UK Politics

Zac Goldsmith has been accused of lying to parliament in denying Boris Johnson authorised the rescue of cats and dogs from Afghanistan – after damning emails emerged.The Foreign Office minister is in the spotlight after telling the House of Lords the prime minister was “entirely accurate” to deny he was behind the evacuation of animals from Pen Farthing’s charity.Yet emails, sent from Lord Goldsmith’s office to the Foreign Office team overseeing the Kabul pull-out, have now appeared to undermine his claim, made on 7 December.In one, an official stated the charity Nowzad has “received a lot of publicity”, before adding: “The PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated.”George Foulkes, the Labour peer who asked about the controversy, told The Independent that Lord Goldsmith must explain himself – noting he said he had his own knowledge about what happened.In the exchange, the minister said: “No 10 and, indeed, the prime minister have clearly and emphatically pushed back against any such suggestion today.“The noble Lord shakes his head, but I can tell him from my own experience that his rebuttal is entirely accurate.”Last August, allies of Mr Farthing, a former Royal Marine, lobbied Lord Goldsmith and the prime minister’s wife Carrie for help to get the animals out – as many Afghans were left stranded.Lord Foulkes said: “I was surprised at the time that he claimed personal knowledge, although he is known to be friendly with Carrie Johnson.“Clearly he was either misled or knew the truth and lied to the House. If, as I suspect – since he said he knew from his own experience – it was the latter, he has breached the ministerial code and should resign.”The Independent has asked Lord Goldsmith to respond to the accusation that he misled the Lords, last month.The minister tweeted: “I did not authorise & do not support anything that would have put animals’ lives ahead of peoples’.“My position, which I made clear publicly, was that the UK should prioritise evacuating people. I never discussed the NOWZAD charity or their efforts to evacuate animals with the PM.”Mr Johnson is also facing fresh accusations of dishonesty – as he awaits Sue Gray’s ‘partygate’ report – after calling the accusation he was behind the animal rescue “The government sponsored clearance for the charter flight, leading to protests that animals had been prioritised over people in the rescue effort.The evidence, published by the Commons foreign affairs committee, shows Lord Goldsmith’s officials emailed colleagues working on a “special cases team”.A second email – sent on the same day – repeated the point, stating “In light of the PM’s decision earlier today to evacuate the staff of the Nowzad animal charity, the [animal charity – name redacted] is asking for agreement to the entry of [details redacted] staff, all Afghan nationals.” More

A statement to MPs by Boris Johnson on the Sue Gray “partygate” report has been delayed at least until Thursday, as the House of Commons reached the end of today’s sitting without any sign of the hotly-anticipated document.The report, looking into allegations of lockdown breaches at as many as 15 events in Downing Street and Whitehall departments, had not been passed to No 10 by the time the Commons adjourned.There is still a possibility that the report could be published this evening ahead of a debate tomorrow.But expectations in Westminster were that the political world will have to wait at least until Thursday to see the findings of the Whitehall mandarin.Mr Johnson has promised to publish Ms Gray’s findings and then make a statement to the Commons and respond to questions from MPs. The decision on the timing of publication is for the prime minister, and it is thought No 10 will hold it back for a few hours to enable them to digest the report, and will then allow MPs some time to read it before going to the Commons. There was no official explanation from the Cabinet Office for the failure to deliver the Gray report to Mr Johnson over the course of Wednesday.It is understood that Ms Gray has completed the report, and that it is now going through the process of final sign-off, which could involve checks by lawyers and human resources teams and confirmation from the Metropolitan Police that nothing within it would cut across their separate criminal inquiry.Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle indicated earlier today that he was ready to suspend the House before reconvening in the evening if No 10 requested a late statement.But his deputy Dame Rosie Winterton later clarified that this could happen only if the request came in before More

