UK - House of Commons Privileges Committee Partygate Inquiry poised to derail Tory Conference

Controversial: Politics & Govt Politics & Govt: In The News
, , , ,
21

The government’s chief whip has warned Conservative MPs not to comment on a probe into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs over Partygate.

A spokesperson for the committee said it had not “prejudged” any aspect of its inquiry, and the parliamentary officials advising it were politically impartial.

The cross-party committee has a Tory majority, but has found itself under fire from Conservative allies of the prime minister in recent days.

On Sunday, Johnson loyalist and Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said the “Machiavellian” inquiry was “the means to a by-election” and called on Tory MPs to “have no part in it”. “If this witch hunt continues, it will be the most egregious abuse of power witnessed in Westminster,” she added.

Environment Minister Lord Goldsmith, whom Mr Johnson made a peer in December 2019, said the inquiry was “clearly rigged” and an “obscene abuse of power”.

Backbench Tory MP Michael Fabricant also accused the committee of wanting to “get rid of Boris Johnson” and “changing the rules”.

But in an email to Tory MPs on Thursday, Chief Whip Chris Heaton-Harris said he would like to “remind” them that the committee was set up by a vote in the Commons, which also has to sign off any sanction recommended by the committee.

“May I urge caution against any further comments in the media about the Privileges Committee and especially its Clerk and Members,” wrote Mr Heaton-Harris, who is in charge of party discipline. Invariably these comments will be misinterpreted by those who do not wish to help us."

On Tuesday, one of the Tory MPs on the committee, Sir Bernard Jenkin, said the committee had a “duty” to carry out the inquiry and accused Ms Dorries of waging a “terrorist campaign to try and discredit the committee”.

Dorries has become a particularly NPOW, emulating her beloved PM in his use of lies and insinuation to hide the truth.

22

Johnson is consulting lawyers over the best way to approach the privileges committee inquiry, according to The Times.

23

Liz Truss has been warned against attempting to install an MP sympathetic to Boris Johnson on the inquiry examining whether he lied to parliament, amid concerns that the government is already trying to rein in the investigation.

It is understood that Truss, who is expected to be confirmed as the new prime minister on Monday , will have the power to put a new Tory MP on the privileges committee, which is investigating whether Johnson misled MPs over Downing Street lockdown parties.

She is being warned that any attempt to appoint an MP with connections to Johnson will be opposed by parliament and could lead to a repeat of the Owen Paterson sleaze scandal. Johnson’s bid to change Commons rules to protect Paterson from punishment over lobbying is seen by many MPs as marking the start of his demise.

The new prime minister and their chief whip will have the power to recommend a new Conservative member of the committee after Laura Farris, the MP for Newbury, resigned from it in the summer. Her resignation will be formally accepted when MPs return to the Commons this week.

It leaves Truss with a difficult decision about whether or not to replace Farris. Johnson and his allies have been highly critical of the inquiry. Truss has also emerged as the clear favourite for the leadership after winning their support. While she and her new chief whip can nominate an MP, she also has the option of leaving the post unfilled.

What will Dim do … :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

24

Lord Pannick, a lawyer hired by the government to examine the committee’s approach, called the investigation “fundamentally flawed”. In his legal advice, Lord Pannick warned that “the threat of contempt proceedings for unintentional mistakes would have a seriously chilling effect” on MPs.

The independent crossbench peer said the committee’s approach is inconsistent with past cases where intent was taken into account and the process would be deemed “unlawful” if it was tested in a court. He criticised the committee for taking evidence anonymously and said Mr Johnson should be told the details of the case against him.

The committee said Lord Pannick’s opinion was “founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law”. It rejected Lord Pannick’s call for Mr Johnson to be represented by a lawyer who would speak on his behalf and cross-examine witnesses. In a statement the committee, said it “does not have discretion to allow counsel to speak in a hearing and conduct cross-examination, and it would require a decision of the House to permit this”.

Back to the drawing-board, BJ … :grin: