The problem with DHSC is the PPE MEDPRO case, revealing missing audit trails, document gaps and lack of key witnesses

The Ministry of Health and Social Care handled a £122 million PPE contract for increasingly reviewed last week as the High Court held three days of testimony in the High Court, which revealed a series of obvious failures in oversight, documents and witness evidence.

As PPE MedPro’s legal team continues to cross-examine department witnesses, questions are raised about the lack of audit trails, contradictory statements, and the missing key figures in the witness box.

The third day began with cross-examination by Nick Graham, a member of the closing ceremony team at PPE Cell, who completed the official order form with PPE MedPro. The center of the inquiry is why the CE certified box is not mentioned (a crucial regulatory mark).

Graham claimed that internal guidance directed team members not to tick further if they included a certification, but he was unable to provide the relevant documents. The “guidance” has not been disclosed to the court.

PPE MedPro insists that blank CE boxes are important – they argue that evidence suggests that CE certification with notification agency (NB) numbers is not required by their contract. Graham admitted under pressure that the decision to leave the field was intentional and followed the guidance of the internal team.

Freight knowledge gap and lack of audit trails

The spotlight then moved to Nick Parkes, a member of the government freight and logistics team. His testimony highlights the main gap in the DHSC’s chain of evidence. Parks confirmed his concern about how the PPE MEDPRO gowns are handled after they are made. He has never been to China, has never inspected goods, and has lived throughout the pandemic in Basingstoke.

More importantly, he confirmed that the post-production transport and handling was the responsibility of subcontractor Uniserve and Hunicorn, serving as government agents-details PPE Medpro believes they have any responsibility for the so-called pollution.

Despite repeated requests, DHSC has not produced a complete audit trail that documented the handling, sealing and storage of the gown. Parks acknowledged that such a record should exist.

He told the court: “You want a document that will direct, take it from here, send it there… When you break the seal, your record is broken and resealed.”

Later, Liam Hockan, DHSC official of the Product Assurance and Quality Control team, was asked about the decision to reject the dress directly, rather than exploring whether they could be used in other NHS settings. Hockan confirmed that his team never evaluated whether the dress could be reused as non-disease, which PPE Medpro believes represents a missed opportunity and raised questions about the reasons behind the blanket rejection.

He hadn’t realized that DHSC had abandoned one of its original claims – the dress was wrongly single-packed instead of double-packed, which was the key planks in the department’s case and had since been abandoned.

On the fourth day, the court heard from David Reid, director of operations at Supply Chain Coordination Limited (SSCL), who oversaw the issuance and storage space of PPE after February 2021. Reid describes how transport containers filled with PPE are stored in scattered open air codes – sometimes in fields – in fields – stacked four or five high.

This revelation may be key. The dress that ends up being tested by Swann-Morton in 2022 may be left with 18 months under these conditions. PPE MedPro believes that under uncontrolled conditions, such long-term storage may be the cause of any contamination and the cause of loss of dress infertility.

“So basically these are large open-air places?”

“Yes,” Reed replied.

“Can they be fields?”

“Yes, at some point, I think they’re in the field.”

Reid, who might know exactly what happened after the dress arrived in the UK, offered only speculative names from former contractors, including Nick Parkes, who have denied sworn in.

Later that day, DHSC analyst Jonathan Bates was questioned about the key spreadsheet used to estimate the cost of storing PPE MedPro. The document, which is said to support the government’s claim for damages, was compiled primarily by colleague Anne Foulger, who was not called a witness.

Bates admits Foulger might have explained the numbers better, and admits he has not reviewed the invoices that underpin the data. The spreadsheet contains the differences – including a shortage of 4 million dresses, which later reappeared – not considered correctly.

“Did you seriously prove that you didn’t consider the invoice before you can complete it?”

“My evidence shows that I didn’t consider a personal invoice, yes.”

On the fifth day, Zarah Naeem, who saw MHRA, stood up. Naeem conducted a preliminary visual evaluation of the dress from PPE MedPro on September 11, 2020. Her statement contradicts the DHSC’s revised statement that the inspection took place on September 2 – Medpro believes the change falls within a 21-day contract period for rejecting goods.

Naeem confirmed her examination took place on September 11 and admitted that it fell outside the time limit. She also clarified that despite her knowledge of CE Marking, she was not the decision-maker whether the dress should be released for the NHS use.

“I don’t have enough information to decide whether to use the dress,” she told the court.

“As far as I remember… I don’t believe I actually didn’t have the decision to release the dress.”

PPE MedPro again raised the question that DHSC failed to call Naeem’s manager, who would be ultimately responsible for the decision.

Continuous pressure on DHSC

Due to repeated references to missing documents, unresolved issues regarding dress storage and lack of key decision makers on the list of witnesses, PPE Medpro’s legal team is imposing cases where the government is trying to blame for systemic failures during Covid PPE procurement.

The court will re-examine the cross-examination of the infertility experts on Tuesday, June 24 – a critical phase that can determine whether the core of the DHSC case is unavailable and whether this will be reviewed.