A sitting minister said the investigation jeopardizes MPs’ right to speak freely. They said: “The Prime Minister’s resignation is an afterthought of what is really going on.” It follows a ruling by the House of Commons Privileges Committee, chaired by senior Labor MP Harriet Harman, that Johnson could be found guilty of misleading the House of Commons even if he made a genuine mistake.
The committee is to decide whether Mr Johnson committed “contempt of the House of Commons” by saying last year that he believed no lockdown rules had been broken at 10 Downing Street. The Metropolitan Police later fined the Prime Minister, his wife Carrie Johnson and former Chancellor Rishi Sunak for attending a birthday party in June 2020.
Previously, the committee was thought to consider whether Johnson “deliberately” or “deliberately” misled Parliament. But it has released a report stating, “It takes no intent to commit contempt”.
Supporters of the prime minister say the committee’s approach would bar freedom of expression and debate in parliament. And some Conservative MPs are particularly suspicious of the role of Ms Harman, a former deputy Labor leader who also twice served as the party’s acting leader.
Conservative MP Michael Fabricant, a former government minister, said: “This is a plan for total bonding, although I wouldn’t be surprised if Harriet Harman is the chairman of the committee.
“There is a principle in English law called ‘mens rea’, which means ‘guilty mind’. In other words, you must show that you intended to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.”
He added: “When Parliament returns, I will encourage all MPs – especially those with some knowledge of our legal system – to oppose the Privileges Committee. We have to make this a hell of a job.”
The Privileges Committee has ruled that Mr Johnson could be guilty of contempt simply for making a “false statement” because he is Prime Minister. It said in the report: “The committee may consider that the fact that Mr Johnson is Prime Minister is relevant, as erroneous statements by ministers are inherently likely to impede or hinder the House.”
He could lose his seat if the committee decides he should be banned from Parliament for 14 days or more, or for 10 days in which the House of Commons sits. Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, this would allow voters hostile to Mr Johnson to launch a petition demanding a by-election, and only 10 percent of local voters would have to sign it for the election to pass. let go.
Four of the seven MPs on the committee are Conservatives, giving it a Tory majority.
A spokesman for the Privileges Committee said the report was prepared by procedural and law experts employed by the House of Commons, not politicians. They said, “There is no change in the rules.”
The spokesperson said: “A decision on whether there is contempt is for the committee and ultimately the House to decide based on the evidence from the investigation. The questions the inquiry will seek to answer include whether the House has been misled; two, if so, whether that was a contempt; and three, if so, how serious was that contempt.
“The committee has not yet reviewed the evidence and is not pre-empting any of these questions.”
The inquiry will continue in September once Parliament returns from his summer break, by which time Johnson will no longer be prime minister. It is to question witnesses, including Mr. Johnson, in public hearings where they are expected to take an oath pledging to tell the truth.
Statements it will investigate include Mr Johnson’s remark during the Prime Minister’s questions on December 1, 2021, when he said “all guidelines were followed in issue 10”.
On December 8, 2021, he said: “Since these allegations, I have been repeatedly assured that there was no party and no Covid rules had been broken”. On that day he also said: “I am sick and furious about that myself, but I repeat what I said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules have not been broken”.