People sick with Covid were filling up hospitals, infections were spreading far and wide, and deaths were rising rapidly. It was the third week of March 2020 – and Britain was in crisis. On 19 March, during his regular Downing Street press conference, Boris Johnson told the country it could “turn the tide” on Covid in 12 weeks by “avoiding unnecessary contact” and “gatherings”.
That same day, at his private residence at Downing Street, the Prime Minister met with representatives of Lebedev Holdings, a company that owns the Evening Standard and is controlled by Evgeny Lebedev. The Cabinet Office told me that it didn’t have information on who attended the meeting aside from Johnson or what they discussed, but said the meeting was “personal/social”.
Johnson always made time for Lebedev.
The Standard, Lebedev’s newspaper, which had supported Johnson as mayor, went on to support his campaign to become Prime Minister. A day after Johnson was elected to the top job in December 2019, he went to Lebedev’s vodka and caviar party in honour of Lebedev’s former-KGB-officer father’s 60th birthday. A few weeks later, Johnson used his prime ministerial powers to personally nominate Lebedev to the upper chamber of parliament at the start of 2020, sending his name to the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
The Commission, which can vet but not veto nominees, was a mixed bag.
When the commissioners received Lebedev’s nomination, they began their vetting process. This normally involves, with the nominee’s consent, an examination of their tax situation, plus a media review and sometimes checks with the Electoral Commission. But the commissioners can go to any government department they think relevant. In Lebedev’s case, concerned about his father’s past, they went to the intelligence agencies.
When the vetting report finally came back to them, the commissioners met in Committee Room 2, between 1 and 3pm on 17 March 2020, to discuss it. The report flagged Lebedev as a national security risk because of his father’s past and his current contacts. They quickly wrote to Johnson, advising him against the nomination and recommending an alternative nominee, which brings us back to the 19 March 2020 meeting at Downing Street.
It took ITV’s Robert Peston three on-background government sources to establish that the meeting was between Johnson and Lebedev himself and that, almost certainly, they discussed the nomination. Peston’s sources told him they were very surprised that Johnson, given the pandemic and the sheer strangeness of Lebedev’s nomination, was so insistent on pushing ahead with it.
He sent Lebedev’s name back to the commissioners, saying their concerns were “Russophobic” and that the security assessment was about Lebedev’s father, not the man himself. The commissioners reluctantly signed off on the appointment, creating Lord Lebedev, Baron of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames and Siberia in the Russian Federation.
My Freedom of Information request for material on the 19 March 2020 meeting revealed only that it was a “personal/social” meeting. The Cabinet Office told me it held no other information. When I submitted an FoI to the Cabinet Office for any material it prepared or received on Lebedev’s nomination, it told me it needed more time to decide whether disclosure was in the public interest. I submitted the request on 8 December 2021. I submitted an FoI to the House of Lords Appointments Commission for anything it had on Lebedev’s appointment but, with a 20-working-day delay, all I received was heavily redacted documents and emails.
There is, by design, no way of knowing exactly how people get into the upper chamber of parliament. The Commission assures nominees that their information will be handled in the strictest confidence, so it says it can’t disclose any material they have on them. The Cabinet Office routinely denies any FoI requests.
This needs to change. Members of the Lords can exercise real power and control over our lives – and, in Lebedev’s case, we’re not even allowed to see what his security assessment was concerned about.
Over the weekend, Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, called for an investigation. Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary, insisted there was “no impropriety”. The Sunday Times pursued the story on its front page. Last week, Baroness Smith, the opposition leader in the Lords, referred in chamber to Tortoise’s work on Lebedev and called for a more transparent appointments process; Lord Cormack then cited Lebedev as an example of why it’s needed.
It could all be simpler. Both the government and Commission could publish the advice they receive on nominees as a rule. Both bodies could publish their rationale for supporting or not supporting nominees. And they could start by publishing the material they received on Lord Lebedev