Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to the newest version of your browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of Construction News, please enable cookies in your browser.

Welcome to the Construction News site. As we have relaunched, you will have to sign in once now and agree for us to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Carillion inquiry slams refusal to overhaul Whitehall role

The Carillion joint inquiry has branded the government’s refusal to review the role of crown representatives that monitor major government suppliers as “astonishing”.

MPs on the select committees behind the inquiry criticised crown representatives, which oversee the relationship between government and strategic suppliers such as Carillion, in their report into the firm’s collapse.

The report condemned their inability to flag Carillion’s problems ahead of its July profit warning, and recommended the government “immediately reviews the role and responsibilities of its crown representatives”.

In a letter published today, Cabinet Office minister David Liddington refused to accept the recommendation – a move inquiry co-chairs Frank Field and Rachel Reeves described as “astonishing”.

“There is no question that the current system of monitoring suppliers was not able to identify or prevent the precarious state of Carillion and its decline and collapse,” the co-chairs wrote in a reply to Mr Liddington.

“It is astonishing that there has been no indication of any government action to resolve this.”

They added that “difficulties being experienced” by Interserve and Capita, both strategic suppliers, made a review “a matter of particular urgency”.

Interserve chief executive Debbie White revealed in June that the company had been given a ‘red’ rating by the government, meaning it had ‘significant material concerns’ about the business.

In his response to the Carillion joint inquiry, Mr Liddington did accept that crown representatives were vulnerable to being misled by supplier management.

He said: “If the information that the managers and directors we interact with have been given is incorrect, or if those managers fail to pass that on to us correctly, then problems can of course arise.”

In response, the inquiry co-chairs said this was “precisely what happened” in the case of Carillion, which made it “difficult to understand why you see no reason to look more closely” at the work of the representatives.

Commenting on Mr Liddington’s response to the inquiry, Ms Reeves said there was a clear need for the government to “get a grip” on its suppliers.

“The reality must be that either the crown representative system failed for Carillion or it has never worked at all,” Ms Reeves said.

“Whichever is true, the government urgently needs to tackle the central issue, which is to get a grip on its suppliers and protect the interest of taxpayers and those who rely on these businesses.”

Mr Field added: “This response perfectly illustrates the complacency that got us, the public purse and some key public contracts into this mess.”

Readers' comments (6)

  • Unbelievable Cop Out!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Poachers pretending to be gatekeepers?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CN
    Can you find out who these crown representatives are and how much they are paid.
    "In his response to the Carillion joint inquiry, Mr Liddington did accept that crown representatives were vulnerable to being misled by supplier management."
    Misled in what way. Does he mean bribes or stupidity? Either way it sounds like my taxes are paying for incompetence which should not be tolerated.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interserve next...another occasion crown reps have been hoodwinked.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Government should waste money on such roles. They are never going to succeed when dipping in and out and skimming over the top - they are just never going to ever highlight anything of use.
    It’s a typical bureaucratic approach to just add another bureaucrat that cannot brung any value but can be a potential scapegoat

    Save our taxes and stop employing these wastes of space - smaller government!

    Frank field and his childish sound bytes are also embarrassing - he adds no value either

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Cabinet Office is not equipped or staffed to deal with the overview of the Public Sector Supply Chain. They generally lack the necessary understanding of business. Its role appears often a PR function rather than a watchdog and result in some relationships with contractors which are too cosy.

    It is evident that pressure is put on various public bodies by the Cabinet Office to continue placing contracts with the likes of Carillion even where their financial status is dubious. The logic is if contracts are withheld then it will cause a run on their stability and bring them down with resultant costs to picking up pieces. Well any person with experience in the financial failure of contractors will tell that doesn’t work. Again even if a company in financial difficulties does not fail, its recovery is often marked poor performance which in turn costs time and money.

    The Cabinet Office is currently unfit for purpose and needs radical change.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.