The fair-minded observer would know that the Committee on Privileges acts only when a matter is referred to it by the House of Commons.
Johnson was referred in April 2022 - Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges - Hansard - UK Parliament.
The observer would also know that the committee may only investigate the referred matter and report its findings back to the House. The decision about what to do as a result of the report rests entirely with the House. The committee's final report was issued 15 June 2023 - Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson): Final Report (parliament.uk).
Between April 2022 and June 2023 the committee received advice
from the former Lord Justice of Appeal - Sir Ernest Ryder.In July 2022, the committee published how it proposed to conduct the inquiry - Matter referred on 21 April 2022: proposed conduct of inquiry (parliament.uk).
This was met, on 2 September 2022, by the government publishing a legal opinion by Lord Pannick QC (now KC) and Jason Pobjoy - Legal Opinion by Lord Pannick QC relating to the Privileges Committee - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
On 26 September 2022, the Committee rejected Lord Pannick's opinion - Privileges Committee comments on legal opinion - Committees - UK Parliament.
There were some additional legal exchanges between the committee and Johnson's legal advisers. Links to those are in my earlier post of 11 June 2023.
On 22 March 2023 the committee held a hearing and this can be viewed at Privileges Committee publish documents for reference in oral evidence hearing with Boris Johnson - Committees - UK Parliament.
The committee opted, as it was perfectly entitled to do, to proceed with the advice it had received from Sir Ernest Ryder. Nonetheless, it is an interesting feature of this matter that there were such marked differences between Sir Ernest and Lord Pannick as to the procedure to be followed.
* Parliamentary Privilege *
Parliamentary Privilege was described, in a 1999 report, as 'a complex, technical and somewhat arcane subject.' - see paragraph 11 of the 1999 report by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. Parliamentary Privilege - First Report
Parliamentary Privilege consist of rights and immunities held by the Houses of Parliament so that members can carry out their parliamentary functions effectively. To be able to exercise its privileges it has long been recognised that Parliament must have sole control over all aspects of its own affairs: to determine for itself what the procedures shall be, whether there has been a breach of its procedures and what then should happen. This is sometimes referred to in somewhat archaic terms as "exclusive cognisance" - see the 2013 report Parliamentary Privilege - Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege
The right to regulate its own affairs includes the power to discipline its own members for misconduct and, further, power to punish anyone, whether a member or not, for behaviour interfering substantially with the proper conduct of parliamentary business. Such interference is known as contempt of Parliament.
Although a Member is not permitted to refer to another as a "liar" it is patently obvious that members must tell the truth. If something they say is discovered to be inaccurate then the parliamentary record has to be corrected.
The committee found multiple statements by Johnson concerning adherence to Covid Regulations. Further, the committee found those to be untruthful and went on to say that, because they were deliberate, they amounted to a contempt of the House.
All of this lies within the long-established rights of Parliament and it alone is the guardian and decision-maker of those rights.
Those who wish to see changes to how Parliament operates should seek to do so democratically and not indulge in narratives about Kangaroo Courts and people 'out to get' Johnson. Proposals for reform of parliamentary privilege are in the 1999 and 2013 reports produced by Parliament itself but very little reform is noticeable. As long ago as 1987, Australia enacted its Parliamentary Privileges Act.
The Committee of Privileges is not a court of law and there is no need for it to apply the procedures used by courts of law in, for example, criminal cases. There must be fairness including fair procedure and the committee's report sets out the efforts of the committee to offer a fair process to Johnson.
As already mentioned, it is for the House to decide whether to accept the committee's report. The opportunity to do that arises on Monday 19 June - (Order Paper).
*** RESULT ***
Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson - Hansard - UK Parliament- the House of Commons resolvcd to approve the Committee's 5th Report - 354 Votes to 7.
There are 650 seats in the Commons so how do we account for the other 289 MPs ?
From the 650 total can be deducted - the Speaker, seven Sinn Fein MPs, four 'tellers', three vacant seats. Hence, 274 either abstained or were absent due to 'pairing.'
'Tellers' are explained at Tellers - UK Parliament
'Pairing' is described at Pairing - UK Parliament where it is said that - ' Pairing is an informal arrangement which is not recognised by the House of Commons but must be registered with the Whips. Pairing is not allowed in divisions of great political importance.'
No official record is kept of MPs who abstain - Abstain - UK Parliament. Perhaps there ought to be.
The Express has produced a list - Boris vote in full: How every MP voted on Partygate report and who abstained | Politics | News | Express.co.uk.
Links:
2013 - Parliamentary privilege: current issues - House of Commons Library
Australia - Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987
Constitution Society - Parliamentary-Privilege.pdf (consoc.org.uk)
The true legacy of Boris Johnson | Institute for Government
No comments:
Post a Comment