Connect with us

Published

on

On its face, the Department of Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Limited was not a case about Michelle Mone, or VIP fast lanes, or the politics and profiteering of the pandemic years.

Rather, as the DHSC’s barrister made clear on the first morning of the first day of hearings, it was about 25 million surgical gowns sold to the NHS for £122m. Were they, or were they not, appropriately certified as sterile, and thus fit for use?

The answer, unequivocally according to Lady Justice Cockerill’s judgment, was no, leaving PPE Medpro in breach of contract, and liable to repay just short of £122m.

This case was always going to be about more than dusty contract law however. By targeting the company founded and controlled by Doug Barrowman, the husband of Baroness Mone, the DHSC was taking on the couple who encapsulated the COVID PPE scandal.

Baroness Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman. Pic: PA
Image:
Baroness Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman. Pic: PA

Her public profile as the media-friendly lingerie entrepreneur ennobled by David Cameron, blithely sharing snaps from the Lady M yacht while the country endured lockdown, and her husband’s repeated hollow denials, made them the faces of that failure.

PPE Medpro won more than £200m of contracts only after Baroness Mone used her political contacts, including Michael Gove, to introduce the firm to the government’s VIP ‘fast lane’ and short-circuit normal procurement rules.

Michelle Mone is admitted to the House of Lords after being made a Tory peer. Pic: PA
Image:
Michelle Mone is admitted to the House of Lords after being made a Tory peer. Pic: PA

She did so on the same day in May 2020 that her husband Doug Barrowman incorporated the company, and then lobbied hard over the next six months to see the deal completed. The judge described her as PPE Medpro’s “big gun”, deployed when civil servants were perceived to be holding up the deal.

When challenged the pair then lied for more than two years about their links to the company, only admitting their role after dogged reporting by The Guardian revealed not just her role in lobbying on its behalf, but the extraction of more than £65m in profit.

When challenged in a BBC interview and a self-funded documentary, Mone said that while she regretted not admitting her role, lying to journalists was not a crime.

The couple’s response to the ruling was in keeping with their approach throughout. The day before the judgment PPE Medpro filed to enter administration, with accounts showing assets of just £666,000, ensuring that any discussion about repayment will be with the administrator, not Mr Barrowman.

Read more from Sky News:
Starmer says he will take ‘no more lectures’ from Farage
Energy price cap warning as latest rise takes effect

Baroness Mone meanwhile took to social media to claim the couple had been “scapegoated and vilified” for wider failings, and shared correspondence in which they offered to settle the case for £23m.

After the judgment was delivered the baroness called it “an Establishment win”, while Mr Barrowman, whose company offered no factual evidence in court and was not called as a witness, called it a “travesty of justice”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reeves welcomes ruling on PPE contract breach

Labour ministers, led by the chancellor, praised the court’s independence even as they celebrated a judgment which, if nothing else, may remind voters of the chaos of the Boris Johnson years.

Getting the money back, the central point of the legal exercise, will be harder than stirring bad memories.

The DHSC has appointed lawyers to try and help it “recover every penny” but it is unclear how that can be achieved given Medpro’s administration.

It could choose to pursue Mr Barrowman, who boasted of huge wealth earned in fintech and lived a lifestyle to match, but it is unclear how, and whether he still has the means.

The National Crime Agency has frozen £75m of the couple’s assets as part of its ongoing investigation, and the couple are reported to have sold homes and other assets in recent years.

Asked if they might repay the profits earned, or at least the £23m offered in settlement, Mr Barrowan’s spokesman told Sky News: “The DHSC would have to negotiate with the administrators, but the backers of PPE Medpro have always tried to negotiate with DHSC and they’re happy to engage.”

Continue Reading

Business

English water firms get lowest environmental rating since records began

Published

on

By

English water firms get lowest environmental rating since records began

English water companies have collectively been given the lowest environmental rating by the Environment Agency (EA) since records began.

Companies were ranked on a scale of one to four stars. Out of a maximum score of 36 stars for all nine companies, the firms together scored 19, the lowest since the EA began monitoring.

The only utility to receive the highest four-star rank was Severn Trent, the agency said in its annual performance assessment.

The number of serious incidents, in which “significant” environmental harm was caused, increased by 60% last year compared to 2023.

Just three companies were responsible for the vast majority of incidents.

Money latest: ‘Heating on low all day’ v ‘Use when need it’ debate settled

Thames Water – the country’s biggest supplier – Southern Water and Yorkshire Water were responsible for 81% of all incidents.

More on Thames Water

Only two firms out of nine – Northumbrian Water and Wessex Water – recorded no serious incidents.

More monitoring, inspections and data have meant that knowledge of pollution in English waterways is now greater than ever. In turn, the amount of reporting has been greater.

Other factors driving the figures are underinvestment and poor maintenance of infrastructure, as well as wet and stormy weather.

Firms have again been called on by the Environment Agency to “urgently” improve their performance. There had previously been a trend of improvement since records began in 2011, but the latest figures indicated a “dip”.

In addition to pollution incidents, companies were assessed on self-reporting and compliance with permits.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Thames Water a step closer to nationalisation?

A separate report by water regulator Ofwat published on Thursday showed “mixed” performance with improvements in sewer flooding and pipe leakage, but only two companies reported a reduction in pollution incidents over five years.

Regulation of the sector has been criticised in a once-in-a-generation review of the water industry by career civil servant Sir Jon Cunliffe. In the wake of it, the government says Ofwat is to be retired.

Pressure has mounted on utilities across the UK as the public has sought action on poor water quality and rising bills.

Thames Water, in particular, is struggling under a £20bn debt pile with the government lining up insolvency practitioners.

