Sir Philip silent as MPs demand he loses his knighthood

SIR PHILIP Green refused to respond last night after MPs unanimously recommended he is stripped of his knighthood.

They have asked the Honours Forfeiture Committee to ensure Sir Philip’s knighthood is “cancelled and annulled”, with the move viewed by one former minister as part of the businessman’s “humiliation”.

The unprecedented decision is non-binding, although Downing Street indicated it believes the independent committee may have a decision to make in the future.

BHS went into administration with a £571m pension scheme deficit shortly after being sold for £1 by Sir Philip to serial bankrupt Dominic Chappell.

Labour MP David Winnick questioned how Sir Philip was deemed worthy of a knighthood in 2006, highlighting how the tycoon had put the business in the name of his wife, in Monaco.

He also said: “I see Green as a billionaire spiv, a billionaire spiv who should never have received a knighthood, a billionaire spiv who has shamed British capitalism, and the least we can do today is to make our views clear and strong.”

But later Tory MP Jacob ReesMogg argued that the move amounted to an abuse of the procedures of the House of Commons.

He said: “You have to have justice for those you don’t approve of as much as those for who you do approve of.”

BREXIT MINISTERS have pledged to do “everything necessary” to maintain economic stability after leaving the EU, amid warnings about the financial impact of uncertainty around trade.

In his first Parliamentary appearance since his being elected to chair the Brexit committee, the Leeds Central MP Hilary Benn has pressed ministers to offer new “transitional” guarantees to British business.

The Labour MP warned that uncertainty around post-Brexit trade relations with the EU remain “the major concern” for industry, and called on Government to commit to a period of adjustment.

His comments echo similar appeals from international business leaders, who have proposed a “transitional period” to allow firms to adapt to the post-EU landscape.

They also come amid growing speculation about membership of the Single Market, as experts warn withdrawing from the trade bloc could bring about a 4.5 per cent drop in GDP.

Addressing Brexit secretary David Davis in the Commons yesterday, Mr Benn claimed that establishing some form of transitional arrangement is “absolutely fundamental” for a smooth exit from the EU.

He suggested the Government should offers further assurances on trade and regulation, or risk companies ”taking decisions” to secure their future.

Mr Davis replied that the stability of British and European financial markets is “absolutely central” to his department’s work.

He pointed out that the passage of the Great Repeal Bill will make the changeover from EU membership more manageable, and stressed that the Government “will do everything necessary” to maintain market stability.

A number of MPs also tried to draw out more details about the Government’s position on Single Market membership.

Shadow Brexit minister Keir Starmer asked Mr Davis to confirm that Prime Minister is not intending to withdraw from the customs union.

Economists have estimated this would could lead to a 4.5 per cent fall in UK GDP by 2030, as well as clogging up trade at British ports.

But Mr Davis would only state that the Government is “taking [its] time to come to a conclusion”.

Shipley MP Philip Davies also warned that many of the conditions surrounding Single Market membership “[fly] in the face” of what people voted for in the referendum.

He went on to suggest that it would be “economic suicide” on behalf of the EU not to agree some form of tarrif-free trade deal with the UK.

But again, Mr Davies said only that the Government’s aim is a deal “that is good for the United Kingdom and good for the European Union”.

He took a more hostile tone in response to the Darlington MP Jenny Chapman, who accused him of being unable to give a “straight answer” when challenged about how much the UK will continue paying to the EU after it leaves.

He ducked the question, before claiming theat Labour is seeking to put the UK’s strategy at a “disadvantaged position” compared to the EU.

“I am afraid that, from time to time, [Labour] do things that are seriously not in the country’s interests,” he said.

“The opposition are trying to put us in a disadvantaged position with the European Union, and that is not in the national interest.”