Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Kamall on 19 January (HL4883), why they are unable to identify losses on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Answered by Lord Kamall
The Department is seeking to recover monies paid to PPE Medpro in relation to a contract for the provision of gowns. Currently the parties are engaged in mediation and exploring whether it is possible to resolve the matter without formal legal action. The Department has not yet suffered a loss but may do so if it is unable to recover monies from PPE Medpro, either by agreement arising from mediation or pursuant to formal legal action.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total public expenditure on faulty PPE products made by Zhende and Inivos which cannot be used by the NHS; and what steps they are taking to recoup this expenditure.
Answered by Lord Kamall
Inivos supplied gowns with a contract value of £117,360,000, which are currently under investigation through the technical regulatory assurance process. Since the Department does not have a contract directly with Zhende, the information requested is not held centrally.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the provision of FFP3 masks to GPs, whether they also provided fit-testing of such masks; whether fit-testing is required before the use of FFP3 masks by GPs; what guidance they have provided to GPs concerning arranging a fit-test; and what assessment they have made of the impact on the resources and capacity of hospitals to carry out fit-tests for GPs.
Answered by Lord Kamall
There are sufficient stocks of FFP3 masks which are available to general practitioners (GPs) via the ordering portal, with limits set by size of practice. In general practice, type IIR or surgical face masks are usually worn for patient contact. Infection prevention and control measures allow for local risk assessments to determine that FFP3 masks should be worn in circumstances, such as undertaking aerosol generating procedures or if deemed necessary by the local risk assessment and if fit-testing has been carried out.
From 17 January 2022, practices requiring FFP3 masks where fit-testing has been organised, will be able to order these masks through the portal. It is a legal requirement for employers to ensure that staff are fit-tested before FFP3 face masks can be worn. Clinical commissioning groups and integrated care systems are being asked to identify regional or local fit testing capacity through Departmental networks to meet local demand.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they are addressing any (1) unavailability, and (2) rationing, of FFP3 masks used by GPs required for treating COVID patients in the community via home antiviral therapy.
Answered by Lord Kamall
There are sufficient stocks of FFP3 masks which are available to general practitioners (GPs) via the ordering portal, with limits set by size of practice. In general practice, type IIR or surgical face masks are usually worn for patient contact. Infection prevention and control measures allow for local risk assessments to determine that FFP3 masks should be worn in circumstances, such as undertaking aerosol generating procedures or if deemed necessary by the local risk assessment and if fit-testing has been carried out.
From 17 January 2022, practices requiring FFP3 masks where fit-testing has been organised, will be able to order these masks through the portal. It is a legal requirement for employers to ensure that staff are fit-tested before FFP3 face masks can be worn. Clinical commissioning groups and integrated care systems are being asked to identify regional or local fit testing capacity through Departmental networks to meet local demand.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of the 47 VIP public contracts involving facemasks and surgical gowns have led to defaults that are now in dispute; what estimate they have made of the percentage of public contracts that involve defaults; and what is the total cost to public funds of public contacts that involve defaults.
Answered by Lord Kamall
The information is not held in the format requested.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any (1) person, or (2) organisation, will be censured for defaults involving the 47 VIP public contracts for facemasks and surgical gowns; and what steps they have taken in connection with defaults associated with their contract with PPE MedPro.
Answered by Lord Kamall
We have no plans to censure a single individual or organisation. The contract with PPE Medpro is considered commercially sensitive as the Department is currently engaged in a mediation process concerning their products, which involves confidentiality undertakings.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Kamall on 2 November (HL3362) and 16 November (HL3662), why “information on the number of embryos produced, transferred, and confirmed pregnancies cannot be disclosed” for reasons of patient confidentiality, when the Written Answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care on 15 April 2019 (241389) provided figures on the number of applications made, and approved, for mitochondrial donation techniques and the number of embryos discarded; whether there has been a change of policy regarding information about outcomes of pronuclear transfer or spindle-chromosomal complex transfer since 15 April 2019; and if so, (1) when that policy change was made, and (2) what were the reasons for that change.
Answered by Lord Kamall
In our Written Answer of 2 November 2021 to HL3362, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that the information provided was incorrect. We have corrected the record through Written Ministerial Statement HLWS503 on 5 January 2022.
The HFEA advise that there has been no change of policy regarding information about outcomes of pronuclear transfer or spindle-chromosomal complex transfer. The HFEA publishes information which does not compromise patient confidentiality. All counts of less than five are not released as there is a significant possibility that when combined with other information which may be reasonably accessed, it could lead to the identification of a person to whom the HFEA owes a duty of confidentiality.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether face masks produced for the NHS by (1) PestFix, and (2) Ayanda Capital, are compliant with Health and Safety Executive safety standards; whether surgical gowns manufactured by (a) PestFix, and (b) PPEMedpro, meet the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority standards; how much these products cost; what procedures were used for their purchase; and what happened to these products after delivery.
Answered by Lord Kamall
Pestfix, Ayanda Capital and PPEMedpro are suppliers and not producers or manufacturers.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency assessed the Type IIR masks supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda and approved the products for release. So far, around 43 million of these masks have been distributed.
Pestfix and Ayanda supplied FFP2 masks with ear loops. This was compliant with the regulatory standard and specifications at the time of contract. It was subsequently determined that ear loops, as opposed to head loops, were not acceptable for use in the National Health Service (NHS). As a result, when the Health and Safety Executive assessed the FFP2 masks supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda, they failed for use in the NHS because they have ear loops rather than head loops. We are looking at making these masks available for overseas markets.
Pestfix and PPEMedpro provided surgical gowns. In both cases these were not approved and no stock was distributed. Whilst the supplies come from different manufacturers all items are “single wrapped sterile surgical gowns”, which cannot be used within the United Kingdom operating theatres, due to sterility concerns around the single wrap. These products could potentially be made available for sale to overseas markets.
Any decisions on individual contracts are regarded as commercially sensitive information, therefore the department is unable to release information in relation to costs and procedures.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the report concerning 47 PPE contracts awarded through a fast-track process; (2) whether this report has been seen by the Health and Safety Executive; (3) if not, why not; and (4) what steps they are taking to prevent contracts being awarded through such a process again.
Answered by Lord Kamall
No such report has been produced.
The Government is transforming public procurement following the publication of a Green paper last year. New measures will set out clear arrangements for how procurement should be conducted, including in situations where extreme urgency is a factor.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to (1) repeal section 32 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 relating to procurement of medical supplies during emergencies such as pandemics, and (2) amend the Health and Care Bill to make provision for new public procurement policies during times of emergency or pandemics based on transparency, accountability and value for public money.
Answered by Lord Kamall
The Government is transforming the regulatory framework for public procurement following the publication of a Green Paper last year. This work is being led by the Cabinet Office. Following a consultation exercise and as set out in the Government response to the consultation exercise published in December 2021, the Government proposes to retain provision allowing limited tendering in situations of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events (Regulation 32(2)(c) in the Public Contracts Regulations). However, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed some uncertainty in applying Regulation 32 where the situation is prolonged or evolving and new measures will set out clear arrangements for how procurement should be conducted, including in situations where extreme urgency is a factor.
The Health and Care Bill does not include provisions for new public procurement policies during times of emergency or pandemics as this is a matter for the Cabinet Office’s regulatory framework for public procurement.