Connect with us

Published

on

Baroness Michelle Mone should “see sense” and not return to the House of Lords after she admitted she stands to financially gain from a government-linked PPE deal during the pandemic, a minister has told Sky News.

Baroness Mone told the BBC she lied about her links to a PPE firm that was awarded contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

She took a leave of absence from the House of Lords in December 2022, saying she wanted to “clear her name”.

Politics latest: Baroness Mone ‘should have declared’ interest in PPE firm

Pressed by Sky News’ Kay Burley on whether someone who had admitted to lying should be allowed back into parliament, energy minister and Tory peer Martin Callanan said: “I would hope that she would see sense.”

The minister added: “It is a matter for her to decide… [but] I would hope she would not be coming back to the House of Lords.”

Asked if it was okay for a Tory peer to lie like Baroness Mone had admitted to, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said there was “a limit” to what he could say due to legal proceedings.

But he insisted he and the government “take all these things incredibly seriously”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

“Should an acknowledged liar have the rights to make laws for all of us?” asks @KayBurley

Michael Gove is also facing calls to answer questions before MPs over PPE firm Medpro after he was name-checked by Baroness Mone in her first major broadcast interview since the scandal emerged.

Baroness Mone, who was appointed to the Lords by David Cameron in 2015, said she contacted Mr Gove at the start of the pandemic following a “call to arms for all Lords, baronesses, MPs, senior civil servants, to help, because they needed massive quantities of PPE”.

Mr Gove was chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the COVID pandemic struck.

Michael Gove  leaves 10 Downing Street
Pic:AP
Image:
Pic: AP

“I just said, ‘We can help, and we want to help.’ And he was like, ‘Oh my goodness, this is amazing’,” Baroness Mone told the BBC.

Shadow cabinet office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds has now called on Mr Gove to answer questions following her claim.

In a letter to Mr Gove, he said: “This series of events has led to civil litigation and a National Crime Agency investigation.

“Yet these ongoing matters should not preclude you from addressing questions about your own involvement and the role of the government.

“Events so far expose a shocking recklessness by the Conservative government with regard to public money, and a sorry tale of incompetence in relation to the so-called ‘VIP Lane’ for procurement during the pandemic.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Mone admits ‘error’ by denying link to PPE firm

Mr Thomas-Symonds said Mr Gove should answer questions about the so-called “call to arms” and what further communications he had with Baroness Mone.

“The very least Conservative ministers owe is maximum possible transparency and there should be an urgent statement to parliament before the Christmas recess,” he added.

Read more from Sky News:
Who is Michelle Mone and what is the PPE controversy?
‘It’s scary… we have nowhere to go’: The families homeless this Christmas
Warnings of Christmas getaway delays – find out where hotspots are

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Labour on MedPro row

The National Crime Agency is investigating PPE Medpro, while the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has since issued breach of contract proceedings over a 2020 deal on the supply of gowns.

In the BBC interview, Baroness Mone insisted that lying to the media is “not a crime”.

She admitted she stands to benefit from a deal between the government and the firm, which was awarded contracts worth more than £200m to supply PPE after she recommended it to ministers.

She also conceded she made an “error” in publicly denying her links to the firm.

She owned up to being is a beneficiary of her husband Doug Barrowman’s financial trusts, which hold around £60m of profit from the deal, but said the couple have been made “scapegoats” for the government’s wider PPE failings.

Click to subscribe to Politics at Jack and Sam’s wherever you get your podcasts

Baroness Mone has repeatedly denied that she profited from the deal.

She told the BBC: “If one day, if, God forbid, my husband passes away before me, then I am a beneficiary, as well as his children and my children, so, yes, of course”.

The baroness added she did not mean to fool anyone, despite admitting the couple misled the press about their involvement.

Millions of gowns supplied by the company were never used by health services and the DHSC is still seeking to claw back some of the money.

The couple insist the gowns were supplied in accordance with the contract.

A DHSC spokesman said: “We do not comment on ongoing legal cases.”

Continue Reading

Business

Apple sued by Which? over iCloud use – with potential payout for 40 million UK customers

Published

on

By

Apple sued by Which? over iCloud use - with potential payout for 40 million UK customers

Consumer rights group Which? is suing Apple for £3bn over the way it deploys the iCloud.

