Early evening summary
Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over Partygate and was part of a campaign to abuse and intimidate MPs investigating him, a long-awaited report by the privileges committee has found. In an analysis of what the report means for Johnson, Pippa Crerar writes:
It has long been Johnson’s instinct when faced with trouble to double down, deflect, deny – and to attack. It is why he is claiming that the committee report with its “trumped up” charges has dealt the “final knife-thrust in a protracted political assassination”.
He still cannot see that his response throughout to the Partygate affair has made his situation worse. It could have turned out very differently for Johnson, for the Tory party and for the country, if he had accepted responsibility from the start.
But that would go against every one of his instincts. He has run head first into reality and found himself out of frontline politics, out of parliament and out of favour. And while it is always unwise to write off Johnson, his chances of once again staging a frontline political comeback now look vanishingly remote.
Pippa’s full analysis is here.
And here is Peter Walker’s summary of what the report says.
Johnson could face fresh inquiry if he gave WhatsApp messages to Covid inquiry that privileges committee wanted, report says
In its report the privileges committee says Boris Johnson could be the subject of a fresh inquiry if it turns out that he submitted WhatsApp messages to the Covid inquiry that he withheld from Harriet Harman and her colleagues.
In what was interpreted as a bid to embarrass Rishi Sunak and No 10, who are resisting demands from the Covid inquiry for it to get access to unredacted WhatsApp messages from minister if No 10 thinks they are irrelevant, Johnson told the Covid inquiry it could see all his messages.
In its report, the privilges committee says it only received “a limited number” of WhatsApp messages from Johnson. In a footnote it goes on:
We note that Mr Johnson has recently undertaken to supply the Covid public inquiry with a large number of his personal WhatsApp messages. This contrasts with his highly restrictive release of such messages to us. If it transpires from examination of the WhatsApp messages supplied to the Covid inquiry that there was relevant material which should have been disclosed to us either by Mr Johnson or the Cabinet Office, this would be a serious matter which the House might need to revisit.
Johnson should never be allowed to stand for public office again, says Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice
The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group says Boris Johnson should never be allowed to stand for public office again. Its spokesperson David Garfinkel said in a statement:
This is another grim reminder that whilst families like mine were saying goodbye to our loved ones over Zoom, the same prime minister that failed us so badly in the first place was breaking his own rules so he could have a party and a laugh.
Johnson has shown no remorse. Instead he lied to our faces when he told us that he’d done ‘all he could’ to protect our loved ones.
He lied again when he said the rules hadn’t been broken in Number 10, and he’s lied ever since when he’s denied it again and again.
It’s an utter tragedy that Johnson was in charge when the pandemic struck and he should never be allowed to stand for any form of public office again.
His fall from grace must serve as a lesson to other politicians to act with honesty and to serve the public as a whole – that is the only positive that can come from this.
Twenty per cent of people think Boris Johnson did not get a fair hearing from the privileges committee, a YouGov poll suggests. Almost half of voters think he did get a fair hearing, and the rest don’t know.
Among Conservative supporters, 40% think he did not get a fair hearing, the poll suggests.
Tory voters think Boris Johnson did not get a fair hearing from the Privileges Committee by 40% to 33%
— YouGov (@YouGov) June 15, 2023
The wider public think he did, by 47% to 20%https://t.co/AX83VyRLU3 pic.twitter.com/hty25OIYIQ
The poll also suggests that the notional 90-day suspension proposed by the committee is seen as not harsh enough by three time as many people (45%) as the number seeing it as too harsh (15%).
Boris Johnson would have received a 90 day suspension from Parliament, had he not already quit
— YouGov (@YouGov) June 15, 2023
45% of Britons say this would not have been harsh enough, compared to only 15% saying it would have been too harsh
For 23% it sounds about the right level https://t.co/sFZyGaUa33 pic.twitter.com/EesvK80xpJ
Updated
Why privileges committee concluded Johnson misled MPs not just recklessly, but intentionally
In an interim report published in March, the Commons privileges committee said that its inquiry would focus on whether Boris Johnson misled parliament over Partygate and, if so, whether “that was inadvertent, reckless or intentional”.
After Johnson gave evidence in person, it was obvious that the committee would conclude, at the very least, that Johnson misled MPs by being reckless. But it was much less clear whether it would conclude he did so intentionally, because to prove someone lied, it is necessary to know what they were thinking, and whether they knew they were saying something untrue. Dominic Cummings (see 7.47am) and others have said Johnson does not really distinguish between truth and lies anyway. Donald Trump is much the same.
But the committee has concluded that Johnson deliberately misled MPs. Here are some of the arguments it makes to defend this conclusion in its report today.
Johnson must have known his interpretation of what was allowed under the Covid guidelines was false, the committee says. In paragraph 117 on page 36, it says:
We think it highly unlikely on the balance of probabilities that Mr Johnson, in the light of his cumulative direct personal experience of these events, and his familiarity with the rules and guidance as their most prominent public promoter, could have genuinely believed at the time of his statements to the house that the rules or guidance were being complied with. We think it just as unlikely he could have continued to believe this at the time of his evidence to our committee. We conclude that when he told the house and this committee that the rules and guidance were being complied with, his own knowledge was such that he deliberately misled the house and this committee.
Johnson’s is now misrepresenting the significance of what he said in the Commons, the committee says. In paragraphs 181, 182 and 183, starting on page 52, it says:
The problem with Mr Johnson’s attempts to portray his assertions to the house [that the rules were followed in No 10] as narrow in scope is that this interpretation is directly at odds with the overall impression members of the house, the media and the public received at the time from Mr Johnson’s responses at PMQs …
The impression the house would have taken and, we conclude, would have been intended to take, from Mr Johnson’s repeated references to assurances was that those assurances had been overarching and comprehensive, and to be given great weight. In fact, as we have seen, the only assurances that we can be certain were given to Mr Johnson were arrived at in haste based on a press “line to take”, were not subject to investigation before either session of PMQs, and did not emanate from senior permanent civil servants or government lawyers but from two media advisers and were based only on their personal recollections. Although Mr Johnson claimed several times to have been given the assurances “repeatedly”, in evidence to us he scaled down that claim by arguing that by “repeatedly” he had meant “on more than one occasion” (so possibly only twice).
Mr Johnson’s attempt in his evidence to us to claim that his assertions at PMQs were narrow in scope amounts to ex post facto justification and was clearly not the message he intended to convey at the time. As an ex post facto justification, it is false.
Johnson was so reckless as to whether the truth was being told that this amounted to being deliberately misleading, the committee says. In paragraph 201 on page 59, it says:
His personal knowledge of breaches of the rules and guidance, combined with his repeated failures pro-actively to investigate and seek authoritative assurances as to compliance issues, amount to a deliberate closing of his mind or at least reckless behaviour. We find it highly unlikely that Mr Johnson having given any reflection to these matters could himself have believed the assertions he made to the house at the time when he was making them, still less that he could continue to believe them to this day. Someone who is repeatedly reckless and continues to deny that which is patent is a person whose conduct is sufficient to demonstrate intent. Many aspects of Mr Johnson’s defence are not credible: taken together, they form sufficient basis for a conclusion that he intended to mislead.
Updated
It is generally assumed that there will be a division on Monday after MPs debate a motion to approve the privileges committee report. Reports like this normally go through on the nod, but some Conservative MPs have already said or indicated they are going to vote against. (See 1.44pm.) At the end of a debate, the speaker calls a vote by acclamation (“all those in favour, say aye”), and all it takes is one or two MPs to shout “no” loudly enough for a division to be called.
But, in an interview with Radio 4’s the World at One, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Boris Johnson supporter and former business secretary, suggested that a division may not in fact take place. Any vote would be a “formality”, he said, because “a small number of Tory Boris haters” would vote with the opposition. But he also said: “It may not come to a vote.”
Given the pressure on Tory MPs to vote against the report (see 11.32am), it would be surprising if the Johnsonites did not force a vote.
And yet, any division might just show how few supporters Johnson has in the parliamentary party. Most Tory MPs would probably choose not to vote at all, but the motion would get through with opposition backing. Just as Johnson decided to walk way from the privileges committee process last week, his supporters could decide to boycott the Commons vote on the supposed grounds it was “unfair”.
And it would suit the Tory whips for no division to take place, because that would prevent endless rows breaking out in Conservative associations over whether MPs voted for or against.
The debate is the main business scheduled for Monday. But on Mondays the Commons does not start sitting until 2.30pm, and any debate would not start until 3.30pm at the earliest. From the government’s point of view, the less attention it gets the better, and so it would not be surprising if some lengthy and dull ministerial statements gets scheduled for Monday, and perhaps some urgent questions too, pushing the start of the debate back by a couple of hours or so.
Updated
The byelections in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson’s constituency, and in Selby and Ainsty, Nigel Adams’s constituency, will take place on Thursday 20 July, the Telegraph’s Christopher Hope reports.
NEW Brace for the Boris by-elections!
— Christopher Hope📝 (@christopherhope) June 15, 2023
I understand July 20 has been set for the Selby and Ainsty and Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-elections.
Announcement due shortly.
Updated
One of the oldest cliches about Boris Johnson is that it is never safe to rule out his making a comeback. The polling firm Savanta has published the results of a snap poll today that suggests, following the publication of the privileges commtitee’s report, almost half of voters think his political career is over. But 40% of people do not agree, the poll suggests. And more than half of people who voted Tory in 2019 don’t think his career is over, according to the survey.
🚨NEW Privileges Committee Report SNAP poll🚨
— Savanta UK (@Savanta_UK) June 15, 2023
Half say Boris Johnson's political career is over.
All
Is over 47%
Is not over 40%
Don't know 13%
Con 2019
Is over 35%
Is not over 54%
Don't know 10%
1,069 UK adults, 15 June pic.twitter.com/NwiJTW16b8
Updated
Committee says it will publish further report dealing with those who have attacked its credibility over Johnson inquiry
The Commons privileges committee report makes it clear that it is being particularly harsh towards Boris Johnson because of the way he responded to its inquiry. In a list of five reasons justifying the proposed 90-day suspension, if he had remained an MP, only one relates to what he orginally told MPs about Partygate, three relate to his response to the investigation, and one relates to what he told the committee when he gave evidence to it. (See 9.18am.)
The committee says that attacks on its integrity amount to contempt of parliament, and that Johnson is an offender in this regard. It says:
[Johnson] stated that the committee had “forced him out […] anti-democratically”. This attack on a committee carrying out its remit from the democratically elected house itself amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions. We consider that these statements are completely unacceptable. In our view this conduct, together with the egregious breach of confidentiality, is a serious further contempt.
The committee criticises Johnson for, among other things, calling it a “kangaroo court”. It does not criticise other MPs who have used similar language, but it says it is going to address this matter in a further report. In paragraph 14 it says:
From the outset of this inquiry there has been a sustained attempt, seemingly coordinated, to undermine the committee’s credibility and, more worryingly, that of those members serving on it. The committee is concerned that if these behaviours go unchallenged, it will be impossible for the house to establish such a committee to conduct sensitive and important inquiries in the future. The house must have a committee to defend its rights and privileges, and it must protect members of the house doing that duty from formal or informal attack or undermining designed to deter and prevent them from doing that duty. We will be making a special report separately to the house dealing with these matters.
The committee does not say it will be naming other offenders in this regard, and proposing sanctions. But that might be an option for the committee.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, is one of the most prominent MPs who has denigrated the committee in this way. Although his language today has been more moderate, in the past he has described the committee as a kangaroo court, and on the day it took evidence from Johnson he posted a joke tweet making the same point.
Boris is doing very well against the marsupials.
— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) March 22, 2023
Updated
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says that Boris Johnson is a liar, and that Rishi Sunak should call an early general election.
Boris Johnson is a liar and law-breaker. He's treated the public with utter disdain.
— Ed Davey (@EdwardJDavey) June 15, 2023
And while these Conservatives fight among themselves again, the country suffers.
People are fed up. Rishi Sunak should call a General Election and give people the chance to end this charade.
Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross says he backs privileges committee's recommendations
At Holyrood Humza Yousaf accused Boris Johnson of “betraying the people of the UK” during first minister’s questions.
During questions about delays to road improvements across the Highlands, Yousaf accused Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross of trying to “dodge” the scandal. Yousaf said Johnson was “not just lying to the House of Commons, but betraying the people of this country and of the UK”. He went on:
When they couldn’t visit a loved one, when they couldn’t attend funerals of loved ones, Boris Johnson was breaking the rules and having parties in Number 10.
Yousaf said that Ross “backed Boris Johnson to the very hilt” and later called on the Scottish Conservatives to apologise for backing Johnson and for all their MPs to vote for the report when it’s brought to the Commons.
Speaking to media after FMQs, Ross said the report was “significant” and “very thorough”. Ross was one of the first senior Tories to call for Johnson to quit in the wake of the revelations, but later revised his position after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
He said he would support the committee’s recommendations and called on fellow MPs to accept that the committee was doing the job asked of them. He said:
Not everyone will agree with the outcome of their deliberations but it was the parliament as a whole who asked for this.
Any MP found to have deliberately misled parliament is guilty of a grave incident and for a former prime minister that is even worse.
Ross also described Johnson’s behaviour in presiding over parties while people were dying and unable to visit sick relatives as “unforgivable”.
Rees-Mogg claims privileges committee's chair, Harriet Harman, was biased against Johnson
The privileges committee’s findings on Boris Johnson “is in danger of making the House of Commons look foolish”, the former business secretary Jacob Rees Mogg has said.
In an interview with GB News, the Johnson ultra-loyalist slammed the inquiry’s report, which he said contained “no real sanction”, while its recommendation that Johnson be suspended for 90 days was “merely trying to make a point”.
Rees-Mogg said the report had failed to address Johnson’s allegations that “most of the members of the committee” had already expressed deeply prejudiced remarks about the former prime minister’s guilt before they had seen the evidence and they should have recused themselves. He said:
Chris Bryant behaved absolutely properly and recused himself [from the committee’s investigation] because he had prejudged it. Harriet Harman did not and the problem with that is that the chairman of committees is extremely influential and important.
The first draft that goes to the committee to vote on is prepared by the chairman of the committee and that level of power or authority of influence is one that needs to be exercised by somebody who has not judged the case before the committee. And I think this is a fundamental flaw, which undermines all the work of the committee.
I think if you look back over the history of parliament, parliament sometimes makes great mistakes when it tries to stand on its dignity. I think that this report is in danger of making the House of Commons look foolish.
Rees-Mogg was referring to some tweets posted by Harman in April 2022, including one in which she commented, seemingly approvingly, on an Alastair Campbell tweet saying Johnson and other ministers lied repeatedly about Partygate.
Updated
Another question from a reader.
I note that in the minutes it was a 2-4 split on whether the committee would recommend Boris Johnson be expelled from the house. If that had gone the other way, would that be the harshest sanction placed on an MP in modern times?
It depends how you define modern. The last MP expelled from the Commons was Garry Allighan, a Labour MP who was expelled in 1947 because he had sold information about private Labour meetings to journalists, and then lied about it, and blamed others, when investigated by the privileges committee.
Nadine Dorries says any MP who backs report 'fundamentally not a Conservative' and at risk of deselection
Boris Johnson’s supporters in the parliamentary Conservative party have been speaking out against the privileges committee’s report. They are a minority in parliament – a very small minority now, it appears – but they have not gone quiet. Here are some of their comments.
Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, says any MP who votes for the report is “fundamentally not a Conservative” and will be at risk of deselection.
This report has overreached and revealed it’s true pre determined intentions. It’s quite bizarre. Harman declared her position before it began. Jenkins, the most senior MP on committee attended an ACTUAL party. Any Conservative MP who would vote for this report is fundamentally not a Conservative and will be held to account by members and the public. Deselections may follow. It’s serious. MPs will now have to show this committee what real justice looks like and how it’s done.
This report has overreached and revealed it’s true pre determined intentions. It’s quite bizarre. Harman declared her position before it began. Jenkins, the most senior MP on committee attended an ACTUAL party.
— Rt Hon Nadine Dorries (@NadineDorries) June 15, 2023
Any Conservative MP who would vote for this report is fundamentally… https://t.co/57BkpwRcCv
And here are some more comments from Johnson allies.
From Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary:
I think [the committee] have come to conclusions that are not fully supported by the evidence. I think their fundamental judgment is wrong because I don’t think he deliberately misled parliament.
From Simon Clarke, the former levelling up secretary:
I am amazed at the harshness of today’s report by the Privileges Committee. I believed Boris before and I believe him today. This punishment is absolutely extraordinary to the point of sheer vindictiveness, and I will vote against this report on Monday.
— Simon Clarke MP (@SimonClarkeMP) June 15, 2023
From Brendan Clarke-Smith:
I am appalled at what I have read and the spiteful, vindictive and overreaching conclusions of the report. I won’t be supporting the recommendations and will be speaking against them both publicly and in the House on Monday. I’m backing fairness and justice - not kangaroo courts pic.twitter.com/o6CMyS7RTs
— Brendan Clarke-Smith MP (@Bren4Bassetlaw) June 15, 2023
From Paul Bristow:
In years to come people will look back on this whole episode in amazement. The conclusions of the report clearly go way too far. Every journalist, commentator and politician who has rang my phone incessantly since 9am accepts this. Few are brave enough enough to say publicly.
— Paul Bristow MP (@paulbristow79) June 15, 2023
From Mark Jenkinson
This is gross overreach, which undermines the integrity of the committee and of parliament.
— Mark Jenkinson MP 🇬🇧 (@markjenkinsonmp) June 15, 2023
The removal of a former members pass is nothing short of vindictive. https://t.co/1U6hHnSlMb
Updated
How two opposition MPs on privileges committee wanted it to say Johnson deserved to be expelled from Commons
Here is a question from a reader.
Is the privileges committee unanimous in its findings? i.e. Did all the Tory MPs on the committee agree with the non-Tory? Is it a requirement that all MPs on a committee should agree with the final outcomes/opinions?
There are seven MPs on the committee and none of them have dissented from the report, and so in that sense it is unanimous. But, as the minutes reveal (on page 103 of the report), at a meeting on Tuesday, where the final version was agreed, the SNP MP Allan Dorans proposed an amendment to the final paragraph. Instead of it saying that if Johnson were still an MP they would be recommending a 90-day suspension, he wanted it to say that if Johnson were still an MP, they would be recommending his expulsion from the Commons. In a vote on the amendment, the Labour MP Yvonne Fovargue also backed the idea. But they were outvoted by the four Tories on the committee, Andy Carter, Alberto Costa, Sir Bernard Jenkin and Sir Charles Walker, who stuck with the 90-day proposals. Harriet Harman, the Labour chair, did not vote (which is normal practice for a committee chair, unless a vote is tied).
Updated
No 10 declines to back calls for Johnson to lose ex-PM's allowance, or to be made to repay inquiry legal fees
Downing Street has rejected call’s for Boris Johnson’s honours list to be rescinded in the light of the privileges committee’s report. Asked about this proposals, the PM’s spokesperson told journalists at the morning lobby briefing:
When it comes to honours, that’s a longstanding convention. The prime minister has abided by convention, that’s not going to change.
The spokesperson also said there were “no plans” either to force Johnson to repay the money spent by the government on his legal advice during the privileges inquiry (the Labour proposal – see 11am) or to remove his allowance as an ex-PM (the Lib Dem proposal – see 10.06am.)
On the allowance, the spokesperson said:
These arrangements are fairly longstanding – it’s not a personal salary or allowance, it’s the reimbursement of expenses for office and secretarial costs.
Updated
The Commons vote on the privileges committee report on Boris Johnson will take place on his birthday, Michael Savage from the Observer reports. He will be 59.
In the latest *a bit on the nose to be honest* piece of Westminster script writing, Monday's vote on the Boris partygate report will take place... on his birthday.
— Michael Savage (@michaelsavage) June 15, 2023
h/t @tamcohen
Downing Street won’t say whether Rishi Sunak will be in the Commons on Monday for the vote on the privileges committee report, John Stevens from the Mirror reports. He suspects Sunak might discover a diary appointment elsewhere.
Wonder if Rishi Sunak may find somewhere to be far from London on Monday
— John Stevens (@johnestevens) June 15, 2023
No10 refusing to say if he will take part in Commons vote on Boris Johnson report
No 10 had 'culture of not adhering to any rules' during Covid, says new evidence from official published by committee
Alongside its main report, the privileges committee has this morning published a short document with additional evidence and material, not previously published, that it relied upon when coming to its conclusions.
The new material includes this written submission from a No 10 official who explains how Covid guidance was regularly ignored in Downing Street in 2020. There was a culture of “not adhering to any rules”, they say.
Staff were even warned, before they went outside the front door, not to go outside in groups because outside No 10 they would be expected to observe social distancing.
Updated
The privileges committee report does not actually say that Boris Johnson “lied” to MPs. But it says he “deliberately misled” MPs (see 9.13am), which would match the definition of lying to most of us.
But Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, has used the term. She told the BBC:
Boris Johnson is not only a law breaker but he’s a liar …
He needs to apologise for what he’s put the public through – he won’t though because Boris Johnson never accepts responsibility for what he does.
Updated
Harry Cole, the political editor of the Sun, has also spoken to a “senior Tory” who thinks colleagues who vote for the privileges committee report risk being deselected.
Senior Tory source: “I'm very pissed off with Boris and want him to go away but this report is a complete joke. The sanctions are so ludicrously excessive and, Bernard Jenkin aside, I'm staggered that any Tory MP would vote for it. 1/2
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) June 15, 2023
…I suspect they will be having some serious issues with their associations and wouldn't be remotely surprised if they were given the boot.” 2/2
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) June 15, 2023
Updated
Mordaunt implicitly criticises Johnson supporters threatening Tory MPs with deselection if they back committee's report
Speaking to MPs during questions on next week’s business, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, said MPs should not be subject to pressure ahead of Monday’s vote.
My advice to all [MPs] is, having had the committee carry out the work we asked them to do, is to read the report, is to make their own judgments about it, and take the task that is our privilege to do seriously and soberly. And members should use their own judgment on that.
I can confirm that the motion before us will be votable, it will be amendable, and it is house business, and so I am expecting a free vote.
And I know also … these are difficult matters for the house. We have to look at the evidence, we have to look at the report. But we are talking about people who are friends and colleagues. It will be a painful process and a sad process for all of us, the tasks that we face on Monday.
But all of us must do what we think is right, and others must leave us alone to do so.
Mordaunt was referring to supporters of Boris Johnson who are denouncing the privileges committee report on social media and some of whom seem to be suggesting that Tory MPs who back the report could be subject to deselection.
This is from David Campbell Bannerman, a former Tory MEP who now chairs the Conservative Democratic Organisation, a new group pushing for more grassroots democracy in the party. It is widely seen as a closet “bring back Johnson” campaign.
