BARONESS Michelle Mone has conceded she made an “error” in publicly denying her links to the PPE Medpro firm being investigated by the National Crime Agency (NCA).
The Conservative peer and Ultimo bra tycoon launched a public defence on Sunday over the controversy surrounding “VIP lane” contracts during the coronavirus pandemic.
PPE Medpro was awarded Government contracts worth more than £200 million to supply personal protective equipment after she recommended it to ministers.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has since issued breach of contract proceedings over the 2020 deal on the supply of gowns.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer praise for Margaret Thatcher ‘worst move’ in Scotland
Lady Mone told a YouTube documentary that she and her husband Doug Barrowman would be cleared, arguing they have “done nothing wrong”.
She had initially denied having any links to PPE Medpro but admits in the film: “I made an error in what I said to the press.
“I regret not saying to the press straight away, ‘Yes, I am involved.’ And the Government knew I was involved.”
The film, part of a public fightback, was funded by PPE Medpro, according to the Sunday Telegraph, which reported on the documentary.
She claimed it is “100% a lie” to suggest she was not transparent with officials, and the pair claimed a “DHSC negotiator” suggested the case could “go away” for the right sum.
Lady Mone, who was made a peer by Lord David Cameron in 2015, argued she is being used as a scapegoat by the Government for its own Covid failings.
READ MORE: Tory right deliver legal blow to Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda plan
“I am ashamed of being a Conservative peer given what this Government has done to us,” she told The Telegraph.
Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove, who allegedly had involvement in the contract process, insisted that “ministers did not take individual decisions” on pandemic contracts.
Gove told the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme: “Those decisions were taken after a painstaking process by teams of civil servants who assess the worthiness of any contract that’s put forward.
“So the suggestion, which some have put forward, that somehow ministers were seeking deliberately to do favours, or line the pockets of other individuals, I think is totally unjustified because the decisions were only taken after a proper, coherent and fair procurement process.
“As with any procurement process, might it sometimes be the case that the goods which have been bought turn out to not to be adequate – that is deeply regrettable but that is a consequence of what happened at pressure.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel