So why no arrests?
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,928
- Reaction score
- 2,884
- Country
Because privileged Tory T***s get away with all sorts of siht that mere mortals would be locked away for.
B
Bodd
It won't be a French whine........
My guess would be that no laws were broken. I trust you chaps have voiced your concerns to the relevant authority.
COVID-19: Government procurement and supply of personal protective equipment - Committees - UK Parliament
COVID-19: Government procurement and supply of personal protective equipment
Inquiry
In responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, public sector bodies have had to procure goods and services with extreme urgency.
Under emergency laws brought in at the start of the pandemic crisis, the Cabinet Office - which oversees government’s buying policies - has changed some of the procurement rules for contracts relating to the government’s response to COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about some of these procurements, including around a lack of transparency.
The NAO has now published two major reports, one on the way government has handled procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic, and one specifically on its procurement and contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE), including:
- How PPE was supplied to NHS and social care organisations before the COVID-19 pandemic started
- What government did, between the pandemic emerging in other countries and arriving in the UK, to prepare for the provision of PPE in the NHS and social care organisations
- How government responded when problems arose in the supply of PPE
- The scale of problems in the availability of PPE throughout the emergency
This inquiry will take evidence on both reports, examining the scale of Government’s COVID-19-related contracting, how procurement rules have changed and how the government is managing the risks associated with these changes.
For a chosen sample of these contracts it will look specifically at who bought what, from whom, and at what cost, during the pandemic - and whether this is delivering value for taxpayers money in the crisis.
In mid-December the Committee will hold two evidence hearings on the findings across both these reports. In the first hearing, the Committee will question representatives of frontline medical and care associations. In the second hearing, the Committee will question senior officials at the Cabinet Office and Department for Health and Social Care.
If you have evidence on the issues raised in this inquiry please submit it here before 6.00pm on Monday 7 December.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,928
- Reaction score
- 2,884
- Country
Yes I did.
Haven't had a reply yet, though.
Haven't had a reply yet, though.
Sadly it would be hard to prove their vested self interested killed people.
But it did.
Say's the man who regularly swerves like a drunken Scotchman on a runaway bus.
How many?
Because the Tory lawmakers gave their buddies permission to rip the UK taxpayer off. Clever innit.
'Scotsman'. Scotch is a tipple.
B
Bodd
How can they do this ? the law is the law. Before you spin on this , Im with you its wrong
Tory de-regulation and a toothless watchdog. It helps knowing you have a large Parliamentary majority to back you up.
B
Bodd
Well that toothless watchdog is labour. If I was KS I would not leave that bone alone.
Maybe when all this has calmed down there will be a lot of people in trouble for taking the pee.
I include in that people taking this Gov start up loan, with no intension of paying it back.
Opposition parties can only object if they are aware. The commission overseeing ethics in this particular department also have a retrospective role. None of the dubious contracts were put through the usual tender process.
It's more of a case that the Tories do what they want then suffer (or not) the consequences. Their Bullingdon buddies are already rich by then. The best bit is the tax breaks they'll receive under Bozza and co, means they get to keep most of it.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
