Matt Hancock acted unlawfully over pandemic contracts

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
The key phrase is "within 30 days", there's no suggestion that the contracts haven't now been published, just that at the time there was so much effort going into sourcing PPE and so many new contracts being generated the DHSC fell behind in publishing some of them.

Personally I'm surprised that some on the left think the government should delay the acquisition of PPE during a national emergency to ensure that various administrative "I's" and "T's" are dotted and crossed, but I guess they just think headlines are more important than saving lives.
 
Last edited:

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
It's a non-issue IMHO as is the direct award of contracts for PPE, which is likely to have been necessary under the circumstances at the time. Of course they could have awarded through a Framework Agreement where a suitable one was already in place, but to adhere to a normal Procurement process would have been prohibitive, in those circumstances and essentially resulted in the failure to achieve the objective.... Some times you just have to accept that it's a needs must type situation and you need to angle whatever options are available..... And, frankly, if that includes calling in favours from mates, then so be it.
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
The key phrase is "within 30 days", there's no suggestion that the contracts haven't now been published, just that at the time there was so much effort going into sourcing PPE and so many new contracts being generated the DHSC fell behind in publishing some of them.

Personally I'm surprised that some on the left think the government should delay the acquisition of PPE during a national emergency to ensure that various administrative "I's" and "T's" are dotted and crossed, but I guess they just think headlines are more important than saving lives.
Nice obfuscation 👍

Many of those contracts still haven't been published, now heading for a year later

And the Government tried its damndest to get the case struck out so that the evidence would not be seen.

Government has to be fleet of foot and transparent, if all these contracts had been published a couple of months later, there would have been no issue.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
Nice obfuscation 👍

Many of those contracts still haven't been published, now heading for a year later

Really? That surprises me, do you know which contracts haven't been published?

Also are these large value contracts or relatively small ones?

In any event, AFAIK, the law doesn't require them to publish the contract itself, only the contract award notice that contains some very basic details, presumably that has been done.


And the Government tried its damndest to get the case struck out so that the evidence would not be seen.

Well the government seems to have complied with it's legal obligations albeit a little bit late, the case doesn't seem to seek any kind of legal remedy for the delay in publication, it is thus simply a political stunt and a waste of the taxpayers time and money, I'm actually slightly surprised it wasn't struck out.


Government has to be fleet of foot and transparent, if all these contracts had been published a couple of months later, there would have been no issue.

Presumably the CAN's have been published and the legal position brought in order, as to the rest presumably has had one or two other things on it's plate that they thought were more important than strict compliance with non-statutory government policy.
 

spudgun

Well-known member
And they spaffed £200,000 of tax payers money up the wall on legal fees, attempting to defend the indefensible - well, just trying to kick it into the long grass really to avoid scrutiny.

If you like your elected government to be secretive, evasive and duplicitous, I bet you can`t believe your luck....
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
Really? That surprises me, do you know which contracts haven't been published?

Also are these large value contracts or relatively small ones?

In any event, AFAIK, the law doesn't require them to publish the contract itself, only the contract award notice that contains some very basic details, presumably that has been done.




Well the government seems to have complied with it's legal obligations albeit a little bit late, the case doesn't seem to seek any kind of legal remedy for the delay in publication, it is thus simply a political stunt and a waste of the taxpayers time and money, I'm actually slightly surprised it wasn't struck out.




Presumably the CAN's have been published and the legal position brought in order, as to the rest presumably has had one or two other things on it's plate that they thought were more important than strict compliance with non-statutory government policy.
No, you are right, I do apologise for expecting the government to abide by the Law.

It's all over the news if you need details, please help yourself.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
In any event, AFAIK, the law doesn't require them to publish the contract itself, only the contract award notice that contains some very basic details, presumably that has been done.

The standard process would be to Publish a Contract Notice in the first place describing the nature of the contract itself. You'd then invite bids via ITT and the Award notice would be issued following final award.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
The standard process would be to Publish a Contract Notice in the first place describing the nature of the contract itself. You'd then invite bids via ITT and the Award notice would be issued following final award.
Yes, but none of that was done. It was literally handed over to companies set up in the previous month owned by family or friends of family.
 

Old_Laytonian

Well-known member
I voted Conservative but Hancock acts unlawfully by actually breathing. Picture the scene in our house watching BBC Breakfast , “we now have an interview with Matt Hancock. “ Get that twat off” I shout and put Sky Sports News on. Phew, calm
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Yes, but none of that was done. It was literally handed over to companies set up in the previous month owned by family or friends of family.
Well the first bit couldn't have been done, purely from a practical perspective.... It takes several weeks to perform the process as prescibed by regulation.

In terms of options for a quick award, you would either use a Framework to Direct Award (and I doubt an appropriate one would have existed) or you bypass the system. I would say that in practical terms that it was necessary and justified to bypass the normal procurement process.

There's no reason why an award notice shouldn't have been published though and whilst the overiding circumstances might be an excuse for delay, that notice should have been posted.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
There's no reason why an award notice shouldn't have been published though and whilst the overiding circumstances might be an excuse for delay, that notice should have been posted.

As far as we know the CAN's were published albeit late, the case seems to be soley about the delay.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
And yes I’ve had a drink and you don’t get any more interesting
I appreciate you repeating yourself again... I'm just not sure why you feel the need to say the same thing over and over. Why do I have such an effect on you?

I mean, the thought to dig you out, would never cross my mind.

Do you think you have an inferiority complex... Small penis type of thing?
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
You still couldn’t reply in one sentence though could you.
Nope...That's what twatter is for... Like I said before, if you struggle reading more than one word a week, don't concern yourself with my posts...

So what cheap Aldi plonk are you getting ratted on tonight then?
 

Thelaneends1

Well-known member
It's a non-issue IMHO as is the direct award of contracts for PPE, which is likely to have been necessary under the circumstances at the time. Of course they could have awarded through a Framework Agreement where a suitable one was already in place, but to adhere to a normal Procurement process would have been prohibitive, in those circumstances and essentially resulted in the failure to achieve the objective.... Some times you just have to accept that it's a needs must type situation and you need to angle whatever options are available..... And, frankly, if that includes calling in favours from mates, then so be it.
Agreed.
 

Seasider3610

Well-known member
Well the first bit couldn't have been done, purely from a practical perspective.... It takes several weeks to perform the process as prescibed by regulation.

In terms of options for a quick award, you would either use a Framework to Direct Award (and I doubt an appropriate one would have existed) or you bypass the system. I would say that in practical terms that it was necessary and justified to bypass the normal procurement process.

There's no reason why an award notice shouldn't have been published though and whilst the overiding circumstances might be an excuse for delay, that notice should have been posted.


x3 I’m surprised you are backing the thieving Torys in this.

Boris has just dodged the question 4 times in the last hour. The contracts have not been published due to the fact that it would show that companies were set up to procure PPE by the Tory connected.

Why didn’t they use UK companies already in the H&S PPE field? They didn’t cos there was millions to be made by setting up their mates.

If you recall it was such a mess in the beginning that they told everyone that masks didn’t work solely because they didn’t organize the PPE for the NHS workers. So the general public didn’t go out and buy masks 😷

Massive fuck up and now it comes to light they stole all the money by overcharging for the PPE as well. 😡
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
What everyone is missing here is, legal or not, it's an artificially created problem due to a system that now solely benefits the private sector.

The main question is not whether Hancock acted legally but why stocks were so desperately inadequate to begin with.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
The main question is not whether Hancock acted legally but why stocks were so desperately inadequate to begin with.

The asymptomatic transmission problem.

They had enough stock to cope with expected patient numbers, but because they couldn't be sure who had the disease they had to treat all patients as Covid infected, as well as supplying it to care homes, the demand was simply far beyond what anyone had expected.
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
The asymptomatic transmission problem.

