Copyright standard
Donations to Labour made by the chairman of the new football watchdog were discussed in his interview for the role, Lisa Nandy has said amid Opposition calls for an ethics probe into the appointment. But the Culture Secretary said any contribution by David Kogan to her former leadership campaign was not raised, as she apologised “unreservedly” for failing to meet “the highest standards” during the process. An independent investigation found Ms Nandy “unknowingly” breached the code on public appointments by failing to declare she had received two donations totalling £2,900 from Mr Kogan, a media rights expert, in 2020. Following its conclusion, Sir Keir Starmer reprimanded her by saying “the process followed was not entirely up to the standard expected” but said that Ms Nandy had “acted in good faith”. However, the Tories have demanded the Government’s independent standards adviser investigate whether the Prime Minister risked a conflict of interest over the appointment. Ms Nandy says Mr Kogan was approached by the previous Conservative government “who began this process” for the role. Asked whether it was discussed at the interview that Mr Kogan was a Labour donor, the Culture Secretary told the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg show: “It was discussed at the interview, it just wasn’t discussed that he donated specifically to me because I didn’t know about that. “He hadn’t recalled it, but as soon as that was discovered, as I said, as soon as I was given that information, that same day, I’d put that information into the public domain and recuse myself from the process.” She denied that Labour’s manifesto pledge to clean up public life with “the highest standards of integrity and honesty” looks “farcical” following the saga. “I don’t think it does, and I’ll tell you why: because as this lengthy and very thorough report has concluded from an independent commissioner, I didn’t know about the donation,” she said. “I was the leadership candidate. I was out on the road, I was doing several hustings, I was doing interviews with you on that process… I wasn’t involved in fundraising for the campaign, and as soon as I found out I declared it and recused myself and I complied fully with the process.” She added: “I’ve said ‘hands up, this was not a perfect process. I apologise for them, and more importantly I’ll put in place processes to make sure that doesn’t happen again’.” The Tories have written to Sir Laurie Magnus, the ethics watchdog, calling for the Prime Minister to face further scrutiny over donations he received from Mr Kogan, who was named as the Government’s preferred candidate to chair the Independent Football Regulator in April. They pointed out that Mr Kogan had also made donations to Sir Keir during the 2020 Labour leadership race, and gave £2,500 to the Prime Minister’s Holborn and St Pancras constituency Labour Party in the run-up to last year’s general election. Alex Burghart, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, wrote to Sir Laurie questioning whether the Prime Minister had “exactly the same conflict of interest, if not a greater one, given the 2024 general election donation” as his Culture Secretary. The senior Tory also suggested Sir Keir’s “extensive hospitality from the football industry” meant he should have recused himself from any part in the process of appointing Mr Kogan. In his report published on Thursday, commissioner Sir William Shawcross said that when announcing Mr Kogan’s preferred candidacy, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should have publicly disclosed his political activity. The commissioner in particular highlighted the £33,410 donated by him and his company to the Labour Party and Labour candidates in the five years prior. Asked why her department had not disclosed this information, Ms Nandy said on Sunday: “They did, they disclosed it on a number of occasions, but what they didn’t do was add a line to a particular press release about David Kogan having donated previously to the Labour Party.” She insisted she took “full responsibility” for the process. Mr Kogan, in response to the findings, said he had never been “aware of any deviation from best practice” in the appointment process and could “now draw a line under the process”.
