The bulk of this post is a transcript of Laura Kuenssberg's interview with Doug Barrowman and Michelle Mone, broadcast on 17 December 2023, about the supply of PPE to the government's desperate attempt to tackle Covid-19. The BBC showed a short edit of the conversation on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg (starting at around 7:25) and published a longer edit on their website.
The shorter edit is shown in red, with the rest of the longer edit in blue and my comments, indented, in purple.
Even after this interview very few of the PPE contracts (of which there were over a hundred) and none of the thousands of other contracts awarded without proper tendering have come up.
Mone protests that the government is treating Barrowman and her as scapegoats. Sunak's stock answer is "The government takes these things incredibly seriously, which is why we’re pursuing legal action against the company concerned... That’s how seriously I take it and the government takes it... But it is also subject to an ongoing criminal investigation, and because of that, there’s not much further that I can add."
The last thing government wants to do is talk openly about the number of contracts they're chasing up. Or the number they've given up on because they're too hard. Or face public questions about money handed to cronies.
Dramatis personae
DB: Doug Bannerman
LK: Laura Kuenssberg
MM: Michelle Mone
The interview
LK: Baroness Mone, Doug Barrowman, let's go back in time to that terrible spring of 2020. You thought you could supply PPE - masks, gowns, equipment that was desperately needed for the government.
DB: Well, like everyone else we were in lockdown, in the Isle of Man, and Michelle and I watched the terrible scenes unfurl on television, and the clear shortage that there was in PPE. We looked at each other and we thought we can make a difference. We had strong contacts, and...
LK: A big business opportunity there as well.
DB: Yes, that wasn't the primary motivation. We wanted to do our bit. And, you know, like any supplier in any contract to government, you know, yes, there will be an element of profit, but the primary motivation was to help.
LK: What did you do then Michelle?
MM There was a call to arms for all Lords, baronesses, MPs, senior civil servants to help, because they needed massive quantities of PPE. Given the fact that I've got 25 years manufacturing experience, and that's one of the reasons why I was put into the House of Lords. I'm a brand expert etc etc. I looked at Doug and I thought, we can really, really help here. And I just know all the key players in the far east, and I made the call to Michael Gove.
LK: And what did you say to him?
MM: I just said to him - well he knows that I'm a manufacturing experience - and I just said "We can help", and "we want to help" and he was like "Oh my goodness, this is amazing".
DB: So we entered into discussions, PPE Medpro, myself - I led the consortium - of two other partners, a company based in Hong Kong, Bain & co, and a company based in the UK, Loudwater Trade and Finance...
LK: So to be really clear, PPE Medpro didn't exist before the pandemic.
DB: No. You've got three partners, they needed a vehicle to trade, and at the end of the day we weren't going to trade a company out of Hong Kong, and the British government would have preferred to always trade with a UK company. So we created PPE Medpro as a UK business so that the three partners could provide PPE to the British government.
LK: But you had a kind of VIP access, you had a cabinet minister on speed dial, you could phone up and say, "I think I can make this happen, can you put me in touch with the right people?"
MM: Yeah, well, that's what we were asked to do. But what I think the public think is that - you know - we were trying to keep it a secret**, that I was involved. Everyone in DHSC, NHS, the Cabinet Office, the government, knew of my involvement. And they asked us to both declare our interests.
** The public might think you were trying to keep it a secret because "everyone in DHSC, NHS, the Cabinet Office, the government" is not the public. As Kuenssberg tortuously demonstrates later.
LK: When you say that though, you told the government, the government was aware. Did you tell the house of Lords authorities?
MM: OK, so basically I discussed it with the Cabinet Office, and you do not declare your interest in the House of Lords if you are not a director, you're not a shareholder, you're not financially benefitting, and I discussed that with the Cabinet Office, and they said, "We just need you to put it in writing and declare your interest, with us..." That's all.
DB: I... as well.
LK But the House of Lords rules say that members have a clear duty to provide information which might reasonably be thought by others to influence their actions. Because there's a question of perception here too, and in fact the rules also say that sometimes registration of a spouse or a partner's interests is also required
MM: Right, well again Laura, I was only doing what I was asked to do. And, as far as I was aware, if you're not a director, not a shareholder, not financially benefitting then that's exactly what I did. If I was told by the Cabinet Office "No, you actually need to do this", I would have done it straight away.
