Company linked to Baroness Mone must pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE, court told
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 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
44 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Government ‘putting its money where its mouth is' with £200m for Acorn scheme
Ministers confirmed they are meeting in full the request for development funding for the Acorn project in Aberdeenshire – the first time a government has provided funding of this scale for such a project to proceed. The scheme, which proposes storing emissions from across Scotland under the North Sea, had previously been overlooked for support despite repeated calls from the Scottish Government and others for it to be backed. With the UK Government also pledging to support the Viking carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in the Humber, Mr Miliband insisted the two schemes will 'support industrial renewal' with 'thousands of highly skilled jobs'. According to the sector, Acorn could support about 15,000 jobs at its peak, with up to 20,000 jobs at the Viking project. As it develops, it is planned the Acorn site will link up with the former oil refinery at Grangemouth via more than 200 miles of pipelines. An existing 175 miles of gas pipes will be repurposed for this, with 35 miles of new pipeline also being built, allowing CO2 from the Grangemouth site to be transported to Acorn's storage facilities under the North Sea. The move is seen by many as being key in securing a future for the facility, where some 400 workers were recently made redundant. Speaking as he visited the site near Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, Mr Miliband said: 'This Government is putting its money where its mouth is and backing the trailblazing Acorn and Viking CCS projects. 'This will support industrial renewal in Scotland and the Humber with thousands of highly-skilled jobs at good wages to build Britain's clean energy future. 'Carbon capture will make working people in Britain's hard-working communities better off, breathing new life into their towns and cities and reindustrialising the country through our Plan for Change.' Mr Miliband visited the site the day after Rachel Reeves promised funding for Acorn in her spending review – although the Chancellor did not put a figure on how much support would be given in her statement to MPs. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said afterwards: 'The £200 million funding confirmed for the Acorn carbon capture project will help to support the design and preparation as it continues to progress. 'This is about revitalising our industrial communities and creating long-term economic opportunities for Scottish workers.' Tim Stedman, chief executive of Storegga, the lead developer of Acorn, said: 'We warmly welcome the UK Government's support for the Acorn project and the commitment to development funding that will enable the critical work needed to reach final investment decision.' He added the 'milestone' is 'key not only for Acorn but for establishing Scotland's essential CCS infrastructure needed to grow and scale the UK's wider carbon capture and storage industry'. Mr Stedman continued: 'We look forward to working with Government in the months ahead to understand the details of today's commitment, and to ensure the policy, regulatory and funding frameworks are in place to build and grow a world-leading UK CCS sector.' Graeme Davies, executive vice-president at Harbour Energy, which is leading the Viking project, said the commitment in the spending review 'sends a strong signal' that the project is 'an infrastructure-led economic growth priority' for the Parliament. He added: 'We will work with Government on the critical steps needed to progress Viking CCS towards a final investment decision.' However climate campaigners at Friends of the Earth said the money should instead be invested in public transport, energy efficiency and measures to support oil workers to transition to jobs in the renewables sector. Caroline Rance, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: 'This is an enormous handout of supposedly scarce public money that will only directly benefit greedy oil and gas companies. 'Politicians are paying hundreds of millions to keep us locked into an unaffordable energy system which is reliant on fossil fuels and is destroying the climate. 'Carbon capture technology has 50 years of failure behind it, so businesses, workers and the public are being sold a lie about its role in their future. 'Building new fossil fuel infrastructure will undermine the energy transition and embolden oil firms to keep on drilling in the North Sea. 'Both the UK and Scottish governments should instead be backing climate solutions that can improve people's lives such as upgrading public transport, ensuring people live in warm homes and creating green jobs for the long-term.'
