Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Debate between Chris Bryant and Caroline Johnson

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

When I visit schools to discuss my work in Parliament, we often discuss speaking at the Dispatch Box, as I was honoured to do myself last year, although sadly only a handful of times, and what is in those boxes. As we all know, the boxes contain copies of religious texts, such as the Bible. Ministers do not speak under oath, so those texts are important reminders to them about the truth of what they say.

None of us is perfect—we all make mistakes. Ministers are charged with remembering lots of specific facts, figures and wording, such as the difference between rules and guidance, and they may make mistakes. If they do make a mistake, they must correct the record, once they are aware of the issue and have the opportunity to do so; they are asked to do so “at the earliest opportunity”.

In the report, the Privileges Committee considered whether Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, lied to the House, which is a serious allegation. The Committee found him guilty and recommended a substantial suspension. I looked for precedents and found a helpful House of Commons Library briefing that showed there have been only 22 specific referrals to the Privileges Committee since 1979. Of those, only four—an average of one a decade—related to a specific Member or Members of Parliament. In 1994, two Members were sanctioned as part of the cash for questions inquiry, one for 10 days and the other for 20 days. In 2005, a Member was found to have been untruthful, but not to have lied, meaning presumably that it was unintentional. So this case is unusual.

Those examples took place before the Recall of MPs Act 2015. In that light, a 90-day suspension seems rather long, as others have said. It is not just a matter of the suspension itself, which has been served by Members previously; there is also the prospect of a recall. In common with other right hon. and hon. Members, I am concerned fundamentally that Members should not be removed from Parliament by other politicians, except in circumstances highlighted in the Recall Act, such as for criminal convictions resulting in imprisonment that meet the threshold of the Act or convictions for fiddling expenses.

My concern is that the process allows parliamentarians to remove other parliamentarians who have been duly elected, without clear, prior guidance on where those thresholds lie. Currently, there could be a suspension for nine or 10 days, but there is no guidance on when the suspension should last for nine days and when it should last for 10 days. That could lead to suspensions being seen to be politically motivated, as we have seen with the Committee. Whether we agree or disagree with the Committee, nobody has not noted that some people consider the report to be politically motivated. Elements of the population believe that. We need to ensure that everybody, wherever they live or work, and whatever their political allegiance, can see that the process is fair.

The other danger is that this could lead to people playing the man and not the ball; instead of trying to take down arguments made by politicians, Committees could try to take down the person. That would weaken our faith in parliamentary processes. Therefore, I hope the Leader of House will make time for a debate on when the House believes the threshold for a 10-day suspension should or should not be met. It seems to me that that is crucial. Indeed, in the report about the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), the Standards Committee, which is a Committee with a similar membership to the Privileges Committee, suggested that that matter should be given further consideration.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I think I speak for all members of the Standards Committee when I say that we are a bit exercised about how the Recall of MPs Act now functions. When deciding on a sanction, nine days looks like the possibility of recall is being deliberately avoided, but more than 10 days looks as if the Committee has decided that it is the end of somebody’s career. We want to look at the matter more fully and we intend to launch an inquiry in the autumn into that precise issue.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. If the Standards Committee undertakes that inquiry, I hope it will ask Members from across the whole House to contribute, because that is something that needs to be decided by the whole House, not just half a dozen or so members of a Committee, with due respect.

The other issue I want to raise is about Members being critical of the Committee. We are here today because there is a vote in Parliament. That means we have the opportunity to say “yes”—aye—or “no”. The fact that we can say “no” means that it is perfectly legitimate to respect the Committee and to respectfully disagree with the Committee. I have respect for my colleagues and hon. Friends who make up the Committee and who have taken on the unenviable job of making a highly politically charged decision. I am sure they have given that their full due diligence over a long period. The Committee must never be intimidated, bribed, blackmailed or bullied. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in her opening remarks, it is a contempt of the House to seek to intimidate a member of the Committee.

