Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson): Final Report/Chapter 5

by House of Commons Committee of Privileges

5 Mr Johnson’s resignation as an MP and his attack upon the Committee

Mr Johnson’s resignation

214. The procedure adopted by the Committee stated that “If the Committee intends to criticise Mr Johnson or any other individual or body it will first send a warning letter,” and that “if an allegation is determined against Mr Johnson, [the letter will] state the Committee’s recommendation as to sanction, if any, and invite his submission on the sanction recommended.”^[1] On Thursday 8 June 2023 we sent by email to Mr Johnson’s solicitors the Chair’s warning letter, and immediately despatched by hand a single hardcopy document containing extracts from the Committee’s provisionally agreed draft report, for inspection by Mr Johnson and his nominated legal advisers under secure invigilated conditions. Each page of this document was marked as follows:

PRIVILEGED AND IN STRICT CONFIDENCE–FOR THE USE OF MR JOHNSON AND HIS NOMINATED LEGAL ADVISERS ONLY

It is a contempt of the House to reveal the contents of this document. There are no other physical copies of the document in existence and the document is only made available for inspection under invigilated conditions. It must not be copied. The Committee of Privileges will consider final submissions about the content of the document before it publishes its final report to the House.

215. Within 24 hours of receiving our warning letter, on Friday 9 June 2023, Mr Johnson announced his intention to resign as an MP with immediate effect, broke the confidentiality of the process by revealing the contents of the warning letter and linked material, and attacked the Committee.

216. In his public statement, Mr Johnson impugned the Committee, the integrity of its members, and the impartiality of its staff and advisers, stating:

They have still not produced a shred of evidence that I knowingly or recklessly misled the Commons.

They know perfectly well that when I spoke in the Commons, I was saying what I believed sincerely to be true and what I had been briefed to say, like any other minister. [ … ]

Their purpose from the beginning has been to find me guilty, regardless of the facts. This is the very definition of a kangaroo court.

[…] The Committee’s report is riddled with inaccuracies and reeks of prejudice, but under their absurd and unjust process, I have no formal ability to challenge anything they say. The Privileges Committee is there to protect the privileges of Parliament. That is a very important job. They should not be using their powers - which have only been very recently designed - to mount what is plainly a political hit job on someone they oppose.

It is in no one’s interest […] that the process the Committee has launched should continue for a single day further.

I am bewildered and appalled that I can be forced out, anti-democratically, by a committee chaired and managed, by Harriet Harman, with such egregious bias.^[2]

217. Mr Johnson is wrong to describe the Committee and its powers as very recently designed. The powers of the Committee and the inquisitorial process it follows are the same as those enjoyed by equivalent committees for many years. It has been commonplace, although not invariable, for the oath to be administered to those appearing in privilege cases, particularly in a case such as this one which raised very serious issues. The Committee (and its precursors) does not have power to hear Counsel - that would be to adopt a court-like process.

218. In order to ensure fairness to Mr Johnson, the Committee took the additional step of appointing Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder, former Senior President of Tribunals and former Lord Justice of Appeal, to advise on the fairness of the process. (Sir Ernest had previously carried out a review of fairness and natural justice in the House’s standards system.^[3]) The Committee has been advised on these matters by the House’s impartial legal and procedural advisers, particularly Speaker’s Counsel and the Clerk of the Journals. The Committee has had the support of the independent Clerks’ team which has shown unparalleled commitment to the House and our democracy.

219. Given the significance of this inquiry, the Committee agreed an explicit resolution on procedure, in order to ensure fairness to Mr Johnson. This stipulated:

• Oral evidence would be given on oath, and written evidence accompanied by a statement of truth; i.e. the Committee would not rely on anything other than evidence that the giver had expressly affirmed to be true;
• Mr Johnson would be furnished with the evidence on which the Committee intended to rely;
• Witnesses could be accompanied by one or more legal advisers;
• A warning letter would be sent if the report contained criticisms, including an indication on sanction, so that further submissions could be made.

220. In practice, the Committee was still more generous to Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson and his lawyers were provided not just with the evidence on which the Committee was proposing to rely, but with all the material the Committee received so that he had the opportunity to seek his own evidence if desired. At Mr Johnson’s request, the Committee actively sought evidence accompanied by statements of truth from those Mr Johnson considered might have evidence which would be helpful to him. Mr Johnson was given time to make further written submissions. We have taken great care over the publication of the material in this inquiry, since it contains details about many junior civil servants and others which, though disclosed to Mr Johnson, does not need to be released publicly.

221. Mr Johnson’s incorrect assertion that the Committee’s powers are new, and its procedures unfair, is a continuation of a pattern of statements which are bald expressions of opinion without justification.

222. At the time we wrote to Mr Johnson, we had come to no final conclusions, since we awaited his response. In making his statement when he did, Mr Johnson knew that the Committee would be unable to make a substantive response until it had completed its inquiry, and his assertions would be unchallenged. We note that Mr Johnson does not merely criticise the fairness of the Committee’s procedures; he also attacks in very strong, indeed vitriolic, terms the integrity, honesty and honour of its members. He 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.

