Feature: Vaz vs Boris
The full story of Boris Johnson’s clashes with Keith Vaz since the Green arrest.
By Jonathan Moore
Boris Johnson and Keith Vaz do not get on. But after Damian Green was arrested the two were forced to spend more time in each other’s company than they would have liked; Boris, as chairman of the Met, and Vaz as the chair of the home affairs committee looking into the case. There were, as you might have guessed, fireworks. Here, politics.co.uk lays it all out in the open.
November 27:
Damian Green is arrested and his home and parliamentary office are searched by police. Mayor Boris Johnson is informed of his impending arrest at about 1pm. He later admits he spoke to his friend Mr Green after his release on bail.
December 7:
The leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly, Len Duvall, files a formal complaint with the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) over the mayor’s contact with Mr Green.
December 18:
The Commons home affairs committee (HAC), of which Keith Vaz is the chairman, announces who it will speak to over the Damian Green affair in a list which includes the home secretary Jacqui Smith, Met assistant commissioner Bob Quick and Mr Johnson.
January 7:
The MPA and Greater London Authority (GLA) announce they will launch an investigation into the mayor’s behaviour during the Damian Green affair and whether he has broken the code of conduct.
January 28:
Having heard evidence from the home secretary the previous week, the committee is expecting to hear evidence from the mayor but he fails to turn up to the hearings. A mayoral spokesman says Mr Johnson is happy to co-operate with the committee but would not do so while under investigation by the MPA and GLA.
The Met also informs the committee it does not wish to give evidence in public about an ongoing police investigation but it does attend a private session and the committee decide Mr Quick should give evidence the following week.
Mr Vaz said: “We are disappointed that [the Met] feel unable to provide us with any answers at this point. We were also disappointed with the response from the mayor given his public expression of concern at the time of the arrest.
“The home secretary and permanent secretary gave evidence last week in regards to this inquiry and were extremely helpful in helping us understand the process of what happened.
“The mayor and assistant commissioner had significant roles to play in the circumstances which unfolded and we are asking again for them to appear next week.”
The conclusion of the committee’s press release reads, rather ominously: “The committee has the power to order the attendance of a witness if necessary.”
January 30:
Having spoken to the mayor, who is attending the Davos summit, Mr Vaz announces Mr Johnson will attend the public hearings.
Mr Vaz said: “I am delighted that the mayor and assistant commissioner will be giving evidence to the committee as part of this important inquiry into the policing process into home office leaks.
“I have spoken to the mayor in Davos and the issue of his attendance has now been dealt with.”
February 3:
Following a day of chaos in the capital after a heavy snowfall Mr Vaz informs City Hall the committee would understand if the mayor did not attend as he had “more pressing matters” to attend to.
The committee continues with its scheduled business on managed migration when Mr Johnson turns up regardless, intent on giving evidence and claiming that wild horses couldn’t keep him away. Following a ten minute recess to inform all interested parties of Mr Johnson presence, the committee hears his evidence.
Boris, in typically esoteric fashion, answers questions over the affair and informs the committee he had spoken to David Cameron the afternoon of the arrest during the Damilola Taylor memorial service at Southwark Cathedral. “Not only did I not have any valuable information, but I didn’t furnish him with it,” he adds.
Following the hearing Mr Johnson says he had made an error in his evidence and he remembered he had in fact spoken to Mr Cameron on the phone at noon on the day of the arrest. Were this the case, there was a chance Mr Johnson had informed Mr Cameron of the arrest prior to the event and someone in the Tory party may have tipped him off about his impending detainment by police.
Mr Vaz writes a letter warning he could be called to give evidence once more and asked him to clarify which state of events was accurate. He also gave Mr Johnson until noon the next day to decide whether “there are any further facts you wish to place before the committee”.
February 10:
Mr Johnson writes a letter to Mr Vaz confirming the time of the phone call to Mr Cameron was in fact 13:59 GMT.
February 12:
Reports and transcripts are published about a swear-filled rant by Mr Johnson during a phone conversation with Mr Vaz on February 4th. Mr Vaz allegedly took notes during the conversation and then passed them round to other members of the committee.
March 4:
The MPA and GLA find that Mr Johnson has not broken any rules of conduct over the Damian Green affair. The report notes his behaviour was “extraordinary and unwise”.
April 16:
The committee publishes its ruling on the affair and notes that despite the fact Mr Johnson was not broken any codes of conduct “his motives could have been misinterpreted”.