The government has been accused of “hiding from questions” after it refused to put forward a minister or official to give evidence to MPs on the military’s increased involvement in tackling small boat crossings.Former senior Navy and Border Force officials have meanwhile raised concerns about placing Royal Navy vessels in the Channel, warning they could serve as a “honey pot” and encourage more asylum seekers to cross.It emerged last week that the Royal Navy was to be put in charge of cross-Channel counter migration operations on the English coast, taking over from Border Force to take “operational primacy” of the situation.The plans were reportedly part of a series of policy announcements – dubbed Operation Red Meat – in an attempt to appease furious Tory MPs who have been deluged with angry emails from constituents.Defence secretary Ben Wallace said last week that the focus would be on ensuring that “nobody should arrive illegally in the UK on their own terms” and that all small boats must be intercepted before arriving. It is understood that the Navy does not intend to pursue “pushbacks” – a tactic put forward by the home secretary – as part of its new role in the Channel.Cross-party MPs, including a number of Conservatives, raised concern in the House of Commons last week that the move would not curb the number of people reaching UK shores and would be an inappropriate use of military resources.The Defence Committee sought to question government representatives about the plans during an evidence session on Wednesday, but the Ministry of Defence (MoD) declined to put forward a minister or official. Vice Admiral and former Border Force director general Charles Montgomery and ex-Navy commander Tom Sharpe gave evidence instead.Labour MP John Spellar, who was chairing the committee hearing, said it was “unfortunate” that no senior representative of the department had attended.Shadow defence secretary John Healey meanwhile told The Independent ministers were “hiding from questions and creating confusion over the role of the Navy”.Accusing the government of “failing” to reduce small boat crossings, he added: “The MoD have been dragged in to take charge of Channel operations but it’s not their job to do the government’s PR. The military are there to protect the nation, not to protect Tory ministers.“To back up the Navy’s new command role in the Channel, the government needs to do serious work to secure proper security cooperation with France to protect our borders, break the smuggling gangs and prevent more deaths in the Channel.”During the evidence session, both Mr Montgomery and Mr Sharpe expressed concern about the plan and the impact it could have.Mr Sharpe told MPs that using naval vessels to turn back migrant boats would never be legal or safe, saying: “It’s inconceivable that that’s a sensible option.”He added that placing more ships in the Channel to intercept small boats could “make the problem worse” by making crossing “safer and therefore more attractive”.Mr Montogomery echoed his concerns, warning that using Navy vessels could serve as a “honey pot” and increase the number of people crossing because they would become a “prime target” for people trying to cross.“If you’re starting objective is to stop the migrant flow, don’t do that,” he saidThe former Border Force general secretary later told the committee: “It seems to me that the debate around Border Force and its maritime capabilities is all getting a bit focused on immigration through the Channel. “Now that concerns me a bit because there’s a of a lot else that’s happening in this country which is at least as damaging if not more to our national security than the numbers who are coming across the Channel.”The MoD has been approached for comment. More

Boris Johnson personally authorised the evacuation of 173 dogs and cats from Afghanistan, according to a newly-released email that contradicts his claim to have had no role in the episode.The communication, which was sent by 25 August 2021 by a foreign office official at the height of the Kabul airlift, was released by the Commons foreign affairs committee on Wednesday.In an email to the the department’s “special cases” team managing part of the evacuation, the official, whose name is redacted, says that the animal charity Nowzad has “received a lot of publicity”.It goes on to add that “the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated”.Mr Johnson had previously said on 7 December last year that it was “complete nonsense” that he had intervened to have the animals evacuated and that he had “no influence on that particular case”. He added: “Nor would that be right.”Minister Zac Goldsmith had also told the House of Lords that the prime minister’s claims were “entirely accurate” – apparently misleading parliament.Opposition politicians queued up to accused the prime minister of having lied.John Healey, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, said that the prime minister had “once again” been “caught out lying about what he has been doing and deciding”.“He should never have given priority to flying animals out of Afghanistan while Afghans who worked for our armed forces were left behind,” Mr Healey argued.