The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip Eighth Report of Session 2012–13 Report and appendix, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 15 January 2013 HC 864-I Published on 21 January 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith, and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service. Current membership Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) (Chair) Alun Cairns MP (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan) Charlie Elphicke MP (Conservative, Dover) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Robert Halfon MP (Conservative, Harlow) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Greg Mulholland MP (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West) Priti Patel MP (Conservative, Witham) Mr Steve Reed MP (Labour, Croydon North) Lindsay Roy MP (Labour, Glenrothes) Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/pasc Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Emily Commander and Catherine Tyack (Joint Clerks), Rebecca Short (Second Clerk), Alexandra Meakin (Committee Specialist), Paul Simpkin (Senior Committee Assistant) and Su Panchanathan (Committee Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Public Administration Select Committee, Committee Office, First Floor, 7 Millbank, House of Commons, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5730; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 1 Contents Report Page Report 3 Appendix 8 Annex: Timeline of events 12 Formal Minutes 14 Witness 15 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 16 The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 3 Report 1. The content and status of the Ministerial Code, and the structures for investigating alleged breaches of the Code, have been a recurring concern for the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) in the 1997–2001, 2001–2005 and 2005–2010 Parliaments and in the last session of this Parliament. We are concerned that the events which led to the resignation of the Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP as Government Chief Whip in October 2012 demonstrate that the structures for investigating alleged breaches of the Code are not appropriate or working effectively. 2. Under the current system, the Ministerial Code states that 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 will refer the matter to the Independent Adviser on Ministers' interests.1 3. In our report The Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ interests: independent or not?, published in March 2012, we recommended that the Adviser “should be empowered to instigate his own investigations”.2 This conclusion was agreed by the House in its resolution of 17 July 2012.3 No aspect of the events preceding Andrew Mitchell’s resignation was investigated by the Prime Minister’s Adviser. This is regrettable. 4. The fact that the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, did look into the matter, but failed to resolve the questions arising from the discrepancies in the accounts of the events, further supports our assertion that the Cabinet Secretary is not the appropriate figure to investigate such issues. The Cabinet Secretary’s role in this matter is limited; there is already intense pressure on his time and attention; and his role as impartial investigator may conflict with his primary role, which is to support the daily work of the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole. The Adviser, currently Sir Alex Allan, is appointed for the very purpose of conducting such inquires; he therefore can apply his full time and attention to the task; and he can exercise a degree of independence in this role. 5. For these reasons, if this matter had been referred to him, or better still, if he was vested with the power to instigate investigations on his own initiative, as recommended by PASC and as agreed by Resolution of the House, this inquiry would have been more likely to have been effective and to have commanded public confidence in its eventual outcome. In particular, Sir Alex’s background and previous experience would suggest he has many of the skills which make him well qualified to conduct such inquiries. 1 Cabinet Office, Ministerial Code, May 2010, para 1.3 2 Public Administration Select Committee, Twenty Second Report of Session 2010-12, The Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests: independent or not?, HC 1761, para 44 3 The resolution read: That this House calls on the Government to implement the recommendation made by the Public Administration Select Committee in paragraph 44 of its Twenty-second Report of Session 2010-12, The Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests: independent or not?, that the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests ‘should be empowered to instigate his own investigations’; and notes that this motion has been agreed by the Public Administration Select Committee. HC Deb, 17 July 2012, col 876 4 The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 6. The purpose of our cross-examination of the Cabinet Secretary was to establish what wider lessons this case has for the handling of allegations of ministerial misconduct. The Chairman of this Committee therefore wrote to Sir Jeremy on 20 December 2012. Sir Jeremy replied on 24 December 2012.4 He then gave oral evidence to the Committee on 10 January 2013. 7. The events of Wednesday 19 September 2012 have been extensively rehearsed in the media since that date. There are certain facts of the matter which are agreed by all parties. On that day, at around 7:30 p.m., Andrew Mitchell left 9 Downing Street on his bicycle. He cycled up to the main gate at the end of Downing Street and asked for the gate to be opened to allow him to cycle through. He was directed by a police officer through the pedestrian gate. Andrew Mitchell objected to being redirected to the pedestrian gate on the basis that he had been allowed through the main gate on previous occasions and he swore in the course of raising his objections. 8. “As soon as [Number 10] became aware of the incident”, the Number 10 Head of Security and the Prime Minister’s Principal Private Secretary had a conversation with the police officer concerned.5 A note was made of this conversation. Andrew Mitchell subsequently apologised to the police for his inappropriate behaviour and the apology was accepted. The police agreed to take no further action and Andrew Mitchell remained in post. 9. On the day after the incident, Thursday 20 September, a constituent of the Government Deputy Chief Whip, Rt Hon John Randall MP, e-mailed him stating that he had been a witness to the event. The e-mail appeared to corroborate the police’s story. On Friday 21 September, The Sun published allegations that Andrew Mitchell had “launched a tirade against the police”. On Monday 24 September, The Daily Telegraph published what purported to be the police account of what happened, which was described as “the police log”. There is in fact no such thing as a “police log” but there may be a document which was written up from notes recorded by the officer concerned in his notebook. No such notes have reached the public domain. It is not clear whether the version of the “log” published in the press did represent the information recorded in the officer’s notebook. Andrew Mitchell has consistently disputed the account given in the “police log” of the words he used, stating that he only swore onceunder his breath rather than as a direct insult at a police officerand did not use most of the phrases attributed to him. 10. Sir Jeremy Heywood first became aware of the e-mail from John Randall’s constituent on Monday 24 September. Andrew Mitchell told The Sunday Times on 23 December that, when the Prime Minister saw this e-mail, he telephoned him to say that he must resign on that day. Andrew Mitchell insisted that he did not say what was alleged. Following receipt of a second e-mail and confirmation from John Randall, the Prime Minister asked Sir Jeremy “to look into whether this MP’s constituency correspondence changed his [the Prime Minister’s] original assessment of the then Chief Whip’s conduct”.6 Some days later, Sir Jeremy concluded that the e-mails “did not provide conclusive or reliable evidence” and 4 See appendix 5 Letter from Cabinet Secretary to Yvette Cooper of 24 September 2012 – see appendix. See also uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Public Administration Select Committee on 10 January 2013, HC (2012-13) 864-i, Q 95 6 See appendix The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 5 that, therefore, there was no reason for the Prime Minister to change his original assessment that Andrew Mitchell should stay in post.7 11.