Johnson fighting for survival
Boris Johnson is fighting for his political career after the committee investigating whether he misled MPs over lockdown parties said rule-breaking should have been ‘‘obvious’’ to the former prime minister.
The privileges committee yesterday published a 23-page document detailing four ways it believed Johnson had misled the House of Commons, potentially meaning he was in contempt of parliament.
One witness said Johnson told a crowded event at No 10 Downing
St in November 2020 that it was ‘‘probably the most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK’’, while an official told a colleague that worries about leaks regarding the ‘‘PM having a pissup’’ were not ‘‘unwarranted’’.
Other messages show aides struggling to fill ‘‘gaping’’ holes in Johnson’s story. The committee also published new photographs.
Although the committee has not yet discussed what sanction Johnson might face if it finds against him, senior parliamentary sources said the interim report was so strong that he could be suspended from the Commons for more than a month – meaning he could face a byelection.
Johnson launched a public fightback yesterday, claiming that the committee’s work ‘‘totally vindicates’’ him.
He also questioned whether Sue Gray, the civil servant who conducted an inquiry into the parties scandal last year, had a ‘‘political axe to grind’’. Gray quit the civil service on Friday to become chief of staff for Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer.
The privileges committee’s eventual verdict will have to be approved by the Commons. It means that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak may have to choose between ordering his MPs to support or oppose Johnson. A suspension of at least 10 days would leave Johnson facing a recall petition. If one in 10 voters in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency sign an official petition, he would be removed from office and there would be a by-election. Johnson said the document published by the committee contained ‘‘no evidence whatever that when I stood up in parliament, I said anything which I did not believe – and therefore there is no contempt’’. He added: ‘‘The reason there’s no evidence to show that I must have known or I must have believed that illegal events were taking place is because I didn’t.’’
The committee concluded that ‘‘the evidence strongly suggests that breaches of guidance would have been obvious to Mr Johnson at the time’’.
The committee said its work over the past 10 months had been slowed because the government had tried to withhold evidence.