BRIEF NOTES/CONCLUSIONS

House of Commons Select Committee of Privileges issues of privilege (the special protections afforded to the House of Commons to enable it to do its job) and looks into allegations these privileges have been impeded – offences known as contempts of parliament. 

“What is the prime minister being investigated for? 

The prime minister is being investigated for having potentially deliberately misled parliament in statements that he has made in the House about alleged breaches of lockdown rules in Downing Street – something that could constitute a contempt of parliament.” 

What are the rules about making inaccurate statements to parliament?

The clearest rules about making inaccurate statements to parliament mostly come from outside of parliament – from codes of conduct that apply to ministers, and from principles that apply to all those in public life. Nonetheless, these rules and principles are clear that MPs – and especially ministers – must not give inaccurate information to parliament, either deliberately or inadvertently.

The ministerial code – which applies to all ministers – states that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”

Separately, the Nolan Principles of Public Life – which apply to all those who hold national or local public office – include the principle of honesty: that “holders of public office should be truthful”. These principles have been incorporated into the code of conduct that all MPs (including ministers) must follow – but an alleged breach of the principles cannot be investigated or sanctioned.

These rules and principles are based on the idea that the Commons, in order to effectively fulfil its roles of scrutinising the work of government, passing legislation, and facilitating debate, needs to work with accurate information – and have confidence that everything said in the House is accurate.

If MPs or ministers fail to correct the record, how can they be compelled to do so?

If a minister or an MP says something inaccurate in parliament and is unwilling to correct the record, there are some mechanisms that could be used to compel them to do so. However, none of these mechanisms are failsafe.

A ministerial code investigation

The ultimate arbiter of the ministerial code is the prime minister. The prime minister is the only person who can launch an inquiry into whether a minister has broken the code. If an investigation is opened under the code, it is conducted by the independent adviser on ministerial interests (currently Lord Geidt). But it is then up to the prime minister to decide on whether a minister found to have broken the code should face any sanctions – and what those should be. There is no real arbiter of the Nolan Principles – as these are principles, not rules.

A substantive motion in the Commons

The most concrete mechanism for enforcing the rules is for MPs to table a substantive motion (one that be debated and voted on by the Commons) setting out the accusation. Such a motion could be used to find a minister or MP who has misled the Commons to be in contempt of parliament. Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, states that “The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.” This mechanism was used in 1963, when John Profumo was the subject of a motion accusing him of a “grave contempt” for having made a statement in the Commons “containing words which he later admitted not to be true.”

However, if the person who has made an inaccurate statement to parliament is from the governing party, the outcome of any vote on a substantive motion is likely to depend on the size of the government’s majority. And in addition, the actual sanctions for those found to have committed a contempt are not clear.

All of this means that it is politics that acts as the ultimate mechanism for upholding the rules about not giving inaccurate information to parliament. It is assumed that ministers and MPs will follow the rules, and if they do not, they will be politically pressured into doing so.

Sources https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/privileges-committee-investigation Institute of Government working to make government more effective.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/27/boris-johnson-changes-ministerial-code-to-remove-need-to-resign-over-breaches Boris Johnson accused of changing ministerial code to ‘save his skin’ 

Boris Johnson Investigation House Of Commons Privileges Committee, Parliament UK  Membership

7 current committee members 4 Conservatives, 1 SNP, 2 Labour [1 chair not voting] 

CONCLUSIONS

1. Membership bias, on purpose, in favour of the Conservative Party of Government  because “The balance of the committee reflects the broader balance of parties in the House of Commons as a whole.”  

2. The ‘Partygate’ Terms of Reference of the Inquiry are too narrowly defined, politically restricted, unfair and opaque.

3. Consequently, the scope of the Committee's call for ‘Partygate Evidence’ relating to the inquiry is also too narrowly defined, politically restricted, unfair and opaque.

4. Boris Johnson rewrote the Ministerial Code [PM is the ultimate arbiter!] to ‘save his own skin.’

Andy Carter MP Conservative Warrington South Commons Alberto Costa MP Conservative South Leicestershire Commons Sir Bernard Jenkin MP Conservative Harwich and North Essex Commons Laura Farris MP Conservative Newbury Commons Allan Dorans MP Scottish National Party Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Commons Yvonne Fovargue MP Labour Makerfield Commons Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP Labour Camberwell and Peckham Commons

Contact us Email: [email protected] Phone: 020 7219 6615 (general enquiries) / 0207 219 1493 or 07712540141 (Paul Connolly: Media enquiries)

FURTHER GOVERNMENT DETAILS:

“The Committee of Privileges is appointed to consider specific matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House. The scope of any inquiry comprises all matters relevant to the matter referred.

The Committee of Privileges currently has two matters referred to it:

On 27 October 2016 the House ordered that “the exercise and enforcement of the powers of the House in relation to select committees and contempts” be referred to the Committee. The Committee’s inquiry is assessing different options for enforcing the House’s powers to summon witnesses and call for production of documents. This includes reviewing the House’s available sanctions in cases of non-compliance by witnesses and other contempts. The Committee published a report making proposals for consultation on 3 May 2021, and published a further report making its final recommendations to the House on 16 June 2022.

On 21 April 2022 the House agreed the following Resolution:

“That this House:

(1) notes that, given the issue of fixed penalty notices by the police in relation to events in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, assertions the Rt hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has made on the floor of the House about the legality of activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations, including but not limited to the following answers given at Prime Minister’s Questions: 1 December 2021, that “all guidance was followed in No. 10”, Official Report vol. 704, col. 909; 8 December 2021 that “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372; 8 December 2021 that “I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372 and 8 December 2021 that “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 379, appear to amount to misleading the House; and

(2) orders that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the Rt hon Member’s conduct amounted to a contempt of the House, but that the Committee shall not begin substantive consideration of the matter until the inquiries currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Police have been concluded (referred by the House on 21 April 2022).

The Committee will make an announcement about its handling of this matter in due course.

More background on the purpose of the inquiry can be found by contacting [email protected]

Find out more about this committee”

Did ‘Contempt’ occur? i.e. whether or not an action or omission obstructs or impedes or has a tendency to obstruct or impede the functioning of the House, with the consequence that, looking at contempt in broad terms, intention is not necessary for a contempt to be committed. We accept the analysis in the Clerk of the Journals’ paper and will be proceeding with the inquiry on that basis.

Read more

LINK