DB: I'm a business guy, so I think like an entrepreneur. I don't know the parliamentary rulebook. Cabinet Office clearly felt there was a perceived conflict**, because you have an unusual situation of a husband and wife team being together. I'm the entrepreneur, I'm leading the consortium, I'm fronting the consortium, she's doing her level best to make sure the government get what they want, and obviously she was a conduit, a liaison with the consortium. I live with the woman, I'm married to the woman. It's an unusual situation. They must have been satisfied in the end to have awarded the contract, contracts. If they were not satisfied, they should never have awarded us a contract. They should have said "There's a perceived contract her, conflict here."
** I'm still not sure Barrowman really meant to say "Cabinet Office clearly felt there was a perceived conflict" because it demolishes the argument for not registering it in the Lords.
MM: I was only doing as I was told, and the Cabinet Office asked me to do that. And we had no hesitation to give, to declare our interest, and we did that straight away. And, you know, the reason why I was helping out is that I was just shocked, you know, the pandemic and running out
LK: But what's also clear is the Parliamentary rules are clear, that members of the House of Lords, or members of the House of Commons, if they have a financial interest, or a perceived conflict of interest, which you mentioned Doug, the responsibility is on them - it was on you to tell Parliament. Do you wish you had?
MM: If I knew I had to... the Cabinet Office advised me only to do this. You know, you listen to the Cabinet Office. They're in contact with all the ministers, they're in contact with the House of Lords, they're in contact with everyone. The Cabinet Office, and I was doing exactly as they asked me to do.
LK: By your own admission though, and for the reasons you've set out - you say you wanted to help, you used your contact with government ministers to help broker a commercial deal for a company that was to bring tens and tens of millions of pounds of profit for your husband, for your family, and you didn't tell the authorities in Parliament. To a lot of our viewers watching, that might sound like you were trading on your title and not following the rules, not declaring it all...
MM: No, absolutely not, and I was just acting the same way as every other baroness, Lord, who also put names forward - there was lots of us.
LK: What did you agree to provide? And how much was the contract for Doug?
DB: OK. So the first contract was to supply 210 million Type 2R masks which, the average price that was being paid at that time was 51p per mask, and our masks were 38½p. That was an extremely competitive price. Those goods were delivered on time, to specification and at the competitive price I just intimated. They were also used and fully deployed in the NHS, so there was no issue whatsoever with that contract. Off the back of the credentials that had been established with the DHSC we successfully won a second contract** to supply 25 million sterile surgical gowns.
** It only comes up much later that there was a problem with the second contract, and Kuenssberg doesn't tell us that's why she's asking questions about "something's gone wrong".
LK And how much were you paid, and how much of it was profit?
DB: The two contracts in total came to a value of £202 million, and Medpro made a return on its investment of about - realistically - about 30%.
LK: So about £60 million.
DB: Yeah, yeah, about that, yeah. That's right, or so...
LK: To a lot of people watching, making a profit of £60 million during a national emergency like a pandemic sounds not just like an enormous amount of cash, but also a bit like profiteering.
DB: Well, PPE prices during the pandemic went up five times, and a lot of our competitors were charging as I said before, on the gowns front between 7 and 12 pounds a gown. At the very start of the pandemic the government paid actually numbers way in excess of that. We cut out most of the middle people, and we dealt direct with the manufacturer.
LK: So you say you saved the government a lot of money, but you also made a lot of money. And there's nothing wrong with making money... But that is what happened, right?
DB: We made a good return for the risk involved, and the risk was considerable. We had to fund all the working capital. To fund these contracts with manufacturers you have to pay 50% up front, so on 202 million of contracts that's a lot of money. The government did not give us any deposits up front, and at one stage in the contract they owed us £74 million, and I can assure you, we were sweating. Because the government held all the cards with the contracts. Until they were happy with the outcomes, and the products that we had supplied, there was no guarantee we would get paid, so the risks were absolutely extraordinary.
LK: But when it became public that you were connected to the company, you both denied it. Why?
MM: I wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, and I regret and I'm sorry for not saying straight out "Yes I am involved" because DHSC, the NHS, the Cabinet Office, they all knew of my involvement. But I didn't want the press intrusion for my family. My family have gone through hell with the media over, you know, my career. And I didn't want another big hoo-hah in the press and my family to be involved in it.
LK: It was more than an error though. Your lawyers repeatedly told journalists who wanted to report the truth that you were not connected. Lawyers for you Doug said repeatedly you had no role or function in PPE Medpro. You've been telling us today how hard you worked to get the contracts and to make the contracts happen. Over a period of months, you said again and again that you had no connection and your lawyers even said to some journalists it would be defamatory, they'd be libelling you if they told the truth. You know, this just wasn't a slip-up...
MM: Yeah
LK: You didn't tell the truth for months on end...
MM: I think if we were to say of anything that we have done - we've done a lot of good - but if we were to say anything that we have done, that we are sorry for, and... that's not, that's... we should have told the press straight up, straight away. Nothing to hide. Everyone knew of an involvement, and we should have said to them of our involvement. And we were just trying to not have all the front covers of the pages again. For my family, and I was just protecting my family. And again, I'm sorry for that, but I wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. No-one.
LK: But that's exactly what you were trying to do. You had lawyers working for both of you, telling people, telling the public, that you had nothing to do with the company.
MM: Yeah
LK: And saying it would have been a libel to suggest that you were.
MM: But the NHS, the DHSC, the Cabinet Office. You know I wish that they would have probably come out and said, we know of their involvement. That would have helped. But yeah, it's something that we regret doing, and we listened to our advisers.
LK: What happened then, to the money, the profit you've alluded to, around about £61 million?
DB: So, I led the consortium. At the end of the day I'm an Isle of Man resident. The money comes to the Isle of Man, 'cause that's fundamentally where I live. It goes on my tax return, and like all my sources of income that I've generated over many years, it goes into trust for the benefit of my family.
LK: Was any of it used to buy a yacht?
DB: No. No.
MM: Used to buy a what, sorry?
LK: A yacht.
MM: A yacht? It's not my yacht. It's not my money. I don't have that money, and my kids don't have that money. And my children, my family, have been through so much pain because of the media, they have not got £29 million.
** The sum of £29 million has been mentioned in media reports as Mone's share of the profits, but here it comes out of the blue with no explanation from her or Kuenssberg.
LK: And this money from PPE Medpro as I understand it went into two trusts.
DB: Yes.
LK: Now one of those trusts**, called Keristal...
** At no point does Kuenssberg ask about the second trust - the other half of the profits.
DB: Yes
LK: The beneficiaries of that trust, where half of the profit went, are you [MM] and your children...
MM: And Doug's children
DB: And my children. For the benefit of all my family.
MM: I'm his wife, so I'm a beneficiary. As well as his children, as well as my children. And you know, in my will, if I die one day, my husband's in my will, my kids are in my will, so, you know, that's what couples do.
LK: You've said repeatedly you didn't financially benefit from this deal. Except, it's just a matter of time before you benefit. The trust is in your and your children's name. That is a financial...
MM: No, no...
DB: That's not true
LK: Not right now. This is exactly what I'm trying to clarify.
DB: Let's clarify. The trust is settled in my name. It's my income, it's taxed on my tax return, and I choose to put it in trust for the benefit of not just Michelle's kids but my own kids as well. Ultimately one day, because I'm not going to be on the planet for ever, someone's going to benefit from a lifetime in business and experience. Ultimately, if I'm married to Michelle, and ultimately I want to generate profit, and ultimately Michelle in some shape or form is going to indirectly benefit. And actually, if I die, one day in the future, she's going to directly benefit.
LK: As you've just said Doug, your family is benefitting - you [MM] will benefit - as a family you are benefitting from those tens of millions of pounds. Whether it's today, or in ten years or twenty years or thirty years... for most people watching this you did a deal with the government to provide more than £200 million pounds worth of PPE and your family has made tens of millions of pounds...
MM: No, not my family hasn't, Laura, made tens of millions of pounds. God forbid, if my husband decides to divorce me after this show [laughter] and takes me out of his letter of wishes, I take my husband out of my will if we - God forbid - get divorced... I don't benefit. It's my husband's money. It's his money. It's not my money, and it's not my children's money.
DB: Michelle has no access to that money, and Michelle has no discretion over that money. Unless I wanted to give everything away to strangers, or the charity or whatever, she was always going to benefit, and my family will benefit in due course. Her family benefit, my family benefit. That's what you do when you're in the privileged position of making money.
LK: Why not then just say, "Yes, I stand to benefit one day"? Rather than what you have chosen to do, which is repeatedly say "I'm not benefitting financially". You will one day. We're not talking here about someone getting a Christmas bonus and saying I'm not going to give it to my wife now, I'm going to put it in the bank and surprise her later on with a lovely family holiday or I'm going to hold that money back, because maybe one day we might be able to save the deposit for a kid's flat further down the line.
