Labour’s ruling body met yesterday and agreed the terms of
reference of the independent investigation announced by the
leadership into the recently leaked report.
The national executive committee held its first meeting since
Keir Starmer’s election as Labour leader via Zoom. It was
attended by six newly elected and appointed members.
It was arranged specifically to discuss the scope of the inquiry
that was commissioned last week after a document on Labour’s
handling of antisemitism was made public.
After the NEC meeting, a Labour spokesperson said: “The national
executive committee has today agreed the terms of reference for
the independent investigation into the circumstances, contents
and release of an internal report.
“The NEC will meet again in due course to agree the individuals
who will be appointed to lead the investigation.”
It is understood that the terms of reference will be published in
full shortly – once amendments that were accepted during the NEC
meeting have been taken into account.
The NEC agreed today that the investigation into the leaked
report, which will be led by an as yet unknown independent
investigator, should conclude with its own report being published
by mid-July.
There have been concerns raised by activists particularly on the
left of the party that the probe could be used to “kick the
report into the long grass” and prioritise the leaking of the
report over its contents.
But, according to LabourList sources, during
the meeting it was made clear by and that the inquiry does not
preclude disciplinary action by the party.
One source said the new leadership team was not trying to
discourage such action from being taken by the party in line with
normal processes, and in fact “they’re encouraged” to do so.
It is not expected that the newly elected leaders would comment
on specific cases that should be brought forward, particularly as
both are in favour of introducing an independent complaints
system.
NEC youth representative Lara McNeill tweeted after the
meeting: “This investigation does not stop the party taking
disciplinary action. We will chase this up with the general
secretary”.
Commenting after the meeting, a Momentum spokesperson said: “We
welcome Keir Starmer’s commitment to disciplinary action against
people named in the report.”
It is understood that several amendments were passed by the NEC,
including one moved by Rayner that referred to the offer of
whistleblower protections.
On this point, a Momentum spokesperson added: “We also welcome
the guarantees for whistleblowers that have been enshrined in the
terms of reference. While the report should not have been leaked
unredacted, Labour is Britain’s largest political party and the
contents were clearly in the public interest.
“Labour’s half a million members deserved to know what was
happening at the top of their party, and those involved in
bringing these actions to light must not be penalised.”
LabourList understands, however, that the
whistleblower amendment has been interpreted by others as
protecting former staffers who act as witnesses in the
investigation.
Sources say the independent investigation will not focus on the
leaking of the report in terms of identifying the leaker(s),
though how and why the leak occurred will be considered.
LabourList was told by well-placed sources that:
- An amendment to the terms of reference was accepted that
reordered the words so that the content of the report is listed
as the first subject being looked into by the inquiry.
- Some had pointed out that the original
statement implied an order of
priorities that put the commissioning of the report ahead of
its contents. According to NEC sources, this view was taken
into account and the wording changed as a result.
- An amendment was accepted that allowed the inquiry to raise
issues about structures but clarified that any structural changes
remain under the remit of conference and the NEC.
- Ann Henderson moved an amendment, which was then amended by
Jon Lansman and passed by the NEC, to specifically allude to
‘discriminatory behaviour’ in the terms of reference.
- Rayner proposed a change to clarify and ensure that the
inquiry was reporting back to the NEC rather than the party
leadership, and that its report would be made fit for
publication.
While there were arguments between NEC members during the
meeting, and votes were mostly along factional
lines, LabourList understands that it was not
an acrimonious one overall.
Article by Sienna Rodgers, editor of LabourList
