Summary
Here is a round-up of the day’s stories:
Rishi Sunak has told his ethics adviser to investigate suggestions that Nadhim Zahawi was forced to pay a fine and millions of pounds in unpaid taxes to HMRC, as the prime minister acknowledged there were “questions that need answering”. Labour says Sunak does not need advice from his ethics adviser on this, and that it is already clear Zahawi should be sacked. (See 1.50pm.) Answering an urgent question on this in the Commons, Jeremy Quin, the Cabinet Office minister, was unable to say whether Zahawi was telling the truth in the summer when he said he had fully paid his taxes. Quin told MPs he did not know what the actual situation was at that point. See (See 3.52pm.)
Two hundred asylum-seeking children who were placed in hotels run by the Home Office have gone missing, a minister has admitted. As Rajeev Syal and Diane Taylor report, they include one girl and at least 13 children under the age of 16, the Home Office minister Simon Murray told the House of Lords on Monday.
The Labour party must have “respect and tolerance” in the face of differing opinions on gender, Keir Starmer has said after Rosie Duffield’s claim she felt ostracised by the party because of her views. Duffield last week accused male party colleagues of trying to shout her down in the Commons when she spoke to back the government’s move to block gender reforms proposed in Scotland.
Prime minister Rishi Sunak and the Irish premier Leo Varadkar had a “good conversation” by telephone earlier, the Irish government has said. They discussed the ongoing negotiations between the UK and EU on the Northern Ireland Protocol, as well as the ongoing collapse of the Stormont Assembly in Belfast, PA Media reported.
That’s it from me, Tom Ambrose, and indeed the UK politics live blog for today. Thanks for following along.
More on that phone call between the UK prime minister Rishi Sunak and Irish taoiseach Leo Varadkar today.
A Downing Street spokesperson said:
The prime minister spoke to the Irish taoiseach Leo Varadkar this afternoon.
The leaders reflected on the close relationship between the UK and Ireland, and the prime minister said it was clear both nations were highly aligned when it came to shared values and challenges. He pointed to cooperation on areas like research and development and offshore wind.
“The leaders discussed the invasion of Ukraine, and the prime minister updated on the UK’s plans to accelerate its support to help the country secure a lasting peace.
They also discussed the Northern Ireland protocol, and the need to find solutions to the problems being faced by communities in Northern Ireland. Both leaders reflected on the need for Northern Ireland to have a power-sharing government up and running as soon as possible.
The leaders agreed to stay in close touch.
Updated
The Labour party must have “respect and tolerance” in the face of differing opinions on gender, Keir Starmer has said after Rosie Duffield’s claim she felt ostracised by the party because of her views.
Duffield last week accused male party colleagues of trying to shout her down in the Commons when she spoke to back the government’s move to block gender reforms proposed in Scotland.
She later wrote that being in the Labour party reminded her of a former abusive relationship after she faced criticism for her position on the issue.
Duffield’s comments followed the vote in Scotland to allow transgender people to obtain a gender recognition certificate through a process known as “self-identification” and without the need for a medical diagnosis, which the UK government stepped in to stop it from becoming law.
Asked about her comments, Starmer said his party had to ensure it was respectful when debating contentious issues.
He told broadcasters on Monday:
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.
Prime minister Rishi Sunak and the Irish premier Leo Varadkar had a “good conversation” by telephone earlier, the Irish government has said.
They discussed the ongoing negotiations between the UK and EU on the Northern Ireland Protocol, as well as the ongoing collapse of the Stormont Assembly in Belfast, PA Media reported.
The two premiers “both recognised the importance of the ongoing engagement between the EU and the UK on the Protocol”, the Irish government spokesperson said.
They said the taoiseach repeated the need for a solution which avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland and protects the integrity of the single market.
Sunak and Varadkar also talked about Ukraine and Varadkar reiterated his government’s concern about legislation going through Westminster to deal with the legacy of the Troubles.
Afternoon summary
Rishi Sunak has told his ethics adviser to investigate suggestions that Nadhim Zahawi was forced to pay a fine and millions of pounds in unpaid taxes to HMRC, as the prime minister acknowledged there were “questions that need answering”. Labour says Sunak does not need advice from his ethics adviser on this, and that it is already clear Zahawi should be sacked. (See 1.50pm.) Answering an urgent question on this in the Commons, Jeremy Quin, the Cabinet Office minister, was unable to say whether Zahawi was telling the truth in the summer when he said he had fully paid his taxes. Quin told MPs he did not know what the actual situation was at that point. See (See 3.52pm.)
