BORIS Johnson was cut off by the Commons Speaker for failing to answer a question about an inquiry into the Greenshill scandal.
Ministers and the Civil Service have been dragged into the row over Greensill Capital’s links with government and former prime minister David Cameron’s lobbying for the financial firm.
Labour’s calls for a parliamentary inquiry intensified after it emerged that the former head of Whitehall procurement became an adviser to Greensill Capital while still working as a civil servant, in a move approved by the Cabinet Office.
Correspondence between the Cabinet Office and the head of the official Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has revealed that Bill Crothers joined Greensill as a part-time adviser to the board in 2015.
Crothers was still working as a civil servant when he took up the advisory role, a move which he said was approved by a conflicts of interest policy and “supported by the Cabinet Office leadership”.
He left the civil service later that year, after three years as the Government’s chief commercial officer, and subsequently became a director at Greensill.
READ MORE: Cabinet Office approved top official joining Greensill while still a civil servant
Labour leader Keir Starmer accused Boris Johnson of “blocking a proper inquiry”, adding: “The Greensill scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. Dodgy contracts, privileged access, jobs for their mates, this is the return of Tory sleaze.
"It’s now so ingrained in this Conservative Government, we don’t need another Conservative Party appointee marking their own homework.
“The more I listen to the Prime Minister, the more I think Ted Hastings and AC-12 is needed to get to the bottom of this one.
“We know the Prime Minister will not act against sleaze, but this House can.”
He pressed MPs to back Labour’s motion in a bid to start to “clean up the sleaze and cronyism that’s at the heart of this Conservative Government”.
Johnson highlighted the independent review, insisting there are “tougher” laws on lobbying before adding: “We’re getting on with rooting out bent coppers. We’re also appointing and hiring thousands more police officers and fighting crime on the streets of our cities while they oppose the police and crime Bill.”
The Prime Minister continued attacking Labour’s opposition to the legislation, with Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle cutting him off and telling the Commons: “Prime Minister, I think we ought to at least try and address the question.”
Johnson earlier said he shares the “widespread concern about some of the stuff that we’re reading at the moment”, and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case also has concerns.
“I do think it is a good idea in principle that top civil servants should be able to engage with business and should have experience of the private sector,” the PM said.
“When I look at the accounts I’m reading to date, it’s not clear that those boundaries had been properly understood and I’ve asked for a proper independent review of the arrangements that we have to be conducted by Nigel Boardman, and he will be reporting in June.”
In a letter to civil service chief operating officer Alex Chisholm following the reports, Acoba chairman Lord Pickles questioned why the committee had not received an application from Crothers in relation to his role at Greensill.
In correspondence which was published yesterday, Chisholm said Crothers had taken a role advising the board of Greensill in September 2015 while employed as a civil servant.
In a letter to Lord Pickles, Crothers claimed he did “completely respect the required process” and had been told no application was required to be submitted to the committee.
“It was seen as a way of me transitioning back into the private sector and was supported by the Cabinet Office leadership,” Crothers said in the letter.
“This advisory role was not seen as contentious, and I believe not uncommon. I then left the civil service in good stead and with best wishes.”
In response, Lord Pickles criticised the “lack of transparency” around Crothers’ part-time employment with Greensill, and urged the Cabinet Office to publish the conflicts of interest policy."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel