The below Parliamentary question was asked by Brendan O’Hara on 2016-09-05.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, how many staff worked for the Defence and Security Organisation on 1 April 2016; and what the budget for that organisation is for 2016-17.
Dr Liam Fox
At 1 April 2016 the UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation had 122 staff-in-post, with a 2016-17 budget of £9.73M NET.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Brendan O’Hara on 2016-10-10.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps are being taken to attend to Iraqi civilians expected to be displaced as a result of a planned offensive on Mosul, Iraq.
Rory Stewart
On 21 September, the UK announced an extra £40 million of humanitarian funding to Iraq, taking our total commitment to £90 million this financial year and £169.5 million since June 2014. This new assistance will be targeted specifically to enable a scale up of humanitarian assistance ahead of the Government of Iraq-led Mosul operations. It will provide emergency life-saving assistance – such as food, shelter, medical and protection services – to civilians affected by Mosul operations, as well as continued support to displaced and vulnerable people across the country.
The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.
Today’s motion, if agreed, would allow the people of Scotland, and they alone, to determine the future constitutional status of Scotland. If the people of Scotland decide that our future should be as an independent country, and as an equal member of the European Union, that is what it should be. It is not for this place or anyone else to say otherwise.
As much as the Unionist parties have tried to make this a debate about the merits of independence, or even the record of the Scottish Government, this debate is not about that. Do not get me wrong, I am more than happy to argue the merits or otherwise of independence, but this is not the forum for that debate. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), is not in his place, I congratulate him, because his speech was far more powerfully in favour of Scottish independence than anything I could say.
After Brexit, the worst cost of living crisis in decades, spiralling energy prices and the threat of power cuts for the first time since the 1970s, and with millions of working people relying on food banks and the Government engulfed by yet another scandal after allowing their wealthy mates to become even wealthier by plundering the public purse to the tune of billions during the pandemic, believe me that making the case for Scottish independence has never been easier, but this debate is not about Scottish independence; it is about democracy. It is about self-determination and who has the right to decide what our constitutional future will be. Is it the people who live and work in Scotland, and who call Scotland home, or does that right belong to this Parliament and a governing party that has not won an election in Scotland since 1955 but has the power to hold a referendum because that power is constitutionally reserved to this place, thereby denying the democratic will of the Scottish people?
We have heard this afternoon that the Supreme Court confirmed the position that only this place has the power to hold a referendum, which remains by far the SNP’s preferred option for settling this constitutional logjam. Given how both the Government and the official Opposition behaved in the aftermath of that Supreme Court ruling, however, it is fair to say that it would require a road to Damascus-like change of heart. I recognise that is unlikely to happen.
Bizarrely, it appears that the Government and the official Opposition thought that the Supreme Court ruling would somehow settle the matter—that the demand for a referendum on independence would miraculously disappear—and that they could double down on their dogged refusal to accept the mandate given to the SNP at the Holyrood election to hold that referendum. That was never going to happen, and opinion poll after opinion poll since the ruling has shown that the demand for a referendum has intensified and that support for Scottish independence has hit an all-time high.
The Government’s position, which is enthusiastically shared by the Labour party, is completely untenable and simply cannot hold. The more they deny Scotland’s right to choose its own constitutional future and the more they say, “No, you can’t,” the more Scotland will say, “Yes, we will and, yes, we can.” Both the Government and Opposition Front Benchers would do well to heed the words of Professor Sir John Curtice of Strathclyde University, who warned the Unionists just the other day that simply saying no to a referendum does not necessarily constitute an effective strategy for maintaining support for the Union.
Of course, it does not have to be this way. All we are asking is for this place to recognise that Scotland has a democratic right to decide its own future. If this Parliament will not allow it, the least it should do is allow our Parliament to do so. This motion simply seeks to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to give the Scottish Parliament the power to hold the referendum that the people elected their Government to deliver.
The people of Scotland have continually backed the SNP at the ballot box, the democratically elected Scottish Government have voted for a referendum and the opinion polls show that it is the will of the people. There is a clear mandate for an independence referendum and that case is getting stronger by the day.
If this is a voluntary Union, as we have always been told that it is, then there must be a mechanism for one or more of its member nations to decide that it no longer wants to be part of it. We have always been led to believe that the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a voluntary Union, and that should at any point a majority of one of those constituent parts seek to become independent, the least we could expect was that the UK Government would not seek to frustrate that desire. People having the ability to amend the constitutional position of their country is a fundamental of democracy. It really does ill behove the so-called, self-styled mother of Parliaments to now stand in the way of the democratic demands of one or more of its constituent parts should they decide to take a different path.
