House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee

The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief

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 : 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) MP (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan) Charlie Elphicke MP (Conservative, Dover) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) MP (Conservative, Harlow) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Greg Mulholland MP (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West) 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 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 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 , 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 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, published allegations that Andrew Mitchell had “launched a tirade against the police”. On Monday 24 September, 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 onceunder his breath rather than as a direct insult at a police officerand 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 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. Continuing and intense coverage in the media arising from the police account of the incident cast doubt on the integrity of Andrew Mitchell’s insistence on his account of the incident. On 19 October, 33 days after the incident, Andrew Mitchell resigned as Government Chief Whip. He stated in his resignation letter that he felt unable to fulfil his duties given the “damaging publicity” which had continued in the media since the incident.8 He reiterated statements he had already made publicly: that he had only sworn once at the police and had not used most of the phrases cited in the “police log” (and also cited in one of the e-mails from John Randall’s constituent).

12. On 18 December, a Channel 4 programme broadcast information which cast doubt on the veracity of both the “police log” and the e-mail from John Randall’s constituent, alleging that the constituent was not a witness, as he claimed, but that he was a serving member of the police. The programme also alleged that significant parts of both the “police log” and the constituent’s e-mail were untrue.9

13. In oral evidence to this Committee, Sir Jeremy stated that his remit was “very limited” as he had been asked to undertake “deliberately a very tightly drawn review”.10 Sir Jeremy acknowledged that, in the course of his review, he assessed the CCTV footage of the incident against both the e-mail and Andrew Mitchell’s account. He found that there were “some inaccuracies and inconsistencies” in the various accounts and records of the incident.11 He was also “mildly suspicious” when John Randall’s constituent refused to talk to him or his staff, and felt that “that there were unanswered questions, including the possibility of a gigantic conspiracy or a small conspiracy. Those were unanswered questions, but we decided on balance to let matters rest as they were”.12 When questioned about why he did not look further into these inaccuracies, Sir Jeremy stated: “I can only do what I am asked to do”.13

14. Regardless of what the Prime Minister had or had not asked him to do, on establishing that there were unanswered questions about the incident, Sir Jeremy should have advised the Prime Minister that these questions required further investigation and therefore a wider inquiry. It is surprising that, at the time of his “review” Sir Jeremy was not familiar with the contents of the Principal Private Secretary’s note of the conversation which he had soon after the incident with the police officer concerned. It is equally surprising that Sir Jeremy did not seek to verify the “police log” published by The Daily Telegraph. Sir Jeremy could and should have advised the Prime Minister to refer the allegations of ministerial misconduct to the Prime Minister’s Adviser for a fuller investigation. That he did not do so is regrettable

7 See appendix 8 Letter from Andrew Mitchell MP to MP, quoted in The Daily Telegraph on 20 October 2012 9 Dispatches programme, broadcast on Channel 4 News, 18 December 2012 10 Qq 41, 128 11 Q 15 12 Qq 104, 136 13 Q 50

6 The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip

and undermines the valuable reformthe post of the Prime Minister’s Adviserintroduced in the last Parliament. He could also have advised the Prime Minister that it would be appropriate to refer any doubt about the police account of the incident to the relevant police authorities to investigate in order to resolve any discrepancies and inconsistencies. Instead, as Sir Jeremy told PASC, once he had completed his “very tightly drawn review”, he viewed his job as being to “await further instructions, if any”.14 Such instructions were not forthcoming, as “the conclusion was to let the matter lie”. He did not view it as his “job” to report the inaccuracies and unanswered questions to the police.15

15. This Committee does not aim to establish whether or not Andrew Mitchell breached the Ministerial Code, nor to establish definitively what Andrew Mitchell did or did not say. However, we are concerned to ensure that the right systems, people and procedures are in place for investigating allegations of ministerial misconduct. For more than a decade, PASC has been explicit that it is not for the Cabinet Secretary to advise on ministerial conduct on the basis of his own inquiries; PASC has consistently maintained that it is for the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ interests to conduct such inquiries and to provide such advice.

