13th January 2022
Just a quick post this evening to bring to the attention of followers of this blog the actual terms of reference for Sue Gray’s investigation.
They can be found here.
Please read them.
I am currently expecting to blog about these terms of reference tomorrow.
This seems to be key, Johnson makes the call on next steps
Ministerial Code 1.4 It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials
to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of
the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet
Secretary, feels that it warrants further investigation, he may
ask the Cabinet Office to investigate the facts of the case
and/or refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’
There is a fundamental corruption here. Protocol should not permit any member of the sitting government to either investigate, or set the terms of investigation, regarding its own conduct.
The only way that the public can have confidence in government is if any matter like this is handed to a completely independent agency, one that does not report to government, which has an independent budget set by law and which has two obligations – one to make public any findings and one to refer potential crimes to the police. That agency must have full authority to investigate any public sector activity and every public sector employee must be required as condition of employment to *fully* cooperate with them.
Don’t forget the breathtakingly corrupt advice given by Tony Blair to Rebekkah Brooks concerning the phone hacking scandal: to set up an internal review, frame the review so that it can’t find anything damaging, but make it look like it is serious. If we needed reminding why we cannot allow any public sector agency – especially the Cabinet Office – to self-investigate, that was it. Oh, and when this independent body gets set up, no staff can be appointed by the government. Instead, set up a panel of constitutional scholars and political science lecturers from academia and have them be the interview panel for staff. Keep it right out of the hands of all branches of government. Give them autonomy. Give them teeth to get at corruption in government.
Then take all of these “internal” investigations, like this, like MP expenses, and let the new agency pick up the work.
Anything less is, quite simply, corrupt.
First of two wonders
“ Pastoral care and support will be provided to all staff involved.”
I wonder who will be providing what pastoral care and support will be provided to Boris?
Second wonder
“ Following the long-standing practice of successive administrations, any specific HR action against individuals will remain confidential.”
I wonder what HR action can be taken against a prime minister and how it could be kept confidential?
‘HR action’ refers to staffers, ie on the civil service payroll or directly contracted by the civil service e.g. consultants. Not sure if that would apply to SPADs though!
Any action to punish or dismiss PMs can only come from their political party or from Parliament.
I don’t think it can apply to SpAds, who seem to have some sort of magical existence. There is a “Code of Conduct” for Special Advisors – see here:-
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832599/201612_Code_of_Conduct_for_Special_Advisers.pdf
but the only disciplinary item referenced is in “Status and conduct (8), which states, ” Any special adviser found to be disseminating inappropriate material will be subject to a
disciplinary process that may include dismissal.”
which rather strongly suggests that the government cares more about SpAds keeping their secrets than anything else.
1. What is pastoral care?
2. Missing without fear or favour.
3. Not victimisation assurance absence for the civil servant, beware bitting hand that feeds you.
Thank you for sharing.
I was expecting many pages and was relieved when I opened the link.
But I found it so vague that I started to write my own commentary, not a smart move.
I look forward to your filleting tomorrow.
Thank you. I am particularly interested in your views on the paragraph relating to referral to police in case of law breaking.
Agree with previous comments. Those wondering if Sue Gray’s record makes her a beacon of light might like to take a look at the following article from seven years ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33431580
Nothing to impugn her integrity, but some questions about her attitude to open government.
These terms of reference say that if there is evidence of *potentially* criminal behaviour, then the enquiry will pause and the police will take over.
The Met Police today say they won’t investigate anything until the enquiry indicates they would have cause.
Which implies that the enquiry hasn’t identified any even potentially criminal behaviour? The party wasn’t even potentially illegal?
Coming from a local government background, I’m at a loss to understand why Eversheds or similar haven’t been engaged for this. If truly independent, thorough and balanced scrutiny was the aim, of course.
I find it hard to believe those official terms of reference constitute every instruction, threat or promise in effect.
further point – this is to attack civil servants via established employment terms and conditions isn’t it, whilst Boris Ceauscescu gets to wield the Ministerial Code according to whim.
you may have already seen this (old bbc story) it is circulating on facebook, but it seems clear Sue gray and her terms of reference have been chosen with a view to a white wash/cover up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33431580
and this
https://twitter.com/search?q=Endo%20MetabPub&src=typeahead_click
Why the limitation on those dates? The investigation should at least have the now known two May 2020 party dates added.
Are the terms of reference complete?
I thought one of the parties was on 20 May 2020 which isn’t included in the terms of reference.
Have we just been set our homework?
Is there going to be a test?
The FT tells us that Ms Gray will spread the ordure widely but thinly. Sufficiently thinly that Boris will live to fight another day. Anyway, Boris is effectively king – with a small K, he can do more or less as he pleases, our constitution encourages it.
Looking around at recent events I am left thinking – what do all these people actually do – what do they really contribute, or do we have an awful lot of parasites in this country? An awful lot of little black marks are put on nice clean sheets of A4 – to absolutely no purpose but considerable expense.
Plenty of opportunities to carry on digging. If I was a Tory MP with even a substantial majority, I would take the view that he is finished and delay will only drag it out.
‘Please find some staff to blame and leave me alone’. Boris.
Will the Police Officers providing protection to 10 Downing Street be subjected to interview? They have been placed in an impossible position – witnessing unlawful behaviour and having to turn a ‘blind eye’. Given their role of upholding the law, I suspect any officer on site who had the courage to report what was happening to senior management in the Met would likely to be moved elsewhere. One reason why any further police investigation should be conducted by an ‘outside police force’
There are so many holes in this Swiss cheese ToR.
Who or what decides if anyone has broken the law or should be sanctioned by “HR”; is the redoubtable Ms Gray qualified to attribute misdemeanours to code breaking, law breaking, poor judgement, just bad form or determine where accountability should held?
The deputy chief editor of a red top rag has apologised for his part in the goings-on; are he and others long departed No10 included in the inquiry and, if not, why not?
Worst of all, this inquiry represents the “make it up as you go along” ethos of government (this one in particular) which has effectively undone any remaining semblance of democratic accountability whether in parliament or our fttp elections.
Like other recent “inquiries” into Johnson’s & his cronies’ behaviour I’m not hopeful of anything substantive emerging anytime soon.
‘The findings of the investigations will be made public’
What does that mean?