Labour has accused of demonstrating a “contempt for the truth” and
“habitual dishonesty” and demanded an independent investigation
into whether he broke the Ministerial Code after he failed to
turn up to Parliament to answer questions on a contract
unlawfully handed out to his friends.
Angela Rayner made the accusation after highlighting
contradictions in statements made by Gove and his department
around the unlawful awarding of a contract to Public First, a
company run by Gove’s close friends, and a court case regarding
the Cabinet Office’s Clearing House which appears to show Gove
misled Parliament when giving evidence to a Select Committee.
Labour argues that responses from the Cabinet Office clearly
contradict Gove’s claim to have had no involvement in awarding
this contract to Public First. Rayner has written to Gove
demanding that he release all correspondence related to the
decision-making process that led to this contract being awarded
and that an independent investigation by the government’s
Independent Adviser on Minister’s Interests takes place.
, Labour’s Deputy Leader and Shadow Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster, said:
“Michael Gove has contradicted himself so many times it’s no
surprise he won’t answer questions about his role in his friends
being unlawfully awarded more than half a million pounds of
taxpayers’ money.
“Gove's attitude smacks of a contempt for the truth and habitual
dishonesty. If he is so sure he’s done nothing wrong he should
publish all the correspondence and refer himself for an
investigation so he can clear his name.
“After the scandal the stench of sleaze hanging around this
government is growing stronger every day. The public need answers
about what has gone on here, and there is clear evidence that
has broken the Ministerial Code.”
Ends
Notes to Editors
- Documents presented to the court in the Public First case
show Cabinet Office officials cited Gove personally as the
driving force behind the decision to give the contract to Public
First, with officials saying: “I need to ensure we’re giving him
[CDL] what he asked for” and “they’re [Public First] agencies he
[CDL] want to lead” this work, which Gove himself “confirmed this
in chat with spads”.
- The Cabinet Office’s response not only confirmed the close
personal relationships between Gove and Public First, but
attempted to present them as a virtue by arguing that: “past
professional connection simply enabled a better judgement to be
reached about whether Public First were indeed the best/only
suitable body to perform the services as needed”.
Full text of letter to
Dear Michael
I am writing to you following the Cabinet Office’s response to
the recent court judgement that found that your department – and
therefore you as Minister responsible – acted unlawfully in
handing out a contract to your close personal friends at Public
First. I am forced to put these questions in writing to you
because you didn’t turn up to the House of Commons today to
answer an Urgent Question on this matter.
In this case the judge made a finding of “apparent bias”, which
would clearly be a breach of the Ministerial Code, but could also
be a breach of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers which
applies to political advisers if the decision was made by or with
the involvement or knowledge of political advisers. That is why
we need an independent investigation to establish the facts of
this matter.
Last week, a judge in a separate case also ruled that the Cabinet
Office attempted to mislead the court regarding the Cabinet
Office’s secretive Clearing House for handling Freedom of
Information (FOI) requests, with the judge also ruling that your
department demonstrated a “profound lack of transparency” which
may “extend to ministers”. This court ruling appears to prove
that you misled Parliament when giving evidence to a
parliamentary select committee in December 2020.
When media outlets first reported on the contract your department
awarded to your friends at Public First, which a judge has now
ruled was awarded unlawfully, the Cabinet Office said it was
“nonsense” to suggest that any bias was a factor in the awarding
of this contract. A court has now ruled that the Cabinet Office
was not telling the truth.
On the basis of this evidence, we clearly cannot trust statements
that you or your department make, as a court has ruled, which is
why we need an independent investigation in order to establish
the truth.
Each of these cases in isolation would be concerning enough, but
taken together they demonstrate a contempt for the truth and
habitual dishonesty. For this reason, I have demanded an
investigation into whether you have broken the Ministerial Code
in relation to the contract that was given to your friends at
Public First, and by misleading Parliament regarding the FOI
Clearing House.