I believe that the leader of the Labour party was genuine last week when he said that he opposed independence because he believed in our “Union of nations”. I have to ask him: what happens when one of those nations no longer believes in that Union? Whose wish trumps whose? Does he believe that his desire to lead a United Kingdom is more important than the wishes of the Scottish people should they decide no longer to remain in that United Kingdom? When I was listening to him last week, I was reminded of an interview that he gave to the BBC last month in which he spoke about Labour’s electoral failures in recent years and how he believed that the Labour party had lost elections because the party had listened to itself and had put its political priorities above the priorities of the voters. He said that, in his opinion, Labour lost because it did not listen to the people and what they wanted. Is that not exactly what he is doing to the voters of Scotland right now? He is putting his priority, and his party’s priority, ahead of those of the Scottish people as expressed in the ballot box just last year.
At a time when the demand for a referendum is rising, when support for independence is reaching an all-time high, and when the latest polls show that support for the Union at an all-time low of just 42%, the truth is that, whether Unionists like it or not and whether they want it or not, the people of Scotland have decided that this is their priority and that now is the time for the people of Scotland to choose their own future.
Finally, I believe that Scotland’s future will be as an independent nation and as a full and enthusiastic member of the European Union. That process has been accelerated by Brexit—an act so reckless and so ill-conceived that history will record it as being the day that the United Kingdom effectively signed its own death warrant. With that decision, as never before, those opposed to Scottish independence are now having to explain why we should stay in the Union—a Union in which our democratically expressed wishes are routinely ignored and our economic best interests thrown to the wind. I repeat: the position of both the Government and the official Opposition is simply untenable. Hiding behind the Scotland Act 1998, and relying on the provisions contained in it to deny the democratic wishes of the people, can be seen only as an act of sheer desperation, and one that betrays a fundamental lack of confidence in the ability to hold this Union together in any other way.
The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 8 December 2022.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. This afternoon’s debate marks United Nations Human Rights Day, which, as we have heard, is on the theme of dignity, freedom and justice for all. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing the debate, and I congratulate all Members on their many thoughtful and challenging contributions.
As we have heard, 10 December is the day each year that we celebrate the United Nations’ landmark document, the universal declaration of human rights, which I am told is the most translated document in the world—it is currently available in 500 languages. I just wish more people had read it, because, as we have heard so often today, the harsh and disturbing truth is that, while we may all take those fundamental rights of dignity, freedom and justice for all for granted, those of us across the world who believe passionately in human rights, dignity, freedom and justice are in a minority in 2022. By any measure, 2022 has not been a good year for human rights, as attacks based on race, skin colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity or whatever else continue to rise in just about every part of the world.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West opened the debate by encouraging us in this place to use our platform to help survivors of human rights abuses, and to ensure that we never adopt a two-tier system, turning a blind eye to what friends, allies or potential trade partners may do and treating them differently from countries or non-state actors that we regard as enemies or that regard us as hostile. She was absolutely right to do so.
I was pleased that the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who unfortunately is no longer in her place, reminded us—as we all knew she would—that freedom of religion or belief is a basic, fundamental human right that cannot, and must not, be separated from any discussions we have on human rights. I am also glad that she brought the issue of genocide to the debate; it is something we have talked about, and I will return to it later in my speech. I, too, thoroughly recommend Lord Alton and Dr Ewelina Ochab’s excellent book on the subject.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) highlighted that the UK Government have yet to formally condemn the Saudi regime for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, despite the overwhelming evidence that they committed it. The Government would do well to reflect on what the hon. Member said: no one will respect us when they know what we think but also that we are too afraid to say what we think.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about the human rights situation in Bahrain, and I join him in paying tribute to the work of the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, which campaigns tirelessly on behalf of political prisoners in that country. I share—and indeed have put on record alongside him—the serious concerns he expressed about UK taxpayers funding the Bahrain regime through the Gulf strategy fund.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) rightly asked why a debate as important as this is taking place in Westminster Hall on a Thursday afternoon. Why is it not on the Floor of the main Chamber, and why is it not in Government time? He was also right to ask where the Government’s human rights report is, and I thank him for his wise words on the plight of asylum seekers and the dismal response that we all too often have to that subject.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) raised the issue of women in Afghanistan—which I will come back to—and I met representatives of the Hazara community just yesterday. The right hon. Member is right that anyone who saw that awful video of a woman being beaten savagely by a man will know that—as we all suspected—the Taliban have not changed one iota. I am also pleased that she brought up the appalling sexual violence that we increasingly hear is being perpetrated by all sides in the conflict in Tigray.