16. The Ministerial Code does not explicitly cover language which may or may not be used by Ministers.16 However, as the main statement by Government on the conduct of Ministers, it begins “Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety”, and the Adviser is the best-placed person to be considering allegations of ministerial misconduct.17

17. We still await the Government’s response to our Report on the Prime Minister’s Adviser, published in March 2012. The Government’s own guidance states that departments should aim to respond to select committee reports within two months of publication. 18 It is unacceptable that ten months have now elapsed. The Government should immediately issue a Written Ministerial Statement to explain why there has been such an unacceptable delay and to explain when a full response will be given to us.

18. The events leading to the resignation of the Government Chief Whip again demonstrate that the Cabinet Secretary is not the appropriate person to investigate allegations of ministerial misconduct. His role 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.

19. We have previously recommended that the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Alex Allan, should have the power to instigate his own investigations. The Adviser is appointed for the very purpose of conducting such inquires: he therefore can

14 Q45 15 Qq 87, 29 16 Ministerial Code, Cabinet Office, May 2010 17 Ministerial Code, para 1.1 18 Cabinet Office, Guidance on departmental evidence and response to select committees, July 2005

The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 7

apply his full time and attention to the task, and he can exercise a degree of independence in this role. 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 command public confidence. Given that the House agreed a resolution in July 2012 supporting this Committee’s recommendation, steps should have been taken by the Government to implement this.

20. In this particular case, Sir Alex should have been able to instigate his own investigation into the allegations against Andrew Mitchell. At the very least, the Prime Minister, advised by the Cabinet Secretary, should have asked Sir Alex to conduct an investigation, as the current system allows.

8 The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip

Appendix

Letter from Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP to Sir Jeremy Heywood, dated 23 September 2012

On Friday it was reported in the Sun newspaper that Andrew Mitchell, the Government's Chief Whip, swore at police officers in Downing Street and described them as “plebs.” Mr Mitchell told the Sun that the paper's reports of him swearing and using the language described were untrue. He said:

"I do not accept that I used the words that have been reported." However several other newspapers including the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and The Sun have reported confirmation of those words and referred to police notebooks containing contemporaneous notes. The Police Federation who represent the officers has also said that the Chief Whip used words such as ‘plebs’ and ‘morons’.

Today a number of news outlets, including the BBC and the Sunday Telegraph, report that Mr Mitchell is now admitting that he did swear, despite denying this before. A new form of words is now being reported in the media, while 'friends' of Mr Mitchell appear to be suggesting that things written in a police officer's notebook - which can be used in court and our criminal justice documents - are not true and cannot be trusted. This situation raises some very serious issues including:

• whether the Cabinet Minister has told the Prime Minister or the public the full story about his unacceptable behaviour, or whether he has provided inaccurate information;

• whether the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office have taken sufficiently seriously statements made by police officers whose job it is to keep Downing Street secure and have investigated them;

• whether the Prime Minister and the Government believe that statements made by police officers or information in a police officer’s notebook should not be trusted even though these have legal status as evidence in our criminal justice system.

In these circumstances it is extremely important that a proper investigation is undertaken into these differing accounts of the Chief Whip’s behaviour, including reviewing statements, interviewing all concerned and examining CCTV and other evidence. Given the continuing and justified concern and anger of police officers of all ranks about what has happened, it is important that the Government shows sufficient respect for our police officers to investigate this incident and ensure that people know the truth.

We are already very concerned that a senior Cabinet Member is reported as dismissing police officers doing such an important security job as "plebs." It is extremely important that public and police confidence is not further diminished by the Prime Minister’s dismissal of this issue and the testimony from police I hope you will ensure this investigation is swift, accurate and gets to the truth promptly so people can judge Mr Mitchell on the facts and the Prime Minister can decide on the Chief Whip's continued position.

The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 9

Letter from Sir Jeremy Heywood to Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, dated 24 September 2012

Thank you for your letter of 23 September about the conduct of Andrew Mitchell.

The Prime Minister takes the conduct and behaviour of Ministers very seriously. As soon as we became aware of the incident the No.10 Head of Security and the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary spoke to the Police Sergeant to hear what had happened. The Prime Minister spoke to Andrew Mitchell and made very clear that his behaviour fell short of what he expects of his Ministers. There clearly remains a genuine difference of view about what words were actually used. But Andrew Mitchell has acknowledged that his words and behaviour were inappropriate and he failed to show proper respect for the police. He then phoned the police officer in question to apologise personally and he has since reiterated his apology in public. The officer has accepted his apology.

