Civil service distances itself from Labour claim Sunak lied in £2k tax row

Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak debate - Civil service distances itself from Labour claim Sunak lied in £2k tax row
Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak took part in a tetchy, ill-tempered debate last Tuesday - ITV/Jonathan Hordle

The Civil Service has distanced itself from Labour’s claims that Rishi Sunak lied with his £2,000 tax attack line.

Rachel Reeves has argued that a letter from the Treasury warning the Tories that the figure “should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service” confirmed that the Prime Minister lied to the public when he repeatedly peddled the claim.

But Simon Case, the country’s most senior mandarin, has now distanced the Civil Service from the Labour backlash, clarifying that officials never accused Mr Sunak of lying.

The Cabinet Secretary confirmed that the letter in question, sent by James Bowler, the Treasury’s top civil servant, made no reference to Mr Sunak whatsoever.

Mr Case issued the clarification after Richard Holden, the Tory chairman, asked him to confirm that Mr Bowler did not “say or suggest that the Prime Minister lied”.

The row was triggered by an ill-tempered debate between Mr Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer last week, in which the Prime Minister repeatedly claimed that Labour would put up taxes by £2,000.

Mr Sunak said the figure was based on costings by “independent Treasury civil servants”.

The number is largely based on analysis conducted by the Treasury, commissioned by the Conservatives, which examined the costs of Labour’s planned policies.

But in a letter from June 3 that emerged after the debate, Mr Bowler said he had told ministers to be careful about how they presented the work done by his department.

Replying to Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, he said: “As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production or presentation of the Conservative Party’s document ‘Labour’s Tax Rises’, or in the calculation of the total figure used.

“In your letter, you highlight that the £38 billion figure used in the Conservative Party’s publication includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service and published online by HM Treasury.

“I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service. I have reminded ministers and advisers that this should be the case.”

Simon Case
Simon Case has distanced the Civil Service from the Labour backlash over the tax claim - Paul Grover for The Telegraph

On the day after the debate, Ms Reeves, the shadow chancellor, said the letter “confirms what Labour have said last night, that the Prime Minister lied in the debate last night”.

Writing to Mr Case on June 6, Mr Holden insisted the letter “obviously did no such thing” and said he would be “grateful if you would confirm back to me that the letter in question did not say or suggest that the Prime Minister lied”.

He also asked for clarification that 21 of the costings in the Tories’ dossier were done by civil servants.

Mr Case replied: “I attach the Permanent Secretary’s letter which speaks for itself and made no reference to the Prime Minister.

“On your question related to the production of the 21 costings, I can confirm that civil servants from HM Treasury and other relevant departments produced costings which are publicly available on gov.uk.

“In his letter, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury explained that the approach set out in the Directory of Civil Service Guidance was followed.”

He added: “I can confirm that civil servants followed this guidance in the production of these costings and, specifically, that ministers asked for them and they were produced on assumptions produced by special advisers on behalf of ministers.

“Upholding the impartiality of the Civil Service is a duty rightly shared by both the Civil Service itself and all political parties. I would therefore be grateful for your ongoing assistance, and that of your counterparts in other parties, in protecting our impartiality during the election period.”