Partygate: Read the findings from Sue Gray’s January ‘update’ in full

The Sue Gray report into the so-called “Partygate” scandal over lockdown rule-breaking during the pandemic, which rocked Westminster in late 2021 and early 2022, was finally released in heavily-redacted form on 31 January.

Ms Gray was prevented from releasing a fuller version at the time by the Metropolitan Police announcing is own probe into the affair.

That has now ended, with the Met issuing 126 fixed-penalty notices to 83 individuals, including prime minister Boris Johnson, his wife Carrie Johnson and chancellor Rishi Sunak.

The veteran civil servant is now free to submit her final report for publication, which is due to take place in the coming days.

Ahead of its release, Mr Johnson finds himself under pressure to explain a “secret” meeting he held with Ms Gray, seemingly to discuss the dossier’s progress, while initial reports suggest it could include previously unseen photographs and contain “stinging criticism” of Cabinet secretary Simon Case, despite his not being fined by the Met.

Below, you can read Ms Gray’s complete January findings in full.

1. On 8 December 2021 the prime minister asked the cabinet secretary to carry out an investigation into allegations reported in the media relating to gatherings in No 10 Downing Street and the department for education during November and December 2020.

2. On 17 December 2021 the cabinet secretary recused himself from the investigation as a result of allegations concerning an online quiz held by his private office in the cabinet office on 17 December 2020 in 70 Whitehall. It was at this point that I was asked to lead this work.

3. The terms of reference for the investigation were published on 9 December 2021. The primary purpose of the investigation was to establish a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings including: attendance, the setting and the purpose, with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time.

4. Where there were credible allegations relating to other gatherings these could also be investigated.

5. In line with those terms of reference the following events were in scope:

Methodology

6. There has been widespread public interest in, and concern about, a number of gatherings taking place in No 10 Downing Street and Whitehall during periods of national Covid restrictions, where their necessity for work purposes has been open to question. My task has been to establish, as far as possible, the facts surrounding these gatherings.

7. In carrying out my investigation I have been supported by a small team of senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office, who have no connection with the events under examination and who are bound by the requirements of the Civil Service Code. We carried out interviews of over 70 individuals, some more than once, and examined relevant documentary and digital information, such as emails; Whatsapp messages; text messages; photographs and building entry and exit logs. This has also included searches of official records. As such, extensive substantive factual information is now available and has been compiled by me and my team to fulfil my obligation to establish the facts. The investigative work is now essentially complete.

8. The Treasury Solicitor and Daniel Stilitz QC have provided independent advice as to the process.

9. It is not for me to make a judgment on whether the criminal law has been broken; that is properly a matter for law enforcement. In line with my terms of reference I have been in regular contact with the Metropolitan Police as my work has progressed in order for them to take decisions on the gatherings under examination, including whether to launch their own investigation.

10. The Metropolitan Police has now confirmed that as a result of information provided by the Cabinet Office investigation team, as well as assessments made by Metropolitan Police officers, they are investigating the events on the dates set out above with the exception of the gatherings on:

11. The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation.

12. No conclusions should be drawn, or inferences made from this other than it is now for the police to consider the relevant material in relation to those incidents. The police have also said this does not in itself mean that they will decide to take further action or that there has necessarily been a breach of the regulations.

13. At the request of the police I have provided the material compiled in the course of my investigation relevant to the gatherings that they are now investigating. I have also been asked to retain all the other information collected in the course of this work, which I have confirmed that I will do. I will therefore ensure the secure storage and safekeeping of all the information gathered until such time as it may be required further. I will not be circulating the information internally within government, it has been provided in confidence to the Cabinet Office investigation team and it is important that this confidence is maintained to protect the integrity of the process.

14. As a result of the Metropolitan Police’s investigations, and so as not to prejudice the police investigative process, they have told me that it would only be appropriate to make minimal reference to the gatherings on the dates they are investigating. Unfortunately, this necessarily means that I am extremely limited in what I can say about those events and it is not possible at present to provide a meaningful report setting out and analysing the extensive factual information I have been able to gather.

15. In respect of the gatherings that the Metropolitan Police has assessed as not reaching the threshold for criminal investigation; they have not requested any limitations be placed on the description of those events, however, I have decided not to publish factual accounts in relation to those four dates. I do not feel that I am able to do so without detriment to the overall balance of the findings.

