Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation 9

9

Access to the high-priority lane was based on recommendations coming from government officials, ministers’ offices,...

Conclusion
Access to the high-priority lane was based on recommendations coming from government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and members of the House of Lords. The NAO found that there were no written rules which determined the basis on which suppliers should be recommended for the lane, meaning that it was left to the judgment of individuals putting forward the leads. Committee members noted that when MPs passed on leads they were not necessarily based on personal experience or expertise in PPE procurement and therefore not in a position to vouch for the validity or credibility of the lead. The NAO found that the process did not clearly record information on referrals. The Cabinet Office confirmed that of the 47 suppliers which came through the high-priority lane and were awarded contracts, 12 were introduced from MPs, seven from Peers and 18 from officials. In five cases, the source of the referral was not known and one referral was put in the lane in error. Although the lane was established for more credible leads, the Department admitted that in practice it was a convenient way to make sure offers were getting picked up in a way that it could then explain back to MPs or others that they were being looked at.15
Government Response

A response document is linked to this report, dated 3 September 2021. Response attribution to this conclusion has not been verified. Read the response document ↗