Rayner slams “pathetic excuses” of Johnson amid Geidt text revelations

Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner has slammed Boris Johnson for offering “pathetic excuses” after the government published letters today disclosing the latest communications between the Prime Minister and his ethics adviser.

“Boris Johnson has little regard for the rules or the truth,” Rayner said. “The ministerial code requires ministers to act with transparency and honesty. It is simply impossible to read these exchanges and conclude that the Prime Minister has not breached these aspects of the code.”

The letters confirm that Lord Geidt, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministers’ interests, was not given sight of crucial exchanges between Johnson and Lord Brownlow, who initially funded the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat.

It was only thanks to an investigation by the Electoral Commission that it emerged Johnson had asked Conservative donor Brownlow via WhatsApp in November 2020 to “authorise further, at that stage unspecific, refurbishment works on the residence”.

This appeared to contradict what Johnson had told Geidt. The Conservative Party was fined £17,800 by the Commission in December for failing to accurately report the full value of the donation and failing to keep proper accounting records.

The WhatsApp messages described by Lord Geidt as the “missing exchange”:

29/11/2020, 12:59 The Prime Minister: Hi David I am afraid parts of our flat are still a bit of a tip and am keen to allow Lulu Lytle to get on with it. Can I possibly ask her to get in touch with you for approvals ? Many thanks and all best Boris Ps am on the great exhibition plan Will revert.

29/11/2020, 15:44 Lord Brownlow: Afternoon Prime Minister, I hope you’re both well Sorry for the delay I was out for a walk and didn’t have my ‘work’ phone with me. Of course, get Lulu to call me and we’ll get it sorted ASAP ! Thanks for thinking about GE2 Best wishes David

29/11/2020, 16:10 Lord Brownlow: I should have said, as the Trust isn’t set up yet (will be in January) approval is a doddle as it’s only me and I know where the £ will come from, so as soon as Lulu calls we can crack on – David

It has been revealed today that Geidt has told Johnson the omission was “plainly unsatisfactory” and it “shook” his confidence “because potential and real failures of process occurred in more than one part of the apparatus of government”.

Geidt added: “I doubt whether I would have concluded, without qualification, what is set out in paragraph 33 of my report, that ‘at the point when the Prime Minister became aware, he took steps to make the relevant declaration and to seek advice’.”

The adviser criticised the Cabinet Office in his letters, suggesting that the messages were deliberately withheld from him as “Lord Brownlow offered to furnish the Cabinet Office with all the material” but this offer “was not accepted”.

Geidt added: “It seems extraordinary that the offer was not accepted by the Cabinet Office. Moreover, at no stage was I made aware that the offer by Lord Brownlow to share this information had earlier been made and had not been taken up.”

The Prime Minister this afternoon claimed that he did not disclose the WhatsApp messages to his adviser because he changed his mobile phone number after it became public and the messages were not automatically transferred.

Commenting on the development, Rayner said: “Once again, by attempting to hide the truth, Boris Johnson undermines his own office. The Prime Minister’s pathetic excuses will fool no one, and this is just the latest in a long line of sorry episodes.

“This matters because it matters who has influence on our government in a democracy. The British public can’t WhatsApp a wealthy donor to open their wallets on request, and the least they deserve is transparency about who’s bankrolling their Prime Minister.”

While Geidt has ultimately cleared the Prime Minister from intentional wrongdoing, Johnson has been widely criticised as ministers are obliged not to accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone that would, or might appear to, place them under an obligation.