There’s no precedent for that:
The Treasury’s spending rulebook says its consent should always be sought for costs “which set precedents, are novel, contentious or could cause repercussions elsewhere in the public sector”.
The BBC asked the Cabinet Office if this would apply to Mr Johnson’s legal bills, in a freedom of information (FOI) request. We were told the Treasury was not required to approve all spending decisions.
The contract to hire Mr Johnson’s legal team - led by top barrister Lord Pannick KC - was signed last August, shortly before he was forced to resign as prime minister.
It was this week extended for the third time, rising in value from £222,000 to £245,000.
The Cabinet Office and a source close to Mr Johnson argued there is a long-standing precedent that former ministers are supported with legal representation.
But former senior civil servants disputed this, telling the BBC that it would not normally apply to parliamentary inquiries, like the one into Mr Johnson.
“Payment of legal fees to the former prime minister in these circumstances would seem to set a precedent and is certainly contentious, so looks on the face of it to meet the test to require Treasury approval,” said Alex Thomas, a former top civil servant and director of the Institute for Government think tank. I’m surprised that the payments were made at all - but also that they were signed off in this way."
A former permanent secretary also said they were surprised that Treasury approval wasn’t sought.
“I would have regarded this as novel and contentious,” the former senior civil servant said. “The whole situation is highly unusual, if not unique. It’s just the sort of situation that Treasury cover is needed for.”
The last former minister to be investigated by a parliamentary committee for misleading Parliament was former Labour MP and transport secretary Stephen Byers in 2005. During the four-month inquiry, Mr Byers appeared in front of MPs to give evidence, as Mr Johnson did in March this year.
But unlike Mr Johnson, Mr Byers did not have any legal representation - taxpayer funded or otherwise - during the parliamentary inquiry, nor was he offered any by the government.
More recently, Dominic Raab, the former deputy prime minister, paid his own legal fees during a bullying inquiry.
It seems that “The Cabinet Office” has assumed remarkable powers in the last few years, including not only the unauthorised payment of taxpayers money to a former minister under inquiry but also, as we found out today, the arbitrary right to withhold evidence about that former minister from the inquiry under which he is being investigated.
Now that the “approved” lawyers have been dismissed by BJ, there’s no reason, let alone precedent, for the taxpayer to foot the bill for his expensive “unapproved” lawyers.
BJ, of course, would prefer that someone else pays his expenses - AFAIK, he still living, courtesy of Lady Carole Bamford, the wife of Tory donor Lord Bamford (JCB), rent-free, in a £20million property in Knightsbridge, West London, round the corner from Harrods.
Johnson, who has earned £millions since being forced out of Number 10, estimates, for the purpose of Parliamentary expenses, that the gift from Lady Bamford is worth £10,000 a month but a similar home is being offered for rent for £30,000.
If BJ can get some to foot his bills then he does and keeps his own in his pocket.
