Coronavirus: Ministers have not shown that billions of spending on PPE was ‘fair and transparent’, says watchdog

Government ‘indefinitely’ vulnerable to questions until it provides evidence of value for money

An NHS paramedic wearing personal protective equipment (PA)

Government ministers have not demonstrated they spent billions of pounds on PPE in a way that was “fair and transparent” or represented “the best available value for money”, the head of the UK’s public spending watchdog has warned.

Deals totalling £12.5bn for personal protective equipment such as masks, gloves and gowns have come under intense scrutiny after a National Audit Office report revealed that companies placed on a “VIP list” through contacts with politicians and senior officials were 10 times more likely to win contracts in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic.

NAO chief Gareth Davies warned that if ministers did not provide evidence to back up the award of contracts, they would be vulnerable to questions about their decisions “indefinitely”.

The NAO report found that the UK spent £10bn more than normal prices to secure billions of items of PPE to address an urgent shortage in the NHS and care homes, with many contracts awarded without the normal competitive tendering procedures.

Controversy has surrounded a £350m contract to a small family firm of pest controllers, as well as a string of lucrative contracts to a Florida-based jewellery designer who paid a middle man £21m to source protective equipment and a contract to produce vials awarded to a man who used to run a pub near Matt Hancock’s home and approached the health secretary with a WhatsApp message.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Mr Davies said ministers had not demonstrated that taxpayers’ cash was spent in a “fair and transparent” way that clearly represented “the best available value for money”.

“That’s what has not been possible in this case because we couldn’t give a positive opinion based on the work we’d done because of these gaps in the evidence,” said the NAO boss.

“This isn’t just bureaucratic box-ticking, it really matters that you can demonstrate why you picked the suppliers you picked, because otherwise you’re vulnerable to these questions indefinitely.”

While accepting that there would always be a trade-off between “perfection and speed” when sourcing emergency kit in a crisis situation, Mr Davies said ministers should have switched back to competitive tendering earlier in the pandemic.

He also said he was unable at this stage to give any assurance on whether the PPE procurement process had been targeted by criminals.

“We don’t have any evidence ourselves,” he said. “But the weaknesses in the processes we’ve set out and some of the ones we’ve already discussed means that we can’t give a positive audit view . . . we can’t give a positive assurance.”

Ministers and officials will have an opportunity to set out the evidence behind their decision when the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee opens an inquiry into PPE procurement next month.