What was the outcome of the inquiry into Sue Gray?

The Cabinet Office has finally concluded its investigation into the author of the Partygate report. Sean O’Grady looks at the implications for the former top civil servant, soon to be chief of staff to Keir Starmer

By this time next year, perhaps, she will be helping to run the country (gov.uk/PA)

A Cabinet Office inquiry into the circumstances surrounding senior civil servant Sue Gray’s appointment as chief of staff to Keir Starmer has now concluded. The Cabinet Office minister, Jeremy Quin, a relatively junior figure, issued a low-key written statement to parliament reflecting the status of this report, which is essentially a footnote to history. It suggested that Gray had broken the ministerial code by talking to Starmer without the permission or knowledge of her civil service seniors.

A government source said that Gray would have faced “serious disciplinary sanctions” if she was still working in Whitehall. But she isn’t, and given she has now left the government, there will be no further action. By this time next year, perhaps, she will be helping to run the country.

What did the inquiry find?

Not much. The key passage reads: “This process, led by the Civil Service, found that the Civil Service Code was prima facie broken as a result of the undeclared contact between Ms Gray and the Leader of the Opposition ... It is deeply unfortunate that events have transpired in this way.”

The phrase “prima facie” suggests that even the obvious fact that she spoke to Starmer about a job in October 2022 can’t be fully taken as a breach of the code. This is presumably because neither Gray nor Starmer would elaborate further on any discussion, beyond that it had taken place. They probably talked about more than the weather, and Gray concedes that future work, possibly as chief of staff, was discussed, but that’s that. There were some subsequent conversations between Gray and Starmer’s staff. She’d already completed her Partygate report in May 2022.

Why is the Cabinet Office report so weak?

Run by civil servants in the Cabinet Office, the inquiry was fundamentally diminished by two sets of factors. First, Gray refused to cooperate with it, with the backing of the trade union for senior civil servants. Thus in March this year, Oliver Dowden, the cabinet minister in charge, had to advise that the process “involved interviewing relevant persons” to establish “further details” on any communication between Gray and Starmer. As Dowden added, “I can update the House that Ms Gray was given the opportunity to make representations as part of this process but chose not to do so.”

The second reason is that the Cabinet Office no longer has any sway over Gray, as she is no longer employed in the civil service. The question of whether she could take the job with Starmer, and when, was settled a few days ago by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba). It’s the committee’s job to enforce the rules on civil servants and politicians taking outside jobs and thus being part of an undesirable “revolving door” relationship heavy with conflicts of interest.

So what did Acoba say?

That Gray can start work for Starmer in September, some six months after she quit the civil service, her departure having been prompted by Sky News breaking the story that she was in talks with Starmer. Acoba was careful to stress that its advice “is not an endorsement of the appointment – it imposes a number of conditions and a waiting period to mitigate the potential risks to the government associated with the appointment under the Rules.”

Acoba was also precise in stating that there was “no evidence” of Gray behaving improperly: “Any breach of the Civil Service Code would be a matter for the government. In relation to the Rules, no evidence has been provided by the departments to demonstrate Ms Gray made decisions or took action in office that favoured the employer in expectation of this role. This includes her role in the ‘Partygate’ investigation.” Of course, “no evidence” doesn’t necessarily mean that it didn’t happen...

Acoba also expressed “disappointment” at media briefings and imposed a longer-than-usual six-month gap between Gray leaving her old job and starting the new one, because of the “potential risk to the perceived impartiality of the Civil Service”.

So what’s the conclusion?

The best summary is probably that Gray should have told her own civil service bosses that she had had a conversation, albeit a broad and unspecific one, about working for Starmer at the time it took place. By not doing so she broke the civil service code – but the Acoba inquiry says that there’s no evidence it made any difference to anything, in that it didn’t affect the investigation she was carrying out into Partygate.

That was, in any case, purely fact-finding and chronological, and made little mention of Boris Johnson himself. It was mild in its condemnations of Johnson, and was subject to a consultation involving him and Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, before publication. No one has challenged the facts in the Sue Gray report on Partygate, and the privileges committee inquiry into whether Johnson lied to parliament didn’t rely on her report: it incorporated her evidence, gathered more of its own, and drew its own conclusions.

Was Gray good at her job?

Yes. She was universally respected, and was long in charge of the government’s ethics and propriety section (arguably ironically). She was spoken highly of by ministers from Oliver Letwin to Michael Gove. Had she stayed in the civil service she might well have become cabinet secretary in due course. Her brains, experience and worldliness were why she was trusted by Johnson to carry out the Partygate inquiry.

Why did she quit to work for Starmer?

Nobody knows exactly, but we can surmise some probable factors. First, taking the job of chief of staff to the leader of the opposition is entirely within the spirit of conscientious public service that has marked her career (apart from an unusual break running a pub in Northern Ireland). Although inevitably political, it’s more of a “civil service” type role than one that involves being some sort of media attack dog, for example.

It seems she will be preoccupied with ensuring that Labour, if it wins the election, can actually govern effectively, especially given that so few of the present front bench have any government, let alone cabinet, experience (Ed Miliband, Yvette Cooper and David Lammy being a few exceptions).

As you’d expect, Gray enjoys power as much as the next person in public life, and the new role will allow her to be as close to the top of government as it is possible to be, and reasonably swiftly, given the opinion polls. Even so, there was also some gossip that she was blocked by Case from becoming permanent secretary at the Department of Business under Kemi Badenoch, at the request of Badenoch, which might understandably have influenced Gray’s assessment of her prospects.

If Gray does get to be PM Starmer’s trusted chief of staff, it will be fascinating to see how she gets along with Case, a controversial Johnson appointment.

What does Labour say?

It says the government statement is “a political stunt by a Tory government out of ideas and out of road” and calls it “Mickey Mouse nonsense”. Even the Cabinet Office, like Acoba, doesn’t believe any serious damage has been done to civil service impartiality, but the furore has certainly brought the role and performance of the civil service into question, especially on the right, where some are advocating a more American-style system of political appointments.