Statistics chief Sir David Norgrove had said the foreign secretary’s use of the figure in an article on Brexit was ‘a clear misuse of official statistics’

Boris Johnson faced growing pressure over his intervention on Brexit as Cabinet colleagues lined up to question his actions and he was accused of a “clear misuse of official statistics”.

Sir David Norgrove, the head of the UK Statistics Authority, said he was “surprised and disappointed” to see the foreign secretary restate the controversial claim that Britain will claw back £350m a week after leaving the EU, triggering a war of words between the pair.

Johnson hit back in a strongly worded letter in which he accused Norgrove of a “wilful distortion of the text of my article”, claiming it was a misrepresentation and demanding it be withdrawn.

And although there were claims that Michael Gove backed Johnson over the decision to lay out his views on Brexit just days before May’s critical speech, a spokesman said: “The first Michael knew about Boris’s article was when it was published on Friday night.”

They also made clear that Gove accepted the idea of a two-year transition period including payments from the UK – in contrast to Johnson who wants a maximum of a year and no money offered for access to markets.

Meanwhile, a senior Whitehall official told the Guardian that Johnson’s 4,000-word vision of Brexit, which was not cleared by Downing Street, would make life more difficult for the dozens of negotiators in the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU).

Boris Johnson has one big problem: he is yesterday’s novelty | Matthew d’Ancona Read more

The official claimed it would also be harder for Theresa May to strike the right tone in a major speech to be delivered in Florence on Friday.

There was anger from some Cabinet colleagues with one accusing the foreign secretary of an unhelpful move that placed “personal ambition ahead before the interests of the country”.

They said that he cared more about meeting the “discredited promises of the leave campaign” than delivering the best Brexit for Britain after the article was published without Downing Street’s agreement.

The home secretary, Amber Rudd, also questioned the timing of the intervention, on the evening of the Parsons Green terror attack, and said Johnson was guilty of “backseat driving”.

During an interview on BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show, she made clear that while the intervention was “absolutely fine”, she did not want the foreign secretary “managing the Brexit process”.





Downing Street has insisted that Johnson did not contradict government policy, although there was some irritation that the article was not cleared. And critics were quick to point out that he failed to mention transition in the article, and said it would be wrong to pay for access to markets.

That is despite the fact that the government is looking more likely to be willing to offer payments during an implementation period.

However, despite claims from some that Johnson had chosen a bad moment for the article and that it was disloyal and represented a future leadership bid, May’s close ally – Damian Green – made clear that the foreign secretary was not facing the sack.

“No, he isn’t and the reason is, he, like the rest of the cabinet, like the prime minister, is all about wanting to get the best deal for the British people,” the first secretary of state told Sunday with Paterson on Sky News.

There were reports that cabinet members, including Priti Patel, backed Johnson’s bolder vision for Brexit. Although Gove was not informed, he was reluctant to criticise his former Vote Leave colleague and clearly backed him on many of the points raised, including the idea of a Brexit dividend that could be spent on public services.

Reports suggest both men have been consulting one of the architects of the Vote Leave campaign, Dominic Cummings.

However, the pair do seem to have a different view on the question of transition. Sources suggest Johnson wants a short period of six months to a year, but say Gove’s time in the environment department has convinced him of the need for two years for implementation, with the UK continuing to pay in.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Brexit-supporting Tory MP who has been talked about as a potential future leadership candidate, said he completely backed Johnson. “Boris is right to emphasise the positive opportunities that come from Brexit. Government is not about ‘managing decline’ but ensuring a more prosperous future which we can do freed from the European Union’s yoke.”



A source close to the foreign secretary hit back at the suggestion by a Whitehall source that the 4,000-word article would make negotiations harder saying “the irony of that kind of comment is clearly lost on the official who said it”.



And Johnson himself reacted angrily to the intervention of the country’s statistics chief.



In a letter to to the foreign secretary, Norgrove slapped down the use of the £350m figure, arguing: “This confuses gross and net contributions. It also assumes that payments currently made to the UK by the EU, including, for example, for the support of agriculture and scientific research, will not be paid by the UK government when we leave.”



It added: “It is a clear misuse of official statistics.”

But Johnson hit back with a letter accusing Norgrove of a “complete misrepresentation of what I said” and demanded the letter be withdrawn. “I must say that I was surprised and disappointed by your letter of today, since it was based on what appeared to be a wilful distortion of the text in my article.”

Johnson was backed on Monday by John Redwood, the strongly pro-Brexit Tory backbencher, who said the £350m claim was “entirely true”.

Redwood told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The statistical disagreement is not over whether that is the gross figure or not. As I understand it, the statistical intervention is that he should have used a net figure rather than the gross figure.”

Redwood also questioned Norgrove’s intervention: “We’re going to have an awful lot of letters if it’s suddenly the case that every bit of homework by a leading politician has to be marked by the statistical people.”

Johnson wrote in his Telegraph article: “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS, provided we use that cash injection to modernise and make the most of new technology.”

In his letter to Norgrove, he said that was not the same as saying £350m would be available for public spending. He also argued that while the rebate was spent on British matters, it was still the European commission that decided what the money went on. “We do not control them.”

Johnson added: “What is beyond doubt is that, upon withdrawal, we will have complete discretion over the £350m per week and that huge sums will indeed be available for public spending on priorities such as the NHS. I believe that would be a fine thing.”

In the letter he referred to an earlier phone call between the two in which the foreign secretary claimed Norgrove had been more concerned about the BBC coverage of the figure than what was actually included in the article.

After the call, a spokesman for Johnson said the statistics chief had “made clear that he was complaining about the headlines and not Boris’s piece, and in fact admitted that Boris’s wording in the piece was absolutely fine”.

That led to the UK Statistics Authority responding with the suggestion that it was not a fair reflection of the call. “Sir David Norgrove does not believe the issues lie solely with the headlines. He has not changed the conclusion set out in his letter to the foreign secretary.”

The authority made clear that Norgrove stood by his original claims about Johnson’s use of the figure.



One former senior government adviser said it was “extraordinary” for Johnson to have published the article without Downing Street’s go ahead, but said May had no choice but to accept it.

“It is fairly straightforward – when you are dealing with the reality of not having your own majority and the DUP is propping you up – you are in an extremely weak position and the foreign secretary has made that very clear,” he said.

“He challenged the authority of Theresa May but if she were to sack him the careful equilibrium she has set up since the election would collapse. You have very hardline Brexiteers and on the other side, hardline remainers on the other. And when you don’t have a majority you are incredibly vulnerable to those groups.” He also stressed that Johnson remained very popular with the party.

On the intervention of the statistics authority, Hetan Shah, the executive director of the Royal Statistical Society, said: “It is extremely concerning to see a minister seeking to undermine our independent statistical regulator. The UK is envied around the world for the independence of our statistical system and it is important that politicians are not seen to be compromising it.”

The Lib Dem leader, Vince Cable, said at his party’s conference in Bournemouth: “Boris’s £350m lie has been exposed yet again. He knows an extreme Brexit would damage the economy and mean less cash for the NHS.

“I’m glad to see the independent UK Statistics Authority has the courage to slap Boris down. It’s a shame the same can’t be said of Theresa May.”

The row comes as May prepares to fly into Ottawa for talks with the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, about replicating the Canadian-EU trade deal in a new bilateral arrangement between the countries post Brexit.



May is expected to praise the deal with the EU – and argue that it will boost transatlantic growth. They are expected to launch a new working group to prepare the ground for such a deal – the 13th to have been set up so far across 18 countries.

“Canada and the United Kingdom have a long shared history,” said May. “British and Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen and women have fought and died alongside each other in the pursuit of freedom, including at the Battle of Britain, where 23 brave Canadian servicemen lost their lives.



“We have developed the institutions of Westminster democracy, personal rights, and the common law. And we celebrate together our shared monarchy, and close ties of family and friendship.”













