Advertisement

Exclusive: Boris Johnson faces ‘kangaroo court’ over inquiry into partygate ‘lies’, No 10 fears

Downing Street sources have questioned the integrity of the investigation into whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament - Violeta Santos Moura/Reuters
Downing Street sources have questioned the integrity of the investigation into whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament - Violeta Santos Moura/Reuters

The inquiry into whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament over partygate risks becoming a "kangaroo court", Downing Street sources have claimed.

On Wednesday, allies of the Prime Minister accused the House of Commons' privileges committee of relying on “hearsay evidence”, after MPs ruled that witnesses will be granted anonymity.

They also questioned why Harriet Harman has been allowed to chair the investigation, which could determine Mr Johnson's fate as Prime Minister, despite the Labour grandee suggesting as recently as April that Mr Johnson had lied.

By questioning the integrity of the investigation, it is likely that Downing Street is preparing to challenge any negative findings made by the committee. It also raises the prospect that the Prime Minister would refuse to resign if he is found to have misled Parliament.

Downing Street is already pressing the MPs to allow Mr Johnson to question witnesses, to take legal advice and be heard in person when hearings get under way this autumn.

On Wednesday, the committee started work on examining whether Mr Johnson "misled" MPs over parties in Downing Street during the Covid-19 lockdowns.

If the MPs decide Mr Johnson has knowingly lied to the Commons and he is suspended from the House, it will almost certainly trigger another confidence vote in his leadership.

The news came as Mr Johnson refused three times to say whether he was planning a snap election this year, amid speculation a vote could be called if Sir Keir Starmer is forced to resign as Labour leader over a beer and curry evening during lockdown.

The privileges committee said it had started work on examining whether Mr Johnson “misled the House” when he insisted that "all guidance was followed in Number 10" and that there was "no party" in Downing Street during the Covid lockdowns.

The committee – comprising seven MPs, four Tories, two Labour and one from the SNP – wanted evidence of "Mr Johnson’s knowledge of the activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid-19 regulations, from the occurrence of those events until now”, as well as “any briefing given to, or inquiries made by, Mr Johnson relating to those events".

The committee also "confirmed it would be willing to take oral or written evidence from people who wish to remain anonymous" before July 29, raising the prospect of former or current colleagues of Mr Johnson giving evidence against him.

Even though a report by Sue Gray, the senior civil servant, on Downing Street parties kept identities of witnesses secret, one No 10 source said it would be difficult for Mr Johnson to challenge anonymous evidence which effectively could be hearsay.

The insider said: "How can a 'defendant' question/cross-examine anonymous evidence?"

An MP friend of Mr Johnson added: "It is bonkers. Going on hearsay evidence of it is not in the spirit of it. How can you interrogate someone who has not turned up? If you don’t trust the process, how can you trust the result? It is a disservice to the House of Commons."

The appointment of Ms Harman – after Labour's Chris Bryant stepped aside to ensure fairness, because of his previous criticism of Mr Johnson – is also a concern.

The Telegraph disclosed this month how Ms Harman, 71, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, had in social media messages suggested that Mr Johnson had misled MPs over the illegal parties.

Questions have been asked of Harriet Harman's role in the privileges committee investigation - Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament
Questions have been asked of Harriet Harman's role in the privileges committee investigation - Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament

The privileges committee is being advised by Sir Ernest Ryder, the former High Court judge, whose report into the way MPs are policed was published in March.

No 10 is hoping that Sir Ernest's recommendations are adopted by the privileges committee.

He had said that MPs under investigation should be given "the opportunity to take legal advice and have legal assistance (as distinct from legal representation) throughout the process".

They should also be given the "opportunity to comment on the evidence that is relevant and to identify other relevant evidence or witnesses", he added, as well as "the opportunity to comment on the draft memorandum before it is submitted to the committee".

MPs should also be given the "opportunity to be heard in person by the committee, the opportunity to suggest questions that may be asked of other witnesses (orally or on paper), in particular in the circumstance where facts are not agreed and credibility and/or reliability may be in issue", he said.

In addition, Sir Ernest argued that MPs should be given "the opportunity to attend all meetings of the committee at which evidence is given and to receive transcripts of evidence".

A No 10 spokesman said: “The Prime Minister will assist the committee in their inquiries, and looks forward to the matter coming to a prompt conclusion.

"Throughout the Covid pandemic, the Prime Minister has sought to inform Parliament of the facts to the best of his knowledge at the time, and corrected the record if this was not the case as new information came to light.”