Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many due diligence checks on companies not were completed before contracts were awarded for personal protective equipment procurement.
Answered by Will Quince
All offers of personal protective equipment submitted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic went through a structured, documented due diligence process before a contract was awarded by the Department.
Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, what steps his Department has put in place to help promote solar power in the UK.
Answered by Graham Stuart
The Government is incentivising large-scale solar through the Contracts for Difference scheme and rooftop solar through various financial and regulatory measures. These include the Smart Export Guarantee, removal of VAT on domestic panels, tax relief and business rate exemptions. The Government is exploring low-cost finance options to support upfront costs for households and businesses and reviewing permitted development rights to simplify planning for commercial projects.
The Government will publish a solar deployment roadmap in 2024 and is establishing a taskforce to drive forward further actions needed to achieve the Government's ambition of around a fivefold increase in solar capacity by 2035.
Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 31 January 2023 to Question 120948 on Unispace Global: Contracts, whether his Department made an assessment of the potential tax implications of the novation of the contracts from a limited company to a limited liability partnership.
Answered by Will Quince
Legal advice was not sought by the Department on the change in legal structure of the counterparties to the contracts nor of the potential tax implications of the novation of the contracts as this did not affect the terms of the contracts, including the payments to be made by the Department or the supply of products to the Department.
Under the change of structure, Unispace Global Ltd was acquired by Unispace Health Products LLP, which changed its name to Sante Global LLP shortly afterwards. A novation agreement was entered into to change the counterparty to the contracts, where the new counterparty agreed to perform all of the present and future obligations of the contracts.
Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 31 January 2023 to Question 120948 on Unispace Global: Contracts, whether his Department sought legal advice on the potential implications of novating a contract from a limited company to a limited liability partnership.
Answered by Will Quince
Legal advice was not sought by the Department on the change in legal structure of the counterparties to the contracts nor of the potential tax implications of the novation of the contracts as this did not affect the terms of the contracts, including the payments to be made by the Department or the supply of products to the Department.
Under the change of structure, Unispace Global Ltd was acquired by Unispace Health Products LLP, which changed its name to Sante Global LLP shortly afterwards. A novation agreement was entered into to change the counterparty to the contracts, where the new counterparty agreed to perform all of the present and future obligations of the contracts.
Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 31 January 2023 to Question 120948 on Unispace Global: Contracts, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the reasons cited for the novation of PPE contracts from Unispace Global Ltd to Sante Global LLP.
Answered by Will Quince
Legal advice was not sought by the Department on the change in legal structure of the counterparties to the contracts nor of the potential tax implications of the novation of the contracts as this did not affect the terms of the contracts, including the payments to be made by the Department or the supply of products to the Department.
Under the change of structure, Unispace Global Ltd was acquired by Unispace Health Products LLP, which changed its name to Sante Global LLP shortly afterwards. A novation agreement was entered into to change the counterparty to the contracts, where the new counterparty agreed to perform all of the present and future obligations of the contracts.
Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, whether any companies owned by or subsidiaries of the SIMEC Group received any Government subsidies following the SIMEC Group's acquisition of the Uskmouth B Powerplant in Newport, South Wales in 2015.
Answered by Nusrat Ghani
The information requested is not held centrally by the Department for Business and Trade. To provide this information would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold of £850 that is set by the Cabinet Office.
Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 31 January 2023 to Question 120948 on Unispace Global: Contracts, whether the settlement reached in July 2021 required Sante Global LLP to deliver on the obligations in the original Unispace Global contract; whether any of the obligations in the original contract were waived as part of the new settlement; and what proportion of the original contractual obligations have now been met.
Answered by Will Quince
I must begin by correcting the record regarding the date of the settlement. An agreement resolving the dispute was signed in July 2022, whereas the earlier Parliamentary response refers to a settlement having been reached in July 2021. I have made arrangements for the record to be corrected in Hansard.
I can confirm that the obligations to deliver product have been fully met, with the last delivery of replacement products having been received on 17 October 2022.
Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many PPE contracts were involved in his Department’s Anti-Fraud Unit’s recovery of £18 million in PPE fraud.
Answered by Will Quince
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has not been used to recover personal protective equipment (PPE) funds lost through fraud since March 2020. Four contracts were involved in the Department’s recovery of £18 million of PPE spend lost due to fraud.
Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on how many occasions his Department’s Anti-Fraud Unit has made use of its powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to recover funds lost through PPE fraud since March 2020.
Answered by Will Quince
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has not been used to recover personal protective equipment (PPE) funds lost through fraud since March 2020. Four contracts were involved in the Department’s recovery of £18 million of PPE spend lost due to fraud.
Asked by: Nick Smith (Labour - Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for what reason his Department has not agreed to the Second Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, Sue Gray, from serving as a witness in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s investigation into the lobbying and access affair involving Greensill Capital in July 2021.
Answered by Jeremy Quin
It is the Government’s longstanding position, as set out in the Osmotherly Rules, that officials do not attend Committees in their own capacity, but as representatives of their Ministers. It is therefore open for Ministers to decide to attend instead. In this instance, successive Cabinet Office Ministers declined the invitation for Ms Gray to appear before the Committee and in so doing offered to attend instead to answer any questions the Committee might have had on this subject.