Conservative MP Sir Christopher Chope has been put forward to join the privileges committee inquiry investigating whether Boris Johnson misled parliament over the Partygate saga.
Mr Chope – the backbencher best known for obstructing bills to ban upskirting and tackle female genital mutilation (FGM) – would replace fellow Tory MP Laura Farris, who stepped down from the privileges committee probe.
In one of the final acts of Mr Johnson’s government, Mr Chope was nominated to replace Ms Farris through a vote in the Commons at 7pm in Tuesday. Such moves are usually put though “on the nod” in the chamber.
Mr Johnson – who complained about his removal during his final speech as PM on Tuesday – has scrambled to push back against the terms of the committee inquiry in recent days.
He commissioned advice from top lawyer Lord Pannick QC criticising the Commons investigation – counsel which reportedly cost the taxpayer nearly £130,000.
Jess Phillips, Labour’s shadow minister for domestic violence said the attempt to put Mr Chope on the inquiry was inappropriate – saying he is “not a man I would rely on to be on the standards committee”.
Mr Chope was heavily criticised for obstructing an anti-FGM bill in 2019 – described as an “embarrassment” to “party and humanity” by leading anti-FGM campaigner Nimco Ali, a friend of Mr Johnson.
Sir Christopher blocked the bill tabled by crossbench peer to allow courts to issue protection orders if a child is at risk of FGM, arguing that private members’ bill are not the proper way to legislate because they lack proper scrutiny.
The previous year Sir Christopher blocked the upskirting prevention bill, which was later adopted as a governmental bill, for the same stated objections.
Ms Phillips told The Guardian: “He tried to derail legislation that would criminalise taking pictures up women’s skirts. Why would anyone think he was appropriate?”
She added: “Frankly the Conservatives’ attempt to force him on to the committee shows that no matter who their leader is they will always rely on their mates to get them out of upholding the standards that the country would expect. Same old Tories.”
In legal advice published by the government last week, Lord Pannick said the terms of the committee’s inquiry were “unfair” and could be ruled “unlawful” by courts.
The QC said the privileges committee had failed to make a clear distinction between whether Mr Johnson intentionally or unintentionally misled MPs by saying he was not aware of rule-breaking parties.
Outgoing culture secretary Nadine Dorries Mr Johnson’s most loyal ally, said Lord Pannick’s views showed “that the inquiry was a biased, Kafkaesque witch-hunt”.
But senior Labour MP Chris Byrant said it was “very odd” for Lord Pannick to attempt “to tell the House of Commons what to do”, suggesting the advice was “completely misleading or misjudged”.
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has made clear that he could face a recall petition, which could trigger a by-election, if he is suspended by MPs at the conclusion of the inquiry set to begin in autumn.
For any recall petition to be successful it requires 10 per cent of registered voters in a constituency to sign the petition. The committee has suggested one could be set up in the “hypothetical” scenario that Mr Johnson is suspended for 10 days.
