Terms of reference set by Labour NEC for investigation into leaked report – full text

JVL Introduction

So we have the terms of reference at long last.

Why on earth, when the NEC met on 23rd April last week, do we have to wait until one newly elected local party representative Johanna Baxter happened included the full text in her first NEC report five days later.

Why aren’t decisions like this routinely publicised immediately on the Labour Party website?

Why are members kept in the dark about basic decisions made by our leading body, the NEC?

 

This article was originally published by LabourList on Tue 28 Apr 2020. Read the original here.

Terms of reference set by Labour NEC for investigation into leaked report – full text

Labour’s ruling national executive committee last week agreed the terms of reference for the independent investigation announced by the leadership into the recently leaked report.

As NEC members used the meeting to amend the terms put forward by Keir Starmer, these changes had to be made to the text before it could be released more widely.

Newly elected local party representative Johanna Baxter included the full text in her first NEC report since being chosen by Labour members to sit on the ruling body at the beginning of April.

The NEC decided that the scope of the inquiry will cover the allegations in the report, its commissioning and how it was put into the public domain despite containing personal data.

The independent investigation will also look into the “structure, culture and practices” of the party, and the panel will be allowed to make recommendations where considered appropriate.

The probe will be led by an independent investigator, whose identity is as yet unknown. It will conclude with its own report, which Labour has said should be published by mid-July.

Below is the full text of the terms of reference as amended and agreed by the NEC.

The panel shall investigate and report on:

  1. The truth or otherwise of the main allegations in the report (the panel shall determine which are the most significant allegations which require investigation but they shall include the extent of racist, sexist and other discriminatory culture within Labour Party workplaces, the attitudes and conduct of the senior staff of the Labour Party, and their relationships with the elected leadership of the Labour Party);
  2. The background and circumstances in which the report was commissioned, written and circulated within the Labour Party, with its advisers and any other individuals external to the Labour Party, including the question of the purpose for which the report was commissioned and prepared, and the circumstances in which the report was put into the public domain; and
  3. The structure, culture and practices of the Labour Party organisation including the relationship between senior party staff and the elected leadership of the Labour Party, as the panel think appropriate having regard to their investigation as a whole.

And the panel shall make such recommendations as it considers appropriate concerning the organisation and structures of the Labour Party, arising out of its investigation, recognising that Labour Party structures are covered in rule.

This document was approved by a meeting of the national executive committee of the Labour Party held on 23 April 2020.

Comments (10)

  • rosemary challands says:

    well it looks like a stitch up really

  • Edward Hill says:

    Given a free hand, what will the panel choose as its “main allegations”? The main argument made by the report, and perhaps the reason for its commissioning, appears in the conclusion (page 849): “The “unwritten guidelines” from LOTO, which are referenced in the JLM submssion to the Commission’s investigation simply did not exist and all the evidence shows that LOTO could not exercise any authority over GLU.” The report is essentially a series of counter-allegations (against factional senior staff) in response to allegations (against the party leadership) made to the Equality and Human Rights Commission over who was to blame for the Labour Party’s failure to address antisemitism in the period 2015 to March 2018.
    Will the Panel opt to take on this issue, and if so will it support one of the opposing viewpoints, or will it offer an ‘on the one hand…on the other…’ compromise?

  • Doug says:

    Depends 9n who they choose to investigate
    Who do you trust
    Jennie, Karie or Len
    Michael, Craig or Chris
    A.N.Other

  • Douglas Thain says:

    What about Elected representatives who colluded with those identified in this document in undermining our elected leadership eg TOM Watson ?

  • David T says:

    The grasp of the English language by the NEC doesn’t exactly fill me with any confidence in Labour.

  • I would like to know how a senior management group were allowed to have so much power .They were able to infiltrate and work as a party within a party.Manipulating and destructive they helped to lose us the 2017 election. Why have those people not been suspended and sacked .They worked against the core objectives to win elections .Shame on the labour party.

  • Brian Lovett-White says:

    As a person whose name appears several times in the leaked document this is of great interest to me, though no longer a member of the Labour Party I expect to see maximum transparency in every aspect of this matter. It would at least make me feel that my past four years in the Labour Party have not been wasted however much sabotage took place and it might suggest who I can sue.

  • Dr ALAN MADDISON says:

    Have I missed something? Surely the most important revelations were,

    1. The deliberate undermining of the 2017 GE campaign facilitating a Tory victory with all the very serious consequences, including 30000 annual NHS underfunding deaths.

    2. Attempts to falsely blame Corbyn for the delays in dealing with antisemitism complaints, including lies to the media including the Panorama programme.

  • Mark Francis says:

    Call me old fashioned, naïve & simplistic but the bottom line should be this .
    If you are a member (or in this case an employee) of the Labour Party you work for, vote for and support the election of a Labour Government.
    If you write letters to the Guardian (Trevor Phillips) asking people not to vote Labour you leave the Party. If you an affiliated organisation (JLM) that agitates against voting Labour – you leave the Party.
    If anyone is any doubt about the principle behind this, then play for a football team and start kicking the ball at your own goal & see how the other players react. See what the crowd will say to you (so you can whine about how harassed you have been)

  • R Teece says:

    I feel sick knowing the Labour Party worked to get a Tory government in to power. It’s just disgusting I would like my membership money back how can any socialist party behave like this ?

Comments are now closed.