LEX Greensill enjoyed an “extraordinarily privileged” relationship with government and David Cameron “could have been clearer” about his relationship with the financier’s firm, a review has found.
The long-awaited report about Greensill Capital, the collapsed financial company that the former prime minister lobbied ministers for, was published today.
Boris Johnson commissioned lawyer Nigel Boardman to carry out the review amid widespread criticism of Cameron’s lobbying activities.
The report, totalling 141 pages, says: “It is clear from the evidence that I have reviewed that Mr Greensill had a privileged – and sometimes extraordinarily privileged – relationship with government.”
READ MORE: This 60-second clip sums up the Tory government's contempt for Scotland
Boardman concludes that Cameron, the former Conservative Party leader, “did not breach the current lobbying rules and his actions were not unlawful”.
But the report added that “Mr Cameron could have been clearer about his relationship with Greensill Capital” in his communications with the Treasury, the Bank of England and officials.
Cameron told Boardman that Greensill Capital was paying him “a good amount of money every year” and he had equity and participated in a discretionary uncapped bonus scheme.
The review says Lord Heywood, the late Cabinet secretary, was “primarily responsible” for Greensill securing a role in government, during Cameron’s premiership.
There was mention of Greensill’s appointment to the Cabinet Office’s economic and domestic secretariat being referred to an “approvals board”, to which Lord Heywood, who worked with the financier at Morgan Stanley, responded: “Sure – though it is bureaucracy gone mad!”
Greensill was given two sets of official IT and security access for the Cabinet Office and, with Lord Heywood’s support, No 10, the review says.
The role in government provided Greensill “with a marketing platform for Greensill Capital’s business with the private sector”.
“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,” the report says.
Downing Street said it would respond to Boardman’s report“in due course” once it had considered its first-stage findings.
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister said: “Nigel Boardman has published his report this morning and the Prime Minster thanks Mr Boardman for all his work in examining the evidence, setting out his judgment on the facts.
“We will now consider the report carefully and will respond in due course.”
Asked what the Prime Minister made of the report’s findings, including that Lex Greensill had “extraordinarily privileged” access to government, his spokesperson said: “I think it is important we take time to study this report in full.
“You’ll be aware that this is stage one of the report and the terms of reference set out that the review will be conducted in two stages.
“Stage one is a report into the facts and stage two is a report into findings and any recommendations in light of those facts.”
Meanwhile, Cameron welcomed the review saying it “provides further confirmation that I broke no rules”.
READ MORE: UK Shared Prosperity Fund will 'backfire on Boris Johnson
In a statement, the former prime minister said: “I am pleased that the report provides further confirmation that I broke no rules. It also makes plain that I was not responsible for bringing Lex Greensill into Government or any of the arrangements connected to this.
“I have said all along that there are lessons to be learnt, and I agree on the need for more formal lines of communication.
“I was open about my relationship with Greensill Capital, and acknowledge the importance of being explicit in this regard.
“It is welcome that updated guidance on how former ministers engage with the Government is to be considered.”
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