Nurses block Westminster Bridge demanding proper PPE

Where are the 60 tonnes of items that Dubai has sent ?

My guess is that it'll only reach London anyway and not the poor relations in the North.

Interesting article here:
www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/01/revealed-nhs-procurement-official-privately-selling-ppe

That is a very shocking story, David.

How disgraceful this guy should loose his job immediately,unfortunatley he will not be the only one involved in dodgy dealing to make fast money at the risk of putting peoples life's in danger.

I've been wondering all along why NHS procurement officials hadn't prepared for an epidemic or pandemic. Apparently there have been warnings for some years that one would happen.

Why is everyone blaming government for something that must have been in the job description of PPE procurement officials?

Baggs NHS Supply is a company owned by the Department of Health and Social Care. It was set up in 2016 to replace a system which was deemed to be inefficient. Just as with any company, the bosses are ultimately responsible for failings within the organisation. Matt Hancock, in his role as the current Sec of State for Health, is listed as a director.

Thanks, gs. That's a clearer explanation than I've seen before.

Davida absolutely shocking and disgraceful.

This person is happy to put the lives of his colleagues at risk in order to make himself rich.

Why indeed Baggs
I have asked that question previously but apparently I was wrong to even question that NHS officials could be to blame.

Seems "The System" is inefficient wherever the buck stops.

Yes, calli, even if the buck stops at Hancock, or whoever's in his position, I presume he delegates.

Too many layers of management, I reckon.

That man should be instantly dismissed.

BTW (and I know this is off topic) that kind of thing has been uncovered in the past in academy chains. There's a clear conflict of interest and must be stamped on.

growstuff must have posted that info whilst I was rather slowly typing mine!

Callistemon NHS Supply isn't part of the NHS. It's a separately owned and run company with a contract to supply the NHS. NHS officials (ie. the managers of trusts, hospitals and GP surgeries) have absolutely no control over NHS Supply.

Since 2012, there has been no such thing as "the" NHS (I'm talking about England here because I'm not that familiar with the situation in Scotland, Wales and NI). It's hundreds of separate organisations, all competing with each other for resources, and accountable to separate trustees and, in some cases, shareholders. Many of these companies carry the NHS logo, but aren't in fact accountable to the Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Supply is accountable because the system set up in 2012 was expensive and shambolic.

No problem Callistemon. There were dissenting voices in 2012, but the changes were so complicated that nobody really understood it. One of my sisters was a senior NHS manager at the time and understood only too well what was going on. The changes were sold to the public (and some within the NHS) as providing more control for those on the front line (eg GPs), but the exact opposite has happened, which was entirely predictable.

NSDR has been overwhelmed and the emergency supplies are gone:

www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/primary-care/infection-control/ppe/

Just found this on Twitter. Is what Christopher Snowdon says here accurate/fair?

Firstly, the Institute of Economic Affairs is a free-trade, monetarist think tank, so by definition right wing. Thought it only fair to point out that the article is as unlikely to be neutral as the Panorama programme was.

Secondly, spending by the UK on healthcare might be high by OECD standards, but is not high when compared with most developed countries.

Thirdly, the writer really does not seem to have grasped the big difference that the 2012 reforms made to the NHS. It really isn't a single entity. It's hundreds of competing organisations. One effect of the 2012 reforms is that the Department of Health no longer has direct responsibility and can wash his (her) hands and say "nothing to do with me guv".

I'm afraid I find the article yet another "let's bash the NHS and introduce private health insurance" plea.

I don't know who is familiar with the system in Wales.
It seems to be in a complete mess.

We can clap in support of people who work in the NHS and stick drawings of rainbows in our windows in support of the NHS as if it were a single entity, but when someone says anything to criticise "the NHS", even midly, suddenly it isn't a single entity.

I'm not questioning what you said about that, gs, just bemused by the apparent double standard (not of your making, I know).

You seem to be knowledgeable, gs, so I'll ask the accuracy/fairness question again about a particular sentence.

CS claims: "the procurement of face masks, gloves and gowns is not the personal responsibility of Boris Johnson or Matt Hancock, but of officials in the NHS and Public Health England."

Is this true? Accurate? or bullshit? And of it's bullshit, who is directly responsible, bearing in mind that Hancock will not be doing procurement of medical equipment himself even if he does get the blame if there isn't enough?

I don't know the answer, Baggs, but thinking of the Cygnus exercise in 2016. The report on the exercise, which will, of course, include recommendations on how to improve preparedness, goes to the Health Minister. Possibly to the whole Cabinet.

Who then decides if the recommendations are to be acted on?

If they are to be acted on, who then informs the appropriate departments in the fractured NHS what action they need to take?

I would assume the Minister, or the Cabinet, makes the decision to action (or not to action) and the Minister then instructs his department to take whatever action has been decided on.

Presumably there is a cost implication for emergency stocks of medical equipment and presumably it doesn't come out of the 'ordinary' NHS budget. So who authorises the payment for this equipment?

Looking at that, my supposition would be that it would be the Treasury which decides the budget allocation

Who is responsible for a Department? Who takes responsibility (or used to, in the good old days) for the failings of a Department?

Others might be more informed than me, but I think that that is probably how it works.

I think we applaud those on the front line, Baggs, not some of the management who may well attract valid criticism.