Never had an emperor worn fewer clothes

For just a moment, you could almost feel sorry for him. Boris Johnson sat in front of the Commons Privileges Committee for hour after gruelling hour this afternoon. And bit by bit, question by question, he simply fell apart.

Ian Dunt inews.co.uk

There were sporadic outbursts of rage and entitlement. “This is just complete nonsense,” he barked at the MPs at one point. “Complete nonsense.” There were looks of startled outrage as the carefully constructed defences he had created were slowly and methodically demolished. But most of all there was just this strange, angry little man-child left utterly exposed.

Behind him, there was an array of silk the likes of which we rarely get to see. Somewhere around £222,000 worth of taxpayer-funded barrister sat with him, including Lord Pannick, whose usual rate is £5,000 an hour. His expressions were a masterclass in legal aloofness. For whole sections he sat with a smile on his lips, as if he’d just been introduced to a charming new jazz album.

But towards the end, even Pannick started to give way. By the time the session ended, he was balanced on the very edge of his chair, the smile gone. In front of him, his client was flailing around, all at sea, his every utterance more preposterous and improbable than the last.

Throughout the week, Johnson’s allies in the press have been stressing that he was preparing to unleash stunning new evidence that would show up the Committee inquiry for the farce which it really was. “Boris Johnson’s ‘bombshell’ that will ‘exonerate him from Partygate’,” The Telegraph said. “Bullish Boris up for the fight,” the Mail shouted.

Over the course of the afternoon, it slowly became clear what this bombshell was: nothing at all.

Johnson’s account of the parties in Downing Street during the Covid restrictions was tenuous and absurd. He insisted that all the events were essential for work purposes because he had to maintain staff morale. He claimed they were not parties, even though they involved no work, lots of socialising, plentiful alcohol and sometimes ended early in the morning. He mangled himself into impossibly contorted positions stressing the exceptions on guidance on social distancing.

It was gaslighting on a national scale. Everyone could remember what the rules were. They could remember how strenuously those rules were explained to them, because it was Johnson who did it, night after night from his Covid press conference lectern. And they could see, quite clearly, that none of these events met those requirements.

The inquiry is about whether Johnson misled the Commons, either purposefully or recklessly. It’s about whether he said things which were wrong, how quickly he corrected them, and what he did to ascertain whether they were true. And that was where he came completely unstuck.

On 1 December 2021, he told the Commons: “All guidance was followed completely in No 10.” A few days later, he said: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that all guidance was followed completely.”

One of the key priorities of the Committee was to find out the basis upon which he said that. Of all the MPs questioning him, it was Alberto Costa, an innocuous, mild-mannered Conservative with no great record in rebellions or Parliamentary speeches, who did the most damage. He was like a quiet sorrowful assassin, seemingly deeply saddened by what he was doing, but proceeding regardless, each question more dangerous and forensic than the last. And under that questioning, the former prime minister wilted.

Did Johnson seek assurances about the legality of the gatherings from any of the Government lawyers available to him, or from the Attorney General, or from anyone in government legal services? No, he answered. Did he seek assurances from anyone in the senior civil service, the permanent secretaries or heads of department who might have some understanding of the rules and guidance? Also no.

So who did he seek guidance from? And that was where Johnson’s supposed bombshell came in. It was from his two directors of communication: James Slack and Jack Doyle. It wasn’t really guidance at all, in any meaningful sense. It was just the lines-to-take, the statements put out by the press team to handle media responses.

Not only that, but even these figures didn’t seem convinced by the idea that the guidance had been followed. “I’m struggling to come up with a way this one is in the rules,” Doyle said in a conversation with a No 10 official on 25 January last year.

“Some might see your reliance on the repeated assurances you received as a deflection mechanism to prevent having to answer questions about your knowledge of these gatherings,” Costa said, the knife now firmly embedded in Johnson’s chest. “Would that not be a fair assessment?” Johnson sputtered and raged.

Harriet Harman, chair of the committee, then zeroed in on the former prime minister. “I was in the House when these assurances were given,” she said. “We took them to be serious assurances. Would you not expect us to be a bit dismayed to hear it was not from senior civil servants, it was from political appointees? That they themselves had doubts about it? That it only covered one gathering and it didn’t cover the other three? And also you were there at the time, so it’s a bit hard to understand what the nature of an assurance is when you were there and saw it with your own eyes?”