DB: Yeah, sure
LK: You've both admitted today that you will in time benefit financially from that cash. Your family as a unit will benefit from that cash. Why didn't you just be more straightforward about it?
MM: I am being straightforward about it now Laura. I'm saying to you that I didn't receive that cash. That cash is not my cash. That cash is my husband's cash.
** "I am being honest now" is not a satisfactory answer to "Why have you been dishonest until now?" but Mone keeps pleading right to the end.
LK: But do you admit...
MM: We are... It's just like my Mum... my Dad came home with his wage - you know - packet on a Friday night and given it to my Mum, so she's - you know - benefitting from that as well. But that cash is not my cash, it's not my children's cash. As the press and the attacks keep going on. And that's the problem.
LK: But do you admit that one day that money will come to you or your children?
MM: Maybe not. Maybe not. I just said it to you. Maybe not if God forbid if we get divorced after this show...
LK: But just to be crystal clear, because this is at the heart of it, and I know you want to get the facts out there, we want to be completely crystal clear. Do you admit today that with the way that you've currently got your finances set up, that one day you and your children will benefit from that money, because you right now are listed as the beneficiaries of that trust?
MM: If one day, if - God forbid - my husband passes away before me, then I'm a beneficiary as well as his children and my children. So, yes, of course
LK: How would you describe the government's overall handling of trying to get PPE during that crisis from what you saw?
MM: You know it's easy to criticise now. We were in a global pandemic. Everybody was panicking. It's appalling that over £9.1 billion was over-ordered. Five years of stock of PPE when it only has a shelf life of two years. And all I will say right now is "Why are we not holding them to account?" - the DHSC - why is there no management system, stock system, integration system? If you're running a proper business - a department store, a brand - you know your stocks, you know what's on the boat coming in, you know what's on the shop floor, you know what's in your warehouse. Why do they not know where everything is? Lying in fields all over the country, a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money. And the reason why Doug and I, my husband and I, are sitting here is because we've been a scapegoat - goats - and they have destroyed our lives for over two years because it suited them, the narrative suits them, to attack us the way they have done and at the end of the day the masks were delivered, they were high quality masks, at the best prices; the gowns were delivered, there was no issue with the gowns** - they passed them, they paid for them, they congratulated them on the quality as well...
** Even at this stage there's no hint of a problem with the second contract.
DB: I think they wanted to hold us out as the Bonnie and Clyde of PPE. It suited the narrative. They have had a one-way ticket to push that narrative because we have not fought back in two years.
LK: But you feel like your lives have been ruined the last couple of years.
MM: Yeah, of course they have. Of course they have. I mean... and the pain that's caused in our family and over - you know I think the attacks, they go up all the time, over 700 threats, you know, I'm going to throw acid over you, I'm going to burn your house down... The hatred... we've been absolutely vilified, and you know, we've only just, we've done a... one thing, which was lie to the press to say we weren't involved. No-one deserves this.
LK: So, Doug, lets then take you to a time when - as far as you're concerned, contracts have happened, deliveries have taken place, the Department of Health then gets in touch, says something's gone wrong, they try to claw back money... Tell us what then happens.
DB: OK, well obviously the gowns were delivered August 2020. Actually in October 2020 we actually had an enquiry from the government for another 2 million gowns. This time they asked us to double bag them, because they hadn't specified their preference, which was to double bag gowns as opposed to single bag. In fact 24 other UK suppliers all produced single bag gowns as well, and all had their gowns rejected as well. So we have a situation where we had a number of mediations because our view is, we supplied everything on time, to specification and at competitive prices. Any problems in contract specification were your fault, and it's very very clear that, you know, they're interested in settling**, but they want a sum of money that quite honestly we are not of a mind to pay. So I then have a separate meeting and this individual asks me, would I pay more for the other matter to go away? I was speechless. I didn't quite understand what he meant by that. The only other matter on the table was the NCA investigation, which had commenced, as far as we were aware, in April 2022. I was absolutely gobsmacked. I think it raises very serious questions as to what that official meant, what he was saying. I'm clear in my mind what he was saying. He was asking me if I would pay more money for the NCA investigation to be called off.
