BORIS Johnson has become embroiled in a war of words with the head of Britain’s statistics watchdog over the Foreign Secretary’s remarks about a £350 million a week Brexit dividend.
The row flared up after Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, had earlier ticked off her Cabinet colleague for “back-seat driving” on Brexit following his 4,000-word article at the weekend, which has angered senior Tories as it comes just days before Theresa May is due to give a keynote speech on Britain’s EU withdrawal in Florence.
Mr Johnson’s spat with Sir David Norgrove began when the Chairman of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to the Secretary of State, saying how he was "surprised and disappointed" that Mr Johnson had allegedly reused the widely-discredited referendum pledge that up to £350m a week extra could be spent on the NHS after Brexit, stressing that it was a "clear misuse" of official figures.
But a spokesman for the Foreign Secretary then intervened to say: "Boris has spoken to Norgrove and he has made clear that he was complaining about the headlines and not Boris' piece and, in fact, admitted that Boris' wording in the piece was absolutely fine."
However, later, a spokesman for the statistics authority responded by stressing: "Sir David Norgrove does not believe the issues lie solely with the headlines. He has not changed the conclusion set out in his letter to the Foreign Secretary."
In an unusual move, Mr Johnson then personally and publicly hit back, accusing Sir David of a "complete misrepresentation" of his claims about Brexit and called on him to withdraw his criticism.
In an angry letter to the statistics authority chairman, the Secretary of State wrote: “I must say that I was surprised and disappointed by your letter of today, since it was based on what appeared to be a wilful distortion of the text of my article.
"When we spoke you conceded that you were more concerned by the headline and the BBC coverage, though you accepted that I was not responsible for those. I suggest if the BBC coverage offends you that you write to the BBC.
"You say that I claim that there would be £350m that 'might be available for extra public spending' when we leave the EU.
"This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said and I would like you to withdraw it. I in fact said: 'Once we have settled our accounts we will take back control of roughly £350m per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.'
"That is very different from claiming that there would be an extra £350m available for public spending and I am amazed that you should impute such a statement to me," added Mr Johnson.
Meanwhile, Labour's Chuka Umunna, a supporter of Open Britain group campaigning for a soft Brexit, said: "Yet again, Boris's outright lying has been exposed by Britain's statistics watchdog. The £350m figure was simply wrong during the referendum campaign and it's wrong now.
"Boris' hard Brexit plans will mean less money for our NHS, not more. The IFS are forecasting a £58bn hole in the public finances as a direct result of Brexit, which will be paid for in higher taxes and lower NHS spending.
"Boris's compulsive lying means he has lost the right to be heard on Brexit. He should give his leadership ambitions a rest and apologise for his continual use of dodgy statistics."
Sir Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "Boris' £350m lie has been exposed yet again. He knows an extreme Brexit would damage the economy and mean less cash for the NHS.
"I'm glad to see the independent UK Statistics Authority has the courage to slap Boris down. It's a shame the same can't be said of Theresa May," he added.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel