Boris Johnson warned he might lose Covid inquiry funding if he ‘undermines’ ministers
B
oris Johnson has been warned he might lose public funding for authorized recommendation if he tries to “frustrate or undermine” the Government’s place on the Covid-19 Inquiry.
Cabinet Office legal professionals instructed him that cash would “cease to be available” if he breaks situations resembling releasing proof with out permission, the Sunday Times reported.
Mr Johnson has been on the centre of a row as ministers launched a High Court bid to problem the inquiry’s demand for his unredacted WhatsApp messages and notebooks.
The former prime minister vowed to ship all his messages to the official investigation straight, circumventing the Cabinet Office.
The Sunday Times detailed a letter despatched by Cabinet Office legal professionals to Mr Johnson final week.
“The funding offer will cease to be available to you if you knowingly seek to frustrate or undermine, either through your own actions or the actions of others, the Government’s position in relation to the inquiry unless there is a clear and irreconcilable conflict of interest on a particular point at issue,” it stated.
They added that funding would “only remain available” if he complied with situations resembling sending the Cabinet Office “any witness statement or exhibit which you intend to provide to the inquiry so that it can be security checked by appropriate officials”.
The Cabinet Office stated the letter was “intended to protect public funds” so taxpayer-funded legal professionals usually are not used for every other function than aiding the inquiry.
Former tradition secretary Nadine Dorries, a staunch ally of Mr Johnson, stated it was “not a good look for the Government”.
“All evidence provided should be unfettered and not restricted by gov censorship – whatever form that may take,” she tweeted.
Tory donor Lord Cruddas, an outspoken backer of Mr Johnson, who handed him a peerage, urged the MP to not be “held to ransom” by the menace.
“Don’t worry @BorisJohnson I can easily get your legal fees funded by supporters and crowd funding, it’s easy,” he tweeted.
After the Government launched its authorized battle, Mr Johnson wrote to the inquiry’s chairwoman, Baroness Hallett, saying he was sending all of the unredacted WhatsApps he had given to the Cabinet Office.
He stated he wish to do the identical for the messages on an previous cellphone he was instructed to not use after it emerged the quantity had been obtainable on-line for 15 years.
That machine will probably be essential, containing discussions earlier than May 2021 together with across the three nationwide lockdowns he ordered.
Mr Johnson instructed the chairwoman that he was “not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it”.
The Cabinet Office missed Lady Hallett’s deadline set on Thursday at hand over the requested materials.
But the Government division has been attempting to withstand the publication of messages it believes are “unambiguously irrelevant”.
A Cabinet Office spokesman stated: “This letter from officials simply reiterates that taxpayer-funded lawyers must be used to aid the Covid inquiry and for no other purpose.
“The letter makes clear Mr Johnson has a duty to provide sincere witness to the inquiry independently and without reference to the views of the current Government.
“This letter was intended to protect public funds. It in no way prevents Mr Johnson from providing whatever evidence he wants to.”
Rishi Sunak may also come below scrutiny in the course of the inquiry into the response to the coronavirus pandemic, together with probably over his Eat Out to Help Out scheme to encourage diners again into eating places again in August 2020 – months earlier than the second nationwide lockdown.
John Edmunds, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine professor who suggested the Government on Covid-19 as a part of the Sage committee, stated the coverage launched by the Prime Minister when he was chancellor had not been mentioned with scientists.
Prof Edmonds instructed the Observer: “If we had (been consulted), I would have been clear what I thought about it.
“As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”