Complaints that a “privileged few” have disproportionate access to those at the top of government are “justified”, a report into lobbying by David Cameron on behalf of failed finance firm Greensill has found.
The report commissioned by Boris Johnson from lawyer Nigel Boardman found that financier Lex Greensill enjoyed “a privileged – and sometimes extraordinarily privileged – relationship with government”.
And Mr Boardman wrote: “Recent scrutiny of government’s processes for managing lobbying, especially in the context of the engagement between government and those acting on behalf of Greensill Capital, has focused on a number of issues with the current system.
“In particular, it has been argued that the government’s processes for managing lobbying are insufficiently transparent, that external organisations are able to exploit certain loopholes to land their messages more effectively, and that a privileged few have a disproportionate level of access to decision makers in government.
“I think some of these observations are justified.”
The 141-page report covers the circumstances under which Greensill Capital gained access to senior Whitehall officials and ministers and secured government contracts for its supply chain finance services, as well as Mr Cameron’s lobbying for assistance under coronavirus business support schemes.
The report covers stage one of the inquiry, setting out the facts of the affair. The more controversial part two – including conclusions and recommendations – is expected later in the year.
Mr Greensill himself had a desk and security pass within the Cabinet Office under Mr Cameron’s administration, despite being neither a civil servant nor a special adviser, leading to questions about the degree of his access.
Today’s report found that Mr Greensill was introduced to the Treasury and proposed for a CBE by then Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood, who had worked with him at merchant bank Morgan Stanley while on a sabbatical from government.
Greensill “intimated” to Lord Heywood in 2011 that he was “interested in working with government part time and in an unpaid capacity – a move which Lord Heywood supported”, the report found, noting that the then chief of the civil service placed the businessman in the Economic and Domestic Secretariat.
It was clear that Lord Heywood, who died in 2018, “respected Mr Greensill’s capabilities” and had a “High regard for his integrity”, found Boardman.
And he added: “Mr Greensill has indicated that the initiative came from Lord Heywood to do something to give back to the country.
“Mr Greensill has explained that this occurred in bilateral discussions of which there is no extrinsic evidence and it is, of course, not possible to ask Lord Heywood to comment on this statement.”
Boardman found that Greensill conducted a period of “informal work” with the government and was then appointed an unpaid adviser on supply chain finance in 2012, nominally reporting to Francis Maude, though the report found there was no “conclusive” evidence that the then Cabinet Office minister signed off the appointment and some doubt over whether they ever met.
“A covering memo to the Prime Minister in 2012, copied to Lord Heywood, points to Lord Heywood as the person primarily responsible for Mr Greensill being given a role in government,” found Boardman.
The report found that this appointment was “properly made”, assuming ministerial approval as given.
But it added: “This area of public appointments is opaque and ill-defined. The process should be more clearly delineated, and requires greater transparency to maintain public confidence…
“Potential conflicts of interest should have been considered more fully in the process, in particular in reference to his pre-appointment activities and consequent proximity to Citibank.
“Mr Greensill was permitted 8 to start work before receiving the appropriate security clearance. Documentary evidence of the reasons for this cannot be found.”
The report found that Mr Greensill’s subsequent reappointment to EDS following this three-month stint “raises significantly more questions”.
Lord Heywood described suggestions that the financier’s appointment should go to an approvals board as “bureaucracy gone mad”, and no minutes were available to show whether ministerial approval was sought or obtained.
Greensill was provided with official IT and security access to the Cabinet Office and 10 Downing Street before completion of the usual vetting process.
And his letter of appointment continued a provision drafted by Mr Greensill himself which “created ambiguity about the potential for conflicts of interest”.
“During this period, Mr Greensill was not only given access through Lord Heywood’s introductions to several departments in Whitehall, but he was also able to leverage his position, using the facilities of Number 10, to hold meetings with major companies” including Vodafone and Carillon, which he took on as customers of his business, found Boardman.
“Mr Greensill’s role in government had the consequence of providing him with a marketing platform for Greensill Capital’s business with the private sector,” found the report.
“This enabled Mr Greensill to promote a product which did not, in fact, provide material benefits to government (except possibly in relation to the pharmacy supply chain finance programme, although even here the benefits are disputed), although it could have been of benefit to his incipient business and was of immediate benefit to his former employer, Citibank.”
