Boris Johnson faced 90-day suspension for misleading MPs before he quit – UK politics live | Politics

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 at 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.

Downing Street has rejected call’s for Boris Johnson’s honours list to be rescinded in the light of the privileges committee’s report.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.