Labour says Sunak should not need ethics adviser to tell him Zahawi should be sacked
Labour says Rishi Sunak should sack Nadhim Zahawi, not just order an inquiry. In a statment Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, said:
This pathetic attempt to pass the buck is simply not good enough. Nadhim Zahawi was chancellor of the exchequer while he hadn’t paid his tax and was negotiating a settlement with HMRC at the time. You don’t need an ethics adviser to tell you that’s unacceptable.
The prime minister made the decision to appoint Nadhim Zahawi as a government minister and Conservative party chair. Rishi Sunak’s vote of confidence in Nadhim Zahawi is yet another example of his weak leadership and appalling judgement. He can no longer dodge questions about what he knew and when, or why warnings were ignored.
It’s his responsibility as prime minister to ensure his cabinet’s tax affairs are up-to-date and in order, but he’s too compromised to do his job and failing to deliver the integrity, professionalism and accountability he promised. Rishi Sunak must get a grip and dismiss Nadhim Zahawi from his cabinet immediately.
Key events
Filters BETA
Commissioner for public appointments to review Richard Sharp’s appointment as BBC chairman
William Shawcross, the commissioner for public appointments, has announced that he will view the circumstances that led to Richard Sharp being appointed as chairman of the BBC. In a statement prompted by yesterday’s Sunday Times revelations, and a call for a review from Labour, he said:
The role of the commissioner is to oversee the public appointments process and ensure appointments are made fairly, openly and on merit.
I intend to review this competition to assure myself and the public that the process was run in compliance with the government’s governance code for public appointments, using my powers under the order in council 2019 and the governance code.
My office has today called for the relevant papers from the Department for Media, Culture and Sport.
The Commissioner has written to Lucy Powell MP to confirm he will be reviewing the competition for the BBC Chair appointment to ensure it was conducted in line with the Governance Code for Public Appointments.
— Public Appointments (@publicapptscomm) January 23, 2023
Dominic Grieve, the former Tory attorney general, adopted almost exactly the same line as Labour’s Angela Rayner (see 1.50pm) when he was asked about Nadhim Zahawi on the World at One. He said that that Rishi Sunak should not need an ethics adviser to determine whether or not Zahawi was in the wrong.
Grieve told the programme:
The question as to whether somebody’s tax affairs have become sufficiently badly handled that they are proper people to remain in government is something which is dependent on facts. It doesn’t need the ethics advisor to tell you that.
Grieve, who left the Conservative party over Brexit, also said that ministers should be willing to resign over mistakes, instead of clining on to office. He said:
There is something slightly cleansing about somebody taking responsibility and giving up office if they come in for sustained criticism on something, whether it’s personal or indeed a policy failure.
But we’ve seem to gotten away from that. Instead we seem to be in a world where people don’t resign and then it all gets dragged out and the longer it gets dragged out, the bigger the reputational damage to the political party but also to politics and politicians more generally.
Starmer urges Labour to discuss its differences on trans issues ‘with respect and with tolerance’
Keir Starmer has said that he wants people in the Labour party to discuss their differences on trans issues “with respect and with tolerance”.
He was speaking on a visit today after the Labour MP Rosie Duffield said last week that that she felt “ostracised” by the party because of her gender-critical views, and a Labour aide was subsequently recorded being critical about her.
Starmer said:
I’m very concerned that all of our discussions in the Labour Party and in politics are discussions that we have with respect and with tolerance.
And they’re the principles and the values that I want to see in our Labour Party and that I insist on in our Labour party, whether it’s Rosie Duffield or anybody else.
There will be differences of opinion, of course there will, but respect and tolerance are the values that we must have in all those debates.
Yesterday the Mail on Sunday ran a story saying an unnamed “senior aide to Starmer” had been critical of Duffield, saying she should spend more time in her constituency and less time “hanging out with JK Rowling”, another critic of trans rights policies. Today the anti-Labour website Guido Fawkes has published an edited audio clip of Matthew Doyle, Labour’s head of communications, making those comments.
It is understood that Doyle was recorded without his knowledge having a general chat with a journalist when other journalists were in the vicinity, and that he thinks the clip has been edited very selectively. Although aides from all parties do sometimes speak out against their own colleagues at Westminster, Doyle’s comments are at the very mild end of what might count as a negative briefing. He says that it is people in her constituency party who want her to spend more time there and implies that she has cordial relations with Starmer.
Asked today about the comments made about Duffield, Starmer said:
Respect and tolerance are values of the entire Labour party. Of course I know there are strong and differing opinions on a number of issues. But respect and tolerance are there as my values, Labour party values, whatever we’re discussing.
Sturgeon says legal challenge against section 35 order in ‘public interest’ to clarify powers of Westminster
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that it would be in the public interest for the Scottish government to challenge the UK government’s decision to block its gender recognition reform bill in the courts.
Last week Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, said that for the first time since the Scotland Act was passed 25 years ago Westminster would use a section 35 order allowed under the legislation to block a Scottish bill.
Sturgeon said the Scottish government was “looking at all options” to challenge this. It is expected to seek a judicial review of the decision, but Sturgeon would not say when that might be.
At a news conference in Edinburgh, she said it would be in the public interest for the courts to decide when the use of section 35 was legitimate. She said:
There is, I think, a real public interest in getting some judicial interpretation of section 35 and what are the circumstances that it can be used, can’t be used, what tests need to be passed, what evidence does the UK Government need to put forward.
Right now, as things stand, as was demonstrated last week, this is a power than can be used pretty much on the whim of the UK government any time they have a political disagreement with the Scottish government on a piece of legislation and they can find a spurious ground to invoke Section 35 – that seems to be what can happen.
Sturgeon also criticised Jack and Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister for refusing to give evidence to a Scottish parliament committee about the decision to use section 35. She said:
I take the view that if you’re going to outrageously and unacceptably ride roughshod over the democratically elected Scottish parliament and seek to overturn decisions that the democratically elected Scottish parliament has arrived at, you should at least have the guts to turn up and sit before a committee of the democratically elected Scottish parliament and set out your reasons for doing so.
Rishi Sunak spoke to the media this morning on a visit to mental health facilities at Berrywood hospital in Northampton. He was there to promote a £150m mental health investment by the government that will fund “specialised mental health ambulances, more crisis services and improved health-based places of safety”.
Labour says Sunak should not need ethics adviser to tell him Zahawi should be sacked
Labour says Rishi Sunak should sack Nadhim Zahawi, not just order an inquiry. In a statment Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, said:
This pathetic attempt to pass the buck is simply not good enough. Nadhim Zahawi was chancellor of the exchequer while he hadn’t paid his tax and was negotiating a settlement with HMRC at the time. You don’t need an ethics adviser to tell you that’s unacceptable.
The prime minister made the decision to appoint Nadhim Zahawi as a government minister and Conservative party chair. Rishi Sunak’s vote of confidence in Nadhim Zahawi is yet another example of his weak leadership and appalling judgement. He can no longer dodge questions about what he knew and when, or why warnings were ignored.
It’s his responsibility as prime minister to ensure his cabinet’s tax affairs are up-to-date and in order, but he’s too compromised to do his job and failing to deliver the integrity, professionalism and accountability he promised. Rishi Sunak must get a grip and dismiss Nadhim Zahawi from his cabinet immediately.
Downing Street says inquiry into Zahawi could look at claims his initial denials of tax story were misleading
The statement from Rishi Sunak this morning announcing the inquiry into Nadhim Zahawi’s tax arrangements was taken as meaning that the ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, would focus primarily on whether or not his tax “error” (see 11.23am) was serious enough to justify his sacking.
But at the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said the inquiry could cover other aspects of Zahawi’s conduct in relation to this affair which might breach the ministerial code.
In the summer last year, when it was reported that HM Revenue and Customs were investigating his tax arrangements, Zahawi dismissed this as a smear and said that his tax affairs “fully paid and up to date”. The revelation that he only fully settled his tax bill when he was chancellor has raised questions about whether these initial denials were accurate.
