UK government broke the law by failing to disclose PPE contracts, court rules

By Andrew MacAskill

 

FILE PHOTO: Jolyon Maugham is seen outside the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in London, Britain September 18, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The British government broke the law by failing to publish details of billions of pounds of spending on personal protective equipment during the coronavirus pandemic, a London court ruled on Friday.

 

As COVID-19 swept across the world last year, Britain scrambled to secure protective gear for medics and nurses on the front line.   

 

The Good Law Project, a campaign group, and three opposition politicians brought a judicial review seeking information about undisclosed deals with firms that had no medical procurement expertise and, in some cases, delivered defective protective equipment.

 

Martin Chamberlain, a High Court judge, said the Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, failed to comply with a public procurement law that requires the government to publish contract awards within 30 days.

 

"The Secretary of State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020," Chamberlain said. "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."

 

The health ministry said it had needed to move within very short timescales and against unparalleled global demand.

 

"This has often meant having to award contracts at speed to secure the vital supplies required to protect NHS (National Health Service) workers and the public," a spokesman said.

 

The National Audit Office said last year there had been a lack of transparency and a failure to explain why certain suppliers were chosen, or how any conflict of interest was dealt with, in procurement deals between March and the end of July worth about 18 billion pounds ($25.23 billion).

 

Opposition politicians have accused the government of running a "chumocracy" with contracts, including for the purchase of what turned out to be unusable PPE, and appointments made to those with family or business links to those in power.

 

After the ruling Jolyon Maugham, the founder of the Good Law Project, wrote to the health minister asking him to publish the contracts, including those given under a high-priority lane set up to assess potential leads from government officials.

 

The judge said the health ministry could have avoided running up a legal bill amounting to 207,000 pounds if it had "candidly" admitted that transparency rules had been broken.

 

(Reporting by Andrew MacAskill; editing by William James and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-02-20

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

 

 

‘Chumocracy’.

 

 

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Opposition politicians have accused the government of running a "chumocracy" with contracts, including for the purchase of what turned out to be unusable PPE, and appointments made to those with family or business links to those in power.

 

Nothing new here, move along, it's business as usual.

Bojo breaking the law and wasting taxpayers money, who would have thought it.

12 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Nothing new here, move along, it's business as usual.

It's not business as usual at all, save in the odd banana republic. It's corruption such as we haven't seen in the UK for several centuries. These people should be in jail.

NASA's Perseverance project lands another vehicle successfully on Mars for $2.7 billion. 

 

How The Cost Of Perseverance Compares To Other Mars Missions

 

Meanwhile the UK government fails to execute a test and trace program despite spending £22 billion on it. 

 

England’s test and trace repeatedly failed to hit goals despite £22bn cost

 

One might be forgiven for thinking that the real objective was not to test or to trace... 

58 minutes ago, flossie35 said:

It's corruption such as we haven't seen in the UK for several centuries. These people should be in jail.

 

This goes on in every government, we only hear about things like this when pressure is applied or someone gets caught with their finger in the cookie jar, and when you weigh up the jail time, well it can work out to 2 million pounds a year for sitting in a cell, eating crappy food and bending over for some, now for 2 million pounds a year x 5 years, would be tempting for some, I suppose they could call it early retirement ????

 

When the dust settles there should be a full independent inquiry into this matter. However, I suspect that any comments on the matter will be superficial and buried deep in the bowels of a wider report of the government's handling of the pandemic (likely publication date: 2030).

Unlike the EU they took direct and immediate action instead of waiting for committee meetings.

 

Maybe it cost a bit more, who cares, they got what they needed.

 

No good deed goes unpunished so here we have a hard left winger government hating 'Jolyon Maugham' doing what he does best - hating government.

I note that this guy was booted out of his chambers where he's a barrister due to being such an embarrassment and an ongoing boycott against them due to him. The guy is a cancer.

