Baroness Dido Harding led the Test and Trace programme until April (Andrew Parsons/10 Downing Street/Crown Copyright/PA)
(Picture: PA Media)The government’s appointments of Dido Harding and her former colleague at Sainsbury’s to top jobs in the Covid-19 response programme broke equalities rules, the High Court has found.
Baroness Harding, a Conservative peer, was appointed to lead the £37 billion NHS Test and Trace in May 2020 and then made interim chair of the National Institute for Health Protection in August 2020.
A month later, Harding’s former colleague at Sainsbury’s, Mike Coupe, was made director of testing at NHS Test and Trace.
A legal challenge to the appointments was brought by independent race equality think tank The Runnymede Trust and campaign group the Good Law Project , accusing former Health Secretary Matt Hancock of “acting unlawfully”.
Ruling on the case, Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift said Mr Coupe’s appointment and the way Baroness Harding was handed her second job “did not comply with the public sector equality duty”.
The legal challenge was mounted over two days last December, when the government was accused of running a hiring process that was not “fair and open”.
The judges ruled today that the Good Law Project did not have the right to bring a judicial review claim, dismissing it from the case, and also found that a claim against the Prime Minister did not succeed.
They said a challenge to Baroness Harding’s first appointment to head the Test and Trace programme had been brought too late, and dismissed that part of the case.
Allegations of indirect discrimination and apparent bias were rejected, but the judges concluded that the government had not shown how the equalities law was complied with.
“There is no evidence from anyone saying directly what was done to comply with the public sector equality duty when decisions were taken on how each appointment was to be made”, Lord Justice Singh said in the ruling.
He concluded by saying the declaration against the government is “in substance the same” as the claimants’ contention that “the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the public sector equality duty in the process of making the appointments.”
A decision will be taken administratively on who will pay the costs of the legal challenge.
When bringing the claim, barrister Jason Coppel QC argued that people who were “less likely to be known or connected to decision-makers” were at a disadvantage in the recruitment process.
In its submissions, the government defended the appointment of Baroness Harding to “urgently help establish the National Institute of Health Protection”, and argued it was effectively a continuation of her Test and Trace leadership role.
She has “highly specialist skills and was available at short notice to take up this appointment”, it said.
The government said Mr Coupe was appointed on an “urgent, voluntary and unpaid basis”, when 12 candidates had been shortlisted and four interviewed.
“The secretary of state was plainly entitled to make these appointments to various roles which were required to be made on an urgent and temporary basis in order to help protect public health during an unprecedented national emergency”, it said in a letter placed before the court.
Reacting to today’s judgment, a spokesperson for Matt Hancock said they are “delighted” that the claim brought by the Good Law Project was dismissed.
“What the judgment does make clear is that ‘the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety’, therefore highlighting the fact this group continues to waste the court’s time”, he 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.”