Johnson tried desperately to intervene. His lawyers perched ever further on the edge of their seats, furrowing their brows. But it was clear that the fight was over. Never had an emperor worn fewer clothes than those upon him this afternoon.

Beach hut owners fury over rental charges plan

Furious beach hut owners in East Devon no longer have the option of monthly rental charges spread out across the year due to ‘unannounced’ changes being imposed by East Devon District Council. It is claimed that without any prior warning, the council has sent out invoices last week stating the yearly costs of beach hut rentals must be paid in four consecutive months starting from next month.

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com

For one beach hut owner, it has left her unsure if she will continue to rent the hut that has been in her family for many years in Beer. Claire Branfield is now faced with four monthly payments of nearly £300 a month from April to July, instead of paying under £100 a month, with just a couple of weeks notice.

It is a double blow for beach huts owners who have also seen their rents increase by three per cent. EDDC says it has been brought on to create the same payment rules for both new and current beach hut owners and to stop tenants cancelling tenancies part way through the season without having paid the full amount.

Claire, who was born in Beer and lives in Budleigh Salterton, said: “Last year I paid £97 in 12 monthly instalments which is a lot but now it has trebled to £295 for four months. When I complained to the council the person I spoke to was very apologetic and said letters should have gone out to warn us.

“I am aware that EDDC is intent on making the maximum return from their assets, but it is the slipshod and careless way they go about it which has infuriated me. I received just an invoice, no covering letter, and the lack of prior notice shows supreme disregard for ratepayers’ finances which are already under great pressure. As it happens, I can afford to find the money by July, but many people can’t.

“This could be the final straw for me. My beach hut is up all year round but I am beginning to think seriously for the first time of giving it up.”

Beach hut owners have also condemned EDDC for wasting taxpayers money in postage costs and the environmental impact by each year sending out business rate notifications which are said to always issue an invoice for 0.00p.

A spokesperson for East Devon District Council said: “EDDC have introduced a revised payment structure for beach huts to standardise payments for all tenants. We now offer two options: payment in full for the season ahead, or for those wanting to spread the cost, four affordable direct debit payments.

“This change has generally been well received, as many who started tenancies within the last two to three years had been required to pay upfront and have welcomed the opportunity to pay in instalments. Although tenants have been put onto four monthly instalments as default, a number have opted to pay in full.

“Previously, tenants were able to pay by various instalments which made administration inefficient and inconsistent. EDDC was exposed to tenants cancelling tenancies part way through the season without having paid the full amount.

“EDDC has over 3,000 people on our waiting lists. It’s important we avoid cancelled direct debit arrangements and a loss of income, and protect those who commit to a full season.

“£0.00p bills were sent to tenants with explanatory notes to advise them that small business rate relief has been applied, so there is nothing to pay. If they pay business rates on another property they need to let us know.”

Is this an example of “taking back control”?

Is the writing on the wall for Tories in Plymouth? – Owl

Plymouth’s Tory MPs have called on Labour to take over the city council amid chaos following Richard Bingley’s resignation. Johnny Mercer and Sir Gary Streeter said Labour supremo Tudor Evans should now form an administration until the local elections in May.

William Telford www.plymouthherald.co.uk

In a joint statement the Tory stalwarts said: “We have long wished for local politics to be a little more stable for the people of Plymouth. Labour is now the largest party. We call on Tudor Evans to accept the responsibility that comes with that democratic mandate and form an interim council until the May elections to ensure that stability and continuity is preserved.”

Cllr Bingley resigned almost a year to the day he took charge, following criticism after he signalled the start of a £12.7m Armada Way upgrade which involved wholesale tree felling. A public outcry ensued and a legal challenge from the action group Straw (Save the Trees of Armada Way) prevented further lumberjacking with court battles imminent.

Mr Mercer and Mr Streeter, MPs for Moor View and South West Devon respectively, thanked Cllr Bingley for his hard work and integrity. In their joint statement they said: “We would like to thank Richard for all of his tireless work to promote Plymouth over the last year. Being in politics locally is tough, and he has remained true to his commitments to Plymouth, and to the local community.”