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
UK ministers confident post-Brexit trade friction will be eased by deal
The movement of trade was one of the main discussions at the first meeting of the East-West Council to take place in Northern Ireland on Thursday, which was also attended by members of Intertrade UK. Earlier this month the UK Government said border checks on fruit and vegetables imported from the EU will be scrapped, to ease trade, ahead of its new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal with the EU. Secretary of State Hilary Benn, Northern Ireland Office minister Fleur Anderson and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden held discussions with First Minister Michelle O'Neill and deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly at the Custom House in Belfast on Thursday. Speaking after the meeting, Mr McFadden said the main topics were ensuring smooth trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the new Connect Fund to support community groups. He said he believed the recent agreement between the UK and EU will 'go a long way' to reducing friction and restoring the free flow of trade. Mr Benn also expressed confidence the flow of trade will be smoothed. 'It comes after a very busy period with the negotiation of the new relationship with the European Union, and one of the issues we discussed was the beneficial impact an SPS deal will have on the flow of the agrifood and plant products from GB to Northern Ireland,' he said. He added: 'The new Government was elected in July, we came in and said we want to build a closer, better relationship with the EU and you saw the result of that in the agreement that was reached at the summit a few weeks ago. 'And for Northern Ireland the single most important part of that agreement was to work together to get an SPS agreement in place because that would deal with a lot of the things that people are having to cope with at the moment in respect of agri food products and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. 'I hope that will give businesses real hope for the future, and we want to get on and put that new SPS scheme in place as quickly as possible.' Meanwhile Ms Anderson announced the Connect Fund, which will provide awards from a funding pot of up to £1 million to support groups working in sectors which directly affect Northern Ireland communities. It will be open to groups seeking to strengthening east-west connections, with bids are invited for between £300 and £50,000. Ms Anderson said it will 'support better connections between community groups and individuals of all ages between Northern Ireland and Great Britain'.'I ran a community centre before I was an MP and so I know the value that this funding will bring,' she said. 'I urge local community and voluntary groups in Northern Ireland to apply to take part in this great opportunity, and look forward to the positive changes which this fund will bring to communities in the coming years.'
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
New House of Lords front door that cost almost £10 million does not work
The project has been described as 'a complete white elephant and a disaster'. Peers heard a member of parliamentary staff had to be permanently stationed at the door to press a button to open it. It also emerged that the price tag of the project spiralled by nearly 60% from the original estimate of £6.1 million. Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said it was 'completely unacceptable' to have a door that did not work properly, and she shared the frustrations, upset 'and every other adjective' members wished to use. There was also a question over whether it would ever be fully operational, she suggested. The bill for what has been described at Westminster as 'one of the most expensive front doors in the world' was made public after peers raised concerns that their requests for the cost of the scheme had been repeatedly stonewalled by the authorities on security grounds. They also said they had warned from the start that the design would not work. Members of the Lords vented their annoyance as they heard plans for commercial procurement in Parliament to be transferred into a new joint department of both Houses. While welcoming the administrative changes, Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean pressed Lady Smith, who sits on the House of Lords Commission, over the cost of the new front door at the Peers' Entrance. He said: 'Very senior members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. 'I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. 'Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work, as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. 'We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. 'The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.' The Conservative peer added: 'I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no-one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs.' Tory former minister Lord Robathan said: 'If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked.' Lady Smith said: 'On the door itself, there are two issues, cost and operability. 'It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should.' On the cost she said there was 'wildly exaggerated and incorrect information', adding: 'It is important that we are secure, so the costs of the door are very high. It is not just the security issue but also the heritage issue. 'The initial estimate was £6.1 million for the door. That increased because it was the request of members that it should remain open during the duration of the works when the House was sitting. 'The fact that it could not be closed off to get on with the work meant the cost increased – plus some other issues around heritage were discovered. The total cost has been £9.6 million.' She added: 'That is high, but what is more serious is that, having spent that money, the door does not work. 'That is a huge frustration to everybody. 'One of the reasons that it is not the same as other security pods on the estate is that it has to be fully accessible for those who have mobility issues and wish to use mobility aids or wheelchairs. 'The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that. 'However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House. 'I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective members may wish to use.' Lady Smith told peers: 'When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.'
