SENIOR UK officials were “hounding” colleagues over the approval of a PPE supply contract worth a quarter-of-a-billion pounds to a hedge fund with “close ties” to the Government, the High Court has heard.
The Good Law Project and EveryDoctor are bringing legal action against the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), claiming that contracts awarded to PestFix, Clandeboye and Ayanda Capital were given unlawfully at the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic in April and May 2020.
The two groups allege DHSC has failed to provide proper reasons for why the contracts were awarded and say the UK Government violated principles of equal treatment and transparency when making the deals worth more than £700 million.
READ MORE: Matt Hancock's PPE deals 'suspended' by bank over fears 'VIPs' were fraudsters
Jason Coppel QC, for the groups, said millions-of-pounds-worth of equipment that was “useless to the NHS” was purchased, without proper technical checks, at inflated prices.
A large part of the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor’s claim is that the use of a “VIP lane” gave an unfair, unlawful advantage to some companies.
Coppel said Ayanda Capital, described as a small private equity, trading and asset management company with no experience in supplying goods “of any kind”, had net assets of £1.8m before it was awarded a contract worth £252.5m.
The barrister claimed Andrew Mills, a former member of the UK Board of Trade and representative for Ayanda, was added to the VIP lane when he contacted a senior official at the Department for International Trade (DIT).
Coppel said pressure was put on a member of the VIP lane team to manage it as quickly as possible, with an email from an unnamed person stating: “This is likely to get escalated to ministerial level in next 20 mins or so.”
As soon as Ayanda was allocated to the VIP lane, an individual pseudonymised as “1U” put pressure on an official to deal with it as quickly as possible: “This is likely to get escalated to Ministerial level in next 20 mins or so.” pic.twitter.com/UlPmfTNhzh
— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) May 19, 2021
“She was threatened with escalation very quickly and sends the Ayanda offer to (the) technical assurance (team),” Coppel said.
Emails with subject lines which read “Very urgent VIP escalation” and “Urgent VIP case” were sent from the VIP lane team to the technical assurance team, court documents show.
The barrister later said a senior official was “hounding” the technical assurance team about the contract.
Court documents show that other staff described the contract as a “big opportunity”, adding: “Our contact has close ties to DIT so it wouldn’t be a good outcome.”
The court also heard that a Cabinet Office official raised concerns two days before the contract was signed in April 2020, rating the company as “red” due to a lack of financial information.
“Ayanda failed the financial due diligence. It was not necessarily fatal but at that point it had failed and further steps needed to be taken to resolve concerns before contracting with Ayanda,” Coppel said.
READ MORE: High Court rules Tories can keep amount spent on unusable PPE secret
Natwest, DHSC’s bank, “was so concerned by the advance payment to Ayanda that it tried, unsuccessfully, to stop it”, the barrister added.
In an email seen in court, one official said: “Shit hit the fan … due diligence hadn’t been carried out on Ayanda … there are a lot of people covering there (sic) own arses … I think something went wrong!!! Big style!”
Coppel concluded: “The accounting officers who approved a quarter-of-a-billion-pound contract did not have the relevant information in front of them.”
The barrister added that decision-making officials were not aware that some of the PPE being purchased was made at a factory with previous concerns about quality.
He said: “There was a large prepayment being made and one would have thought that the accounting officer would have been interested to know that it was being made at a factory with recent stains on its record.”
The court also heard about some of the technical faults in the PPE itself.
Coppel said that PestFix’s agent in China had secured surgical gowns by bribing local officials.
READ MORE: Tory ministers among 'main routes' controversial PPE contracts were awarded
These gowns were contracted by the Government at a price of £945,000 and were not reviewed by the technical assurance team, the barrister claimed.
He said: “They should have failed technical assurance and the accounting officer was not told as much as he should have been.
“In terms of the balance of risk, meeting an urgent need with gowns that have not been tested for flammability was potentially counterproductive.
“As to what happened to those gowns, we would expect they have not been used.”
But a number of the gowns had been “lost in the system”, Coppel said, meaning that it was not known whether they were used or not.
The case, which is being heard remotely by Justice O’Farrell, is expected to end on Tuesday.
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 about the future of our country.
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 conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our 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. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel