Laura Faris said the “context had changed dramatically” since Johnson was replaced as prime minister by Liz Truss – questioning the need to investigate his comments about No 10 rallies during the Covid crisis. Ms Faris revealed she decided to recuse herself from the cross-party privilege committee inquiry because the ministerial code “doesn’t apply” to Mr Johnson after he stepped down as prime minister. In her first interview since resigning, speaking before the Queen’s death, she told The Telegraph’s latest political podcast: “I left because I had realized that we were really dealing with this ministerial code thing.” The MP for Newbury added: “And of course he’s no longer Prime Minister, so the ministerial code doesn’t apply.” Ms Farris argued that MPs should vote again on whether to drop the inquiry, saying there was “a reasonable argument that the House should be asked again what its view is on this matter”. He added: “If there was a debate, people would make arguments, maybe different arguments. I think it may be right that there should be room for the House to reconsider the matter before it goes to the next stage.’ However, the committee made it clear that the investigation will continue. “Our inquiry, however, is about whether Parliament was misled and political developments have nothing to do with that,” the cross-party group said. Ms Truss’s government rejected Mr Johnson’s plans to appoint controversial Tory MP Sir Christopher Chope – best known for overturning MPs’ legislation – as Ms Farris’s replacement. Shortly before leaving No 10, Mr Johnson also commissioned legal advice from Lord Pannick – at a reported cost of £130,000 – who claimed the terms of the commission’s inquiry were “unfair” and could be deemed “unlawful” by the courts. The lead QC argued that the privilege committee failed to make a clear distinction between whether Mr Johnson deliberately or inadvertently misled MPs by saying he was not aware of parties breaking the rules. The Allies have questioned whether he “deliberately” misled parliament during the Partygate saga. But his “intent” is not relevant to deciding whether he is in contempt, the panel made clear. The committee’s terms of reference state that whether the Prime Minister “deliberately” misled Parliament “may become one of the key issues of the inquiry”. But it is not necessarily critical to decide whether he was in contempt of parliament. Senior Labor MP Chris Bryant – who stood down from the privilege committee inquiry because of his previous criticism of Mr Johnson – said it was “very strange” for Lord Pannick to try “to tell the House of Commons what to do ». Nadine Dorries, Mr Johnson’s staunchest ally, claimed Lord Pannick’s views showed “that the inquiry was a biased, Kafkaesque witch hunt”.