They had enough stock to cope with expected patient numbers, but because they couldn't be sure who had the disease they had to treat all patients as Covid infected, as well as supplying it to care homes, the demand was simply far beyond what anyone had expected.
I'm sure you are right. After all, we didn't really have a Pandemic planning exercise in 2016, and ignored the recommendations, did we?
 

ElBurroSinNombre

Well-known member
My favourite episode of Only fools and Horses is the one where Matty-boy, who looks like your daughter's first boy-friend who has a car, buys a load of hooky PPE gear for £30 million off his mate geezer Dave who runs the local boozer. Later on a disappointed Matty-boy finds out that the PPE gear is completely useless and didn't protect our NHS heroes after all! Hapless Matty-boy then has a lot of explaining to do.
Lovable rogues eh - after all it's only tax-payers money!
 
Last edited:

Seasider3610

Well-known member
The asymptomatic transmission problem.

They had enough stock to cope with expected patient numbers, but because they couldn't be sure who had the disease they had to treat all patients as Covid infected, as well as supplying it to care homes, the demand was simply far beyond what anyone had expected.

They didn’t supply the care homes though did they.

During the first lockdown with very few vehicles on the road they still couldn’t get the PPE to the hospitals when they needed it never mind the Care Homes FFS.

It’s been a dog show since day one. There was no asymptomatic problem in the beginning because no one knew about it 🙄

To be fair the Tory tea leaves seem to have got the vaccine sorted though ...... 💰

I think it would be interesting to see how many brand new PPE supply companies were set up in Feb, March, April last year and who the directors are. Boris dodged those questions yesterday afternoon 🤡
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
I'm sure you are right. After all, we didn't really have a Pandemic planning exercise in 2016, and ignored the recommendations, did we?

Exercise Cygnus

I'll save you the trouble, there is no indication that PPE stocks were insufficient and overall the conclusion was that there was a robust system of response in place.

Also looking at the recommendations it's far from clear that they have been ignored.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Exercise Cygnus

I'll save you the trouble, there is no indication that PPE stocks were insufficient and overall the conclusion was that there was a robust system of response in place.

Also looking at the recommendations it's far from clear that they have been ignored.
If we were well stocked for PPE why the fuck were we outlaying billions of pounds on extra? Mainly through newly formed companies with as much experience of the market as my Aunt Doris.
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
Exercise Cygnus

I'll save you the trouble, there is no indication that PPE stocks were insufficient and overall the conclusion was that there was a robust system of response in place.

Also looking at the recommendations it's far from clear that they have been ignored.
That report, by the standards of Whitehall reports, was utterly damning of preparedness, lack of current plans, training, coordination. Anyone reading that with a level of responsibility, ie the Minister, should have then implemented a programme for all the above, including consumables. There has always been a national strategic reserve, and if any action had been taken after this damning report, it would have been dealt with, alongside bringing operational planning up to date, training and hierarchies of decision making. And let us not forget, this has been under the watch of the Tory Government for the last 11 years.

I see on the news this afternoon that yet another batch of masks has been withdrawn for further investigation. Investigation into Matt's mate who ran his local pub, vials produced not up to spec, again reported 2 days ago. How can anyone possibly support this? And if you do, I have some Unicorn eggs I can supply at a really Low Cost.
 

catinstalbans

Well-known member
T
The asymptomatic transmission problem.

They had enough stock to cope with expected patient numbers, but because they couldn't be sure who had the disease they had to treat all patients as Covid infected, as well as supplying it to care homes, the demand was simply far beyond what anyone had expected.
They were warned in February about asymptomatic transmission from Italy but chose to ignore it.
It also does not explain the failure to keep the pandemic stockpile up to date by cycling within the NHS meaning millions of items of PPE had expired and useless.
 

TSSeasider

Well-known member
Didn't Exercise Cygnus basically say we would be overwhelmed and between 150,000-200,000 deaths would occur in about 3 months and then life would get back to normal. So HMG add the Civil Service crapped themselves and ignored it going it wouldn't happen?

Thing is, we've got about the same number of deaths over a longer period at the cost of about £400bn.
 
Top
X