The UK Covid public inquiry has commenced its fifth phase with four weeks of hearings focused on the procurement and distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the pandemic. With approximately £48 billion spent on PPE, hospital supplies, the test-and-trace program, and the vaccine rollout, scrutiny is intensifying around the government's purchasing decisions and actions during the health crisis.
According to Transparency International, nearly 10% of contracts related to this pandemic response were awarded to companies with ties to the Conservative government at the time, intensifying accusations of favoritism and mismanagement.
Among the major concerns raised by bereaved families is the inquiry's decision not to bring representatives of PPE suppliers forward for questioning. This omission has led some to assert claims of potential "whitewashing" of supplier accountability. Lobby Akinnola, who lost his father to the virus, remarked, "If people are not called to give evidence, then how are we ever going to know what went wrong? Covid cost the lives of nearly 250,000 people in the UK, and if we don't take every step we can to learn from mistakes, we are going to leave a weakness in our response."
The inquiry, led by Baroness Hallett, will explore the contract process including the controversial use of the "VIP lane"—or high priority lane—established to expedite the awarding of contracts to suppliers recommended by ministers or high-ranking officials. Introduced amid urgent needs during the pandemic, this expedited lane has drawn criticism for generating unequal access to government contracts based on connections rather than merit.
A National Audit Office report revealed the stark difference between the success rates of suppliers vying for contracts through this VIP lane—where 10% secured contracts—compared to less than 1% for other suppliers. Over £14.6 billion was spent on PPE, including masks and gowns, which raises significant questions about procurement judgment during dire times.
The bereaved families’ demands for supplier accountability appear to be met with reluctance from the inquiry, where the focus seems to center on the governmental approach to procurement offers rather than accountability from companies. A spokesperson acknowledged this strategy by stating, "Our role is not to pursue criminal investigations..." highlighting the boundaries set around supplier testimonies.
Another layer of complexity arises with Baroness Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman, whose firm PPE Medpro was awarded over £200 million worth of government contracts following Mone’s recommendation. Despite their attempts to participate more directly as "core participants" of the inquiry so they could access evidence and respond to criticisms, their request was denied by the inquiry chair, who noted their role was not significant enough within the wider investigation parameters.
"Whilst Medpro was a significant supplier of PPE to the UK government, it was but one of several suppliers," Baroness Hallett stated, underlining the inquiry's aim to evaluate governmental actions rather than focusing extensively on individual suppliers.
The intensity of scrutiny falls heavily on the role political patronage played during the crisis. Pete Weatherby KC, representing Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, echoed these sentiments, stating, "We lament the lack of opportunity to question suppliers!" Uninvited suppliers are suggested to remain unaccountable, allowing potential misconduct to slip through the cracks, fostering mistrust among those impacted most by the pandemic.
Indeed, evidence has surfaced indicating connections between political endorsements and contract awards, prompting experts to argue this practice undermined fair competition and transparency. Data indicates PPE obtained via the VIP lane proved more expensive—80% higher than items obtained through standard channels, with half deemed unfit for use.
The inquiry will also look at the ventilator purchases, including the questionable dealings surrounding Sir James Dyson, who was contacted by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to offer ventilators amid shortages. The correspondence outlined potential negotiations involving marketing these ventilators internationally, raising alarms over ethical standards expected during such an urgent health crisis.
During the hearings, Dyson's spokesperson defended the company’s actions, stressing they had no intention of profiting through goodwill gestures, and asserting no government funds were claimed related to the ventilator initiative.
Baroness Hallett has previously stated she will adhere to the approach of not collecting evidence directly from commercial suppliers involved, and the inquiry may yield future sessions addressing care sector effects, the economy, and governmental decision-making cycles surrounding public health directives.
The inquiry’s investigations symbolize the increasing demand for accountability and clarity on government decisions during one of the most consequential public health crises of modern times. Whether those calls for transparency will be met remains uncertain as families continue to seek justice and answers.
Despite its challenges, the inquiry is determined to shine light on the procurement processes amid significant public interest and the need for enhanced future preparedness and ethical governance.