“Boris Johnson is unable to make the serious decisions that are needed, at home and for our allies abroad.“In this case people were fleeing in terror as the Taliban took over Kabul and British Forces were putting their lives at risk, the prime minister was once again prioritising the wrong things and making the wrong calls. We need to know why the PM overruled the Defence Secretary with this decision.”And Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrats’ foreign affairs spokesperson, said the episode illustrated that the prime minister was not “fit for office”.”It’s not just on parties that the PM’s statements don’t stand up to scrutiny,” she said. “This damning revelation shows that Boris Johnson has once again repeatedly lied to the British people. The Prime Minister claimed that he didn’t intervene to authorise the evacuation of Nowzad animals and staff from Kabul. Now it turns out he did.”Boris Johnson’s house of cards continues to come tumbling down. He must immediately make a public statement to correct the record and for once tell the truth. This is not a man who is fit for office. He is dragging our nation’s reputation into the gutter with him and should resign.”The government has been criticised by whistleblowers and MPs for prioritising the cats and dogs amid claims that they diverted limited resources on the ground from evacuating people. The charity’s founder, former Royal Marine Pen Farthing, denies these claims.Though the charity chartered its own plane and put the animals in the hold, civil servants and MPs with knowledge of the operation on the ground said the capacity constraint at the airport was a limited number of soldiers able to escort people into the airport.In December whistle-blower Raphael Marshall told MPs that the Foreign Office received “an instruction from the prime minister” to use “considerable capacity” to help Farthing.At the time, Foreign Affairs Select Committee chair Tom Tugendhat, himself a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, criticised the decision to airlift the dogs and cats.”There’s quite a lot of space on the aeroplanes, they’re coming and going relatively easily,” he told LBC radio. “The difficulty is getting people into and out of the airport and we’ve just used a lot of troops to get in 200 dogs, meanwhile my interpreter’s family are likely to be killed.”Mr Farthing told the BBC: “At no time did any British soldiers leave Kabul airport to get me in, I’m dumbfounded that he’s said this to Parliament.”As a charity, how many times do we have to tell people the truth? He said the government transported our animals. We left Kabul on a privately chartered flight, there was no government involvement.” More

Westminster remains on tenterhooks as MPs and journalists await the hotly anticipated and delayed Sue Gray report into drinks gatherings and alleged Covid rule breaking in Downing Street and Whitehall.Prime minister Boris Johnson’s future hangs in the balance over the ‘partygate’ scandal, with many Tories saying they are awaiting for the publication of Ms Gray’s investigation before deciding whether or not to send in no confidence letters to the party’s 1992 Committee.Conservative Party rules mean that 54 letters are required before a formal leadership challenge can be triggered.As of lunchtime on Wednesday, Ms Gray’s report had not been put into the public domain.Downing Street has said Mr Johnson wants to publish it – in full or in part – “as soon as possible”, meaning its potentially explosive findings may be known in the next few hours.However, it is not clear how much of the report will actually be published. On 17 January a spokesperson for the PM said “we have committed to publishing it in the House in full”.But Mr Johnson would not commit to this himself at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, saying only he would do “exactly what he said”, apparently referring to a separate PMQs session on 8 December when he said: “I will place a copy of the report in the Library of the House of Commons”Since the latest PMQs session on 26 January, a spokesperson has said the PM had still not been given the report, further increasing the chances it will be delayed until tomorrow at least.Labour is demanding that it is is published in full along with all the accompanying evidence.In an urgent question to the House of Commons on Tuesday, the party’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said: “So I ask the Paymaster General these questions. Given this morning’s announcement, when will the Sue Gray report finally be published?