Zac Goldsmith: Tory minister named in Boris Johnson partygate interference report quits over after refusing to apologise

Published

2 years ago

June 30, 2023

admin

A Tory minister named in a Privileges Committee report for interfering in Boris Johnson’s partygate probe has resigned from government after refusing to apologise for his actions, according to the prime minister.

Lord Goldsmith, a former MP, quit his environmental role, claiming Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was “simply uninterested” in the issue.

‘Hugely important day for NHS’, minister says – politics latest

But the day before, the Tory peer – a close ally of Mr Johnson, who appointed him to the Lords – was chastised by the Privileges Committee for tweeting about its finding that the former prime minister had lied to parliament about lockdown breaking parties in Downing Street.

In a letter released by Downing Street, it was revealed that Mr Sunak asked him to apologise to the committee, but he refused.

Mr Sunak wrote to the peer: “You were asked to apologise for your comments about the Privileges Committee as we felt they were incompatible with your position as a minister of the crown. You have decided to take a different course.”

The prime minister later said that he was “proud of the record of this government and indeed of Zac in government making sure that we tackle climate change and protect our natural environment”.

In a post on social media, Lord Goldsmith characterised their inquiry as a “kangaroo court” and “witch hunt” – but Mr Sunak’s spokesman insisted the PM still had confidence in the minister.

Just 24 hours after the comments were highlighted, Lord Goldsmith resigned his post with a stinging resignation letter, taking aim at the current incumbent at Number 10.

The Tory peer said it had been an “exhilarating experience” in the job, praising the progress the UK had made in leading on climate change internationally – particularly when Mr Johnson was in office.

But Lord Goldsmith said he had been “horrified” by the government’s “abandonment” of policies around animal welfare, and that its efforts on environmental issues at home had “simply ground to a standstill”.

“More worrying, the UK has visibly stepped off the world stage and withdrawn our leadership on climate and nature,” he wrote in his resignation letter.

“Too often we are simply absent from key international fora. Only last week you [Mr Sunak] seemingly chose to attend the party of a media baron rather than attend a critically important environment summit in Paris that ordinarily the UK would have co-led.”

Lord Goldsmith said the government had “effectively abandoned” its “solemn” commitment to spend £11.6bn of its aid budget on climate and environment causes – calling it “the single most important signal” to countries suffering and in persuading other G7 countries to act – and had “not come clean on the broken promise” as the final year of spending will be after the next general election.

‘Government apathy on climate’

“Prime minister, having been able to get so much done previously, I have struggled even to hold the line in recent months,” he wrote.

“The problem is not that the government is hostile to the environment, it is that you, our prime minister, are simply uninterested. That signal, or lack of it, has trickled down through Whitehall and caused a kind of paralysis.

“I will never understand how, with all the knowledge we now have about our fundamental reliance on the natural world and the speed with which we are destroying it, anyone can be uninterested.

“But even if this existential challenge leaves you personally unmoved, there is a world of people who do care very much. And you will need their votes.”

The peer said it had been “a privilege” to hold his post, “but this government’s apathy in the face of the greatest challenge we have faced makes continuing in my current role untenable”, so he was resigning “with great reluctance… in order to focus my energy where it can be more useful”.

Who is Lord Goldsmith?

Lord Goldsmith became an MP in 2010 when he won Richmond Park from the Lib Dems.

In 2016, he was the Conservative candidate for London mayor – with Boris Johnson’s wife, Carrie, working for him over this period. But he lost out to Labour’s Sadiq Khan after a campaign heavily criticised over claims it had racist undertones.

He resigned as a Tory MP in 2016 over the planned expansion of Heathrow, and stood as an independent candidate in protest, but lost the seat to Lib Dem Sarah Olney.

After being selected as the Conservative candidate in the snap election of 2017, he regained Richmond Park, only to lose it to Ms Olney again come the 2019 ballot – despite Mr Johnson’s landslide victory elsewhere.

In 2020, Mr Johnson made him a Tory peer, where he held environment and foreign ministerial roles.

‘UK continues to play an important role’

In its response, the prime minister said: “We can be proud of the UK’s record as a world-leader on net zero. We are going far beyond other countries and delivering tangible progress whilst bringing down energy bills. This government is also committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it, as set out in our environmental improvement plan.

“The UK continues to play an important role globally in tackling climate change and preserving the environment. I attended COP27 in Egypt in November last year and reconfirmed our £11.6 billion climate finance pledge.”

He added: “Even in the last few weeks we have taken this international leadership into the recent G7 Leaders’ Summit in Hiroshima and the Summit for a New Global Financing Pact in Paris last week, where the minister of state for development represented the UK.”

Former culture secretary Nadine Dorries – who was also named in Thursday’s report for her “vociferous attacks” on the Privileges Committee – responded to the resignation on Twitter, saying Lord Goldsmith’s “record of achievement”, “depth of knowledge” and “passion” were “second to none”.

She added: “We’ve just lost the most able minister for the environment any government would be lucky and proud to have. This loss is beyond party politics. It’s huge.”

The Liberal Democrats said Mr Sunak “should have had the guts” to sack Lord Goldsmith after the report condemned his actions, saying the PM was “clearly too weak to control his own party”.

One of its MPs, Sarah Olney – who unseated Lord Goldsmith at the last election – added: “This Conservative chaos is never ending. Every day brings more resignations and scandal in this depressing Westminster soap opera.

“Zac Goldsmith’s resignation has at least confirmed what we have known all along – that Rishi Sunak’s government doesn’t give a damn about the environment and animal rights.

“They have scrapped plans to stop puppy smuggling, watered down climate change action and let water companies pump sewage in our rivers. What a sorry state of affairs this is.”

UK

Man, 76, charged after children fell ill at summer camp

Published

5 hours ago

August 1, 2025

admin

Man, 76, charged after children fell ill at summer camp

A 76-year-old man has been charged with child cruelty offences after youngsters fell ill at a summer camp.

Jonathon Ruben is accused of three offences of “wilful ill treatment of a child” relating to three boys.

Police received a report of children feeling unwell at a camp being held at Stathern Lodge, near Melton in Leicestershire, on Sunday.

Officers said paramedics attended the scene and eight boys – aged between eight and 11 – were taken to hospital as a precaution, as was an adult. They have since been discharged.

Ruben will appear at Leicester Magistrates’ Court on Saturday.

A statement from Janine McKinney, chief crown prosecutor for CPS East Midlands, said: “The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised the prosecution of a 76-year-old man with child cruelty offences following a police investigation into a summer camp held at Stathern Lodge, Leicestershire.

“This decision has been made after reviewing a file of evidence from Leicestershire Police.

“Jonathon Ruben, will be charged with three offences of wilful ill-treatment of a child relating to three boys. He will appear at Leicester Magistrates’ Court on Saturday, 1 August.

“This has been an extremely upsetting and shocking moment for the community, and especially for the children and parents most directly affected.”

Leicestershire Police said the owners and operators of Stathern Lodge are separate from the people who use or hire the venue, and are not connected to the incident.

It added in a statement: “This is an active criminal investigation and we ask that people do not speculate further about the incident, particularly on social media platforms.

“Leicestershire Police continues to work closely with partners ensuring that full safeguarding is provided to all those affected.”

The force has referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct over its handling of the incident.

UK

What is the car finance scandal – and what could today’s ruling mean for motorists?

Published

20 hours ago

August 1, 2025

admin

What is the car finance scandal - and what could today's ruling mean for motorists?

The UK’s Supreme Court is set to deliver a landmark ruling today that could have billion-pound consequences for banks and impact millions of motorists.

The essential question that the country’s top court has been asked to answer is this: should customers be fully informed about the commission dealers earn on their purchase?

However, the Supreme Court is only considering one of two cases running in parallel regarding the mis-selling of car finance.

Here is everything you need to know about both cases, and how the ruling this afternoon may (or may not) affect any future compensation scheme.

What is the Supreme Court considering?

The Supreme Court case concerns complaints related to the non-disclosure of commission. This applies to 99% of car finance cases.

When you buy a car on finance, you are effectively loaned the money, which you pay off in monthly instalments. These loans carry interest, organised by the brokers (the people who sell you the finance plan).

These brokers earn money in the form of a commission (which is a percentage of the interest payments).

Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of three motorists who were not informed that the car dealerships they agreed finance deals with were also being paid 25% commission, which was then added to their bills.

The ruling said it was unlawful for the car dealers to receive a commission from lenders without obtaining the customer’s informed consent to the payment.

However, British lender Close Brothers and South Africa’s FirstRand appealed the decision, landing it in the Supreme Court.

What does the second case involve?

The second case is being driven by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and involves discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs).

Under these arrangements, brokers and dealers increased the amount of interest they earned without telling buyers and received more commission for it. This is said to have incentivised sellers to maximise interest rates.

The FCA banned this practice in 2021. However, a high number of consumers have complained they were overcharged before the ban came into force. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) said in May that they were dealing with 20,000 complaints.

In January 2024, the FCA announced a review into whether motor finance customers had been overcharged because of past use of DCAs. It is using its powers to review historical motor finance commission arrangements across multiple firms – all of whom deny acting inappropriately.

The FCA also said it is looking into a “consumer redress scheme” that means firms would need to offer appropriate compensation to customers affected by the issue.