I have subsequently discussed the matter with the Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe. Like the Prime Minister he is obviously very disappointed at the lack of respect shown towards the police and agrees that the behaviour fell short of what the police should expect, in particular from members of the Government. However, in the light of the apology given, and also the fact that the officer concerned has accepted the apology and does not wish to pursue the matter further, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner reiterated that no further action would be taken.

Given these circumstances neither the Prime Minister nor I see any purpose in a further investigation. The Prime Minister has already made clear that he regards Andrew Mitchell's behaviour on this occasion as falling well short of the standards expected of members of the Government.

The Prime Minister has put on record his continuing admiration, support and gratitude for the work done by the Downing Street protection team. They do a vital job for the country, day in day out, with great professionalism and diligence. Nothing that has been said or done over the last few days should be allowed to detract from that.

Letter from Mr Bernard Jenkin MP, Chair, PASC, to Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary, dated 20 December 2012

Further to our telephone conversation, I am writing as you suggested to say that PASC may ask you to appear to give oral evidence concerning your inquiry into the alleged misconduct of the former Government Chief Whip, Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP. We next meet on Tuesday 8th January when PASC will formally consider whether to issue such an invitation. I have asked the PASC office to contact your office to make provisional arrangements for a hearing later that week (which would be likely to be on the Wednesday 9th or Thursday 10th).

In the meantime, do please respond in writing with any comment or information which you believe PASC should consider before deciding to issue a formal invitation.

10 The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip

Letter from Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary to Mr Bernard Jenkin MP, Chair, PASC, dated 24 December 2012

Thank you for your letter of 20th December. I am grateful for the opportunity to offer views before the Committee meets on 8th January.

There has been significant coverage of this matter in the last two weeks, and in particular in relation to CCTV images taken on 19 September 2012, and subsequent emails purporting to be from a witness to events that took place on that date.

It is my role as Cabinet Secretary to consider and provide advice to the Prime Minister including on matters relating to Ministerial conduct. As you will know, following the incident in Downing Street on 19 September, Andrew Mitchell apologised to the police for his inappropriate behaviour and the police decided to take no further action. The Prime Minister regarded the matter as closed, and Andrew Mitchell remained in post as Chief Whip.

I first became substantively involved when the Shadow , Yvette Cooper, wrote to me about the episode on Sunday 23 September. I replied setting out the Prime Minister's position on 24 September. I enclose a copy here.

I became aware during the course of 24 September that the Deputy Chief Whip, John Randall, had copied to No10 a private email he had received from a constituent. The next day, following receipt of a second email and confirmation from John Randall that he had established through direct contact that this was indeed a genuine constituent, the Prime Minister asked me to look into whether this MP’s constituency correspondence changed his original assessment of the then Chief Whip’s conduct. He did not ask me to investigate the veracity of the police logs or any other aspect of this incident. I do not have the powers to conduct a criminal investigation. Nor is it the Cabinet Secretary's role to investigate the conduct of the police.

To meet the Prime Minister’s request I reviewed the content of the two e-mails against the CCTV footage held by Downing Street and the Foreign Office and oral evidence provided to me by Andrew Mitchell. The Deputy Chief Whip's constituent refused to speak to either me or my staff, arguing I believe, that his e-mails were private communications to his local MP and had not been intended for wider dissemination. I therefore asked the Deputy Chief Whip to talk to his constituent. He did so and questioned him specifically on whether he had any links to the police or the media which he denied.

I concluded on the basis of my short review that the e-mails did not provide conclusive or reliable evidence and that there was no reason for the Prime Minister to change his conclusion that the Chief Whip should remain in post.

The Prime Minister agreed with this conclusion and decided that no further action was warranted. This judgement was shared with the then Chief Whip. As you know Andrew Mitchell then remained in his post as Chief Whip until 19 October.

