Johnson’s resignation attack on committee triggered tougher report

Boris Johnson’s public attack on the Privileges Committee’s “kangaroo court” as he quit the Commons led to stronger condemnation and a tougher recommended punishment in the final report on his conduct.

The former prime minister announced on Friday that he was stepping down as an MP after being handed the committee’s provisional findings, which indicated he would face a recommended suspension of more than 10 days – long enough to potentially trigger a by-election.

But, following an extraordinary resignation statement in which he claimed he was the victim of a “witch hunt”, the committee concluded that his conduct amounted to a further serious contempt of Parliament.

This attack on a committee carrying out its remit from the democratically elected House itself amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions

Following his statement, the final report said that, had he stayed on as an MP, he could have faced a suspension of 90 days – and the committee also recommended that he should be banned from having the parliamentary pass usually granted to ex-members.

The provisional findings were supplied to Mr Johnson on June 8 with a strict warning that “it is a contempt of the House to reveal the contents of this document”.

At the time, the MPs had come to “no final conclusions”, although they had indicated that a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election was being considered.

Mr Johnson’s resignation statement, issued on the night of Friday June 9, said: “I did not lie, and I believe that in their hearts the committee know it.

“But they have wilfully chosen to ignore the truth because from the outset their purpose has not been to discover the truth, or genuinely to understand what was in my mind when I spoke in the Commons.

“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 said: “Within 24 hours of receiving our warning letter… 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.”

The MPs said that “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.”

Despite Mr Johnson having previously distanced himself from attacks on the “kangaroo court” committee’s “witch hunt” by his allies, the final report said that in his resignation statement he “used precisely those abusive terms”.

“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.”

The report recommended a 90-day suspension 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.”