A moment of panic ran through the Chamber at 29 minutes past the hour, when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was not in his place and we thought we would have to suspend proceedings and send out a search party, so I am happy that he is here. He is always in his place to amplify the message that human rights and freedom of religion or belief walk hand in hand, and he is right. I was privileged to join him on a visit to Nigeria earlier this year, and what we saw was an impoverished, fast-growing, young population coupled with a deeply corrupt federal Government, which is sowing the seeds for radical Islam. The UK Government must understand the powder keg that is Nigeria, as the hon. Gentleman described it, and I urge them to do everything they possibly can.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) was absolutely right to say that an attack on anyone’s human rights is an attack on everyone’s human rights. I was delighted that he raised the plight of the Palestinian communities and the suffering they face every single day. I also echo his words that Scotland welcomes refugees; I am pleased that our Government are doing their duty by those fleeing oppression and violence.
It has been a depressing look back through my calendar over the last 12 months and at the people I have met. That tells me that the situation is getting worse and worse. I have met indigenous people from Colombia, whose land and rivers are being stolen by multinational companies. Human rights defenders there are also being killed at an appalling rate. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Yazidis, I speak frequently to the Yazidi community—yet, after the defeat of Daesh, 2,700 women and girls are still missing and have been sold into sexual slavery. I met representatives of Palestinian civic society, who are appalled at how the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank is driving Palestinian communities from their homes.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf, I am in constant contact with the FCDO about the situation in Bahrain and the widespread use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. Just yesterday, I met Dr May Homira Rezai, the chair of the Hazara Committee in UK, to hear about the situation of women at the hands of the Taliban. Along with many others, I have met representatives of the Hong Kong community to hear how the fundamental rights they were promised are being undermined and dismantled by the Chinese state. Just two weeks ago, I chaired a meeting with the Tigrayan community here to hear first-hand testimonies from survivors about unimaginable sexual violence. Yesterday I met the Ukrainian ambassador, who told us that 12,000 Ukrainian children had been kidnapped and transported out of the country and have now been adopted by Russian families. That is a heinous crime, reminiscent of what Daesh did to Yazidi children.
Tomorrow, 9 December, is the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime. The Genocide convention, which will be 75 years old next year, spells out the legal obligation that a state has to prevent genocide and punish the perpetrators. Some 74 years after it was introduced, who would have believed that genocide would be back on the continent of Europe? The Government want to be leaders in genocide prevention, but if they want to stop us being here again, saying, “Never again” to genocide, there must be a strategy. Hoping that it will not happen again is not a substitute for a real genocide prevention strategy. Next week, we will launch a new APPG on international law, justice and accountability with the support of colleagues in both Houses, including Baroness Helena Kennedy KC and Lord David Alton, and the International Bar Association. We hope to help fill that gap that exists in the Government’s genocide prevention strategy.
I am running rapidly out of time, but I wish to again thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and all those who have made such valuable contributions to the debate. I hope the Government have listened to what has been said.
The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in the House of Commons on 6 December 2022.
It is a pleasure to follow the Minister’s robust performance. He said at the end that the Government have learned many lessons. Lesson No. 1 appears to be, “Apologise for nothing.” He knows that no one I heard was criticising the civil servants. Everyone on the Opposition side of the House knows that the civil servants were working in impossible conditions—conditions created by this Government.
I can understand why the Minister has been told to come out swinging and apologise for nothing. Let us be honest: from the moment we first learnt of the existence of the VIP lane for the politically connected, it was inevitable that it would come to this, with Members of this House discussing the eye-watering sums of public money that was earmarked for procuring vital PPE during the pandemic but instead found its way into the hands of fly-by-night chancers who had little or no knowledge or experience of PPE procurement, but who—and this is probably the most charitable thing I can say about them—became fabulously wealthy while making an absolute pig’s ear of it while trying to learn on the job.
