Baroness Mone. Pause, and let the words sink in. The blonde business titan who established the Ultimo bra brand — for which her own impressive embonpoint was the best advertisement — would not once have been an obvious candidate for the Lords. But it says a good deal about the debasement of the second chamber from David Cameron on that the ennoblement of any woman, however unimpressive — the young and inexperienced, as well as the tacky — occasions no surprise whatever. Lord Cameron is, right now, engaged in important work marshalling an international response to Israeli actions in Gaza. But when he can spare the time, perhaps he could let us know what it was about the generously endowed bra tycoon that qualified her to feature in his resignation honours list. No doubt he admired the entrepreneurial feistiness that enabled Michelle Mone to lift herself up by her bra straps from a deprived background in Glasgow to success and riches. But to the Lords?
It would seem to be precisely the ruthless, contacts-exploiting self-aggrandisement that got her into the Lords that characterised her efforts to get her and her husband’s noses into the trough that was public procurement during the pandemic, specifically in the provision of protective equipment for health workers. There were a lot of companies bidding for these contracts at a time when it seemed the Government couldn’t get rid of public money fast enough to meet demand. In the event, it spent £12 billion on protective gear, of which £4 billion-worth was unusable (no doubt, Baroness Hallett’s inquiry will be asking about this).
Perhaps David Cameron could let us know what it was about the generously endowed bra tycoon that qualified her to feature in his resignation honours list
Baroness Mone’s husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, offloaded £200 million of Chinese equipment through his company PPE Medpro, leaving a tidy £60 million in profit for the family, later invested in a trust to benefit Baroness Mone and her children. Subsequently, the National Crime Agency started an investigation into PPE Medpro for suspected fraud and bribery; that process has yet to run its course. The Government is suing PPE Medpro for £122 million plus costs for “breach of contract and unjust enrichment”.
There was nothing in itself wrong in bidding for a contract. But ruthlessly to exploit personal contacts by calling Michael Gove and Lord Agnew in Boris Johnson’s Cabinet Office for help getting onto the VIP fast track to a public procurement contract? That was wrong. And then not to mention it in any parliamentary declaration of interests? (If she needed advice on what she should declare, it was there for the asking). To lie about it for three years? And to threaten newspapers which sought to publicise that she and her husband were linked to the company, with prosecution? That was wrong, and no less wrong because it’s the approach taken by every other embattled tycoon to deal with cash-strapped media companies. Baroness Mone sought to bury the truth by threatening newspapers with very expensive libel lawyers. She did it, she says, to protect her family — the ultimate recourse of the 21st-century hypocrite. Advice to Baroness Mone: to protect your family, don’t compromise yourself in the first place.
Let’s pause again to consider the most devastating element of her interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday. When it was put to her that she had lied to the press and essentially the public, Baroness Mone’s response was this: “Saying to the press, I’m not involved, to protect my family, can I just make this clear, it’s not a crime … I was protecting my family.” Once, no one in British public life could have said such a thing. Lying was such a big deal in the Protestant moral code that still underwrote public life until, I’d say, the Eighties, that people flinched from saying the word itself; you’d say someone had uttered an untruth instead. Lying was the most dishonourable thing you could be accused of — consider the play The Winslow Boy to recall what a big deal it was. And now, we’ve got a member of the Upper House, a peeress, saying in public that a falsehood is acceptable because “it’s not a crime”. So, anything that is not actually criminal is acceptable. Really? Is that where we’re at?
Nadine Dorries, whom Johnson considered for a place in the Lords, has noted today that Baroness Mone should never have been given a peerage in the first place. Yes, obviously, she should lose her title; she has already lost the Conservative whip. She has no business being involved in revising laws. And if she and her husband are charged with and found guilty of “unjust enrichment” (an excellently worded offence) for which they are being investigated, they should be an object lesson to others who seek to exploit public crises for private gain. But she has also tainted the Lords. It’s Lord Cameron whom we would like to hear from: just why was she appointed?
