The publication of the Sue Gray report into alleged Downing Street COVID breaches could be delayed even further after the police requested it remove most references to events they are investigating.
Ms Gray, a senior civil servant some have described as “the most powerful person you’ve never heard of”, is examining evidence around potential lockdown rule-breaking throughout Downing Street and Whitehall – and was expected to publish her report by the end of this month.
But after launching its own probe, the Metropolitan Police has now asked that the Gray report makes “minimal reference” to any potentially-illegal gatherings the force is looking at.
This means Ms Gray’s report could be much lighter in content and delayed until after the Met investigation concludes.
It still has the potential to be damning for Boris Johnson, however.
Here, Sky News looks at what the Gray inquiry could mean for the PM and the government – and whether it could result in their downfall.
What will the inquiry look at?
According to the Cabinet Office, the “primary purpose” of Ms Gray’s inquiry is to “establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time”.
When it was announced, the inquiry was due to look at alleged gatherings inside Downing Street on 27 November and 18 December 2020, as well as one at the Department for Education on 10 December.
But the Cabinet Office later confirmed reports of two leaving parties at Number 10 on 16 April 2021 – the day before Prince Philip’s funeral, are also being included.
“Credible allegations relating to other gatherings” could also be covered, according to the terms of reference.
Ms Gray’s team are looking at “all relevant records” and allowed to “speak to members of staff” as witnesses.
This means looking through emails, employees’ schedules and calendar invites, as well as mobile phone messages.
There are reports some Downing Street staff have been reluctant to hand over evidence.
But the police can seize any relevant material, which may been their investigation turns out to be more thorough.
How long will it take?
When the investigation was launched by Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, the expectation was that it would be concluded relatively quickly.
But despite the terms of reference suggesting the work would be undertaken “swiftly”, the process has been drawn out by new allegations and the launch of a police investigation.
There has been uncertainty over how long it could take and it now could be delayed until after the Met concludes its enquiries.
Gray inquiry delayed by police investigation
From the outset, the Gray inquiry had the potential to be paused and superseded by a police investigation.
According to the terms of reference, this would happen if it “identified evidence of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence”.
The Met announced it had launched its own inquiry on 25 January 2022 after being given evidence by Ms Gray’s Cabinet Office team and the force deciding its three tests for retrospectively investigating alleged COVID breaches had been met.
Sky News understands that Ms Gray’s inquiry is still ongoing and that she “remains in contact with the Met”.
But the force’s recommendation that it makes only “minimal reference” to the events it is looking at threatens both the report’s contents and its publication date.
Sources close to Ms Gray still insist all her findings will be made public.
What could happen next – and who decides?
The Gray inquiry does not have the remit of a parliamentary or independent inquiry – such as the one into the Grenfell Tower fire or the forthcoming probe into the government’s handling of the pandemic.
This means that ultimately the Cabinet Office – and therefore the prime minister – has the final say.
“The key thing here is that the status of this inquiry is internal,” Catherine Haddon, senior fellow at the Institute for Government, told Sky News.
“It’s not a formal parliamentary, judge-led or watchdog inquiry, so it’s not the final word.”
She added: “However, there could be things in the report that are so explosive and damning that it causes a political crisis for the PM.
“And he would have to navigate that and get enough support to remain as leader.”
Internal disciplinary procedure could see officials fired
Although the inquiry is unlikely to rule over any law-breaking, particularly given the Met’s own investigation, it could find that government officials broke their own guidance.
“There are big gaps in what was the law at the time and what was considered guidance – or a reasonable excuse,” Ms Haddon says.
If civil servants who attended any parties are found to have breached the government’s guidance, it would then likely become an internal disciplinary matter, which could result in some being dismissed.
Read more: Which No 10 staff could lose their jobs over Sue Gray’s report?
“Ultimately it’s up to the cabinet secretary to deal with matters related to civil servants,” Ms Haddon adds.
But as this would be an internal HR investigation, it would not become public.
“Following the long-standing practice of successive administrations, any specific HR actions against individuals will remain confidential,” the terms of reference states.
Potential breach of ministerial code – but Johnson still decides
The inquiry could recommend that the prime minister may have broken the ministerial code, which requires all ministers to uphold “high standards of behaviour and propriety”.
Ms Gray could refer the matter to the PM’s ethics adviser Lord Geidt, but as the arbiter of the code, Mr Johnson would have to agree to such an investigation himself.
“Ultimately it’s the prime minister who decides on matters of the ministerial code – and that includes his own conduct,” Ms Haddon says.
Potential breaches of the code could revolve around his leadership, and whether he or his special advisers authorised any parties. His own individual behaviour may come into this, and whether he attended parties himself.
On several occasions in the House of Commons the PM has denied various gatherings took place, or that he knew they were happening.
If Ms Gray finds evidence to the contrary this could be seen as a breach of the code – as he would have misled the House.
Ministers found to have lied in the Commons usually resign, but this is only a matter of convention.
“There’s nothing automatic about it. It’s only convention – and he could stand against that,” Ms Haddon says.
Damning findings result in loss of confidence in PM
Although the remit of the Gray inquiry is limited, the findings could still prove difficult for Mr Johnson.
If Ms Gray finds that Mr Johnson knew the alleged parties took place – breaching guidance, his position could become untenable.
The inquiry could also find that there is not enough evidence for the gatherings to have been considered “work-related”, which gives those involved no reasonable excuse to have broken the rules.
“The key smoking gun here is whether what Sue Gray writes implies the prime minister knew about these gatherings all along,” Ms Haddon says.
“Because his initial approach was that he had assurances that they weren’t breaking the guidance. So that would be very explosive for him.”
She adds: “The other key thing here is how drunk people were. At some of the ones he’s admitted attending, they were ‘work events’, but there just happened to be drinks.
“If it ended up in drunken behaviour late into the night, it would be very difficult for him to say that was work.”
These sorts of findings could result in Tory MPs submitting letters of no confidence in Mr Johnson to the chair of the backbench 1922 committee, Sir Graham Brady.
Read more:
What would it take for Boris Johnson to be ousted by his own MPs?
How is the Met Police probe into Downing Street parties different from Sue Gray’s?
Often referred to as the “men in grey suits”, the committee is chaired by an executive committee of 18 members, who MPs can contact if they have lost confidence in the party’s leadership.
Conservative Party rules state that if 15% of Tory MPs (54) submit a no-confidence letter a leadership contest can be triggered.
This would result in a vote of no confidence, which the PM would need the support of 181 of his MPs to survive.
If Mr Johnson survived a challenge, he would be immune from another leadership contest for at least a year. If he didn’t, it would spark a leadership contest to replace him.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss are among the ministers touted as potential replacements.