TORY ministers have insisted there is nothing “untoward” about thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money being given to a friend of Boris Johnson .
Over the weekend, the Sunday Times reported that Jennifer Arcuri, an American who moved to London seven years ago, had received more than £125,000 in grants for her businesses.
It’s been reported that the Tory leader spent a fair whack of time at the home of the former model-turned-businesswoman.
He has refused to deny that their relationship was sexual, but in today’s Daily Mail, Arcuri is said to have told friends Johnson’s repeated visits to her flat were purely for private “technology” lessons.
The London Assembly has given the Prime Minister a fortnight to provide details of all his social, personal and professional contact with Arcuri.
The American’s businesses received £10,000 and £1500 in sponsorship money from a mayoral organisation when Johnson was in charge of the city, as well as a £15,000 government grant for foreign entrepreneurs to build businesses in Britain.
Her firm, Hacker House, received a £100,000 grant from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport earlier this year.
READ MORE: Tory lawyer claims Parliament is ‘as dead as dead can be’
However, that grant was intended for “English-based” businesses, and Arcuri is understood to have moved back to the US on June 2018.
The Sunday Times said the registered address on the grant application form was a rented house in the UK and no longer connected to her.
In an urgent question in the House of Commons, LibDem Layla Moran asked the Government to reassure MPs that Johnson hadn’t been “bending the rules for personal or political gain.”
Digital Minister Matt Warman told the Commons: “We have no reason to think there is anything untoward in this particular matter.”
Warman warned against spreading “tittle-tattle” about the grant, saying it had been awarded “by officials through the proper process”.
He said: “If you want to raise matters about a grant that was awarded by officials through the proper process, then this is, of course, a completely legitimate forum.
“If you want to use this to try to spread tittle-tattle that is much more around politics, then I would say you should think very carefully before doing it.”
Shadow culture secretary and Labour deputy leader Tom Watson said it was “very difficult” to see how the company fulfilled the criteria for the grants.
The broader questions, he argued, needed answering “because they keep coming back to the current Prime Minister”, adding: “The issue of whether he has represented the interests of this company or other companies require scrutiny.”
He added: “This is fundamentally a question of character and of suitability. Is the Prime Minister of sufficient character to occupy high office and disburse public funds, is he suitable?
“Does he understand that the trappings and privileges of power come with restrictions and restraints? Is he capable of restraining himself?
“The truth is that our Prime Minister does reckless things. He is a man whose character renders him unsuitable and unfit for the office he holds.
He added: “I want answers to these questions but we all know the broader essential truth, we can all see who Boris Johnson is.”
Warman replied: “The Prime Minister has had no role whatsoever in this application.”
On Monday evening, when asked about the allegations, Johnson told the BBC’s John Pienaar: “All I can say is I am very proud of what we did as mayor of London... particularly banging the drum for our city and country around the world.”
READ MORE: It’s crucial for SNP to pick the bold moves – Johnson is down, not out
He added: “I can tell you that absolutely everything was done entirely in the proper way.”
The Daily Mail said Arcuri told a friend “there’s no way” anything took place between her and Johnson.
“He may have been very flirtatious but literally nothing happened,” the friend said. “And yeah, he did go to her flat. But he was trying to be hip and understand tech. He would come over to get educated.
“Nothing happened. He lived near her and they became friends.”
Arcuri’s stepfather John Jendrezejewski told the paper: “No way would there have been a sexual relationship. The idea is ridiculous.
“They weren’t best of friends although good friends.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel