Boris Johnson could be ordered to testify under oath when lawmakers begin a new investigation into allegations he made about Partygate.
The Privilege Committee is expected to begin its investigation next month and will aim to issue a verdict in the fall on whether Johnson tricked parliament. Sessions are likely to be held in public, to try to limit possible criticism of the group’s work and to avoid any accusation of “cover-up”.
A call for evidence may also be established before the summer holidays, so that persons, including potential whistleblowers working at No. 10, may present any testimony or evidence.
The committee will not try to re-investigate the extent of Covid’s breach of the law in Downing Street, which was the subject of the Scotland Yard and Whitehall consultations, but will focus on whether Johnson deceived MPs.
Challenged to the Commons over initial party reports at No. 10 last December, the Prime Minister has repeatedly denied that strict blocking rules had been breached. “All guidelines were fully followed at No. 10,” he told the Commons on Dec. 1. One week later, Johnson said, “Since these allegations arose, I have been repeatedly assured that there was no party and that no Covid rule had been broken.”
As part of the investigation, sources said Johnson would likely be summoned to testify under oath given the seriousness of the charge against him. The ministerial code says that “those who deceive parliament knowingly will have to submit their resignation to the prime minister.”
The step of requiring a witness to testify under oath before a parliamentary committee is not unprecedented, but it is rarely used. The Parliamentary Witness Oaths Act provides that the oath is administered by the chairman or secretary of the committee, and any false evidence carries the penalty of perjury.
After criticizing the handling of Met and Sue Gray’s inquiries, a source said about the privilege committee’s investigation: “Adults are responsible now.”
Whitehall experts believe some evidence that Gray decided not to publish, such as more photographs of the dozen parts investigated, could be published by the privileges committee. Senior Conservative MPs have tried to discredit the privileged committee’s possible findings, alleging that Labor MP Harriet Harman, who is expected to run for president during the investigation, has made biased comments against Johnson.
This week, Michael Ellis, the paying attorney general, said it was “an ancestral principle of natural justice that no one should be a judge in their own court” and that “when an individual has given a view on guilt or innocence of any person, then they should not judge that person ”.
He added: “I have no doubt that the great honorable lady will take this into account.”
Labor has called the push a government effort to “dodge scrutiny and get Johnson off the hook.”
Following the shameful resignation of his ethics adviser, Christopher Geidt, for threatening to break the ministerial code, the prime minister was urged not to leave the post permanently vacant. Abolishing the charge would be “a big mistake,” said John Penrose, a Conservative MP who recently resigned as the government’s anti-corruption tsar.
He added: “I think one of the reasons why it’s important to have some continuity, why it’s important to have – if not a precise replacement, then an effective succession here – is to make sure you don’t leave out really harmful questions. and that anything that is exceptional is not only forgotten and lost. “
Sign up for First Edition, our free daily newsletter, every weekday morning at 7:00 BST
Penrose said Johnson was “currently overwhelmed, so to speak, on his own account with both voters and the parliamentary party” and that the number 10 had to prove he was “serious” in addressing their concerns.
Downing Street defended his review of the role of ethics adviser, saying the prime minister would receive advice from members of the No. 10, as well as “other people with experience in the field.”
“The Prime Minister may decide to make a similar replacement, or we may create a different body to perform the same functions,” said a 10th spokesman.
They refused to commit to the review being completed within a year, saying, “I would not be on time.”