Boris Johnson will publish evidence in his defense before MPs ask him whether he misled Parliament about parties breaking Covid rules.
The former prime minister faces a crucial televised evidence session before the Commons’ Privileges Committee on Wednesday.
The committee has not yet published its final decision – but its initial update earlier this month said Mr Johnson had repeatedly misled Parliament.
Mr Johnson denied misleading MPs.
Wednesday’s session, which could last up to five hours, will be a key opportunity for Mr Johnson to convince the seven cross-party MPs who make up the committee that he did not mislead MPs in December 2021 – including when He told the Commons that he had been “repeatedly assured since the allegations came to light that there was no party and no covid rules had been broken”.
Sources close to Mr Johnson claim he will publish a “compelling document” which will provide evidence and arguments that he did not deliberately mislead Parliament.
In May last year, an inquiry by senior civil servant Sue Gray found widespread rule-breaking, and Mr Johnson was among 83 people fined by police for attending law-breaking events.
If he fails to convince the committee and is found guilty, he could be suspended from the Commons, and even face a recall petition, which would trigger a by-election. , if the suspension is for more than 10 days.
Crucially, however, MPs would have to approve any ban on Mr Johnson.
JEE News report that Mr Johnson’s “dossier” will include advice he claims he was given by No 10 aides at the time, advising him that the Covid rules was not broken.
JEE News quoted a source as saying the messages showed “in black and white” that what Mr Johnson told parliament was what he had been advised to say by officials and his No 10 team, claiming that they were forced to rely on counsel because they were not. in some cases.
The papers also said his defense could repeat allegations of bias leveled against former senior civil servant Sue Gray, whose inquiry found widespread rule-breaking in Whitehall during the Covid-19 pandemic. was
Sue Gray has since resigned and has been offered the job as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, prompting Boris Johnson’s allies, including his former cabinet colleagues Jacob Rees-Mogg MP and Nadine Includes Dorries MP.
The Labor Party has said it will give all information on its approach to this to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) – the government’s appointments watchdog.
But minister Jeremy Quinn has said his proposed move breached Whitehall rules, which require approval before announcing a job offer.
Downing Street sources said any sanctions against Mr Johnson would be a matter for the House of Commons and so MPs would be given a free vote – meaning they would not be “whipped” to vote a particular way. will
It means Tory MPs will not be asked to vote one way or the other, as they were on Owen Paterson’s proposed suspension in November 2021, when Mr Johnson was still prime minister.
The government tried to block Mr Patterson’s suspension from the Commons but, after a backlash, was later forced to make a U-turn. After that he resigned as Member of Assembly.
At the time, Mr Johnson came under fire from many of his own MPs for being asked to back Mr Paterson, amid accusations of “sleaze” from Labour. The first partygate stories broke just a few weeks later.
Paterson’s row was the beginning of the end for Mr Johnson’s time as Prime Minister, and Mr Johnson later admitted he had “crashed the car” while handling the case.
A spokesman for Mr Johnson said: “The Privileges Committee will endorse Boris Johnson’s position.
“The evidence will show that Boris Johnson did not deliberately mislead Parliament.”
Seven cross-party MPs on the Privileges Committee are investigating whether Mr Johnson misled Parliament over meetings on Downing Street during the Covid lockdown.
In interim findings earlier this month, the committee suggested that Mr Johnson had repeatedly misled Parliament, saying it had seen evidence that “strongly suggests” a breach of the Covid rule by Mr Johnson. would have been “obvious” to Johnson.
