Full cost of failed pandemic- PPE finally revealed after major fraud probe
Failed pandemic-era PPE contracts cost the British taxpayer £1.4billion.
The Covid counter-fraud commissioner uncovered the figure in the first phase of his probe into wasteful Tory spending during the pandemic. Some £762million is unlikely to ever be recovered, as the Sunday Mirror revealed.
These failures saw substandard PPE, including gowns, masks and visors, not inspected for two years, meaning public money could no longer be recouped. Most of the wasted money went on surgical gowns, with more than half (52%) of them being non-compliant.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is now urgently trying to claw back £468million that could still be recovered, which she wants to reinvest in public services and local communities.
The next phase of Tom Hayhoe's investigation will look into fraud and error in other pandemic spending programmes such as furlough, bounce-back loans, Business Support Grants and Rishi Sunak 's Eat Out to Help Out scheme. Mr Hayhoe's final report is due to conclude in December.
Recovery action has so far resulted in £182million being returned to the public purse, with some PPE suppliers having been referred to the National Crime Agency for suspected fraud.
Ms Reeves said: 'The country is still paying the price for the reckless handling of Covid contracts which saw taxpayer pounds wasted and criminals profit from the pandemic. This investigation and plan to recover public money underlines our commitment to ensure that every penny spent during the pandemic is fully accounted for.'
The Chancellor confirmed her Covid fraud crackdown at Labour 's annual conference last September. At the time, she said: 'I won't turn a blind eye to rip-off artists and fraudsters.
'I won't turn a blind eye to those who used a national emergency to line their own pockets. I won't let them get away with it. That money belongs in our police, it belongs in our health service, and it belongs in our schools.'
In December, she tasked Mr Hayhoe with the job of trying to claw back lost money.
The Tory Government has always insisted that it was operating in a crisis, with global PPE shortages driving up prices for kit that was essential for frontline workers.
Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock told the Covid Inquiry in March: "I have been subject to enormous amounts of conspiracy theories about what went on here, when in fact what happened was so many people working as hard as they could to save lives, and they bought more PPE as a result. And therefore people are alive who would otherwise be dead."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why becoming a republic would be financially stupid
Leave aside what you think of the social merits of the Royal Family and look at the economics. £130 million is a lot of money, about half a CalMac ferry in fact. That money would be better spent on the health service etc etc say the detractors. Read More: The reality is that if we didn't have a Royal Family then in purely financial terms we should invent one. Looked as a business the Royal Family is a market leading and highly profitable British product, with large export earnings and no effective competition. The Royal Family doesn't cost us a penny; it is hugely profitable for Britain and contributes to our national income many times more than it costs. Take non-doms as another example. People from elsewhere who live in this country but pay less tax than British people do. Seems unfair so let's nail them for more tax. Exactly what Rachel Reeves has done but now it is dawning on her that driving these people away by taxing more of their earnings and assets means we collect less tax rather than more. Why would an Indian Citizen who bases themselves in Britain and pays full tax on their British income and assets stay here if we want to charge Inheritance Tax on their global assets when India and lots of other places don't have Inheritance Tax? The answer is that they would be crazy to stay and, in many cases reluctantly, they are leaving. So less tax revenue for us here. Well done Rachel. (Image: PA) What Governments have got to focus on is increasing the amount of tax we actually get not pandering to people's prejudices by turning the screw on people they are envious of. Becoming a republic would be tragic in many ways but it would also be financially stupid. The non-dom tax regime needs to be looked at again. We want people from other countries who can contribute very positively to our economy to base themselves here, we want more of them not fewer. Governments need to realise that people who have very significant wealth tend to have interests in many countries. Basing themselves in Britain is a choice they make rather than something they can be compelled to do. Rachel Reeves needs to realise this and act sensibly. So what about Scotland? What can we do here other than continue to demand more money and more powers which we then misuse? Scotland has control over its own income tax rates and so far, other than virtue signalling tweaking at the bottom end to give lower paid workers a few extra pence a month, it has chosen to increase income tax rates so that somebody earning from about £45,000 upwards pays markedly more tax than they would elsewhere in the UK. Nigel Farage has come up with an idea for the UK to charge non-doms a one-off £250,000 fee and then distribute this money directly to lower earners. Gimmicky it is but entirely daft it isn't. Scotland could learn from it. Only about 30,000 taxpayers in Scotland pay the top rate of tax which starts at income of roughly £125,000. The exact number is not available but the number of Scots earning over £500,000 will be vanishingly small, perhaps only 1,000 people, certainly less than 5,000. What if we could attract a net additional 10,000 very high earners by putting a cap of £250,000 on the amount of Scottish income tax anybody resident in Scotland has to pay? To pay that amount of tax you would have to earn just over £500,000. If we could do this we would raise the tax collected in Scotland by £2.5 billion pounds every year. Nobody already here would pay more, nobody loses out, it's pure good news. Read More: This boost is before the positive knock-on effect of those extra taxpayers spending money on goods and services in Scotland which in turn creates more jobs and tax revenue to pay for public services. The rest of the UK cannot follow us down this road because it has too much to lose because there are so many more very high earners already there. You could argue that the £250,000 cap on tax payment is too high. A taxpayer paying £100,000 in tax is contributing more than 20 times as much as an average earner. "But it's not progressive" the socialists will wail. Indeed it is not. It's just smart. Our public services in Scotland are crumbling and our tax rates are stifling enterprise and driving people away. If we could attract very high earners to make their homes in Scotland - 10,000 seems a relatively modest target - we could transform our ability to fund public services as well as attract people who will help our nation's economy grow. Why not give it a try? Guy Stenhouse is a notable figure in the Scottish financial sector. He has held various positions, including being the Managing Director of Noble Grossart, an independent merchant bank based in Edinburgh, until 2017
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Licensing conditions for Berkshire jockey Oison Murphy to include testing on and off the racecourse
The champion jockey Oisin Murphy will be subject to enhanced testing both on and off the racecourse as part of conditions placed on his licence by the British Horseracing Authority - following his drink-driving conviction. Murphy, from Hermitage in Berkshire, was fined £70,000 and banned from driving for 20 months having pleaded guilty to drink driving after crashing a car into a tree in Berkshire. Following the conclusion of those proceedings at Reading Magistrates' Court, the BHA says it has been "liaising extensively with Mr Murphy and his team" which has resulted in the immediate imposition of "an extremely strict set of conditions and monitoring requirements" on his riding licence which "must be adhered to at all times". A BHA statement said: "The revised conditions have been designed to balance the need to maintain the safety, integrity and good reputation of British racing, with ensuring that Mr Murphy has access to the appropriate support and advice so that he meets the sport's expectations. "BHA licensing matters and the precise details of any conditions that may be placed on an individual's licence are a private and confidential matter between that person and the regulator. "However, we can confirm that Mr Murphy will be subject to stringent conditions, including detailed and strict procedures relating to further enhanced testing, both on and off the racecourse. "Mr Murphy must also engage regularly and proactively with the BHA. "In addition he must alert us, within a clearly stipulated timeframe, to any change in his personal circumstances that could reasonably be said to be relevant to his position as a licensed jockey." The BHA added both the conditions and Murphy's compliance will be subject to "careful monitoring and regular review", also warning it reserves "the right to seek the immediate suspension or withdrawal of Mr Murphy's licence" if those conditions are not met. The statement added: "As emphasised in our statement of last week, Mr Murphy's conduct has fallen well below the standards expected of licensed individuals. His actions - for which he has since apologised - jeopardised not only his safety, but that of his passenger and other members of the public. "Mr Murphy, like all licensed personnel, is expected to uphold the good reputation of our sport on and off the racecourse. He has been reminded of his responsibility.
