Michael Gove's Involvement in Dyson's Ventilator Bid Under Scrutiny at Covid Inquiry
Former cabinet minister denies allegations of pressuring health regulators during the pandemic response.
The UK Covid-19 inquiry has revealed assertions that Michael Gove sought to bypass regulatory procedures to expedite James Dyson's proposal for NHS ventilators during the early stages of the pandemic.
As chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Gove faced questioning regarding his actions and communications related to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Counsel to the inquiry, Richard Wald KC, presented an email from Graeme Tunbridge, director of devices at the MHRA, which expressed concerns that the Cabinet Office was eager to advance Dyson's bid on an unrealistic timeline.
The email indicated that the Cabinet Office failed to appreciate the risks associated with manufacturing and deploying ventilators, suggesting a desire to circumvent the established expedited regulatory processes.
When asked if he had attempted to exert pressure on the MHRA, Gove firmly denied the allegation, stating, "It’s ludicrous to think that any minister could have done" such a thing.
He elaborated on the improbability of ministers deliberately pushing for potentially dangerous medical devices to meet arbitrary deadlines.
Gove acknowledged that Dyson's prototype did not pass testing and emphasized his commitment to safety.
In further evidence, communications from Gove's office instructed that the MHRA should ensure that Dyson's product was tested, approved, and ready for human testing by a specified deadline.
Gove responded to queries regarding these instructions by asserting he could not and would not dictate an approval to MHRA, framing the wording as a hopeful aspiration rather than an order.
Senior civil servant John Manzoni expressed concern during a meeting with Gove, Dyson, and other officials, suggesting that undue pressure might be influencing the MHRA's approval process.
Manzoni stated that he felt compelled to intervene to protect the integrity of the regulatory process.
Additional communications disclosed during the inquiry revealed tensions among officials regarding the approval process for Dyson's ventilator design.
Gareth Rhys Williams, then the chief commercial officer at the Cabinet Office, reported feeling that Gove's demands were unreasonable and indicative of political pressure on the MHRA to approve testing timelines.
Gove maintained during the inquiry that the attention directed towards Dyson's proposal did not detract from the government's ability to explore alternative bids for ventilators.
The scrutiny of Gove's role in this matter continues as the inquiry seeks to understand the broader implications of government actions during the pandemic.
The discourse around Dyson's involvement has also included statements from the firm, indicating that the company faced significant costs and did not anticipate making a profit from ventilator production.
Dyson's representatives noted that the shift in medical understanding regarding ventilator efficacy contributed to the cancellation of orders made by the UK government.
As chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Gove faced questioning regarding his actions and communications related to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Counsel to the inquiry, Richard Wald KC, presented an email from Graeme Tunbridge, director of devices at the MHRA, which expressed concerns that the Cabinet Office was eager to advance Dyson's bid on an unrealistic timeline.
The email indicated that the Cabinet Office failed to appreciate the risks associated with manufacturing and deploying ventilators, suggesting a desire to circumvent the established expedited regulatory processes.
When asked if he had attempted to exert pressure on the MHRA, Gove firmly denied the allegation, stating, "It’s ludicrous to think that any minister could have done" such a thing.
He elaborated on the improbability of ministers deliberately pushing for potentially dangerous medical devices to meet arbitrary deadlines.
Gove acknowledged that Dyson's prototype did not pass testing and emphasized his commitment to safety.
In further evidence, communications from Gove's office instructed that the MHRA should ensure that Dyson's product was tested, approved, and ready for human testing by a specified deadline.
Gove responded to queries regarding these instructions by asserting he could not and would not dictate an approval to MHRA, framing the wording as a hopeful aspiration rather than an order.
Senior civil servant John Manzoni expressed concern during a meeting with Gove, Dyson, and other officials, suggesting that undue pressure might be influencing the MHRA's approval process.
Manzoni stated that he felt compelled to intervene to protect the integrity of the regulatory process.
Additional communications disclosed during the inquiry revealed tensions among officials regarding the approval process for Dyson's ventilator design.
Gareth Rhys Williams, then the chief commercial officer at the Cabinet Office, reported feeling that Gove's demands were unreasonable and indicative of political pressure on the MHRA to approve testing timelines.
Gove maintained during the inquiry that the attention directed towards Dyson's proposal did not detract from the government's ability to explore alternative bids for ventilators.
The scrutiny of Gove's role in this matter continues as the inquiry seeks to understand the broader implications of government actions during the pandemic.
The discourse around Dyson's involvement has also included statements from the firm, indicating that the company faced significant costs and did not anticipate making a profit from ventilator production.
Dyson's representatives noted that the shift in medical understanding regarding ventilator efficacy contributed to the cancellation of orders made by the UK government.