Long before the PPE Medpro scandal broke, many of us were already trying to work out how the brains behind this “get rich quick” scheme ever believed that a plan in which the Government would fast-track their cronies, their politically connected pals and now, it would appear, their parliamentary colleagues was ever going to end well. I suspect, as I said during the urgent question on 24 November, that the shocking allegations that have been levelled against PPE Medpro in both The Guardian and The Times—allegations that lead directly to a Member of the other House—may well be the tip of a very large iceberg.
I suspect the reason the Government have been so reluctant to release the papers containing the advice, the correspondence and all the communication between Ministers and special advisers relating to the awarding of that contract is that they do not want to create a precedent that would require them to open the Pandora’s box that is the VIP lane for PPE procurement. However, the Minister would do well to remember that there is another precedent here. The similarities between today’s motion and the motion of 17 November last year, when the Government were instructed to release the papers in relation to the Randox/Owen Paterson scandal, are striking. They will also recall how that scandal rumbled on for two and a half months into February, before the papers were finally made available. Similarly to last year’s debate, the same very simple questions go to the heart of today’s: do this Government have something to hide? Is there something this Government do not want us to see?
The Minister must be aware that the more the Government dodge scrutiny, so public suspicion will grow about this PPE procurement programme being little more than a get-rich-quick scheme for their politically connected pals. Given what we already know, who can blame the public for thinking that? Byline Times recently said that the covid contract winners with direct links to the Conservative party—donors and associates—have seen their collective financial position improve by in excess of £300 million. Was anyone really that surprised when Private Eye described how
“The DHSC’s London-controlled PPE ‘cell’ was dishing out contracts like confetti to opportunistic businessmen”?
Dr Mullan
What would the Scottish public think about the Scottish Government awarding PPE contracts, without competition, to more than 20 brand-new suppliers that were unknown to the Government?
Brendan O’Hara
I hate to say it, but my goodness you are predictable, Sir. That was probably the most predictable question I could ever have imagined. I will come to that later in my speech. Compared with what went on in this place, the audit of the Scottish Government’s treatment of the procurement process is squeaky clean. I so look forward to having that conversation in about six minutes.
Many of those opportunists hit the jackpot in the Government’s VIP lane for PPE procurement. Prominent among them was PPE Medpro, whose bid to supply the UK Government with face masks and surgical gowns was in the high-priority lane after, we are told, some particularly enthusiastic lobbying was carried out on its behalf by someone down the corridor. Indeed, the peer in question was so enthusiastic about the abilities of PPE Medpro to deliver that she made her passionate pitch to Ministers before the company was even incorporated. Through remarkable powers of persuasion, she persuaded Ministers to propel that embryonic company—one with no experience in delivering medical or protective equipment, and one with which, she told them, she had no personal involvement and from which she did not stand to gain financially—straight into the VIP lane.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is in danger of straying. I have let it go so far, but I remind him, as I remind the House, of what the Deputy Speaker said at the beginning of the debate. The normal rule—that reflections must not be cast upon Members of either House of Parliament, except on a substantive motion, which this is not—remains in force. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be careful in what he says.
Brendan O’Hara
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will attempt to stay on the right side of that line, and I am sure that you will instruct me should I stray again.
On 25 June 2020, just 44 days after PPE Medpro had been legally incorporated, the firm was handed its first UK Government contract, worth almost £81 million, for the supply of face masks. Very shortly thereafter, it was awarded a second contract, worth in excess of £120 million, to provide 25 million surgical gowns. Earlier this year, The Guardian reported that it had seen the contract that was signed between PPE Medpro and the gown manufacturer in China. The price that PPE Medpro paid for the gowns was just £46 million, and even adding a bit for shipping, logistics and storage leaves, by any reasonable calculation, a whopping profit of around £70 million of public money from a contract worth £120 million.
To add insult to injury, when the cargo of gowns finally arrived, a quick technical inspection from the national health service deemed them not fit for purpose and they were never used. I understand that the situation is so serious that the company is currently under investigation by the National Crime Agency, but inexplicably, up until a couple of hours ago, the peer involved was still operating under the Conservative party Whip. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, this stinks. We know it stinks and the public—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman intends to talk just about the process and the goods and so on, and that he will not be mentioning any peer in particular. He said “the peer involved”, so he referenced not just peers in general, but a particular peer. I am sure that he does not want to make reference to any particular peer, but will just talk about the process.
Brendan O’Hara
I shall from now on, Madam Deputy Speaker; thank you.
This whole process stinks, and we all know it does. That is why we have to see what this Government know. They deliberately created the conditions in which such behaviour could flourish, and they have to release what they know.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
May I take my hon. Friend back to his comments earlier about due diligence? We all heard the Minister a few minutes ago claiming that due diligence was carried out in every single case. Is it possible for even the top civil servants in the United Kingdom to do any sort of due diligence on a company that did not exist two or three weeks before?
Brendan O’Hara
That is an excellent question, and perhaps it is a question that, had my hon. Friend managed to intervene on him, the Minister would have been far better placed than I to answer. I find it remarkable that due diligence can be carried out on a company that did not exist.
The Government know that the release of the PPE Medpro papers will not make this magically disappear, and they are right to fear that, in releasing those files, they are likely to blow the lid off this Pandora’s box and reveal that their VIP lane for politically connected pals was simply a green light for unfettered crony capitalism, rampant profiteering and widespread abuse of public funds.
In his answer to the question on 24 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), told this House:
“There was a global scramble for PPE…It was an extraordinary situation in which we had to act in a different way.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 441.]
It is a defence that the Minister today, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), also tried to hide behind a moment ago. It may be true that things had to be done slightly differently, but what is undeniable is that the UK Government made an active choice to act in the way that they did. It was a political choice to make this an all-in, free market jamboree. They did not need to do so. [Interruption.]
In response to the chuntering from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), the Scottish Government acted in an entirely different way. Many items of PPE for Scotland had to be sourced from overseas, but the big difference and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will stop talking and listen, I will explain. The big difference was that our Government sent staff from Scottish Enterprise over to China to source the items we needed and to ensure they were made to an acceptable standard and delivered at a cost we could afford. At the same time, the Scottish Government were increasingly working with Scottish manufacturers, so that by April 2021, 88% of our PPE was being produced in Scotland.
That Government involvement had a huge impact on the price. Unit costs show that disposable facemasks cost the NHS in Scotland 31p each, while the Department of Health and Social Care in England paid 40p. That is an increase of 29%.
Peter Grant
I can personally vouch for what my hon. Friend has said about the development of the manufacturing industry in Scotland, because there is an outstanding manufacturer in my constituency that did exactly that—its staff came in and worked unpaid over the weekend to reset its production lines to make what was needed, instead of the high-quality stuff it had been producing before. Does he think it is sad that I cannot name that company and sing its praises today, because I do not know whether it would thank me for connecting it, even tangentially, to the subject of this debate? Is it not sad that even outstanding Scottish firms are in danger of being tarred by the same brush that has been applied elsewhere?
Brendan O’Hara
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. All the good that we could and should be talking about is being lost by this tarnished reputation. He could just as easily have pointed to the Scotch Whisky Association, which pivoted very quickly to turn its alcohol into millions of gallons of hand gel.
I go back to the point that the Scottish Government’s involvement was absolutely crucial in controlling the prices. As I said, disposable face masks were 29% cheaper because they were bought by the Scottish Government directly. The Scottish Government bought FFP3 face masks for £2.08 a unit. The Department of Health and Social Care bought them for £2.51—a fifth higher. Disposable gloves cost the Scottish NHS 9p each. In England, it was 33% higher at 12p. Even non-sterile gloves were bought 10% cheaper by the Scottish Government. One would have thought that a country with one twelfth the population of England would have a real job in pushing unit costs down below those of a country 12 times its size. It goes back to the fact that the approach the Scottish Government took meant they were in control of every part of the process, and they secured the deals they required.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member is talking about the Scottish Government’s track record on procurement and value for money. Does he think that that applies across the piece? How well are they doing when it comes to ferry procurement in Scotland?
Brendan O’Hara
It is remarkable—we can always spot when a Tory is sinking beneath the waves when they start shouting “ferries” at us. Let us remember that this is a Government who awarded a ferry contract to a company with no boats.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Is my hon. Friend aware, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) perhaps is not, that the Seaborne Freight ferries contract cost £13 million? Is it not the case that people in glass houses ought not to throw stones from Crewe?
Brendan O’Hara
One would have hoped that people in glass houses, having thrown the first stone, would have realised that it was not the best idea.
