For these vindictive inquisitors, young civil servants are simply collateral damage

IS it any wonder that Downing Street officials have been referred to counselling, after being ‘bullied’ by the Parliament’s Privileges Committee inquiry into whether Boris Johnson lied to the Commons? This is the third Partygate inquiry in a year, following exhaustive investigations by Sue Gray of the Cabinet Office and the Metropolitan Police.

Now the civil servants involved face yet another interrogation on oath by a committee dominated by MPs hostile to their ex-boss.

The parliamentary inquiry is led by the Labour veteran Harriet Harman, who is anything but impartial as she has already accused Mr Johnson of lying to Parliament over parties at No10.

Officials have told The Mail on Sunday that Miss Harman and her committee are demanding evidence that they gave in confidence to Ms Gray. They are understandably concerned that they will be identified and cross-examined in public without the protections that apply in a court of law.

Many of these civil servants are in their 20s. Do these young people deserve to have their careers blighted by bullying bigwigs in the Commons?

Inside and outside Westminster, the committee’s investigation is seen as an unprecedented power-grab by self-important and in some cases vindictive MPs to hound a former Prime Minister long after his resignation in July.

Miss Harman, who celebrated 40 years as an MP last month, cannot wait to crown her career by playing the part of a grand inquisitor, while others on the committee hope its public hearings will receive the kind of publicity enjoyed by US Congressional inquiries.

The Privileges Committee would have us believe that Partygate really is a scandal on the scale of Watergate.

YET there is simply no comparison between the American affair, which involved serious crimes and destroyed the presidency of Richard Nixon, and the minor breaches of Covid regulations at No10, which resulted in a handful of fixed penalty notices. In the eyes of Miss Harman’s committee, the ordeal of a few civil servants is mere collateral damage, all in the cause of ruining the reputation of Mr Johnson – the man who had a landslide election win and delivered Brexit. To partisan politicians in pursuit of a big beast, the end justifies any means.

But there is real concern among insiders that Downing Street could be on the verge of another tragedy such as that which befell Dr David Kelly – the official expert who was found dead in 2003 after being driven to despair over his conflicted role in the Iraq War.

At the heart of this investigation is the question of whether Mr Johnson misled Parliament over what he knew and when he knew it. The inquiry was set up last February, without a vote, at the behest of the Opposition parties. After Mr Johnson resigned, the inquiry looked redundant, several members stood down and there was pressure to scrap it. But his enemies have kept the show on the road.

Even as the former PM considered a comeback last month, one of his fiercest Tory critics, the backbench MP Sir Charles Walker, was being recruited to join the committee.

After the scope of the inquiry became clear, the Government commissioned a legal opinion from Lord Pannick KC and barrister Jason Pobjoy. They concluded that the committee’s approach was ‘flawed’ and ‘wrong in principle’, while its procedure was ‘unfair’. In particular, they highlighted the committee’s view that it was ‘not necessary’ to prove that the then Prime Minister intended to mislead the House in order to convict him of contempt of Parliament – an offence that could be punished by exclusion and a recall petition, resulting in a by-election.

In present circumstances, almost any Conservative must expect to lose a by-election, and Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Mr Johnson’s seat, is a marginal.

Equally important for Lord Pannick were the lack of any legal safeguards. It would be unfair on Mr Johnson, he wrote, for him to be condemned on evidence from anonymous witnesses. He argued that they should be cross-examined by legal counsel representing Mr Johnson.

Lord Pannick’s critique reinforced the impression that the committee was nothing more than a kangaroo court.

Now it is caught in a dilemma: the witnesses – mainly Downing Street officials – do not wish to be identified, let alone crossexamined. They may refuse to testify. In theory, the committee can force witnesses to appear before it. But that would be seen by the public as bullying – and rightly so.

The witnesses are mostly young civil servants who have committed no crime, not even those who were issued with fines by the police.

Why should they be dragged before Miss Harman and her fellow inquisitors to give evidence about an issue in which almost everyone else has long since lost interest?

Mr Johnson himself will say, quite legitimately, that he apologised to the House for misleading it at the earliest opportunity, given that there were ongoing inquiries by Ms

Gray and the police. No prime minister can be blamed for following the legal advice he received at the time.

This unnecessary inquiry will end up costing thousands of man-hours and millions of pounds. It is a transparent attempt to drum Mr Johnson – whom Labour still sees as its most dangerous opponent – out of politics altogether.

What gives the whole unedifying spectacle a sinister, even

It is nothing more than a kangaroo court

The coercion of junior officials by ambitious politicians

McCarthyite twist, however, is the coercion of junior officials by ambitious politicians for their own cynical purposes.

Do MPs, already low in public esteem, wish to be responsible for a trumped-up witch-hunt?

If not, the House of Commons should tell its Privileges Committee to stand down without delay.