Two hundred asylum-seeking children who were placed in hotels run by the Home Office have gone missing, a minister has admitted. As Rajeev Syal and Diane Taylor report, they include one girl and at least 13 children under the age of 16, the Home Office minister Simon Murray told the House of Lords on Monday.
Updated
Labour calls for moratorium on energy customers being forced onto prepayment meters
Ofgem announced today that it is reviewing the extent to which energy companies are forcing some customers to move over to prepayment meters, which are more expensive. My colleague Mark Sweney has the story here.
On his visit to Octopus Energy, Keir Starmer said forcing customers to switch was “shocking”. He went on:
The idea that people who are struggling with their bills are being forced onto prepayment meters, which are more expensive — you only need to say that to recognise it is wrong …
For a Labour government, we would have a moratorium straight away in relation to this.
During an urgent question in the Commons Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary for climate change and net zero, said as a start the government should impose a ban on the forced installation of prepayment meters this winter.
In response Graham Stuart, the energy minister, said that the government accepted the need to protect customers and that it was looking at the case for social tariffs for energy customers on low incomes. But he said that for some people prepayment meters could be “a useful tool to allow them to manage their credit and make sure that they don’t get drawn into the court system”.
Dan Neidle, the tax expert who was threatened with legal action when he started looking into Nadhim Zahawi’s tax arrangements last summer, posted an interesting list of outstanding questions for Zahawi on Twitter this morning.
I'm really pleased the Prime Minister agrees there are "questions that need answering" from Nadhim Zahawi. Here are mine, sent to Mr Zahawi yesterday.
— Dan Neidle (@DanNeidle) January 23, 2023
Haven't heard back yet, but I'm sure he's having a busy day. https://t.co/NNqGBS1o8J pic.twitter.com/qgKIUnFM5w
And here is the response he got from CCHQ, saying they would not be answering because of the inquiry by the No 10 ethics adviser.
Can anyone explain why an ethics enquiry prevents Mr Zahawi answering questions today?
— Dan Neidle (@DanNeidle) January 23, 2023
And is it the same reason why Mr Zahawi failed to answer my questions for the last six months? pic.twitter.com/sGF4HUzgu8
Former Irish PM Bertie Ahern tells MPs solution to Northern Ireland protocol not 'rocket science', but needs compromise
If politicians could persuade the IRA to drop their arms in 1998, then it is not “rocket science” to end the Brexit dispute over Northern Ireland, a co-architect of the Good Friday agreement has told MPs.
Stressing that “compromise” and political leadership was needed, Bertie Ahern called on both all sides including the UK, the EU and the Democratic Unionist party to ditch their red lines and make agreements that will deliver a lasting deal to end the Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
Giving evidence to the Commons Northern Ireland affairs committee, he said:
We can solve this. I really, really believe this is not rocket science.
When you think of the things that we got resolved, we got the IRA to decommission arms, we released prisoners … people who would kill policemen. We reformed the old RUC [Royal Ulster Constabulary] to have now a very competent international PSNI [Police Service of Northern Ireland].
That we can’t find a way of working out how to get sausages and rashers in the internal market working, it’s beyond comprehension.
Ahern added. “I think there has to be a solution that is unique to Northern Ireland.”
He said technical solutions were not the answer and he had not yet heard any reason from leaders in the EU why a new bespoke deal for NI was not warranted.
Ahern reminded MPs that Northern Ireland was “a divided society still” and the only way forward is “good compromise”.
The first present or former Irish taoiseach to give evidence to the Northern Ireland affairs committee, Ahern said no-one was suggesting the solution to the row over the NI protocol was to ignore the unionist community but there had to be compromises on all sides.
The future was not next year or the year after but the next 25 years and the post peace generation deserved a solution to the Brexit row.
“In the absence of compromise, we’re building a future that will be on quicksand and that’s my concern,” he told the committee.
He made several references to the DUP’s seven tests for a protocol deal but called on unionists to compromise too. Their conditions for a deal should be addressed but some of their demands would be impossible to meet, he said.
