Thank you for your request for information about the following:

Request

‘I wish you to supply all details of discussions and correspondence held within NHS Pensions regarding the McCloud remedy that relate to when the revised timetable for the issuing of RSS will be made available.’

The NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) received your request on 28 March 2026.

We have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Our response

The NHSBSA does hold the requested information; however, compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of the FOIA.

We estimate that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the non-central Government limit of £450. The limit has been specified in The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 and represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours in determining whether the NHSBSA holds the information, and locating, retrieving, extracting and checking the information.

Please see the following calculations which sets out the estimated cost for compliance with this request:

The colleagues from the following departments and teams will need to search their email inbox and MS Teams chats to confirm if the requested information in scope is held: 

• Direct Project Team

• Operational Readiness

• Communications

• Finance

• Commercial

The total headcount for the relevant teams above, as of 26 May 2026, is 283. 

We reasonably estimate it will take a minimum of 20 minutes and a maximum of 60 minutes to search email inboxes and review the contents of the email to determine if it falls in scope of the request.

20 minutes x 283 headcount = 94.3 hours (minimum) 

60 minutes x 283 headcount = 283 hours (maximum) 

In addition, records storage systems will need to be searched to confirm what information is held in scope of this request: 

• 30 minutes per team (minimum). 30 minutes x 5 teams = 2.5 hours. 

• 60 minutes per team (minimum). 60 minutes x 5 teams = 5 hours. 

Minimum total = 94.3 hours + 2.5 hours = 96.8 hours 

Maximum total = 283 hours + 5 hours = 288 hours 

In accordance with the duty to advise and assist under section 16 of the FOIA 2000, please be advised that board papers could be provided within the appropriate limit; however, this information would be exempt under section 36 and section 42, as detailed below.  

Please see the following link to view the section 12 in full - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/12  

Nevertheless, even if we could comply with this question within the appropriate limit, the following exemptions would apply to the information in scope: 

Section 36 - (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs):

The information you requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in section 36 of the FOIA. Specifically, the following sub-sections:

• 36(2)(b)(ii) -prejudice to free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation 

• 36(2)(c) - otherwise prejudice effective conduct of public affairs 

The NHSBSA administers the NHS Pension Scheme on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This includes the delivery of the Public Service Pensions Remedy (‘McCloud’). The Secretary of State therefore has the power to extend deadlines related to the delivery of Public Service Pensions Remedy (‘McCloud’) Remediable Service Statements (RSS).

Disclosure of ongoing discussions and correspondence on matters of McCloud remedy policy between the NHSBSA and the Department of Health and Social Care would prejudice the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and would otherwise prejudice effective conduct of public affairs and decisions with respect to that policy.

In applying this exemption, we have balanced the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information.

Please see the below web link to see the exemption in full.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/36

Public Interest Test

Please see the below factors in favour of maintaining the exemption, and in favour disclosure of the information.

Considerations in favour of disclosure:

Understanding of the McCloud remedy

There is a strong public interest in transparency around the decisions and actions of public authorities, particularly where public money is being spent on a significant programme of work. Disclosure would promote accountability for how the NHSBSA is managing and resourcing the implementation of the McCloud remedy.

NHS Pension members have a direct and legitimate interest in understanding the remedy and the steps being taken to implement it. Disclosure of the requested information would assist both pension members and the wider public in understanding the progress of the programme, the challenges it faces, and how those challenges are being addressed.

Considerations against disclosure:

Free and frank deliberation

Disclosure of detailed information from board presentations and minutes could inhibit the frankness of future discussions. Those contributing to future board meetings may feel less able to speak and write freely, undermining the quality and openness of internal deliberations. There is an inherent public interest in allowing free and frank discussion and the exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, and in maintaining the effective conduct of public affairs.

The project boards in scope span internal NHSBSA governance, joint NHSBSA/DHSC boards, and boards involving wider stakeholders. These forums exist to allow open discussion of project progress, challenges, and risks. Disclosure would compromise the function these boards serve.

Impact on delivery of the McCloud remedy

As the project is ongoing, disclosure is likely to prompt further FOI requests relating to future meetings on a recurring basis. Managing the volume of requests, associated media coverage, and subsequent queries would divert significant resources away from programme delivery at a time when resource capacity is already one of the principal factors delaying implementation across the sector. Any disruption or delay to the McCloud remedy would be directly detrimental to individual pension scheme members.

Disclosure could also negatively affect staff morale and productivity, with consequential impacts on the NHSBSA's ability to attract and retain the specialist talent needed to deliver the remedy. This would represent poor value for public money. There may also be reputational damage to the NHSBSA's relationships with partner central government departments, particularly where their input or decisions are awaited to progress the programme.

Existing transparency and oversight

There is already substantial information about the McCloud remedy in the public domain, including media coverage, blogs, and parliamentary statements. The NHSBSA maintains a dedicated website providing accessible, regularly updated information on remedy progress. The Pensions Regulator and DHSC are overseeing implementation and holding the NHSBSA to account. DHSC has appointed independent consultants to review the programme, providing an additional layer of scrutiny.

Furthermore, the Minister of State for Health (Secondary Care)’s statement, made on 21 May 2026, advises that the timetable will be finalised before the House of Commons Summer recess.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-05-21/hcws55

Wider sector implications

The NHSBSA is one of several public sector pension scheme administrators facing the same challenges in implementing the McCloud remedy. The issues and risks covered in the requested information are therefore not unique to NHSBSA. Disclosure could prompt equivalent FOI requests to other administrators, diverting their resources and potentially delaying the remedy for their members too.

Conclusion:

We recognise that there is a public interest in the disclosure of information which facilitates accountability and transparency of public bodies, enables the public to understand decisions affecting their lives, and supports informed participation in public affairs.

However, there is an equally important public interest in allowing public authorities the space to have free and frank deliberation without fear of disclosure into the public domain.   

The McCloud remedy programme is live and ongoing, and the level of detail requested goes beyond what is already available in the public domain. The NHSBSA is already subject to full accountability through DHSC and the Pensions Regulator, and high-level information about the remedy and its implementation challenges is publicly accessible.

Disclosure at this time risks undermining the effectiveness of internal governance, diverting resources from programme delivery, and ultimately delaying the remedy for the pension members it is intended to benefit. This would be felt directly by the individuals whose pensions depend on timely implementation.

Having carefully undertaken the balancing exercise, we have concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time.  

Section 42 – Legal Professional Privilege

Some of the requested information in scope of the request is exempt under section 42 of the FOIA 2000.

Section 42 is a qualified, class-based exemption and is subject to the public interest test. This means that for the information to be withheld, the public interest in maintaining the exemption must outweigh the exemption in disclosure.

Public Interest Test:

Considerations in favour of disclosure:

• The inherent public interest in the openness and transparency of public authority dealings.

• The public interest that officials are spending money wisely and getting the best value for money.

Considerations against disclosure:

• The concept of legal professional privilege and the rationale behind this, i.e., ensuring frankness between legal representation and client which goes to service the wider administration of justice and duty of confidentiality.

• The inherent public interest in avoiding the prejudice specified in the exemption.

• The significance of the information and what it reveals.

Conclusion:

We recognise that there is a public interest in the disclosure of the information which facilitates accountability and transparency in how public money is spent; however, there is also a public interest in allowing legal proceedings to happen without undue pressure on all parties involved. There is also a strong public interest in the concept of legal professional privilege.

The inherent prejudice specified in the exemption is a fundamental requirement of the English legal system. The concept of legal professional privilege helps to ensure complete fairness in legal proceedings.

Having undertaken the balancing exercise, the NHSBSA has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the requested information, having regard to the effect of the disclosure would not be in the public interest.

Please see the following link to view the section 42 exemption in full - Freedom of Information Act 2000 (legislation.gov.uk)