10 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Opposition politicians have accused the government of running a "chumocracy" with contracts, including for the purchase of what turned out to be unusable PPE, and appointments made to those with family or business links to those in power.

Quelle Surprise...

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

Unlike the EU they took direct and immediate action instead of waiting for committee meetings.

 

Maybe it cost a bit more, who cares, they got what they needed.

 

No good deed goes unpunished so here we have a hard left winger government hating 'Jolyon Maugham' doing what he does best - hating government.

I note that this guy was booted out of his chambers where he's a barrister due to being such an embarrassment and an ongoing boycott against them due to him. The guy is a cancer.

No,we have a court saying it was illegal.

 

You want to blame the person or organisation that complained the govt broke the law and the court ruled it broke the law. Crazy.

One of the sad things about brexit is it's shown our politicians they can gaslight the public, wrap it in patriotic ferver, and get away with lieing through their teeth.

What do you expect from the govt opposition pitiful news.

3 hours ago, ukrules said:

Unlike the EU they took direct and immediate action instead of waiting for committee meetings.

 

Maybe it cost a bit more, who cares, they got what they needed.

 

No good deed goes unpunished so here we have a hard left winger government hating 'Jolyon Maugham' doing what he does best - hating government.

I note that this guy was booted out of his chambers where he's a barrister due to being such an embarrassment and an ongoing boycott against them due to him. The guy is a cancer.

"Unlike the EU they took direct and immediate action instead of waiting for committee meetings."

The UK bought the equipment, why are you trying to get the EU involved here. No need to answer, I know it is hate.

 

"Maybe it cost a bit more, who cares, they got what they needed."

A good part of it was defective, so hardly what was needed. 

 

"No good deed goes unpunished so here we have a hard left winger government hating 'Jolyon Maugham' doing what he does best - hating government.
I note that this guy was booted out of his chambers where he's a barrister due to being such an embarrassment and an ongoing boycott against them due to him. The guy is a cancer."

This is about the government's refusal to disclose, after the fact,, where they bought and why. Your ad hominem attack is not justified at all, it is even misplaced, since the UK population is entitled to an explanation. An explanation the government has refused to give, only now to be forced to explain themselves after all.

 

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

What do you expect from the govt opposition pitiful news.

 Not the opposition; the Supreme Court!

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

What do you expect from the govt opposition pitiful news.

What do you expect from the court?

Off-topic, troll posts removed.  

 

""The ..... State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020," Chamberlain said. "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."

 

 

well at least this could never happen in Thailand....

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Not the opposition; the Supreme Court!

Incorrect High Court as quoted in the op

Here is a list of all cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court in 2021

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.html

 

You will note that Good Law Project is not listed

12 hours ago, ukrules said:

Unlike the EU they took direct and immediate action instead of waiting for committee meetings

I think that was in relation to vaccines not PPE - the UK didn't make such a good job of procuring PPE.

 

You do realise that in one of the cases is question, a middleman was paid £27,000,000  jn commission don't you?  The matter is far from over.

9 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

What do you expect from the govt opposition pitiful news.

????????????????????

 

Martin Chamberlain QC has been appointed as a Justice of the High Court, with effect from 1 October 2019. The appointment was made by The Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, following a competition run by the Judicial Appointments Commission. The Lord Chief Justice will assign him to the Queen’s Bench Division.

https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/news/detail/martin-chamberlain-qc-appointed-to-the-high-court

19 hours ago, RayC said:

When the dust settles there should be a full independent inquiry into this matter. However, I suspect that any comments on the matter will be superficial and buried deep in the bowels of a wider report of the government's handling of the pandemic (likely publication date: 2030).

The UK’s Inquiries Act reserves for Government (the PM’s office), the power to define the Scope, Breadth and Terms of Reference of all Public Inquiries.

13 hours ago, Sujo said:

What do you expect from the court?

A reasonable summing up because of the circumstances of course.

 

"The judge said it was 'understandable that attention was focused on procuring what was thought necessary to save lives'."

 

What do the UK public think, they couldn't care less less as long as NHS & health workers were getting protection.

 

7 hours ago, candide said:

????????????????????

 

Martin Chamberlain QC has been appointed as a Justice of the High Court, with effect from 1 October 2019. The appointment was made by The Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, following a competition run by the Judicial Appointments Commission. The Lord Chief Justice will assign him to the Queen’s Bench Division.

https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/news/detail/martin-chamberlain-qc-appointed-to-the-high-court

This is opposition MP's doing what during a pandemic, it's pitiful.

 

At a hearing earlier this month, the Good Law Project and three MPs - Labour's Debbie Abraham's, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas (pictured) and Liberal Democrat Layla Moran - argued there had been a 'dismal' failure by the DHSC to comply with the obligation.

20 hours ago, ukrules said:

Unlike the EU they took direct and immediate action instead of waiting for committee meetings.

 

Maybe it cost a bit more, who cares, they got what they needed.

Actually the exact opposite is true. As was widely reported at the time, the UK government unnecessarily delayed getting additional PPE by ignoring an offer from the EU to be part of an already-existing contract for PPE.

 

 Top civil servant says he was wrong about EU medical equipment claim

 

Also, as others have already pointed out they didn't get "what they needed" since several of these unsupervised contract awards delivered unusable PPE and/or didn't deliver the amounts they were supposed to.

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

A reasonable summing up because of the circumstances of course.

 

"The judge said it was 'understandable that attention was focused on procuring what was thought necessary to save lives'."

 

What do the UK public think, they couldn't care less less as long as NHS & health workers were getting protection.

 

And there i was thinking the court decides matters of law.

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And there i was thinking the court decides matters of law.

Don't know whether you're just a wind up or not. 

The courts do decide on matters of law and the meaning of law is based on what is reasonable.

12 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

I think that was in relation to vaccines not PPE - the UK didn't make such a good job of procuring PPE.

 

You do realise that in one of the cases is question, a middleman was paid £27,000,000  jn commission don't you?  The matter is far from over.

and people complain here when they have to employ a 'middleman' to procure a dodgy visa extension lol..

12 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Incorrect High Court as quoted in the op

Here is a list of all cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court in 2021

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.html

 

You will note that Good Law Project is not listed

 

I stand corrected; my mistake.

 

But despite that error, my point is still valid. Although three opposition MPs were involved in bringing this judicial review, but they were not the first to have concerns about how the money was spent.

 

Of course, in one respect @Kwasaki was correct; this scandal is not new.

 

As the OP says,

On 2/19/2021 at 10:30 PM, rooster59 said:

The National Audit Office said last year there had been a lack of transparency and a failure to explain why certain suppliers were chosen, or how any conflict of interest was dealt with, in procurement deals between March and the end of July worth about 18 billion pounds

 

Covid PPE: Hospital gowns that cost £122m never used

Quote

Millions of medical gowns bought for the NHS at the end of the first lockdown for £122m have never been used.

The gowns were ordered by the government from a supplier which had set up just a month earlier, and no other companies were asked to bid for the contract.

 

Political ‘cronies’ given fast track to PPE contracts worth billions

Quote

Ministers set up a VIP fast-track channel to buy billions of pounds of PPE from companies who had political contacts with the government and MPs, a damning report reveals today........

 

At the same time officials paid more than £5 million in consultancy fees to companies with close links to ministers and the Conservative Party. These included a £1.5 million deal with two New Zealand social media consultants who worked on Boris Johnson’s election campaign.

 

5 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Don't know whether you're just a wind up or not. 

The courts do decide on matters of law and the meaning of law is based on what is reasonable.

A judge does not decide on whether a law is reasonable. They decide on the law.

 

A jury decides reasonable, as in reasonable doubt.

 

A judge has no option but to rule on law. At sentencing they can consider circumstances. But that is a different issue.

 

To put it bluntly. A judge rules on law. A jury rules on facts.