Boris apologises to standards adviser over Downing Street flat message 

Boris Johnson has made a grovelling apology to his standards adviser after failing to disclose bombshell messages during a probe into the Downing Street flat refurb.

Furious letters from Lord Geidt to the PM have been published after he found out he personally WhatsApped a Tory donor about funding for the lavish £140,000 overhaul.

They include the text of the messages, complaining that the grace-and-favour residence is a ‘bit of a tip’ and could he ‘approve’ more spending – also referring to an idea for a ‘Great Exhibition’ that Lord Brownlow appears to have been championing.

Lord Brownlow replied that the money for top designer Lulu Lytle would be ‘sorted’. In a latter missive he informed the PM that a charitable trust he wanted to foot the bill had yet to be set up, saying there was ‘only me and I know were the £ will come from’.   

Lord Geidt had previously cleared Mr Johnson of breaching the ministerial code on the basis that he knew nothing about the source of the money to overhaul the flat and believed the trust was being formed – an idea that was eventually abandoned as against government rules. Mr Johnson finally settled the bill himself beyond the £30,000 taxpayer contribution permitted for upkeep, and the Tory party has been fined for failing to declare donations. 

After the commission’s findings caused him to reassess his findings, Lord Geidt branded the premier ‘unwise’ and demanded reforms to make his role more powerful. 

The PM blamed having to change his phone after his number was made public in a security bungle for the failure to flag the message to Lord Brownlow asking for more works to be authorised.

But he wrote to Lord Geidt on December 21: ‘I am sorry that the Office of Independent Adviser has been put in this position and can only repeat the humble and sincere apology I gave when we discussed this matter earlier today.’ 

The standards adviser concluded that the new information did not fundamentally change his conclusion, but was highly critical of the latest oversight. And in another piece of advice that was seemingly ignored by the PM, he said on December 17 that their exchange of letters should be published ‘in the coming days’.  

Asked on a visit to a vaccination centre in Northampton this afternoon whether he expected people to believe his excuse about swapping phones, Mr Johnson said: ‘I followed the ministerial guidance at all times, and yes.’ 

But Labour accused him of having ‘little regard for the rules or the truth’, saying his excuses were ‘pathetic’ and it was ‘impossible’ to conclude he had not broken the ministerial code.  

The correspondence between Lord Geidt and Mr Johnson was published this afternoon.

The peer previously cleared Mr Johnson of breaching the code in relation to the funding of the flat refurbishment but re-examined his initial investigation in the wake of the Electoral Commission probe.

The PM had assured Lord Geidt, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, that he did not know who was paying for the £112,549 refurbishment until this year.

But the electoral watchdog uncovered evidence that Mr Johnson sent WhatsApp messages asking Lord Brownlow to sign off works months earlier. 

In the light of the revelations, Lord Geidt wrote to Mr Johnson asking him to explain the apparent contradiction.

In his initial letter to Mr Johnson on December 17, Lord Geidt was highly critical of the failure to provide him with the ‘missing exchange’.

‘It is plainly unsatisfactory that my earlier advice was unable to rely on the fullest possible disclosure of relevant information,’ he said.

‘Clearly, a very serious degree of risk attends a Prime Minister’s commission of an investigation by the independent adviser into activity touching directly on the Prime Minister’s interests, when that investigation is subsequently shown to have proceeded without reference to material requiring disclosure.’

Lord Geidt expressed his ‘grave concern’ that the missing messages were not provided to him initially or when Mr Johnson’s old phone was accessed in June last year ‘for another purpose’.

‘It is of grave concern to me that, neither at the time when the Cabinet Office was collecting information ahead of my report, nor subsequently when the device had been activated again, was any attempt made to check for information relevant to my enquiries, such as the missing exchange,’ he said.

‘I consider that the greatest possible care should have been taken to assemble all relevant material and this standard has not been met.’

Lord Geidt said the ‘shortcomings’ shows ‘evidence of insufficient care for the role of your independent adviser’.

‘Beyond that, however, I believe a far greater threat to public confidence attaches to the exchanges unrecalled, the messages undisclosed, the data unconsidered and the subsequent misjudgements about the impact of the messages which I have had to weigh in this initial advice,’ he added.  

Lord Geidt wrote later: ‘The new disclosure did not in fact result in change to my original assessment of your interests insofar as they related to the ministerial code.

‘It did, however, expose a signal deficiency in the standards upon which the independent adviser and, by extension, the Prime Minister have an absolute right to rely in establishing the truth in such matters.

