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

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.

Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross says he backs privileges committee’s recommendations

Libby Brooks

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

Ben Quinn

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.

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.

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:

From Brendan Clarke-Smith:

From Paul Bristow:

From Mark Jenkinson

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).

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.