Did No10 lean on tycoon to make him change his tune?
BORIS Johnson faced the prospect of a sleaze inquiry last night over his New Year’s holiday, despite the businessman he declared as the donor changing his position.
The Prime Minister claimed on Wednesday that his accommodation on the luxury Caribbean island of Mustique, worth £15,000, was provided by Carphone Warehouse founder David Ross. But he faced immediate questions over the declaration to Commons authorities when the multi-millionaire businessman told the Daily Mail he did not own the villa or pay for its use.
Under apparent pressure from Downing Street, Tory donor Mr Ross, pictured, yesterday released a further statement stating saying he had ‘facilitated’ the accommodation for Mr Johnson and his girlfriend, Carrie Symonds, and so the declaration was ‘correct’. But parliamentary rules make clear that MPs are required to name the ‘person or organisation funding the visit’.
Labour yesterday wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards demanding an investigation into who paid for the trip.
Two former standards chiefs also joined calls for an inquiry and warned that they believed Mr Johnson had not properly followed the rules. Sir Kevin Barron, former chairman of the committee on standards, said: ‘My understanding is that whoever paid for it should have been identified. Clearly the Prime Minister should now provide clarity.’
Sir Alistair Graham, who chaired the separate committee on standards in public life, said: ‘He should have declared whose villa he stayed at.
The Prime Minister should always take a lead in these matters.’ He added that it would be ‘worthwhile’ for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to look at whether the rules had been met. In his letter to Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Labour minister Jon Trickett wrote: ‘The Code of Conduct requires members to provide the name of the person or organisation that actually funded a donation. The evidence now suggests it was not David Ross.’ Mr Trickett said the public should know whether the Prime Minister ‘knowingly made a false entry into the register’ and requested an investigation into whether he had ‘ followed all transparency requirements’.