‘Indeed, the episode shook my confidence precisely because potential and real failures of process occurred in more than one part of the apparatus of government. I am very grateful to have your apology for these shortcomings and to know of your determination to prevent such a situation from happening again.’ 

In his response to Lord Geidt, the PM said explained that he did not have access to his previous mobile phone, from which the messages had been sent, and ‘did not recall the message exchange’.

But he said: ‘A fuller explanation of the circumstances should have been provided at the time of your investigation. I am sorry we did not do so.’ 

It was ‘unacceptable’ that the Cabinet Office did not inform Lord Geidt of the existence of the messages, he added.

He said Tory peer Lord Brownlow had offered to share the messages with the Cabinet Office but that the department had felt this was inappropriate to receive these while the Electoral Commission was undertaking an investigation.

Mr Johnson said: ‘It is unacceptable that the Cabinet Office did not at the very least inform you of the position they had taken.’

Mr Johnson said the Electoral Commission’s ‘preliminary conclusions’ had included a ‘short reference’ to the exchange but that it ‘would not have been straightforward’ to have briefed Lord Geidt due to confidentiality restrictions.

As opposed to sanctions, Mr Johnson and Lord Geidt agreed to reform the system for oversight of ministerial interests to include more resources for the relevant secretariat in the Cabinet Office.  

The Daily Mail revealed details of the lavish redecoration of the apartment shared by the PM and his then fiancée in March last year.

The revamp at No11 by upmarket designer Lulu Lytle is said to have included gold wall coverings. 

But the funding of the work did not appear in the list of political donations published by the Commission or in Mr Johnson’s Commons register of interests. 

It prompted demands from the Labour Party for a full investigation into how the extravagant work was paid for and whether rules were broken. 

One of Lord Geidt’s first actions after being appointed as adviser on ministerial interests was to probe the saga over the lavish No11 refurbishment.

Mr Johnson wanted a charitable trust to cover the huge bill for improvements to the grace-and-favour residence beyond the £30,000 a year that the taxpayer foots. 

Lord Brownlow was drafted in to head the theoretical trust – but the whole idea was later ditched as impractical under government rules.  

In the meantime the Conservative Party had repaid the Cabinet Office for the works using funds provided by Lord Brownlow, and the peer also met other invoices directly. 

The PM subsequently resolved the chaos by paying out of his own pocket, and Lord Geidt concluded that while he had been ‘unwise’ not to keep closer track of how the work was being funded, no rules had been broken.

However, critically the peer’s report noted that officials told him Mr Johnson had not been aware of the ‘fact or the method of the costs of refurbishing the apartment having been paid’ until February last year. 

‘I have also spoken in similar terms to the Prime Minister who confirms that he knew nothing about such payments until immediately prior to media reports in February 2021,’ the report said. 

That seemed to clash with an Electoral Commission investigation published last month, which revealed that Mr Johnson WhatsApped Lord Brownlow in November 2020 asking him to authorise work on the flat. 

‘The Prime Minister messaged Lord Brownlow via WhatsApp asking him to authorise further, at that stage unspecified, refurbishment works on the residence,’ the commission stated. 

‘Lord Brownlow agreed to do so, and also explained that the proposed trust had not yet been set up but that he knew where the funding was coming from.’ 

No10 has insisted the premier messaged Lord Brownlow in his role as head of the supposed trust, and did not know the source of the money.

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: ‘Boris Johnson has little regard for the rules or the truth. The Ministerial Code requires ministers to act with transparency and honesty. 

‘It is simply impossible to read these exchanges and conclude that the Prime Minister has not breached these aspects of the Code.

‘Once again, by attempting to hide the truth, Boris Johnson undermines his own office. The Prime Minister’s pathetic excuses will fool no one, and this is just the latest in a long line of sorry episodes.

‘This matters because it matters who has influence on our government in a democracy. 

‘The British public can’t WhatsApp a wealthy donor to open their wallets on request, and the least they deserve is transparency about who’s bankrolling their Prime Minister.’

Liberal Democrat chief whip Wendy Chamberlain said: ‘This is just another day in the Number 10 circus act and the latest chapter in the Conservative sleaze scandal. 

‘Boris Johnson’s excuse for the non-disclosure of WhatsApp messages – because he had a new phone – is akin to the dog eating your homework.

‘This desperately sad attempt to cover his own back will leave serious question marks hanging over the outcomes of Lord Geidt’s investigation into the flat refurbishment.

‘Boris Johnson may have completely pulled the wool over Lord Geidt’s eyes, but the public will take a very dim view of this utter nonsense.’