Former health secretary Matt Hancock broke equality law when appointing Conservative peer Dido Harding to an emergency health job during the Covid crisis, the High Court has ruled.
Judges ruled that then-health secretary Matt Hancock failed to comply with public sector equality duty in the process of appointing Baroness Harding and her ex-Sainsbury colleague Mike Coupe to senior posts in 2020.
It marks a victory for the Runnymede Trust following the think tank’s legal battle over appointments – having argued that the jobs were handed out without fair competition.
Dr Halima Begum, head of the Runnymede Trust, said it showed the importance of equality law in protecting people “from the closed shop of government appointments”.
She added: “Across the country, there are countless talented and well qualified public health specialists and administrators who could have successfully fulfilled the roles handed to Baroness Harding and Mr Coupe.”
Two judges ruled that Mr Hancock broke the law by appointing Baroness Harding as chair of the National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP) and Mr Coupe as director of testing at Test and Trace.
The High court declared that the ex-health secretary “did not comply with the public sector equality duty in relation to the decisions how to appoint” the two senior officials.
The judgement added: “There is no evidence from anyone saying exactly what was done to comply with the public sector equality duty when decisions were taken on how each appointment was to be made.”
Lawyers representing Runnymede and the campaign group the Good Law Project suggested that people “outside the tight circle” in which senior Conservatives and their friends moved were not being given opportunities.
The legal team argued in court that people “less likely to be known or connected to decision-makers” were at a disadvantage.
However, the judges dismissed a claim by the Good Law Project that the government did not adopt an “open” process when making appointments.
They found that “the evidence provides no support” for the legal group’s claim that Baroness Harding and Mr Coupe won their appointments due to “personal or political connections with the decision-maker”.
The ruling stated: “Baroness Harding had previous relevant experience of senior positions in large retail businesses and in the NHS. Mr Coupe had vast experience of managing complex public-facing organisations.”
A spokesperson for Mr Hancock said he was “delighted” that the Good Law Project’s claims of bias on the basis of personal or political connections “have been quashed and thrown out by the High Court”.
He said: “What the judgement 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.”
Mr Hancock’s spokesperson also pointed to the court judgment stating these were “urgent recruitment processes which needed to find highly specialised, experienced and available candidates within a short space of time”.
He added: “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.”
Describing the judgement as a “landmark verdict”, Good Law Project director Jo Maugham said it should change the way the government recruits for top jobs. “Change doesn’t happen, things don’t get better for those who are disadvantaged, unless those in power care,” he said.
Mr Maugham added: “That means making sure they ask themselves: ‘How do I level society up for the disabled and ethnic minorities?’ And it means taking the time to find the best people – not the best connected people – for the job.”
Angela Rayner MP, Labour’s deputy leader, said it showed why the public inquiry into Covid should begin immediately “to uncover exactly how this government made decisions in a national emergency”.
She added: “Boris Johnson and his cabinet seem to find themselves on the wrong side of the law time after time … This time they have failed in their duties to those from disabled and Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.”
A government spokesperson said: “The judgement is clear that all claims raised by the Good Law Project were dismissed and the ruling itself stated their claim ‘fails in its entirety’. The court also found that the Good Law Project had no standing to bring any of its grounds of challenge.”
