Rethink the partygate inquiry, say Truss allies

MPS likely to accept legal advice from QC criticising the procedure as ‘flawed and wrong in principle’

The partygate inquiry into Boris Johnson could be watered down in the early days of a Liz Truss government, The Daily Telegraph has learnt. The Prime Minister has received legal advice from Lord Pannick QC declaring the investigation’s approach “fundamentally flawed”. Several allies of Ms Truss, who are tipped for positions in her Cabinet if she wins the Tory leadership race, called for a rethink of the terms of the privileges committee’s investigation.

THE Boris Johnson partygate inquiry could be watered down in the early days of a Liz Truss government, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

The Prime Minister has received legal advice from Lord Pannick QC declaring the investigation’s approach “fundamentally flawed” and “wrong in principle”. The advice, commissioned by the Cabinet Office, says MPS on the privileges committee are “proposing to adopt an unfair procedure” by refusing Mr Johnson’s request to have legal representation and by allowing evidence from anonymous witnesses. It adds that were which immune inquiry subjected Last it night, not would makes to from for a it judicial be parliamentary emerged legal declared such review. challenge, proceedings that “unlawful” privilege, the legal the if advice Guardian was awarded cost uncovered the to taxpayer Peters the and £129,700. contract Peters that The last month. to complete They the instructed work. Lord Pannick

Several key allies of Ms Truss, who are tipped for positions in her Cabinet if she wins the Tory leadership race on Monday, launched fresh attacks on the privileges committee’s inquiry in the wake of the advice and called for a rethink of the terms of its investigation.

A group of backbench Tories, who are pushing for a vote to abandon the inquiry altogether, believe Lord Pannick’s legal advice will convince fellow MPS to back their motion.

The privileges committee is examining whether Mr Johnson misled the

Commons when he said “all guidance was followed in No10” and that there was “no party” in Downing Street during lockdown. It had initially been assumed that MPS would have to prove that Mr Johnson had “deliberately misled” the Commons over the extent of parties in No10 during the pandemic.

This was based on the language used in Erskine May, the “bible” of parliamentary procedure, which states that “the making of a deliberately misleading statement [is seen] as a contempt”.

But when the committee published its motion in June, it only referred to whether Mr Johnson had “misled the

House”, lowering the burden of proof. Mark Spencer MP, the leader of the House, said it would be “completely possible” to find parliamentary time to debate a motion that aimed to water down or even scrap the inquiry entirely.

“If the investigation goes ahead in its current form democracy will be the loser,” he added. “It really is a very important constitutional issue if you can be accused of misleading the House when you clearly did not intend to – it will change the approach of ministers and their openness.”

Jacob Rees-mogg, the Brexit Opportunities minister and a Truss ally, said last night that the inquiry was “absurd”.

“Parliament, though its proceedings are exempt from judgment in a court outside Parliament... has to behave in a legally proper way. Those who make the law might like to abide by the law.”

Nadine Dorries, the Culture Secretary, who is expected to remain in post in a government led by Ms Truss, said the legal opinion “shows that the inquiry was a biased, Kafkaesque witchhunt” and called for it to be “halted now before it does any more damage”.

An early-day motion calls for the privileges committee’s inquiry to be “discontinued” given Mr Johnson’s stated intention to resign.

David Jones, a former minister and signatory to the motion, said discussions were likely to take place “early next week” with fellow MPS about how best to thwart the inquiry, adding: “It may well be that there will be an early parliamentary procedure.

“Given the issues that have been raised and given the fact that there was already concern about the procedure, I think the matter identified in the [legal] opinion should be put before the House at an early time. I have no doubt that a lot of my colleagues would agree.” Ms Truss is “aware of the issue” but “is not going to commit herself ” to action at this stage, one of her senior allies said.