The Corruption Scandal at the Heart of the British Government

And the blatant attempt to halt the enquiry

In March 2020, as the pandemic steamrollered its way across the globe, the British Government, caught on the back foot due to dithering and indecision, desperately began trying to get hold of PPE, ventilators and all the other critical equipment needed to contain the virus.

In the weeks that followed, the Government handed out over a thousand contracts, worth a collective £18 billion, for the procurement of vital supplies.

Many of these contracts, some £10.5 billion, went to companies run either by friends or associates of politicians in the ruling Conservative party or to firms with no prior experience.

In times of national emergency, the Government can, understandably, shortcut the usual procurement processes to maintain supply lines. This they did with unbridled glee.

Of course, it didn’t help that they’d sold off or run down PPE reserves in previous years, ignoring the recommendations of their own pandemic preparedness plan.

The New York Times published a comprehensive piece about the scandal in December 2020, it’s a fascinating and thorough report and well worth a read.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/17/world/europe/britain-covid-contracts.html

In Britain, a recent report by the National Audit Office found that a ‘high priority lane’ existed for suppliers referred by senior politicians and officials. Companies referred in this way were 10 times more likely to end up winning a government contract.

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/government-procurement-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/?slide=1

The NAO couldn’t find a clear audit trail explaining why the government departments responsible bypassed the usual routes. In times of emergency, they’re allowed to do it but they should create a paper trail to account for their reasons.

The Good Law Project, a not-for-profit organisation that uses the law to protect the public interest, applied for a judicial review to request the Government reveal whether their decisions to award huge contracts to their associates are legal.

If you didn’t know, Judicial review is about ensuring the state operates within the powers given to it by law. It’s a means of challenging how public functions are carried out.

There are usually three categories on which the grounds for a judicial review can be brought, often more than one type will apply when bringing a case for review. They are briefly summarised as:

Illegality

Did the public authority act within the powers give to it by legislation? They must comply with existing principles and must not delegate the decision making to someone else, or use their powers to do things for which those powers were not intended.

Procedural Impropriety

Did the public authority follow the proper procedures during the decision-making process? They have to abide by statutory requirements and ensure there is a fair hearing.

Irrationality or Proportionality

As a rule, a court will not allow a decision to stand if it is considered to be outside the bounds of what is deemed to be reasonable.

More details are here: https://knowhow.ncvo.org.uk/how-to/how-to-work-out-if-you-should-apply-for-judicial-review

According to The Good Law Project, defending a judicial review usually costs the (UK) Government around £100,000 or less, which is basically the amount of risk that any claimant takes on in bringing a case. The claimant, The Good Law Project, in this case, would have to pay the costs of the defendant, the Government, if they lose.

As a not-for-profit, The Good Law Project relies on donations from interested parties and members of the public when bringing a case. They raised an amount they thought sufficient to cover their costs in the PPE Review, and the Government’s if they were to lose.

However, there’s a snag. The Government has already spent over £325,000 and estimates their costs will eventually total £1 million or thereabouts, meaning the Good Law Project’s risk is now staggering.

https://goodlawproject.org/update/ramping-up-costs-silence-us/

The Government has been asked if it would consider capping the costs, it is taxpayers’ money after all, but they’ve refused. In fact, they’re on the record as stating that they think the judicial review is not in the public interest, as per a letter from the Government Legal Department.

“In particular our client does not agree that the proceedings are ‘public interest proceedings’”

So they can spend billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on PPE during the COVID 19 crisis, and yet don’t think they should account for the reasons why around half of the money they spent went to their pals.

And it looks like they’re attempting to shut down the judicial review by ramping up costs, so the claimant’s risk is too high for them to pursue the case.

What are they trying to hide?

We all understand and accept that standard procedure may need to be cut short or sidestepped in times of crisis, but we also want to know each decision’s reasons. These decisions should hold up to scrutiny.

In particular, we want to understand why companies were awarded lucrative contracts for PPE when they had no experience making or supplying these items.

It’s beginning to look like the UK Government, the Tories, are corrupt to their core. And it’s high time we held them to account.