Parliament’s standards commissioner has left the door open to launching an investigation into attempts by Boris Johnson’s allies to disparage the credibility of the Partygate inquiry. A high number of complaints are thought to have been made to Daniel Greenberg about comments by the former prime minister’s supporters that the inquiry into whether he misled parliament was a “kangaroo court” and “witch-hunt”. Several of Johnson’s most ardent backers have openly challenged the privileges committee’s political neutrality and work, which has been under way for nearly a year. Pressure is expected to ramp up in the coming months, as the seven MPs on the cross-party committee prepare to produce a report on whether Johnson misled parliament by repeatedly saying all Covid rules were followed in No 10.
Greenberg suggested in a letter, seen by the Guardian, that he was aware of existing concerns and had chosen not to act yet to avoid interfering with the privileges committee’s ongoing inquiry. He heads what is effectively the sleaze and standards watchdog – and has powers to investigate an MP if he believes they have committed a breach of the code of conduct. This week, he responded to those who contacted him to raise concerns about the language used by those disparaging the privileges committee. Greenberg said: “I am very conscious of the fact that the committee’s proceedings in the context of which these comments were made are still continuing.” He added: “I am anxious not to take any action at this time of a kind that might appear to cut across or interfere with the proceedings of the committee in any way (including any possible issue of contempt that the committee or the house might wish to raise).” Greenberg continued: “I am not proposing at this time to make a decision whether to open an investigation into whether the comments to which you refer amount to a breach of the House of Commons’ code of conduct.” However, he stressed: “I will continue to monitor the situation and reassess as and when appropriate.” Though some think that tarnishing the work of the privileges committee could constitute a separate contempt of parliament, this would have to be voted on by all MPs and would be challenging to see passed. Greenberg has greater powers to initiate an inquiry into a separate breach of the rules, though any finding he made would have to be examined by the standards committee and ultimately endorsed by the Commons. Complaints poured in to Greenberg’s office after Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, used a segment on her Talk TV on 24 March to claim: “I don’t think there was ever a world in which this committee was going to find Boris innocent. “The committee have demonstrated very clearly that they have decided early on to find him guilty.” Dorries went on to attack the “kangaroo court” and what she deemed its “disgraceful” conclusion – accusing it of having “changed the rules” and “lowered the bar” for finding against Johnson. Johnson continues to protest his innocence and faced a grilling by the committee last month over what he knew and was briefed about the extent of law-breaking gatherings in No 10.
He is the only witness who has been called to attend a hearing so far. A spokesperson for Johnson said he “fully respects the privileges committee and will consider their findings in due course”. When MPs on the committee decide no more oral evidence sessions are needed, they will press ahead with drawing up a report – but not until after the local elections and king’s coronation at the start of May. When a draft report is finalised, Johnson will get two weeks to respond to its conclusions. The committee will adjudicate on whether to clear him of misleading parliament, or find that he did so – either recklessly or deliberately. If it finds against him, there is expected to be a row over the terms of any potential sanction. A suspension from the Commons of 10 days would trigger a recall petition, which if signed by 10% of Johnson’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituents would result in a byelection. Johnson has already been readopted as the candidate in his current seat, where he has a majority of about 7,000. Some Tories think while it would be humiliating for him to be ousted in such a byelection, it would allow him to find a safer seat for the general election.