THE HEALTH Secretary has been found to have committed a "minor breach" of the ministerial code after failing to declare his link to a firm awarded an NHS contract.
Matt Hancock, who has come under intense scrutiny in recent days, was found to have slightly broken the rules for ministers by not registering that his sister owned document-shredding firm Topwood Ltd, which won a lucrative contract with the NHS in 2019.
Mr Hancock, who has been the UK Government health Secretary since 2018, received a 20 per cent stake in the company, run by his sister and brother-in-law, earlier this year. He did not declare that his sister owned the firm when it was awarded the contract.
Lord Geidt, the government's independent adviser on Ministerial Interests, published a report today which clears him of major wrongdoing but acknowledge he should have declared his link to Topwood Ltd earlier.
He concluded that the breach was only a minor one because his sister or brother-in-law did not tell him they had won the 2019 contract, despite his government position.
The report states that his declaration of owning the 20% shares was "properly recorded" and added: " There could be a reasonably perceived conflict of interest, but that can best be managed through publication, as has occurred.
"The Secretary of State has acted properly and honestly in promptly making this declaration and diligently seeking advice" the peer said.
On the contract awarded to Topwood by NHS Shared Business Services, Lord Geidt appeared to clear Mr Hancock of wrongdoing by saying his "sister and brother-in-law, the owners of Topwood Ltd, would have been well aware of his appointment as Secretary of State at the time of their company securing this contract."
He continued: "Either the Secretary of State’s sister and/or brother-in-law failed to raise this award with Mr Hancock, or nothing had otherwise been brought to Mr Hancock’s attention such that he would have had reason to enquire."
The peer said that due to Mr Hancock's position as health secretary at the time of the NHS SBS contract award to his sister's company, "a reasonable person might perceive this link to represent a conflict of interest" adding: "It should have been declared at the time."
However he said that due to the "scale of operations for NHS England" being "broad", the "activity of NHS SBS may have been very far from [Mr Hancock's] main focus."
He said: "I assess this earlier failure to declare the interest was as a result of his lack of knowledge and in no way deliberate, and therefore, in technical terms, a minor breach of the Ministerial Code."
Despite this, he said Mr Hancock "has acted with integrity throughout and that this event should in no way impugn his good character or ministerial record."
In a letter to the Prime Minister following the report publication this afternoon, Mr Hancock said agreed with the peer's assessment.
He said: " I therefore agree with Lord Geidt that any perceived breach could only be technical in nature, because it is simply not possible to declare something I did not know.
"Though of course I understand and agree that the Ministerial Code is designed to ensure that there is no appearance of any conflict of interest and accept his advice."
He told Mr Johnson: "Lord Geidt’s assessment appears to be that I should have declared an interest following the placement of the company that my sister and her husband own on a procurement framework by NHS Shared Business Services.
"At that point, in February 2019, I had no involvement in, interest in, ownership of, or anything else to do with the company."
He added: "I did not know about the framework decision, and so I do not think I could reasonably have been expected to declare it.
"Nor can I see how a conflict of interest can arise on a matter about which I had no knowledge.
"For the record I still have no active participation in the company and I am also not, and have never been, involved in any of NHS SBS’s decisions or activities."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel