Boris Johnson deliberately misled British lawmakers about lockdown parties in Downing Street during the coronavirus pandemic, a powerful committee concluded on Thursday, publishing findings that angered Mr Johnson. resign from Parliament last week.
The 108 page documentbrought by the House of Commons privileged committee, which rendered a scathing verdict on Mr Johnson’s honesty and integrity, concluding that his conduct in misleading the legislators who questioned him, including both his violation of the publicly recorded blockade policy, was intentional, and that he committed “a serious contempt” of the House.
The report concluded: “The contempt was made more serious because the prime minister, the most senior member of the government, was committed.” “There is no precedent for a prime minister to be found to deliberately mislead the House of Commons.” Additionally, it said, “He misled the House on an issue most important to the House and the public, and has done so many times.”
If he remains a legislator, the penalty proposed by the committee would be a 90-day ban on Congress, one of the harshest options the committee could propose. The report also recommends that the former prime minister’s parliamentary license should be revoked, preventing him from visiting Parliament as he is normally entitled to.
On Monday, members of Congress will be asked to vote on whether to endorse the report. That could serve as a referendum on Mr Johnson’s career, or reveal persistent divisions within the Conservative Party, if some Tories reject the findings, or approve Mr. disgrace, if many people approve of them.
Penny Mordaunt, the Conservative, who is leading the House of Commons, said it would be a free vote, meaning the government would not pressure members to vote one way or another. . She also noted that the committee’s membership had been established with the unanimous backing of the House of Commons.
“We are talking about people who are friends and colleagues,” Ms. Mordaunt said. “It will be a painful and sad process for all of us.” But she added, “We all have to do what we think is right, and others must leave us alone.”
Mr Johnson’s resignation last week short-circuited a process that could lead to him losing his seat in Parliament in a by-election, to be held on 20 July to choose his successor. Johnson in Congress, local councils said in a statement on Thursday. Conservatives have chosen Steve Tuckwell became their candidate for the vote, according to news reports.
The committee’s ruthless ruling on the former prime minister’s character raises questions about whether he has any prospects of reviving his political career and returning to Parliament, something he said. hinted that he wanted to do.
Opposition parties called for financial compensation. Labor says Mr Johnson should reimburse taxpayer-funded legal costs incurred during the investigation, which are estimated at £245,000, or about $310,000. The Liberal Democrats have said he should be stripped of the £115,000 annual allowance paid to former prime ministers.
Mr Johnson was sent a draft of the report last week and quickly resigned from the House of Commons, describing the committee investigating him as a “kangaroo court” geared towards a politically motivated witch hunt. against him. In fact, most of its members are from the Conservative Party that Mr Johnson led until last year, and two are prominent supporters of Brexit, his flagship policy.
The Privy Committee, which manages some of the internal affairs of parliament, has the power to recommend a suspension of Parliament, which could force Mr Johnson into an election to retain his seat. . Faced with that uncertain prospect, Mr Johnson resigned rather than risk his record as an election winner.
But in denouncing the committee, Mr Johnson only hardened the committee’s ruling. Its members were provided with additional security following comments questioning their impartiality by the former prime minister and his supporters.
In response to Mr Johnson, the committee justified the penalties it proposed by saying he was “complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Commission”, as well as smearing the work of Mr. committee “and thereby undermining the democratic process of the house.”
Mr. Johnson’s dynamite resignation announcement last week coincided with a separate dispute about the honor he intends to bestow upon his supporterssparked a public confrontation with Rishi Sunak, who succeeded Liz Truss as prime minister after her brief, ill-fated stint in Downing Street last year.
The document released on Thursday examined in detail the veracity of Mr Johnson’s account of how he and his senior aides behaved during the pandemic. Even as rumors spread of parties and socialization breaking the rules, Mr Johnson told Parliament he had received assurances that all lockdown rules were being followed. in Downing Street.
However, Mr Johnson eventually became the first sitting prime minister to be fined by police for breaking the law. More revelations have emerged, and the “partygate” scandal has become One of the few that contributed to his resignation under pressure as prime minister last year.
The issue that jeopardizes the committee is not the rule-breaking, but the way Mr Johnson has repeatedly denied it to lawmakers.
Not surprisingly, given his previous statements, Mr Johnson on Thursday rejected a severe sentence for his conduct.
He said in a statement: “The Committee now says that I knowingly misled the House and at the time I spoke I knowingly concealed my knowledge of the illegal facts from the House. “This is trash. It’s a lie. To reach this deranged conclusion, the committee was forced to say a series of things that are clearly absurd or contrary to reality.”
When Mr Johnson appeared before the committee in March, he admitted to making misleading statements to Parliament by assuring lawmakers earlier that there had been no breach of the lockdown rule. But he denied doing it intentionally. “I am here to honestly tell you that I am not lying to the House of Representatives,” he said at the time. “When those statements were made, they were made in good faith on the basis of what I actually knew and believed at the time.”
However, Mr Johnson admitted he could not recall being specifically reassured by any of his top civil servants that lockdown rules and guidelines had always been followed in Downing Street.
Instead, he cited advice from two political aides, prompting the committee’s chairman, Harriet Harman, to ask Mr Johnson if he would rely on “thin” reassurances.
In its report on Thursday, the committee drew attention to what it called Mr Johnson’s “post-event rationalization” about the nature and extent of the assurances he had received. from his own chief personal secretary and “others whose advice should have been authoritative. ” regarding whether the gatherings in question are allowed under the government’s pandemic regulations.
It added that Mr Johnson had attempted to “rewrite the meaning” of the Covid-19 rules and guidelines in effect at the time “to match his own evidence”. That includes his assertion that “a leaving gathering or a gathering to lift spirits is a legitimate reason to hold a gathering.”
When he appeared before the committee, the former prime minister denied accusations that he had been reckless in his statements. In doing so, he has perhaps closed a potential avenue for the committee to recommend a lighter penalty that would allow him to remain in Parliament without the risk of an election.
mark the landing person contribution report.
