Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
11
Conclusion
Thirty-Fifth Report - The pharmacy earl…
Acknowledged
Three companies bid to be the framework supplier. One was discarded on failure to meet minimum quality grounds, leaving Citibank and Taulia. CCS’s commercial finance accountant’s evaluation of Taulia’s Dun & Bradstreet score and a review of its accounts required it to nominate a financial guarantor. Taulia nominated Greensill Capital, …
Read more
Three companies bid to be the framework supplier. One was discarded on failure to meet minimum quality grounds, leaving Citibank and Taulia. CCS’s commercial finance accountant’s evaluation of Taulia’s Dun & Bradstreet score and a review of its accounts required it to nominate a financial guarantor. Taulia nominated Greensill Capital, which was identified as Taulia’s key subcontractor in its bid. CCS’s assessors initially excluded Taulia from the bidding in January 2018 in line with the published evaluation criteria, as they were concerned about what Taulia said in its bid response about its ability to grow the number of businesses involved in the scheme. Taulia, and Greensill Capital in its role as an identified key subcontractor, protested to CCS. Following a review, and having sought legal advice, CCS asked both bidders to clarify their responses and appointed a new assessment panel, which reinstated Taulia in the competition.12
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's recommendation that the Department and CCS should formalise the process for considering conflicts of interest.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
12
Conclusion
Thirty-Fifth Report - The pharmacy earl…
Acknowledged
We asked why there was no discussion about a potential conflict of interest arising from Lex Greensill providing advice on supply chain finance services and his company, Greensill Capital, then being appointed to supply these services. We asked whether CCS’s assessments on fitness could have been expanded when the bids …
Read more
We asked why there was no discussion about a potential conflict of interest arising from Lex Greensill providing advice on supply chain finance services and his company, Greensill Capital, then being appointed to supply these services. We asked whether CCS’s assessments on fitness could have been expanded when the bids for the contract were put to tender and Taulia’s bid ruled out but Lex Greensill threatened legal action. CCS told us that though Mr Greensill tried to contact the CCS chief executive at the time, access was not granted.13
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's recommendation that the Department and CCS should formalise the process for considering conflicts of interest.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
Thirty-Fifth Report - The pharmacy earl…
Acknowledged
The Department told the National Audit Office that its policy position on salary advance schemes is that their use is a matter for individual NHS trusts and for that reason it would not provide advice or guidance to NHS trusts on the schemes. The Department also told the National Audit …
Read more
The Department told the National Audit Office that its policy position on salary advance schemes is that their use is a matter for individual NHS trusts and for that reason it would not provide advice or guidance to NHS trusts on the schemes. The Department also told the National Audit Office that NHS trusts were best placed to decide how different pay flexibilities, such as salary advance schemes, fit with their overall reward strategies. The Department also confirmed that it does not offer salary advance schemes or anything resembling this type of salary advance scheme to its own employees.27
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation that the Department, working with NHSE&I, should adopt a formal process for ensuring that government advice is disseminated to NHS trust leadership, stating this recommendation has been implemented.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
28
Conclusion
Thirty-Fifth Report - The pharmacy earl…
Acknowledged
Employer Salary Advance Schemes (ESAS, or salary advance schemes) are not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). These salary advance schemes link an employer payroll process to an employee smartphone app to offer advances of accrued earnings from a finance provider before payday. They do not usually involve the …
Read more
Employer Salary Advance Schemes (ESAS, or salary advance schemes) are not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). These salary advance schemes link an employer payroll process to an employee smartphone app to offer advances of accrued earnings from a finance provider before payday. They do not usually involve the provision of credit or other credit-related regulated activities. In July 2020 the FCA published a statement setting out its views on the benefits and risks of salary advance schemes and how to mitigate these risks. In February 2021, the FCA published a report by Chris Woolard that recommended that scheme providers and employers develop a code of good practice for salary advance schemes. The FCA also told the National Audit Office in July 2021 that it planned no further interventions for the sector.29
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government has not seen substantive evidence of consumer detriment arising from the use of salary advance schemes and believes they can be a useful tool to help people manage their finances; however, it welcomes the development of an industry code of practice and will …
Read full response →
HM Treasury