Share this post:

Boris Johnson is back – not because of anything he has done in government – he was thrown out of that in disgrace three years ago – but because of what he has been doing since.

An investigation by The Guardian has revealed that the former prime minister has been using his taxpayer-funded “Public Duty Costs Allowance” (PDCA) to bankroll an operation that appears designed to profit from contacts he gained while in office.

The revelations come from a huge leak of documents now known as the Boris Files. They include almost 2,000 emails, invoices, contracts, and spreadsheets from his private office covering a period between September 2022 and July 2024.

The documents paint a picture of a man who wasted no time in turning public service into private profit, blurring the lines between what is permitted and what is prohibited once an MP who has been prime minister leaves high office.

And, because of the way the system works, he seems to have done it all while taxpayers funded his staff and office infrastructure.

What is the Public Duty Costs Allowance?

The PDCA was introduced in 1991 after Margaret Thatcher left office. Its aim was to give former prime ministers up to £115,000 per year to cover the costs of carrying out duties that arise specifically because of their former role in public life.

That means paying for office staff, correspondence, and occasional public appearances connected to their continuing status.

It is not meant to be a slush fund for private companies or business interests.

Since leaving Downing Street in September 2022, Johnson has claimed around £182,000 under the scheme, and official records confirm that the money has gone to pay the salaries of staff working in what he calls the Office of Boris Johnson – a limited company he set up within weeks of resigning as prime minister.

But what has the Office of Boris Johnson been doing? The answer to that is the reason the company is now at the centre of a storm.

What are the Boris Files?

The Boris Files come from a cache of sensitive material covering Johnson’s activities over almost two years. They reveal:

• Speaking fees: Since leaving Downing Street, Johnson has earned about £5.1 million from 34 speeches delivered around the world. Each typically brought in hundreds of thousands of pounds, with clients covering business-class flights and five-star hotels for him and his aides. This would be fine, as long as he did not use public money to support this in any way.

• Foreign contacts: He appears to have lobbied a senior Saudi official on behalf of a firm he co-chairs, raising questions about whether he has been using connections made in government for private gain.

• Controversial meetings: In one case, he met Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro. Soon afterwards, Johnson received more than £200,000 from a hedge fund – an arrangement that has drawn immediate scrutiny.

Here’s where it all becomes questionable:

• Blurring the lines: By running his private business through the Office of Boris Johnson Ltd – while simultaneously claiming taxpayer funds for the staff who keep it running – Johnson may have mixed public subsidy with private profiteering.

• Using contacts from time in office: It is not unusual for former prime ministers to cash in on the lecture circuit. Tony Blair, David Cameron and Theresa May have all done it. But the rules are supposed to prevent former ministers using contacts from their time in office to lobby foreign governments or business organisations. That is exactly what Johnson now stands accused of doing.

Who is investigating?

The body responsible for monitoring these activities is the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba).

This organisation exists to stop former ministers and civil servants from using their time in government to line their pockets afterwards. It can give advice, set restrictions on what jobs can be taken, and investigate breaches.

And it is already looking into Johnson’s activities. A spokesperson confirmed:

“We are currently looking at the information reported in The Guardian. Acoba has already investigated and reported breaches of the business appointment rules by Mr Johnson. Where there is evidence of further non-compliance, we will investigate.”

This is not Johnson’s first clash with the watchdog.

Previously, he was reprimanded for failing to seek proper clearance before accepting roles and speaking fees.

The Boris Files suggest a pattern of behaviour – one in which rules are treated as no more than obstacles to be ignored.

Political reaction

Senior figures from across the political spectrum are calling for Johnson’s allowance to be suspended until the investigation is complete.

• Margaret Hodge, the Labour peer and former chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said Johnson appeared to be acting “with complete impunity” and called for a full investigation. She added: “Boris Johnson is prepared to break the ethical standards of behaviour we all sign up to as public servants.”

• Sarah Olney, Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesperson, said: “These allegations are extremely shocking. The government must suspend Boris Johnson’s access to the former prime minister Public Duty Cost Allowance pending a full and proper investigation.”

• Labour MPs Joe Powell and Lloyd Hatton also weighed in, describing the allowance as a privilege that should never become a subsidy for private business. Powell said: “Taxpayer money for former prime ministers should be treated as a privilege to support public service, not a subsidy for individuals’ business interests.” Hatton went further, warning that Johnson had “squandered public money on propping up his various business ventures and commercial interests”.

Why it matters

This scandal is not just about Boris Johnson. It raises bigger questions about:

1. The integrity of public office: If a prime minister can leave government on Friday and be lobbying foreign officials by Monday, what does that say about the value of ministerial standards?

2. Taxpayer money: Why should public funds bankroll a private office that may be operating as a business venture? If Johnson wants to run a consultancy, let him pay for it himself.

3. Weak enforcement: Acoba has no power to impose penalties beyond naming and shaming. As Margaret Hodge said, rules need “proper punitive sanctions” to be effective.

4. The revolving door: This is part of a wider pattern in which senior politicians treat public service as a launchpad for lucrative careers in finance, consultancy, and lobbying.

The Boris Files offer a rare window into how this operates in practice.

They show in black and white how the lines between public duty and private enrichment can be blurred – and how little the current system can do about it.

Vox Political‘s (interim) verdict:

Boris Johnson has always presented himself as a rule-breaker – someone who laughs at convention and gets away with it.

But the Boris Files reveal something more serious: a cynical politician who appears to have taken taxpayer support designed for public duty and used it to underpin a private money-making machine.

That is why senior politicians are now demanding that his up-to-£115,000-a-year allowance be suspended immediately.

That is why Acoba has launched a new investigation. And that is why the government may soon be forced to rethink how former prime ministers are funded after they leave office.

For the rest of us, the issue is simple: At a time when millions are struggling with the cost of living, we are apparently paying for a man who left office in disgrace to swan around the world in first-class seats and five-star hotels, cashing in on contacts he made in public service.

The question is not just whether Boris Johnson has broken the rules. It is whether the rules themselves are fit for purpose – and whether the political establishment has the courage to change them.

Until that happens, the revolving door will keep turning, and you and I will keep paying.

Share this post: