Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Watchdog restarts probe into Boris Johnson’s lavish flat refurb, No 10 reveals

‘We are liaising with Lord Geidt to answer any further questions he may have’

Rob Merrick
Deputy Political Editor
Friday 10 December 2021 08:49 EST
Comments
Can Boris Johnson weather the storm of sleaze allegations? | Behind The Headlines

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser has restarted an investigation into his lavish flat refurbishment and will be given any information he demands, No 10 says.

Christopher Geidt contacted Downing Street after an Electoral Commission report appeared to show the prime minister “misled” the adviser’s own inquiry that cleared him of wrongdoing.

“We are liaising with Lord Geidt to answer any further questions he may have,“ Mr Johnson’s spokesman said.

The adviser “at all times has the ability to access information he needs to make decisions to come to a conclusion,” he added.

The move comes after a former head of committee on standards in public life joined opposition parties in demanding fresh probes into the prime minister’s conduct over the £112,000 refit.

The Commission’s report revealed Mr Johnson personally asked for more funds for the redecorations, despite claiming – three months later – that he knew nothing about donors funding the work.

Lord Geidt’s report, in May, found the prime minister had acted “unwisely” in failing to ask proper questions, but ruled had been no breach of the ministerial code.

Meanwhile, the Information Commissioner said the body is investigating why the Cabinet Office claimed WhatsApp messages at the centre of the controversy did not exist.

A Freedom of Information request was denied – yet the Commission report revealed the messages were sent by Mr Johnson to Tory donor Lord Brownlow, who helped fund the refurbishment.

It is unclear whether Lord Geidt saw the WhatsApp messages when he concluded there was “no evidence” the prime minister was told Lord Brownlow had originally paid the bills.

However, The Independent understands the adviser has sought clarification about information he had already received – rather than seeking any new documentation.

There is confidence in Downing Street that they will be able to satisfy the adviser that he was not misled and that he could announce that as early as today.

The spokesman said: “I’m not getting into what evidence Lord Geidt specifically has access to,” – while insisting he can see “all relevant information he needs”.

He declined to say whether or not Mr Johnson spoke with the adviser directly about his concerns, or whether he had asked him not to resign.

The Commission report revealed that – in November 2020 – he “messaged Lord Brownlow via WhatsApp” to ask him to “authorise” further redecorations.

Furthermore, in early December, “Lord Brownlow confirmed to the prime minister that he had approved further works”, the watchdog stated.

No 10 has denied Mr Johnson lied to Lord Geidt – arguing he had known only that Lord Brownlow was handling the funding, not that he was the source of the money.

He had contacted him, in November 2020, because he was the administrator of a blind trust to fund the works – despite the Commission report stating “the trust had not been formed”.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in