PS122m Tory Peer Linked To Government-Funded Firm For PPE Purchased For PS46m

ADVERTISEMENT

PPE Medpro was suggested to be exempted from standard rules as its products were manufactured under “very specific and precisely agreed processes” in accordance with the contract’s annexures.

A draft label for PPE Medpro’s dresses that included a BSI number has been also leaked to The Guardian. It is unknown when or by whom the label was created. The final label does not appear to have been used.

It is essentially identical to the last inspection report. The only difference is that it displays the number 2797, which is the official identification mark of BSI’s Netherlands branch.

A spokesperson for BSI stated that PPE Medpro had not been authorized to use the certification number and that the incident had been reported to the Dutch regulator, the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate: “We can confirm PPE Medpro does not belong to BSI. We have reported the misused of our notified number to IGJ.

PPE Medpro didn’t respond to Guardian questions about the label’s origin, purpose, whether it was ever presented to the DHSC and why it allegedly displayed an unauthorized BSI #. According to the firm’s lawyer, there was no wrongdoing.

The lawyer stated that all sterilization documentation had been required by the DHSC prior to shipment and that the gowns were taken from a sterilization facility it had approved.

The gowns were delivered to a Daventry PPE depot. There they were inspected and approved by the MHRA and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

While the DHSC did not explain why the gowns were refused, mediation with PPE Medpro continues. A spokesperson for the MHRA stated that the gowns were rejected by the supply chain following a series of checks by the MHRA as well as the DHSC which showed they weren’t double-wrapped.