The Good Law Project
- Thread starter Tony L
- Start date
Tony L
Administrator
Latest update:
“Good Law Project is now able to reveal the names of six more companies awarded PPE contracts through the controversial ’VIP’ fast-track lane for associates of ministers and advisers. These six firms landed nearly half a billion pounds of public contracts - all without competition - and were uncovered in documents prised from Government in the course of our litigation:
This followed our scoop last December that Government had handed PPE Medpro, a firm linked to an associate of a Conservative peer with mystery investors, £200m of PPE contracts via the 'high-priority lane.'
It’s been months of battle to get here. Why is Government so determined to keep the names of VIPs hidden? At whose request did they get ushered through the VIP lane? Documents revealed during our High Court hearing last month show civil servants were “drowning” in referrals from politically connected individuals, which were “consuming bandwidth to progressing viable opportunities”.
The NAO says 47 companies received PPE contracts after being referred to the VIP lane. Our investigations and cases have so far revealed the names of 12 of those companies.
With your help, we will get to the truth. The more people are aware, the more powerful we will be. Will you please share this update with your friends and family now?
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here: Donate”
“Good Law Project is now able to reveal the names of six more companies awarded PPE contracts through the controversial ’VIP’ fast-track lane for associates of ministers and advisers. These six firms landed nearly half a billion pounds of public contracts - all without competition - and were uncovered in documents prised from Government in the course of our litigation:
- Uniserve Limited is a logistics firm controlled by Iain Liddell. Prior to the pandemic the firm had no experience in supplying PPE, yet the firm landed a staggering £300m+ in PPE contracts from the DHSC and an eye watering £572m deal to provide freight services for the supply of PPE. The company shares the same address as Cabinet Minister Julia Lopez MP and is based in her constituency. Here they are together.
- Draeger Safety UK Ltd which is a subsidiary of the Germany-based Draeger AG, landed a direct award contract in July 2020 to supply FFP3 masks valued at £87m.
- Urathon Europe Limited, a Wiltshire based supplier of wheelchair accessories, was handed two contracts worth £74m to supply face masks. Correspondence released during our recent PPE hearing revealed the Urathon contracts were ‘escalated through VIP Channel’.
- First Aid For Sport Limited, SanaClis, and Global United Trading and Sourcing PTE Ltd were awarded contracts from the DHSC worth a combined total of £28.6m.
This followed our scoop last December that Government had handed PPE Medpro, a firm linked to an associate of a Conservative peer with mystery investors, £200m of PPE contracts via the 'high-priority lane.'
It’s been months of battle to get here. Why is Government so determined to keep the names of VIPs hidden? At whose request did they get ushered through the VIP lane? Documents revealed during our High Court hearing last month show civil servants were “drowning” in referrals from politically connected individuals, which were “consuming bandwidth to progressing viable opportunities”.
The NAO says 47 companies received PPE contracts after being referred to the VIP lane. Our investigations and cases have so far revealed the names of 12 of those companies.
With your help, we will get to the truth. The more people are aware, the more powerful we will be. Will you please share this update with your friends and family now?
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here: Donate”
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Graft.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
If only Labour had a forensic lawyer who could highlight these crimes in Parliament?
Tony L
Administrator
This is interesting:
“In February, Boris Johnson falsely claimed that details of all PPE contracts awarded by the Government had been published and “were on the record“. A few weeks later Cabinet Office Minister Edward Argar doubled down on Johnson’s statement – claiming “the Prime Minister spoke accurately“.
They were both wrong.
Last week, the Government quietly published details of 40 PPE contracts awarded a year ago during the first wave of the pandemic. The value of these contracts is an eye-watering £4.2 billion.
The newly published contracts were awarded by Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (SCCL), a procurement vehicle set up in 2018 and overseen by the Department of Health and Social Care. The biggest winners of SCCL contracts were Full Support Healthcare which landed what Government has said was a mere £1.8bn deal – although spend data released via FOI confirms that SCCL paid Full Support Healthcare circa £2.5bn between March 2020 and December 2020.
