Tests extending shelf-life of PPE
Dear UK Health Security Agency,
In March 2020 a significant quantity of masks (fluid resistant surgical masks) and respirators (FFP3) were issued to healthcare workers from the PPE stockpile which were well past their expiry date. Staff were reassured that the PPE was safe and had undergone “stringent tests”.
According to this BBC report https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nott... a DHSC spokesman said that Public Health England had worked with manufacturers to carry out these tests.
There are 3 elements to my FoI request:
1) Please provide the documents which were relied upon to form the conclusion that they were safe. These should confirm:
(a) Whether the laboratory/laboratories which conducted the tests were UKAS-accredited for this type of testing;
(b) The actual number of respirators tested and how it was ensured that the sample was statistically representative;
(c) That the test methods set out in EN 149:2001+A1:2009 were used or, if not, precisely what test methodology was used.
2) Please would you also confirm the full range of manufacturers involved (e.g. 3M, others?) and provide me with copies of any correspondence that PHE had with those manufacturers (as the experts in their products) about the continuation of use beyond the expiry date.
3) Please would you provide copies of any correspondence that PHE had with the HSE concerning the continuation of use beyond the expiry date.
Yours Faithfully
David Osborn
Dear David Osborn,
Thank you for your request which will be handled by the Information Rights
Team at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). We acknowledge receipt of
your email and request for information, which will be treated as a request
for information under statutory access legislation. UKHSA has taken
responsibility for statutory access requests addressed to Public Health
England and NHS Test and Trace Services.
Please note that requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the
Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) will receive a response
within 20 working days from the day following the date of receipt of your
request.
If the request is for your personal data, your request will be handled as
a data subject access request (SAR) under Article 15 of the UK General
Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), then we will respond within one
month of the receipt of the request.
We will aim to address all requests promptly and within the required
response timeframes. However, when we are unable to meet the response
timeframe we will keep requesters updated on a revised expected timescale
for a response to their request.
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
Parliamentary and Public Accountability Team
UK Health Security Agency
[1][UKHSA request email]
[2]www.gov.uk/ukhsa Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: David Osborn <[FOI #1011331 email]>
Sent: 02 August 2023 18:47
To: Information Rights <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Tests extending shelf-life of
PPE
[You don't often get email from
[FOI #1011331 email]. Learn why this is important
at [3]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]
EXTERNAL: This email originated outside of UKHSA. Do not click links or
attachments unless you recognise the sender.
Dear UK Health Security Agency,
In March 2020 a significant quantity of masks (fluid resistant surgical
masks) and respirators (FFP3) were issued to healthcare workers from the
PPE stockpile which were well past their expiry date. Staff were reassured
that the PPE was safe and had undergone “stringent tests”.
According to this BBC report
[4]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
a DHSC spokesman said that Public Health England had worked with
manufacturers to carry out these tests.
There are 3 elements to my FoI request:
1) Please provide the documents which were relied upon to form the
conclusion that they were safe. These should confirm:
(a) Whether the laboratory/laboratories which conducted the tests were
UKAS-accredited for this type of testing;
(b) The actual number of respirators tested and how it was ensured that
the sample was statistically representative;
(c) That the test methods set out in EN 149:2001+A1:2009 were used or, if
not, precisely what test methodology was used.
2) Please would you also confirm the full range of manufacturers involved
(e.g. 3M, others?) and provide me with copies of any correspondence that
PHE had with those manufacturers (as the experts in their products) about
the continuation of use beyond the expiry date.
3) Please would you provide copies of any correspondence that PHE had with
the HSE concerning the continuation of use beyond the expiry date.
Yours Faithfully
David Osborn
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1011331 email]
Is [UKHSA request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to UK Health Security Agency? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[5]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[7]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[8]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear David Osborn,
Please find attached UKHSA's response to your request and accept our
apologies in doing so.
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
Parliamentary and Public Accountability Team
UK Health Security Agency
[1][UKHSA request email]
[2]www.gov.uk/ukhsa Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: Information Rights <[email address]>
Sent: 03 August 2023 10:01
To: David Osborn <[FOI #1011331 email]>
Cc: Information Rights <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Case ref 305 - Freedom of Information request - Tests
extending shelf-life of PPE
Dear David Osborn,
Thank you for your request which will be handled by the Information Rights
Team at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). We acknowledge receipt of
your email and request for information, which will be treated as a request
for information under statutory access legislation. UKHSA has taken
responsibility for statutory access requests addressed to Public Health
England and NHS Test and Trace Services.
Please note that requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the
Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) will receive a response
within 20 working days from the day following the date of receipt of your
request.
