Matt Hancock acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts

212
The chairman of the healthcare company awarded over 5million is the former business partner of the Health and Social Care Secretary’s mother and stepfather

in open court, lawyers acting on behalf of the Government admitted it had breached the law by persistently failing to publish details of COVID-19 contracts. 

Government in breach of the law

The health secretary, Matt Hancock, acted unlawfully by failing to publish multibillion-pound Covid-19 government contracts within the 30-day period required by law, a high court judge has ruled.

The judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, ruled the failure to do so breached the “vital public function” of transparency over how “vast quantities” of taxpayers’ money was spent.

The judgment is a victory for the Good Law Project (GLP), a crowdfunded not-for-profit organisation that is making a series of legal challenges related to the government’s procurement of protective personal equipment (PPE) and other services during the pandemic.

Not only were they knowingly in breach of the law, but explosive emails read to the High Court reveal that Number 10 asked civil servants to delay publishing PPE contracts even further in order to suit their news agenda. Government openly breaching the law for their own political expediency may no longer surprise us, but it is a worrying sign indeed for our democracy. 

Government regulations require all contracts with a value of more than £10,000 to be published, and to be sent for publication within 30 days of being awarded.

The GLP highlighted three PPE contracts to illustrate their case: a £252m contract for the supply of face masks with a finance company, Ayanda Capital; a £108m contract with Clandeboye Agencies, which had previously supplied only confectionery products, and PPE contracts worth £345m with a company trading as Pestfix.

None of the contracts was published within the required 30-day period. Tussell found that the average time for publication of Covid-19 related contracts was 47 days, which meant the government’s own 30-day deadline was likely to have been breached “in a substantial number of cases”, Chamberlain said.

Chamberlain ruled: “The secretary of state’s evidence provides a cogent explanation of his historic failure to comply … but this explanation amounts to an excuse, not a justification. It follows that, in my judgment, the secretary of state acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the transparency policy.”

The obligation to publish contracts within 30 days “serve a vital public function and that function was no less important during a pandemic”, he said. “The secretary of state spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded.”

Jolyon Maugham QC, the GLP’s director, welcomed the judgment and said it was significant for the organisation’s other legal challenges, which include one related to the Cabinet Office’s contract with the research company Public First, which was heard on Monday. The government argues in those cases too that the GLP has no legal standing.

The GLP has written to Hancock asking him to publish all outstanding contracts, and the names of companies whose offers to supply PPE were processed through the “VIP lane”, a high-priority route given to referrals by MPs, peers and others with political connections. The government has refused repeated requests to publish the list of companies.

Maugham said: “I’d rather that there was no need for organisations like ours to have to sue government to get it to come clean. The public is plainly entitled to know how and with whom and at what prices government spends public money.

“Anything else is a recipe for corruption. But until government understands and respects that there is a genuine public interest in how they are awarding Covid contracts, including through the VIP lane, we have little choice.”

A DHSC spokesperson said contracts were awarded “at speed” to secure PPE during the pandemic, and that 8bn items were delivered to frontline workers for their protection. “We fully recognise the importance of transparency in the award of public contracts and continue to publish information about contracts awarded as soon as possible.”

The GLP’s judicial review challenge was supported by the Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, Caroline Lucas of the Green party and the Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran, who all welcomed the judgment.

Jolyon Maugham QC, the GLP’s director, welcomed the judgment and said it was significant for the organisation’s other legal challenges, which include one related to the Cabinet Office’s contract with the research company Public First, which was heard on Monday. The government argues in those cases too that the GLP has no legal standing.

The GLP has written to Hancock asking him to publish all outstanding contracts, and the names of companies whose offers to supply PPE were processed through the “VIP lane”, a high-priority route given to referrals by MPs, peers and others with political connections. The government has refused repeated requests to publish the list of companies.

Maugham said: “I’d rather that there was no need for organisations like ours to have to sue government to get it to come clean. The public is plainly entitled to know how and with whom and at what prices government spends public money.

“Anything else is a recipe for corruption. But until government understands and respects that there is a genuine public interest in how they are awarding Covid contracts, including through the VIP lane, we have little choice.”

A DHSC spokesperson said contracts were awarded “at speed” to secure PPE during the pandemic, and that 8bn items were delivered to frontline workers for their protection. “We fully recognise the importance of transparency in the award of public contracts and continue to publish information about contracts awarded as soon as possible.”

The GLP’s judicial review challenge was supported by the Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, Caroline Lucas of the Green party and the Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran, who all welcomed the judgment.

A full summary of the hearing can be found here

Support Labour Heartlands

This is a "Pay as You Feel" website. You can have access to all of our online work for free. However if you want to support what we do, you could make a small donation to help us keep writing and staying ad-free. The choice is entirely yours.

PLEASE HELP US KEEP GOING AD-FREE

HELP US GROW.

The future can be ours - but only if we work together to make it happen. We've been fighting to make the Labour Heartlands a better, more fairer and equal place for over two years now. With a dedicated team and the commitment from our generous supporters giving small regular donations each month, more if they can afford it, we're winning. But there is still so much to do. We're ambitious, but we can only continue to make positive change and shape our country if more of our supporters join us on this journey. If you believe in the issues we fight for please take action and join Labour Heartlands grassroots think-and-do-tank today. It will make all the difference. And then we can make all the difference for everyone.

Not funded by millionaires or advertisers.
Labour Heartlands funded by the people.