10 key points from the privileges committee report on Boris Johnson Former prime minister made his case worse, and his lawyers did him no favours, say MPs
Save
The privileges committee found that Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over partygate. But what else did we learn from its report?
Johnson will sit in a tiny club of banned former MPs The committee said that were he still an MP it would have recommended Boris Johnson be banned for 90 days for the multiple contempts.
But, as will have escaped nobody’s notice, he is no longer an MP. As a result, the committee has proposed another way for the Commons to signal its discontent, saying that the former prime minister should be stripped of the rights of access to parliament that all former MPs get.
This is a rare rebuke. Most recently John Bercow, the former Commons Speaker, was banned from holding a parliamentary pass after an independent inquiry found that he was a “serial bully” and a liar.
Johnson assured the committee he respected their integrity In its report the committee reveals a previously unpublished letter that Johnson wrote to Sir Charles Walker, a Conservative member of the committee, a week after his public evidence session. Johnson’s letter followed an exchange with Walker about whether the committee was conducting a “witch-hunt” or was a “kangaroo court”.
Johnson wrote: “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 . . . I have the utmost respect for the integrity of the committee and all its members and the work that it is doing.” He stressed his “trust and belief that the committee will address the evidence with integrity and impartiality”.
The committee noted that Johnson had nevertheless made repeated public criticisms of their work, concluding: “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.” They added: “This in our view constitutes a further significant contempt.”
Johnson’s lawyers may have hindered his cause The government funded Johnson’s legal advice to the tune of £245,000. Yet the report suggests that this may have hindered rather than helped the former prime minister.
Johnson’s lead lawyer was Lord Pannick KC. The report accuses him, in three opinions, of having made arguments “based on fallacious analogies between the inquisitorial parliamentary process and the quite separate adversarial process which is followed in the courts”.
The committee dedicates an annex of its report to “clearing up misunderstandings about the house’s inquisitorial procedures, rebutting arguments that the committee has strayed beyond its order of reference [and] explaining that our report is not based on the Sue Gray report, or on the evidence taken by Sue Gray” — all arguments advanced by Johnson’s lawyers.
Johnson’s denials and attacks on the committee made matters worse He is being punished for five kinds of contempt. The first is deliberately misleading the Commons, which is what the committee was set up to investigate. The others are all contempts which took place during the investigation, though.
He is accused of deliberately misleading the committee. Essentially the MPs on the panel say that by insisting he believes the events were within the rules he was misleading them.
He has also been found in contempt for “breaching confidence” by effectively making public the committee’s verdict last week, for “impugning the committee”, and for “being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee”.
Leaving drinks were not necessary for the operation of No 10 Central to Johnson’s defence, both in writing and in person, was his assertion that leaving drinks were an essential part of working in Downing Street during the pandemic. The committee firmly disagreed.
“A workplace ‘thank you’, leaving drink, birthday celebration or motivational event is obviously neither essential or reasonably necessary,” they said. “Mr Johnson is adamant that he believed all of the events which he attended and of which he had direct knowledge were essential. That belief, which he continues to assert, has no reasonable basis in the rules or on the facts.”
They cited the fact that in a leaked video of a mock press conference Allegra Stratton, who was Johnson’s press secretary, was “unable to think of any credible response” to whether the prime minister would condone a Christmas party, “and was evidently embarrassed”.
There will be a report on the attempt ‘to undermine the committee’s credibility’ There had been speculation prior to the report on whether the privileges committee would rebuke individual MPs beyond Johnson himself for criticising their work. They opted not to, but instead said they were preparing a special report on the subject.
The committee said: “We note that the committee was instructed to carry out this inquiry . . . without a vote against. We further note that each of the committee’s members were appointed to the committee by the house without [opposition]. Each member has done their duty on behalf of the house.
“Despite this, from the outset of this inquiry there has been a sustained attempt, seemingly co-ordinated, 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.”
Boris Johnson branded a liar whose claims mired him in contempt new The privileges committee report into the Downing Street party scandal paints a damning picture of the former prime minister’s behaviour
The privileges committee report into the Downing Street party scandal may run to more than 100 pages but ultimately it comes to one very simple conclusion: Boris Johnson is a liar who repeatedly misled Parliament.
In excoriating detail it rejects both the former prime minister’s claims that he was unaware of the parties and his central defence that the events which he attended were within the rules.
Johnson, it said, also misled the committee, with the report saying that his “denials and explanations were so disingenuous that they were by their very nature deliberate attempts to mislead the committee and the House”.
So what are the facts the committee laid out after its 14-month investigation, how did Johnson respond and what were the conclusions reached?
The parties attended by Johnson The facts: The committee looked in detail at two parties in Downing Street at which Boris Johnson’s attendance was central: The “bring your own” staff drinks held in the No 10 garden and Johnson’s birthday party in the Cabinet Room, for which he was fined.
The committee reveals evidence received from officials and advisers that the garden party should not have gone ahead with one saying it was “madness”. It also says trestle tables had been set up for drinks and that it was not just No 10 staff who were present — Johnson’s wife attended along with advisers from other government departments.
The report reveals that Johnson’s birthday party was attended by at least 17 people, despite internal No 10 guidance that there should be no more than 15 people in the room. It highlights the presence of Carrie Johnson and the interior designer Lulu Lytle.
The defence: Johnson told the committee that he considered the garden party necessary for work purposes, not least because the cabinet secretary had just stood down and staff needed to feel “thanked for their work”. The report reveals that Johnson later corrected this, admitting that Sir Mark Sedwill was still in place at the time.
Johnson also maintained that despite having been fined by police over the birthday party, he could still not “understand why I had got it”.
The conclusion: The MPs decided both events breached Covid rules in place at the time because they could not be considered “essential for work purposes”. In particular they highlighted the presence of Carrie Johnson at both as highlighting the “social nature” of the gatherings. They added that if Johnson really felt he had not breached Covid rules at the birthday gathering he should have challenged the fixed penalty he was given — but did not.
Other events in Downing Street The facts: The committee also assessed a series of leaving drinks and other parties. In particular it highlighted the press office party in December 2020 that triggered the scandal. Johnson did not attend but passed the room where it was taking place on his way back to the Downing Street flat.
The defence: Johnson said he might well have seen people but his attention was “often elsewhere” and he only learnt about the event after it was exposed in the media.
The conclusion: The MPs rejected Johnson’s claim as to why he would not have observed the party as not credible.
Does amuse me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people attend Parties during lockdown. And try and pin all the blame on 1 man.
That people who "judge" on a non-existent "Court" can both pronounce guilt and avoid talking about their own conduct. That an Honour can go to "Party Marty". That 7 MPs can trash a former PM, yet feel justified in increasing a sanction from 20 days to 90 days if he dares to criticise them.
And have the gall to claim that Boris is the 1 attacking the fabric of democracy.
Boris is undoubtedly a liar. Something everybody knew in positions of power. Not least because most of them were doing exactly the same.
Does amuse me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people attend Parties during lockdown. And try and pin all the blame on 1 man.
That people who "judge" on a non-existent "Court" can both pronounce guilt and avoid talking about their own conduct. That an Honour can go to "Party Marty". That 7 MPs can trash a former PM, yet feel justified in increasing a sanction from 20 days to 90 days if he dares to criticise them.
And have the gall to claim that Boris is the 1 attacking the fabric of democracy.
Boris is undoubtedly a liar. Something everybody knew in positions of power. Not least because most of them were doing exactly the same.
The Boris supporters have failed to grasp that this is more about the lying than the parties.
Does amuse me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people attend Parties during lockdown. And try and pin all the blame on 1 man.
That people who "judge" on a non-existent "Court" can both pronounce guilt and avoid talking about their own conduct. That an Honour can go to "Party Marty". That 7 MPs can trash a former PM, yet feel justified in increasing a sanction from 20 days to 90 days if he dares to criticise them.
And have the gall to claim that Boris is the 1 attacking the fabric of democracy.
Boris is undoubtedly a liar. Something everybody knew in positions of power. Not least because most of them were doing exactly the same.
The Boris supporters have failed to grasp that this is more about the lying than the parties.
The reverse.
What the Westminster bubble do not realise is that, for the electorate, it's about the Parties. Not the lying to the House of Commons. Lying to people who weren't allowed to be with their loved ones when they died. To visit people in Care Homes. To hold a parent's hand at the funeral of the other parent.
That's what matters. Not the fragile ego of MPs.
Rishi Sunak and his advisers has made it about the lying to the House.
Does amuse me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people attend Parties during lockdown. And try and pin all the blame on 1 man.
That people who "judge" on a non-existent "Court" can both pronounce guilt and avoid talking about their own conduct. That an Honour can go to "Party Marty". That 7 MPs can trash a former PM, yet feel justified in increasing a sanction from 20 days to 90 days if he dares to criticise them.
And have the gall to claim that Boris is the 1 attacking the fabric of democracy.
Boris is undoubtedly a liar. Something everybody knew in positions of power. Not least because most of them were doing exactly the same.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: Bernard Jenkin must quit partygate inquiry that punished Boris Johnson
Comments
Former prime minister made his case worse, and his lawyers did him no favours, say MPs
Save
The privileges committee found that Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over partygate. But what else did we learn from its report?
Johnson will sit in a tiny club of banned former MPs
The committee said that were he still an MP it would have recommended Boris Johnson be banned for 90 days for the multiple contempts.
But, as will have escaped nobody’s notice, he is no longer an MP. As a result, the committee has proposed another way for the Commons to signal its discontent, saying that the former prime minister should be stripped of the rights of access to parliament that all former MPs get.
This is a rare rebuke. Most recently John Bercow, the former Commons Speaker, was banned from holding a parliamentary pass after an independent inquiry found that he was a “serial bully” and a liar.
Johnson assured the committee he respected their integrity
In its report the committee reveals a previously unpublished letter that Johnson wrote to Sir Charles Walker, a Conservative member of the committee, a week after his public evidence session. Johnson’s letter followed an exchange with Walker about whether the committee was conducting a “witch-hunt” or was a “kangaroo court”.
Johnson wrote: “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 . . . I have the utmost respect for the integrity of the committee and all its members and the work that it is doing.” He stressed his “trust and belief that the committee will address the evidence with integrity and impartiality”.
The committee noted that Johnson had nevertheless made repeated public criticisms of their work, concluding: “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.” They added: “This in our view constitutes a further significant contempt.”
Johnson’s lawyers may have hindered his cause
The government funded Johnson’s legal advice to the tune of £245,000. Yet the report suggests that this may have hindered rather than helped the former prime minister.
Johnson’s lead lawyer was Lord Pannick KC. The report accuses him, in three opinions, of having made arguments “based on fallacious analogies between the inquisitorial parliamentary process and the quite separate adversarial process which is followed in the courts”.
The committee dedicates an annex of its report to “clearing up misunderstandings about the house’s inquisitorial procedures, rebutting arguments that the committee has strayed beyond its order of reference [and] explaining that our report is not based on the Sue Gray report, or on the evidence taken by Sue Gray” — all arguments advanced by Johnson’s lawyers.
Johnson’s denials and attacks on the committee made matters worse
He is being punished for five kinds of contempt. The first is deliberately misleading the Commons, which is what the committee was set up to investigate. The others are all contempts which took place during the investigation, though.
He is accused of deliberately misleading the committee. Essentially the MPs on the panel say that by insisting he believes the events were within the rules he was misleading them.
He has also been found in contempt for “breaching confidence” by effectively making public the committee’s verdict last week, for “impugning the committee”, and for “being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee”.
Leaving drinks were not necessary for the operation of No 10
Central to Johnson’s defence, both in writing and in person, was his assertion that leaving drinks were an essential part of working in Downing Street during the pandemic. The committee firmly disagreed.
“A workplace ‘thank you’, leaving drink, birthday celebration or motivational event is obviously neither essential or reasonably necessary,” they said. “Mr Johnson is adamant that he believed all of the events which he attended and of which he had direct knowledge were essential. That belief, which he continues to assert, has no reasonable basis in the rules or on the facts.”
They cited the fact that in a leaked video of a mock press conference Allegra Stratton, who was Johnson’s press secretary, was “unable to think of any credible response” to whether the prime minister would condone a Christmas party, “and was evidently embarrassed”.
There will be a report on the attempt ‘to undermine the committee’s credibility’
There had been speculation prior to the report on whether the privileges committee would rebuke individual MPs beyond Johnson himself for criticising their work. They opted not to, but instead said they were preparing a special report on the subject.
The committee said: “We note that the committee was instructed to carry out this inquiry . . . without a vote against. We further note that each of the committee’s members were appointed to the committee by the house without [opposition]. Each member has done their duty on behalf of the house.
“Despite this, from the outset of this inquiry there has been a sustained attempt, seemingly co-ordinated, 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.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-report-privileges-committee-key-points-8jbsztddr
new
The privileges committee report into the Downing Street party scandal paints a damning picture of the former prime minister’s behaviour
The privileges committee report into the Downing Street party scandal may run to more than 100 pages but ultimately it comes to one very simple conclusion: Boris Johnson is a liar who repeatedly misled Parliament.
In excoriating detail it rejects both the former prime minister’s claims that he was unaware of the parties and his central defence that the events which he attended were within the rules.
Johnson, it said, also misled the committee, with the report saying that his “denials and explanations were so disingenuous that they were by their very nature deliberate attempts to mislead the committee and the House”.
So what are the facts the committee laid out after its 14-month investigation, how did Johnson respond and what were the conclusions reached?
The parties attended by Johnson
The facts: The committee looked in detail at two parties in Downing Street at which Boris Johnson’s attendance was central: The “bring your own” staff drinks held in the No 10 garden and Johnson’s birthday party in the Cabinet Room, for which he was fined.
The committee reveals evidence received from officials and advisers that the garden party should not have gone ahead with one saying it was “madness”. It also says trestle tables had been set up for drinks and that it was not just No 10 staff who were present — Johnson’s wife attended along with advisers from other government departments.
The report reveals that Johnson’s birthday party was attended by at least 17 people, despite internal No 10 guidance that there should be no more than 15 people in the room. It highlights the presence of Carrie Johnson and the interior designer Lulu Lytle.
The defence: Johnson told the committee that he considered the garden party necessary for work purposes, not least because the cabinet secretary had just stood down and staff needed to feel “thanked for their work”. The report reveals that Johnson later corrected this, admitting that Sir Mark Sedwill was still in place at the time.
Johnson also maintained that despite having been fined by police over the birthday party, he could still not “understand why I had got it”.
The conclusion: The MPs decided both events breached Covid rules in place at the time because they could not be considered “essential for work purposes”. In particular they highlighted the presence of Carrie Johnson at both as highlighting the “social nature” of the gatherings. They added that if Johnson really felt he had not breached Covid rules at the birthday gathering he should have challenged the fixed penalty he was given — but did not.
Other events in Downing Street
The facts: The committee also assessed a series of leaving drinks and other parties. In particular it highlighted the press office party in December 2020 that triggered the scandal. Johnson did not attend but passed the room where it was taking place on his way back to the Downing Street flat.
The defence: Johnson said he might well have seen people but his attention was “often elsewhere” and he only learnt about the event after it was exposed in the media.
The conclusion: The MPs rejected Johnson’s claim as to why he would not have observed the party as not credible.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-branded-a-liar-whose-claims-mired-him-in-contempt-7c3c2p63s
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/leading-partygate-inquisitor-effectively-in-hiding-for-a-third-day/ar-AA1cFa8f?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c1e569b3023a4c279dc50b970b43212f&ei=12
Does amuse me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people attend Parties during lockdown. And try and pin all the blame on 1 man.
That people who "judge" on a non-existent "Court" can both pronounce guilt and avoid talking about their own conduct. That an Honour can go to "Party Marty". That 7 MPs can trash a former PM, yet feel justified in increasing a sanction from 20 days to 90 days if he dares to criticise them.
And have the gall to claim that Boris is the 1 attacking the fabric of democracy.
Boris is undoubtedly a liar. Something everybody knew in positions of power. Not least because most of them were doing exactly the same.
What the Westminster bubble do not realise is that, for the electorate, it's about the Parties. Not the lying to the House of Commons. Lying to people who weren't allowed to be with their loved ones when they died. To visit people in Care Homes. To hold a parent's hand at the funeral of the other parent.
That's what matters. Not the fragile ego of MPs.
Rishi Sunak and his advisers has made it about the lying to the House.
And they are so, so, wrong.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/ministers-abstain-country-boris-johnson-192753447.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/two-partygate-investigations-opened-met-161704094.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/jacob-rees-mogg-bernard-jenkin-050000968.html