UK Politics

The Metropolitan Police has told Sue Gray to make “minimal reference” to potentially lawbreaking No 10 parties in her report, the force has confirmed.In a statement released on Friday morning the Met said that “for the events the Met is investigating, we asked for minimal reference to be made in the Cabinet Office report”.It comes after an unexpected delay to the release of the much-awaited internal probe into events at Downing Street, reportedly due to a “legal scrubbing” process.Scotland Yard, which is running a parallel criminal investigation into some of the more potentially egregious events, added that it “did not ask for limitation on other events in the report, or for the report to be delayed, but we have had ongoing contact with the Cabinet Office, including on the content of the report”.The statement said the requests for some details to be left out had been “to avoid prejudice to our investigation”. Boris Johnson continues to anxiously await Ms Gray’s report, which could trigger a vote of no confidence in his leadership by Conservative MPs angered over alleged breaches of lockdown rules.But MPs waiting for the report’s publication before launching a bid to remove the PM may have their plan derailed if it emerges with its most potentially damaging findings removed.Downing Street confirmed on Friday morning that it had not yet received the report, which may not be released until next week.Sources close to the Sue Gray inquiry have previously indicated that the civil service investigator was concerned about the prospect of releasing a report that did not include all of its key findings.Cabinet Office sources on Frida morning pointed to the inquiry’s terms of reference, which require it to establish the nature of the gatherings, including attendance and adherence to the guidance in place at the time. The department says that the findings will be made public, and that what the Metropolitan Police investigate is for Scotland Yard to decide.Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick announced that a criminal investigation had been launched on Tuesday, after weeks of calls for one.Officers have not confirmed how many events they are investigating, but reports have suggested the number could be as high as eight.Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said the proceedings risked giving the “appearance of an establishment stitch-up”.”So first the police were waiting for Sue Gray, now Sue Gray has to wait for the police?” he said.”Any appearance of an establishment stitch-up between the Met Commissioner and the Government is profoundly damaging. Police officers need the trust and confidence of the public to do their jobs and keep our communities safe.”That’s why we called for the police to investigate Number 10 weeks ago and put this whole sorry business behind us, instead of waiting for Sue Gray.”The Sue Gray report must be published in full, including all photos, text messages and other evidence. If it is redacted now, a full, unredacted version must be published as soon as the police investigation is complete.” More

The Foreign Office’s top civil servant has apologised to a parliamentary committee for misleading evidence over memos linking Boris Johnson to the evacuation of dogs and cats belonging to ex-Marine Pen Farthing from Afghanistan.And a senior member of the committee said it was now “difficult to have confidence that MPs are getting full answers from the department about the controversial airlift.Foreign Office permanent secretary Sir Philip Barton and the PM’s Afghan envoy Nigel Casey insisted in a hearing on 7 December that they were not aware of a message attributing the decision to Mr Johnson.They were told about a message from the PM’s parliamentary private secretary Trudy Harrison to Mr Farthing telling that staff from his Nowzad charity had been cleared to leave via Kabul’s airport. Sir Philip said at the time he was “not aware” of the message and Ms Harrison has since insisted it was sent in her capacity as a constituency MP. But a leaked memo from the office of Foreign Office minister Zac Goldsmith, sent at the time of the airlift last August and revealed this week, said the PM had “just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated”.The BBC reported another email from the same day, which said then foreign secretary Dominic Raab was “seeking a steer from No 10″ on whether to call Nowzad staff forward.And another email from Mr Casey showed the envoy asking the national security adviser “to seek clear guidance for us from No 10 asap on what they would like us to do”.In his letter, Sir Philip said he wanted to “apologise for the inadvertently inaccurate answers” given to questions from the cross-party committee at the 7 December hearing.”On the day the email was sent, Nigel was almost entirely focused , in his role as Gold in our crisis response, on the terrorist threat to the evacuation,” he wrote.”As Nigel said the committee on 25 January, he has no recollection of having seen emails in which staff attributed this decision to the prime minister. Nor do I.”In response a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Labour MP Chris Bryant, said: “The disaster of our withdrawal from Afghanistan requires the highest level of scrutiny. Parliament can only do this if there is transparency from government.“Since we published internal Foreign Office emails earlier this week, further emails have come to light that make it difficult to have confidence that we are getting full answers from the department.”Whistle-blowers and MPs have criticised the airlift of 173 animals being looked after by Nowzad on the grounds that it drew on capacity at Kabul airport that could have been used to rescue people. More