** Barrowman's "they're interested in settling" suggests the government is trying to "claw back money", but his explanation is so clumsy that the accusation against the "official" isn't as effective as it will need to be in court.
LK: So you're clear in your mind that a senior government official suggested that you hand over a lot of money to make a criminal investigation go away.
DB: The phrase "will you pay more for the other matter to go away" I think it leaves it in very little doubt that, was I holding back any money on the civil case when in fact I'd pay more for the other matter to go away as well
LK: That's an extraordinarily serious allegation to make. If that's what you believed was happening why didn't you go to the police at that point. If you believed a senior government official was trying to bribe** you to make a criminal investigation go away, why didn't you report it to the police then?
** Laura Kuenssberg doesn't know what "bribe" means. This is an allegation of something like extortion, certainly misuse of power.
DB: I take the advice of my legal team, and the legal team at that point in time suggested that we park that one for now**.
** Another time, I'd wonder what that says about his general regard for the law.
LK: What's the worst moment been for you?
MM: Everything... You know I'm such a strong, a strong woman, but it's relentless. As I said, it's over 800 days in the media, every day. It's the attacks, it's the threats, it's the social media, the kangaroo court, the... You know, they all think we're guilty. Guilty for what?
LK: Just a factual question** to you Doug. Are you a person of significant control in PPE Medpro?
DB: Oh, that's a tough question Laura. What I am is somebody who is a beneficiary of the trust that owns - owned - PPE Medpro. So what that means is I suppose I'm the ultimate beneficial owner - a UBO. That's a technical question you'd have to ask my accountants and family people - family office people.
LK: You've told us very candidly today that you led the consortium, you did the deal, and yet when you look up at Companies House, which is where everything's meant to be registered in a normal way, you're nowhere to be seen.
DB: In terms of my appointments they're all handled by the people in my family office. That's normal practice, and has been that way for ever.
** This "factual question" and Barrowman's family office and its relationship to Companies House has been put under the microscope by the tax specialist Dan Neidle.
LK: I think some of our viewers, though, might feel there's a bit of a pattern. At the beginning of this, the rules of the Lords say that your interests should be declared. You didn't - you say the Cabinet Office told you not to. When it first emerged that you were behind PPE Medpro you didn't tell the truth about that. Doug, you led this consortium, you've made tens of millions of pounds out of it for your family, but your name's nowhere to be found on Companies House when it comes to the business. And Michelle, you've said repeatedly you didn't benefit financially, except you've also admitted today that in time your families may well benefit from huge amounts of money. Do you think some of our viewers might listen to this and just think there's a pattern here of time and again trying to hide what really happened.
DB: Look Laura. At the end of the day I can speak for myself here and that is I'm a private person. I'm a private person. There's a reason why I live in the Isle of Man. I'm not here today to defend my record on why I am a private person and don't want anyone in the press to know of any business activity or anything I get engaged in.
LK: But Michelle, it does feel like the truth has had to be dragged out here
MM: Not really Laura, because the only thing I'd say to you is the only error that I have made is say to the press that I wasn't involved. As I said, DHSC, the NHS, the emergency Cabinet Office, they knew of all my involvement. They were calling me constantly. I was calling them. They were sending me emails constantly, over 1400 emails.
LK: But you repeatedly didn't tell the truth, your lawyers told journalists who were trying to report the truth that they would be libelling you if they told the truth. It sounds like whether it's the money, whether it's your involvement, whether it's whether you had to tell parliament, it's a smokescreen.
MM: But that's why we're here today doing an interview after two years.
LK: Do you see why the people listening might feel that?
MM: But that's why we're explaining to people
LK: What do you hope that 2024 will bring for you, legally, for your reputations and for you personally?
MM: I don't honestly see that there's a case to answer. I can't see what we've done wrong. Doug and the consortium have simply delivered a contract, a delivery, contract of goods...
LK: But after everything, you can't see what you've done wrong, when you've admitted today that you lied to the press... and by extension you lied to the public
MM That's not a crime... Laura, saying to the press that I'm not involved, to protect my family, can I just make this clear, it's not a crime. The press have got nothing to do with my family. I was protecting my family. And I think people will realize that in the press attacks that I have gone through since I walked into the House of Lords. I was a very successful individual, businesswoman, and since I walked into the House of Lords it's been a nightmare for my family. So, that's not a crime to say to the press, to tell the press what I did. That's not a crime.
LK: Doug Barrowman, Michelle Mone, thank you very much.