CDO is preparing to give advice on deselections / Votes of No Confidence for the benefit of members who wish to take matters further. Up to them of course - as it should be. @ConservativeDOr https://t.co/qlX1HLrpAG
— David C Bannerman (@DCBMEP) June 15, 2023
Updated
Penny Mordaunt says MPs to get free vote on approving privileges committee's report on Monday
Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, has told MPs that there will be a free vote on the privileges committee’s report. The motion (to accept the report, and its recommendations) will be amendable, and it will be the main business on Monday.
2/ Monday 19 June - Motion relating to the 5th Report from the Committee Of Privileges
— Leader of the House of Commons (@CommonsLeader) June 15, 2023
Followed By
General Debate on the UK Tech Industry following London Tech Week
Labour says Johnson should repay £245,000 taxpayers' money spent funding his legal support during privileges inquiry
Labour says Rishi Sunak must give MPs the chance to approve the privileges committee report. The shadow leader of the Commons, Thangam Debbonaire, has issued this statement.
The evidence in this report is damning and the conclusions the committee came to are clear. Boris Johnson is a lawbreaker and a liar. Rishi Sunak must now confirm the government will follow precedent and give the house the opportunity to approve the report and endorse the sanctions in full.
Rishi Sunak’s weakness means he has never stood up to Boris Johnson. This report makes it even more inconceivable that the prime minister approved Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list just a week ago, as part of some sort of grubby deal rather than waiting for this report and saying ‘no’ to his former boss.
Sunak has already indicated that MPs will get a vote. (See 8.13am.) We should get confirmation when we get the statement on next week’s business in the Commons, in the next few minutes.
Debbonaire said Johnson should also be asked to repay the £245,000 of taxpayers’s money spent funding his legal support during the inquiry. She said:
Rishi Sunak is so out of touch he thought it was right that taxpayers’ hard-earned money fund Boris Johnson’s ongoing lies to the public. Given the findings of the committee, Rishi Sunak should demand Boris Johnson pays back every penny.
Updated
My colleague Henry Dyer says there are two other examples of MPs being told they should be suspended for more than 90 days in recent times. (See 10.17am.) In 2012 the Commons standards and privileges committee said Labour’s Denis MacShane should be suspended for 12 months for falsifying his expenses, but he resigned as an MP before the Commons approved the punishment. And in 2014 Patrick Mercer, a Conservative, resigned as an MP after the Commons ruled he should be suspended for six months for lobbying.
Labour’s Keith Vaz also faced a six-month suspension. But he did not serve this in full because an election was called soon after the punishment was imposed, and he stood down.
Updated
The SNP says the privileges committee report is damning not just for Boris Johnson, but for the whole Conservative government. In a statement Mhairi Black, the SNP’s deputy leader at Westminster, said:
This report is utterly damning for Boris Johnson and this arrogant Tory government, and it underlines why Scotland needs to escape Westminster control with independence.
Johnson may have left parliament but his toxic legacy continues - with yet another out-of-touch Tory prime minister imposing Brexit, cuts and attacks on devolution against Scotland’s will.
Updated
Johnson first person to be found to have deliberately misled Commons as PM, says privileges committee
In its report the privileges committee says there is no precedent of a prime minister being found to have deliberately misled the Commons, as Boris Johnson is found to have done. It says:
We have concluded above that in deliberately misleading the house Mr Johnson committed a serious contempt. The contempt was all the more serious because it was committed by the prime minister, the most senior member of the government.
There is no precedent for a prime minister having been found to have deliberately misled the house. He misled the house on an issue of the greatest importance to the house and to the public, and did so repeatedly.
He declined our invitation to reconsider his assertions that what he said to the house was truthful. His defence to the allegation that he misled was an ex post facto justification and no more than an artifice. He misled the committee in the presentation of his evidence.
Updated
A reader asks:
Is 90 days’ suspension unprecedented?
Almost, but not quite. If Boris Johnson were still an MP, and if he were suspended for 90 days, it would be the second longest suspension since 1979. The only one longer was the six-month suspension imposed on Keith Vaz in 2019 for offering to buy drugs for sex workers and failing to cooperate with an investigation.
This Commons library note includes a table setting out all the suspensions imposed on MPs since 1979.
UPDATE: Two other MPs have faced suspensions of six months or more, but resigned instead. See 10.51am for more details.
Updated
Lib Dems call for Johnson to lose £115,000 annual allowance paid to ex-PMs
The Liberal Democrats are calling for Boris Johnson to be stripped of the £115,000 annual allowance paid to all former prime ministers in the light of today’s report. In a statement, Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader, says:
This damning report should be the final nail in the coffin for Boris Johnson’s political career.
It is completely unprecedented for a former prime minister to be found to have been a law-breaker and serial liar, who treated the public and parliament with total disdain.
Rishi Sunak must cut off Johnson’s ex-prime minister allowance to stop him milking the public purse for his own personal gain.
Anything less would be an insult to bereaved families who suffered while Boris Johnson lied and partied.
Why Johnson thinks privileges committee report is flawed
Boris Johnson’s team is now circulating a six-point analysis purportedly explaining why the privileges committee report is flawed. It does not seem to be available online, so, for the record, here it is.
1) This is a kangaroo court. The committee has been a kangaroo court from the outset and, as Lord Pannick KC has repeatedly pointed out, it has acted as judge and jury in its own case in a way that is contrary to all legal practice.
2) The committee has contradicted the police’s own findings – setting itself above the law. The committee has been so desperate to convict Boris Johnson that it has now said that all workplace events – thank yous and birthdays and motivational meetings – were illegal. That is insane, and has no basis in the law. The committee’s view is contradicted by what the Metropolitan police themselves found – the police said that Boris Johnson did not break the rules by attending the farewell events.
3) The committee claims to know exactly what Boris saw at certain times and dates despite there being no evidence for this – as if the committee were inside his head. It has been driven to claim that it knows what Boris Johnson saw with his own eyes, and that he “must have known” that the event on December 18 2020 was illegal because he “must have seen it” as he went up the stairs to his flat. This is just crazy. The committee has no idea what was going on or what Boris Johnson saw. In fact, he saw nothing that struck him as being remotely untoward. The committee is just making things up.
