The NAO’s investigation into government procurement during the pandemic, published last November, found that a high-priority lane was established by a cross-government team to assess potential PPE leads from politicians and government officials. The PPE team considered that “leads from these sources were more credible or needed to be treated with more urgency”.
The NAO also found that there were no criteria for referrals to the high-priority lane and that the source of the referral was not always recorded. Fewer than 250 sources for the leads were recorded, 144 of which came from the private offices of ministers.
In further emails obtained by openDemocracy, the Cabinet Office told the NAO how it can rely on a particular FOI exemption to avoid releasing the company names. It added: “This is of course a matter for you.”
It went on to say: “We are also exploring whether other exemptions may also apply.”
The Cabinet Office has also rejected openDemocracy’s request for the names of suppliers that were placed in the high-priority lane, saying that it could deter potential future bidders.
It added that releasing the names of ministers and officials who referred companies to the high-priority lane would “make it less likely that individuals would provide the Cabinet Office, and/or other parts of government, with commercially sensitive information in the future”.
‘Government’s responsibility to decide’
In its investigation, the NAO only revealed the names of two companies that obtained contracts through the high-priority lane: Ayanda Capital and Pestfix, which was put in the lane by mistake. In December, the Guardian revealed the name of another company – PPE Medpro – that won a government contract through the high-priority lane.
In late April, the Good Law Project revealed the names of four more companies that were awarded contracts through the VIP lane.
A National Audit Office spokesperson said: “It would not be appropriate for us to release all data provided to us by the government, or for the audit process to be the method by which this data is obtained. It is the government’s responsibility to decide whether it should release the information it holds and the FOI Act provides the route for challenging these decisions.”
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “We have been working tirelessly to deliver PPE to the frontline.
“The government issued a public call to action to support the increased requirements of PPE, resulting in over 24,000 offers of support from over 15,000 suppliers. These offers were prioritised based on volume, price, meeting clinical standards and the time required to deliver those items. All leads, no matter from what channel, went through the same eight-step process, including quality checks, price controls and other due diligence.”
This piece was edited on May 25 to reflect that EveryDoctor is a co-claimant in the VIP lane legal challenge.
Comments
We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.