Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Covid-19 Contracts

Thursday 31 March 2022 · 3 questions

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

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Her Majesty's Government prioritizes protecting lives and livelihoods during the pandemic.
  • Government contracts must achieve value for taxpayers using good commercial judgment.
  • The National Audit Office investigates governance issues and the cost of waste in PPE contracts.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Neale Hanvey
NHS Taxation
Context

The MP is concerned about ensuring value for money in the award of covid-19 contracts.

Question

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the need to ensure value for money in the award of covid-19 contracts. Given that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money are still at risk, what is being done to understand governance issues around this and how will it be reported to the House?

Answer from Jacob Rees-Mogg

Her Majesty's Government's priority throughout the pandemic has been to protect lives and livelihoods. Contracts must achieve value for taxpayers using good commercial judgment, with award details published per transparency guidelines. The government faced an emergency needing immediate PPE supplies. Domestic production was increased from 1% to 70%. Some suppliers provided faulty items but that does not mean majority of the supply was defective.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The MP asked for a report on governance issues and costs, which was not directly addressed by mentioning only domestic production increase and supplier faults without specifics.

How: Changed Subject To Defending Government Actions, Denied Fundamental Error Of National Audit Office

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q2 Neale Hanvey
Economy Taxation
Context

Between March 2020 and October 2021, £737 million was spent to store excess PPE. Over half of VIP suppliers provided unsuitable PPE and 1.5 billion items are in storage expected to expire before being used.

Question

According to the National Audit Office investigation into PPE contracts, billions of pounds of taxpayers' money is still at risk. What is being done to understand governance issues around this and the cost of that waste? How will that be reported to the House?

Answer from Jacob Rees-Mogg

Government succeeded in getting domestic production up from 1% to 70%. All that means is that in a shipment of tonnes of PPE, one item was faulty. This does not mean majority items received were defective.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The MP asked about governance issues and costs but the response focused on production increase and supplier quality without addressing waste or reporting to the House.

How: Changed Subject To Defending Government Procurement Actions

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q3 Rachel Hopkins Lab Luton South and South Bedfordshire
Taxation
Context

Millions of pounds were given to an offshore company involving a Tory peer, which sold PPE at three times the price it bought for. Millions of items are now in storage with costs increasing.

Question

The Minister talks about value for money, yet we know that the Government handed hundreds of millions of pounds of our money to an offshore company involving a Tory peer, created just days before and without any transparency, that sold Government PPE at three times the price it had bought it for. Millions of items are now stuck in storage, costing us even more. The Government refuse to reveal what they know about the company; when will we get the promised procurement Bill? What safeguards will be in it?

Answer from Jacob Rees-Mogg

Socialist view argues against urgency but Government got PPE quickly. Ensured value for money; those who overcharged will be pursued.

Not addressed: The MP asked about procurement bill and transparency on the offshore company, none of which was addressed directly.

How: Attacked Socialist Viewpoint, Did Not Address Specifics Regarding Procurement Bill Or Transparency

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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