4) If Boris Johnson must have known this was illegal, others did too – the committee’s logic is that dozens of other figures also knew. The committee’s entire argument is that Boris Johnson “must have known” that events were illegal. This is rubbish. If Boris Johnson must have known, then what about Rishi Sunak, Simon Case, Sue Gray and all the other senior figures who were roving the corridors of Downing Street? Why didn’t they know?
5) The report uses sleight of hand by mischaracterising Boris’s statements. The committee continually twists what Boris Johnson said in the house, claiming that he was offering general comments when he was in fact talking about specific events.
6) How is this process fair – especially given allegations that committee members were at rule-breaking events? If all thank-yous and birthdays were illegal, then how does Sir Bernard Jenkin justify his attendance at his wife’s birthday party, where the rules seem plainly to have been broken?
Updated
Committee accepts Johnson's defence of 16 new potential lockdown breaches - but says it would be contempt if he's lying
In paragraph 95, on page 31 of the report, the privileges committee says that in May the government gave it new evidence relating to 16 events at Chequers or No 10 where lockdown rules may have been broken. This information came from Boris Johnson’s diaries, which were being reviewed by lawyers preparing material for the Covid inquiry. The committee says it was told the entries were “problematic” and that this was “based on an assessment by Government Legal Department as to events/activities which could reasonably be considered to constitute breaches of Covid Regulations”.
The committee says it asked Johnson about these events. Johnson’s lawyers said:
Each event was lawful for one or more of the following reasons: the gathering was reasonably necessary for work purposes; the gathering took place outside; the rule of six applied at the time; the linked household provisions applied; the linked childcare provisions applied; and/or emergency assistance and/or care/assistance was being provided to a vulnerable (pregnant) person.
The committee says it has no evidence to disprove this, and that it decided not to investigate futher. But it says that, if it were to turn out that Johnson’s explanations were not true, then he might have committed a further contempt.
Mr Johnson has provided, under a statement of truth, explanations of the 16 events referred to in the recent material submitted to us by the Government. We have no evidence conflicting with his account. We do not wish to incur the further delay to our inquiry that would result from a detailed investigation of these events, and therefore we treat Mr Johnson’s explanations as prima facie true. If for any reasons it subsequently emerges that Mr Johnson’s explanations are not true, then he may have committed a further contempt.
Johnson says report is 'charade', and claims he is victim of 'protracted political assassination'
Boris Johnson has issued a 1,700-word rebuttal to the committee. It reads more like a Telegraph column than a legal document, and it amounts to a wholesale, and bitterly angry, rejection of what the committee is saying. Here are some of the key points.
Johnson says the report is “a charade”, and that some of its arguments are “a load of complete tripe”. He says:
I believed that we were working, and we were: talking for the main about nothing except work, mainly covid. Why would I have set out, in the Chamber, to conceal my knowledge of something illicit, if that account could be so readily contradicted by others? Why would we have had an official photographer if we believed we were breaking the law?
We didn’t believe that what we were doing was wrong, and after a year of work the Privileges Committee has found not a shred of evidence that we did.
Their argument can be boiled down to: ‘Look at this picture – that’s Boris Johnson with a glass in his hand. He must have known that the event was illegal. Therefore he lied.”
That is a load of complete tripe. That picture was me, in my place of work, trying to encourage and thank my officials in a way that I believed was crucial for the government and for the country as a whole, and in a way which I believed to be wholly within the rules …
This report is a charade. I was wrong to believe in the Committee or its good faith. The terrible truth is that it is not I who has twisted the truth to suit my purposes. It is Harriet Harman and her Committee.
He says that the publication of the report is “a dreadful day for democracy” and that it is part of a “protracted political assassination”. He says:
This is a dreadful day for MPs and for democracy. This decision means that no MP is free from vendetta, or expulsion on trumped up charges by a tiny minority who want to see him or her gone from the Commons.
I do not have the slightest contempt for parliament, or for the important work that should be done by the Privileges Committee.
But for the Privileges Committee to use its prerogatives in this anti-democratic way, to bring about what is intended to be the final knife-thrust in a protracted political assassination – that is beneath contempt.
He says that he genuinely believed that leaving events he attended at Downing Street were justified under the Covid rules. The committee says he ignored the fact that social distancing rules were not being followed, and that, when he claimed in-person leaving dos were allowed at the time, he was in effect rewriting the rules after the event. (See 9.13am.) Johnson claims this is wrong. He says:
I knew exactly what events I had attended in Number 10. I knew what I had seen, with my own eyes, and like the current PM, I believed that these events were lawful. I believed that my participation was lawful, and required by my job; and that is indeed the implication of the exhaustive police inquiry.
The only exception is the June 19 2020 event, the so-called birthday party, when I and the then Chancellor Rishi Sunak were fined in circumstances that I still find puzzling (I had lunch at my desk with people I worked with every day).
So when on Dec 1 2021 I told the House of Commons that “the guidance was followed completely” (in Number Ten) I meant it. It wasn’t just what I thought: it’s what we all thought – that we were following the rules and following the guidance completely – notwithstanding the difficulties of maintaining social distancing at all times.
The committee now says that I deliberately misled the House, and at the moment I spoke I was consciously concealing from the House my knowledge of illicit events.
This is rubbish. It is a lie. In order to reach this deranged conclusion, the Committee is obliged to say a series of things that are patently absurd, or contradicted by the facts.
He defends his belief that in-person work leaving dos were allowed during lockdown. He says:
They say that I must have known that the farewell events I attended were not authorised workplace events because – wait for it – NO SUCH EVENT could lawfully have taken place, anywhere in this country, under the Committee’s interpretation of covid rules. This is transparently wrong. I believed, correctly, that these events were reasonably necessary for work purposes. We were managing a pandemic. We had hundreds of staff engaged in what was sometimes a round-the-clock struggle against covid. Their morale mattered for that fight. It was important for me to thank them.
