What the whistleblower saw shames No 10

Staff so drunk they slept under their desks and not a mask in sight unless the media were near: the pantomime picture painted by a No 10 insider exclusively to The Independent is very much worse than the one portrayed in the privileges committee report

(Dave Brown)

Boris Johnson and his dwindling band of allies like to claim that the former prime minister has been traduced because he had little inkling of what was going on in Downing Street and, therefore, he could not have been untruthful in his numerous assertions in the Commons that the rules were followed “at all times”. Presumably, the same goes for the as-yet unexamined gatherings at Chequers. To the extent the Covid public health precautions weren’t observed (and even Mr Johnson acknowledges there were breaches) no one told him any different – so he says. The impression is given that Downing Street was busy and observing the rules as the norm, and that the various misdemeanours were very much the exception.

Yet the whistleblower who has bravely given their account of working at No 10 exclusively to The Independent tells us that this impression was pure PR, if not fiction. So far from the “hands, face, space” advice being meticulously followed, the reality was more “business as usual”.

This situation persisted for a year into the pandemic, and was completely at odds with the rules being made in Downing Street and imposed on the rest of the country, as well as the image given to the public, according to the whistleblower. Worse than that, however, is the way this disgraceful, hypocritical behaviour was apparently so widespread and so endemic that it amounted to a permissive culture where the rules could be simply ignored.

It seems this was, in effect, the unofficial policy of those in Downing Street, and the cue was taken from the top. The rule-breaking was everywhere, and so was the evidence. Mr Johnson, who after all lived there, knew perfectly well what was happening. He didn’t care, assumed he’d never be caught out, and that if he ever was, as indeed transpired, he could talk his way out of trouble – in another word: lie. It’s not the crime, as they say, it’s the cover-up.

The whistleblower, a key member of the No 10 team, is clear about the visibility of the lax ways of this privileged group: debauched scenes at Downing Street where senior staff were so drunk they slept under their desks after raucous parties which went on all night; social distancing and mask-wearing were observed only when the media were near. It was a pantomime, and indoors there were no such inhibitions: “Inside No 10 was like an island of normality; nothing had changed since 2018, we were all operating as if there was no pandemic. It was utterly ridiculous. It was so widely accepted that we were all breaking the rules that we would receive operational notes from security to be aware that a camera crew were outside, and to remember to stay 2m apart when in front of the cameras. Huge efforts were made to make sure staff were playing up to the cameras – clearly these instructions had come from the top.”

That picture is very much worse than the one portrayed in the privileges committee report, and entirely consistent with the Sue Gray report into Partygate that did so much damage to Mr Johnson’s reputation last year, and hastened his downfall. But, contrary to the smears now being spread about Ms Gray, her report was studiously restrained. She didn’t even name Mr Johnson, but the condemnation was nonetheless unmistakeable: “The events that I investigated were attended by leaders in government. Many of these events should not have been allowed to happen. It is also the case that some of the more junior civil servants believed that their involvement in some of these events was permitted given the attendance of senior leaders. The senior leadership at the centre, both political and official, must bear responsibility for this culture.”

Doubtless many public officials and advisers did work extremely hard at the time, and indeed ended up putting at their health at risk unnecessarily by entering the cramped confines of Downing Street where the Covid public health precautions were routinely ignored. According to the whistleblower it was only in 2021, possibly for fear of discovery, that social distancing was observed and a one-way system was installed. It was not there before, which means the rules couldn’t have been followed very well, and certainly not “at all times”. It is preposterous to suppose Mr Johnson couldn’t see with his own eyes the situation he presided over.

The privileges committee members toured Downing Street during their inquiry, including the living quarters, purposely so they could see for themselves whether Mr Johnson could have lived and worked in this environment without noticing or hearing about anything amiss. It now seems that he acquiesced, if not positively encouraged, this betrayal of the public. And that is why whistleblowers should be thanked, cherished and protected for the risks they take in the public interest – and why we need an independent, professional civil service.