Taxpayers forced to pay £15,000 to cover damages after Michelle Donelan accused academic of supporting Hamas

A professor launched a libel action against the Science Secretary after she accused her of expressing sympathy for Hamas

Michelle Donelan faced renewed calls to quit after the government admitted taxpayers forked out £15,000 in damages because she falsely accused an academic of supporting Hamas.

The science secretary has come under fire after she was forced to retract comments she made about Professor Kate Sang last year, saying there was “no evidence” the academic was a supporter of the militant group.

It cost taxpayers £15,000 to cover damages to Professor Kate Sang, about whom she made the comments last year. Ms Donelan was forced to retract the comments and admit there was “no evidence” Professor Sang was a supporter of the terror group.

The sum was paid “without admitting any liability”, according to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).

Michelle Donelan is facing calls to quit after falsely accusing an academic of supporting Hamas (AP)

The Lib Dems have demanded a Cabinet Office inquiry into the department’s use of taxpayer funds to cover her legal costs, and for Ms Donelan to “pay for this out of her own pocket”.

Labour backed the calls, with shadow science minister Peter Kyle saying 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”.

Mr Kyle added: “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.“It is emblematic of this Tory government’s arrogance and recklessness that a Minister is forcing the taxpayer to pick up the legal bill for hurling abuse at a scientist online.”

Meanwhile, Lib Dem deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: “Having the taxpayer shell out for Michelle Donelan’s damages and legal costs is nothing short of a national scandal.

“We need urgent answers from the government but above all, Donelan must pay for this out of her own pocket. The actions she took were clearly outside and beyond her ministerial brief.

“Over the years we’ve seen a carousel of Conservative ministers taking the taxpayer for a ride, from countless severance payments for disgraced sackings to this blatant misuse of taxpayer money. It’s time to kick this sleaze-ridden Conservative government out of office for good.”

Financial secretary to the Treasury Nigel Huddleston told LBC that the Conservatives are “looking after the nation’s finances” and take that responsibility “very, very seriously”.

And he said it is “not uncommon” for similar payments to be made, adding that it was not "completely out of the ordinary" because it was “in her capacity as a minister”.

Prof Sang launched a libel action against Ms Donelan after the minister tweeted a letter she had written to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) in October, expressing “disgust and outrage” that Prof Sang and another academic, Dr Kamna Patel, had “shared extremist views” and, in Prof Sang’s case, expressed sympathy for the terrorist group after the October 7 attacks in Israel.

The letter followed a tweet by Prof Sang saying “This is disturbing”, and containing a link to an article by The Guardian describing the response to the Hamas attacks in the UK, while Dr Patel had reposted a post describing Israeli actions as “genocide and apartheid”.

In a statement on Tuesday, Ms Donelan accepted that Prof Sang’s comments referred to The Guardian story as a whole, and not just the headline, which focused on the Government’s crackdown on support for Hamas.

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.”