IF your main source of news bulletins is the electronic media you may be surprised to learn that Health Secretary Matt Hancock got a bit of a rocket from a High Court judge this week. This is because a quite remarkable number of outlets seem to have found it less than newsworthy.
Not like a really, really important story about Harry Mountbatten-Windsor and his granny maybe having a bit of a tiff. Or Princess Eugenie having a wean. (He’s going to be called August pair wee sowel. Just as well he’ll likely be bound for a school awash with Crispins and Hugos.)
But I digress. Little Mr Hancock – he of the pink ties and permanently pained look – fell foul of government regulations by failing timeously to publish details of most of these fat contracts for Covid-related kit.
The Johnson Government has long argued that much was done in haste because of the nature of the pandemic crisis. Which doesn’t quite explain how coy they’ve been about who actually trousered the many billions involved.
Such detail as has been grudgingly supplied, did not normally emerge within 30 days of the awards as the rules require.
READ MORE: UK Government broke law by failing to disclose PPE contracts, High Court rules
So the Good Law Project - a well named outfit with other notches on their wigs like proving proroguing parliament was a no-no (with wur ain Jo Cherry in tow) - decided to take Mr Hancock’s department to court.
Oddly, for a government with their own battery of in house legal eagles, the Johnson administration insisted that their legal costs would be in the half a million smackers range.
This was clearly an attempt to dissuade all comers from risking an expensive failure to make their case.
UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock
Happily, Mr Justice Chamberlain found all these shenanigans to have breached the “vital public function of transparency” over the not so small matter of shedloads of yours and my contributions to the Treasury being handed out without any tendering process.
M’Lud may just have been swayed by the nature of the three contracts the Good Law Project flagged up as their starter pack.
They have two things in common, the awards in question were worth a great deal of money and they all went to firms with no noticeable track record in the provision of medical equipment.
One specialises in financial investment packages, one sells sweeties, and one is more usually hired to get rid of rats, cockroaches and the like. As I say, not the most obvious track record for the job in hand.
READ MORE: Indyref2: Oliver Lewis quits as head of Downing Street's Union Unit
Talking of which, there is another court case in train involving pals of Dominic Cummings, the chap with the variable eyesight. It concerns a contract north of £500,000 given to Public First, a research group hired to test government pandemic messaging via focus groups.
Apparently the massed ranks of Public Health England and the National Health and Social Care communications departments just had nobody with the required skill set.
Dominic Cummings is the Prime Minister's former special advisor
According to Cummings’s original witness statement, and I quote: “I am a special adviser and as such I am not allowed to direct civil servants. However, as a result of my suggestion, I expected people to hire Public First.
“The nature of my role is that sometimes people take what I say as an instruction and that is a reasonable inference as people assume I am often speaking for the Prime Minister.”
Mr Cummings also assured the court: “Obviously I did not request Public First be brought in because they were my friends. I would never do such a thing.” Obviously.
A judgment in this case will decide whether this contract was awarded without bias or special favours. Just maybe, it might tickle the fancy of a few more news editors.
In the coming weeks, only subscribers will be able to comment on The National articles. Subscribe now or log in to make sure you stay a part of the conversation.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions. What should we do with our second vote in 2021? What happens if Westminster says no to indyref2?
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversation, register under fake names, and post vile abuse. We’ve had hundreds of emails from you complaining about this, asking us to take steps to ensure that these people aren’t given a platform on our site.
We’re listening to you, and here’s how we plan to make that happen.
We have decided to make the ability to comment only available to our 10,000 paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them.
We’ll be monitoring this change over the first few weeks, and we’re keen to know your thoughts. Email us at letters@thenational.scot if you want to have your say.
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Last Updated:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
Report This Comment