Cllr Bingley is stepping down as leader of the authority and Conservative Group from Monday, March 27, the date of the next full council meeting. He had come under mounting criticism after signing an executive decision to press ahead with the Armada Way redevelopment, which resulted in 110 trees being chopped down at night. Cllr Bingley insisted this was the right thing to do and that it would result in a “wonderful tree-lined zone whereby businesses and cafes and people feel safe”.

Cllr Bingley took over from Cllr Nick Kelly, who then left the Conservative group, in March 2022. During his year in charge Cllr Bingley had to deal with the resignation of several other high-profile Tory councillors and ended up leading a minority administration.

He said that in his year in charge his team took 165 Executive Decisions which, he said, “emphasised our belief in economic development, job creation and being compassionate community councillors.” He said he was proud of several achievements including finishing the Forder Valley transport scheme and establishing the Plymouth and South Devon Freeport.

Plymouth City Council’s Labour Group leader Tudor Evans has called Cllr Bingley’s resignation “yet another chapter in the ongoing chaos, backstabbing and infighting” among the Conservative group and the Independent Alliance. He said Labour would publish an “exciting vision” for greening the city centre, which the party would “look forward to getting started on should we take control of the council in May.”

One of us? – Owl

Rishi Sunak has published his long-awaited personal tax returns – revealing his mammoth income from a US-based investment fund outside of his salary at Westminster.

Adam Forrest www.independent.co.uk

The prime minister has raked in more than £4.7m over the past three years, the summary of his tax returns published for 2019-2020 to 2021-22 have revealed.

He made more than £1.9m last year alone – including £1.6m in capital gains and more than £300,000 in earnings and investment income.

And the PM paid more than £1m in UK tax over the three-year period, including £432,000 last year.

Mr Sunak’s financial affairs have come under intense scrutiny ever since The Independent first revealed his wife Akshata Murty held “non-dom” tax status to avoid UK tax on foreign income.

She later renounced the non-dom status. But it subsequently emerged that Mr Sunak had held a US green card and filed tax returns in America while he was chancellor.

Details of the couple’s fortune, believed to total around £730m, are also politically sensitive following warnings last week that Britons face a lost decade in living standards.

A statement from Mr Sunak’s accountants on Wednesday showed that his huge investment income and capital gains relate to a single US-based investment fund.

This is the investment listed as a “blind management arrangement” on the list of ministers’ interests. Mr Sunak is subject to UK tax on the investment income and gains received from the American fund.

Tax expert Dan Neidle said Mr Sunak had done nothing wrong – but noted how little capital gains are taxed compared with income, saying Mr Sunak paid only 20 per cent tax on the £1.6m made from it last year.

Mr Neidle – who probed ex-chancellor Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs – said “there is one interesting point: most of the £400,000 tax bill comes from the blind fund which doesn’t pay cash to him. So how does he pay the tax bill, given it’s so much more than he earns?”

Fellow tax expert Richard Murphy tweeted: “What do Sunak’s tax returns tell us? It is that a wealthy person with income beyond their immediate needs can always re-categorise large parts of that income as capital gains to reduce their tax rate on that part to 20 per cent, which is an insult to all who have to work for a living.”

The tax returns coincided with the highly anticipated grilling of Mr Sunak’s predecessor Boris Johnson by MPs over whether he misled the Commons with his denials about Partygate.

It was also on the same day as the Commons voted on Mr Sunak’s new post-Brexit deal. Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner tweeted: “Wonder why he’s chosen today?”

The ministerial code requires all ministers, including the prime minister, to provide information about their tax affairs for review by the Cabinet Office and the independent adviser on ministerial interests.

However, they are not required to make this public. Mr Sunak had promised that he would become the first prime minister since 2016 to publish his tax returns in full this year.

David Cameron did publish his returns after coming under immense pressure, as did Boris Johnson while London mayor. George Osborne did the same as chancellor.

Theresa May did publish four years’ worth of returns during her campaign for the Tory leadership.

Mr Sunak initially made the pledge last summer during his unsuccessful Conservative leadership campaign against Liz Truss.

He repeatedly promised to do so in recent months, and faced continued pressure to release the documents when it emerged Mr Zahawi settled an estimated £4.7m bill with HMRC while he was chancellor.

The Independent first revealed in July that HMRC officials were examining the tax affairs of the senior Tory figure after an inquiry was launched by the National Crime Agency in 2020.