Boris Johnson has announced the appointment of a new Office of the Prime Minister after Sue Gray’s interim report into Downing Street parties called for a major overhaul of Downing Street and questioned the roles of two of his most senior civil servants.
Fighting for his political survival in the Commons, Johnson also said he would introduce a new permanent secretary in Downing Street, and would review the civil service and special adviser codes of conduct.
“It is time to sort out what Sue Gray rightly calls the ‘fragmented and complicated’ leadership structures of Downing Street, which she says have not evolved sufficiently to meet the demands of the expansion of No 10, and we will do that, including by creating an Office of the Prime Minister with a permanent secretary to lead No 10,” he said.
The Gray report criticised the leadership of the Cabinet Office, which is currently headed by Simon Case, the cabinet secretary and the UK’s most senior civil servant. “There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times,” it said.
Downing Street staff felt unable to raise complaints about poor behaviour they had witnessed within No 10 and a new route for whistleblowers should be introduced, Gray’s report said. Johnson told MPs he would review the code “so that no one should feel unable to come forward with complaints they may have”.
Martin Reynolds’ job as the prime minister’s principal private secretary is also expected to be radically changed, after Gray’s updated report found that he bore “too much responsibility and expectation” to run No 10.
The abridged report released on Tuesday does not accuse any civil servants of wrongdoing by name, which has disappointed many of the government’s critics. Sources said that such information would be expected to be included if the full report is released after the conclusion of the Met police inquiry into 14 parties.
Lord Kerslake, the former head of the civil service, said Gray could not name individual civil servants or politicians who had broken rules because of the impending criminal inquiry by the Met into a number of gatherings.
“She can’t conclude whether the rules are broken because she would be prejudging the police inquiry, but she gets as close as she can to saying that these events broke the rules and by implication the PM misled parliament.
“She is unable to be definitive in her criticisms of individuals because of the criminal inquiry.”
Gray was clear early on in her report that she was not making a judgment on whether any crimes had been committed, saying this was “properly a matter for law enforcement”.
As well as describing some of the behaviour during the gatherings as “difficult to justify”, she concludes that some of the gatherings themselves represented “a serious failure to observe … the standards expected of the entire British population at the time”.
She also found that some gatherings “should not have been allowed to take place”, although whether this was because they were illegal or because they contravened official guidance is not spelled out.
The report contains stinging criticism of the culture at No 10. Gray said: “The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time.”
The conclusion follows allegations of frequent excessive drinking by Downing Street staff to the extent where a wine fridge was bought and staff were dispatched to local supermarkets to fill a suitcase with wine.
Any specific action taken against civil servants criticised in any report would be decided by their line managers and the Civil Service Commission. In the case of special advisers, it would be up to the prime minister to decide whether they should stay in post.
Those who are not facing any form of disciplinary action but who have been present at illegal events could be offered alternative jobs across the civil service, Whitehall sources have said.
The question of which details were to be published and when were complicated by Gray’s decision to refer some of the Downing Street parties to the police.
On 25 January, it was announced that the Metropolitan police would investigate allegations of breaches of Covid regulations at “a number of events”. This suggests Gray felt there was sufficient evidence to suggest that some of the events broke Covid-related laws.
The inquiry was established to investigate more than 16 different parties and drinks events across Downing Street and Whitehall, and sought to establish who organised and authorised them.
The officials in the frame
Martin Reynolds
Boris Johnson’s principal private secretary, the most senior civil servant in his office, is widely believed to be at the centre of one of the most damning party allegations. He wrote an email inviting up to 100 Downing Street staff to a “bring your own booze” garden party on 20 May 2020.
Johnson claimed that he thought this was a work event, but at least two senior aides are said to have warned him not to go because it was against the rules. Reynolds also reportedly attended other gatherings, including Johnson’s surprise birthday party in the Cabinet room in June 2020.
Simon Case
The 43-year-old was appointed in September 2020 by Johnson to be head of the civil service and cabinet secretary, the UK’s top mandarin.
A former private secretary to Prince William, he is Sue Gray’s boss and was originally appointed by Johnson to run the inquiry into lockdown parties across Whitehall. He stood down from that role after it emerged that a Christmas quiz was held in his own private office.
Dan Rosenfield
Johnson’s chief of staff has been accused by many Tory MPs of allowing a culture at No 10 where staff believed it was acceptable to flout the lockdown rules.
He took over as chief of staff in January 2021, and is understood to have been aware of, if not actually present at, a number of the gatherings.