If the lawsuit succeeds, around 40 million Apple customers in the UK could be entitled to a payout.

The lawsuit claims Apple, which controls iOS operating systems, has breached UK competition law by giving its iCloud storage preferential treatment, effectively “trapping” customers with Apple devices into using it.

It also claims the company overcharged those customers by stifling competition.

The rights group alleges Apple encouraged users to sign up to iCloud for storage of photos, videos and other data while simultaneously making it difficult to use alternative providers.

Which? says Apple doesn’t allow customers to store or back-up all of their phone’s data with a third-party provider, arguing this violates competition law.

The consumer rights group says once iOS users have signed up to iCloud, they then have to pay for the service once their photos, notes, messages and other data go over the free 5GB limit.

More on Apple

“By bringing this claim, Which? is showing big corporations like Apple that they cannot rip off UK consumers without facing repercussions,” said Which?’s chief executive Anabel Hoult.

“Taking this legal action means we can help consumers to get the redress that they are owed, deter similar behaviour in the future and create a better, more competitive market.”

Apple ‘rejects’ claims and will defend itself

Apple “rejects” the idea its customers are tied to using iCloud and told Sky News it would “vigorously” defend itself.

“Apple believes in providing our customers with choices,” a spokesperson said.

“Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible – whether it’s to iCloud or another service.

“We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anti-competitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”

It also said nearly half of its customers don’t use iCloud and its pricing is inline with other cloud storage providers.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

How much could UK Apple customers receive if lawsuit succeeds?

The lawsuit will represent all UK Apple customers that have used iCloud services since 1 October 2015 – any that don’t want to be included will need to opt out.

However, if consumers live abroad but are otherwise eligible – for example because they lived in UK and used the iCloud but then moved away – they can also opt in.

The consumer rights group estimates that individual consumers could be owed an average of £70, depending on how long they have been paying for the services during that period.

Apple is facing a similar lawsuit in the US, where the US Department of Justice is accusing the company of locking down its iPhone ecosystem to build a monopoly.

Apple said the lawsuit is “wrong on the facts and the law” and that it will vigorously defend against it.

Read more from climate, science and tech:
The almighty row over climate cash that’s about to boil over
Oil state Azerbaijan is ‘perfectly suited’ to hosting a climate summit, says Azerbaijan

Big tech’s battles

This is the latest in a line of challenges big tech companies like Apple, Google and Samsung have faced around anti-competitive practices.

Most notably, a landmark case in the US earlier this year saw a judge rule that Google holds an illegal monopoly over the internet search market.

The company is now facing a second antitrust lawsuit, and may be forced to break up parts of its business.

Read more: Google faces threat of being broken up

FILE PHOTO: The logo for Google LLC is seen at their office in Manhattan, New York City, New York, U.S., November 17, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo
Image:
File pic: Reuters

And in December last year, a judge declared Google’s Android app store a monopoly in a case brought by a private gaming company.

“Now that five companies control the whole of the internet economy, there’s a real need for people to fight back and to really put pressure on the government,” William Fitzgerald, from tech campaigning organisation The Worker Agency, told Sky News.

William Fitzgerald at Lisbon's Web Summit, where he spoke to Sky News
Image:
William Fitzgerald at Lisbon’s Web Summit, where he spoke to Sky News

“That’s why we have governments; to hold corporations accountable, to actually enforce laws.”

Continue Reading

Business

Homebase deal leaves 2,000 jobs at risk

Published

on

By

Homebase deal leaves 2,000 jobs at risk

The jobs of more than half of the workforce at the DIY chain Homebase are at risk after the retailer’s owners called in administrators following a failed attempt at a sale.

Sky News reported earlier on Wednesday that around 1,500 people were set to keep their roles as 75 of the 130 stores were set to be snapped up by the saviour of Wilko in a so-called pre-pack deal.

The Range, also a general merchandise specialist, was confirmed as the buyer later in the day.

Teneo, which is handling the process, is understood to have been working to find a buyer for as many of the chain’s sites as possible.

Teneo said in a statement on Wednesday afternoon that up to 70 stores were confirmed to be included in the deal – saving up to 1,600 jobs out of 3,600.