Continue Reading

Business

Autistic volunteer told he could no longer work for Waitrose hired by Asda

Published

on

By

Autistic volunteer told he could no longer work for Waitrose hired by Asda

An autistic man who was told he could no longer stack shelves at Waitrose when he asked to be paid has been offered a job by Asda.

Tom Boyd, 28, began volunteering unpaid at the branch of Waitrose in Cheadle Hulme, Greater Manchester, in 2021, supported by a care worker, to develop skills for the workplace on a further education course he was taking.

The work gave him a sense of “purpose and belonging”, his mother, Frances Boyd, told the BBC.

When she asked in July if he could be paid for a few hours every week, however, the supermarket’s head office told him he had to stop and could not return to the shop.

Ms Boyd said they felt “deeply let down” by the decision as he had taken great pride in his work, which included putting out stock and tidying the shelves.

“If I went in and saw him, he was smiling, and it gave him independence, a sense of purpose and belonging,” she said.

“He gave over 600 hours of his time purely because he wanted to belong, contribute, and make a difference…

More on Asda

“He deserved better. He deserved kindness, respect and the chance for all his hard work to mean something.”

Mr Boyd has now been offered two paid five-hour shifts each week by Asda.

“It’s overwhelming and they are flexible to say if at any time he is struggling they are fine,” his mother said.

“How amazing that a company could do this.”

Read more:
Supermarket price war could help consumers
National Insurance hit for British supermarkets

Welcoming the news on X, Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham said he hoped it would lead to more employers accepting a neurodivergent code of best practice he has launched.

An Asda spokesperson said that when the store heard about Mr Boyd’s desire to find meaningful work they knew he would be a “fantastic fit” and were delighted to offer him a role.

“We know that finding meaningful work can be especially challenging for individuals with learning disabilities or difficulties,” they said.

“Asda has a Supported Internship Programme and partnership with DFN Project SEARCH, through which we have welcomed over 30 talented new colleagues into roles across our stores. We have seen the positive impact this has for the individuals who join and for our colleagues and customers too.”

A Waitrose spokesperson said they “care deeply” about helping people into the workplace who might not otherwise be given a chance and that the chain is currently investigating what happened to Mr Boyd.

“We’d like to welcome Tom back, in paid employment, and are seeking support from his family and the charity to do so. We hope to see him back with us very soon,” they added.

Continue Reading

Business

Power of Russia sanctions lies in US financial system that greases the wheels

Published

on

By

Power of Russia sanctions lies in US financial system that greases the wheels

US sanctions against Russia’s two largest energy companies, the state-owned Rosneft and privately held Lukoil, are perhaps the most significant economic measures imposed by the West since the invasion of Ukraine.

If fully implemented, they have the potential to significantly choke off the flow of fossil fuel revenue that funds Russia’s war machine, but their power lies not in directly denying Russia access to the tankers, ports and refineries that make the oil trade turn, but the US financial system that greases the wheels.

Ever since the invasion, the Russian government has proved masterful at evading sanctions, aided and abetted by allies of economic convenience and an oil industry with decades of experience.

Ukraine war latest: Zelenskyy expresses relief at Trump move

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

New US sanctions on Russia: What do we know?

While the West, principally the EU, has largely turned off the taps and stopped buying Russian oil, China, India and Turkey became the largest consumers, with a shadow fleet of tankers ensuring exports continued to flow.

Data from the Centre for Research into Energy and Clean Air (CREA) shows that while fossil fuel revenues have fallen from more than €1bn a day before the war, they have remained above €600m since the start of 2023, only dipping towards €500m in the last month.

None of that oil has been heading for the US, but these sanctions will directly impact the ability of the Russian companies, and anyone doing business with them, to operate within America’s financial orbit.

According to the order from the US Office for Foreign Asset Control, the sanctions block all assets of the two companies, their subsidiaries and a number of named individuals, as well as preventing US citizens or financial institutions from doing business with them.

It also threatens foreign financial institutions that “facilitate transactions… involving Russia’s military-industrial base” with direct or secondary sanctions.

Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting in Moscow.
Pic: Sputnik/Reuters
Image:
Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting in Moscow.
Pic: Sputnik/Reuters

In practice, the measures should prevent the two companies from accessing not just dollars, but trading markets, insurance and other services with any financial connection to the US.

Taken in harness with similar steps announced by the UK earlier this month, analysts believe they can have a genuinely chilling effect on the market for Russian oil and gas.

Russia’s customers for oil in China, India and Turkey will also be affected, with the largest companies, state-owned and private, expected to be unwilling to take the risk of engaging directly with sanctioned entities.

Indian companies are already reported to be “recalibrating” their imports following the announcement, which came just a week after Donald Trump announced an additional 25% import tariff on Indian goods as punishment for the country’s reliance on Russian oil.

Read more:
Russia has responded with bravado to US sanctions
Trump imposes sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil firms

That does not mean that Russian oil and gas exports will cease. There are other unsanctioned Russian energy companies that can still trade, and ever since the first barrel of oil was tapped, the industry has proved adept at evading sanctions intended to interrupt its flow from one country or another.

Any significant increase in the oil price beyond the 5% seen in the aftermath of the announcement could also put pressure on the White House, which is at least as sensitive to fuel prices at home as it is to foreign wars.

But analysts Kpler expect the sanctions to cause “an immediate, short-term hiatus in Russian crude exports, as it will take time for sellers to reorganise and rebuild their trading systems to circumvent restrictions and ease buyers’ concerns”.

And Russian gas will, for now, continue to flow into Europe, where distaste for Vladimir Putin‘s imperial ambitions has not killed the appetite for his fuel. While the EU has this week imposed sanctions on liquified natural gas (LNG), they will not be fully enforced until 2027.

Continue Reading

Trending