Sue Gray report: 'They turned their back on us'
Yesterday (31st January), the findings of the report into Downing Street parties during lockdown was published
The initial findings from Sue Gray's report into lockdown parties in Downing Street were published yesterday (31st January) and concluded that the parties 'represent a serious failure'.
In the report she describes some of the gatherings as " a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time"
"It makes me feel sad that we all missed out on seeing loved ones, saying goodbye, and all that time they were having parties."
We spoke to a woman from Leeds, whose grandma died of cancer during lockdown, while at the same time, her own surgery was cancelled.
She wasn't able to attend the funeral, as there was a limit on the number of people allowed.
She said:
"I'm annoyed, anxious and not happy because I feel like we all sacrificed so much, we all lost out on memories, seeing loved ones and saying good bye to people.
"I do think Boris Johnson should step down, but I do believe it was quite a difficult position for him to be in and its not something any prime minister has dealt with before, but I don't feel like when he's made mistakes he has been apologetic, so for that reason I think he should step down.
"It makes me feel sad that we all missed out on seeing loved ones, saying goodbye, and all that time they were having parties."
"Those rules were set by the government. And what did you do? You turned your back on us"
Yesterday, Boris Johnson apologised after the report was released, he said:
"Firstly, I want to say sorry - and I'm sorry for the things we simply didn't get right and also sorry for the way this matter has been handled."
Mr Johnson added that the pandemic was "hard for everyone" and admitted that he asked people across the country to make great sacrifices.
Martin Parr from Leeds had to shield for the whole pandemic, because he's clinically vulnerable, he said:
"It's just like a slap in the face, its hard just to accept a sorry from the prime minister when he knows full well what was happening.
"Think of those people who couldn't visit family and friends, not being able to attend the funeral of those that they've loved, and how those rules were set by the government. And what did you do? You turned your back on us
Here are Sue Gray's general findings from the report:
- "Against the backdrop of the pandemic, when the Government was asking citizens to accept far-reaching restrictions on their lives, some of the behaviour surrounding these gatherings is difficult to justify."
- "At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time."
- "At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time."
- "At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did."
- "The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time. Steps must be taken to ensure that every Government Department has a clear and robust policy in place covering the consumption of alcohol in the workplace."
- "The use of the garden at No 10 Downing Street should be primarily for the Prime Minister and the private residents of No 10 and No 11 Downing Street. During the pandemic it was often used as an extension of the workplace as a more covid secure means of holding group meetings in a ventilated space. This was a sensible measure that staff appreciated, but the garden was also used for gatherings without clear authorisation or oversight. This was not appropriate. Any official access to the space, including for meetings, should be by invitation only and in a controlled environment."
- "Some staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but at times felt unable to do so. No member of staff should feel unable to report or challenge poor conduct where they witness it. There should be easier ways for staff to raise such concerns informally, outside of the line management chain."
- "The number of staff working in No 10 Downing Street has steadily increased in recent years. In terms of size, scale and range of responsibility it is now more akin to a small Government Department than purely a dedicated Prime Minister’s office. The structures that support the smooth operation of Downing Street, however, have not evolved sufficiently to meet the demands of this expansion. The leadership structures are fragmented and complicated and this has sometimes led to the blurring of lines of accountability. Too much responsibility and expectation is placed on the senior official whose principal function is the direct support of the Prime Minister. This should be addressed as a matter of priority."
Sue Gray's conclusion
The gatherings within the scope of this investigation are spread over a 20-month period – a period that has been unique in recent times in terms of the complexity and breadth of the demands on public servants and indeed the general public. The whole of the country rose to the challenge. Ministers, special advisers and the Civil Service, of which I am proud to be a part, were a key and dedicated part of that national effort. However, as I have noted, a number of these gatherings should not have been allowed to take place or to develop in the way that they did. There is significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across Government. This does not need to wait for the police investigations to be concluded.
No personal accounts revealed
In a statement, Sue Gray said she decided against the inclusion of factual accounts on what had been told to her. This was not due to the ongoing Met Police investigation, but rather it would have damaged the findings of her report.
Writing about her report, she said: "In respect of the gatherings that the Metropolitan Police has assessed as not reaching the threshold for criminal investigation, they have not requested any limitations be placed on the description of those events, however, I have decided not to publish factual accounts in relation to those four dates.
"I do not feel that I am able to do so without detriment to the overall balance of the findings."