Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
16
Conclusion
Sixteenth Report - Managing cross-borde…
Rejected
The NAO reported that government had no formal, agreed articulation of how competing objectives for implementation of the system as a whole should be balanced and prioritised. We asked how government ensured that the seven separate programmes worked together to protect health without suppressing economic activity. The Cabinet Office stated …
Read more
The NAO reported that government had no formal, agreed articulation of how competing objectives for implementation of the system as a whole should be balanced and prioritised. We asked how government ensured that the seven separate programmes worked together to protect health without suppressing economic activity. The Cabinet Office stated that its number one goal was public health, with a secondary goal of maximising freedom where possible.28 Creating a market for PCR travel tests
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the committee's recommendation regarding the balancing and prioritisation of competing objectives, stating that they did take on board many of the CMA's recommendations and detailing actions taken.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
17
Recommendation
Sixteenth Report - Managing cross-borde…
Rejected
To preserve NHS testing capacity for domestic health monitoring, DHSC created a private sector market for PCR tests for people travelling. The number of firms offering PCR tests increased from 11 in December 2020 to at least 400 by September 2021. United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) has a three stage …
Read more
To preserve NHS testing capacity for domestic health monitoring, DHSC created a private sector market for PCR tests for people travelling. The number of firms offering PCR tests increased from 11 in December 2020 to at least 400 by September 2021. United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) has a three stage process for accrediting firms 24 Committee of Public Accounts, Government preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons for government on risk, Forty-Sixth Report of Session 2021–22, HC 952, 23 March 2022; HM Government, The Orange Book: Management of Risk – Principles and Concepts, February 2020 25 Q 66 26 C&AG’s Report, para 10 27 Qq 67–68 28 Qq 68, 78; C&AG’s Report para 11 Managing cross-border travel during the COVID-19 pandemic 15 conducting tests.29 The first stage is a self-declaration that the company can provide tests to minimum standards set by DHSC. Despite this, DHSC listed companies as testing providers on gov.uk after passing only stage one. The NAO reported that 95% of companies failed the second stage of accreditation at their first attempt. The second stage required providers to submit evidence to the accreditor.30
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation, stating that it did take on board many of the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) recommendations.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
18
Conclusion
Sixteenth Report - Managing cross-borde…
Rejected
DHSC told us that it had tried to ensure that the market could provide valid and accurate tests, and that without its approach it would not have been able to develop the scale of testing market that it needed. We asked whether DHSC had reflected on the value of the …
Read more
DHSC told us that it had tried to ensure that the market could provide valid and accurate tests, and that without its approach it would not have been able to develop the scale of testing market that it needed. We asked whether DHSC had reflected on the value of the gov.uk brand and the fact that companies listed on gov.uk could be seen as having the imprint of government approval. It accepted that stage one of the accreditation did not pose a high barrier to firms entering the market. We challenged DHSC as to whether it had understood the value of the NHS and gov.uk brands and the risk that government would be seen to endorse a company by virtue of it being named on the government website. DHSC recognised this, and confirmed that it had removed companies found not to be providing the claimed service from the gov.uk list. By 28 January 2022, DHSC had removed 264 providers from gov.uk, 111 of which were removed because they had failed their second or third stage accreditation. We queried why, given the amount of time between initial accreditation and later stages, fraudulent or poor performing companies stayed on the list potentially for several weeks before they were removed, and in this time could make money from people travelling. DHSC acknowledged that it could have put in place higher barriers to entry into the market.31
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the Committee's recommendation because it did take on board many of the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) recommendations; lists multiple specific actions it took to address the issues raised, and states that if health measures were re-introduced, the UKHSA would continue …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
19
Recommendation
Sixteenth Report - Managing cross-borde…
Rejected
The NAO found that the price of PCR tests for prices ranged from £15 to £525. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) reviewed the PCR testing market in August 2021 and found there was a ‘race to the bottom’ where providers were only competing on price so that companies selling …
Read more
The NAO found that the price of PCR tests for prices ranged from £15 to £525. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) reviewed the PCR testing market in August 2021 and found there was a ‘race to the bottom’ where providers were only competing on price so that companies selling cheap but low quality tests might have an advantage. The CMA had previously suggested potential mitigations for this issue in April and May 2021 but DHSC had not taken any action. In September 2021 the CMA reported to government and again recommended it take action to address the market competing only on price.32 We asked DHSC why the gov.uk list did not have information on the time to conduct tests or quality, and it said that it had not intended the list on gov.uk to act as a price comparison site, but accepted that by adding information on prices, it had effectively become one. We also asked the Department why it had not responded to the CMA’s recommendations. The Department recognised that it had not formally responded to the CMA but told us that it had “engaged very deeply” with CMA officials after receiving the report, and that it took recommendations into account when which considering lateral flow tests.33 The Managed Quarantine Service
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the recommendation, stating that it *did* take on board many of the CMA’s recommendations, and describes the actions taken in response to the CMA report.
Read full response →
HM Treasury