Procurement at what price, proficiency and with what adherence to policy and procedure? Key questions raised as the UK Covid-19 Inquiry starts hearing evidence on procurement during the pandemic

Last week marked the start of the fifth phase of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry. Over the next month, evidence will be heard with the intention of examining and making recommendations on procurement and distribution of key healthcare equipment and supplies, with a focus on PPE, ventilators, oxygen and tests.

The “robustness and effectiveness” of these procurement processes, along with the “suitability of the items obtained (including their specification, quality and volume) and the effectiveness of their distribution to the end-user” will be investigated and reported on in detail. Commercial contracts and questions around the so-called “VIP Lane” and alleged cronyism, profiteering and corruption will also be explored, subject to some restricted evidence that will be aired in a “closed hearing” whilst criminal investigations remain ongoing. Reminders were also given by both the Chair and Counsel to the Inquiry (“CTI”) that, though these issues will be examined, it is not within a public inquiry’s remit or power to attribute criminal or civil liability.

The public hearings began as usual with a short impact film, shown to contextualise the purpose of these hearings by means of individual stories and experiences of those impacted by the pandemic. Powerful and emotive as ever, this impact film was particularly pertinent as - in contrast to previous modules - no live “impact” evidence is being heard in Module 5 to contextualise the human experiences and effects of procurement decisions.

Following opening statements delivered by CTI and Core Participants the first witness was Professor Sanchez-Graells, who has been appointed by the Inquiry to provide independent expert evidence relating to procurement processes. Professor Sanchez-Graells was openly critical of much of the approach and handling of procurement during the pandemic, particularly in relation to the lack of transparency and candour, the failure to comply with obligations to publish contract details and the creation and use of a “VIP lane”. He also made it clear that, in his view, the new Procurement Act does not adequately deal with many of the issues that arose during Covid and does not create adequate and enforceable safeguards so further work is urgently needed. An expert on supply chains will give live evidence in week two.

This expert evidence was followed by a member of the UK anti-corruption coalition whose evidence was, as expected, also heavily critical. For the remainder of the week we heard from key players who held senior roles in relation to procurement during the pandemic including Sir Gareth Rhys Williams (Former Government Chief Commercial Officer); Jonathan Marron (Director General of Primary Care and Prevention, DHSC); Max Cairnduff (Former Director, Complex Transactions Team, Cabinet Office); Darren Blackburn (Former Deputy Director Commercial Function Complex Transactions Team, Cabinet Office); Chris Hall (Former caseworker in the high priority lane team and management team of the PPE Buy Cell); and Andy Wood (Lead for PPE Buy Cell, Cabinet Office). Much of the questioning focused around the initial structuring and team building to deal with procurement, the creation and use of the “VIP” lane, the influence of ministerial and media pressure on decision-making, transparency and non-compliance (for example with publishing contract notices).

Saunders Law represents the Federation of Ethnic Minority healthcare Organisations (“FEMHO”) in the Covid Inquiry, and the group is one of the few non-state Core Participants in the procurement module. Procurement of PPE in particular is a central concern for FEMHO, whose members suffered and bore the brunt of the impact of poor procurement on the frontline. As well as the shortages of equipment faced by all healthcare workers, and the distress and moral harm this caused, ethnic minority healthcare workers faced additional specific disparities. This inquiry has already heard that “standard” face masks available in the UK were designed on a male, Caucasian face shape which often did not provide a protective fit for other ethnicities (and/or women) and that government had smaller stockpiles of PPE suitable for ethnic minority healthcare workers going into the pandemic, despite their making up a significant proportion of the frontline patient facing workforce. In Module 3, FEMHO gave evidence about the harms its members suffered including by working without adequate and suitable PPE and thus with increased exposure, some being coerced into shaving beards or removing cultural dress contrary to deeply held beliefs to obtain protection, others becoming infected, going on to develop Long Covid and in some cases tragically losing their lives.

FEMHO’s interest in this module therefore centres on whether, and if so how, structural inequalities - including seemingly scant regard for the Public Sector Equality Duty - impacted upon the decision making around, and ultimately the availability of, suitable healthcare equipment and supplies for its members. We hope to establish (in summary) a clearer picture of what consideration and engagement was given to these important issues, the urgency and resource they were afforded, what barriers if any stood in the way of resolution and how government satisfied itself it was complying with its equality law duties; all with a view to looking forwards and assisting the Inquiry in navigating towards practical solutions to reduce inequalities in future.

We offer expert legal assistance and representation in public inquiries and are well-known for our work and thorough approach to complex cases. Please contact us on +44(0)207 632 4300, or fill in our online enquiry form if you would like our assistance and we would be happy to discuss your matter with you.