Updated
Chris Bryant (Lab) asks why an up-to-date list of ministers’ interests has not been published. The current list is 243 days old. It is out of date. It includes people who are no longer ministers. Why do we have to wait another three months?
Quin says it will be published by May. That does not mean it will take that long, he says.
And the UQ is over.
Cabinet Office minister says he does not know if Zahawi blocked from getting knighthood because of tax affairs
Luke Pollard (Lab) asks if ministers were told that Nadhim Zahawi was blocked from getting an honour because of his tax affairs.
Quin says he does not know the answer to that.
I genuinely don’t know the answer to that question. There is a process for honours and awards which is kept highly confidential.
I don’t know whether [Zahawi] was up for an award or indeed whether that was blocked, so it would have been a very tight process. I don’t know if there’s any ministerial involvement in that process.
UPDATE: At the weekend the Sun on Sunday claimed Zahawi failed to get a knighthood because of his tax arrangements. In their story Kate Ferguson and Ashley Armstrong said:
A source told The Sun on Sunday: “Nadhim had been put forward for a knighthood. As part of the normal due diligence, Cabinet officials contacted HMRC in December. Nadhim subsequently did not appear on the list in the New Year.”
Updated
Toby Perkins (Lab) says Richard Sharp may not have provided advice to Boris Johnson, or arranged the loan, but he was involved. So surely he should have mentioned this when he appeared before the culture committee?
Quin says Sharp felt he did not need to. Sharp has ordered a review, he says.
Cat Smith (Lab) asks if any other ministers are in dispute with HMRC with regard to their taxes.
Quin says this is a matter for individual ministers. They have to talk to their permanent secretaries about matters like this.
Kevin Brennan (Lab) says that, before becoming BBC chairman, Richard Sharp had to fill in a form asking if he had any interests that “might give rise to a perceived conflict of interest”. Surely helping to arrange a £800,000 loan for the person who appointed him, the PM, counts?
Quin questions whether Sharp did actually arrange a loan in that way.
Cabinet Office minister unable to say to MPs Zahawi was telling truth when he said last summer his taxes were fully paid
Stephen Timms (Lab) says Nadhim Zahawi went on TV and said his tax affairs were fully paid and up to date in the summer. But we now know that is not true, don’t we?
Quin says he does not know the answer to that.
UPDATE: Timms said:
[Zahawi] went onto television before he settled his tax debt and said that his tax affairs were “fully paid and up to date”. We now know that statement was untrue, don’t we?
And Quin replied:
I’ve got a great deal of respect for [Timms], but he knows I don’t know the answer to that question. I genuinely don’t. But I’ve got no doubt that the work of the independent adviser will establish the facts and that that will be reported to the prime minister.
Updated
Richard Burgon (Lab) says Rishi Sunak promised to act with integrity when be became PM. He says when you have a government “of the super-rich, for the super-rich”, conflicts of interest are more likely.
Gagan Mohindra (Con) asks Quin if he agrees that the outcome of the inquiry into Nadhim Zahawi should not be pre-judged. Quin does agree (unsurprisingly).
Angela Richardson (Con) accuses Labour of “brass neck”. She says Labour spent months calling for a No 10 ethics adviser to be appointed, but now he is in place, Labour says his advice is not needed.
Updated
John Nicolson is speaking for the SNP. He sits on the culture committee, and he focuses on the Richard Sharp appointment.
He says Sharp never mentioned his involvement with the loan guarantee to Boris Johnson when he appeared before the committee.
Other applicants were told not to reply, he says. He says “even by the grubby standards of this government it’s all a bit banana republic”.
Quin says a robust process was followed. He says the BBC itself is going to look into this.
Quin is replying to Rayner.
He says the government will follow process, and await the outcome of the investigation.
He provokes laughter from some MPs when he says the government believes in professionalism and integrity.
Integrity, accountability are critical, as is professionalism, and this government will wait and hear the facts before taking decisions based upon on those facts.
Labour should do the same, he says.
Updated
Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, is responding now.
She does not seem to be paying much attention to the Speaker’s ruling about not criticising individuals. She asks Nadhim Zahawi could be appointed to run the tax system when he owed taxes himself. She says this is so absurd that people must have assumed it might never happen.