“Can the Paymaster General assure the House that the Sue Gray report will be published in full, not just as a summary, and will the accompanying evidence be provided? Can he clarify for the House what Sue Gray and her team will be doing while the police conduct their investigation? “She added: “Can he tell the House whether the decision to delay the publication of the Sue Gray report was made by the Metropolitan police or the Government?”The timings of the investigation were thrown into doubt and chaos yesterday after  the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick announced that the force was launching its own inquiry into possible criminal offences by government staff.Reports say the Met Police has not raised any objections to the Cabinet Office-led inquiry being released before its own investigation has concluded.Ms Gray’s probe reportedly obtained an email last week showing that an aide to the PM was warned that the now infamous garden bash of 20 May 2020 was against the rules.The email, and reports of at least 12 other alleged rule-breaking parties, are being investigated internally by a senior civil servant Ms Gray, who has been tasked with establishing the facts of what happened at each.The Daily Telegraph reported on Monday that police officers guarding Downing Street had given “extremely damaging” statements to Ms Gray’s inquiry, raising fresh questions about why the Met did not investigate alleged lockdown breaches at the time.Over the weekend, The Sunday Times said the scope of the probe had been widened to include alleged parties in the flat the PM shares with wife Carrie and their two children above No 11 Downing Street.The Independent, meanwhile, revealed claims by officials working in No 10 that they held back information from Ms Gray’s investigation into the partygate scandal due to a “culture of fear” surrounding the probe.Mr Johnson appointed Ms Gray to look into the reports on 8 December after Simon Case, the cabinet secretary and the UK’s most senior mandarin, recused himself from the investigation as it emerged a gathering had taken place in his office.Ms Gray, the second permanent secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities – who previously worked in Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team – has a fearsome reputation for pulling no punches when it comes to wrongdoing.Her probe does not have the same powers as a judge-led or public inquiry. Some believe the conclusions in the former pub landlord’s report could be written in such a way as to suggest to Mr Johnson, who is fighting for his political life over the ‘partygate’ scandal, that it is last orders and he should resign.According to the Institute for Government thinktank, it is unlikely she will explicitly call for Mr Johnson to quit or rule on whether or not he breached the ministerial code in his responses to the party reports in the House of Commons.When the terms of reference for the investigation were set (by the PM) there was no concrete date for its publication and it has apparently been delayed on at least one occasion after fresh allegations emerged and the scope of the investigation widened.Several news outlets, including The Daily Telegraph, reported that Ms Gray had been planning to publish the findings of her investigation last week.Subsequent reports said it could be released this week, although there are now creeping doubts about this. The Cabinet Office would not be drawn on questions about the date of publication when approached for comment by The Independent.Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, refused to confirm to the BBC’s Sunday Morning Show that the report would be published in full.“It…will be for the prime minister to decide. But … there will be full transparency,” he said. “He has said he will come back to the Commons and make a statement, so there will be full scrutiny.”Allies of the PM, including Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, have repeatedly called for patience from colleagues calling for the PM to resign over the affair, saying MPs should give the PM space until Ms Gray’s report is published.Mr Johnson has himself repeatedly referred to the investigation when being asked to answer further questions on partygate.Government whips were earlier in the month engaged in frantic efforts to delay a potential no confidence vote in Mr Johnson as back bench Tory MPs became increasingly restless over his handling of the affair.The PM appeared on Sky News last Tuesday to defend himself against claims by Dominic Cummings, his former chief aide, that he was in fact made aware that the 20 May 2020 party broke the rules. Mr Cummings also accused the PM of lying to parliament, which would be a breach of the ministerial code and therefore usually a resigning matter, which he denies.”I’m saying categorically that nobody told me, nobody said this was something that was against the rules, doing something that wasn’t a work event because frankly, I can’t imagine why it would have gone ahead, or it would have been allowed to go ahead if it was against the rules,” Mr Johnson said in his