If the request is for your personal data, your request will be handled as
a data subject access request (SAR) under Article 15 of the UK General
Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), then we will respond within one
month of the receipt of the request.
We will aim to address all requests promptly and within the required
response timeframes. However, when we are unable to meet the response
timeframe we will keep requesters updated on a revised expected timescale
for a response to their request.
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
Parliamentary and Public Accountability Team
UK Health Security Agency
[3][UKHSA request email]
[4]www.gov.uk/ukhsa Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: David Osborn <[FOI #1011331 email]>
Sent: 02 August 2023 18:47
To: Information Rights <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Tests extending shelf-life of
PPE
[You don't often get email from
[FOI #1011331 email]. Learn why this is important
at [5]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]
EXTERNAL: This email originated outside of UKHSA. Do not click links or
attachments unless you recognise the sender.
Dear UK Health Security Agency,
In March 2020 a significant quantity of masks (fluid resistant surgical
masks) and respirators (FFP3) were issued to healthcare workers from the
PPE stockpile which were well past their expiry date. Staff were reassured
that the PPE was safe and had undergone “stringent tests”.
According to this BBC report
[6]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
a DHSC spokesman said that Public Health England had worked with
manufacturers to carry out these tests.
There are 3 elements to my FoI request:
1) Please provide the documents which were relied upon to form the
conclusion that they were safe. These should confirm:
(a) Whether the laboratory/laboratories which conducted the tests were
UKAS-accredited for this type of testing;
(b) The actual number of respirators tested and how it was ensured that
the sample was statistically representative;
(c) That the test methods set out in EN 149:2001+A1:2009 were used or, if
not, precisely what test methodology was used.
2) Please would you also confirm the full range of manufacturers involved
(e.g. 3M, others?) and provide me with copies of any correspondence that
PHE had with those manufacturers (as the experts in their products) about
the continuation of use beyond the expiry date.
3) Please would you provide copies of any correspondence that PHE had with
the HSE concerning the continuation of use beyond the expiry date.
Yours Faithfully
David Osborn
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1011331 email]
Is [UKHSA request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to UK Health Security Agency? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[7]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[9]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[10]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear UK Health Security Agency,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to register a complaint and to request an internal review of UK Health Security Agency's handling of my FOI request 'Tests extending shelf-life of PPE'.
The main thrust of my complaint is that, having submitted the FoI on 2 August 2023 it has taken the Agency FOUR MONTHS to inform me that the request exceeds the time/cost limit and you are refusing the FoI on these grounds. This is unsatisfactory, given your statutory duty to respond (one way or the other) within 20 working days. When reviewing your team's handling of this matter and progressing my request I hope that you will take their failing into account when considering my request for information which I have revised and reduced in line with their suggestion.
I am pleased to know that you do hold the information required. However, I do appreciate that the initial FoI request was broad in scope and I am grateful for the opportunity to refine it. The essence of the information I was seeking relates to the testing of masks and respirators that was carried out to assure the safety of “re-lifing” them for use during the pandemic emergency.
I am content to drop my requests (2) and (3) and considerably simplify (1).
It will be sufficient to just supply all the laboratory reports of the tests carried out. I am sure that the arrangements for the testing will have been overseen by a relatively small number of individuals/teams, so retrieval of these reports should be quite simple and straightforward. I already have the Inspec report No 1.20.06.24 (dated 11 June 2020) so there is no need to resend that one. It is other lab reports that I am seeking.
In view of the elapsed time since the start of this request and the flexibility I have shown in simplifying the request I would ask that you provide the information within 20 working days, beyond which I shall need to refer to the ICO to try and expedite matters.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...
Yours faithfully,
David Osborn
Dear David Osborn,
We acknowledge receipt of your email, which will be treated as a request for an internal review, following your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please note we aim to complete your internal review within 20 working days from the day following the date of receipt of your request. We will notify you if we anticipate the internal review taking longer than 20 working days.
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
Parliamentary and Public Accountability Team
UK Health Security Agency
[UKHSA request email]
http://www.gov.uk/ukhsa Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA
Dear Information Rights,
May I respectfully remind you that, on 8 December, you stated your intention to complete my appeal ("internal review" as you call it) within 20 working days and promised that you would notify me if it was going to take longer.
37 working days have now elapsed. I have neither received the requested information, nor been notified about any delays. This is unsatisfactory.
I have done my utmost best to trim the FoI request to a level which ought to be more manageable for you.
Surely the arrangements for submission of masks and respirators to laboratories for testing would have been coordinated by a relatively small number of personnel within PHE and the NHS Supply organisation, with the laboratory results reasonably easy to retrieve and forward to me? If not, this seriously calls into question the Agency's internal administrative arrangements, even though it is acknowledged that those were difficult times for everyone.
Please would you expedite matters and forward the information within 10 working days (i.e. by 16 February), failing which a complaint will be lodged with the Information Commissioners Office.
Yours sincerely,
David Osborn
Dear David Osborn,
Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing a response to your
refined request re: Our ref: 02/08/23/JS/305
We are working with colleagues and suppliers to identify all reports that
are within scope of your refined request. We are therefore dependent on
external organisations responding in a timely manner, which has caused the
delay in this case.
We will aim to provide you with a response by 16 February as requested.
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
Parliamentary and Public Accountability Team
UK Health Security Agency
[1][UKHSA request email]
[2]www.gov.uk/ukhsa Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: David Osborn <[FOI #1011331 email]>
Sent: 02 February 2024 10:36
To: Information Rights <[email address]>
Subject: Re: 616: Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Tests extending shelf-life of PPE
[You don't often get email from
[FOI #1011331 email]. Learn why this is important
at [3]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]
EXTERNAL: This email originated outside of UKHSA. Do not click links or
attachments unless you recognise the sender.
Dear Information Rights,
May I respectfully remind you that, on 8 December, you stated your
intention to complete my appeal ("internal review" as you call it) within
20 working days and promised that you would notify me if it was going to
take longer.
37 working days have now elapsed. I have neither received the requested
information, nor been notified about any delays. This is unsatisfactory.
I have done my utmost best to trim the FoI request to a level which ought
to be more manageable for you.
Surely the arrangements for submission of masks and respirators to
laboratories for testing would have been coordinated by a relatively small
number of personnel within PHE and the NHS Supply organisation, with the
laboratory results reasonably easy to retrieve and forward to me? If not,
this seriously calls into question the Agency's internal administrative
arrangements, even though it is acknowledged that those were difficult
times for everyone.
Please would you expedite matters and forward the information within 10
working days (i.e. by 16 February), failing which a complaint will be
lodged with the Information Commissioners Office.
Yours sincerely,
David Osborn
Dear Information Rights,
This matter is now the subject of a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office
Yours sincerely,
David Osborn
Dear David Osborn,
Please find attached UKHSA's response to your request and accept our
apologies for the delay in issuing this response.
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
Parliamentary and Public Accountability Team
UK Health Security Agency
[1][UKHSA request email]
[2]www.gov.uk/ukhsa Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: David Osborn <[FOI #1011331 email]>
Sent: 30 March 2024 08:06
To: Information Rights <[email address]>
Subject: Re: 616 (JS): Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Tests extending shelf-life of PPE
EXTERNAL: This email originated outside of UKHSA. Do not click links or
attachments unless you recognise the sender.
Dear Information Rights,
This matter is now the subject of a complaint to the Information
Commissioners Office
Yours sincerely,
David Osborn
Dear Information Rights,
Thank you for providing the information.
This enquiry is now satisfactorily closed out.
Yours sincerely,
David Osborn
Dear Information Rights at UK Health Security Agency,
Thank you for the laboratory reports that you sent on 4th July. I replied the same day thanking you for the information and letting you know that the FoI could be closed out.
However, having now had a chance to examine the laboratory reports in more detail, I need to come back to you for clarification on two points. This is not a request for an internal review – indeed, on 8th December you confirmed that we had already moved to that stage in the process and I doubt that we can go there again.
So please consider this as a request for advice and assistance under section 16 of the FoI Act. I hope you will look sympathetically on this request, taking account of the patience I have shown over this matter since requesting the information 11 months ago. As I believe you know, a senior Case Officer from ICO has already spoken to you about this particular information request since it has taken so long to get to this point.
My two questions are:
1) Are you sure that you have provided me with ALL the laboratory analyses that were done since, on the face of it, this would appear not to be the case?
I ask this because:
a. I noted that you had sent 10 INSPEC files. The first one (1.20.06.24) I had already seen from a previous FoI and published on the Scottish Government website with 49 batches of respirators checked. I was surprised, however, to see that the other 9 lab reports only cover a total of a further 30 batches of respirators between them. I had anticipate that there would be considerably more than 79 batches tested, given the size of the stockpile .
b. I also understood that there had been a number of batches which had failed testing and indeed the wording of your letter implied this “failure of a particular batch would result in its removal from deployment”.
Yet, in the lab reports you have sent me, only one single batch (report 1.20.08.51) failed (on the “Total Inward Leakage” test). If there had only been one failure I imagine you would have said that “the (only) batch which failed testing was removed from deployment”.
