Government PPE Contracts

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I have a few points for the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is no longer in his place. The National Audit Office did not have all the paperwork it needed to give a full and correct report. Therefore, when the Minister kept quoting the National Audit Office saying that due diligence was done on all companies, that is not correct. Also, the NHS published weekly consumption data during the pandemic, so the question is: how on earth did we come to buy five times more PPE than we actually needed? It makes no sense. There is a lot of evidence and paperwork on the Good Law Project website, just for the Minister’s reference.

The coronavirus pandemic has been a nightmare for everyone. It was a time of national pain and loss, and for some it was unspeakable. People lost loved ones, as I did, and it was also financially damaging for the country. It is absolutely shocking and unforgivable that some people saw this crisis as an opportunity to seriously line their own pockets, making money out of the misery we all went through. Let us be clear: this money is not free money. This money comes from working people through taxation, and the Government have been pickpocketing the working class to fund the lifestyle of the rich.

We still do not know the true extent of the misuse of public money, and that is why this motion is important. Even though I and many others have been asking questions for three years, what comes back from the Government is really quite sparse. We are having to piece together the information, and that is not good enough from a Government. They need to be transparent and honest, and the public deserve to know who was given public funds, how many had links to the Conservatives and what they were paid for. I often ask, “What were they paid for? What kind of PPE? How many, and how many did we receive?” The Minister never comes back with that information, so if the Minister has the facts and figures, broken down for each company, I would appreciate if he put that in the Library. According to the Minister last week, some companies were paid for PPE even though we had enough PPE in stock. I said, “Was that deliberate?” and he said yes. I think that is really quite strange—if we have enough PPE, why are you giving people more PPE?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)]

The hon. Member claims that we bought five times too much PPE. This is not the case. We did have 20% excess capacity against a worst-case scenario that, thankfully, did not materialise. But just to be clear to her, it is not the case, as she keeps saying, that we bought five times too much PPE. That is simply not the case.

[Dawn Butler]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. So can he just clarify: if the NHS was given weekly stats on how much PPE was needed, how come there is so much PPE in storage, which is costing £750,000 a day to store? Does the Minister want to come back? Oh, the Minister of State has walked in at the right time.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister of State did actually give the House some updated figures on that point. It is not the £750,000 figure the hon. Member just quoted. On this point, it is not the case that we bought five times too much PPE. She keeps saying that. It is not the case.

[Dawn Butler]

I suppose the facts will reveal themselves when the Minister shows us all the paperwork, leaves it in the Library and then we can go through the facts, the stats and the figures together. I look forward to that. We heard earlier today—[Interruption.] The Ministers are going through some figures now. I really think that, to resolve all of this, and to not even have this debate and conversation, they should put all the paperwork in the Library, we can all go through it together and that is what is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)]

To make sure that I get to them, I want to respond to some of the important points made by Back-Bench Members at the start of my remarks. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is sadly no longer in his place, mentioned Arco not getting a contract. My understanding is that it did get a contract, so we should resolve what is correct.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) mentioned the two different contracts for PPE Medpro, and it is important to be clear that one of those contracts was delivered—the PPE was delivered and that was fine—and one did not, and that is the one we are taking enforcement action on. With all these contracts, we are just as keen as everybody else to make sure that we get good value for money for taxpayers and we enforce whenever things have not been delivered.

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) called for the publication of details of companies that were in the high-priority group and then got contracts, which is something that happened in November 2021. I slightly disagree with one point that the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) made: the argument that we should not have had any contracts with firms that had not previously been PPE suppliers. Of course lots of new firms were coming into the market, and part of our drive to get more UK supply relied on that very point.

[Nick Smith]

rose—

[Neil O’Brien]

I am just going to complete my tour of people’s contributions.

The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) said that we should donate and reuse PPE, and I am pleased to tell her that that is precisely what we are doing. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said that we are in the middle of a major cost of living issue, and she is absolutely correct. That is why we are spending £55 billion on energy support, why we have the £900 payment for 8 million poorer households and why we are raising the national living wage to a record level—that is worth about £1,600 for a full-time worker.

The hon. Members for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Neil O’Brien]

I will give way, but I am trying to respond to everyone’s points first. If Members can hold on, we will get there.

As I was saying, those two Members both made the point that we wanted to get more UK producers making PPE. The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), has already made the point that we have gone from 1% of FFP3 masks being made in the UK to 75%. I should also mention our work with Moderna to get more development and production of vaccines happening in the UK as part of that exciting deal.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said that one potential supplier had been incandescent with rage because they did not get a contract. That is the system working. People were being turned down for contracts; 90% of those who went through the—[Laughter.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am desperately trying to respond to all the points. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Give the Minister a chance to respond to all the questions. I have tried to give enough time for that, so let him get on with it.

[Neil O’Brien]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am keen to reply to them. The hon. Gentleman said that only 3%—

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Neil O’Brien]

I am literally responding to the hon. Gentleman. He talked about only 3% not being reusable and implied that some of the other things were only fit for servicing a car. To be clear, some of these things have a different clinical use. For example, the NHS tends to use and wants to use aprons on a roll when there is the choice, where we have a normal PPE market. What we do therefore is use the flat-pack ones that we had and donate them to care homes. Self-assembly visors are not preferred in the NHS because they take a bit of time to assemble, so we give them to dentists and the like.

We have heard two different uses of the words “writing off” in this debate, and it is important to be clear about the difference between these two things. Some people talk about “writing off” for things that are not usable, and only 3% of what was purchased is in that category. Then there is a different accounting use of “writing off”, which is something we have to do; we bought a load of PPE because we needed it in the middle of the pandemic and it was more expensive at that time—it was worth more then than it is now. That is the accounting meaning of “writing off”. Let us be clear about those two different uses.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Neil O’Brien]

There are so many questions that I do not know who to give way to, but I think I should start with the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent.

[Nick Smith]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He attributed comments to me that I did not make, and I just want to put that on the record. I do have a question for him: does he accept that excessive profits have been made on the back of some of these PPE contracts?

[Neil O’Brien]

I am about to explain the due process that we went through and the incredibly forensic work that our civil servants did. Just to be clear—again, for the benefit of the House—Ministers did not make decisions on contracts. Officials, as usual, made the decisions on contracts. I will talk more about the process that we went through in the very short time that we have remaining.

During the dark days of the pandemic, we had a collective approach that saw hundreds of millions of life-saving vaccine doses delivered, the largest testing infrastructure in Europe established from a standing start and the distribution of tens of millions of items of PPE. It was a uniquely complex challenge even in normal times, but a particular challenge when the entire world was trying to get these goods. [Interruption.] Opposition Members might want to have the courtesy to listen to the answers of the questions that they have asked—a strange approach.

We delivered 20 billion items to the frontline and to our broader workforce—we are still in fact delivering 5 million items a months. That was enough to deliver a response to a worst-case scenario, which, fortunately, did not emerge. That is why we have that 20% excess stock that I mentioned earlier. It is simply not the case, as one hon. Member mentioned, that we had five times too much PPE. However, let us remember the context. It was the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who said that it was a “matter of safety” and of patients’ safety. We agreed, which is why we acted. It was the shadow Health Secretary who said:

“Our NHS and social care staff deserve the very best protective clothing…and they urgently need…it.”

We agreed. It was the current shadow Chancellor who called for a

“national effort which leaves no stone unturned”.

That is exactly what we did. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Stop shouting!

[Neil O’Brien]

What did the hon. Member for Brent Central say there? [Interruption.] No, she does not want to repeat it.

Let me be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker: at every point in the procurement process, the process is rightly run by our brilliant commercial professionals. Ministers are not involved in the procurement process; Ministers are not involved in the value of contracts. Ministers are not involved in the scope of contracts, and Ministers are not involved in the length of contracts. That is something echoed by the National Audit Office, whose report concluded that the Ministers had properly declared their interests and that there was

“no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management”.

The role of Ministers was exactly what we would expect. Approaches from suppliers were passed on to civil servants for an independent assessment. Let us again look at the scale of the effort: 19,000 companies made offers, around 430 were processed through the high-priority group, and only 12% of those resulted in a contract for 51 firms. That group was primarily about managing the many, many requests that were coming in to Ministers from people across the House and from people across the country who were desperate to help with that national challenge of getting more PPE, and there had to be a way of dealing with them. To be clear, due diligence was carried out on every single company, financial accountability sat with a senior civil servant, all procurement decisions were taken by civil servants, and a team of more than 400 civil servants processed referrals and undertook due diligence checks. It was a huge operation run by the civil service, and I thank them for their work in getting our NHS the PPE that it needed.

Let me be clear, I will not stand here and say that there are not any lessons to be learned; of course there are. But we should be clear about what those lessons are. Despite the global race to get PPE, only 3% of the materials sourced were fit for purpose, but we have built more resilient supply chains. We are implementing the recommendations of the Boardman review of pandemic procurement in full. I have mentioned the growth of UK procurement of face masks and of vaccines.

In closing, I wish to thank all of those who have been involved in this important conversation. We should be rightly proud of what was achieved during those dark and difficult days at the start of the pandemic, operating in conditions of considerable uncertainty. We were in a situation where, literally, there was gazumping going on. If people did not turn up with the cash, things were removed that they had bought from the warehouses. That was the global race that we were in to source these things. The 400-strong team of civil servants who led this process did a remarkable job from a standing start of sourcing the goods that we needed.

During this debate, we have heard a number of deliberate obfuscations of the different things that Ministers and officials do. To be clear, all of these decisions went through an eight-stage forensic process that was run entirely by officials and it did not get anyone a contract to go into this high-priority group. It was simply about managing the sheer number of bids for contracts that were coming in to people across this House. At the time, although memories are very short and the barracking on this continued—

[Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.