BHS: Sir Philip Green says report into conduct at failing retail chain is 'biased and unfair'

Tycoon claims conclusion of report was 'predetermined' against him

Philip Green says the conclusion of the report was 'predetermined'
Philip Green says the conclusion of the report was 'predetermined'

Sir Philip Green has denounced the “biased and unfair process” with which the report into the collapse of BHS was conducted by MPs.

The joint report by the Work and Pensions and Business, Innovation and Skills select committees dubbed the retail tycoon “the unacceptable face of capitalism” and laid out a “litany of failures” at the company which went into administration in April.

It found Sir Philip had left the 88-year-old retail chain on “life support” before selling it off to Dominic Chappell – who they called a “wholly unsuitable chancer”.

The group of MPs concluded they could find “little to support the reputation for retail business acumen for which he received his knighthood”.

But Sir Philip attacked this assessment, accusing the MPs of being biased against him from the start and claiming the conclusion was “predetermined”.

He said: “I have now carefully read the select committees’ report and note their findings. I believe that the report is the predetermined and inaccurate output of a biased and unfair process.

“With the benefit of hindsight, clearly Retail Acquisitions and Mr Chappell were a very bad choice as purchaser on many fronts and I feel badly let down. Sadly, one cannot turn the clock back.

BHS store in Newport, Wales. The remaining 88 stores are to be closed by 20 August 

“The disposal of BHS was made one hundred per cent in good faith and I still believe that we provided Retail Acquisitions and Mr Chappell with the appropriate finance (c. £200m of cash and assets) to take the business forward.

“As I told the committees, I am trying to find a solution for the BHS pension and am continuing to work with the Regulator to achieve an outcome.

“I am sad and sorry for all the BHS people caught up in this horrid story, but I do not believe that this story is being in any way fairly portrayed.”

Earlier on Monday he threatened to sue the chair of the Work and Pensions select committee, Frank Field, over comments he made to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme comparing Sir Philip to Robert Maxwell – the disgraced former newspaper boss who stole millions from his company’s pension fund.

Sir Philip frequently came to verbal blows with Mr Field and his counterpart on the BIS select committee, Iain Wright, over their conduct and statements to the media.

In a letter to the pair before he gave evidence in May, Sir Philip said he said he had been subjected to a “trial by media” and accused them of “leaping to conclusions before any evidence from any witness has been heard”.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in