UPDATE: Rayner said:
Reports that the then chancellor of the exchequer agreed a settlement with HMRC, including a penalty, raise serious concerns, not just about that case but standards in this entire government …
Why was it kept secret? Is there no system in place to prevent a person being actively investigated for unpaid tax being appointed to run the UK’s tax system? Maybe it’s that absurd that no-one would ever think it would happen.
While we understand confidentiality of the honours process, surely where a serving minister is blocked there is an overwhelming case for sounding the alarm. So did that happen and where is the report? If not, why is there a lower bar to get into this cabinet than there is to get a knighthood.
Updated
Jeremy Quin,the Cabinet Office minister, makes a short statement.
He talks about how ministers are appointment, but he does refer to the Nadhim Zahawi case at the end, saying the No 10 ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, is now looking into this.
Labour urgent question on ministerial appointments and conflicts of interest
The Labour urgent question is taking place now.
Labour is asking for a statement on the government’s “processes for vetting ministerial appointments and managing conflicts of interest”.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, says MPs can ask about these issues.
But he says they are not debating a substantive motion, and so MPs should not criticise other MPs.
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 people 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 who say they 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.
Updated
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.
Updated
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.
Updated
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.
Sharp said he was “sorry” for the the impact that this affair was having on the BBC. He said:
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.
He offered a detailed account of the role he played in helping Boris Johnson to obtain a loan guarantee from Sam Blyth. He said:
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.
Sharp said the Cabinet Office has a note of his meeting with Case on this. He said:
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.
He said that he believes firmly “that I was appointed on merit, which the Cabinet Office have also confirmed”.
UPDATE: Variety has published the Sharp statement in full here.
Updated
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.
Updated
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.
Updated
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.
Zahawi says 'I'm confident I acted properly throughout' as he welcomes inquiry into tax settlement
Nadhim Zahawi, the Conservative party chair, has welcomed the decision by Rishi Sunak to ask the No 10 ethics adviser to investigate his case. “I am confident I acted properly throughout,” Zahawi said.
Zahawi seems to be using a narrow definition of “properly”. In the statement he issued yesterday, he accepted that his original decision not to pay the tax that HM Revenue and Customs subsequently concluded he should have paid was down to a careless error. He said:
Following discussions with HMRC, they agreed that my father was entitled to founder shares in YouGov, though they disagreed about the exact allocation. They concluded that this was a ‘careless and not deliberate’ error.
Updated
Sunak says 'clearly questions need answering' about Zahawi's tax affairs as he announces inquiry
This is what Rishi Sunak told reporters this morning about his decision to ask his new ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, to investigate Nadhim Zahawi’s tax settlement with HM Revenue and Customs. Sunak said:
Integrity and accountability is really important to me and clearly in this case there are questions that need answering …
That’s why the independent adviser has been asked to fully investigate this matter and provide advice to me on Nadhim Zahawi’s compliance with the ministerial code, and on the basis of that we’ll decide on the appropriate next steps.
Asked whether Zahawi should not stand down during the investigation, Sunak said: “As is longstanding practice, he will continue to play the role he does.”
On the subject of the questions that need answering, the Observer published a good list at the weekend.
Johnson accuses BBC of 'disappearing up its own fundament' as he dismisses chairman appointment controversy as 'nonsense'
Boris Johnson has dismissed claims that there was anything improper in his appointment of Richard Sharp as BBC chairman as “absolute nonsense”.
Doorstepped by reporters this morning, and asked if he would welcome an inquiry into the claims that Sharp should have declared that he was helping Johnson obtain a loan guarantee shortly before he was appointed by Johnson to be chairman of the BBC, Johnson said:
This is a load of complete nonsense, absolute nonsense.
Let me just tell you – Richard Sharp is a good and a wise man. But he knows absolutely nothing about my personal finances, I can tell you that for 100% ding-dang sure.
This is just another example of the BBC disappearing up its own fundament.
Johnson did not answer any further questions.
His comment does not address the issue at the heart of the story. The question is not whether or not Sharp knew the details of Johnson’s personal finances; the claim is that his involvement in helping Johnson obtain a loan guarantee could be seen as creating a conflict of interest that was not declared at the time the appointment was approved.
