Plebgate: senior civil servant is backed by No 10

 
p2 Jeremy Heywood, permanent secretary at No 10 and Cabinet Secretary, poses with his wife Suzanne holding his medal after was made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath by the Prince of Wales at Buckingham Palace during an investiture ceremony on May 4, 2012. AFP PHOTO / POOL / JOHN STILLWELL
Getty
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

Downing Street today strongly defended Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood’s role in the Plebgate storm and hit out at a Commons committee.

No 10 said the senior civil servant’s review into the affair had strengthened Andrew Mitchell’s position as Chief Whip, rather than leading to his resignation.

Mr Mitchell quit as Chief Whip in October following a clash with police officers in Downing Street.

He was accused of calling them “f***ing plebs” after they refused to open the main gates so he could leave on his bike. Mr Mitchell strongly denies using these words.

David Cameron asked Sir Jeremy to investigate emails received by Deputy Chief Whip John Randall which seemed to corroborate the police’s version of the incident.

The Cabinet Secretary concluded, after having viewed CCTV footage, that the emails were not reliable, and recommended the Prime Minister keep Mr Mitchell in his post.

But a Channel 4 News investigation discovered the sender of the email was a police officer, not a member of the public. The Metropolitan Police has since made several arrests, including those of police officers, as it has investigated the incident.

MPs on the Commons public administration committee have criticised Sir Jeremy’s handing of the review, arguing that it should have been done by the independent adviser on ministers’ interests.

They also suggested the police should have been called in to probe the emails.

But Downing Street dismissed the committee’s report as a “partial account” of the review.

No 10 said it was “disappointing” that the MPs had not highlighted restrictions Sir Jeremy faced in providing evidence, given that there was an ongoing police inquiry.

The Government also said it was “disappointed” that “prejudicial summaries” of the report were briefed to newspapers before publication.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Sign up you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy notice .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in