223. We further note that these latest developments cast a new light on some of Mr Johnson’s previous comments and behaviour. We draw attention in paragraph 15 above to the attacks mounted on the Committee in the media, and by some politicians, during the course of the inquiry, couched in terms of personal abuse of the Committee’s members. In public Mr Johnson held himself aloof from these attacks. When we questioned him about the attacks in the oral evidence session, he told us that he deprecated the use of language such as “kangaroo courts” and “witch hunts”. A matter of days after the evidence session, on 30 March 2023, Mr Johnson wrote to each individual member of the Committee. In his letter, which we print as Appendix 2 to this report, Mr Johnson stated:

At the end of the session, Sir Charles and Mr Costa asked me a series of questions regarding comments that have been made about the Committee’s work being a “witch hunt” or a “kangaroo court”. Having reviewed the transcript, I am concerned that, at the end of what had been a long hearing, I was not emphatic enough in the answers that I provided. As I hope I made clear in those answers, I have the utmost respect for the integrity of the Committee and all its Members and the work that it is doing.

224. Notwithstanding his protestations of respect for the Committee, and his earlier deprecation of language such as “kangaroo courts” and “witch hunts”, we note that in his statement of 9 June Mr Johnson himself used precisely those abusive terms to describe the Committee. This leaves us in no doubt that he was insincere in his attempts to distance himself from the campaign of abuse and intimidation of committee members. This in our view constitutes a further significant contempt.

225. Nevertheless, on Sunday 11 June, at 6.59 pm, Mr Johnson’s lawyers contacted the Clerk of the Committee with the following message:

I can confirm that Mr Johnson will be responding to the warning letter by 22 June 2023 in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Resolution on Procedure. I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this message and confirm that the Committee will consider Mr Johnson’s response, in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Resolution on Procedure, before reporting to the House.

226. On 12 June 2023 at 11.57 pm Mr Johnson’s lawyers delivered to the Committee a further purported response to our warning letter of 8 June. We have considered its contents even though we are not obliged to do so. The response was not accompanied by a statement of truth from Mr Johnson. The response makes a series of tendentious accusations. The document is reproduced in full at Annex 3 together with our comments on each paragraph.

227. Before his latest purported submission we had decided to treat Mr Johnson’s public statement made on 9 June in response to our warning letter as his response to that letter and his last submissions to this inquiry. We note that on 9 June Mr Johnson stated that “[i]t is in no one’s interest […] that the process the Committee has launched should continue for a single day further.” We agree with Mr Johnson’s view on that point.

228. Contrary to Mr Johnson’s assertions, he has been given multiple opportunities to set out his views and to comment on the evidence in the inquiry:

• We set out in detail the evidence and the issues to be raised with him in our Fourth Report published on 3 March 2023.
• We disclosed to Mr Johnson in unredacted form all the evidence we proposed to rely upon and the identity of all our witnesses.
• At the start of the inquiry, in July 2022, Mr Johnson was invited to make an initial submission in writing concerning the allegations and to identify any witnesses that he believed could give relevant evidence. He did not make such a submission or identify any witnesses.
• Mr Johnson was invited to give oral evidence and publish a written statement, which he did and was questioned about the evidence and issues raised in the Fourth Report.
• Mr Johnson was invited to make final submissions in the inquiry and did so.
• Mr Johnson was sent details of our proposed criticisms of him, and the evidence supporting them, on 8 June 2022, and invited to respond.
• None of the evidence which we relied on in the material sent to Mr Johnson on 8 June was new to Mr Johnson. It was the same as that which was put to him in the Fourth Report and in the oral evidence session. He had the opportunity to respond to that in oral evidence and by written submission and he did.
• In his oral evidence Mr Johnson accused the Committee of suppressing evidence which would be helpful to him. We invited him to identify any such evidence. The Committee obtained that evidence from the witnesses he had indicated, supported by statements of truth. In the event he placed no reliance on it. The clear implication is that there was nothing in the evidence and his criticism in public was a cynical attempt to manipulate Member and public opinion.

229. Our final conclusion is in relation to sanction. Although Mr Johnson’s resignation as an MP renders it impossible for a sanction of suspension to be imposed, we draw attention to the fact that before the events of Friday 9 June we had provisionally agreed to recommend a suspension long enough to engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act. In the light of Mr Johnson’s further contempts, we put on record that if he had not resigned his seat, we would have recommended that he be suspended from the service of the House for 90 days for repeated contempts and for seeking to undermine the parliamentary process, by:

• Deliberately misleading the House
• Deliberately misleading the Committee
• Breaching confidence
• Impugning the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the House
• Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.

In view of the fact that Mr Johnson is no longer a Member, we recommend that he should not be granted a former Member’s pass.

1. Second Report, Matter referred on 21 April 2022: Proposed conduct of inquiry, HC 632, Annex 1
2. The full text of Mr Johnson’s statement is set out at Appendix 3
3. Committee on Standards, Sixth Report of Session 2021–22, Review of fairness and natural justice in the House’s standards system (HC 1183), published 4 March 2022