Filipe Orfao, a 37-year-old emergency room nurse in Lisbon voices grievances that have long been heard in Portugal.The familiar gripes include a tradition of low pay, a public service career structure that thwarts ambitions to get ahead in life, the nagging enticement of going to work abroad instead of staying at home, and politicians’ broken promises of improvement, especially for health workers like Orfao who have weathered the coronavirus pandemic.Politicians “often talk about us,” Orfao says outside Lisbon’s Hospital Santa Maria, Portugal’s largest hospital. “But in practice, nothing comes of it.”Ahead of Sunday’s election for a new parliament and government, those vexations are being heard again as the European Union country’s two main parties, the center-left Socialists and the center-right Social Democrats, compete for power. Those two parties have for decades collected around 70% of the vote, alternating in government, and opinion polls suggest a close race this time.For voters like Orfao, a bigger change in the political landscape might be more welcome, because the same problems have dogged Portugal since the last century.Portugal’s economy has been falling behind the rest of the 27-nation EU since 2000, when its real annual GDP per capita was 16,230 euros ($18,300) compared with an EU average of 22,460 ($25,330).By 2020, Portugal had edged higher to 17,070 euros ($19,250) while the bloc’s average surged to 26,380 euros ($29,750).Low wages, meanwhile, have been spurring emigration since the 1960s. Orfao takes home around 1,300 euros ($1,466) a month, which the national statistics agency says is roughly the average pay in Portugal. Some of Orfao’s colleagues are earning the same they did 15 years ago. Short-term contracts that deny workers, including many nurses, job security are another point of contention.Over the past 10 years — a period that includes governments run by both the Socialists and the Social Democrats — some 20,000 Portuguese nurses have gone to work abroad, in an unprecedented drain of medical talent.The Socialist government won a 2019 general election promising better pay and conditions for nurses, but apart from some tinkering with professional categories, it did little to improve nursing jobs. That minority government collapsed last November, halfway through its four-year term, when parliament rejected its 2022 state budget.The spending plan is key. Portugal, a country of 10.3 million people, is poised to begin deploying 45 billion euros ($50.8 billion) from the EU to help fire up the economy after the COVID-19 pandemic. The new funds are seen as a new chance for Portugal to make up lost ground.But the early election, intended to clarify the country’s direction, could backfire and leave Portugal back where it started two months ago — with a vulnerable minority government.An apparent surge in support for smaller parties means the two main parties will likely have to cut a deal with one or more of them, with an extended period of political horse-trading expected.“Forming a government has become more difficult because parliament will be more fragmented,” says António Costa Pinto, a professor at Lisbon University’s Institute of Social Sciences.For Orfao, the Lisbon nurse, being saluted in politicians’ speeches and applauded by the public during the pandemic has been heartwarming. He feels, though, that he and his colleagues deserve more.He paid for his own specialist ER training, done in his spare time over two years, to work at the state-run Santa Maria hospital. But under the public health service’s restrictive rules on promotions, “I’d have to live to be 120 to reach the pinnacle of my career,” he says.After the pandemic hit, Orfao began changing his clothes twice after leaving his shift at the ER, dreading he might take the virus home and infect his wife, or his toddler son, or his father who was battling cancer.Sunday’s ballot is taking place amid a surge in new cases blamed on the highly infectious omicron variant, with hundreds of thousands of infected people confined at home. Authorities are allowing infected people to go to polling stations, with a recommendation they go during a less busy evening time slot.Orfao isn’t very comfortable with that. Last week he was still mulling whether to cast his vote, even though he thinks he should.“It makes me uneasy. I can’t deny it,” he says. “They should have taken decisions long beforehand to (hold the election) safely.” More

The DUP has targeted 21 February as a fresh deadline for foreign secretary Liz Truss to deliver a solution to Northern Ireland Protocol problems, as the post-Brexit row rumbles on.First minister Paul Givan warned that unilateral action would be need if a deal on easing controls on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain cannot be reached with the EU within weeks.After meeting Ms Truss on Thursday, the senior DUP figure said she had referred to 21 February as a “significant date” for progress in its negotiations with Brussels – the day a summit of the Joint Working Committee on the Withdrawal Agreement takes place.Mr Givan suggested a breakthrough must be achieved by then – and again raised the threat that DUP ministers at Stormont would act to halt Brexit checks at Northern Ireland ports.