I recognise the Committee’s desire to seek clarity on this case. Clearly significant questions remain to be answered about the episode, how the Downing Street police log-books ended up in the public domain and how the e-mailer knew about the incident prior to its

The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 11

becoming public. It is imperative that these questions are answered as soon as possible and the Government has therefore welcomed Scotland Yard’s commitment to a comprehensive, rigorous and urgent investigation. I have spoken to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on a number of occasions to stress the importance that the Prime Minister attaches to this.

In light of the on-going police investigation and having consulted the Treasury Solicitor and the Metropolitan Police, I do not believe I can provide a more detailed public account of my own internal review without the risk of prejudice to potential future criminal proceedings. I hope the Committee will understand the overriding importance of this consideration.

12 The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip

Annex: Timeline of events

19 September Andrew Mitchell MP, Government Chief Whip, was involved in an incident with 2012 police at the gates of Downing Street.

19 September “As soon as we became aware of the incident”, the No.10 Head of Security and the Prime Minister’s Principal Private Secretary spoke to the police officer involved about it.

19 September Sir Jeremy Heywood first became aware of the incident involving Andrew Mitchell via a conversation “in general terms” with the Prime Minister’s Principal Private Secretary, who informed him about it.19

20 September A constituent of the Deputy Chief Whip, John Randall MP, sent him an e-mail, in which he claimed to have been an eye-witness to the events. The e-mail later corroborated the alleged “police log” as later published in The Daily Telegraph (although not publicly available at the time the constituent sent this e-mail). He sent a second email to John Randall a few days later.

[date not Andrew Mitchell apologised to the police officer for swearing. known]

21 September The Sun published allegations that Mr Mitchell had launched a tirade against the police.

23 September Yvette Cooper, Shadow Home Secretary, wrote to Sir Jeremy to ask that he conduct an investigation into the incident. He stated that this was when he “became more involved personally”.20

24 September The Daily Telegraph published text it claimed was the “police log” of the incident on 19 September.

24 September Sir Jeremy became aware of the e-mail sent by John Randall MP’s constituent.

24 September Sir Jeremy replied to Yvette Cooper acknowledging that, although it was not clear exactly what Andrew Mitchell had said, Mr Mitchell had apologised and therefore no investigation was necessary.21

24 September The Prime Minister had a conversation with Andrew Mitchell about the e-mail from Mr Randall’s constituent. The outcome of that conversation was that further investigation was needed.22

25 September John Randall confirmed that the e-mails sent to him were sent by a genuine

19 Q4 20 Qq4, 80 21 Q 80 22 Q 102

The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 13

constituent. The Prime Minister asked Sir Jeremy to “look into” whether or not the email from the constituent should change the Prime Minister’s assessment of Andrew Mitchell’s conduct.

Between 25 Sept Sir Jeremy reviewed the e-mails from John Randall’s constituent together with and 19 Oct the CCTV footage held by Downing Street and the Foreign Office and concluded that the Prime Minister’s original assessment (that the Chief Whip had apologised and should therefore stay in post) should remain the same.

12 October Andrew Mitchell met with representatives from the Police Federation in the West Midlands (where his constituency is).

19 October Andrew Mitchell resigned as Chief Whip.

Date not known The Met Police established Operation Alice to look into matters relating to the events of 19 September.

15 December A police officer was arrested for alleged misconduct in a public office.

18 December A joint Channel 4 News/ Dispatches investigation was broadcast, showing some CCTV footage, and casting doubt on the veracity of the alleged “police log” (as published in The Telegraph), and the e-mail sent by John Randall’s constituent, and stating that the constituent was a serving police officer.

19 December A man was arrested on suspicion of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence of misconduct in a public office on or around 14 December (this was not a police officer or member of police staff); Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe stated in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 8 January that this was a relative of the police officer arrested on 15 December.

20 December Bernard Jenkin MP wrote to Sir Jeremy to say that PASC may wish to invite him to give oral evidence on 9 or 10 January, and inviting him to submit any relevant comments in advance.

23 December Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe returned from his holiday to promise a “ruthless search for the truth” in investigating the matter.

24 December Sir Jeremy wrote to Bernard Jenkin giving some information about the steps he had taken prior to Andrew Mitchell’s eventual resignation.

