“`html
The alliance behind PPE Medpro has revealed its preparedness to engage in talks with the company’s administrators to investigate a potential agreement with the government, following the High Court’s verdict that the firm is obligated to repay £121.9 million for violating its PPE contract with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
In a communiqué released to Business Matters, a representative for the alliance stated: “The partners of PPE Medpro are ready to initiate a conversation with the administrators of the company regarding a possible agreement with the government.”
This announcement comes after almost five years of legal challenges and increasing political scrutiny, with PPE Medpro having expended £4.3 million defending its stance in court — and consistently asserting that it fulfilled all 25 million gowns stipulated by the £122 million contract.
During the proceedings, PPE Medpro proposed to settle on a no-fault basis, including suggestions to either recreate the full 25 million gown order or compensate with a £23 million cash equivalent. These proposals, put forward repeatedly before, during, and even after the trial, were dismissed by the DHSC.
In contrast, a distinct £135 million claim that the DHSC lodged against Primerdesign Ltd was settled discreetly for £5 million, on a no-fault basis, mere weeks prior to trial.
Critics now contend that the government’s management of the Medpro issue has been erratic and politically motivated, particularly as the gowns provided by PPE Medpro — although deemed non-compliant with sterility standards under a technical clause — were never intended for NHS frontline use due to being single-bagged, a characteristic the DHSC reportedly neglected to specify across all gown contracts at that time.
“This situation has diverged attention from the real issue: the government’s failure to oversee PPE procurement, usage, or resale,” remarked one industry analyst.
An £85 million missed chance?
Notably, PPE Medpro has long maintained that the gowns — even though not utilized by the NHS — were suitable for deployment in non-sterile settings and could have found resale opportunities internationally.
An independent expert assessment determined that the gowns might have had a value of £85 million in the global market at the close of 2020. Nevertheless, the government made no effort to resell or repurpose them, despite holding a decade’s worth of surplus gown inventory and ultimately marking nearly £10 billion of pandemic PPE as a loss.
If the DHSC had opted to act, the net fiscal difference between contract expenditure and resale value would have amounted to just £37 million — a small fraction of the claim pursued in court.
On 2 October, Mrs Justice Cockerill determined that PPE Medpro violated the contract by failing to demonstrate that the gowns underwent a validated sterilization process, despite providing all delivery documentation and post-sterilization testing certificates.
The judge noted that the necessary documentation for radiation dose mapping — which the company later secured after dispatching investigators to China — was not presented in time for the trial. This shortcoming, she ruled, constituted a technical breach of contract, and PPE Medpro was compelled to repay the full contract sum.
Barrowman and Mone have condemned the ruling as a “travesty of justice” and accused the government of scapegoating them to divert attention from its broader pandemic procurement shortcomings.
PPE Medpro is currently under administration, and it remains unclear whether the consortium’s eagerness to renew discussions with the government will culminate in a negotiated resolution — or further legal disputes.
However, as demands for transparency regarding the government’s procurement choices intensify, the PPE Medpro saga has evolved into more than just a legal conflict — it has become emblematic of the political and fiscal repercussions of the UK’s Covid-era expenditure.
Source link
“`