MPs should hold a vote on whether to end the Partygate investigation into whether Boris Johnson mislead parliament, said the Tory MP who quit the inquiry.
Laura Farris said the “context had fundamentally changed” since Mr Johnson was replaced as prime minister by Liz Truss – questioning the need to probe his remarks on No 10 gatherings during the Covid crisis.
Ms Farris revealed that she had decided to step down from the cross-party privileges committee inquiry because the ministerial code “doesn’t apply” to Mr Johnson since his resignation as PM.
In her first interview since quitting, speaking before the Queen’s death, she told The Telegraph’s latest politics podcast: “I left because I had understood that we were really dealing with this issue of the ministerial code.”
The MP for Newbury added: “And of course he’s no longer the prime minister so the ministerial code doesn’t apply.”
Ms Farris argued that MPs should vote again on whether to ditch the inquiry, saying there was “a sensible argument that the House should be asked again what its view is of this issue”.
She added: “If there was a debate, people would be making arguments, maybe different arguments. I think it may be right that there is room for the House to consider the issue again before it goes to the next stage.”
However, the committee has made clear that investigation will still go ahead. “Our inquiry, however, is into the question of whether the House was misled, and political developments are of no relevance to that,” they cross-party group stated.
Ms Truss’s government has dumped Mr Johnson’s plans to appoint the controversial Tory MP Sir Christopher Chope – best known for thwarting backbencher MPs’ legislation – as Ms Farris’s replacement.
Shortly before leaving No 10, Mr Johnson also commissioned legal advice from Lord Pannick – at the reported cost of £130,000 – which claimed terms of the committee’s inquiry were “unfair” and could be ruled “unlawful” by courts.
The leader QC argued that the privileges committee had failed to make a clear distinction between whether Mr Johnson intentionally or unintentionally misled MPs by saying he was not aware of rule-breaking parties.
Allies have questioned whether he “deliberately” misled parliament during the Partygate saga. But his “intention” is not relevant in deciding whether he is in contempt, the committee has made clear.
The committee’s terms of reference state that whether the PM “deliberately” misled the House “may become one of the key issues of the inquiry”. But is not necessarily crucial is deciding whether he was in contempt of parliament.
Senior Labour MP Chris Bryant – who recused himself from the privileges committee inquiry over his previous criticism of Mr Johnson – said it was “very odd” for Lord Pannick to attempt “to tell the House of Commons what to do”.
Nadine Dorries, Mr Johnson’s most loyal ally, claimed that Lord Pannick’s commissioned views showed “that the inquiry was a biased, Kafkaesque witch-hunt”.