The statements issued by the Cabinet Office last week create more
questions than they answer, so I am writing to you to seek urgent
answers to a number of important questions:
Ministerial responsibility
- A Cabinet Office spokesperson said that you were not involved
in the decision to award the contract to Public First. However,
this does not answer who was involved, and does not rule out that
you were aware of the contract, or that you had suggested or
discussed Public First being awarded this or any other contract,
or the involvement of other Ministers and/or their political
advisers in either the Cabinet Office, Number 10 Downing Street
or other departments. If you did not make the decision, then who
did, and what discussions did you have with whom regarding your
friends at Public First?
- Documents presented to the court in this case show officials
in your department citing you personally as the driving force
behind the decision to give the contract to Public First, with
officials saying “I need to ensure we’re giving him [CDL] what he
asked for” and “they’re [Public First] agencies he [CDL] want to
lead” this work, which you “confirmed this in chat with spads”.
How do you explain these emails referring to conversations you
had about giving a contract to Public First, given they clearly
contradict claim to have had no involvement in awarding this
contract to Public First?
- Even if this statement is true, officials are ultimately
answerable to Ministers, in this case you. The doctrine of
ministerial responsibility is clear – you are responsible for
your department and therefore all contracts and any unlawful
behaviour in the awarding of such contracts. If your excuse in
this case is that you had nothing to do with the contract, then
who is in charge at the Cabinet Office? Do you accept no
responsibility for your department and any wrongdoing or unlawful
activity that takes place, regardless of which individuals within
the Department were or were not involved? If that is the case,
the government has scrapped one of the fundamental tenets of our
democracy whereby Ministers are responsible and accountable to
the public for their Departments.
- A Cabinet Office spokesperson dismissed the ruling that the
awarding of this contract was unlawful. As Minister, can you
confirm that you accept the ruling of the court, or do you
believe that you are above the law? The behaviour of government
Ministers sends a clear message that you believe that you are
above the law, but the public would appreciate clarity on this
matter. What steps will you personally take to take
responsibility and ensure that you and your department do not
break the law again?
Contradictions in evidence presented to the
court
- In his testimony in this case, your former adviser
confirmed
that he – from his time serving as your adviser in the
Department for Education – had close personal relationships
with the Directors of Public First and that these relationships
were “a bonus, not a problem” and clearly played a role in the
awarding of this contract. Why is your department attempting to
claim that your close personal relationships with the Directors
of Public First had nothing to do with the company being
awarded this contract without tender, or consideration of other
options?
- Your department’s own defence in the case not only confirmed
these close personal relationships, but attempted to present them
as a virtue, not a problem: “Past professional connection simply
enabled a better judgement to be reached about whether Public
First were indeed the best/only suitable body to perform the
services as needed”. So your department is arguing that the close
connections between you and the Directors of Public First were
important in understanding why this contract was awarded, at the
same time as denying any bias or special treatment for the
company. That is simply not believable or logical. Can you
explain this contradiction?
Finally, can you confirm how much taxpayers’ money was wasted in
efforts to cover up the government acting illegally, including
all legal fees paid to the government’s team of lawyers, and the
claimant’s legal costs?
If you are confident that there is no wrongdoing or impropriety
on your part, then I am sure you will be happy to release all
correspondence and documents related to the decision-making
process that led to this contract being awarded to your friends
at Public First? Indeed, you will presumably actively want to do
so in order to clear your name after a court ruled that your
department acted unlawfully in awarding a contract to your
friends?
Similarly, you will presumably also be happy to refer yourself to
the Independent Adviser and Cabinet Secretary to investigate this
matter and any potential breaches of the Ministerial Code? A
Cabinet Office spokesperson said that “any suggestion that there
has been a breach of the ministerial code is wrong”, so I am sure
you will be happy to refer yourself to an investigation in order
to clear your name if you are confident that you have done
nothing wrong?
Yours sincerely
Angela Rayner
Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
