Matt Hancock looked almost unrecognisable as he sported a new look to attend the Covid inquiry in London today.
The former health secretary, 46, looked vastly different from his days in the jungle on I’m A Celeb in 2022, which saw him cut a lean figure and longer hair.
Today Mr Hancock donned a sleek navy blue suit and satin pink tie as he gave evidence to the inquiry’s fifth module, which is exploring pandemic procurement.
He described criticism of the so-called ‘VIP lane’ contracts granted to some suppliers during the pandemic as ‘wholly naive’ to the circumstances the country faced at the time.
He also claimed the line of questioning on the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the inquiry could have ‘a material consequence’ on the response to future crises.
Inquiry counsel Richard Wald cited previous evidence which described the ‘VIP lane’ as ‘problematic from a broader perspective’.
The statement said there were ‘alternative measures that could have been put in place without creating preferential treatment at triage stage’ and said there was ‘no consideration given to the risk of de facto differential treatment’.
Asked for his comment on the statement, Mr Hancock said: ‘What I would say about that particular paragraph that you read out is that it is wholly naive as to the circumstances that we face.’
He added: ‘The point about naivety is really, really important.
‘It’s fine having academics write papers about this stuff, and some of the academic analysis of how you could do better in a future pandemic is really, really valuable.
‘But it can only have any value at all if you understand what it was like. You know, you weren’t there. This professor wasn’t there. But you’ve got to understand what it was like.
‘The pressure to save lives is intense, but so is the reality that high-quality offers will come through and be sent through to senior decision makers, and you have to have a process for dealing with that.’
Tory peer Baroness Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman are facing controversy over ‘VIP lane’ contracts.
PPE Medpro, a consortium led by Mr Barrowman, was awarded government contracts worth more than £200 million to supply PPE after Lady Mone recommended it to ministers.
Mr Hancock went on: ‘I didn’t design this process. I’ve no reason to defend it but I do care that this is done well in future.’
The at-times tense evidence session led to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett stepping in to reassure Mr Hancock there was no ‘hostility’ in the line of questioning.
He apologised for being ‘impassioned’, adding: ‘I have been subject to enormous amounts of conspiracy theories about what went on here when, in fact, what happened was so many people working as hard as they could to save lives, and they bought more PPE as a result, and therefore people are alive who would otherwise be dead.
‘And frankly, I’m incredibly proud of the people who themselves have felt under attack because of the way that questions have been put, which does have a material consequence on future responses to a pandemic.’
He added that he worries that ‘well meaning but naive people’ will lead to ‘more bureaucracy in a future emergency procurement than is relevant at the time’.
‘If we’re going to invent something now, let’s invent something that is going to actually work when the proverbial hits the moving object.’
Mr Hancock was also questioned about the then government’s ‘call to arms’ in April 2020, which urged businesses to use their manufacturing or procurement powers to aid the response to the crisis.
He admitted it ‘led to more pressure’ as the government ‘was inundated with offers’ but the result was more PPE.
‘And considering that there was such a lack of PPE and we came, as you know, later, within hours of running out as a country, I think a marginal as he put it, even if it was only a marginal improvement in the supply of PPE, I would take it,’ Mr Hancock said.
He also told the probe that offers came before the call to arms ‘because it was so obvious that the country needed more PPE’.
‘I had the head of the Royal College of Nursing, somebody who previously had owned a pub in my village, the editor of the Daily Mail, Martin Lewis from Money Saving Expert,’ he told the inquiry.
‘I had all these people contacting me saying ‘we’ve got kit, can we help?’. That’s what happened.’
Earlier in the day, former health minister Lord Bethell was asked about an email from Mr Hancock from June 2020 asking him to speak to Alex Bourne, who he called a ‘very impressive guy’.
Mr Hancock then faced questions about his involvement in helping Mr Bourne obtain a multimillion-pound contract to supply test tubes for NHS Covid-19 testing.
Mr Hancock said Mr Bourne was a constituent and had run a pub in his village.
The former health secretary was asked if it would ‘have been helpful or necessary or protective of others’ to have described his relationship with Mr Bourne, or if he thought that was unnecessary.
He replied: ‘Totally unnecessary given the context. What mattered was, in this case, seeing whether this analysis that he put forward was reasonable.’
Meanwhile, Lady Mone said lawyers representing her husband and her had sent a third letter ‘demanding action and accountability’ from the inquiry after they were denied ‘core participant’ status in the hearings.
The couple have claimed they are being subjected to an ‘establishment cover-up’ after the inquiry’s chairwoman denied their application, which she said had been made ‘significantly out of time’.
Their first bid for special access, which came 468 days after the deadline of November 17, 2023, was rejected at the end of February, and their second bid also failed.
The special status would have granted the peer, 52, and Mr Barrowman, 59, access to documents, the ability to suggest questions via their lawyers, and get advance notice of the inquiry’s report.
A hearing related to the firm will take place in private after Lady Hallett said she was satisfied there was a risk of prejudice to potential criminal proceedings if ‘sensitive’ evidence was heard in public.
Lady Mone and Mr Barrowman have both denied wrongdoing.
The peer said on Wednesday her legal team had sent a letter to the inquiry saying: ‘We invite the chair to urgently reconsider her previous largely technical, procedural and timing objections to our clients’ applications to participate… This is an occasion when there can be no higher priority than to right an obvious injustice and allow the truth to emerge, in full view of the British public, without secrecy and lies, for the very first time.’
