I am hugely grateful to everyone who has contributed to our crowdfunder in which - along with @LaylaMoran, @CarolineLucas and @Debbie_abrahams - we are seeking to force Government to come clean about the (more than) £3bn of PPE contracts they are keeping under wraps. /1
We have lifted the stretch target to £75k. This very substantial sum is also considerably less than our exposure to costs should we fight and lose. But it is also considerably more than it will cost us if we succeed (and we believe we should). /2
I am afraid - although I have been crowdfunding for over four years - I have not yet found any comfortable way to balance this equation. Even where you can be confident any surplus will be used for good reasons it is sub-optimal for us to raise more than we need. /3
Your best comfort in donating is in knowing that we are a not for profit which does a great deal of work for which we do not crowdfund and that any surplus will be used for 'good' causes. /4
However, to that end, it's right that I tell you that after more than four years of me working to develop Good Law Project it is now in a position to pay me a salary which (I committed when we started it) will be no more than that of a backbench MP. /5
I, along with the rest of the staff team and Board of @GoodLawProject, want to do work which is brave and we want to be transparent about the terms upon which we do it. We can't do that work without your support - financial and otherwise - and you are entitled to transparency.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
At the moment I am still focusing on apparent overpayments for IIR facemasks.
This exercise is difficult because Government is - for no good reason - deliberately redacting contracts to remove all transparency over historical per unit prices paid. But sometimes it slips up.
The highest price I have yet seen paid for IIR facemasks was paid in a £69.6m contract with "Uniserve Group."
(The name of the counterparty itself is remarkable given the size of the contract - there is no legal entity called Uniserve Group. Legally, it doesn't exist.)
But, first, bear in mind that although contracts were awarded by DHSC the key triaging of bids and supplier due diligence was undertaken by Cabinet Office.
That casts a certain pall on explanations like this - provided by Ayanda to journalists - about the role of Andrew Mills.
I will return in the coming days to some correlations between highly generous pricing and relationships between the beneficiaries of that pricing and key figures in Cabinet Office.
Last night, I said that I was aware of evidence DHSC had been paying higher prices for PPE to connected suppliers. And that I was working to put that evidence into the public domain. We are in possession of a lot of evidence that suggests as much, but I can share the following.
The Ayanda contract was entered into on 29 April 2020 (you can read it here contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/Attachm…). It was entered into by Ayanda Capital Limited, owned through a particularly ugly tax haven, by the Horlick family.
However, the original offer came from Prospermill Limited, a boxfresh £100 company that had never traded and which was owned by then Board of Trade advisor (now departed), Breitbart, Liz Truss and Hard Brexit enthusiast, Andrew Mills.
By letter of 7 September 2020, Matt Hancock via his lawyers told us "this year [PPE] contracts worth over £11 billion have been awarded to date" had been awarded by DHSC.
On 4 August 2020, Matt Hancock via his lawyers told us "the PPE buying programme... is no longer operating."
By regulation 50 of the Public Procurement Regulations the Government has to - it has no discretion - publish contract award notices within 30 days.
If you might allow me the analogy, having two year waiting lists before you can be assessed to see whether you should be prescribed puberty blockers is like having five month waiting lists for an abortion. It's effectively a denial of treatment.
The consequence of denying safe, properly regulated access to puberty blockers is the same as the consequence of denying safe, properly regulated access to abortion. It drives those who need that care to riskier providers and massively increases the dangers to them.
And every attempt to remove a provider from the field - @TaviAndPort and now @GenderGP - makes life more dangerous for those who need that care. It will cause - directly and indirectly - massive harm to children.
The effect of making it impossible for transgender kids to access regulated wrap-around healthcare in the UK was to drive them and their families to piece together bits and pieces of healthcare from across jurisdictions and administer it with the help of YouTube videos...
... this is plainly more dangerous for those kids and their families.
But for the hobbyists who treat the bodies of transgender kids as a battleground for their political beliefs - who think they know better than actual experts - this is not enough. They are now working to...
... disrupt that patchwork (which for many in the UK includes @GenderGP) of care.
The inevitable result of this is that transgender children and their families will access treatment (readily available throughout the liberal world with the exception of the UK) via the dark web...