Voices: The Partygate inquiry must not be derailed by the bluster of a known liar

On Wednesday, the former prime minister will be appearing in front of the Privileges Committee of the House of Commons to answer the allegation that he deliberately or recklessly misled the house, when denying that any breaches of the lockdown rules had occurred in respect of the parties that took place at 10 Downing Street during that period.

The last few days have been dominated by the assertions of his “friends” that the committee is a “kangaroo court” whose proceedings can be expected to be biased and should be treated as such.

This has been accompanied by claims that evidence will be produced that will entirely exonerate him, as it will show he only acted on advice.

Another subtext is that the entire proceedings against him are an unnecessary rigmarole orchestrated by political opponents who wish unfairly to do him down and the whole thing can be treated as a mere sideshow. The committee should not be deflected from its task by irrelevant bluster.

It’s a central feature of Johnson’s career that he has a unique capacity to sully everything he touches.

Throughout the Brexit referendum campaign he was arguing that membership of the EU undermined the sovereignty of parliament.

One of his key selling points has been the restoration of “traditional governance”. But when the standards which are essential to the functioning of that governance might act to his disadvantage, he is quite happy to trash them.

The reality is that, because of its independence, the House of Commons has to be self-regulating of the conduct of its members, or the principles of the Bill of Rights of 1689 would be infringed.

That means that it must be a committee of his fellow MPs who have to consider the allegations against him, as no other body or individual can do so.

This inevitably can raise issues of impartiality, but they are not insurmountable and the committee has access to expert legal and procedural advice.

Its composition reflects that of the House and it has a majority of Conservative MPs who then elect the chair. But as I saw when I was myself a member of the committee, party political allegiances should and do count for nothing on it.

The committee’s responsibility is to ensure that the “privileges” of the Commons are maintained and not abused.

The privilege of freedom of speech, which is central to the working of parliamentary democracy, has to be matched within the Commons by MPs, and particularly ministers of the Crown, not deliberately misleading their colleagues.

The Commons in session has the powers and privileges of a court and should be treated with respect and not contempt.

Knowingly misleading the Commons has long been held to be a particularly serious contempt and this is reflected in the Ministerial Code.

Johnson’s version of the code issued in 2019 speaks of the “importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister.”

The issues raised by Partygate have not arisen in isolation. It has become very noticeable in recent years that ministers have been making factually inaccurate statements to the Commons and not bothering to correct the record afterwards, despite the rules of the house and the Ministerial Code.

In the case of Johnson, examples include claiming that all Covid-related contracts were “on the record” when a High Court judge had just found as a fact that they were not and had been concealed from the public. Away from parliament he has been shown repeatedly to be a liar.

In September 2019 he used the resources of government to peddle lies to smear opponents, alleging that some MPs were to be subject to a Cabinet Office investigation for colluding with foreign powers when no such investigation was taking place or even contemplated as there was no basis for it.

The MPs on the Privileges Committee therefore face an important task. They must show by their conduct that they are acting impartially and they must give Johnson a fair hearing, listen to his defence and come to their conclusion solely on the evidence.

But the allegations against Johnson are not just some issue of political theatre. They are very serious in respect of the standards to be expected from those who govern us. The committee should not be deflected from its task by irrelevant bluster.

Dominic Grieve is a former Conservative MP who served as attorney general from 2010 to 2014