Why was Nadhim Zahawi fired? Today’s report by Laurie Magnus, the PM’s adviser on ministerial interests, says it’s a question of honesty and disclosure. HMRC started talking to Zahawi about his tax affairs in April 2021 but this became a formal investigation shortly after he became Chancellor on 5 July last year. By this time, he had been knocked out of the Tory leadership race. He had agreed to pay a penalty and the matter was closed. But he’s accused of keeping this hidden and has, it seems, been fired for the secrecy.
The Magnus report goes into detail about the offense. A minister facing an HMRC investigation would have been expected ‘to inform their permanent secretary and seek advice’, it says (paragraph 9) and then ‘update their declaration of interests form’. We’re left to believe that Zahawi did neither, thereby committing a career-ending breach of the ministerial code.
But is it really so? Allies of Zahawi say he did tell Tom Scholar, the then Treasury Permanent Secretary, about both the HMRC investigation and the penalty paid. And that his ministerial register of interests was up to date in September, when Liz Truss appointed him Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So it’s a puzzle. Zahawi believes the Cabinet office authorities were fully in the picture when Zahawi was made Tory Chairman a month afterwards.
Why condemn Zahawi – fire him – without properly hearing him out?
Zahawi, I understand, had hoped to go through all of this in a second meeting with Magnus next week. But he was told last night that their brief 30-minute meeting last week would be the end of it – and the final report would come out today. If so, this would also be odd: why such a short meeting? Why condemn him – fire him – without properly hearing him out? And if it was just a 30-minute meeting with the later session abandoned, why not say so?
Zahawi has said little in public, save for stressing that Sunak has his support. But if he did inform Tom Scholar – and if his register of ministerial interests was updated – then how does the Magnus report make sense? Are there parts of this story we’re still not being told?
This ought not to be too hard to check. Either Scholar was properly informed or he wasn’t. Either the Cabinet Office was briefed about this when Zahawi became Tory Chairman, or it wasn’t. Either his register of ministerial interests was updated last September (these things have to be signed and dated) or it wasn’t. It’s strange for there to be any debate about these basics.
Like everyone else, I have no idea who said what to whom: that’s what the Magnus report was supposed to settle beyond doubt. If there are still important facts omitted from the Magnus report, then this story may have a bit longer left to run.
Comments