This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/06/fifty-million-face-masks-bought-government-cannot-be-used-nhs

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Fifty million face masks bought by government cannot be used by NHS Labour calls for inquiry into purchase of 50m unusable face masks
(about 4 hours later)
Safety concerns over PPE ordered from Ayanda Capital as part of £252m contract PPE ordered from Ayanda Capital as part of £252m contract deemed unsafe for NHS workers
Fifty million face masks bought by the government as part of a £252m contract will not be used in the NHS due to safety concerns. An inquiry must be held into the purchase of 50m masks that were later deemed unsuitable for use by NHS workers, the Labour leader has said.
The masks, ordered from Ayanda Capital, have ear loops rather than head loops and there are concerns over whether they are adequate. The government confirmed in court papers that the masks, which are in the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) logistic chain, will not be used in the NHS. The £252m medical supplies contract was awarded to an investment firm in April, as ministers desperately sought to replenish the UK’s dwindling supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the height of the country’s coronavirus epidemic.
The Good Law Project and EveryDoctor, which are suing the government over its Ayanda contract, estimate the 50m masks would have cost more than £150m. “For months we were told that the government was purchasing the right equipment for the frontline. Yet again it hasn’t happened,” Keir Starmer told reporters during a visit to north Wales on Thursday.
Court papers show the government awarded the £252.5m contract to Ayanda on 29 April, with £41.25m payable on commencement to secure the manufacturing capacity. “There needs now to be an investigation, an inquiry, into what went wrong with this particular contract because it’s just not good enough to people who need that protective equipment that we find ourselves in this position.”
Ayanda also supplied 150m masks of another type, which the government says are unaffected but will be subject to further testing in the UK before any are released for NHS use. Two organisations are seeking judicial review of the decision to award the contract to Ayanda Capital, which describes itself as specialising in “currency trading, offshore property, private equity and trade financing”.
The government also disclosed in court papers that the original approach to sell the masks came from a businessman called Andrew Mills, the director of a company called Prospermill, which had secured exclusive rights to the full production capacity of a large factory in China to manufacture masks and offer a large quantity almost immediately. In a legal letter to EveryDoctor and the Good Law Project, the government acknowledged that millions of masks were unsuitable because of concerns that they had ear-loops, rather than head-loops, meaning they cannot be fastened sufficiently tightly.
The legal document revealed Mills requested DHSC’s contractual counterparty should be Ayanda rather than Prospermill, as Ayanda already had an established international banking infrastructure that could be used to effect the necessary payments overseas, whereas Prospermill’s own bank had indicated it could take some time to set this up on its own account. The letter also revealed that the initial approach to the government was made by Andrew Mills, an adviser to the international trade secretary, Liz Truss. Mills, who is identified as an adviser to the UK Board of Trade that Truss chairs, is said to have gained rights to the production capacity of a Chinese factory through a firm he set up in February 2019.
The government also said in court papers that Mills was an adviser to the UK Board of Trade and a senior board adviser at Ayanda. The government said he then asked for the contract to be signed with Ayanda, to which it says he is a senior board adviser and which is owned by his business associate, because it had more suitable banking infrastructure. Mills told the BBC his Board of Trade position played no part in the award of the contract, the broadcaster reported.
Mills told the BBC his position played no part in the award of the contract, the broadcaster reported. The government’s letter says 43.5m of the unsuitable masks have already been delivered and are in the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) logistic chain, and it is thought they will not be used in the NHS.
Based on incomplete Whitehall figures, the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor estimate the 50m masks would have cost more than £150m of public money. Court papers show the government agreed to pay £41.25m on commencement to secure the manufacturing capacity.
Under the deal, Ayanda also supplied 150m of another type of mask, which the government says are unaffected but will be subject to further testing in the UK before any are released for NHS use.
Jolyon Maugham, the director of the Good Law Project, said: “Good Law Project wrote to government on three contracts each worth over £100m – with respectively a pest control company, a confectioner and a family hedge fund.Jolyon Maugham, the director of the Good Law Project, said: “Good Law Project wrote to government on three contracts each worth over £100m – with respectively a pest control company, a confectioner and a family hedge fund.
“Each of those contracts has revealed real cause for alarm – including, on Ayanda, that around £150m was spent on unusable masks. What other failures remain undiscovered?”“Each of those contracts has revealed real cause for alarm – including, on Ayanda, that around £150m was spent on unusable masks. What other failures remain undiscovered?”
Julia Patterson, the founder of EveryDoctor, said: “It is horrifying that during the worst crisis in the NHS’s history, the government entrusted large sums of public money in the hands of companies with no experience in procuring safe PPE for healthcare workers.”Julia Patterson, the founder of EveryDoctor, said: “It is horrifying that during the worst crisis in the NHS’s history, the government entrusted large sums of public money in the hands of companies with no experience in procuring safe PPE for healthcare workers.”
Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said the case for the National Audit Office to investigate the government’s mishandling of personal protective equipment (PPE) was “overwhelming”, adding: “It is astounding that ministers allowed the national PPE stockpile to run down and then spent millions with an offshore finance company with no history of providing vital equipment for the NHS.”
The Lib Dem MP Layla Moran, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, said a clear strategy for procuring PPE was urgently needed, adding: “The government has serious questions to answer over this shocking waste of taxpayers’ money.”The Lib Dem MP Layla Moran, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, said a clear strategy for procuring PPE was urgently needed, adding: “The government has serious questions to answer over this shocking waste of taxpayers’ money.”
A government spokesman said: “Throughout this global pandemic, we have been working tirelessly to deliver PPE to protect people on the frontline. The government declined to comment on ongoing legal proceedings but a spokesman has said: “Throughout this global pandemic, we have been working tirelessly to deliver PPE to protect people on the frontline.
“Over 2.4 billion items have been delivered and more than 30bn have been ordered from UK-based manufacturers and international partners to provide a continuous supply, which meets the needs of health and social care staff both now and in the future. “Over 2.4bn items have been delivered and more than 30bn have been ordered from UK-based manufacturers and international partners to provide a continuous supply, which meets the needs of health and social care staff both now and in the future.
“There is a robust process in place to ensure orders are of high quality and meet strict safety standards, with the necessary due diligence undertaken on all government contracts.”“There is a robust process in place to ensure orders are of high quality and meet strict safety standards, with the necessary due diligence undertaken on all government contracts.”
On its website, Ayanda says it is “a family office focused on a broad investment strategy”, adding: “We focus on currency trading, offshore property, and private equity and trade financing.” On its website Ayanda says it is “a family office focused on a broad investment strategy”, adding: “We focus on currency trading, offshore property, and private equity and trade financing.”
Ayanda has been contacted for comment.Ayanda has been contacted for comment.