“I have emphasised the absolute critical nature of that progress being made, because the protocol is causing instability these institutions, it is damaging our economy and this is having a very real impact on Northern Ireland,” Mr Givan said.The first minister added: “So we need to see that progress, we need to see that imminently and we also need to see action taken by the UK government if there isn’t an agreed outcome”.Mr Givan said his party colleague Edwin Poots will order a stop to the controversial checks after a failed bid to secure the wider approval of the Stormont Executive to continue them. “That is something that the DUP have said that we were going to do, and we are going to do that.”Ms Truss shared her determination to secure a deal on the protocol that can command support in Northern Ireland after a day of meetings with business and political leaders in the region.The foreign secretary said: “What I want is a deal that works for everyone. We are making progress. I want to make significant progress by February. That’s important but it’s important that we secure the support of all of the communities in Northern Ireland, including the unionist community.”Sinn Fein has warned that any attempt by the UK government to suspend the protocol by triggering its Article 16 mechanism would cause more uncertainty in Northern Ireland.The foreign secretary recently insisted there was a “deal to be done” and agreed to enter into intensified talks with Brussels following a meeting with European Commission vice president Maros Sefcovic.However, Mr Sefcovic has reportedly told member states he is “frustrated” with talks, and there is “no prospect of an imminent breakthrough”. It came despite Brussels officials referring to improved “atmospherics” since Ms Truss took charge of negotiations at the end of last year.The EU negotiator is also said to have told a private meeting of the European parliament that talks would need to conclude by the end of February before campaigning for the May elections in Northern Ireland.Despite the apparent thawing of some of the tensions between Brussels and London, however, Boris Johnson risked heightening the row once more on Wednesday when he accused the bloc of implement the protocol in an “insane” and petty way.Speaking in the Commons after being challenged by the DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, he said: “I never thought, we negotiated, that it would mean 200 businesses would stop supplying Northern Ireland, foods being blocked and Christmas cards being surcharged.”“Frankly, the EU is implementing this in an insane and pettifogging way — we need to sort it out,” the prime minister added.Asked today’s comments by Ms Truss regarding the significance of February, the prime minister’s official spokesperson told reporters: “We’ve never put a particular date on things, but as you know it’s always been our intention to reach an agreement as quickly as possible.” More

Rebel Tory MPs are voicing concern that delays to Sue Gray’s crucial report on Downing Street parties may give Boris Johnson the chance to spin her findings in his favour.They are worried that if she hands her report to No 10 on Friday – when Parliament is all but deserted as MPs visit their constituencies – the PM could delay publication to Monday while allies use the intervening time to plant stories in the weekend press putting the best possible gloss on its contents.One rebel told The Independent: “If they have it in their hands for three days before Boris has to make his statement to the house, there’s no doubt it’ll leak like a sieve and there’ll be an effort to control the narrative and suggest he’s in the clear.”There is concern among Johnson’s Tory critics that the long drawn-out process of producing the report may be dissipating momentum behind the drive for the 54 letters needed to trigger a confidence vote in his leadership.The PM was away from Westminster on a visit to north Wales on Thursday, forcing a break in the charm offensive which has seen him talking with dozens of wavering MPs in his bid to stave off revolt.His shadow whipping operation continued in his absence, and allies Christopher Pincher and Conor Burns have set up a WhatsApp group for loyalist MPs to discuss their support for the PM.This may have backfired, however, with one backbencher revealing that he knew of four participants who had sent the group messages of unswerving fidelity, despite having already submitted confidence letters to 1922 Committee chair Sir Graham Brady.His meetings with MPs have not always paid off either. One former minister told The Independent: “I’m not the letter-writing type but he invited me in for a chat and I went to see him and told him what I thought. I don’t think he was very happy about it.”In what is widely seen as an effort to scare red wall MPs in marginal seats away from a confidence vote, a second cabinet minister warned that the UK would be forced into a general election if Mr Johnson was ousted.Culture secretary Nadine Dorries said that the emergence of social media and 24-hour news meant politics was in “very different times” to 2007, when Tony Blair handed over to Gordon Brown without an election.Her comments echoed Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg, who said the UK now had “essentially a presidential system”, so any new PM would need their own mandate from the electorate.Ms Gray’s report into potentially lockdown-busting events in Downing Street and Whitehall departments was due for publication this week after being repeatedly delayed as new allegations emerged. From an initial inquiry into a single Christmas party, it is now expected to cover as many as 15 different gatherings over 2020 and 2021.But its release was knocked off track by Tuesday’s announcement of a separate police investigation, covering an unknown number of these events.Civil service investigators were locked late into Thursday evening in discussions with the Metropolitan Police over how much of Ms Gray’s report – believed to make uncomfortable reading for the prime minister – can be released without compromising the criminal probe.Sources close to the Gray team were unable to estimate when the report may finally be signed off and handed to the prime minister.But they made clear that delivery to No 10 would not be delayed to fit in with the parliamentary timetable, in which Monday is the earliest likely date for the oral statement and debate which Mr Johnson has promised.Ms Gray’s main consideration is to complete the report to her satisfaction and then present it to the PM, and the question of whether the timing is favourable or not to No 10 will not be taken into account.The office of Commons speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has made clear that, if requested by No 10, he can schedule a prime ministerial statement for Friday, when the agenda is currently occupied by poorly-attended debates on backbench MPs’ bills.A senior minister told The Independent that MPs would be expected to rush back from their constituencies, as they have in the past for hastily-called emergency statements. But rebels fear that if the report goes to No 10 late on Friday, it may not be published until Monday morning, a matter of hours before the PM’s statement.Downing Street has committed to publishing “as soon as possible” after the report is received, and Mr Johnson said that “of course” it will be released in full.But No 10 sources stress that they do not yet know the format or content of the report and, while the intention is to publish it in exactly the form it arrives from Ms Gray, some time will be needed to assess whether this is possible.They cited concerns that junior staff should not be identified and personal information such as addresses should be protected, as well as the need to be assured by Scotland Yard that its contents do not cut across police inquiries.Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said it would be “unthinkable” for the report not to be published “in full and as soon as possible… Not redacted, not edited, not a summary, not parts left out. In full.”Speaking during a visit to Grimsby, Sir Keir said: “After what everybody in the country’s been through in the last year or two with the pandemic, huge sacrifices have been made, the least that they’re entitled to is the truth about what the prime minister was up to.”Mr Johnson’s official spokesperson dismissed suggestions that the PM and his government had been distracted from policymaking by the Partygate saga, telling reporters: “No, we are getting on with the job, as the prime minister said yesterday.” More

Steel magnate Sanjeev Gupta wrote to senior minister Nadhim Zahawi to thank him for his “instrumental” role in helping secure controversial loans from Greensill Capital, newly-published details have revealed.The Gupta Family Group Alliance (GFG) obtained the emergency, government-backed Covid loans during from Greensill – the failed finance firm at the centre of a political scandal about David Cameron’s lobbying activities.In October 2020 Mr Gupta sent a letter to Mr Zahawi, who was then a minister in the business department, to thank him for his “support” in obtaining the Greensill loans through the British Business Bank, according to a report in the Financial Times.His letter to the minister – shared with the newspaper following a FOI request – stated: “Since you were personally instrumental in getting the BBB’s approval for Greensill Capital to provide financial assistance … it would be very fitting if you could join us to mark this special moment that provides relief to thousands of workers.”The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said it “does not recognise” Mr Gupta’s claim that the minister played a role in facilitating the loan.A spokesperson for Mr Zahawi – promoted to education secretary last year – also denied he had any involvement in the decision to approve the loan, saying it had been taken independently by the British Business Bank.The minister’s spokesperson told The Independent: “The claim that Nadhim was instrumental in securing approval is little more than flattery from GFG in an overwritten letter from their PR team. He did not respond to the letter, or attend the event.”The information released under FOI showed that a text exchange or phone call between Mr Gupta and Mr Zahawi had taken place “at an unknown date” and was related to “Covid assistance”, according to the FT report.The business department said details showed the minister had explained to Mr Gupta that “requests would need to be directed through BEIS officials”.A spokesperson for BEIS said: “The department does not recognise the assertion made in Mr Gupta’s letter that Nadhim Zahawi played a role in securing the bank’s approval to accredit Greensill Capital.”The department pointed to a recent National Audit Office investigation into Greensill’s collapse, which found that the British Business Bank operated the loan accreditation process completely independently of government.A spokesperson for Mr Zahawi said: “The government was not involved in the decision to accredit Greensill. The decision was taken independently by the British Business Bank, in accordance with their usual procedures.“GFG’s request for assistance was referred to Nadhim by their local Labour MP, and Nadhim explained to Sanjeev Gupta that requests would need to be directed through BEIS officials.”The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced last May that said it was investigating suspected fraudulent trading and money laundering at companies within GFG. The SFO said investigators would be probing the financing arrangements with Greensill.Mr Cameron came under scrutiny over his close communication with ministers and Whitehall officials on behalf of Greensill, following its collapse last March.The former prime minister admitted he should have communicated with the government through “formal channels”.The Independent contacted GFG, but the group declined to comment. More

Boris Johnson should clear out the “woke crowd” and “neo-socialists” at No 10 if he wants to cling on to power, ex-Brexit minister David Frost has said.In a stinging attack on the prime minister, the Tory peer said “significant” changes were needed in policies and personnel at Downing Street.Mr Johnson is fighting to save his premiership as Tory MPs wait for the findings of Sue Gray’s inquiry into lockdown-busting parties before deciding whether to send letters of no-confidence.Suggesting a clear-out was needed, Lord Frost tweeted on Thursday: “Whatever conclusions about the leadership Tory MPs may draw from the Gray report and whatever follows, the crucial thing is significant change in policies and in systems and people around the PM.”Highlighting a column in The Telegraph, Lord Frost said he agreed “the neo-socialists, green fanatics and pro-woke crowd” should be “exiting immediately”.Asked about Lord Frost’s criticisms, the prime minister’s official spokesperson said: “It’s everybody’s focus in No 10 to deliver on the prime minister’s priorities, which he’s set out publicly before, in terms of building back from the pandemic and levelling up for Britain.”The highly-anticipated document from Ms Gray could be pivotal for the Mr Johnson’s future – but has yet to be submitted to No 10. Legal and HR officials are thought to be scrutinising it before it can be sent to Downing Street for publication.The announcement of a Scotland Yard investigation into some of the alleged parties – based in part on the evidence uncovered in the Gray inquiry – has complicated the process, with police and officials wrangling over anything which could prejudice a criminal case.Asked on Thursday if he had been involved in delaying it, Mr Johnson told reporters: “Absolutely not but you’ve got to let the independent inquiries go on.”The majority of Tory MPs are waiting for the report before passing personal judgment on their party leader. At least 54 MPs need to send letters of no-confidence to the 1922 Committee of backbenchers trigger a leaderships challenge.Meanwhile, allies of the PM have rallied around him. Culture secretary Nadine Dorries became the second cabinet minister to warn that ousting Mr Johnson could trigger a general election, echoing claims made by Jacob Rees-Mogg.The PM is under pressure from some Tory MPs to scrap a planned hike in national insurance to win back some support. But Mr Johnson said the tax rise was “absolutely vital” since “every penny will go towards fixing the Covid backlogs and also social care”.Mr Johnson also dismissed allegations that he personally intervened in the airlift of animals out of Afghanistan as “total rhubarb”, after fresh evidence emerged suggesting No 10 was involved. More

Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg has dismissed the controversy over the airlift of cats and dogs from Afghanistan as “fussing about a few animals”.The Commons leader said Labour was focusing on “fripperies and trivia” by asking questions about the prime minister’s role in the evacuation of animals for Pen Farthing’s Nowzad charity from Kabul.The opposition has accused Mr Johnson of lying over his involvement – with senior Labour MP Chris Byrant demanding a debate in the Commons on Thursday.Mr Bryant, chair of the standards select committee, said he feared the process of deciding evacuation priorities “was not as it should have been”, adding: “We need to get to the bottom of this.”But Mr Rees-Mogg: “The honourable gentleman is fussing about a few animals. I think it shows the level of seriousness which he characteristically brings to today’s debate.”Labour chair Anneliese Dodds earlier said emails appeared to suggest Mr Johnson “did intervene” asking: “Can the leader of the House explain what happened?”In his reply, Mr Rees-Mogg said: “All [Labour] care about is cake and animals, whereas we are getting on with the important business of government.”Emails shared with the foreign affairs committee show an official in Foreign Office minister Zac Goldsmith’s private office telling colleagues on 25 August that “the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated”.Another Foreign Office official referred to the “PM’s decision earlier today to evacuate the staff of the Nowzad animal charity” in a separate email sent on 25 August.But Downing Street has insisted Mr Johnson played “no role” in authorising individual evacuations during the RAF rescue mission.On Thursday Mr Johnson’s official spokesperson suggested that the author of the message from Lord Goldsmith’s office may have wrongly believed the PM to have been involved in the Nowzad decision.“It is not uncommon in Whitehall for a decision to be interpreted or portrayed as coming from the prime minister even when that is not the case,” the No 10 spokesperson said. “That is our understanding of what has happened in this instance.”Cabinet minister Therese Coffey earlier suggested that a Foreign Office official who said in leaked emails that Mr Johnson had approved the controversial airlift of animals from Afghanistan was acting in an unauthorised capacity.Ms Coffey argued it is not uncommon for individuals working in government to say Mr Johnson backs an issue when working on their own “pet projects”.The emails were submitted to the MPs by Raphael Marshall, who worked for the Foreign Office at the time and alleges the animals were evacuated following an order from Mr Johnson.Dominic Dyer, an ally of Mr Farthing, has said he had spoken with ministers and Mr Johnson’s wife Carrie to “put pressure on him” over the evacuation.On Thursday, Mr Dyer said he felt “vindicated” by the newly-released emails, adding: “I’m not certain why he didn’t feel he could explain his involvement in August at the end of this operation.” More