response.But the PM was then criticised for refusing to accept responsibility for the rules he had himself set and the response reportedly triggered a fresh wave of no confidence letters going in to Sir Graham Brady, chair of the powerful 1922 Committee.Mr Cummings was expected to give evidence to the inquiry on Monday but said he had submitted written evidence instead.Some rebel MPs claimed that the no confidence vote threshold of 54 letters would be reached by the end of Wednesday last week, but this never transpired. Allies of the PM subsequently briefed news outlets that the defection of Christian Wakeford to the Labour party earlier in the day had “calmed” the party and made rebels “think twice” about submitting letters.Infighting over Mr Johnson’s future broke out into the open in the Commons last Thursday as MPs plotting to topple the PM accused whips of “blackmailing” them to vote with the government.William Wragg, a senior Tory MP, chair of the public administration committee — and one of those calling for Johnson to resign over the partygate scandal — was first out of the blocks to make the incendiary claims, saying that some of his colleagues had been threatened with funding cuts if they didn’t vote in a specific way. Just a few hours later Christian Wakeford, who defected to the Labour Party and who is also calling for the PM to go, stepped forward to tell the BBC that whips had threatened to axe funding for a school in his constituency if he did not support the government on voting against free school meals.Mr Wragg was expected to bring these allegations to the Metropolitan Police this week. More

A business minister has refused to confirm whether Boris Johnson’s government is ditching it plans for a new law aimed at cracking down on dirty money from Russia in the UK.Tory peer Lord Agnew – who dramatically quit as Whitehall efficiency tsar earlier this week – claimed the government had rejected the chance to put forward anti-fraud legislation in the next parliamentary year, attacking the decision as “foolish”.Business minister Paul Scully refused to “speculate on the content of any future Queen’s Speech” in answer to a question from Tory MP Kevin Hollinrake about reports the planned Economic Crime Bill would be scrapped.Mr Scully claimed the government was committed to “tackling economic crime” – but then listed a series of actions the government had already taken rather than set out plans for legislation aiming at tackling Russian dirty money.Tory MP John Penrose said the “well of excuses” has “run dry” after years of promising legislation on tackling the problem – warning that it would be “about as popular as a cup of cold sick” if the proposed bill is ditched or delayed.The backbench MP said new legislation was “absolutely essential for the credibility of this country … particularly at a time when we have a crisis in Ukraine and all sorts of Russian oligarchs waiting to move money into this country if they possibly can”.One Tuesday, Mr Johnson told Commons that the government would bring forward a “register of beneficial interest” as part of its efforts to “track down Russian money in this country”.Mr Scully confirmed the draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill would be amended “in line with comments the prime minister made to this House just yesterday”.But on a new anti-fraud bill, the minister refused to say whether it was something the government would pursue – adding only that there would be broader reforms to Companies House’s registration procedures “when parliamentary time allows”.Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, who chairs the foreign affairs select Committee, has warned that current UK support for Ukraine risks being “undermined” if the government failed to tackle “dirty Russian money flowing through our system”.Robert Palmer, executive director of campaign group Tax Justice UK, criticised the government’s apparent decision to “kick anti-corruption legislation into the long grass yet again”.Meanwhile, Mr Scully defended the government over the Covid loan scheme fraud scandal. Lord Agnew resigned on Monday over the “lamentable track record” of the government in tackling fraud from the bounce back loan scheme (BBLS).Mr Scully said it had been media “inference” of HMRC figures, rather than HMRC itself, estimating that £4.3bn had been written off from the BBLS and other Covid scheme loans. He said the government “continues to work” to claw back money.Labour’s shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the “sorry episode showed a government far too casual with wasting taxpayers’ money”.On Wednesday chancellor Rishi Sunak denied opposition party claims that he had “written off” fraudulent loans too easily. “I’m not ignoring it, and I’m definitely not ‘writing it off’,” he tweeted.Mr Sunak added: “Clearly criminals have sought to exploit our support schemes. We’re going to do everything we can to get that money back and go after those who took advantage of the pandemic.” More

