Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to ask the Office of Rail and Road to re-evaluate the open access application by Hull Trains to operate services between London King's Cross and Sheffield, in light of the reductions to East Midlands Railway’s Intercity timetable.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
Hull Trains’ previous application to operate services between London and Sheffield was rejected by the Office or Rail and Road (ORR) in July 2025 due to concerns over capacity, performance and financial impacts. We respect the ORR’s decision on this.
Any Open Access operator may apply to operate new services, but this would be a commercial decision for the operator to take. Under the current system, any new application would be subject to full and independent review by the ORR. In the future, Great British Railways will be able to decide the best use of network capacity and take decisions as a directing mind.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sherlock on 26 June (HL886), what estimate they have made of the proportion of Personal Independence Payment claims processed under the Transform Decision Making pilot where a learning disability is recorded as a secondary condition; and what steps they are taking to ensure the impacts on claimants with co-occurring neurodivergent conditions are accurately tracked.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
In cases where a claimant has multiple conditions or disabilities that affect daily living or mobility, all are considered during the assessment and decision making process. However, only the primary condition is recorded on the data that DWP uses to report disabling conditions. We cannot, therefore, provide information on the proportion of PIP claims processed within the trial where a learning disability is recorded as a secondary or co-occurring condition. Our impact evaluation will also be limited to primary disabling condition. Due to the small scale of the trial and volume of cases involved, we do not expect to be able to produce robust subgroup analysis for claimants whose primary disabling condition is a learning disability.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sherlock on 26 June (HL888), how the existing quality assurance process for the Transform Decision Making pilot measures the accuracy of case managers' descriptor selections for claimants with a learning disability compared to those with purely physical impairments.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
DWP has a number of quality assurance processes in place to support decision accuracy; these include local quality checks, independent assurance activity and formal fraud and error measurement. Together, these processes provide assurance that descriptor choices are accurate and consistent.
As part of the pilot Case Managers complete an initial assurance process following their training. During this period, decisions are subject to 100% checking before they are issued to customers. These checks focus on the accuracy of the descriptor selection and whether the resulting award is financially correct. Case Managers receive feedback on the outcome of each check and where errors are identified, may receive further coaching or support. The results of the assurance activity are monitored to identify trends and inform continuous improvement, including targeted guidance and support where required.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sherlock on 26 June (HL888), what plans they have to introduce accredited training specifically addressing masking, verbal compliance, and executive dysfunction in claimants with a learning disability for case managers operating the Transform Decision Making pilot.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Through the trial we will continue to conduct user research with Case Managers to refine processes, guidance and learning requirements, helping to ensure Case Managers are equipped to make quality decisions under all circumstances. Insights from the trial will help inform whether any changes are needed to the learning offer under the transformed decision making approach.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by Baroness Merron on 2 July (HLWS179), why the redundancy of the former Chief Executive of the South Yorkshire Integrated Care Board can be classified as a compulsory redundancy given the statement that NHS England’s approval was conditional on potential shared leadership arrangements which did not materialise.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
As set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 2 July, NHS England has advised that the relevant condition was that the former Chief Executive role should not be filled through external recruitment but should instead be addressed through redeployment or other leadership arrangements to avoid an additional redundancy and that this condition was met. The redundancy was therefore classified as a compulsory redundancy.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 2 July 2026 (HL232), what mechanisms they use to ensure compliance with HM Treasury guidance on public sector exit payments, given the statement that the Department of Health and Social Care does not centrally reassess whether an interim post holder performed the same statutory duties as a redundant role.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
As set out in the answer of 2 July 2026 to Question HL232, compliance with HM Treasury’s guidance on public sector exit payments and value for money protocols is secured through the relevant employer governance and assurance processes, with NHS England oversight where required. Departmental and HM Treasury approval is generally required where the payment relates to a special severance payment or other non-contractual payment.
Responsibility for ensuring that any redundancy decision is lawful, contractual, and represents value for money rests with the employing integrated care board, supported by NHS England’s assurance role where applicable.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 2 July (HL231), what were the reasons for progressing the contractual compulsory redundancy of the former Chief Executive of the South Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) in August 2025, in light of the statement that ministers had determined during summer 2025 that the South Yorkshire ICB would remain a standalone entity.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
NHS England has advised that the decision for the South Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) to remain a standalone statutory body did not remove the wider restructuring context in which the Chief Executive role was considered. NHS England considered the case in the context of proposed changes to ICB Chief Executive roles and local senior leadership arrangements. Its approval was conditional on the Chief Executive role not being filled through external recruitment but instead be addressed through redeployment or other leadership arrangements intended to avoid creating an additional redundancy. On that basis, NHS England progressed as a contractual compulsory redundancy.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sherlock on 26 June (HL886), what specific qualitative evaluation methods are being deployed to guarantee that claimants with learning disabilities in the Transform Decision Making pilot are not systematically disadvantaged before any further expansion of the pilot.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Through our impact evaluation of the pilot, we will be exploring, where possible, whether there are differential outcomes by primary disabling condition. We do not anticipate being able to identify impacts specifically on claimants with learning disabilities due to the small scale of the trial and low volume of these cases involved.
In addition to the impact evaluation, we are undertaking research with provider and DWP staff. This is to understand their experiences of undertaking assessments and making decisions under the changed approach. Our qualitative evaluation methods will include observations and interviews. We are not undertaking any specific qualitative evaluation activity with claimants with learning disabilities during this trial. We will continue to monitor decision making quality throughout the trial through established quality assurance processes.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government, in relation to the ongoing Best Value Notice served on the Tees Valley Combined Authority, what specific, measurable quantitative and qualitative indicators of failure they are currently using to assess whether the Authority continues to satisfy the best value duty under section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999; and which of these specific indicators, if triggered, would necessitate an immediate escalation to a statutory intervention under section 15(1) of that Act.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
As set out in the statutory guidance, the Department considers a range of qualitative and quantitative evidence when assessing whether an authority is complying with its Best Value Duty, including financial reporting and external audit findings. Decisions are based on a holistic assessment of all available information, and no single metric automatically leads to intervention. Ministers continue to require assurance of Tees Valley Combined Authority's compliance with the Best Value Duty and the Best Value Notice remains in place while they consider appropriate next steps based on the available evidence.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government , further to the Written Answer by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage on 29 June (HL979), which of the specific indicators of failure set out in the statutory guidance on Best Value Standards and Intervention are being monitored in relation to the Tees Valley Combined Authority; and whether the Authority has triggered any of these indicators in the course of their 2025–26 financial reporting.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
As set out in the statutory guidance, the Department considers a range of qualitative and quantitative evidence when assessing whether an authority is complying with its Best Value Duty, including financial reporting and external audit findings. Decisions are based on a holistic assessment of all available information, and no single metric automatically leads to intervention. Ministers continue to require assurance of Tees Valley Combined Authority's compliance with the Best Value Duty and the Best Value Notice remains in place while they consider appropriate next steps based on the available evidence.