The High Court has this week ruled that the government did not comply with equality law when making appointments as part of its response strategy to the Covid-19 outbreak.
Judges Lord Justice Singh and Justice Swift deemed that the health secretary at the time, Matt Hancock, did not comply with a section of the Equality Act 2010 when he appointed Baroness Dido Harding and former Sainsbury’s boss, Mike Coupe, to key public sector roles involved in the pandemic response.
Tory life peer Baroness Harding was tasked by Hancock with leading the NHS Test and Trace programme in May 2020, before being named chief executive of the National Institute for Health Protection three months later.
In September 2020, Hancock then appointed Coupe as director of testing within the Test and Trace programme.
Legal action was subsequently launched by the Runnymede Trust think tank and campaign group The Good Law Project over how both individuals were handed the roles over other candidates.
Although the latter’s claims of “indirect discrimination” and “apparent bias” on the government’s part were dismissed by judges, the High Court did conclude that the appointments were made without “fair or open” competitive processes.
The Court added that sufficient evidence of compliance with “public sector equality duty” when “decisions were taken on how each appointment was to be made” was not provided.
Barrister Jason Coppel QC told the judges that candidates who applied for the roles that were “less likely to be known or connected to decision makers” were disadvantaged in the hiring process.
Dr Halima Begum, chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, said that the judgement came as a “significant” one for the public and highlighted “the importance of public sector equality duty” at a time where “people from minority communities were dying from Covid in hugely disproportionate numbers.”
In the aftermath of the ruling, Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner called for an immediate public inquiry to determine “how the government made decisions” when the nation was in the thick of the health crisis.
In a responding statement to the ruling, Hancock maintained his innocence and said he had acted quickly to save lives.
A spokesperson for the former health secretary said: “The court judgment also states that 'the evidence provides no support... at all' for the allegation that Dido Harding secured senior positions on the basis of 'personal or political connections' in the government.
“They accept these 'were urgent recruitment processes which needed to find highly specialised, experienced and available candidates within a short space of time'.
“Let's not forget, we were dealing with an unprecedented global pandemic, where time was of the essence in order to protect and save lives.”
Hancock’s statement also highlighted the fact that claims of “apparent bias” and “indirect discrimination” lodged by The Good Law Project were dismissed, accusing the campaign group of wasting the court’s time.
Photo taken from Wikimedia Commons
