Newly elected MLCs given Isle of Man government department roles
The three newest members of the Manx parliament's upper chamber have been assigned roles within the government's treasury, home affairs and health departments.Gary Clueit, Kirstie Morphet and Peter Reid were all sworn in for their five-year terms as Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) at a ceremony on Tuesday.Meanwhile it has been confirmed that Rob Mercer, who has secured re-election to the council, will no longer serve in the Department of Home Affairs (DHA).Fellow MLC Tanya August-Phillips has stepped down from her role within the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and will take on a post in the Department of Enterprise.
'Improving services'
Clueit, a businessman and lay member of the Housing and Communities Board, has been appointed to the Treasury replacing Bill Henderson, who failed to secure re-election to the council earlier this month.After more than 20 years as a social worker, Morphet replaces Mercer in the DHA.A government spokeswoman said Mercer was "supportive of the change".No decision about any future appointment for him had yet been made, the spokeswoman added.Reid has become a member of the DHSC, replacing August-Phillips, who gave notice that she was to step down from departmental duties after the recent council election. In her new role within the Department for Enterprise, she will focus on the work of the Finance Isle of Man agency.Her work in the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture will continue.Deputy Chief Minister Jane Poole-Wilson thanked members for their contributions.She said she looked forward to working with newly appointed MLCs "as we focus on the challenges of delivering and improving services".
Read more stories from the Isle of Man on the BBC, watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer and follow BBC Isle of Man on Facebook and X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
16 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Court: Michelle Mone-linked firm must pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE
The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Both have denied wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it 'categorically denies' breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company has been 'singled out for unfair treatment'. Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: 'This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. 'It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns.' The gowns were purchased at the height of the pandemic but have never been used (Image: PA) Mr Stanley said in written submissions the 'initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone', with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained 'active throughout' the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had 'years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains'. But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were 'not part of this case', which was 'simply about compliance'. He said: 'The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody.' In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a 'validated process', attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said 'none of those things happened', with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: 'Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. 'On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs.' READ MORE: In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the 'only plausible reason' for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to 'the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject', after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not 'representative of the whole population', meaning 'no proper conclusions may be drawn'. He said the DHSC's claim was 'contrived and opportunistic' and PPE Medpro had been 'made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors' by the department. He said: 'It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. 'In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money.' He also said there was a 'delicious irony' that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had 'zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case'. Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and Baroness Mone did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company 'categorically denies breaching its obligations' and will 'robustly defend' the claim. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
Wales Online
16 hours ago
- Wales Online
Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE, High Court hears
Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for 'faulty' PPE, High Court hears PPE Medpro is being sued for an alleged breach of contract over the supply of PPE during the Covid pandemic, with the Government claiming the gowns were unusable The company in court is linked to Baroness Mone (Image: PA Archive/PA Images ) A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were "faulty" because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Any wrongdoing has been denied. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it "categorically denies" breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company had been "singled out for unfair treatment". Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: "This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. Article continues below "It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns." Mr Stanley said in written submissions the "initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone", with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained "active throughout" the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had "years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains". But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were "not part of this case", which was "simply about compliance". He said: "The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody." In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October, 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December, 2020, and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a "validated process", attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said "none of those things happened", with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: "Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. "On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs." In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the "only plausible reason" for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to "the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject", after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not "representative of the whole population", meaning "no proper conclusions may be drawn". He said the DHSC's claim was "contrived and opportunistic" and PPE Medpro had been "made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors" by the department. He said: "It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. "In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money." He also said there was a "delicious irony" that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had "zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case". Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company "categorically denies breaching its obligations" and will "robustly defend" the claim. Article continues below The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
Daily Record
17 hours ago
- Daily Record
Michelle Mone-linked company should pay back £121m for 'faulty PPE'
The Department of Health and Social Care is suing the firm for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns. A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were "faulty" because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Both have denied wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it "categorically denies" breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company has been "singled out for unfair treatment". Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: "This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns." Mr Stanley said in written submissions the "initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone", with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained "active throughout" the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had "years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains". But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were "not part of this case", which was "simply about compliance". He said: "The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody." In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a "validated process", attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said "none of those things happened", with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: "Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs." In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the "only plausible reason" for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to "the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject", after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not "representative of the whole population", meaning "no proper conclusions may be drawn". He said the DHSC's claim was "contrived and opportunistic" and PPE Medpro had been "made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors" by the department. He said: "It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. "In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money." He also said there was a "delicious irony" that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had "zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case". Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and Baroness Mone did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company "categorically denies breaching its obligations" and will "robustly defend" the claim. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
