Sir Philip Green lambasted by MPs' report into BHS but will anything really change?

The Parliamentary Buisness and Work & Pensions committees will now investigage how changes to company and pensions law could be changed to protect employees like "Mrs Patel". Ministers must heed their calls for change

Sir Philip Green's reputation left in tatters by MPs report (Getty Images)

He was knighted by the Queen, lauded by the business press and held up as an example of what young entrepreneurs should aspire to. But now Sir Philip Green is “the unacceptable face of capitalism”.

How did that happen?

A joint report of the parliamentary Business, Innovation & Skills and Works & Pensions committees seeks to explain that, mostly by telling us what we already knew. Sir Philip, it concludes, chose to offload “a beleaguered high street institution, losing money and encumbered with a massive pension fund deficit, to a buyer whom he was clearly aware was ‘manifestly unsuitable’”.

That would be the former bankrupt Dominic Chappell and his associates, branded “incompetent and self-serving” (no kidding) by the same report. Meanwhile, the City bankers advising on the deal were described as having provided an “expensive badge of legitimacy” to a shabby scandal. Again, no kidding.

The report goes on to conclude that just about anyone connected with this affair had their noses in the trough, and that they all did the same thing when things went wrong. They ran away and blamed everyone else.

Meanwhile, staff and pension scheme members have been stiffed. Administrators and the Pension Protection Fund have been left to pick up the pieces.

Have you spotted the problem yet? None of what went on at BHS was illegal. No one has ever suggested that. Immoral? Certainly. Unpleasant? Yep. Appalling, infuriating, scandalous? Tick, tick tick. But all perfectly above board where it counts.

The MPs on the committees can stomp their feet and rail against what happened. They entertained us by hauling in Sir Philip and the crew for public kickings. They’ve served up another one with their report. But there’s not much more they can do.

I’m not actually criticising them. While their report has generated more heat than light, the importance of that should not be underestimated. It matters that these people have been held up and exposed for the unpleasant gang of chancers that they are.

However, the unfortunate reality is than that Sir Philip only did what the modern executive is supposed to do. He’s a dealmaker par excellence. He raised a bunch of money from the banks, bought a business that looked weak then turned it around for long enough to allow him to extract as much cash as possible using the most efficient (read low) tax structures.

For that he was celebrated, lauded, and knighted. It was the springboard for more deals. The business press wrote gushing profiles of him. Celebrities flocked to him. The paparazzi photographed him out and about with models on his arm and the press lapped them up. His foul-mouthed rants down the phone to people who upset him? Getting one of them just meant that you had arrived.

Meanwhile, the City loved Sir Philip for his deals and especially for his fees. Politicians loved… well, you don’t need me to tell you why politicians loved Sir Philip. Too many of them were like moths to his flame.

As for Mrs Patel? Mrs Patel worked for BHS since leaving school. She was left to feel “helpless in what is happening”. But no one cares about Mrs Patel. She’s little people.

What next? After a report like this, Sir Philip should become plain old Mr Green. But stripping him of his knighthood won’t accomplish much other than to once again raise questions about how such baubles are awarded.

Of more import is how the Government reacts. If you wanted an example of how the economy does not “work for everyone” and of “irresponsible behaviour in big business”, to quote Prime Minister Theresa May, it doesn’t get much better than this.

The committees will respectively turn their attention to gaps in company and pension law as they should. The business committee might also care to investigate the pitiful enforcement of the law as it stands.

We in the press had better make sure we do our jobs this time by reporting on their work and their findings and by holding ministers’ feet to the fire. Because unless the PM’s words are matched by the deeds of her Government, there will be more hearings like this in future, more incendiary reports. If we don’t act, the danger is that in future when demagogues shake their fists and rail agains a country that “doesn’t work for you” some of Mrs Patel’s colleagues might be inclined to listen.