assurance process where considered appropriate.

The default position in the Houses’ Procurement Policy is to set evaluation criteria weightings of 70% for price and 30% for quality. We expect these ratios to be applied when procuring repair and renovation works. The House Procurement Policy goes on to provide a waiver process by which a justification and recommendation can be made to vary these weightings according to circumstances and value-for-money considerations specific to a given procurement. A contract that looks to transfer a higher level of responsibility and liability for design to the contractor is a common example of where the balance in weighting may be moved towards quality as a consequence of a waiver application.

The need for repairs is determined with reference to a number of factors: condition surveys of the Estate; an annual exercise to prioritise the portfolio of projects; inspections carried out on a quadrennial basis; advice from the House’s Design Authority; and calls to the PED Helpdesk. In particular:

1. A comprehensive condition survey of the Estate was carried out in 2008/09, the results of which fed into a 25-year plan. This survey identified a significant number of defects, the works for which were all priced and given recommended completion dates. These tasks were then packaged minor or major projects and added to the scope of existing works within the 25-year plan.
2. Following on from this comprehensive survey, there is a rolling programme of condition surveys every two years, which similarly identifies defects and further work.
3. An annual exercise is undertaken by senior managers, including the Director General of Facilities and the Finance Director, to assess and prioritise the portfolio of projects in order to inform the Medium Term Investment Plan for the following four-year period. Projects are prioritised, taking the following factors into account:

• compliance with legislative or contractual requirements;
• business objectives;
• mitigation of the risk of failure to services;
• conservation of the fabric of the buildings.

The Medium Term Investment Plan is then considered by the Finance Committee before being approved by the House of Commons Commission.

1. The Palace of Westminster is a Grade 1 listed building, and PED follows best practice by ensuring that an inspection is carried out every four years by the Conservation and Architectural Team. These inspections identify tasks which should be carried out to ensure the fabric of the building is maintained properly.
2. The PED Design Authority, established in 2011, is committed to “ensure consistent standards, value for money, statutory compliance and user satisfaction”. Practically, it concentrates on the lifecycle of the engineering assets, ensuring that initial and replacement capital costs are balanced with the ongoing operating and maintenance costs, and with identified business needs. It acts as a Central Engineering department, and advises on the requirements for works and systems and services across the Parliamentary Estate.
3. PED has a helpdesk system which receives and handles building faults reported by Members, Members’ staff, and staff of the House. These faults are prioritised according to service level agreements.

The Director General of Facilities would be happy to brief the hon. Member in more detail, should he wish.

The process by which repair and renovation of the Palace of Westminster is procured – whether for the purpose of the longer-term Restoration and Renewal Programme, the Medium Term Investment Plan, or otherwise:

1. is shaped by objectives specified in an Outline Business Case produced in accordance with the Treasury Green Book Five Case model;
2. is resolved by a contract awarded through an open and competitive tender procedure that is compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015;
3. takes into consideration whether compliant collaborative procurement options, where available, are a viable option according to the scope of the work;
4. includes a specification and range of award criteria which are representative of, and will be capable of realising, the value-for-money objectives determined by the respective Outline Business Case;
5. may be considered within a higher level Gateway Review Assurance process where considered appropriate.

The default position in the Houses’ Procurement Policy is to set evaluation criteria weightings of 70% for price and 30% for quality. We expect these ratios to be applied when procuring repair and renovation works. The House Procurement Policy goes on to provide a waiver process by which a justification and recommendation can be made to vary these weightings according to circumstances and value-for-money considerations specific to a given procurement. A contract that looks to transfer a higher level of responsibility and liability for design to the contractor is a common example of where the balance in weighting may be moved towards quality as a consequence of a waiver application.

