THE BBC’s political editor is facing stiff criticism after he described the probe into Rishi Sunak’s failure to declare a financial interest in a firm set to directly benefit from UK Government policy as “rather minor”.
Chris Mason, who took over from Laura Kuenssberg in the top BBC role in early 2022, said that the investigation into potential rule-breaking on Sunak’s part was “a few loose roof tiles rather than anything much more”.
But Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, told reporters the probe was “obviously serious”.
And media and propaganda expert Dr Emma Briant told The National the BBC political editor was guilty of an “atrocious failure” in seeming to give Sunak a “free pass”.
The case hinges on a UK Government policy to give a £600 bonus to people who sign up as new childminders – but a £1200 bonus to those who do so through a private childcare agency.
The double bonus is expected to significantly benefit the six childcare agencies which provide the service – including Koru Kids, which is part-owned by Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty.
Sunak told MPs that the policy had been “designed in consultation with the sector”, but when asked if he had any interests “to declare in respect of that”, he said: “No.”
During a grilling in front of Westminster’s Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister added: “All my disclosures are declared in the normal way.”
But it quickly emerged that Murty (above with Sunak) held shares in Koru Kids – and bosses from the firm attended a Downing Street reception with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt just hours after Sunak denied any financial interest.
On Monday, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Daniel Greenberg opened an investigation into Sunak under rules demanding MPs are “open and frank” with their – and their family’s – interests.
In an analysis piece published on the BBC’s website, Mason appeared to dismiss the importance of the watchdog’s probe.
“So how big a deal is the investigation into the prime minister by the parliamentary commissioner for standards?” he asked.
“On the Richter scale of these things, it feels like a rather minor tremor. Think a few loose roof tiles rather than anything much more.”
Mason then gave a detailed explanation of the ins and outs of the case, highlighting how the Register of Ministerial Interests had not been published since May 2022 – giving lie to Sunak’s claim that everything had been “declared in the normal way”.
The BBC journalist then compared Sunak’s case to a probe into Labour leader Starmer over late declarations of hospitality and gifts which concluded the infractions had been “minor and/or inadvertent" and "there was no attempt to mislead".
Mason (below) concluded: “It is a reminder for Downing Street of another two things: the inevitable stories, borne of intrigue and fascination, relating to the Sunaks' vast wealth, of which this is the latest.
“And that if you say on your first day in the job of prime minister, almost six months ago now, that your government will be defined by ‘integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level’, you bet people will hold you to it.”
Briant told The National that the piece would be held up as evidence “of who’s really in charge at the top of the BBC”, hinting at the slew of Tory allies installed in high-profile roles.
Law professor Paul Bernal underscored Briant’s point, writing on Twitter: “Well, it seems @ChrisMasonBBC got the message from Richard Sharp loud and clear.”
He added: “Almost certainly an unspoken message, of course. The point is not that they’re told what to say, but that they know what to say without being told.”
Sharp, a Tory donor and Sunak’s former boss at Goldman Sachs, was appointed BBC chair under Boris Johnson’s government despite having no prior media experience.
Almost certainly an unspoken message, of course. The point is not that they’re told what to say, but that they know what to say without being told.
— Prof Paul Bernal (@PaulbernalUK) April 18, 2023
Briant said: “We need to ask why Mason was whitewashing what is a very big deal for Sunak?
“We need more than a minor tremor at the BBC. It should not be the job of the BBC political editor to give Sunak a free pass.
“It’s an atrocious failure to bring the facts to hold the Prime Minister accountable at a time when the BBC’s independence is already in question. This will be seen as the latest evidence of who’s really in charge at the top of the BBC.”
Other political reporters’ analyses of the Sunak probe drew different conclusions to Mason.
Byline Times’s Adam Bienkov said that “far from being a trivial breach of the rules”, Sunak’s failure to declare his interest was part of a wider pattern of the Prime Minister concealing his tax and visa arrangements.
The Guardian’s Peter Walker noted that the alleged wrongdoing “is generally seen as one of the lesser issues examined by the commissioner”, but said Sunak’s responses to Labour MP Catherine McKinnell, denying any interest, “could make this more serious”.
And Sky’s Rob Powell said the probe had “the potential to wound Mr Sunak on a vulnerable political front”. While noting it was very unlikely, he said the Prime Minister could face punishment “right up to a suspension from the house”.
Powell added: “The current commissioner is relatively new and so we really have little idea of how he will choose to address a matter that relates to the most senior member of the government.”
The BBC was approached for comment.
