tonight the @ft can reveal that a second senior Tory MP was being investigated by HMRC last summer around the same time as Nadhim Zahawi
- but the way this emerged is quite peculiar, and worth recounting in full
- on June 15 last year HMRC admitted an unnamed minister was under investigation, in response to a freedom of information request from @DanNeidle which he shared with me
- on June 15 last year HMRC admitted an unnamed minister was under investigation, in response to a freedom of information request from @DanNeidle which he shared with me
- But on June 23, just as @ft was about to publish a story, HMRC changed tack and said no ministers were being scrutinised after all
- we pulled the story
- on July 7 it changed its position once again and admitted that a minister was, indeed, under investigation
- we pulled the story
- on July 7 it changed its position once again and admitted that a minister was, indeed, under investigation
- Whitehall insiders are now for the first time giving an explanation of two major blunders which led to its misleading statement
- after Neidle obtained 200 pages of internal emails from last summer from within HMRC
- after Neidle obtained 200 pages of internal emails from last summer from within HMRC
- firstly officials initially trawled an inaccurate list which came up with the name of a senior Tory MP who was not a minister
- we don’t know who he or she is but they were clearly senior enough to be mistaken for a minister by someone in HMRC
- thus the denial on June 23
- we don’t know who he or she is but they were clearly senior enough to be mistaken for a minister by someone in HMRC
- thus the denial on June 23
- 2nd mistake was to only search through part of HMRC (people involved in self-assessment disputes) and not the Customer Compliance Group, which includes the Fraud Investigation Service and Counter-Avoidance
- a new wider search was carried out later on, turning up Zahawi
- a new wider search was carried out later on, turning up Zahawi
- HMRC only admitted there was a minister under investigation after all to me on July 7
- just a day before the brilliant @Annaisaac at The Independent broke the story that Zahawi was under investigation.
- am told this is a coincidence
- just a day before the brilliant @Annaisaac at The Independent broke the story that Zahawi was under investigation.
- am told this is a coincidence
as an aside, the latest cache of 200 pages of FOIs show some fascinating insights
for example Nicole Newbury, director of wealth and mid-sized business compliance at HMRC, told colleagues it was important for the FOI response to be “deliberately drafted to be non-disclosive”
for example Nicole Newbury, director of wealth and mid-sized business compliance at HMRC, told colleagues it was important for the FOI response to be “deliberately drafted to be non-disclosive”
I mean this isn’t very open government is it 
also from the data dump:
- when on June 23 the department believed that no ministers were under investigation, officials were still discussing how to deal with other potential questions about whether ministers had “ever” been under investigation by HMRC
- when on June 23 the department believed that no ministers were under investigation, officials were still discussing how to deal with other potential questions about whether ministers had “ever” been under investigation by HMRC
- they agreed to downplay any enquiries & tell journalists “the majority of investigations do not lead to prosecution/further action, they are frequently fairly simple clarification requests”
- press officers were urged to “point out that investigations can be quite routine”
- press officers were urged to “point out that investigations can be quite routine”
it’s tonight’s @ft splash
- a small but important clarification on the “non-disclosure” point
- officials says it simply means the FOI response could not be constructed in a way that might identify a taxpayer, so as not to go against our strict rules on confidentiality
- happy to get that out there
- officials says it simply means the FOI response could not be constructed in a way that might identify a taxpayer, so as not to go against our strict rules on confidentiality
- happy to get that out there
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