Updated
Rishi Sunak asks No 10 ethics adviser to investigate Nadhim Zahawi tax settlement case
Rishi Sunak has asked his new ethics adviser to investigate Nadhim Zahawi’s tax settlement with HM Revenue and Customs, PA Media reports. It has just snapped this.
Rishi Sunak has asked his independent ethics adviser to look into the Nadhim Zahawi case, as “clearly in this case there are questions that need answering”.
Updated
BBC announces internal inquiry into claims of conflict of interest when its chairman appointed by Boris Johnson
Richard Sharp, the BBC chairman, has announced that an internal inquiry will investigate allegations that he did not declare a conflict of interest when he was appointed to the job by Boris Johnson.
The allegations arose following a report in the Sunday Times yesterday saying that, at around the time he was applying for the BBC post, Sharp helped Johnson secure a £800,000 loan guarantee by putting the person willing to guarantee the loan facility in touch with Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, who needed to approve it.
In his statement, Sharp said:
We have many challenges at the BBC and I know that distractions such as this are not welcome.
Our work at the BBC is rooted in trust. Although the appointment of the BBC chairman is solely a matter for the government … I want to ensure that all the appropriate guidelines have been followed within the BBC since I have joined.
The nominations committee of the BBC board has responsibility for regularly reviewing board members conflicts of interest and I have agreed with the board’s senior independent director, Sir Nicholas Serota, that the committee shall assess this when it next meets, reporting to the board, and in the interests of transparency publish the conclusions.
Sharp said he had agreed “with the board’s senior independent director that the committee shall look at this when it next meets and, in the interests of transparency, publish the conclusions”.
Yesterday the Sunday Times quoted Sharp as saying that he did not declare his involvement at the time he was being appointed because there was no conflict of interest. Sharp told the paper:
There is not a conflict when I simply connected, at his request, [Sam Blyth, who did offer the loan guarantee] with the cabinet secretary and had no further involvement whatsoever.
Updated
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham suggests Tories don't want to resolve health strikes because they want to privatise NHS
In an article for the Guardian, Gordon Brown, the former Labour PM, says that the Conservatives are exploring introducing charging into the NHS, in a move that would formalise “two-tier healthcare”. Referring to an article the Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, published in the Times on Saturday, Brown says:
Sajid Javid, a former chancellor and health secretary, has written approvingly of the £20 fee that some European countries charge for visits to the GP. He labels Ireland’s €75 (£66) bill for attending an A&E without a GP’s referral as merely “nominal”, as if it’s so modest that a higher charge would be more appropriate. And he calls for a national debate on the contribution private financing can make to healthcare.
But the direction in which the Conservatives are travelling is already clear. The sick would pay for being sick and charging would force, as has happened with GP and hospital fees in France, the better-off sections of the population to take out private insurance – inevitably creating, in its wake, a two-tier healthcare system.
Javid’s intervention in favour of what he calls “nothing short of a 1948-style moment” is no accident. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who has used private healthcare, once came up with a proposal for new charges: £10 for patients who miss GP and hospital appointments. And so once again, as they did in opposition at the turn of this century, with Alternative Prescriptions, Conservatives are testing the water for a different kind of NHS.
Brown says charging would be inefficient and unfair, but he also says the NHS does need a new funding settlement. He says:
As a former chancellor, I have said for some time that the NHS refinancing that Labour achieved in 2002 – a 6.3% real terms annual rise between 2000 and 2010 – had to be revisited every decade. This hasn’t happened under the Conservatives, and the consequences are visible to all of us. But the pressures the NHS faces make the case for comprehensive funding through national insurance even stronger; and show why this is to be preferred to either European-style social insurance, or private insurance.
Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, made a similar claim in an interview on the Today programme this morning. She criticised Rishi Sunak for not getting involved in talks to end the health strikes, and she said she was now “seriously thinking” that there was a “more sinister” reason for the Tories not wanting to see the dispute settled. She said:
I believe that [the Conservatives] have an agenda in terms of privatising the NHS. Sajid Javid’s comments over the weekend weren’t done whoopsie daisy, they were very deliberate. They were flagged to see how it flew. I am very, very concerned now that they have another agenda.
Asked what evidence there was that the Tories wanted to privatise the NHS, Graham said:
I was around when Jeremy Hunt was the health secretary, and he wanted the NHS in the American trade deal part. And what we’re seeing now is such an act of self harm, I cannot understand why the prime minister does not come to the table … and gets this deal done.
Updated
Paul Goodman, editor of the ConservativeHome website and a former Conservative MP, is not particularly optimistic about Nadhim Zahawi’s survival chances in a good article on the topic published this morning. Here’s an extract.
For when a minister comes under fire, the prime minister’s support is essential. If it is heartfelt, the latter may find a way of saying a few words for a camera or the airwaves. The view of the minister’s colleagues will also be important. If they queue up to defend him, they will either believe his account of events, like him, or have an interest in backing him – not least because they may be next.
You will have your own take, but James Cleverly, the luckless minister on media duty yesterday, didn’t say that he had confidence in Zahawi as party chairman, but that his colleagues’ futures are a matter for the prime minister. That wasn’t exactly a vote of confidence. Meanwhile, Iain Duncan Smith, who was also in the TV studios, urged Zahawi to “get it all out now, whatever you have to do, and clear it up”.
I haven’t yet spoken to anyone in Downing Street with a less cautious view. It’s a big place with many staff, not all of whom will have the same opinion – a point to bear in mind when you read articles quoting “Number Ten”. Duncan Smith said that “I genuinely don’t believe this is a man who is deceitful in any shape or form”. But one senior figure I spoke to yesterday said that he wasn’t convinced by Zahawi’s account of events.
Updated
Photograph: James Manning/PA
Nadhim Zahawi has arrived at the Conservative party’s HQ in Westminster this morning, PA Media reports. The Tory chairman said “Morning!” to the press gathered outside. He then went inside the building.
Nadhim Zahawi’s job as Tory chair ‘hanging by a thread’, says former No 10 communications chief
Good morning. Since the end of the second world war, UK governments have generally been brought down by economic/financial crises (1970, 1974, 1979, 2010) or sleaze/ethics crises (1964, 1997). The current Conservative government is on course to fail on both.
Ambulance staff are on strike again over pay. And Nadhim Zahawi, the Conservative party chair, is under pressure to resign over revelations that he paid a penalty to settle a tax dispute while he was in cabinet.
Here is my colleague Peter Walker’s overnight night story about the pressure he is facing.
Here is an explainer from my colleague Archie Bland.
This is from Archie’s daily First Edition briefing. You can sign up to get it as an email here.
And here are the developments on this story this morning.
Zahawi reached his settlement with HM Revenue and Customs, and paid the penalty he owed, while he was chancellor, it has been confirmed.
Craig Oliver, head of communications at No 10 when David Cameron was prime minister, has described Zahawi as “in serious trouble” and “hanging by a thread”. In an interview with the Today programme, Oliver said:
I think that [Zahawi] is in serious trouble. You cannot be Conservative party chairman and not go out and face the media. So at some stage he’s going to have to go out and have a very, very difficult interview.
The problem, I think, at the moment is, it doesn’t all add up. Why did you take the job of chancellor when you were clearly in dispute with the HMRC? He has yet to come out with an answer that is satisfying or feels comfortable on that point.
It’s dealing with sums of money which are astronomical to the average voter and it feels deeply uncomfortable.
And I suspect that prime minister’s questions this week is to be very awkward for Rishi Sunak but also the first time that Nadhim Zahawi has to face the media is going to be incredibly awkward too.
So I think that at the moment he’s hanging on by a thread.
Zahawi insists he is not resigning. This is from my colleague Aubrey Allegretti this morning.
Nadhim Zahawi digging in this morning, despite the clamour for him to go over previously un-paid taxes.
— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) January 23, 2023
A source close to the Conservative party chairman says: "He is absolutely not resigning."
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rishi Sunak is expected to record a pooled TV interview while on a health visit.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
11.30am: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, holds a press conference.
3pm: Bertie Ahern, the former taoiseach (Irish PM), gives evidence to the Commons Northern Ireland affairs committee on the institutions created by the Good Friday agreement.
4pm: Dehenna Davison, the levelling up minister, gives evidence to the levelling up committee on levelling up funding.
4pm: Sarah Healey, permanent secretary, at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, gives evidence to the Commons public accounts committee.
I’ll try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com
Updated
