Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Personal Protective Equipment Supplies

Tuesday 17 November 2020 · 4 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The UK Government has a four-month stockpile of all critical PPE and has distributed 4.7 billion items.
  • The UK spent 15 billion on PPE contracts during the pandemic, often without open tendering.
  • The zero VAT rating for PPE was removed on 1 November, increasing costs for social care and frontline services.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Martyn Day SNP
NHS Social Care
Context

The MP is concerned about ensuring adequate PPE supplies for healthcare, social care, and other frontline services during the ongoing pandemic.

Question

What steps his Department is taking to ensure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment for (a) health, (b) social care and (c) other frontline services during the covid-19 outbreak.

Answer from Jo Churchill

We have a four-month stockpile of all covid-critical PPE in place. Thanks must go to the tremendous contribution from UK manufacturers, including Honeywell in Motherwell in Scotland, which now meet 70% of our PPE needs. We have distributed 4.7 billion items, ensuring health and care providers and others have access to the critical protective equipment that they need to help keep everyone safe.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q2 Richard Thomson
NHS
Context

The MP is critical of the procurement process for PPE, pointing out that a significant portion has been awarded without open tendering and concerns about the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of these contracts.

Question

According to Treasury figures, the UK Government have spent £15 billion to date on PPE contracts, and the majority to date have been awarded without open tendering, often to those with connections to the governing party or to companies with no PPE experience at all. Does the Minister consider it is acceptable that, instead of that resource being used to protect frontline healthcare staff, so much of it has been squandered on millions of items that are absolutely unusable because they do not meet NHS standards, and how does she propose to restore this Government's reputation for competence, probity and openness in the tendering process?

Answer from Jo Churchill

The global pandemic presented us with unprecedented challenges in securing the volumes of PPE required. We moved swiftly in order to make sure that we kept people safe. We procured goods and services, and worked with extreme urgency in accordance with procurement rules and Cabinet Office guidance. All offers were prioritised based on volume price, clinical acceptability and lead time. I am happy to reiterate: we have four months' supply.

Partly answered

Not addressed: specific evaluation of procurement methods and measures for transparency

How: We Moved Swiftly, In Accordance With Procurement Rules

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q3 Martyn Day SNP
NHS Social Care Taxation
Context

The MP is concerned about the increase in VAT for PPE and its impact on social care and frontline services during the second wave of the pandemic.

Question

The UK Government removed the zero VAT rating for PPE on 1 November, increasing costs by 20%. Social care and other frontline services are already having to pay higher prices and to buy larger quantities of materials, so why are this Government making it even more expensive to protect key workers during what is the second wave of covid?

Answer from Jo Churchill

I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman. In the main, many of our frontline operators are getting it free—social care, general practice, dentistry, optometry and so on. The relief was designed specifically to relieve the burden of VAT on sectors particularly affected by coronavirus while supply did not match demand. Now the Government are able to supply covid-related PPE across all sectors, the burden of VAT will still not fall on frontline providers for all covid-related PPE and demand will be met. Most businesses that make taxable supplies can recover the VAT that they incur on purchases of PPE as business expenses. They will therefore be able to reclaim all VAT after the 31st.

Partly answered

Not addressed: specific impact of increased costs on frontline services during second wave

How: Most Operators Are Getting It Free, The Burden Of Vat Will Still Not Fall

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q4 Rosena Allin-Khan Lab Tooting
NHS
Context

The MP raises concerns about procurement inefficiencies, potential profiteering by companies with links to Conservative party donors, and seeks assurances on fair pricing.

Question

The price of an FFP2 mask bought by the Government increased by 1,400% in just six weeks to the end of May and gowns by 350%. I welcome all efforts by the Government to procure PPE, but I have concerns that we may not be getting a fair price. One company, PPE Medpro Ltd, was given Government contracts worth over £190 million. PPE Medpro Ltd had no previous experience and coincidentally was only set up on 12 May 2020. Reports have suggested that the company has substantial links to Conservative party donors, so can the Secretary of State or the Minister categorically assure the country that no Conservative party donors are profiteering from the pandemic?

Answer from Jo Churchill

Our plan on PPE has to be to stabilise the system and build resilience. That was outlined in the PPE strategy published on 28 September. [Interruption.] Children! Thank you.

Not addressed: specific assurances regarding fair procurement practices and profiteering by donors

How: Stabilise The System, [Interruption]

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email