An estimated 40% of car finance deals are likely to be eligible for compensation over motor finance deals taken out between 2007 and 2021, when the DCAs were banned.

To find out how you can tell if you’ve been mis-sold car finance, read the following explainer from our reporter Megan Harwood-Baynes.

How does the ruling affect potential compensation?

In short, the Supreme Court ruling could impact the scale and reach that a compensation scheme is likely to have.

The FCA said in March that it will consider the court’s decision and if it concludes motor finance customers have lost out from widespread failings by firms, it is “likely [to] consult on an industry-wide redress scheme”.

This would mean affected individuals wouldn’t need to complain, but they would be paid out an amount dictated by the FCA.

However, no matter what the court decides, the FCA could go ahead with a redress scheme.

The regulator said it will confirm if it is proposing a scheme within six weeks of the Supreme Court’s decision.

What impact could this have on lenders?

Analysts at HSBC said last year the controversy could be estimated to cost up to £44bn.

Alongside Close Brothers, firms that could be affected include Barclays, Santander and the UK’s largest motor finance provider Lloyds Banking Group – which organises loans through its Black Horse finance arm.

Lloyds has already set aside £1.2bn to be used for potential compensation.

The potential impact on the lending market and the wider economy could be so great that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering intervening to overrule the Supreme Court, according to The Guardian.

Treasury officials have been looking at the potential of passing new legislation alongside the Department for Business and Trade that could slash the potential compensation bill.

The Treasury said in response to the claim that it does not “comment on speculation” but hopes to see a “balanced judgment”.

UK

Full details of Heathrow’s plans for a third runway revealed

Published

21 hours ago

August 1, 2025

admin

Full details of Heathrow's plans for a third runway revealed

Heathrow Airport has said it can build a third runway for £21bn within the next decade.

Europe’s busiest travel hub has submitted its plans to the government – with opponents raising concerns about carbon emissions, noise pollution and environmental impacts.

The west London airport wants permission to create a 3,500m (11,400ft) runway, but insists it is open to considering a shorter one instead.

In January, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced that the government supports a “badly needed” expansion to connect the UK to the world and open up new growth opportunities.

But London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan is still against a new runway because of “the severe impact” it will have on the capital’s residents.

Under Heathrow’s proposal, the runway would be constructed to the northwest of its existing location – allowing for an additional 276,000 flights per year.

The airport also wants to create new terminal capacity for 150 million annual passengers – up from 84 million – with plans involving a new terminal complex named T5XW and T5XN.

Terminal 2 would be extended, while Terminal 3 and the old Terminal 1 would be demolished.

The runway would be privately funded, with the total plan costing about £49bn, but some airlines have expressed concern that the airport will hike its passenger charges to pay for the project.

EasyJet chief executive Kenton Jarvis said an expansion would “represent a unique opportunity for easyJet to operate from the airport at scale for the first time and bring with it lower fares for consumers”.

Thomas Woldbye, the airport’s chief executive, said in a statement that “it has never been more important or urgent to expand Heathrow”.

“We are effectively operating at capacity to the detriment of trade and connectivity,” he added.

“With a green light from government and the correct policy support underpinned by a fit-for-purpose, regulatory model, we are ready to mobilise and start investing this year in our supply chain across the country.

“We are uniquely placed to do this for the country. It is time to clear the way for take-off.”

The M25 motorway would need to be moved into a tunnel under the new runway under the airport’s proposal.

London mayor still opposed

Sir Sadiq says City Hall will “carefully scrutinise” the proposals, adding: “I’ll be keeping all options on the table in how we respond.”

Tony Bosworth, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, also said that if Sir Keir Starmer wants to be “seen as a climate leader”, then backing Heathrow expansion is “the wrong move”.

Earlier this year, Longford resident Christian Hughes told Sky News that his village and others nearby would be “decimated” if an expansion were to go ahead.

It comes after hotel tycoon Surinder Arora published a rival Heathrow expansion plan, which involves a shorter runway to avoid the need to divert the M25 motorway.

The billionaire’s Arora Group said a 2,800m (9,200ft) runway would result in “reduced risk” and avoid “spiralling cost”.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander will consider all plans over the summer so that a review of the Airports National Policy Statement can begin later this year.

It also comes after Sky News reported on a Heathrow Airport-funded group sending leaflets supporting a third runway to thousands of homes across west London.

The group, called Back Heathrow, sent leaflets to people living near the airport, claiming expansion could be the route to a “greener” airport and suggesting it would mean only the “cleanest and quietest aircraft” fly there.

Opponents of the airport’s expansion said the information provided by the group is “incredibly misleading”.

Back Heathrow told Sky News it had “always been open” about the support it receives from the airport. The funding is not disclosed on Back Heathrow’s newsletter or website.