Asked by: Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat - St Albans)
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 2 December to Question 119401, if he will publish the number of 3M Aura 9332+ Respirator with Valve masks ordered from Purple Surgical on 28 April 2020.
Answered by Jo Churchill - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The contract award notices and contracts awarded to Purple Surgical have been published. Information concerning pricing and the precise amounts of personal protective equipment ordered has been redacted as this is considered commercially sensitive.
Asked by: Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat - St Albans)
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 2 December 2020 to Question 119401, on Protective Clothing: Procurement, if he will publish the number of PS9230 Type IIR face masks ordered from Purple Surgical on Contract Reference PSIIR20200516 of 11 May 2020 at the agreed total cost of £33,600,000.
Answered by Jo Churchill - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The contract award notices and contracts awarded to Purple Surgical have been published. Information concerning pricing and the precise amounts of personal protective equipment ordered has been redacted as this is considered commercially sensitive.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer given by Lord Bethell on 1 December (HL10548), what “associated commercial implications” are engaged by disclosure of the requested non-commercial information; and which of the categories of non-commercial information that were requested give rise to those “associated commercial implications”.
Answered by Lord Bethell
The Department has considered the position of suppliers which were referred to the high priority channel. The disclosure of their names may damage the supplier’s reputation, affecting their competitive position and could have a potentially detrimental impact on their revenue and/or their ability to obtain future contracts.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care spoke with representatives of (1) Tulchan Group, and (2) Meller Designs, on 6 April; and if so, whether (a) the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) was discussed, (b) whether any records were kept of that discussion, and (c) whether the contact details of anyone working for the Government on the procurement of PPE was given to any such representatives.
Answered by Lord Bethell
I did not meet with any representative of Tulchan Group on 6 April.
I spoke with a representative of Meller Designs on 6 April to discuss the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE). A draft note of the meeting was made. The representative of Meller Designs was already in contact with Government officials involved in the procurement of PPE.
Asked by: Charlotte Nichols (Labour - Warrington North)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what proportion of the contracts tendered by the Government for personal protective equipment during the covid-19 outbreak went to companies owned by (a) women and 9b) BAME individuals.
Answered by Jo Churchill - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Information on the gender and ethnicity of the owners of companies which offered to supply personal protective equipment to the Department was not required as part of the bidding process.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who are the members of the clearance board put in place by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Office to approve contracts for personal protective equipment worth more than £5 million; and how many contracts have they approved so far this year.
Answered by Lord Bethell
The clearance board was chaired by the Government’s Deputy Chief Commercial Officer or the Department’s Commercial Director. Standing members were the Commercial Officer, the Commercial Director and the Department’s Deputy Director of Procurement and the Deputy Director of Finance. It was also attended by a number of cross Government and cross functional teams including Government Legal Department, the Department’s anti-fraud unit, and Department for Health and Social Care and Cabinet Office’s commercial colleagues. All these personnel were Government officials.
The role of the board was to decide whether any deal of £5 million or more should be passed to the Department’s procurement and finance teams for accounting officer consideration and final formal approval.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bethell on 1 December (HL10548), what representations they have received about the inexperience of personal protective equipment suppliers awarded a Government contract this year; and what assessment they have made of the impact on public confidence in the probity of their procurement process of their refusal to disclose non-commercial information about the companies whose offers were reviewed in a timely manner.
Answered by Lord Bethell
The Government issued a public call to action to support the increased requirements of personal protective equipment (PPE) in March and has always been clear that the purpose of this was to reach suppliers who not only had experience of supplying PPE but also those who had no prior experience but who had access to sources of PPE through their business contacts or could re-purpose to supply PPE. This resulted in over 15,000 suppliers offering their help and support.
All offers went through the same eight stage assurance process which selected suppliers based on the product type, clinical acceptability, price, forecasted delivery dates, volume and financial standing.
All the Contract Award Notices for these PPE contacts have now been published online as well as the majority of the contracts themselves and the balance will be published shortly. These contain the details of all suppliers awarded a PPE contract, the value of the contract and the items ordered under the contract.
Asked by: Steve Reed (Labour (Co-op) - Croydon North)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what plans he has to assist in procuring personal protective equipment for local authorities from 1 April 2021 when the current arrangement ends.
Answered by Jo Churchill - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
In the recent Spending Review, it was announced that the Department would be provided with funding for 2021/2022 to cover ongoing COVID-19 related personal protective equipment (PPE) expenditure. We are currently analysing options for the future supply and distribution of PPE beyond March 2021.
We have seen a monumental change in the way that PPE has been secured and supplied across the country. We have learned a great deal from this experience and want to build on this to transition to a future model that is both resilient and proportionate.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bethell on 24 November (HL10126), whether the use of the “extreme urgency” provision in Regulation 32(2)(c) instead of competitive tendering has become the default method for the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies; whether the demand for PPE has returned to more predictable levels such that contracts for PPE supplies can return to being competitively tendered; and what assessment they have made of the continued use of the “extreme urgency” provision in the current circumstances.
Answered by Lord Bethell
We have made use of existing procurement rules which allow the Government to procure at speed in times of emergency, as confirmed in Cabinet Office Guidance circulated to procuring authorities in March. Regulation 32(2)(c) for the direct award of a contract is not a new procedure but its use was necessary due to a highly volatile global market and the extreme urgency at which we had to proceed.
The guidance issued by the Cabinet Office set out a range of options under the Procurement Regulations which can be used depending on urgency and other factors. In addition to direct awards, authorities can reduce the minimum timescales for the open procedure, the restricted procedure and the competitive procedure with negotiation if a state of urgency renders the standard timescales impracticable. All future procurement routes will be considered against the specific requirement and the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 to determine how best to proceed.
Asked by: Alyn Smith (Scottish National Party - Stirling)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the National Audit Office report entitled Investigation into government procurement during the covid-19 pandemic, published 18 November 2020, what the names are of the 144 companies that were introduced by the private offices of Ministers and processed via the high priority lane for the procurement of personal protective equipment.
Answered by Jo Churchill - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Government issued a public call to action to support the increased requirements of personal protective equipment (PPE). This resulted in over 15,000 suppliers offering their help and support.
The cross-Government PPE team considered that leads referred by Government officials, Ministerial private offices, Parliamentarians, senior National Health Service staff and other health professionals were possibly the more credible and needed to be initially reviewed with more urgency. This was commonly referred to as a ‘priority’ or ‘VIP’ channel.
At the point of being prioritised these offers went into the same due diligence, technical assurance, closing or contract negotiation and contract award process as all the other offers. About one in ten suppliers were processed through this channel - 47 out of 493 - obtained contracts. We do not intend to publish the list of these suppliers as there may be associated commercial implications.