The need for repairs is determined with reference to a number of factors: condition surveys of the Estate; an annual exercise to prioritise the portfolio of projects; inspections carried out on a quadrennial basis; advice from the House’s Design Authority; and calls to the PED Helpdesk. In particular:

1. A comprehensive condition survey of the Estate was carried out in 2008/09, the results of which fed into a 25-year plan. This survey identified a significant number of defects, the works for which were all priced and given recommended completion dates. These tasks were then packaged minor or major projects and added to the scope of existing works within the 25-year plan.
2. Following on from this comprehensive survey, there is a rolling programme of condition surveys every two years, which similarly identifies defects and further work.
3. An annual exercise is undertaken by senior managers, including the Director General of Facilities and the Finance Director, to assess and prioritise the portfolio of projects in order to inform the Medium Term Investment Plan for the following four-year period. Projects are prioritised, taking the following factors into account:

• compliance with legislative or contractual requirements;
• business objectives;
• mitigation of the risk of failure to services;
• conservation of the fabric of the buildings.

The Medium Term Investment Plan is then considered by the Finance Committee before being approved by the House of Commons Commission.

1. The Palace of Westminster is a Grade 1 listed building, and PED follows best practice by ensuring that an inspection is carried out every four years by the Conservation and Architectural Team. These inspections identify tasks which should be carried out to ensure the fabric of the building is maintained properly.
2. The PED Design Authority, established in 2011, is committed to “ensure consistent standards, value for money, statutory compliance and user satisfaction”. Practically, it concentrates on the lifecycle of the engineering assets, ensuring that initial and replacement capital costs are balanced with the ongoing operating and maintenance costs, and with identified business needs. It acts as a Central Engineering department, and advises on the requirements for works and systems and services across the Parliamentary Estate.
3. PED has a helpdesk system which receives and handles building faults reported by Members, Members’ staff, and staff of the House. These faults are prioritised according to service level agreements.

The Director General of Facilities would be happy to brief the hon. Member in more detail, should he wish.

Further to the answer given by the Paymaster General on 16 July 2020, Public First was engaged by the Cabinet Office to test public opinion and reaction to government messaging including focus groups for COVID-19 research. This work has helped to understand public attitudes and behaviours to inform our vitally important public health messages and policies, and has enabled us to deliver a strong, national, cross-government communications campaign to support the UK’s response and recovery from the pandemic.

In the discharge of this activity it was necessary for Public First to meet with civil servants to report on the findings of the focus groups. Public First also provided on-site resource to support Number 10 communications. In line with the practice of successive administrations, details of internal discussions are not normally disclosed. Any Government announcements will be made in the usual way.

Cabinet Office publishes expenditure, including on research, on a rolling monthly basis, and details of its contracts on GOV.UK as part of routine government transparency arrangements. GOV COMMS EU EXIT PROG and EU EXIT COMMS were existing cost codes used to pay invoices relating to COVID-19 research within a reasonable period of time. These payments were subsequently journaled over to the COVID-19 cost centre once that was created.

Further to the answer given by the Paymaster General on 16 July 2020, Public First was engaged by the Cabinet Office to test public opinion and reaction to government messaging including focus groups for COVID-19 research. This work has helped to understand public attitudes and behaviours to inform our vitally important public health messages and policies, and has enabled us to deliver a strong, national, cross-government communications campaign to support the UK’s response and recovery from the pandemic.

In the discharge of this activity it was necessary for Public First to meet with civil servants to report on the findings of the focus groups. Public First also provided on-site resource to support Number 10 communications. In line with the practice of successive administrations, details of internal discussions are not normally disclosed. Any Government announcements will be made in the usual way.

Cabinet Office publishes expenditure, including on research, on a rolling monthly basis, and details of its contracts on GOV.UK as part of routine government transparency arrangements. GOV COMMS EU EXIT PROG and EU EXIT COMMS were existing cost codes used to pay invoices relating to COVID-19 research within a reasonable period of time. These payments were subsequently journaled over to the COVID-19 cost centre once that was created.

Further to the answer given by the Paymaster General on 16 July 2020, Public First was engaged by the Cabinet Office to test public opinion and reaction to government messaging including focus groups for COVID-19 research. This work has helped to understand public attitudes and behaviours to inform our vitally important public health messages and policies, and has enabled us to deliver a strong, national, cross-government communications campaign to support the UK’s response and recovery from the pandemic.

In the discharge of this activity it was necessary for Public First to meet with civil servants to report on the findings of the focus groups. Public First also provided on-site resource to support Number 10 communications. In line with the practice of successive administrations, details of internal discussions are not normally disclosed. Any Government announcements will be made in the usual way.