He accuses Sir Bernard Jenkin of rank hypocrisy. He says:
The Committee cannot possibly believe the conclusions of their own report – because it has now emerged that Sir Bernard Jenkin attended at least one “birthday event”, on Dec 8 2020 – the birthday of his wife Anne – when it is alleged that alcohol and food were served and the numbers exceeded six indoors.
Why was it illegal for me to thank staff and legal for Sir Bernard to attend his wife’s birthday party?
The hypocrisy is rank. Like Harriet Harman, he should have recused himself from the inquiry, since he is plainly conflicted.
He dismisses the committee’s suggestion that he must have known a party took place in the No 10 press office on 18 December 2020 because he walked past it. See paragraph 83, on page 28 of the report. Commenting on it, Johnson says:
Perhaps the craziest assertion of all is the Committee’s Mystic Meg claim that I saw the Dec 18 event with my own eyes. They say, without any evidence whatever, that at 21.58pm, on that date, my eyes for one crucial second glanced over to the media room as I went up to the flat – and that I saw what I recognised as an unauthorised event in progress …
First, the Committee has totally ignored the general testimony about that evening, which is that people were working throughout, even if some had been drinking at their desks. How on earth do these clairvoyants know exactly what was going on at 21.58 …
It is a measure of the Committee’s desperation that they are trying incompetently and absurdly to tie me to an illicit event – with an argument so threadbare that it belongs in one of Bernard Jenkin’s nudist colonies.
Their argument is that I saw this event, believed it to be illegal, and had it in my head when I spoke to the House. On all three counts they are talking out of the backs of their necks. If I did see an illegal event, and register it as illegal, then why was I on my own in this? Why not the Cabinet Secretary, or Sue Gray, or the then Chancellor, who was patrolling the same corridors at the time?
Jenkin is, or at least in the past used to be, a naturist.
Updated
Privileges committee says Johnson would face 90-day suspension if he were still MP
The committee says, if Boris Johnson were still an MP, it would recommend a suspension for 90 days. It says that last week it was set to recommend a suspension for more than 10 sitting days, enough to trigger the recall election process. But it says it increased the hypothetical punishment in the light of his statement on Friday night, attacking the committee and its draft findings, which itself was “a very serious contempt”.
Johnson is now an ex-MP, and so a suspension punishment can no longer apply. But the committee says Johnson should not be entitled the pass normally given to former MPs allowing them access to parliament.
In its summary the committee says:
The question which the house asked the committee is whether the house had been misled by Mr Johnson and, if so, whether that conduct amounted to contempt. It is for the house to decide whether it agrees with the committee. The house as a whole makes that decision. Motions arising from reports from this committee are debatable and amendable. The committee had provisionally concluded that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the house and should be sanctioned for it by being suspended for a period that would trigger the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. In light of Mr Johnson’s conduct in committing a further contempt on 9 June 2023, the committee now considers that if Mr Johnson were still a member he should be suspended from the service of the House for 90 days for repeated contempts and for seeking to undermine the parliamentary process, by:
a) Deliberately misleading the house.
b) Deliberately misleading the committee.
c) Breaching confidence.
d) Impugning the committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the house.
e) Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee.
We recommend that he should not be entitled to a former member’s pass.
Updated
Why committee says it decided Johnson 'deliberately misled' MPs about Partygate
And this is what the committee says in its summary about why it thinks Boris Johnson deliberately misled MPs about Partygate.
We considered the nature and extent of Mr Johnson’s culpability in misleading the house. In coming to the conclusion that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the house, we considered:
a) His repeated and continuing denials of the facts, for example his refusal to accept that there were insufficient efforts to enforce social distancing at gatherings where a lack of social distancing is documented in official photographs, and that he neither saw nor heard anything to alert him to the breaches that occurred.
b) The frequency with which he closed his mind to those facts and to what was obvious so that eventually the only conclusion that could be drawn was that he was deliberately closing his mind.
c) The fact that he sought to rewrite the meaning of the rules and guidance to fit his own evidence, for example, his assertion that “imperfect” social distancing was perfectly acceptable when there were no mitigations in place rather than cancelling a gathering or holding it online, and his assertion that a leaving gathering or a gathering to boost morale was a lawful reason to hold a gathering.
d) His own after-the-event rationalisations, for example the nature and extent of the assurances he received, the words used, the purpose of the assurances, who they came from, the warning he received about that from Martin Reynolds (his principal private secretary) and his failure to take advice from others whose advice would have been authoritative. His view about his own fixed-penalty notice (that he was baffled as to why he received it) is instructive.
We came to the view that some of Mr Johnson’s denials and explanations were so disingenuous that they were by their very nature deliberate attempts to mislead the Committee and the house, while others demonstrated deliberation because of the frequency with which he closed his mind to the truth.
Updated
Commons privileges committee says Johnson misled MPs and was 'deliberately disingenuous'
This is what the report summary says about what the committee concluded.
We established that Mr Johnson:
a) had knowledge of the Covid rules and guidance.
b) had knowledge of breaches of the rules and guidance that occurred in No 10.
c) misled the house:
i) when he said that guidance was followed completely in No 10, that the rules and guidance were followed at all times, that events in No 10 were within the rules and guidance, and that the rules and guidance had been followed at all times when he was present at gatherings.
ii) when he failed to tell the house about his own knowledge of the gatherings where rules or guidance had been broken.
iii) when he said that he relied on repeated assurances that the rules had not been broken. The assurances he received were not accurately represented by him to the house, nor were they appropriate to be cited to the house as an authoritative indication of No 10’s compliance with Covid restrictions.
iv) when he gave the impression that there needed to be an investigation by Sue Gray before he could answer questions when he had personal knowledge that he did not reveal.
v) when he purported to correct the record but instead continued to mislead the house and, by his continuing denials, this committee.
d) was deliberately disingenuous when he tried to reinterpret his statements to the house to avoid their plain meaning and reframe the clear impression that he intended to give, namely
i) when he advanced unsustainable interpretations of the rules and guidance to advance the argument that the lack of social distancing at gatherings was permissible within the exceptions which allowed for gatherings, and
ii) when he advanced legally impermissible reasons to justify the gatherings.