Asked at the lobby briefing if the inquiry would look at claims that Zahawi “lied” to the media, the PM’s spokesperson replied:
The adviser is is able to look more widely if they see fit, but I wouldn’t speak on their behalf as to what they will or won’t do.
The ministerial code says ministers should resign if they knowingly mislead parliament. But that does not mean that ministers are safe if they just knowingly mislead journalists, because the code also says they should observe the seven principles of public life (the Nolan principles), one of which says “holders of public office should be truthful”.
Damian Green was forced to resign as first secretary of state in 2017 after an inquiry concluded that, when responding to media questions about a misconduct allegation (in his case, watching porn on his Commons computer a decade earlier), he gave statements to the media that were “inaccurate and misleading”.
Asked if the inquiry could also look at reports that Zahawi used legal threats to try to close down legitimate inquiries about his tax affairs, the spokesperson said the ethics adviser would look at breaches of the ministerial code in the first instance, but that he could also look at other issues that were relevant.
Labour to use Commons urgent question to demand answers on Nadhim Zahawi and Richard Sharp
The Nadhim Zahawi and Richard Sharp controversies should both get an airing in the Commons this afternoon, because Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, has tabled an urgent question, which has been granted, combining both. She is asking for a Cabinet Office minister to make a statement “on his department’s processes for vetting ministerial appointments and managing conflicts of interest”.
We don’t know yet who is replying, but it is likely to be Jeremy Quin, the paymaster general.
The UQ will be at 3.30pm. After it is over, there will be another, tabled by Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary for climate change and net zero, on energy companies forcing families to accept pre-payment meters.
No 10 says Sunak was not aware of Zahawi paying penalty to HMRC when he defended him in Commons last week
Rishi Sunak was not aware that Nadhim Zahawi, the Conservative party chair, had to pay a penalty when he settled his tax bill with HM Revenue and Customs until this weekend, No 10 admitted at that lobby briefing this morning.
That means he did not know the full details when he defended Zahawi at PMQs last week.
Asked by Labour’s Alex Sobel at PMQs if he was aware of the HMRC investigation into Zahawi’s tax affairs when he made him Tory chair, and put him in his cabinet, Sunak replied: “[Zahawi] has already addressed the matter in full and there is nothing more that I can add.”
This morning, asked if it was true that that Sunak did not know about the penalty paid by Zahawi until this weekend, the PM’s spokesperson said: “That’s my understanding.”
Asked if Sunak was concerned that he has not been told this, the PM’s spokesperson said that he had been told there were “no outstanding issues” in relation to Zahawi’s tax affairs when he appointed him to cabinet. That was part of the normal process, the spokesperson said.
Asked if Sunak had sought to establish the facts with Zahawi before he defended him in the Commons last week, the spokesperson said he would not comment on private conversations.
Asked if Sunak was angry about having been put in a position where he defended Zahawi without being aware of the full facts, the spokesperson said that was not a question he had asked the PM. He went on:
He thinks there are legitimate questions to answer and that’s why he’s asked his [ethics] adviser to establish the facts.
BBC chairman Richard Sharp offers detailed account of his involvement in loan guarantee offer to Boris Johnson
PA Media has released the full text of the message that Richard Sharp, the BBC chairman, has sent to BBC staff this morning announcing an internal inquiry into claims there was a conflict of interest when he was appointed. (See 10.34am.) Since it does not seem to be available online, I will post extensive extracts here.
This matter, although it took place before I joined the BBC, is a distraction for the organisation, which I regret. I’m really sorry about it all.
Prior to my appointment [as BBC chairman], I introduced an old friend of mine – and distant cousin of the then prime minister – Sam Blythe [sic], to the cabinet secretary, as Sam wanted to support Boris Johnson.
I was not involved in making a loan, or arranging a guarantee, and I did not arrange any financing. What I did do was to seek an introduction of Sam Blythe to the relevant official in government.
Sam Blythe, who I have known for more than 40 years, lives in London and having become aware of the financial pressures on the then prime minister, and being a successful entrepreneur, he told me he wanted to explore whether he could assist.
He spoke to me because he trusts me and wanted to check with me what the right way to go about this could be.
I told him that this was a sensitive area in any event, particularly so as Sam is a Canadian, and that he should seek to have the Cabinet Office involved and have the cabinet secretary advise on appropriateness and indeed whether any financial support Sam might wish to provide was possible. Accordingly Sam asked me whether I would connect him with the cabinet secretary.
At the time I was working in Downing Street as a special economic adviser to the Treasury during the pandemic, and I had submitted my application to be chairman of the BBC.
I went to see the cabinet secretary and explained who Sam was, and that as a cousin of the then prime minister he wanted to help him if possible.
I also reminded the cabinet secretary that I had submitted my application for the position of BBC chairman.
We both agreed that to avoid any conflict that I should have nothing further to do with the matter. At that point there was no detail on the proposed arrangements and I had no knowledge of whether any assistance was possible, or could be agreed.
Since that meeting I have had no involvement whatsoever with any process. Even now, I don’t know any more than is reported in the media about a loan or reported guarantee.
I am now aware that the Cabinet Office have a note of this meeting, and that this included advice to the Prime Minister that I should not be involved, to avoid any conflict or appearance of conflict with my BBC application.
The Cabinet Office have confirmed that the recruitment process was followed appropriately and that I was appointed on merit, in a process which was independently monitored.
UPDATE: Variety has published the Sharp statement in full here.
The Liberal Democrats say that if Rishi Sunak is not prepared to sack Nadhim Zahawi, at least he should suspend him pending the inquiry by the ethics adviser. In a statement Daisy Cooper, the party’s deputy leader, said:
The gear-change from ‘nothing to see here’ to ordering a major ethics investigation in just a few days, puts Sunak’s own judgment in the spotlight once again.
If Sunak won’t do the decent thing and sack Zahawi, the least he can do is suspend him for the duration of the investigation.
Sunak says ‘of course’ people can still trust him to obey the law despite seatbelt fine, which was ‘mistake’
Rishi Sunak has also said that the fact that he was fined last week for not wearing a seatbelt should not mean that people cannot trust him to obey the law.
In his first public comment on the fine, which was issued on Friday, Sunak said:
Yes, I regret not wearing a seatbelt. It was a mistake and that is why I apologised straight away.
Asked whether the public could trust him as PM to follow the “laws of the land” following his fine, Sunak replied:
Of course I do.
In this instance, I made a mistake which I regret deeply and that’s why I apologised straight away.
Sunak says process for appointing BBC chairman ‘rigorous’, ‘independent’ and ‘transparent’
Rishi Sunak has defended the appointment of Richard Sharp as BBC chairman. Asked about the claims that Sharp did not disclose a potential conflict of interest when he was appointed by Boris Johnson, Sunak told reporters during a visit to a hospital in Northamptonshire:
This appointment was obviously made by one of my predecessors before I became prime minister.
The appointments process itself for appointing the BBC chairman is a rigorous process, it is independent, there are two stages to it, it is transparent and published online.
Mr Sharp’s appointment went through that full process.
Zahawi says he is carrying on as Tory chair and will not be discussing tax row in public while inquiry underway
Here is Nadhim Zahawi’s full statement in response to the announcement of the inquiry by No 10’s ethics adviser. He says that he will not be commenting further on the affair in public while the inquiry is underway and that he will be carrying on as Conservative chair in the meantime.
I welcome the prime minister’s referral of this matter to the independent adviser on ministerial standards. I look forward to explaining the facts of this issue to Sir Laurie Magnus and his team.
I am confident I acted properly throughout and look forward to answering any and all specific questions in a formal setting to Sir Laurie.
In order to ensure the independence of this process, you will understand that it would be inappropriate to discuss this issue any further, as I continue my duties as chairman of the Conservative and Unionist party.