However, a balance must be struck. We are here to debate and discuss, but we are free to disagree and question whether the Committee’s processes and procedures are fair. In my view, it is entirely legitimate to question whether a person who has politically opined on an issue can judge it impartially. It is reasonable to consider, do I agree with the report? Do I think the Committee has given insufficient weight to evidence provided by my hon. Friends the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) or for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) in their witness statements? Do I think insufficient weight was given to Boris Johnson’s evidence, when he said, “How is it obvious that this event was a transgression if it was published in the newspapers and nobody complained?” Are we to presume, for example, that no members of the Opposition or no one among his political opponents read The Times, and that it was not obvious to them?

That said, I understand the Committee is cross that its letter was leaked in advance of the publication of the report. Having looked at what constitutes contempt of the House, I agree that leaking a report or letter is a contempt of the House. For that, the Member concerned should apologise and, if they will not, they should be sanctioned. But due process is important. If someone has done something wrong, they deserve the same due process as those who may be innocent. In my view, we should always assume someone is innocent until they are proven guilty.

Today, we are being asked to vote on a sanction based, in part, on the statement that Boris Johnson was

“complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.”

That is a very serious allegation, but having read the report, I do not see where that is evidenced. That evidence has not yet been provided. If I understand the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) correctly, she said that evidence would be provided in a future report, when the Committee discusses that evidence. I am happy to take an intervention if she would like to say that it is in the report but I have missed it. I am concerned that we are being asked to vote on a sanction with essentially only half the evidence; I am not able to do that.

Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Debate between Chris Bryant and Caroline Johnson

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Indeed, trust in the Metropolitan police is not high, and that is a problem for the House at the moment. I am aware of friends and colleagues who would like to make complaints to the police but feel that they would not be listened to properly. Vice versa, there are obviously Members of the House who do not feel that the Metropolitan police would deal with them fairly. I think it is a fair point about whether this should be before arrest, but my assumption has been that the moment of arrest, and certainly if somebody is interviewed under caution while under arrest as a suspect, is the point when, again on a proportionate basis—proportionate to the alleged offence, proportionate to the risk there might be perceived to be and proportionate to the stage at which we are—we may want to take action.

I worry that, if we do not do any of this, we will leave ourselves very exposed to further reputational risk for the House. That is my anxiety. The hon. Member for Bracknell raised the question of whether somebody could be excluded without the House voting on it. My anxiety about the House voting on the exclusion of a Member is that that will almost certainly look to the public as though the House has judged that that person, for want of a better term, is a wrong ’un. That is why if my best friend were in this process—if, for instance, they had been charged, and the House authorities thought there was a significant concern and wanted to take action, suggesting they should not come in—I would say to my best friend, “You should just not come in.” Then it would be entirely voluntary, and that would protect the reputation of the House. I think that would be in the best interests of the individual, and we would end up with a fair outcome for the complainant as well.

However, I think the House has to reserve the opportunity that we may be in a situation where somebody is absolutely adamant—saying, “There’s no way you’re preventing me from coming in”—and people may come to the conclusion of replying, “Sorry, but we think you are a genuine risk to other people on the parliamentary estate, and that now trumps anything else. Consequently, if you’re not prepared to accept this, then we will have to vote on it.” However, I think the likelihood of that happening more than once in decade is minimal. I slightly worry about doing a review, because I am not sure how long we would have to allow before we had enough cases to decide whether the review was actually valuable.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

This is a very interesting debate. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that there are several parts to a Member of Parliament’s job? One is representing constituents in this place and voting in this place, but another is listening to their constituents, visiting them, and visiting schools and other places, but there has not been much focus on that part of the job.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No, indeed. One of the things referred to in the Commission paper, and we refer to it in the Standards Committee report, is that it is all very well dealing with here, but there is also the constituency office. I think we should be able to include that in this issue. For instance, let us say that somebody has been charged with a violent or sexual crime. I think the House authorities should be able to say to that Member, “I’m sorry, but you should make it possible for all your staff in your constituency to work from home”—that, for instance, may be an appropriate measure—or, “You’re only ever going to able to be in your constituency office with your staff with another person,” or some such measure. It is all about minimising risk. Of course, we cannot have a system in which the House says, “Oh, and by the way, you’re not allowed to go to Tesco” and so on. However, that may be a legitimate process that the police have to go down if they felt there were further risks to other people or to the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I have to apologise because my hearing is going a bit, so I did not catch all of that. There is always an argument about the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge and all of that—floodgates were mentioned earlier—but my anxiety is that if we do nothing we will be in danger of doing permanent damage to the reputation of the House and creating further anxiety for members of staff who work in the building.

I have just a few small points to make. I think we do need to address what happens in the Lords. I know we have exclusive cognisance, and it is up to those in the Lords what they do, but the ICGS is bicameral—it applies to both Houses—and we ought to have something similar for the House of Lords. I do find it quite extraordinary that somebody who has committed a significant criminal offence and gone to prison can come out and go back to the House of Lords—and, yes, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is right that I would like to change that law as well.

I think there is a significant issue here for the political parties. Members have talked about vexatious complaints, and the most dangerous space for this is potentially within political parties. The Whips often have to do a very complicated and difficult job, and I think the pressure we sometimes put them under in this field is inappropriate. I do not like the fact that, for many years, we always used to push these things under the carpet. I think it is right that we have proper processes, rather than saying, “Oh, it will all just be sorted out somewhere in the party.” However, I do worry about whether there is fairness for people, because the best way to prevent somebody being able to stand in the next general election is to make a complaint against them to their political party. They will then lose the Whip, the party will probably take even longer than any other authority would to deal with something, the person will not be able to stand and they will have lost their job.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about vexatious claims. If we are normally here for a term of about five years and it takes two or three years to investigate whether someone should be charged, does he accept that, if he wishes to exclude people on the basis of complaint rather than charge, wholly innocent people could end up not being able to represent their constituents for two or three years before that decision is made?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Of course I do, but I have tried to explain that I think we will mostly be dealing not with exclusion but with other risk-based actions that are about protecting the workplace. I understand the point the hon. Lady makes, but I hope I have tried to deal with it.

Turning to the adjudication panel, I think that is an inappropriate name because it contains a word that sounds like judges and that sounds like deciding whether somebody is innocent or guilty. The Commission has suggested that it should have two members of the Commission—in fact it has suggested that in this Parliament it should be two Deputy Speakers and a member of the Commission. That is the wrong set of people. First, there should not be a named set of people for a whole Parliament because, as sure as eggs is eggs, we will end up with somebody being conflicted because they are too close to the person concerned. Secondly, Deputy Speakers or Speakers are inappropriate as they are in a position of authority over Members and deal with all of them all the time. The lay members on the Commission were not appointed because they understand matters such as these; they are normally appointed because they understand the running of businesses and organisations and finances.

Our preference on the Standards Committee was therefore to have it simply stated that when a case arises a panel be brought together that includes two members of the Standards Committee and one member of the independent expert panel—so, one Member of Parliament, one lay member from the Standards Committee and one member of the independent expert panel—and that if a case ever came to either of those two bodies subsequently, they would then recuse themselves. That would end up with a better and fairer system.

For most of my time in this House we have brushed all these things under the carpet; it is a very beautiful carpet, but that does not mean we have done right. MPs often want to talk about vexatious complaints, but there is another side: lots of people feel unable to bring complaints because this is a place of patronage, power and authority. It does not feel as if we have much power a lot of the time, but many members of staff, especially young people coming to work here—I particularly feel this in relation to young gay men who come to work here—are very vulnerable and it is easy for Members to forget the power and authority they have over other people and abuse it. Although I recognise the need for fairness in relation to vexatious complaints, we must also have a system that enables people to make complaints.

My final point is that I hope we can start this process as soon as possible and have a debate on a substantive motion before the summer recess. I think that was what the Leader of the House was promising, in so far as she is ever able to promise something because other things always come along. My only request of her is that it would be nice to see the motion several days before we debate it, as that leads to better debates because people then know what they are talking about.