By Ben Kerrigan-
The failure of Matt Hancock to declare his interest in the company Topwood to parliamentary authorities for more than two months, or previously declare his family’s longstanding involvement with the company has sparked controversy in Westminster.
The revelation that Topwood won a tender competition to secure a place as an approved contractor with the NHS in Wales in early 2019 has raised eye brows, especially as Hancock had made other declarations in the past.
At the time, the firm was owned by Hancock’s sister and other family members. Health Service Journal, which first reported the story, said he had not declared this, despite having considered a sibling’s position with a separate firm worthy of declaration.
Documents lodged with Companies House reveal that on 1 February a minority stake in the firm was transferred to Hancock. According to a report on the Guido Fawkes blog, the firm won contracts with the NHS in Wales the following month, though this is not the responsibility of the UK government.
It was not until 12 April that Hancock declared his interest in the firm.
The Labour party has accused the Tories of being infected with cronyism. “It is now clear this Conservative government has been infected with widespread cronyism and is unable to identify where the line is drawn between personal and departmental interests. It’s one rule for them, another for everybody else,” said the shadow health minister Justin Madders.
“There are serious questions to answer from Matt Hancock and there needs to be a full inquiry and immediate publication of all documents relating to Topwood’s acceptance on to the framework contract in 2019,” Madders said.
A government spokesperson said: “Mr Hancock has acted entirely properly in these circumstances. All declarations of interest have been made in accordance with the ministerial code. Ministers have no involvement in the awarding of these contracts, and no conflict of interest arises.”
The news has put the British government under increasing pressure over the access afforded to the Australian financier Lex Greensill, for whom the former prime minister David Cameron went on to work.
Topwood Ltd, which specialises in secure waste disposal, successfully won a tender competition to secure a place on an NHS Shared Business Services framework for “confidential waste destruction and disposal” at the beginning of 2019, a few months after Mr Hancock was appointed health and social care secretary in July 2018.
The ministerial code imposes on ministers a “personal responsibility… to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict” .
The Department of Health and Social Care said in a statement that: “All declarations of interest have been made in accordance with the ministerial code.” It said neither Mr Hancock nor the department had any role in contract awards, and no active involvement in the company.
It said he had discussed the recent gift to him of shares in the firm with the permanent secretary before accepting them, and had been told that any conflicts which may arise could be appropriately handled. It said the new shareholding in the firm was only known about because Mr Hancock has followed transparency rules — it came to light because it has recently been published in the MPs’ register of interests.
However, the DHSC has not commented on whether, in 2018 or 2019, Mr Hancock discussed his family’s involvement in the firm with the permanent secretary or independent adviser. HSJ has asked this question.
Many ministers have declared interests of their parents and siblings, even when they do not appear directly relevant to their departmental role.
The ministerial code says: “It is the personal responsibility of each minister to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict, taking account of advice received from their permanent secretary and the independent adviser on ministers’ interests.
“On appointment to each new office, ministers must provide their permanent secretary with a full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. The list should also cover interests of the minister’s spouse or partner and close family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict.
“Where appropriate, the minister will meet the permanent secretary and the independent adviser on ministers’ interests to agree action on the handling of interests. Ministers must record in writing what action has been taken, and provide the permanent secretary and the independent adviser on ministers’ interests with a copy of that record.”
Ministerial declarations include a section for “interests of their spouse, partner or close family members”. The declaration process has been overseen by an independent adviser, Sir Alex Allan, who resigned in November 2020. His most recent official reports indicate a key part of his work is discussing with ministers which family interests are relevant and should be disclosed.
The company, which is now based in Wrexham, Wales, was then owned by Mr Hancock’s sister, Emily Gilruth and his mother, Shirley Carter, and two men — thought to be their spouses.
Bob Kerslake, a former head of the civil service, said he had little faith in any investigation of the Greensill affair led by No 10, saying the prime minister had sat on the report into bullying allegations against the home secretary.
Lord Kerslake said there needed to be enforceable rules to govern interactions between the public and private sectors. “But it’s also about principles. We do have the Nolan principles of public life and they are a pretty good guide to how you should behave,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday.
“Even if you fit within the rules technically, ask yourself the question do you meet those principles and it’s hard to see how what’s happened here meets those principles.”
Kerslake called for a “proper investigation” and added: “There is a place for unpaid advisers and some have been very helpful. But it has to be completely transparent and above board and no question whatsoever of conflict. I think here we can see the significant issues of conflict and it is very odd indeed that [Greensill] seems to have been given a business card without being clear on the process.”
Asked if he felt the review set up by Downing Street would get to the bottom of the issue, he said: “I’m unsure. I have to say, I have slightly lost confidence in prime ministerial-led inquiries because of how Priti Patel’s was handled.
“I believed that would be a fair and robust process. In the end, the prime minister sat on the report and then issued a bowdlerised version and took no action.”