Cabinet Office publishes expenditure, including on research, on a rolling monthly basis, and details of its contracts on GOV.UK as part of routine government transparency arrangements. GOV COMMS EU EXIT PROG and EU EXIT COMMS were existing cost codes used to pay invoices relating to COVID-19 research within a reasonable period of time. These payments were subsequently journaled over to the COVID-19 cost centre once that was created.

Further to the answer given by the Paymaster General on 16 July 2020, Public First was engaged by the Cabinet Office to test public opinion and reaction to government messaging including focus groups for COVID-19 research. This work has helped to understand public attitudes and behaviours to inform our vitally important public health messages and policies, and has enabled us to deliver a strong, national, cross-government communications campaign to support the UK’s response and recovery from the pandemic.

In the discharge of this activity it was necessary for Public First to meet with civil servants to report on the findings of the focus groups. Public First also provided on-site resource to support Number 10 communications. In line with the practice of successive administrations, details of internal discussions are not normally disclosed. Any Government announcements will be made in the usual way.

Cabinet Office publishes expenditure, including on research, on a rolling monthly basis, and details of its contracts on GOV.UK as part of routine government transparency arrangements. GOV COMMS EU EXIT PROG and EU EXIT COMMS were existing cost codes used to pay invoices relating to COVID-19 research within a reasonable period of time. These payments were subsequently journaled over to the COVID-19 cost centre once that was created.

Further to my answer on 01 October 2020, competitive tenders are used across government, including by the Cabinet Office. It is also the case that there are certain circumstances where regulations permit that contracts can be awarded without a competition, including where there is extreme urgency.

As has been the case under successive administrations, this Government works with a number of suppliers to provide polling and focus group work. Public First was engaged by the Cabinet Office to test public opinion and reaction to government messaging, including focus groups for COVID-19 research. Details of this contract have been published on GOV.UK in the usual way.

No ministerial sign off was sought for the award of a contract to Public First. Details of Ministerial meetings are published quarterly on GOV.UK.

A claim for Judicial Review was issued by the High Court on 10 July 2020 in relation to the award of this contract. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to make further comment whilst this is subject to ongoing legal proceedings.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office has received no such representations. This issue concerns the Lord Lyon King of Arms in his judicial capacity and is therefore a devolved matter.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office has received no such representations. This issue concerns the Lord Lyon King of Arms in his judicial capacity and is therefore a devolved matter.

Since the start of the Green Deal, 75 photovoltaics installations were undertaken in Airdrie and Shotts constituency through Green Deal plans provided by Home Energy Lifestyle Management Systems.

The GOV.UK website describes different ways of working flexibly. This includes: job sharing; working from home; part time; compressed hours; flexitime; annualised hours; staggered hours; and phased retirement.

The availability of atypical employment provides a number of benefits for workers who cannot or do not want to commit to ‘standard’ full-time employment. This results in high participation rates among groups which might otherwise be excluded from work altogether, like mothers returning to work.

The UK’s flexible labour market means those who work in flexible arrangements continue to be entitled to employment protections regardless of the contract type. But we recognise that there are instances where the UK labour market is not working fairly for everyone and is why we asked Matthew Taylor to carry out his independent Review of Working Practices. Our full response later this year will reflect Government’s position and next steps.

This Government is clear that zero hours contracts should not be considered as an alternative to proper business planning or used as a permanent arrangement if it is not justifiable. They play a small but important part in the labour market, allowing flexibility for both employers and individuals. People on zero-hour contracts make up less than 3 per cent of the workforce and almost 70 per cent are happy with the number of hours they work, according to the latest ONS Labour Force Survey research (March 2015).

In May 2015 Government banned the use of exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts so that people cannot be prevented from looking for or working elsewhere when their employer does not guarantee work.

Matthew Taylor in his Review of Modern Working Practices has proposed some reforms around zero-hour contracts and Government will consider the whole report carefully and make a full response later this year.

The Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) Access to Work scheme provides financial awards to disabled people in order to fund additional support above the level of an employer’s statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments. This supports disabled people to retain work or take up new opportunities, but does not replace employers’ duties under the Equality Act 2010.

