Boris Johnson is facing a crunch vote in the House of Commons today as Labour attempts to pin the prime minister down for potentially misleading parliament. The opposition motion, if passed, would refer the PM to the privileges committee, which would then investigate his comments.
The motion, which was published yesterday, was written by Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, and signed by representatives of most other opposition parties. It centres around whether Boris Johnson misled parliament last year when he said "no covid rules were broken".
The Conservatives were set to vote against the motion, which, thanks to their large majority, would have scuppered it. However, Boris Johnson has u-turned on this, and will now allow his MPs a free vote.
Read more: Boris Johnson's partygate defence
It is therefore now likely to pass when it is voted on later today. But what would that mean?
What does the motion say?
Labour's motion reads as follows:
"That, this House
- "Notes that, given the issue of fixed penalty notices by the police in relation to events in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, assertions the Rt hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip [Boris Johnson] has made on the floor of the House about the legality of activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under covid regulations, including but not limited to the following answers given at Prime Minister’s Questions: 1 December 2021, that all guidance was followed in No. 10., Official Report vol. 704, col. 909; 8 December 2021 that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372; 8 December 2021 that I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372 and 8 December 2021 the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times, Official Report vol. 705, col. 379, appear to amount to misleading the House; and
- "Orders that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the hon Member’s conduct amounted to a contempt of the House, but that the Committee shall not begin substantive consideration of the matter until the inquiries currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Police have been concluded."
Essentially, it is arguing that Johnson's comments "appear to amount to misleading the House", and that they should therefore be investigated by the privileges committee once the Met Police's investigation has concluded. The motion has been signed by Starmer; the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford; the leader of the Lib Dems, Sir Ed Davey; the leader of Plaid Cymru, Liz Savile-Roberts; the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, Colum Eastwood; the sole Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas; and the deputy leader of the Alliance party, Stephen Farry.
We now know, of course, that rules were broken in Downing Street, since the prime minister, his wife, Carrie Johnson, and the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, along with some 47 other staff, have been issued with fixed penalty notices.
Why does misleading the House matter so much?
It is, of course, a poor look for any politician to mislead the country and the House of Commons. However, it is especially serious for a member of the government to do so.
Under the ministerial code, which is signed and enforced by the prime minister, any minister who knowingly misleads parliament is expected to resign. So if the privileges committee were to conclude Johnson did knowingly mislead parliament, Johnson would be expected to resign.
However, although it would seem a small detail, the motion does not ask the privileges committee to consider whether Johnson knowingly misled - only whether he misled. Johnson's defence, therefore, is that he truly believed everything he said and so did not knowingly mislead the house.
What did Johnson say?
Boris Johnson is on the record multiple times as having denied parties took place. When Sir Keir asked Johnson in the House of Commons whether there was a Christmas party in Downing Street on December 18, 2020, Johnson replied: "What I can tell [him] is that all guidance was followed completely in Number 10.
When BBC News asked him whether parties were held that month, Johnson replied: "All the guidelines were observed."
After footage emerged of Allegra Stratton, the PM's then press secretary who later resigned, joking about having "cheese and wine", Johnson told the Commons: "I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken."
When asked again about the parties by Sky News, Johnson replied: "I can tell you once again that I certainly broke no rules … all that is being looked into."
And after a photograph emerged of Johnson and others drinking alcohol and eating outdoors in the Downing Street garden at the height of lockdown, Johnson said: "Those were people at work, talking about work. I have said what I have to say about that." He would go on to apologise for that event while maintaining that he "believed implicitly that this was a work event".
It should be noted that the ministerial code only stipulates that a minister should not mislead parliament - not the country. So the privileges committee would only consider the statements contained in the motion, which were uttered in parliament.
So why are Labour doing this?
Ultimately, it's a win-win for Labour. Either Tory MPs vote against the motion, in which case they will look like they are voting for a cover-up; or they allow it to pass, in which case there will be more scrutiny on their party leader's conduct.
A further investigation would drag the issue out yet further, keep it in the news, and keep inflicting more damage on the Conservatives. Labour, of course, are arguing this is not about party politics; instead, they say this is about restoring trust in politics, which would aid all parties.
