Sir Keir Starmer was facing serious questions about his political judgment last night after he forced out his Transport Secretary over a criminal conviction he had known about for four years.
Louise Haigh dramatically resigned from the Cabinet yesterday morning, saying that she did not want to become a ‘distraction’ following media revelations that she had pleaded guilty to a fraud charge a decade ago.
But Whitehall sources said she had been left with no option but to quit after the Prime Minister called her on Thursday night to say he had lost confidence in her – and aides warned she would face a sleaze investigation if she tried to cling on.
No 10 said that ‘new information’ had emerged about Ms Haigh’s past. But allies of the MP insisted she had made a ‘full disclosure’ to Sir Keir when he first asked her to join his top team in 2020 while in opposition.
Courts minister Heidi Alexander, a former transport adviser to London mayor Sadiq Khan, was yesterday appointed as Ms Haigh’s replacement as Transport Secretary. She is best known for overseeing the introduction of the hated Ulez low emission zone in the capital but also had a major hand in the vastly delayed and over-budget Crossrail line across London.
Last night the PM was under mounting pressure to come clean on exactly what he knew about Ms Haigh’s conviction – and why he chose to appoint her to a sensitive role in which she would have oversight on aspects of policing.
In a letter to the PM, shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart urged him to ‘set out precisely what you knew about the former transport secretary’s conviction and when you knew it’.
Mr Burghart also asked Sir Keir if he had passed on his knowledge of Ms Haigh’s past conviction to the Cabinet Office team responsible for vetting her appointment.
And he was asked to explain how ‘if you did not see it as a disqualifying factor then, why has it become so today?’
Tory party chairman Nigel Huddleston said Ms Haigh had ‘done the right thing’ by quitting, but added: ‘She said the Prime Minister was aware of her fraud conviction, which raises questions as to why he appointed her to Cabinet with responsibility for a £30billion budget? Keir Starmer needs to explain his own poor judgment to the British public.’
Ms Haigh’s downfall followed media reports on Thursday that she had pleaded guilty to a fraud offence in 2014 after wrongly telling police her work phone had been stolen in a mugging in London.
In a statement she said she discovered the phone at home ‘some time later’ after being issued a new work phone but failed to tell the police or her employer, the insurance firm Aviva. She subsequently lost her job there.
One report yesterday claimed that she had been seeking a phone upgrade from work – an allegation dismissed as ‘absolute nonsense’ by an ally.
The 37-year-old Sheffield Heeley MP said it had been ‘a genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain’. She said her solicitor had advised her not to comment during a police interview and to plead guilty in court.
A report yesterday said Aviva had called in the police following the disappearance of several work phones. Aviva declined to comment.
It is understood the offence was ‘fraud by false representation’ and that the conviction is now spent. In her resignation letter to the PM, Ms Haigh said: ‘As you know, I was mugged in London in 2013. As a 24-year-old woman the experience was terrifying.’
She set out her version of events, before adding: ‘I should have immediately informed my employer and not doing so straight away was a mistake. I appreciate that whatever the facts of the matter this issue will inevitably be a distraction from delivering on the work of this government.’
Sir Keir’s curt response ran to just 60 words.
A friend of Ms Haigh yesterday said she had disclosed details of her offence to Sir Keir ‘in full’ in 2020 before taking up her first Shadow Cabinet role as Northern Ireland spokesman. ‘She considers she made a full disclosure and he then went on to promote her several times,’ the source said.
Allies believe the Left-winger was forced out following clashes over the rail unions and her criticism of P&O for its controversial ‘fire and rehire tactics’, which almost caused the firm’s owner to boycott last month’s international investment summit.
‘He [Sir Keir] knew about the offence, he just didn’t want to expend any political capital trying to save her when it came to light,’ said one source.
But Downing Street suggested that she had failed to give Sir Keir the full picture. A spokesman for the PM said: ‘Following further information emerging, the Prime Minister has accepted Louise Haigh’s resignation.’
The spokesman refused to say what the PM had been told in 2020 or what ‘new information’ had come to light. He also refused to comment on why the PM had chosen to appoint a minister with a fraud conviction to his Cabinet.
No 10 also suggested Ms Haigh had failed to disclose the conviction during the vetting process that accompanied her appointment to the Cabinet in July.
The PM’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is said to have told her she would face an investigation under the ministerial code section on ‘honesty and transparency’ if she tried to fight on. Ms Haigh then agreed to resign during a call with the PM.
The Questions the PM must answer
What did Keir Starmer know and when?
Allies of Louise Haigh said she had disclosed details of the incident, including her conviction, to Sir Keir ‘in full’ when he appointed her to his Shadow Cabinet in 2020 as Northern Ireland spokesman. He then promoted her, first to transport spokesman and then, after Labour’s election win, to Transport Secretary. No 10 refused to say exactly what the PM had been told, saying only that she had resigned after ‘further information’ emerged. Was he told the full truth in 2020? If not, which aspects were overlooked? What, if any, further information came to light and why did it change the PM’s view of Ms Haigh’s fitness for the job?
Why did he appoint someone with a criminal conviction?
No 10 yesterday refused a dozen times to say why the PM had picked her for a series of roles that involved close work with the police. Why did the PM choose to put a minister who admitted giving a false account to the police in a role where she would be effectively in charge of the British Transport Police?
What happened to vetting?
All Cabinet ministers are required to go through an intensive vetting process. Downing Street suggested that Ms Haigh may not have fully declared the incident as part of the process. Did she tell officials about the conviction? Given that Sir Keir appears to have known about the conviction for years, did he inform the Cabinet Office of it when he appointed her? Did her friendship with the PM’s then chief of staff Sue Gray ease the process? Did the Cabinet Office raise concerns about her and if so, how did the PM respond?
What occurred to Ms Haigh?
Ms Haigh says she was mugged in London in 2013 and told police her work phone was among the items stolen. She admits she did not inform the police when, after she had been issued with a new work phone, she found her old one at home. She is understood to have pleaded guilty to committing fraud by false representation in 2014 on the advice of her lawyer. What is the truth of the incident in 2013? What did Keir Starmer know about it? What efforts did he make to establish the facts before appointing her to the Cabinet?
Why was she sacked?
Officially, Ms Haigh resigned from her role yesterday to avoid becoming a ‘distraction’ from the work of government. But No 10 also offered two different explanations for her departure which suggested she had been forced out – first, that she did not tell Sir Keir the full story in 2020 and, second, that she may have failed to disclose aspects of it to officials on her appointment, making it a potential breach of the ministerial code.
Are there any more ‘law-breakers’ in the Cabinet?
Downing Street refused to say if other ministers had criminal convictions in their pasts. Sir Keir savaged Boris Johnson after he was fined £50 over Partygate, saying ‘you can’t be a law-maker and a law-breaker’. He now appears to have said this in full knowledge that at least one member of his Shadow Cabinet had a conviction.