“`html
Baroness Michelle Mone has accused Chancellor Rachel Reeves of employing “hazardous and incendiary” terminology, mere days after a High Court judge determined that PPE Medpro — a business associated with Mone and her spouse, Doug Barrowman — must reimburse £122 million for violating a Covid-era PPE agreement.
In a public letter addressed to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, reviewed by Business Matters, Baroness Mone asserts that a statement allegedly made by Reeves at a fringe event of the Labour Party Conference has directly jeopardized her personal security. When queried about the government’s stance on the PPE Medpro issue, Reeves is said to have responded: “Absolutely we do,” referring to whether the government held a “vendetta” against Mone.
“The assertion made by your Chancellor is inflammatory and has significantly heightened the threats to my personal security,” Baroness Mone wrote. “Following her comments, my social media has erupted with menaces and vitriol.”
The reaction comes in the wake of Wednesday’s High Court decision, wherein Mrs Justice Cockerill determined that PPE Medpro defaulted on its contractual duty to provide sterile surgical gowns during the pandemic. The judge concluded that the company did not sufficiently exhibit that the gowns underwent a validated sterilization procedure, as stipulate by the contract.
The firm — established by a group led by Doug Barrowman — secured the contract in 2020 after being recommended through a VIP procurement channel by Baroness Mone herself.
PPE Medpro disputes any allegations of misconduct and asserts that the gowns were sterile at the time of delivery. Previously, the company had proffered to recreate all 25 million gowns or pay £23 million in resolution — propositions the DHSC turned down.
Mone: “Vendetta” assertion endangers family
Baroness Mone is presently seeking a formal retraction from Rachel Reeves, alongside an independent probe into whether ministers or civil servants have improperly swayed the National Crime Agency (NCA), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), or the ongoing civil litigation procedures.
“The term ‘vendetta’ connotes vengeance, feud, and blood feud,” she stated. “It has rendered me and my family feel insecure… We need only recall the tragedies of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess to grasp the perils of such thoughtless phrasing.”
She further indicated that if no measures are enacted, she will contemplate legal remedies, including possible claims for defamation, harassment, and misfeasance in public office.
Baroness Mone, who was appointed to the House of Lords by David Cameron in 2015, continues to be on a leave of absence from the Lords and lost the Conservative whip following media investigations regarding her connections to PPE Medpro.
In the aftermath of the court ruling, there have been bipartisan calls for her peerage to be rescinded. Although such a step would necessitate an Act of Parliament, prominent figures — including Chancellor Reeves and Conservative frontbencher Kemi Badenoch — have publicly asserted that Mone should not rejoin the Lords.
In reaction to Mone’s correspondence, a Treasury source remarked to the press: “When both the Labour Chancellor and Conservative leader are in agreement, you’ve lost your case.”
As public and political scrutiny escalates, and £122 million is due by 15 October, PPE Medpro and the couple behind it now face increasing legal, financial, and reputational pressures.
Simultaneously, Baroness Mone’s accusation of political bias — along with the claim that Reeves’ statements have spurred genuine threats — prompts concerns regarding how ministers express themselves during ongoing legal issues, and the safeguards in place to protect public figures from danger.
The Prime Minister has yet to publicly address Baroness Mone’s letter.
Source link
“`