Starmer reported to Parliament’s standards watchdog over wife’s clothes bought by donor
PM accused of breaking the rules over Lord Alli, who has donated more than £500,000 to Labour, and clothes he gave to Lady Victoria Starmer – as she attends London Fashion Week
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Keir Starmer has been reported to parliament’s standards watchdog after a controversial Labour donor paid for his wife’s clothes.
The Conservatives have called for an investigation into Sir Keir’s alleged failure to declare donations from Lord Waheed Alli.
The demand came as Lady Victoria Starmer attended London Fashion Week.
The row centres on clothing for his wife from Lord Alli, who has given more than £500,000 to Labour over the last 20 years.
The gifts were not initially included in the official register of MPs’ interests.
According to The Times he bought more than £5,000 worth of high-end clothes for Lady Victoria over the past four months.
Earlier this year Lord Alli was embroiled in a “cash for access” row after it was revealed he had a No 10 security pass.
The Conservatives’ letter to parliament’s standards commissioner Daniel Greenberg says that in August “it was … reported that Lord Alli had been given a temporary Downing Street security pass despite having no formal government role.
“It was reported that he had played an active role in selecting Cabinet (and other) appointments.
“It has now emerged that at the same time Sir Keir Starmer failed to declare a substantial gift of designer clothes, tailoring and a personal shopper bought for his wife by Lord Alli, both prior to the general election on July 4 2024 and following it.”
The letter adds: "There must be a full investigation into this scandal given this is not the first instance of the Prime Minister failing to declare donations and abiding by parliamentary rules."
Reports at the weekend suggest the PM approached parliamentary authorities last Tuesday to make a late declaration about the clothes, after he was given updated advice on what should be registered.
Asked about the row on Sunday, Labour’s foreign secretary David Lammy complained that the UK does not have a similar system to the US, where the president and first lady can use taxpayers’ cash to top up their wardrobes.
“We don’t have that system … The truth is that successive prime ministers, unless you’re a billionaire like the last one, do rely on donations, political donations, so they can look their best,” he told the BBC.
The Tories have called for a full investigation into the Starmers’ links with prominent Lord Alli.
The PM has come under pressure to reveal who authorised the No 10 pass for Lord Alli.
That row was dubbed “passes for glasses” because the prominent donor gave tens of thousands of pounds worth of clothing, accommodation and “multiple pairs” of spectacles to the Labour leader.
MPs are required to register gifts and donations within 28 days.
At the weekend, a No 10 spokesperson said: “We sought advice from the authorities on coming to office.
“We believed we had been compliant, however, following further interrogation this month, we have declared further items.”
Commons rules say MPs should register “any benefit given to any third party, whether or not this accompanied a benefit for him or her, if the Member is aware, or could reasonably be expected to be aware, of the benefit and that it was given because of his or her membership of the House or parliamentary or political activities”.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments