A health watchdog claimed that Michael Gove sought to “circumvent” the regulatory process to expedite a bid by James Dyson to supply ventilators to the NHS during the pandemic, the UK Covid-19 inquiry has heard. The NHS Ventilator Inquiry is examining whether undue pressure was placed on regulators to approve Dyson’s ventilator model.
Gove, who was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the time, denied attempting to pressure the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) into approving the ventilator. He insisted that the urgency of the situation required swift action but denied bypassing regulatory safeguards.
What Did the Internal MHRA Email Say?
Reading from an email sent by Graeme Tunbridge, the MHRA’s director of devices in March 2020, the counsel to the inquiry said:
“CDL was keen to press forward with Dyson’s proposal to a timescale that is totally unrealistic, based in part on promises made by Dyson that are already not being fulfilled. In addition, however, CDL did not appreciate the level of risk involved in the manufacture and use of ventilators and wanted to circumvent the expedited regulatory process that has been put in place.”
The email suggested that officials within the MHRA felt that government ministers were overly eager to push the project forward without a full understanding of the necessary safety assessments. This claim became a focal point in the NHS Ventilator Inquiry.
Did Gove Attempt to Override the MHRA?
When asked if he had sought to override the role of the MHRA, Gove responded:
“No, and it’s ludicrous to think that any minister could have done. Just imagine the situation, if you will. A minister—Matt Hancock, I, Boris Johnson—says we want to have a potentially lethal machine in hospitals deliberately so that we can meet an arbitrary deadline. It’s inconceivable.”
He added that Dyson’s prototype ultimately ‘did not get through testing’ and maintained that he would always accept expert assessments regarding safety concerns raised in the NHS Ventilator Inquiry.
Was Gove More Involved with Dyson’s Proposal Than Others?
The former minister admitted to having more direct involvement with Dyson’s proposal than with other applicants but insisted:
“I could not tell the MHRA what to approve and would not.”
The inquiry was also shown an extract from an email sent by Gove’s private office, which read:
“MHRA and GRW [Gareth Rhys Williams, then the chief commercial officer at the Cabinet Office] to ensure that by the end of Friday, the Dyson product has been tested and approved by MHRA, a small number of products have been provided to hospitals for human testing, and the final product has started to be manufactured. GRW to escalate any blockages to ministers.”
When questioned about why his office appeared to expect MHRA approval within three days, Gove responded:
“I could not tell the MHRA what to approve and would not. I think that this is the private office’s shorthand for ‘we would hope that it had been tested and, if tested satisfactorily, approved by the MHRA to that timescale.’
“It’s absurd to imagine that I or any other minister would instruct the MHRA, an independent regulatory agency, to approve a product. If I had told the MHRA to approve a product, they would have told me where to get off.”
Did Civil Servants Raise Concerns About Pressure on the MHRA?
The NHS Ventilator Inquiry also revealed that John Manzoni, a senior civil servant in the Cabinet Office at the time, had expressed concerns about indirect pressure being placed on the MHRA.
“I felt I had to, and did, intervene in this meeting to ensure that the MHRA approval system, as the regulatory system, was properly applied and to protect the integrity of the process,” Manzoni stated.
In a separate exchange on March 25, 2020, Rhys Williams wrote that he felt Gove was “being unreasonable.”
“Even if he was correct that we had delayed anything, which I don’t believe he is at all, his tone is … regrettable. But see below. It would appear that the Dyson sample is not yet ready to be shipped by them. MHRA could have been testing something else this evening.”
These revelations have raised further questions about the government’s decision-making process during the early stages of the pandemic and whether efficiency was prioritized over safety.
Did Dyson’s Proposal Divert Resources from Other Bids?
Gove told the NHS Ventilator Inquiry that he did not believe time and effort spent on Dyson’s ventilator proposal meant that other bids suffered as a result. However, some critics argue that focusing heavily on Dyson’s bid may have diverted critical resources from other manufacturers who were also developing ventilators.
Several reports suggest that while multiple companies had been working on ventilator production, Dyson’s bid received a disproportionate level of attention. Gove’s close association with the project has led to speculation about whether political connections played a role in decision-making.
Was Dyson Motivated by Profit?
The inquiry previously heard that Lord Agnew, a former Treasury minister, had warned that ventilators might need to be bought from Dyson “so that he [could] then market [them] internationally” as “being used in UK hospitals” after James Dyson spoke to Boris Johnson.
However, a Dyson spokesperson defended the company’s involvement, stating:
“Sir James Dyson responded to a personal call from the prime minister … to develop and make a medical-grade ventilator in 30 days during the national emergency. Dyson had no intention of manufacturing ventilators for profit. Far from receiving any commercial benefit, there was significant commercial cost to Dyson, which diverted 450 engineers away from commercial projects.”
The spokesperson added that treatments evolved, reducing the need for mass ventilator use, leading to the UK government canceling its order.
Despite these assurances, critics argue that the close relationship between Dyson and senior government officials raises ethical concerns about how contracts were awarded and whether the standard procurement process was followed.
What Are the Wider Implications of This Inquiry?
The NHS Ventilator Inquiry is part of a broader effort to evaluate the UK government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Questions have been raised about whether political influence affected procurement decisions and whether officials acted in the public’s best interest.
The findings of the inquiry could have long-term implications for government accountability and transparency in emergency decision-making. If it is determined that ministers exerted undue pressure on regulators, it could lead to calls for stricter oversight on how medical equipment is approved during crises.
The controversy surrounding Dyson’s ventilators is just one aspect of the broader pandemic response being examined. The inquiry continues, with further evidence expected to shed light on how key decisions were made and whether lessons can be learned for future public health emergencies.
Add a Comment