Updated
Commons privileges committee report into Boris Johnson now published
The Commons privileges committee report in Boris Johnson has now been published. It is here.
Privileges committee was biased against Boris Johnson, Tory MP Michael Fabricant suggests
There are not a lot of Tory MPs willing to publicly defend Boris Johnson any more, but one of them is Sir Michael Fabricant, and on the Today programme he gave an interview suggesting the privileges committee was biased against Johnson.
Asked if he trusted parliament to judge Johnson, Fabricant replied:
I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee.
On the subject of bias, Fabricant was then asked by the presenter, Nick Robinson, if he thought there was a link between his willingness to repeatedly defend Johnson and the fact that Johnson ensured he got a knighthood in the resignation honours published last week. Fabricant said he thought this topic would come up. But, in his reply, he implied that the knighthood was nothing to do with his pro-Johnson media appearances.
He told Robinson:
You know, I’ve served the people of Lichfield for 31 years. I’ve been on the government or opposition front benches for about nine years. I helped save, when there was an issue over tax, the National Memorial Arboretum. I helped move HS2 from going by a housing estate. A number of people have said that they are surprised it took so long.
Updated
The Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who chairs the Commons defence committee, has criticised Boris Johnson for the way he attacked Sir Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative member of the privileges committee, last night. Ellwood said that if Johnson had complaints about the process, he should have stayed on as an MP, and made a statement in the chamber, instead of resigning.
Ellwood told Sky News:
If Boris Johnson is unhappy with the committee’s findings, or indeed anybody on the committee, the personalities and so forth, he could easily have made a personal statement in the Commons – that’s the process – and presented his arguments prior to a full vote from the house, because it will be for the house to determine whether they support this publication or not.
He’s chosen to abandon all those possible avenues of approach and quit parliament in its entirety.
Now coming late in the day and saying ‘I’m unhappy with this individual’, this isn’t the process of somebody I believe is going to win the argument.
Ellwood also said he hoped the Johnson “pantomime” would soon end. He said:
Johnson’s confidence stemmed from the huge support he received from the party base. He was loved by members across the country but this is changing before our very eyes. There’s now disappointment, even anger that the party, the activists are left to pick up the pieces …
The longer this public pantomime drags on, the more Boris loses support from a once very loyal base … the more the prime minister’s plans and vision which was starting to gain traction are overshadowed, the public actually want us to get back to politics.
Updated
Sunak suggests MPs will debate motion asking them to accept privileges committee report on Johnson
Rishi Sunak was on visit in Harrow this morning, where he witnessed an immigration raid. Asked about the privileges committee report into Boris Johnson, he said he had not seen it yet and that it would not be right to comment.
Asked if he would give an interview later, after he had had time to read it, Sunak replied:
You are talking about a report that I haven’t seen and that no one else has seen. It wouldn’t be right to comment on it in advance of it coming out and being published.
These are matters for the House of Commons, and parliament will deal with it in the normal way that it does.
The reference to parliament dealing with this report “in the normal way that it does” suggests that ITV’s Robert Peston was right yesterday when he said that the government will table a motion asking the Commons to approve the privileges committee report, and that a plan to instead have a debate on a motion just saying the Commons has noted the report has been dropped.
I understand the government has “seen sense”, in words of one senior MP, and the motion put to MPs about the Privileges Committee report that finds Boris Johnson in contempt of parliament will NOT be an unamendable “take note” motion. It will be a normal motion approving and… https://t.co/P5Tbp41V95
— Robert Peston (@Peston) June 14, 2023
Sunak was also asked if he was “frustrated” by Johnson’s interventions in the past week. He replied:
No, I’m just getting on with delivering for the country.
Updated
Privileges committee set to publish report into whether Boris Johnson deliberately misled MPs over Partygate
Good morning. In a post on his Substack blog last year Dominic Cummings, who was Boris Johnson’s chief adviser in No 10 and the strategist who did as much as anyone to help him win the 2019 general election, before he resigned and devoted his efforts to bringing Johnson down, wrote this about Johnson’s relationship with the truth.
He rewrites reality in his mind afresh according to the moment’s demands. He lies – so blatantly, so naturally, so regularly – that there is no real distinction possible with him, as there is with normal people, between truth and lies. He always tells people what they want to hear and he never means it. He always says: ‘I can’t remember’ when they remind him and is rarely ‘lying’.
Johnson misled MPs when he told them that the Covid rules and guidelines were followed in No 10 at all times. But last year, as the Partygate scandal was engulfing his administration and before he stood down, the Commons voted to get the privileges committee to conduct an investigation into whether he had done this deliberately (ie, lied), or at least recklessly. Today we will get its report.
Advance stories suggest the verdict will be grim. Yesterday the Times said the privileges committee would conclude that Johnson “deliberately misled parliament over the Downing Street parties scandal”. This morning the Financial Times says it will say he “committed ‘multiple’ contempts of parliament”. We’ll be able to read it for ourselves very soon, because it is due out at about 9am.
Because of the role he played in Brexit (many people think the leave campaign would have lost if he had not been leading it), Johnson has been one of the most consequential prime ministers of the modern era. Today’s report will significantly shape how he is remembered.
As Aubrey Allegretti reports, last night Johnson launched a fierce attack on one of the committee’s Tory members, accusing him in effect of hypocrisy.
Today we will be focusing almost exclusively on the report, and reaction to it. It is due out soon and later, during business questions in the Commons after 10.30am, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, is expected to give details of when MPs will debate the report.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
