Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Third Report - Propriety of Governance in Light of Greensill: An Interim Report

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee HC 59 Published 22 July 2021
Report Status
Unknown
Conclusions & Recommendations
17 items

No response data available yet.

Filter by:

Conclusions (17)

Observations and findings
1 Conclusion
Para 5
This is an interim report only and we are continuing with our inquiry into this area.
View Details →
2 Conclusion
Para 8
We had expected to see Nigel Boardman’s report before we concluded this phase of our inquiry. It was promised at the end of June though, at the time of writing, it has still not been published. In conducting his review, Mr Boardman has had the cooperation of Government and access …
View Details →
3 Conclusion
Para 12
The House has the power to issue summons requiring individuals to attend a Select Committee. However, the process takes time and our timetable was pressing. The fact that we did not initiate this process should not in any way be seen as an acknowledgement that Mr Greensill’s decision to decline …
View Details →
4 Conclusion
Para 22
We are at a loss to explain Mr Gove’s decision not to allow Ms Gray to give evidence to the Committee, particularly given her willingness to do so. The Osmotherly Rules have never been recognised by Parliament, which maintains its right to call for any individual. However, even if Parliament …
View Details →
5 Conclusion
It is unacceptable for Ministers to hide behind the Osmotherly Rules to prevent Select Committees from carrying out legitimate inquiries. We will be writing to the Chair of the Liaison Committee to consider ways in which we can clarify the responsibility of officials to appear before Select Committees. (Paragraph 23) …
View Details →
6 Conclusion
Para 37
The appointment of Lex Greensill as a “Senior Adviser on Supply Chain Finance” in the Cabinet Office, including the means by which he was managed and his conduct regulated, are key areas about which we would have been particularly keen to hear from Sue Gray. Had she not been prevented …
View Details →
7 Conclusion
Para 38
As we have noted, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did offer to appear in Ms Gray’s place after preventing her from giving evidence to us. However, he would clearly have been unable to add anything of consequence in this regard.
View Details →
8 Conclusion
Para 39
This Committee has previously raised the issue of consultants and the sorts of work they are hired to perform in Government. There is nothing unusual in a large organisation hiring external consultants to fulfil specialist roles or provide expertise in supporting the work of the Civil Service. Lex Greensill was …
View Details →
9 Conclusion
Para 40
Nonetheless, there are aspects that would appear to suggest that Mr Greensill’s role was not truly reflective of his status as consultant. He appeared to operate with far greater autonomy than we would expect. And we would not normally expect a consultant under contract to the Cabinet Office to be …
View Details →
10 Conclusion
At least some of the criticism of the appointment of Lex Greensill to advise on the use of Supply Chain Finance is made with the benefit of hindsight and knowledge of events that were to take place some years later. His appointment appeared to entail the usual declaration of interests …
View Details →
11 Conclusion
Para 62
In our view, there has been insufficient consideration of the policy context in which Lex Greensill was brought in to advise on Supply Chain Finance. Consideration of its potential was the policy of the Government at the time. Whilst the Minister for the Cabinet Office may have been unconvinced, there …
View Details →
12 Conclusion
Para 63
The impression might also be drawn that Supply Chain Finance was entirely the responsibility of Lord Heywood and Lex Greensill. Whilst the then Minister for the Cabinet Office and Prime Minister may have given the impression that they were not involved in its development, both gave speeches endorsing it at …
View Details →
13 Conclusion
These are matters to which we shall return later in this inquiry and upon which we shall call for further evidence. (Paragraph 64) Bill Crothers
View Details →
14 Conclusion
Para 77
The revelation that one of the most senior civil servants held a part-time position with a private company has unsurprisingly led to considerable criticism. That the company was later to go on to hold government contracts, become embroiled ill- advised lobbying activities involving a former Prime Minister, and to collapse …
View Details →
15 Conclusion
Para 78
Bill Crothers’ move to Greensill Capital was a part of his transition out of the Civil Service and was sanctioned by both his Permanent Secretary and by the then Head of Propriety and Ethics. Greensill Capital’s public sector practice was also still some way in the future. However, even if …
View Details →
16 Conclusion
Para 79
The implementation of the Business Appointment Rules would appear to be more complex than it should be. If an official is seeking to leave the Civil Service, it should be clear and obvious to them and to their Permanent Secretary whether an application to ACOBA is required. If there is …
View Details →
17 Conclusion
We would like to have discussed these matters with Sue Gray but were prevented from doing so by the intervention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove. (Paragraph 80) Propriety of Governance in Light of Greensill: An Interim Report 27
View Details →