North Wales Live
2 hours ago
- North Wales Live
Couple paid £36,600 for a caravan and regretted it after what happened
A working couple are embroiled in a dispute with a holiday park company, alleging they are "stuck" and are unable to sell their £36,600 static caravan. Alicia Mearns and partner John Hayden claim to have been told it's now "basically not worth anything" because they fitted a new kitchen. In response, Park Lane Holiday Homes, operators of the site in Meols, Wirral, contested their claims. A spokesperson for the company stated: "The couple have not engaged in any communications with the company regarding selling the caravan." Alicia, 41, and John, 48, were originally looking to purchase a property in Spain. But Alicia, owner of Allure beauty salon in Birkenhead, and John, who runs J and J Joinery, decided a holiday park offered a better solution for a second home as it was closer to their places of work, provided they could access it throughout the year. In early 2023 they spoke to a sales representative from Park Lane Holiday Homes in Meols. Although aiming for a £25,000 budget, they asserted they were told the only available caravan near this price was £36,600. Moreover, the Merseyside couple claimed they were urged to commit instantly with a £500 deposit because another buyer was purportedly interested in the caravan. Alicia recounted: "We felt rushed. But the caravan seemed to be what we wanted, so we took the plunge," reports the Liverpool Echo. John mentioned: "The rest of the money we had to pull together from bank loans and part-exchanging our 2013 touring caravan, pending the sale of our former property." Alicia noted: "We were not given a contract. Not then and not later. All we ever received was a piece of paper in the office to confirm the sale." They allege the site fees amounted to £4,600 annually, which they had to pay in advance, plus an additional charge of £300 a few weeks later. Alicia said the couple spend much of the year at the site, claiming that flooding issues began on October 20, 2023. She described the problem. "Whenever there are heavy rains, our pitch floods, which is often, due to the British weather," she said. "The water depth can be such that we find it extremely difficult to get in and out of the caravan. I am a mum with two kids and the youngest is seven." John elaborated: "They told us a new water pump was installed to keep water levels down in future. But the flooding is actually worse now. It has flooded badly - a total of seven times since we moved in." The couple claimed they inquired about relocating their caravan to a higher position to dodge future floods and were told they could do so for a fee of £1,400. They arranged this while on a trip to Spain as part of efforts to move abroad. Alicia recalled: "(The owner) told us outright that they would not be moving our caravan. He told us that the only way to move to a more flood-proof location was to upgrade to one in a more preferable location." They were further disheartened when informed by a site manager that their caravan had become valueless due to a new kitchen fitted by John, a professional joiner, at a cost of £10,000. Alicia explained her frustration, saying: "Apparently this had devalued the caravan", adding: "Plus the fact it was 20 years old (we had no idea about its age until this point) rendered it worthless." Exasperated, she asserted: "We are probably biased, but we feel that the caravan looks objectively better after John's lovingly installed kitchen replacement." John claimed they were given figures for an upgrade, with the lowest being around £75,000; a sum beyond what they were prepared to invest, compelling them to contemplate selling the caravan on their own. A spokesperson from Park Lane Holiday Homes rejected their narrative, stating: "The couple have not engaged in any communications with the company regarding selling the caravan and therefore their comments are wholly refuted." In response, Alicia said she had spoken with a manager about selling the caravan, saying: "Two friends expressed an interest in buying our caravan. He (the salesperson) told us that 'because of the caravan's age', the park would have to put the ground rent up from £4,600 to £10,500 for the new owners. Understandably our friends did not want to go through with the purchase after learning this." Alicia and John looked into relocating the caravan but found its age was a barrier, as no other site would accept it. Alicia commented: "This information is something they absolutely should have disclosed to us before we paid out £36,600. We never would have paid so much money for a caravan if we had known the limitations caused by its age. Not telling us this was a serious failure on their part in our opinion." She continued: "We are now stuck living on a pitch that continues to flood, resulting in our electricity tripping out as our washing machine and dryer are located outside. The tumble dryer is now ruined due to water damage." The couple feel trapped, Alicia explained: "Currently we are in limbo. The park keeps sending us a new lease to sign, and we daren't sign it because it states a caravan age limit of ten years. "We have paid two years' site fees for a pitch that is unliveable, not fit for purpose and a danger." Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox Park Lane Holiday Homes acknowledged the issue, with a spokesperson stating: "We can confirm that over the past two years the park has, on occasion, experienced flash floods. "However, we would like to emphasise that such events are not unique to the park itself. They are consistent with weather patterns affecting the wider local area of the Wirral and are reflective of the environmental conditions experienced across the region, where flooding commonly occurs. "We wish to reassure all guests that we remain fully committed to ensuring that the holiday park continues to be managed safely and responsibly. All necessary measures have been taken to protect visitors and maintain the high standards our guests expect. "In respect of the allegations made by the couple regarding their caravan, we must highlight that firstly this is a holiday site, and not a residential site. Further the couple have not engaged in any communications with the company regarding selling the caravan and therefore their comments are wholly refuted. "The 19-page licence agreement in place with the couple (signed on each page) is for one year, and they are at liberty to move to another holiday site if they so desire."