In addition, Disability Confident supports this Government’s commitment to halve the employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people by engaging with employers, who have a crucial role to play in ensuring disabled people are recruited, retained and developed in their careers. The scheme gives employers the opportunity to assess how Disability Confident their business is and sign up at one of three levels. They complete each level before moving on to the next.

DWP is currently trialling a Small Employer Offer, which provides small employers with a personalised package of support, including adaptations and advice and a payment of £500 after three months when they take on new employees who have a health condition or disability.

The industrial strategy green paper, Building our Industrial Strategy, is part of a consultative approach to developing our strategy and seeks views from organisations across the country, including disability organisations. I look forward to further engagement with them, building on engagement with my officials to date.

The Government is clear that the industrial strategy is part of our work to deliver an economy that works for everyone, including disabled people. In particular, the Government’s green paper Improving Lives – the Work, Health and Disability Green Paper considers how we can improve employment outcomes for disabled people. Many employers are already creating healthy, inclusive workplaces, but more needs to be done so that employers provide the support needed for employees with disabilities and long-term health conditions, to help them get into and stay in work.

The Improving Lives consultation closes on 17th February, and we will be working to ensure its outcomes are aligned with our industrial strategy.

The industrial strategy green paper, Building our Industrial Strategy, is part of a consultative approach to developing our strategy and seeks views from organisations across the country, including disability organisations. I look forward to further engagement with them, building on engagement with my officials to date.

The Government is clear that the industrial strategy is part of our work to deliver an economy that works for everyone, including disabled people. In particular, the Government’s green paper Improving Lives – the Work, Health and Disability Green Paper considers how we can improve employment outcomes for disabled people. Many employers are already creating healthy, inclusive workplaces, but more needs to be done so that employers provide the support needed for employees with disabilities and long-term health conditions, to help them get into and stay in work.

The Improving Lives consultation closes on 17th February, and we will be working to ensure its outcomes are aligned with our industrial strategy.

Interoperability is one of the Government’s key requirements for the main installation stage of smart metering, which is due to commence later this year. The Government has already established common technical standards for the smart metering equipment (SMETS) and put in place the Data and Communications Company (DCC). This is responsible for setting up the nationwide communications infrastructure across Great Britain to send and receive information from any energy supplier to smart meters.

DECC ministers and officials engage regularly with Ofgem, both bilaterally and as part of the Programme’s Transitional Governance Model arrangements, in line with our roles set out in the joint DECC/Ofgem open letter to the industry on the implementation of smart metering published in December 2014:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-implementation-and-regulation-of-smart-metering-a-joint-deccofgem-open-letter-to-the-industry.

Repayment of the additional £675m borrowed from the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) will start from the early 2020s.

In addition to this repayment, £69m was transferred to the NLDF from The Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund (OLDF) when it closed in January 2015, representing a share of the income from the sale of the Olympic Village. This adds to the £79 million (from savings in the Olympic Programme) which was transferred from the OLDF to the NLDF in July 2014. The OLDF funds are allocated in the usual proportions, as set out in legislation.

Lottery funding shares are set out in legislation. Currently health, education, environment and charitable causes are apportioned 40%, Sport 20%, Arts 20% and Heritage 20% across the UK. Creative Scotland received 1.78% and sportscotland received 1.62% of overall lottery funding in 2014/15. In addition, Scottish good causes receive funding from the four UK-wide distributors: British Film Institute, UK Sport, Heritage Lottery Fund and Big Lottery Fund.

There is a robust commitment in place to pay back £675m to the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF). This funding was borrowed from the Fund in addition to the original contribution of £410m.

It is expected that the NLDF will start to receive funds from the early 2020s through land development and sales in the Olympic Park. Scottish good causes will benefit from their portion of this reimbursed funding.

All countries of the UK contributed to the funding of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The initial £410m National Lottery contribution, outlined in the Games bid, was supplemented with a further £675m borrowed as part of the increased Olympic budget. The total transfer from the National Lottery Distribution Fund was £1,085m.

An estimated £114m (taken from across both the £410m and £675m amounts) was the share given by Lottery programmes in Scotland. This includes amounts transferred from distributors operating wholly in Scotland, and notional amounts allocated to Scotland by UK-wide distributors.