I did expect to receive ALL lab reports (including those with failures) since this level of scrutiny over each batch of past expiry-date respirators was critical to the health and safety of the healthcare workers relying on them for protection against a deadly virus. Any defects (particularly as regards inward leakage) would have endangered them since, even though they may have performed the user check when donning the mask, any leakage during the sessional use would not have been detectable by them since airborne virus is undetectable by taste or odour.
On this point it will be sufficient for you to EITHER give your written confirmation that the documents that you sent me represent the entire testing surveillance of past-expiration date respirators OR provide the remaining lab reports with confirmation that these now represent the complete set.
2) Within the INSPEC reports, the “summary of assessment” section provides values for “EXP. LOT”. Please could you confirm that these relate to the expiration dates originally printed on the packaging by the manufacturer and not any labels affixed at a later date.
I would be grateful if you would respond within the next 3 weeks so that we may finally close this FoI request out before it reaches its anniversary on 2 August.
Yours sincerely,
David Osborn
Dear David Osborn,
Please find attached UKHSA's response to your request of 7 July 2024.
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
Parliamentary and Public Accountability Team
UK Health Security Agency
[1][UKHSA request email]
[2]www.gov.uk/ukhsa Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: David Osborn <[FOI #1011331 email]>
Sent: 07 July 2024 22:38
To: Information Rights <[email address]>
Subject: Re: 616 (JS): Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Tests extending shelf-life of PPE
EXTERNAL: This email originated outside of UKHSA. Do not click links or
attachments unless you recognise the sender.
Dear Information Rights at UK Health Security Agency,
Thank you for the laboratory reports that you sent on 4th July. I replied
the same day thanking you for the information and letting you know that
the FoI could be closed out.
However, having now had a chance to examine the laboratory reports in more
detail, I need to come back to you for clarification on two points. This
is not a request for an internal review – indeed, on 8th December you
confirmed that we had already moved to that stage in the process and I
doubt that we can go there again.
So please consider this as a request for advice and assistance under
section 16 of the FoI Act. I hope you will look sympathetically on this
request, taking account of the patience I have shown over this matter
since requesting the information 11 months ago. As I believe you know, a
senior Case Officer from ICO has already spoken to you about this
particular information request since it has taken so long to get to this
point.
My two questions are:
1) Are you sure that you have provided me with ALL the laboratory
analyses that were done since, on the face of it, this would appear not to
be the case?
I ask this because:
a. I noted that you had sent 10 INSPEC files. The first one
(1.20.06.24) I had already seen from a previous FoI and published on the
Scottish Government website with 49 batches of respirators checked. I was
surprised, however, to see that the other 9 lab reports only cover a total
of a further 30 batches of respirators between them. I had anticipate that
there would be considerably more than 79 batches tested, given the size of
the stockpile .
b. I also understood that there had been a number of batches which
had failed testing and indeed the wording of your letter implied this
“failure of a particular batch would result in its removal from
deployment”.
Yet, in the lab reports you have sent me, only one single batch (report
1.20.08.51) failed (on the “Total Inward Leakage” test). If there had only
been one failure I imagine you would have said that “the (only) batch
which failed testing was removed from deployment”.
I did expect to receive ALL lab reports (including those with failures)
since this level of scrutiny over each batch of past expiry-date
respirators was critical to the health and safety of the healthcare
workers relying on them for protection against a deadly virus. Any defects
(particularly as regards inward leakage) would have endangered them since,
even though they may have performed the user check when donning the mask,
any leakage during the sessional use would not have been detectable by
them since airborne virus is undetectable by taste or odour.
On this point it will be sufficient for you to EITHER give your written
confirmation that the documents that you sent me represent the entire
testing surveillance of past-expiration date respirators OR provide the
remaining lab reports with confirmation that these now represent the
complete set.
2) Within the INSPEC reports, the “summary of assessment” section
provides values for “EXP. LOT”. Please could you confirm that these relate
to the expiration dates originally printed on the packaging by the
manufacturer and not any labels affixed at a later date.
I would be grateful if you would respond within the next 3 weeks so that
we may finally close this FoI request out before it reaches its
anniversary on 2 August.
Yours sincerely,
David Osborn
Dear Information Rights,
Thank you for your response.
The 2 laboratory reports that you sent are the same as those you previously sent on 4th July, so nothing new.
However, thank you for confirming that you have now sent me all the laboratory tests done on the stockpile masks - i.e. a total of 79 batches.
Yours sincerely,
David Osborn
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now