The economic consequences of the UK’s exit from the EU are only just becoming clear, and the government is under growing pressure to sort out at least some of the unravelling mess.Lorry drivers are blaming the huge queues building up at the port of Dover “entirely” on post-Brexit controls, with one telling The Independent that disruption on both sides of the border is bound to get worse when imports and exports pick up again in February.Meanwhile, port chiefs have urged the government to hold talks with the EU on ways to ease the impact of biometric checks that are set to come in later in 2022 and could cause “disastrous” disruption to traffic and trade.Officials may be keeping their fingers crossed that businesses and logistics bosses will soon get on top of the extra red tape, but there are plenty of other issues piling up.Foreign secretary Liz Truss has said she believes “there is a deal to be done” with the EU to resolve the deadlock over Northern Ireland Protocol, and is thought to be aiming for an agreement by the end of February.But her Brussels counterpart Maros Sefcovic has reportedly told EU member states he is “frustrated” and that there is “no prospect of an imminent breakthrough” in talks. Could Truss still trigger Article 16? Could we be heading for an ugly trade war?Meanwhile, MPs are still dissecting the recent Australia deal’s lack of detailed safeguard mechanisms – warning that it could see British farmers undercut by cheap Australian meat imports. One Tory backbencher claimed the Australia deal was as “one-sided” as the Ashes cricket series.I’m here to answer your questions live at 3pm on Monday 31 January – the second anniversary of Brexit. All you have to do is register to submit your question in the comments below.If you’re not already a member, click “sign up” in the comments box to leave your question. Don’t worry if you can’t see your question – they’ll be hidden until I join the conversation to answer them.Join us then, on this page at 3pm, as I tackle as many questions on what lies ahead as I possibly can. More

Russian dirty money in London – and “close ties” to the Tory party – will hinder the UK’s pledges to get tough with Moscow if it invades Ukraine, US experts are warning.Boris Johnson has claimed he is “bringing the West together” to deter Russian aggression, telling Labour to focus on the crisis and not the ‘partygate’ scandal threatening to topple him.But a report from a think-tank close to Joe Biden’s administration has warned the US will have to take the lead in countering “Russian kleptocrats” – because the UK cannot do so.“The United Kingdom, in particular, has become a major hub for Russian oligarchs and their wealth, with London gaining the moniker ‘Londongrad’,” it states.“Uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry.”As a result, it will be up to the US to “propose creating the working group in part to prod stronger action from the UK government,” the Centre for American Progress states.The warning comes as a minister refused to say whether long-promised ‘McMafia’ legislation to target the unexplained wealth of kleptocrats has been dropped.Lord Agnew, the trade minister who quit over the government’s failure to tackle fraud, said it had been shelved – but the prime minister told MPs he is pressing ahead.Mr Johnson has put himself at the forefront of pressure to deter an invasion of Ukraine, revealing British troops will be sent to help protect countries in eastern Europe if necessary.At prime minister’s questions, he accused Keir Starmer of being “in ignorance of the fact that we have a crisis on the borders of Ukraine” – when the Labour leader did not raise it.“I can tell him what is going on in the cabinet room of this country is that the UK government is bringing the West together so that we have the toughest possible package of sanctions to deter President Putin from what I think would be a reckless and catastrophic invasion.“That is what this government is doing, we’re getting on with the job and I think he needs to raise his game.”But his government has failed to implement the vast majority of the recommendations in the 2020 ‘Russia report’, by parliament’s intelligence committee.Instead, No 10 rejected warnings of dirty Russian money and power infiltrating the “London laundromat” of illicit finance and the House of Lords.An economic crime bill was promised to overhaul weak oversight of the UK’s business register, Companies House, and bring in a public register of beneficial ownership of property.The aim would be to reveal the super-rich people behind offshore companies used to hold UK homes and land.The campaign group Tax Justice UK has attacked the decision to “kick anti-corruption legislation into the long grass yet again”. More