Read on Twitter
UPDATE: The Cabinet Office has responded to my FOI and revealed it *does* hold information on whether Dominic Cummings’s post-Barnard Castle press conference was funded by the taxpayer. However, something about its response is very concerning.
THREAD
THREAD
Let’s go back to the very beginning, and explore why a Freedom of Information request needed to be made in the first place. After all, you’d think that a press conference held in Downing Street, especially in the height of a pandemic, wouldn’t attract that much controversy. /1
However, the press conference that was held on 25 May was no ordinary one. In-fact, it is unprecedented that the prime minister’s chief advisor should engage with the media at all, let alone on a subject of personal affairs. /2
Cummings, of course, used the almost hour-long conference to respond to The Guardian and Daily Mirror investigation which revealed he had driven 260 miles to Durham with his wife and young son during the first coronavirus lockdown. /3
As if the fact a chief advisor had broken lockdown rules wasn’t enough, the public interest in this story was heightened when a number of government ministers had spoken in support of Dominic Cummings, including the attorney general, Suella Braverman. /4
Braverman, who’s position requires the provision of impartial legal advice to the Government, was accused of political interference when she posted a tweet that appeared to defend the actions of Mr Cummings. /5
The nature of such an intervention, as well as that of the conference itself, raises a number of concerns, not least the conduct of a senior aide and the clear breach of lockdown rules, which undermined the majority of the population’s combined sacrifice. /6
Lockdown aside for one moment, it also raises the question of why a press conference of this kind was held for a matter unrelated to government business in the first place. While Cummings was indeed a SpAd, the alleged criminality was unrelated to his official role. /7
The Code of Conduct for Special Advisers clearly states that SpAds must not take part in any political controversy, through any form of statement to the media with all contacts needing authorisation from the appointing Minister. /8
With this in mind, it could be said the incident should have been addressed solely by the Prime Minister who is, after all, responsible for the management and conduct of special advisors (Dominic Cummings) as outlined in Paragraph 9 of the Code. /9
The unprecedented nature of the press conference, as well as the fact it was held by Dominic Cummings and not the prime minister, leads us to an important question: who was responsible for the creation of the statement that was delivered in the Rose Garden? /10
One lawyer who has been in contact with the Cabinet Office told me they were concerned the statement could have been created with the help of government lawyers, with involvement of the attorney general herself. Others have suggested that Mr Cummings sought legal advice. /11
Despite attempts to seek clarification, the Cabinet Office have not disclosed whether the legal advice sought was publicly or privately funded. According to officials, the statement read by Dominic Cummings was “personal,” and that no information is held in relation to it. /12
The suggestion the Cabinet Office had no knowledge of what had happened is
bizarre given the position Mr Cummings held within Downing Street and the serious situation that his actions had placed the government in. /13
bizarre given the position Mr Cummings held within Downing Street and the serious situation that his actions had placed the government in. /13
With this question unanswered, I submitted a Freedom of Information request for details on how the press conference was funded, including any legal advice sought by Mr Cummings and whether this was provided privately or publicly with taxpayer’s money. /14
Despite confirmation that my request had been received, I heard nothing (without explanation) for three months. Having breached the statutory 20 working days deadline, and despite a number of follow up emails, the Cabinet Office failed to respond. /15 https://twitter.com/ogmurphy1/status/1276441679877341186
Finally, in September, I received a response. But it was not what I expected. The reply was in the form of letters from former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, to Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Rachel Reeves and SNP Leader Ian Blackford on 27 May. /16
This is where it becomes interesting. Nowhere in these letters was it mentioned how the conference was funded. It is simply refers to both Paragraph 9 and 13 of the SpAd Code of Conduct as justification for allowing the press conference to take place in Downing Street. /17
The response was both suspicious in its vagueness, but evident in its avoidance of providing any concrete information. As the two letters attached to the response show, nowhere is any detail provided on whether the conference was funded publicly or privately. /18
Perhaps the closest we come to a semblance of an explanation is Sir Mark Sedwill’s justification that as the event allegedly related to Mr Cummings’s “official role” he considered it appropriate to allow the conference to take place on Government premises. /19