UK ignored obligation to treat suppliers equally in Covid-19 PPE contracts
But the judge also ruled the UK health department did not have an obligation to be transparent about the procurement process
12 January 2022 - 17:27
byEllen Milligan
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
The UK government unlawfully used a so-called “VIP lane” to dish out contracts worth nearly £600m to supply personal-protective equipment at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, a London judge ruled.
The department of health and social care breached its obligation to treat potential suppliers equally by giving firms referred by legislators and senior officials preferential treatment in the procurement process, the judge said on Wednesday.
“The mere fact that an offer was sent to the priority email address from a senior referrer did not justify preferential treatment over a similar offer,” the judge said in her ruling.
The ruling shines a light on the health department, then headed up by Matt Hancock, and its procurement process of crucial safety equipment at the height of the first wave of the pandemic. Hancock quit his job as health secretary in June after it emerged he breached social distancing guidelines when he was photographed embracing a senior aide.
While the department broke the law by giving preferential treatment to two firms in April and May 2020, it’s unlikely the outcome would’ve been “substantially different,” because they would have probably secured the lucrative contracts on their own merits anyway, judge Finola O’Farrell said. As a result she refused to grant any remedies in the case.
“The ruling says it is highly likely these offers would have been awarded if they were processed through other channels also used to process offers,” a government spokesperson said. “All contracts underwent sufficient financial and technical due diligence.”
“Material part”
The judge ruled that although the operation of the fast track used unlawful criteria, “it did not play any material part in the award of the contracts” to the two winning bidders. She also ruled that the department didn’t have an obligation to be transparent about the procurement process.
“Never again should any government treat a public health crisis as an opportunity to enrich its associates and donors at public expense,” said Jo Maugham, director of Good Law Project which brought the case.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
UK ignored obligation to treat suppliers equally in Covid-19 PPE contracts
But the judge also ruled the UK health department did not have an obligation to be transparent about the procurement process
The UK government unlawfully used a so-called “VIP lane” to dish out contracts worth nearly £600m to supply personal-protective equipment at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, a London judge ruled.
The department of health and social care breached its obligation to treat potential suppliers equally by giving firms referred by legislators and senior officials preferential treatment in the procurement process, the judge said on Wednesday.
“The mere fact that an offer was sent to the priority email address from a senior referrer did not justify preferential treatment over a similar offer,” the judge said in her ruling.
The ruling shines a light on the health department, then headed up by Matt Hancock, and its procurement process of crucial safety equipment at the height of the first wave of the pandemic. Hancock quit his job as health secretary in June after it emerged he breached social distancing guidelines when he was photographed embracing a senior aide.
While the department broke the law by giving preferential treatment to two firms in April and May 2020, it’s unlikely the outcome would’ve been “substantially different,” because they would have probably secured the lucrative contracts on their own merits anyway, judge Finola O’Farrell said. As a result she refused to grant any remedies in the case.
“The ruling says it is highly likely these offers would have been awarded if they were processed through other channels also used to process offers,” a government spokesperson said. “All contracts underwent sufficient financial and technical due diligence.”
“Material part”
The judge ruled that although the operation of the fast track used unlawful criteria, “it did not play any material part in the award of the contracts” to the two winning bidders. She also ruled that the department didn’t have an obligation to be transparent about the procurement process.
“Never again should any government treat a public health crisis as an opportunity to enrich its associates and donors at public expense,” said Jo Maugham, director of Good Law Project which brought the case.
More stories like this available at bloomberg.com
DESNÉ MASIE: Is this finally the end of Boris Johnson?
Behind the trade talks that could speed up vaccines to poorer nations
Hospital stocks: the prognosis
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.