Workers and taxpayers deserve answers over Greensill, Dodds tells minister

Labour has said that workers and taxpayers deserve answers over the Greensill scandal as public money and jobs were put at risk when the government gave the finance firm access to the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme.

The opposition has said it will force a parliamentary vote on Wednesday to establish a “full, transparent, parliament-run inquiry” into the scandal, arguing that the government cannot be allowed to “mark its own homework”.

Anneliese Dodds tabled an urgent parliamentary question to be answered by Rishi Sunak today. The Chancellor did not appear in front of MPs this afternoon, with junior business minister Paul Scully responding instead.

“I welcome the minister’s presence, but it was the Chancellor who needed to come to the House today. The Chancellor who told David Cameron he would ‘push his team’ to amend emergency loan schemes,” the Shadow Chancellor said.

“The Chancellor whose officials met with Greensill ten times. The Chancellor who took the credit for government business loan schemes when they were in the headlines – indeed, who personally announced those schemes.

“Yet the Chancellor is frit of putting his name to those loan schemes today. He’s just spent £600,000 on communications. You’d think that would extend to communicating with parliament,” Dodds added.

David Cameron has been at the centre of a row over cronyism involving lobbying of government officials in recent weeks. He joined financial firm Greensill Capital as an adviser in 2018, two years after resigning as Prime Minister.

Dodds’ comments follow a Freedom of Information request last week that revealed Cameron had repeatedly texted Sunak and the Chancellor had replied to say that he had “pushed the team” to accommodate Cameron’s wishes.

Cameron published a 1,700-word statement on Sunday evening responding to the Greensill lobbying scandal stories after it was revealed that, as well as texting Sunak, he brought Lex Greensill to a “private drink” with Matt Hancock.

Hancock told parliament earlier today that “absolutely I attended a social meeting” organised by the former Prime Minister. He claimed that he reported it to officials “in the normal way”, but the meeting is not in government reporting.

Labour today called on Sunak to make a statement on the process by which Greensill was approved as a lender for the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme (CLBILS), but the government said it was not a Treasury-led policy.

The economic support for larger businesses was unveiled by the Chancellor in April last year. “This morning I’m taking further action to support firms affected by the coronavirus crisis,” Sunak wrote on social media at the time.

Both civil servants and Conservative ministers have attributed the scheme to Sunak over the past 12 months, and the data for CLBILS is published by the Treasury rather than the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy.

Junior business minister Paul Scully today insisted that delivery of CBILS sits with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) with the Business Secretary being the only shareholder in the British Business Bank.

“The accreditation for any of the Covid loans schemes is run independently by the British Business Bank,” he argued. “Neither BEIS nor HM Treasury had a role or were involved in the CLBILS accreditation decision for Greensill.”

Dodds asked what the “alternative” was that the Chancellor pushed his team to explore for the former Prime Minister, what discussion the government had with the British Business Bank and why Greensill was the only firm accredited for CLBILS.

“Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money were put at risk by giving Greensill access to this scheme. With Greensill’s collapse thousands of jobs… right across the country have been put at risk,” Dodds told MPs.

“Those workers and taxpayers across the country deserve answers. The Chancellor said he would level with the public. Why is he running scared of levelling with them on the Greensill scandal?”

“All decisions taken by the bank were taken independently and in accordance with the bank’s usual procedure,” Scully replied. “The criteria by which the decisions were made were based on those used in the existing enterprise finance guarantee scheme dating back to 2009, and were set out in the CLBILS request for proposals.”

Boris Johnson announced an ‘independent’ inquiry into the Greensill affair on Monday, looking at how contracts were secured by the financial firm and the actions of former Conservative Prime Minister in the affair.

The Prime Minister’s spokesperson said the review would look at “the role Greensill played” in the government use of supply chain finance and said Johnson wanted it to take place to “ensure government is completely transparent”.

Leading the inquiry is lawyer Nigel Boardman, who critics have said is not independent. Boardman has served as a non-executive director at BEIS since 2018. BEIS supervises the British Business Bank, which lent money to Greensill.

The review announced on Monday will have not have legal powers to compel people to give evidence, and no evidence will be given in public. Labour is calling for a parliamentary inquiry, with Cameron and others giving evidence before MPs.

“The Boardman investigation has all the hallmarks of a Conservative cover up – the British public, especially those with their jobs on the line as a result of Greensill’s collapse, deserve answers,” Rachel Reeves said.

Below is the full text of the Labour motion tabled for debate on Wednesday.

That the following Standing Order shall have effect until 31 December 2021:

Investigation into the Lobbying of Government Committee

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Investigation into Lobbying of Government Committee, to consider:

(a) the effectiveness of existing legislation to prevent the inappropriate lobbying of Ministers and Government;

(b) the rules governing all public officials regarding conflicts of interest;

(c) the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Lex Greensill as an adviser in Government and the process by which Greensill Capital was approved for commercial arrangements with Government departments and other public sector bodies; and

(d) the role Government played in facilitating the commercial relationship between Greensill Capital and the Gupta Family Group Alliance.

(2) It shall be an instruction to the Committee that it:

(a) considers whether there are robust transparency and accountability procedures in place and whether existing rules are being adhered to;

(b) considers whether the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments’ regulatory framework and sanctioning powers are sufficient to enforce its advice;

(c) assesses the extent of undue influence that former politicians and advisers have on the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies; and

(d) that it makes a first Report to the House no later than 18th October 2021

(3) The committee shall consist of sixteen members of whom 15 shall nominated by the Committee of Selection in the same manner as those Select Committees appointed in accordance with Standing Order No. 121;

(4) The Chair of the Committee shall be a backbench Member of a party represented in Her Majesty’s Government and shall be elected by the House under arrangements approved by Mr Speaker.

(5) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it until the expiration of this Order.

(6) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time; and

(b) to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.

(7) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

(8) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the evidence taken before the sub-committee.