Boris Johnson has been criticised by his ethics adviser for acting “unwisely” but cleared of being deliberately misleading during an investigation into the funding of his Downing Street flat refurbishment. The prime minister gave a “humble and sincere” apology for failing to disclose crucial messages after facing questions from Christopher Geidt over an undeclared WhatsApp exchange with a Tory peer who funded a makeover of the No 11 residence. Johnson said he “did not recall” the messages with David Brownlow, the man who provided £58,000 to cover some of the cost for the renovations, and blamed “security issues” – thought to relate to when his mobile number was discovered online – for not having access to the phone. Complaining that parts of his No 11 flat looked a “bit of a tip”, Johnson asked Brownlow on 29 November 2020 for “approvals” so his decorator, Lulu Lytle, could “get on with it”. He added: “Ps am on the great exhibition plan Will revert.” In reply, Brownlow said he would “get it sorted ASAP” and reassured Johnson: “Approval is a doddle as it’s only me and I know where the £ will come from.” He also thanked Johnson for “thinking about GE2”. Asked what the great exhibition plan Johnson referred to was, his spokesman said it was an “idea that wasn’t taken forward”. He added that instead, “Festival UK” would be going ahead in 2022 – but could not explain the difference between that event and the great exhibition plan. Lord Geidt, who produced a report last spring which said Johnson told him he knew nothing of the flat payments until “immediately prior” to newspaper reports in February 2021, was deeply critical of having not been provided what he called the “missing exchange”.
While he said the new evidence did not alter “the fundamental assessment” that Johnson did not break the ministerial code, Geidt said he doubted if he would still have concluded that Johnson took all steps to make the correct donation and seek advice when he first became aware of the payments. Although Johnson’s phone was “no longer available to search”, Geidt said it “was again accessed” for “another purpose” in June, after the initial inquiry concluded. It also emerged Brownlow had offered the message exchange to the Cabinet Office – but this was declined, in a move Geidt described as “extraordinary”. He concluded: “The greatest possible care should have been taken to assemble all relevant material and this standard has not been met.” In another thinly veiled furious letter to Johnson sent on 23 December, Geidt said: “The episode shook my confidence precisely because potential and real failures of process occurred in more than one part of the apparatus of government.” Johnson wrote to Geidt two days earlier offering a “humble and sincere apology” and saying he wanted to “draw a line under these events” by offering “more dedicated support from officials” for the adviser’s future work. The prime minister resisted committing to beefing up Geidt’s powers to let him open investigations without needing sign-off, as several bodies have recommended. However, a subsequent report compiled by the Electoral Commission unearthed that Johnson messaged the man behind the payments, David Brownlow, in November 2020 asking him to authorise further refurbishments to the flat. The discrepancy prompted a senior Labour MP to allege Johnson “may have lied”, and Geidt sought an explanation from the prime minister in several letters exchanged over the past month. The Conservatives were fined £17,800 in December for not reporting the £52,801 the party received via Lord Brownlow’s company (Huntswood Associates Ltd). Johnson blamed not sharing the WhatsApp message with Geidt on having changed phone numbers, saying he “did not have access to my previous device and did not recall the message exchange”.
Geidt, who is the government’s independent adviser on ministerial interests, said he had concluded his initial finding Johnson did not break the ministerial code still stood: “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.” However, Geidt made clear his disdain at not having been given all the evidence originally and is expected to push to be given greater powers in subsequent investigations. He said the episode “shook my confidence precisely because potential and real failures of process occurred in more than one part of the apparatus of government”.