Why Sue Gray should pass her report to Boris Johnson, immediately and in full

Amidst the furore currently surrounding the publication of the Sue Gray report, and the Metropolitan Police’s belated request that she redact from it those elements most likely to be of interest to the public, and to the Tory MPs who have the fate of Boris Johnson in their hands, it is worth remembering certain facts.

Firstly, Sue Gray is a civil servant. She was asked, by the Prime Minister, to undertake a fact finding exercise into gatherings which are said to have taken place at No. 10 during the various Covid lockdowns. Her remit goes no further.

Secondly, she is required only to pass on her findings to the Prime Minister. She has no obligation, and indeed within the scope of her remit it would be quite wrong for her, to publish her findings more widely. What the Prime Minister does with her report is entirely a matter for him. He could publish it in full or in redacted form or he could decline to publish it all. That is a purely political decision.

Thirdly, the Met has no locus to demand, or even to request, alterations to or redactions from a report prepared by a civil servant before it is submitted to her Prime Minister. It certainly could request that redactions be made from the report before it is published by the Prime Minister where, as appears to be the case here, it is concerned that potential suspects should not have advance notice of the evidence against them before they are questioned. But that request could only legitimately be made of the Prime Minister because only he can decide when and in what form the report should be published.

How the Prime Minister might respond to such a request would be a matter of political judgment, which is precisely why it is he to whom that request should have been made and not Sue Gray. By asking her rather than the Prime Minister, the Met has placed Sue Gray in an invidious position. When and in what form her report is published is likely to have enormous political ramifications and that is not a responsibility that should have been placed on her shoulders.

The solution is simple. She should pass her report to the Prime Minister immediately and in full. In doing so she would have discharged the responsibility that she given by him. She would also have passed back to him the responsibility which he should not now be abrogating: that is, when and in what form that report should be shared with the public. If Johnson were a man of integrity, he would have told her to do so days ago and saved her the awful dilemma in which she now finds herself. Instead, and characteristically of the man, he fails to shoulder the burden of responsibility that is clearly his, and hides behind others.

There is, of course, an obvious reason why the Met have been so anxious that Johnson not see an unredacted version of the report and why Sue Gray, a woman of vast experience and expertise, should have been willing to acquiesce rather than taking the course of action I have suggested. Namely, that it is Johnson himself who is at the very centre of the wrongdoing that she has uncovered and that the Met are now, in the light of the evidence she has given them, so keen to investigate. And that it is Johnson himself that the Met are so keen should not have advance notice of the weight of evidence against him. Whichever explanation is correct, it speaks volumes of the character of the current occupant of No 10 and of the urgency with which he should be removed.