8 January 2013 Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Commissioner, gave oral evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

10 January Sir Jeremy gave oral evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee.

14 The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip

Formal Minutes

Tuesday 15 January 2013

Members present:

Mr Bernard Jenkin, in the Chair

Charlie Elphicke Kelvin Hopkins Paul Flynn Priti Patel Robert Halfon Mr Steve Reed

Draft Report (The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 20 read and agreed to.

Annex agreed to.

Papers were appended to the Report as an Appendix.

Resolved, That the Report be the Eighth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

[Adjourned till Tuesday 22 January at 9.15am

The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 15

Witness

Thursday 10 January 2013 Page

Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO, Cabinet Secretary Ev 1

( The uncorrected transcript has been published on the PASC website: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubadm/uc864-i/uc86401.htm)

16 The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.

Session 2012-13 First Special Report Public Appointments: regulation, recruitment and HC 18 pay: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourteenth Report of Session 2010-12 Second Special Report Leadership of change: new arrangements for the HC 313 roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary: Further Report: Government Response to the Committee’s Twenty Third Report of Session 2010-12 Third Special Report Strategic thinking in Government: without National HC 573 Strategy, can viable Government strategy emerge? Government Response to the Committee’s Twenty Fourth Report of Session 2010-12 First Report The Big Society: Further Report with the Government HC 98 Response to the Committee’s Seventeenth Report of Session 2010-12 Second Report The Honours System HC 19 Third Report Business Appointment Rules HC 404 Fourth Report Appointment of the Chair of the Charity Commission HC 315-I Fifth Report End of term report: 2011-12 HC 316 Sixth Report Special advisers in HC 134 Seventh Report The Honours System: Further Report with the HC 728 Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2012-13

Session 2010-12 First Report Who does UK National Strategy? HC 435 (HC 713) Second Report Government Responses to the Committee’s Eighth HC 150 and Ninth Reports of Session 2009-10: Goats and Tsars: Ministerial and other appointments from outside Parliament and Too Many Ministers? Third Report Equitable Life HC 485 (Cm 7960) Fourth Report Pre-appointment hearing for the dual post of First HC 601 Civil Service Commissioner and Commissioner for Public Appointments Fifth Report Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State HC 537 (Cm 8044) Sixth Report Who Does UK National Strategy? Further Report with HC 713 the Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2010-11 Seventh Report Smaller Government: What do Ministers do? HC 530 (HC 1540)

The Role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Resignation of the Chief Whip 17

Eighth Report Cabinet Manual HC 900 (HC 1127, Cm 8213) First Special Report Cabinet Manual: Government Interim Response to HC 1127 the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2010-12 Ninth Report Pre-appointment hearing for the post of HC 1220-I Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Tenth Report Remuneration of the Parliamentary and Health HC 1350 Service Ombudsman Eleventh Report Good Governance and Civil Service Reform: ‘End of HC 901 (HC 1746) Term’ report on Whitehall plans for structural reform Twelfth Report Government and IT — “a recipe for rip-offs”: time for HC 715-I (HC 1724) a new approach Thirteenth Report Change in Government: the agenda for leadership HC 714 (HC 1746) Fourteenth Report Public Appointments: regulation, recruitment and HC 1389 pay Fifteenth Report Smaller Government: What do Ministers do? Further HC 1540 (HC 1746) Report with the Government Response to the Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2010-12 Sixteenth Report Appointment of the Chair of the UK Statistics HC 910 Authority Seventeenth Report The Big Society HC 902 Eighteenth Report Change in Government: the agenda for leadership: HC 1746 Further Report, with the Government Responses to the Committee’s Eleventh, Thirteenth and Fifteenth Reports of Session 2010-12 Nineteenth Report Leadership of change: new arrangements for the HC 1582 roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary Twentieth Report Government and IT-“a recipe for rip-offs”: time for a HC 1724 new approach: Further Report, with the Government response to the Committee’s Twelfth Report of Session 2010-12 Twenty First Report Future oversight of administrative justice: the HC 1621 proposed abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council Twenty Second Report The Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests: HC 1761 independent or not? Twenty Third Report Leadership of change: new arrangements for the HC 1914 roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary, Further Report, with the Government Response to the Committee’s Nineteenth Report of Session 2010-12 Twenty Fourth Report Strategic thinking in Government: without National HC 1625 Strategy, can viable Government strategy emerge?