MPs pile pressure on government to shed light on ‘dodgy’ PPE deals
Around a dozen MPs have ramped up pressure on the government to offer clarity on its procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the pandemic, as further details of opaque contracts continue to emerge.
Stephen Timms MP has written to the government on behalf of the the Work and Pensions Committee following a damning report from the spending watchdog into the government’s PPE spending last week.
The National Audit Office (NAO) slammed the government for its “lack of transparency” in handing out PPE contracts and accused ministers of giving priority access to companies with political ties.
It also found that £10.5bn — round 58 per cent — of all Covid-19 contracts were awarded without a competitive tender process.
In a letter to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Work and Pensions Committee chair urged the workplace regulator to shed light on its handling of emergency agreements during the coronavirus crisis.
“NHS workers are putting themselves at risk on the frontline during this pandemic. They deserve to feel safe and have confidence that a proper and rigorous process is being followed to approve [PPE] that enables them to carry out their vital work,” said Timms.
“While it doesn’t appear that any outside pressure influenced HSE officials making assessments in this case, reports that give an impression of political interference risk harming faith in the safety of PPE. “
He added that the PPE scandal acted ”as a crucial reminder of the importance of the independence of the regulator, and of allowing expert officials to get on with their job without any perceived meddling from government”.
It comes after Treasury committee chair Mel Stride on Friday led a caucus of MPs expressing their concern over ministers’ handling of PPE contracts during the pandemic.
Stride urged chancellor Rishi Sunak “to provide us with information on whether the Treasury has followed the correct procedures when considering spending requests, whether any procedures have been curtailed as a result of the pandemic, and whether going forward any changes to these procedures are needed in light of the NAO report.”
Details of further questionable PPE contracts last week ramped up pressure for the government to shed light on its procurement process.
On Tuesday, it emerged the government is facing legal action after awarding a £250m contract for PPE to an American jewellery company with no experience producing healthcare equipment.
The Good Law Project has filed legal proceedings against the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) after it awarded Florida-based firm Saiger LLC £70.5m in June to procure 10.2m gowns to the NHS — approximately the entire number of gowns used by NHS England for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Sunday Times reported yesterday that a former Conservative councillor swapped his modest home for a £1.5m, 17th-century Cotswolds mansion after landing £276m in government contracts for PPE.
Steve Dechan, owner of medical device firm Platform-14, paid himself a salary of around £400,000 from the taxpayer cash, while paying his wife £150,000.
The government on Wednesday shrugged off accusations that its procurement process had been overly opaque, and argued it had needed to respond urgently to the coronavirus crisis.
“We shifted heaven and earth to get 32bn items of PPE into this country,” Johnson told Parliament. “I’m very proud of what has been achieved.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP and leader of the House of Commons, yesterday compared the government’s scramble for equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic to calling out an emergency plumber.
He said the UK was in the situation of “having a leak at two in the morning” and therefore it was “inevitably expensive” to procure PPE.