Parliament’s sleaze watchdog has firmly rejected demands to call off its inquiry into Boris Johnson.
The House of Commons Privileges Committee dismissed a legal opinion obtained by the former PM’s supporters, which found the probe was unfair.
The cross-party panel said that it accepted the advice of Commons clerks and its own legal advisers that the opinion, drawn up by eminent barrister Lord Pannick, was “founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process”.
The decision blows a hole in Johnson’s hopes of avoiding a full-scale investigation this autumn into whether he lied to parliament over his knowledge of lockdown-breaching parties at 10 Downing Street.
If found to have misled the Commons, the former PM could face a suspension from parliament and even a recall petition to remove him from his Uxbridge seat.
Lord Pannick’s opinion, released shortly before Mr Johnson’s departure from No 10 earlier this month, suggested that the committee’s inquiry was unfair because the ex-PM would not be represented by lawyers and would not be able to cross-examine witnesses, as he would in a court hearing.
Pannick, who has acted against the government in high-profile cases, said it was wrong that the inquiry would take evidence from anonymous witnesses and warned that there would be a “chilling” effect on ministers’ willingness to provide information to parliament if Johnson was sanctioned for inadvertently misleading MPs.
Johnson-supporting Tory MP Michael Fabricant said at the time that the lawyer’s findings had exposed the committee inquiry as a “kangaroo court”.
But the committee rejected Pannick’s arguments in their entirety on the basis of what it said was “clear, impartial and unambiguous” advice from the clerks of the House, the Office of Speaker’s Counsel, and its own legal adviser, the appeal court judge Sir Ernest Ryder.
“The committee accepts the view of its impartial legal advisers and the clerks that Lord Pannick’s opinion is founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law,” they said in a statement.
In particular, the MPs rejected Lord Pannick’s suggestion that a fair procedure would have to allow Mr Johnson to be represented by a barrister would could speak on his behalf and cross-examine witnesses, which they said would be an “undesirable” change to parliamentary procedures.
”The House’s practice has been to allow witnesses to be accompanied by legal advisers whom they may consult, and to receive legal advice throughout an inquiry,” they said.
“The committee 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.”
They dismissed as “wholly misplaced and itself misleading” the idea that if Mr Johnson is reprimanded for misleading the Commons, this could have a chilling effect on future statements by ministers.
Today’s decision sets the scene for a high-stakes televised grilling of the former prime minister within the coming weeks by the committee, chaired by Labour’s Harriet Harman.