16. More generally, I did consider whether it would be better to pause, as provided for in the terms of reference, and wait until the conclusion of the police investigation before publishing anything. However, given the widespread public interest in, and concern about, these matters, and to avoid further delay, I am providing an update on the investigation and I am setting out some general findings now. I have not made comment on whether individual gatherings were in line with the relevant guidance and regulations in place at the time. I did not judge it appropriate to do so given the police investigation that is now underway.

Context

17. The outbreak and spread of SARs Covid-19 represented a global public health crisis without parallel in living memory. In the United Kingdom it had a seismic impact on every aspect of life in the country. In response, to help control the spread of the virus and to keep the most vulnerable safe, the UK Government put in place far reaching restrictions on citizens that had direct and material impact on their lives, livelihood and liberties.

18. From 26 March 2020 the law in England required everyone to remain in their homes unless certain, very limited exemptions applied. Restrictions were temporarily eased over the summer period in 2020 until most remaining national restrictions were removed on 4 July 2020. Restrictions were then reintroduced in gradations in the autumn culminating in the UK Government announcing from 5 November 2020 restrictions on movements and gatherings in England, essentially requiring people to stay at home. Restrictions on gatherings of two or more people applied in London through December 2020 and the first months of 2021. Indoor mixing of two or more households was not permitted again until 17 May 2021.

19. In line with those rules the vast majority of staff in Government Departments worked from home. The Civil Service, along with the rest of the public sector, went to great lengths to reconfigure the provision and delivery of public services and support for businesses almost overnight. Many private sector businesses and other organisations, large and small, all over the UK, were also working hard to deal with the pandemic both in terms of managing their businesses, their livelihoods and those of their employees, as well as providing vital support to the national effort to respond to the virus.

20. A small number of Government officials and special advisers, because of the nature of their jobs directly supporting the Prime Minister and other Ministers, continued to attend their offices for the purposes of work, as permitted by an exemption under the regulations.

21. In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose.

22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well.

23. Every citizen has been impacted by the pandemic. Everyone has made personal sacrifices, some the most profound, having been unable to see loved ones in their last moments or care for vulnerable family and friends.

It is with that context in mind that I make the following general limited findings.

General findings

i. Against the backdrop of the pandemic, when the Government was asking citizens to accept far-reaching restrictions on their lives, some of the behaviour surrounding these gatherings is difficult to justify.

ii. At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.

iii. At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.

iv. The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time. Steps must be taken to ensure that every Government Department has a clear and robust policy in place covering the consumption of alcohol in the workplace.

v. The use of the garden at No 10 Downing Street should be primarily for the Prime Minister and the private residents of No 10 and No 11 Downing Street. During the pandemic it was often used as an extension of the workplace as a more covid secure means of holding group meetings in a ventilated space. This was a sensible measure that staff appreciated, but the garden was also used for gatherings without clear authorisation or oversight. This was not appropriate. Any official access to the space, including for meetings, should be by invitation only and in a controlled environment.

vi. Some staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but at times felt unable to do so. No member of staff should feel unable to report or challenge poor conduct where they witness it. There should be easier ways for staff to raise such concerns informally, outside of the line management chain.

vii. The number of staff working in No 10 Downing Street has steadily increased in recent years. In terms of size, scale and range of responsibility it is now more akin to a small Government Department than purely a dedicated Prime Minister’s office. The structures that support the smooth operation of Downing Street, however, have not evolved sufficiently to meet the demands of this expansion. The leadership structures are fragmented and complicated and this has sometimes led to the blurring of lines of accountability. Too much responsibility and expectation is placed on the senior official whose principal function is the direct support of the Prime Minister. This should be addressed as a matter of priority.

Conclusion

24. The gatherings within the scope of this investigation are spread over a 20-month period – a period that has been unique in recent times in terms of the complexity and breadth of the demands on public servants and indeed the general public. The whole of the country rose to the challenge. Ministers, special advisers and the Civil Service, of which I am proud to be a part, were a key and dedicated part of that national effort. However, as I have noted, a number of these gatherings should not have been allowed to take place or to develop in the way that they did. There is significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across Government. This does not need to wait for the police investigations to be concluded.

Find the full report here.

Source: UK Politics - www.independent.co.uk