JACOB Rees-Mogg has attacked the lawyer leading the case against Matt Hancock's department for failing to publish details of billions of pounds' worth of coronavirus-related contracts.
The Good Law Project, led by Jo Maugham, took legal action against the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) for its “wholesale failure” to disclose details of contracts agreed during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The High Court found Hancock's department acted unlawfully for not publishing information related to the contracts.
It was revealed by The Guardian last week that Alex Bourne, a former pub landlord and neighbour of Hancock, is now under investigation by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
WATCH: SNP MP exposes Tory cronyism as minister praises efforts of Matt Hancock
The lucrative contract saw Bourne's company, Hinpack, produce tens of millions of vials for the NHS from its production site on an industrial potato farm complex in Cambridgeshire.
Prior to the pandemic, Hinpack made plastic cups and takeaway boxes for the catering industry.
Speaking in the Commons, Labour MP Valerie Vaz said: "Mr Speaker, we gave the Government the powers they wanted because they were in the middle of a crisis but what we didn't know was that the Government was going to throw an invisibility cloak over some of the transactions.
"I want to thank the Good Law Project for upholding the rule of law. It seems that only your friends, those in your social circle or in your economic circle need apply. You could have no previous experience like the new chair of office of students. Why does it take a judgement to publish the names?
"What is a technical breach? I don't think the judge actually mentioned technical breach. The Health Secretary has been found to have acted unlawfully so could you please come to the house and explain it?"
Rees-Mogg responded: "It does tie in with what the right honourable lady was saying about the award of contracts. The award of contracts needed to be done swiftly and effectively and that is why the vaccine roll-out has been such a triumph."
He went on to call Maugham an "infamous fox murderer", referring to the incident last year where he killed a fox after it became trapped in the protective netting around a hen house in his garden.
Maugham said that the incident “wasn’t a great deal of fun” and that he “didn’t know what else to do”.
READ MORE: Cherry Case lawyer sorry for ‘distressing’ tweet after attacking fox with a bat
Rees-Mogg went on: "[Maugham] is not somebody I'm particularly interested in. He is fussing and wasting his time over the fact my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, was getting on with PPE, rather than getting officials to spend time filling out forms to keep this fox murderer happy.
"I really don't think that is a good use of Government time and, as my right honourable friend has said, it is a technical breach and it was going to be put right in due course anyway."
He concluded: "It was a fortnight late when very pressing business was being attended to and I'm afraid the opposition cannot have its cake and eat it ... they want to have the success of the vaccine project without the award of contracts swiftly so I think this is a completely inconsistent position."
Maugham responded to the video saying he is not a "fox murderer", saying: "Characteristically evasive and hypocritical of @Jacob_Rees_Mogg. He supports the killing of animals for fun, for sport. I do not."
He linked an article saying Rees Mogg's country estate hosted a meeting about fox hunting.
Characteristically evasive and hypocritical of @Jacob_Rees_Mogg. He supports the killing of animals for fun, for sport. I do not. https://t.co/JJW5LeqpbO
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) February 25, 2021
Maugham went on: "The personal attacks from @Jacob_Rees_Mogg won't make the scrutiny of his Government's misspending go away. They reveal merely how much his Government abhors what scrutiny represents."
The personal attacks from @Jacob_Rees_Mogg won't make the scrutiny of his Government's misspending go away. They reveal merely how much his Government abhors what scrutiny represents.
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) February 25, 2021
The MHRA investigation into Hinpack was reportedly launched after officers from the local South Cambridgeshire council passed on some concerns reported to them about hygiene and safety standards around the end of January.
Bourne made headlines in 2020 after it was revealed that he offered his services to the Health Secretary through a personal WhatsApp message.
Hancock had been friends with Bourne for several years who ran the village pub with his wife in Thurlow, a few hundred yards from Hancock’s former constituency home.
The Health Secretary was a supporter of the pub, attending its reopening after refurbishment in 2016 and nominating it for an award in 2017.
READ MORE: 'Coincidence' Tory donors given billions in Covid contracts, Matt Hancock says
Allegations against Hinpack include whether it is upholding appropriate regulatory standards with sources saying there was a period of months early in the operation when production workers did not have permanent toilets or access to running water to wash their hands.
There are also allegations of workers failing to follow strict hygiene protocols.
Bourne’s lawyers said all of these allegations were “untrue” and suggested they may have been made maliciously.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel