TWO UK Government departments told the official spending watchdog not to reveal the names of firms that had access to a "VIP lane" to win Covid contracts.
It was recently revealed that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Cabinet Office "requested" that the National Audit Office (NAO) not reveal names on a high-priority list which were 10 times more likely to get government contracts to supply personal protective equipment (PPE).
A list of 493 suppliers was not published by the NAO after the intervention from the UK Government departments.
In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from openDemocracy, the NAO said the departments had “requested” that it keep the list of suppliers – including 47 suppliers that were awarded contracts – private because its release “would have a detrimental impact on both suppliers and [the departments’] own commercial operations”.
Releasing the information would have been damaging to the NAO's relationship with government, the watchdog said.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson must publish sleaze report into Caribbean holiday, SNP demand
It is the latest in a long list of evidence showing that the Tory government granted preferential treatment to a VIP list of businesses that contacted officials privately rather than going through official channels.
During a legal challenge brought by the Good Law Project, emails showed civil servants were "drowning in VIP requests” that did not hold the right certificates or "pass due diligence”.
It was also revealed that the government’s bank was concerned about the level of due diligence carried out by DHSC before millions were handed out through the VIP lane.
A report by the Public Accounts Committee earlier this year revealed the total value of contracts awarded to suppliers through the VIP lane was £1.7 billion.
Jolyon Maugham (above), director of the Good Law Project, said: “There's something very troubling about a situation where the National Audit Office – a body that exists to ensure public money is spent properly – understands its role to be conditional on having a good relationship with those doing the spending. How can we be confident that it will expose wrongdoing where it does so only by consent?”
Emails seen by openDemocracy showed that the Government told the NAO that releasing the names would lead to "reputational damage" to the firms on the VIP list due to the majority of media and public attention being "extremely negative".
A government official added: “We consider that it would compromise the suppliers concerned, and also the DHSC itself.”
Transparency International has called for full transparency over the VIP lane with their recent report finding that knowledge of the lane appeared to be ”confined to only those within the party of government in Westminster”.
The group's head of research and investigations, Steve Goodrich, said that “full disclosure should help prove ministers have nothing to hide”.
The NAO's investigation into government procurement during the pandemic, published in November, 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.
The Cabinet Office has also refused to release names of suppliers, telling openDemocracy that it could deter potential future bidders and added that releasing the names of ministers and officials involved in referrals would affect the prospect of individuals and companies sharing "commercially sensitive information" with the Government in future.
READ MORE: Half of UK voters believe the Tory government has a 'culture of sleaze'
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 DHSC 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."
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