It leaves 2,000 jobs at risk.

Forty-nine other stores will continue to trade while alternative offers are explored.

Sources told Sky’s City editor Mark Kleinman that there had been many expressions of interest in the remaining stores, despite the gloom being felt across the retail sector over the higher tax take demanded in the budget.

The sector has warned of higher inflation and job losses arising from the measures, which include increased employer national insurance contributions and minimum wage levels.

The pre-pack deal – which typically allows a buyer to cherry-pick the assets it wants – brings to an end a six-year ownership of Homebase by Hilco, the retail restructuring specialist.

Teneo had initially been attempting to find a buyer for the whole Homebase business.

The partial sale comprises all those stores in the Republic of Ireland and the Homebase brand and its e-commerce business.

Read more on Sky News:
Post Office faces backlash over proposed job cuts
P&O’s cost of firing and replacing workers revealed

The Range is part of CDS Superstores, which is controlled by the businessman Chris Dawson – nicknamed “the Del Boy billionaire” because of the distinctive number plate on his Rolls-Royce Wraith.

Last year, it paid £7m to buy the brand and intellectual property assets of Wilko, which had collapsed into administration.

Since then, Mr Dawson has opened a string of new Wilko outlets.

Continue Reading

Business

P&O spent £47m sacking and replacing 786 mainly British seafarers in 2022

Published

on

By

P&O spent £47m sacking and replacing 786 mainly British seafarers in 2022

P&O Ferries spent more than £47m summarily sacking hundreds of seafarers in 2022, helping it cut losses by more than £125m and putting it on a path to profitability, according to accounts due to be published in the coming days.

The dismissal of 786 mainly British seafarers, and their replacement with largely non-European agency staff earning as little as £4.87 an hour, was hugely controversial, drawing criticism from across the political spectrum and threats of a consumer boycott.

The controversy was rekindled last month when Sky News revealed that DP World, P&O‘s Dubai-based parent, considered withdrawing a £1bn investment at its London Gateway port following criticism of P&O by the Transport Secretary Louise Haigh.

Read more: Why P&O Ferries’ pariah status may never change

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Chancellor quizzed over P&O ferries

P&O has always maintained the restructuring was necessary to allow it to compete with its rivals on cross-Channel routes, and prevent a total collapse of the company with the loss of more than 2,000 jobs.

In financial statements for P&O Holdings, filed 11 months late and seen by Sky News, the company says the restructuring cost £47.4m including legal fees and consultants, allowing it to cut the overall wage and salary bill by £21.3m.

In a note accompanying the accounts submitted to Companies House, P&O’s directors describe the restructuring as part of a “transformational journey” that will help it return to recording a profit before tax this year.

“The business has been on a transformational journey as it has recovered from the challenges of the global pandemic, Brexit and the impact of disruption caused by the change in the crewing model,” the directors say.

“The group believes that the transformational actions that commenced in 2022 and continue through into 2024 will equip the business to grow profitably when demand rises in the coming years.”

Read more:
Boss admits he couldn’t live on wage his staff are paid
Fury as firm behind sackings given major freeport role

Brexit and COVID financial distress

The accounts reveal the financial distress in which P&O found itself in 2022.

Having recorded losses of £375m the previous year as it struggled to recover from the pandemic-era decline in passenger numbers and post-Brexit complications, it was in breach of its covenants to external lenders underwriting the construction of new hybrid cross-Channel ferries.

Despite the restructuring costs, revenue increased by £83.3m to £918m in the financial year, but the company still recorded a loss of £249m and was reliant on loans totalling £365m from parent company DP World to remain a going concern.

An additional £70m was made available this year, with 4.5% interest rolled up and not requiring any repayment until 2028 at the earliest.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The financial statements also reveal that P&O was forced to sell one of the new cross-Channel ferries to a French subsidiary to pay off an external financing loan of £76.9m, and then lease the vessel back from its ultimate owner.

In a statement, P&O Ferries said: “Our 2022 financial accounts show the challenges faced by the business at that time, and why the business needed to transform into a competitive operator with a sustainable long-term future.

“P&O Ferries has taken steps to adjust to new market conditions, matching our capacity to demand, and adopting a more flexible operating model that enables us to better serve our customers.”

Continue Reading

Trending