Number 10 has defended Liz Truss’s new chief of staff Mark Fullbrook after it emerged he is being paid through his lobbying firm and not as a government employee.
The Cabinet Office said “it is not unusual for a special adviser or civil servant to join government on secondment” and that Mr Fullbrook will be “subject to the usual special adviser or civil service codes”.
“The government will pay the salary of an employee on secondment, including costs such as employers’ national insurance contributions to the seconding company. This has been cleared by the propriety and ethics team in Cabinet Office,” the spokesperson said.
“All government employees are subject to the necessary checks and vetting and all special advisers declare their interests in line with Cabinet Office guidance.”
‘Battle lines’ drawn with mini-budget – politics live updates
The Sunday Times originally reported that the prime minister’s chief of staff was being paid through his lobbying company in a highly unusual arrangement that could allow him to pay less tax.
Mr Fullbrook insisted to the newspaper that he is not being paid through his company for tax reasons and has obtained no tax benefit from the arrangement.
The economy, the energy crisis and the NHS – Liz Truss sets out three key priorities in her first speech as PM
Liz Truss: Will she ‘deliver, deliver, deliver’?
Conservative leadership contest: What will Rishi Sunak do next after missing his shot at the top job?
But he refused to explain the agreement.
“This is not an unusual arrangement. It was not put in place for tax purposes and Mr Fullbrook derives no tax benefit from it,” a spokesperson for Mr Fullbrook told the newspaper.
Those who have previously carried out the role have been appointed on a temporary civil service contract and paid a salary that is made public.
Mr Fullbrook will receive payment for his role through Fullbrook Strategies, a private lobbying company he created in April.
He says this company has suspended commercial activities.
Mr Fullbrook is expected to receive a six-figure salary.
Labour said the revelation is “shocking” and “raises serious questions about the new prime minister’s judgement”.
The party’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said: “The fact that this bombshell comes days after alarming reports that Mr Fullbrook is also embroiled in a foreign bribery probe involving the FBI will only add to public concern.
“While Liz Truss shows all the signs of allowing another wave of Tory sleaze to fester, a Labour government would create an Independent Ethics and Integrity Commission to clean up public life and restore the basic standards we expect.”
Subscribe for free to the Sophy Ridge on Sunday podcast on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
The PM’s chief of staff is already facing questions after The Sunday Times revealed he had been interviewed by FBI agents in connection with an alleged criminal conspiracy to bribe a US politician and influence the outcome of an election in Puerto Rico.
Ms Rayner wrote to Smion Case, the Cabinet secretary, at the time over what the party described as “hugely concerning” allegations.
Mr Fullbrook has denied the charges against him.
The PM’s official spokesman has said Mr Fulbrook has Ms Truss’s “full support.”
At the time the allegations were revealed, a spokesman for Mr Fullbrook said: “As has been made repeatedly clear, Mr Fullbrook is committed to and complies with all laws and regulations in any jurisdiction in which he works and is confident that he has done so in this matter.
“Indeed, Mark Fullbrook is a witness in this matter and has fully, completely and voluntarily engaged with the US authorities in this matter, as he would always do in any circumstance in which his assistance is sought by authorities.
“The work was engaged only by Mr Herrera and only to conduct opinion research for him and no one else.
“Mr Fullbrook never did any work for, nor presented any research findings to, the governor or her campaign. There has been no engagement since.
“Mr Fullbrook understands that there are active legal proceedings against other individuals and entities. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further.”
