Thread by @GoodLawProject

📢And we're off! Our hearing over Matt Hancock's refusal to provide what we believe is critical evidence on our PPE challenges has begun.

Follow this thread for live updates from Court 👇 @EveryDoctorUK goodlawproject.org/news/ppe-urgen…

First up - our barrister Jason Coppel QC will be taking the Court through our arguments:

"The Defendant has made late and only partial disclosure and has refused to provide critical information on important parts of the case against him." glplive.org/2904-c-skele

Good Law Project and @EveryDoctorUK "are left in a position of being unable fairly to interrogate and challenge the account given by the Defendant in its evidence."

This position would be deeply unsatisfactory in any litigation, but more so in this particular litigation, where there has been an obvious lack of transparency by Government in the conduct of public interest proceedings which are concerned with the transparency of its actions

One of the features of Government's disclosure provided at the end of March was that it did not contain a single text message, Whatsapp or other instant communication - Jason Coppel QC

We'll be updating our case page with the key documents throughout the Court hearing this morning: glplive.org/ppe-case

"We only found out yesterday that the Defendant had not done any searches for any text or Whatsapp messages at all. Not a single one. For relevance or for candour, at any stage." - Jason Coppel QC

The evidence refers to apparently relevant WhatsApp messages - which are missing.

It appears Government used a WhatsApp group of 200 CEOs, and another WhatsApp group for CPOs, in order to provide special communications about PPE.

Here's the schedule of the critical texts and Whatsapp messages on PPE procurement we believe are missing from Government's disclosure:

It now appears that at least 5 of the 9 PPE contracts at issue in our and @EveryDoctorUK's proceedings ‘failed’, in the sense that some or all the PPE provided under them has proved unfit for its intended purpose.

"We consider that Ayanda got to contract on special terms which other contractors didn’t get the benefit of." - Jason Coppel QC

Why was Ayanda offered such favourable terms? We were told to wait and see. But it's not dealt with in Government's evidence.

"There was a repeated pattern of obfuscation, delay, denial, ‘wait and see’, failure to provide, and now we’re told it’s too late." - Jason Coppel QC

We have good reason to be suspicious about Government's accounts in relation to the VIP Lane. The VIP Lane was not mentioned by Government in its pre-action correspondence or in its grounds in Pestfix and Ayanda - even though both of those suppliers went through it.

Jason Coppel QC representing us and @EveryDoctorUK is now taking the Court to the NAO report which clearly talks about Government's setting up a "high priority lane" in which suppliers were treated with "more urgency" 👀

Despite the clear evidence that being in the VIP Lane for PPE contracts meant you were treated with "more urgency" - Government is still trying to claim there was not any benefit of being in VIP lane.

The Government knew the VIP Lane was hindering the efficient procuring of PPE.

This NHS report entitled “‘PPE PMO Update 20 April 2020” warns: “VIP escalation is obstructing progress of more viable opportunities"

Even the very name "High Priority Lane" indicates that some VIP PPE suppliers were prioritised over others - how can Government claim otherwise?

"It is inconceivable that no minister was involved or was even informed of what the PPE cell was doing in establishing a High Priority Lane. There must have been instructions, directions, requests, from ministers, in establishing a channel on the High Priority Lane." 🔥

Jason Coppel QC, Barrister for us and @EveryDoctorUK tells the Court:

"We simply don’t accept that ministers were not involved in the establishment and operation of the VIP lane at all, - the Defendant is not telling us."

It seems highly likely there would have been communications with Ministers regarding the VIP lane, and potentially also in relation to the particular contracts.

For example, here's reference in the Ayanda disclosure to the involvement of Trade Minister Greg Hands ⬇️

You may have seen this quote from a Govt spokesperson in The Times last week: “The priority list was widely advertised across government as a way of more quickly triaging offers of support”.

This is inconsistent with its evidence today that you weren't dealt with more quickly.

We know that the Department for International Trade recommended Ayanda for inclusion in the VIP list, and we know that Mills threatened ‘escalation’ which officials interpreted as escalation to ministers on at least one occasion.

What we don’t have, and we are asking for, is comms between the DHSC and DIT regarding Ayanda which would give a fuller picture as to how this offer was promoted.

This is key to understanding what advantage Mills obtained as a result of his contacts in Government.

On Government's own admission “proportionately more suppliers coming through the High Priority Lane were awarded contracts”.

Here's what we're believe Government needs to put in the public domain⬇️

🤯this email from an official on politically connected PPE bids:

"Personally, I've found VIP cases require about three times the time of a standard case."

The barrister for the Government has just told the Court: "No request has been made of us for a list of those people awarded contracts in the High Priority Lane, as far as we aware."

Erm...🤯🤯🤯 @EveryDoctorUK