Let me put on record that the NHS in Scotland used emergency procurement provisions to award PPE contracts without competition during the first wave of covid-19 but, crucially, the auditors are completely satisfied with the procurement arrangements in place and said that there was
“No evidence of preferential treatment or bias”
in the awarding of contracts in Scotland. I believe that that is the significant reason why our overall costs of pandemic procurement were less than a third of the UK’s, and it perhaps explains why the Government are now paying £770,000 every single day to store PPE in China. The Minister will be aware that I have tabled a series of questions today to ask how much of that PPE is still usable, how much of it meets the standards required for the UK, what quality control methods were used in securing it and the proportion of PPE that did not meet the standard required.
Will Quince rose—
Brendan O’Hara
I will give way if the Minister can tell us the exact proportion of PPE produced that did not meet the standard in the UK.
Will Quince
I will quickly update the House. As of October, we hold 13.1 billion items of PPE and we have disposed of 145,000 pallets of excess stock so far. The majority is stored in UK sites; about 120 million items are still stored in China. The total cost of storage is now below £400,000 a day, so significantly less than the hon. Gentleman says, and the total cost for storage in China is £35,000 a day.
Brendan O’Hara
I genuinely thank the Minister for that information and I look forward to reading it in Hansard so I can digest it. If I heard correctly, we are now on half a million pounds a day for storing PPE.
In conclusion, having to do things differently does not give anyone, whether they are a private individual, an elected politician or an unelected politician, a licence to rip up the rulebook and behave as if we live in an unregulated wild west of public procurement. That is why it is vital that these papers are released. The public have a right to know why, while doctors, nurses and other medical staff battled unvaccinated through the worst of the pandemic, and as the public stood and cheered them in grateful thanks, some people with connections to this Government saw only the opportunity to make themselves a quick buck. I predict that this PPE Medpro scandal is the tip of a very large iceberg—an iceberg that will eventually sink this ship of fools.
The statement made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, on 4 December 2022.
Rishi Sunak pledged when he took office that he would lead a government with integrity.
It is now only right that he matches that rhetoric with action and suspends the whip from Baroness Mone and addresses the serious questions hanging over this entire shameful episode.
Of course perhaps the reason the Tory government doesn’t want to talk about Baroness Mone’s millions is that she is only the tip of a very large iceberg of its politically connected pals who benefited like this.
That is why there should be an independent investigation into the full extent of this profiteering at a time of national crisis.
I think most fair-minded people would agree it is obscene that people were able to make such vast profits from a government PPE contract while the country suffered through the pandemic.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Brendan O’Hara on 2015-10-22.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has instructed Babcock to extend the time a nuclear powered submarine can be without electrical power from 20 minutes up to a maximum of three hours.
Mr Philip Dunne
The Ministry of Defence regularly reviews nuclear related processes and procedures with industry partners and with regulators, which includes independent safety scrutiny. Safety remains our priority.
I cannot comment on specific timescales for the restoration of Electrical Shore Supplies to nuclear powered submarines nor reports produced in connection with this, as to do so would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Brendan O’Hara on 2015-10-22.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment his Department has made of the level of financial saving accruing to Babcock from the proposed extension of the time unit of the restoration of Electrical Shore Supplies from 20 minutes up to a maximum of three hours.
Mr Philip Dunne
The Ministry of Defence regularly reviews nuclear related processes and procedures with industry partners and with regulators, which includes independent safety scrutiny. Safety remains our priority.
I cannot comment on specific timescales for the restoration of Electrical Shore Supplies to nuclear powered submarines nor reports produced in connection with this, as to do so would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Brendan O’Hara on 2015-10-22.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what analysis his Department has conducted of the effect on safety of the proposed extension of the restoration of Electrical Shore Supplies from 20 minutes up to a maximum of three hours.
Mr Philip Dunne
The Ministry of Defence regularly reviews nuclear related processes and procedures with industry partners and with regulators, which includes independent safety scrutiny. Safety remains our priority.
I cannot comment on specific timescales for the restoration of Electrical Shore Supplies to nuclear powered submarines nor reports produced in connection with this, as to do so would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Brendan O’Hara on 2015-10-22.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment his Department has made of the reasons for the proposed extension of the time limit of restoration of Electrical Shore Supplies to nuclear powered submarines at HMNB Clyde from 20 minutes up to a maximum of three hours.
Mr Philip Dunne
The Ministry of Defence regularly reviews nuclear related processes and procedures with industry partners and with regulators, which includes independent safety scrutiny. Safety remains our priority.
I cannot comment on specific timescales for the restoration of Electrical Shore Supplies to nuclear powered submarines nor reports produced in connection with this, as to do so would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces.