A minister has defended a £15,000 payout of taxpayer money to settle a libel case after tech secretary Michelle Donelan falsely accused two academics of “sharing extremist views” and one of supporting Hamas.
Speaking on LBC radio, financial secretary to the Treasury, Nigel Huddleston, said: “She’s obviously apologised and a payment has been made but it’s not out of the ordinary. If she wasn’t a cabinet minister, if she wasn’t a minister, she wouldn’t have been put in that position.”
He was being grilled by presenter Tom Swarbrick on whether Donelan was right to pay for her libel case with taxpayers’ money. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology confirmed on Wednesday the sum paid was £15,000.
“The payments come from my listeners, I don’t understand how it’s justifiable?,” the outraged radio host asked, describing the situation as a “farce”.
“It’s not uncommon,” replied Huddleston, “We do not take any expenditure for granted actually and we look after every penny of public expenditure,” he added.
“The payments come from my listeners, I don’t understand how it’s justifiable?”
“It’s in her capacity as a minister.”Financial Treasury Secretary Nigel Huddleston debates with @TomSwarbrick1 on whether Michelle Donelan was right to pay for her libel case with taxpayers’ money. pic.twitter.com/aJAzrBo0GC
— LBC (@LBC) March 6, 2024
On Tuesday, Donelan apologised after calling for the removal of two researchers from advisory roles at UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).
In a statement posted on X, Donelan said: “I am pleased to be able to withdraw my original concerns.”
My statement on recent correspondence relating to Research England’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Expert Advisory Group. pic.twitter.com/Fn3xRdwjxX
— Michelle Donelan MP (@michelledonelan) March 5, 2024
It comes after the science and tech secretary demanded “swift action” over the appointment of Professor Kate Sang and Dr Kamna Patel to a diversity advisory panel back in October.
She claimed the researchers were “sharing extremist views” on social media regarding the UK’s position on Hamas and accused one of them of supporting the Islamist militant group.
Donelan said this breached the Nolan principles, which set ethical standards for public office holders, leading UKRI to suspend the researchers.
But an investigation by the innovation body has since found neither Sang or Patel had breached the Nolan principles or the terms of their roles.
A DSIT spokesperson said: “There is an established precedent under multiple administrations that ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a minister, as was the case here.
“The Secretary of State received the appropriate advice from relevant officials at all times.
“A sum of £15,000 was paid without admitting any liability. This approach is intended to reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer that could result from protracted legal action, no matter what the result would have been.”
DSIT had previously described the sum paid as “nominal”. It is unknown how much Donelan spent on legal advice.
It has prompted anger from Labour and the Liberal Democrats party, who have both demanded Donelan’s pay be docked.
“It is outrageous that £15,000 of taxpayers money has been spent on the Science Secretary calling a scientist a terrorist sympathiser on social media, without any evidence at all,” said Peter Kyle, Labour’s shadow science, innovation and technology secretary.
“Michelle Donelan should be embarrassed, she should apologise, and she should repay the full amount back to the taxpayer. Her conduct falls so far below that expected of a minister,” he added.
Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper MP said: “This is nothing short of a scandal and we still don’t know the full legal costs.
“If Michelle Donelan had a shred of integrity left, she would pay for this bill out of her own pocket instead of asking taxpayers to pick up the tab. If she refuses to do so, Rishi Sunak should dock her pay,” she said.
In a statement, Sang said: “I am delighted that this matter has now concluded, but very disturbed by the way in which Michelle Donelan and UKRI behaved. Had they asked me at the start, I would have explained the true position.
“Instead, Michelle Donelan made a cheap political point at my expense and caused serious damage to my reputation. I propose to donate part of the damages she has paid to a charity.”