Other winners include:
Link to above here.
“In February, Boris Johnson falsely claimed that details of all PPE contracts awarded by the Government had been published and “were on the record“. A few weeks later Cabinet Office Minister Edward Argar doubled down on Johnson’s statement – claiming “the Prime Minister spoke accurately“.
They were both wrong.
Last week, the Government quietly published details of 40 PPE contracts awarded a year ago during the first wave of the pandemic. The value of these contracts is an eye-watering £4.2 billion.
The newly published contracts were awarded by Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (SCCL), a procurement vehicle set up in 2018 and overseen by the Department of Health and Social Care. The biggest winners of SCCL contracts were Full Support Healthcare which landed what Government has said was a mere £1.8bn deal – although spend data released via FOI confirms that SCCL paid Full Support Healthcare circa £2.5bn between March 2020 and December 2020.
Other winners include:
- 365 Healthcare, a trading division of Bunzl. SCCL handed a £131m PPE deal to 365 Healthcare on 1 April 2020. Good Law Project previously revealed that Conservative Peer Lord Feldman lobbied for PPE contracts on behalf of Bunzl whilst acting as an advisor in the DHSC. SCCL awarded its contract to 365 Healthcare only a week after Feldman lobbied DHSC on behalf of Bunzl.
- Globus Shetland landed a £14m deal in April 2020 to provide eye protection and respirators. The firm has previously donated £375,000 to the Conservative Party.
- Polyco Healthline Limited was awarded a £56m contract to provide respirators. In February it was revealed that more than a million FFP3 masks issued to the NHS and supplied by Polyco had to be recalled because they ‘may not meet safety standards’.
- Guardian Surgical received a £312m PPE contract in April 2020.
- Rocialle Healthcare the owners of Guardian Surgical also landed a £127m deal from the SCCL. The huge deals were for the provision of eye protection, masks and gown. Rocialle is owned by Zhende Medical, the Chinese firm who also supplied Ayanda with the PPE as part of a controversial £252m contract.
Link to above here.
Good grief! I hope you are right, but the SFO doesn’t have a great track record.
Tony L
Administrator
Another update:
“A Number 10 spokesperson has explicitly denied that Government Ministers have used private email addresses:
"Both the former health secretary and Lord Bethell understand the rules around personal email usage and only ever conducted government business through their departmental email addresses".
This is impossible to square with statements made by the Second Permanent Secretary in meeting minutes published by The Sunday Times. Those minutes clearly state that disgraced former Health Secretary Matt Hancock “corresponds only with private office via a gmail account”.
It is also impossible to square with emails we hold.
On 19 April 2020 Lord Feldman (who you’ll recall lobbied to win PPE contracts for at least one of his clients while working at DHSC) emailed Lord Bethell on his private @ jbethell .com address about Covid-19 test kits:
Plainly this is government business. And plainly Lord Feldman, once co-Chair of the Conservative Party, was writing to James Bethell at his private email address on that government business. This is far from the only email we hold involving Lord Bethell’s private email address.
It is shocking to hear the Prime Minister, via his spokesperson, mislead the public.
Tomorrow we will give you jaw-dropping details of the type of business that was being conducted using private gmail addresses.
If you would like to share this update with friends and family, you can do so below:
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project”
“A Number 10 spokesperson has explicitly denied that Government Ministers have used private email addresses:
"Both the former health secretary and Lord Bethell understand the rules around personal email usage and only ever conducted government business through their departmental email addresses".
This is impossible to square with statements made by the Second Permanent Secretary in meeting minutes published by The Sunday Times. Those minutes clearly state that disgraced former Health Secretary Matt Hancock “corresponds only with private office via a gmail account”.
It is also impossible to square with emails we hold.
On 19 April 2020 Lord Feldman (who you’ll recall lobbied to win PPE contracts for at least one of his clients while working at DHSC) emailed Lord Bethell on his private @ jbethell .com address about Covid-19 test kits:
It is shocking to hear the Prime Minister, via his spokesperson, mislead the public.
Tomorrow we will give you jaw-dropping details of the type of business that was being conducted using private gmail addresses.
If you would like to share this update with friends and family, you can do so below:
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project”
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Another update:
“A Number 10 spokesperson has explicitly denied that Government Ministers have used private email addresses:
"Both the former health secretary and Lord Bethell understand the rules around personal email usage and only ever conducted government business through their departmental email addresses".
This is impossible to square with statements made by the Second Permanent Secretary in meeting minutes published by The Sunday Times. Those minutes clearly state that disgraced former Health Secretary Matt Hancock “corresponds only with private office via a gmail account”.
It is also impossible to square with emails we hold.
On 19 April 2020 Lord Feldman (who you’ll recall lobbied to win PPE contracts for at least one of his clients while working at DHSC) emailed Lord Bethell on his private @ jbethell .com address about Covid-19 test kits:
Plainly this is government business. And plainly Lord Feldman, once co-Chair of the Conservative Party, was writing to James Bethell at his private email address on that government business. This is far from the only email we hold involving Lord Bethell’s private email address.
It is shocking to hear the Prime Minister, via his spokesperson, mislead the public.
Tomorrow we will give you jaw-dropping details of the type of business that was being conducted using private gmail addresses.
If you would like to share this update with friends and family, you can do so below:
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project”
Clearly Lord Feldman wanted to keep this below the radar, so much so, he cc'd a number of recipients with official .gov.uk addresses.
kensalriser
pfm Member
"It is shocking to hear the Prime Minister, via his spokesperson, mislead the public."
Well done for sneaking in that corker.
Well done for sneaking in that corker.
Tony L
Administrator
Another update:
“On Monday we published a short post, pointing out that the so-called “transparency” data - which is supposed to list all of the external meetings Ministers have - failed to mention a meeting on 1 April 2020 that Lord Bethell had with Abingdon shortly before his department awarded it the first of two contracts worth up to £87.5m in total.
The contracts - which Good Law Project is challenging in the High Court - are highly controversial not least because Government’s own lawyers advised they were unlawful.
Government blamed the missing meeting on an “admin error” and responded on Tuesday by publishing an updated list of the external meetings Lord Bethell had, including the 1 April meeting with Abingdon:
The problem is that the updated list is also wrong.
First, the updated list doesn’t make any mention of a meeting Matt Hancock had on 1 April 2020 with a group of would-be test suppliers.
We know that it took place because we have the emails.
Here is an invitation to a conference call at 5pm issued to “Excalibur Health” - no mention of this meeting appears in the so-called transparency data. We also know that other providers including Abingdon received the same invitation.
Indeed, it looks very much as though Matt Hancock had two meetings with Abingdon.
Here is a further email setting out that Matt Hancock wanted to join a second, follow-up, private call with Abingdon later that evening at 19.10.
The so-called transparency data, even in its revised form, fails to mention his attendance at either.
Government will, no doubt, say they made a second “admin error” in correcting the first “admin error”. And perhaps you are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it is merely gross, and repeated, incompetence.
But even the most sweetly trusting of us must wonder whether the real explanation is that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public as to the former Secretary of State’s involvement in the ill-fated and unlawful Abingdon deal.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here: Donate”
Hopefully they’ve got enough to get a result here…
“On Monday we published a short post, pointing out that the so-called “transparency” data - which is supposed to list all of the external meetings Ministers have - failed to mention a meeting on 1 April 2020 that Lord Bethell had with Abingdon shortly before his department awarded it the first of two contracts worth up to £87.5m in total.
The contracts - which Good Law Project is challenging in the High Court - are highly controversial not least because Government’s own lawyers advised they were unlawful.
Government blamed the missing meeting on an “admin error” and responded on Tuesday by publishing an updated list of the external meetings Lord Bethell had, including the 1 April meeting with Abingdon:
First, the updated list doesn’t make any mention of a meeting Matt Hancock had on 1 April 2020 with a group of would-be test suppliers.
Here is an invitation to a conference call at 5pm issued to “Excalibur Health” - no mention of this meeting appears in the so-called transparency data. We also know that other providers including Abingdon received the same invitation.
Here is a further email setting out that Matt Hancock wanted to join a second, follow-up, private call with Abingdon later that evening at 19.10.
Government will, no doubt, say they made a second “admin error” in correcting the first “admin error”. And perhaps you are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it is merely gross, and repeated, incompetence.
But even the most sweetly trusting of us must wonder whether the real explanation is that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public as to the former Secretary of State’s involvement in the ill-fated and unlawful Abingdon deal.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here: Donate”
Hopefully they’ve got enough to get a result here…
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
This is a story of corruption and the theft of taxpayer money and I’m at a loss to understand why Labour, and to a lesser extent the LD’s are not campaigning to push this up the news agenda. Labour, with the likes of Mandelson on board, should be able to get this story into the media.Another update:
“On Monday we published a short post, pointing out that the so-called “transparency” data - which is supposed to list all of the external meetings Ministers have - failed to mention a meeting on 1 April 2020 that Lord Bethell had with Abingdon shortly before his department awarded it the first of two contracts worth up to £87.5m in total.
The contracts - which Good Law Project is challenging in the High Court - are highly controversial not least because Government’s own lawyers advised they were unlawful.
Government blamed the missing meeting on an “admin error” and responded on Tuesday by publishing an updated list of the external meetings Lord Bethell had, including the 1 April meeting with Abingdon:
The problem is that the updated list is also wrong.
First, the updated list doesn’t make any mention of a meeting Matt Hancock had on 1 April 2020 with a group of would-be test suppliers.
We know that it took place because we have the emails.
Here is an invitation to a conference call at 5pm issued to “Excalibur Health” - no mention of this meeting appears in the so-called transparency data. We also know that other providers including Abingdon received the same invitation.
Indeed, it looks very much as though Matt Hancock had two meetings with Abingdon.
Here is a further email setting out that Matt Hancock wanted to join a second, follow-up, private call with Abingdon later that evening at 19.10.
The so-called transparency data, even in its revised form, fails to mention his attendance at either.
Government will, no doubt, say they made a second “admin error” in correcting the first “admin error”. And perhaps you are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it is merely gross, and repeated, incompetence.
But even the most sweetly trusting of us must wonder whether the real explanation is that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public as to the former Secretary of State’s involvement in the ill-fated and unlawful Abingdon deal.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here: Donate”
Hopefully they’ve got enough to get a result here…
Is the reason that it is not a big story because the other parties are complicit or at least sympathetic?
SteveS1
I heard that, pardon?
Do the people voting for Johnson care about a bit of corruption? Bit like Trump supporters, they probably think it makes them "smart".
Nick_G
pfm Member
And because we are now into the CHAOS, where normal rules don't apply....
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
depends on what activity they identify as corruption.
I suspect that if one asked a direct question about caring about corruption, then one answer might emerge. if one asked a question that describes a scenario then I suspect another answer might emerge
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Tory voters clearly don’t mind voting for greed and corruption, they’ve been doing it for years! What is a matter of concern is that greed and corruption have become so popular that the other parties do not see any gain in challenging it. We seem to be living in a time when greed and corruption is just accepted, its one of those things (shrug), it’s always been with us (shrug), like racism it’s not nice, but hey, whaddaya do?
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Yes, a bit like asking a question about racism. If you ask people directly, are you against racism, overwhelmingly most people would say yes. But if you ask people if they’re against specific manifestations of racism, you’ll get a different answer. We saw this clearly around the booing of sportspeople taking the knee. If the question is, Do you support anti racism? the answer is an unambiguous yes. If the question is do you support a specific gesture of supporting anti racism? the answer is more of a ‘well………..the thing is…….’