← Back to House of Commons Debates
Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson
19 June 2023
Lead MP
Penny Mordaunt
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Democracy & ElectionsForeign AffairsParliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 65
At a Glance
Penny Mordaunt raised concerns about privilege: conduct of right hon. boris johnson in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Leader of the House moved to approve the Fifth Report from the Committee of Privileges, emphasising that parliamentary privilege is crucial for protecting Parliament's ability to function effectively and without outside interference. She highlighted that the report found Mr Johnson 'deliberately misled' the House and committed a serious contempt, undermining democratic processes. Mordaunt argued that the Government respects constitutional principles by facilitating today’s debate on whether the Committee's findings are correct.
Toby Perkins
Lab
Chesterfield
Perkins questioned the Leader of the House about the depth and thoroughness of evidence reviewed by the Committee, including visits to No. 10 Downing Street, examination of emails, WhatsApp messages, photographs, and numerous interviews.
Debbonaire inquired whether Penny Mordaunt would vote in support of her motion tonight, highlighting a past instance where a previous Leader of the House brought forward a similar motion only to vote against it.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
Saville-Roberts commented on Mr Johnson's previous pledge to restore parliamentary sovereignty during the Brexit referendum, contrasting it with his subsequent actions deemed an attack on democratic institutions by the Committee. She advocated for a law against political falsehoods in public life.
Bristol West
Called on Members to think about constituents who lost loved ones due to COVID-19 and urged them not to dishonour their sacrifice. She highlighted the public's desire for an honest Prime Minister and the importance of enforcing rules when MPs, including Ministers, break them.
Caroline Lucas
Green
Brighton Pavilion
Agreed with Debbonaire that Members who abstain are guilty of cowardice and complicity in Boris Johnson's contempt for democracy. She argued that this debate goes to the heart of democratic principles.
Seema Malhotra
Lab/Co-op
Feltham and Heston
Supported Debbonaire’s argument, stating that the Prime Minister's absence suggests he knows what outcome he wants. She emphasised the need for Members to do right by their constituents.
Bob Seely
Con
Isle of Wight
Voted in support of the motion but reminded Debbonaire that Conservative MPs got rid of Boris Johnson last year due to losing faith in him. He pointed out that Labour Members covered up for Tony Blair when he lied.
Barry Sheerman
Lab
Huddersfield
Agreed with Debbonaire that it is sad this situation has arisen and called for lessons to be learned about patronage in the House of Lords. He stressed that such incidents should not happen again.
Pete Wishart
SNP
Perth and Kinross-shire
Asked Debbonaire to clarify Labour's stance on Boris Johnson’s honours list, given the current situation. He expressed confusion over whether Labour would continue such practices after this.
Clapham and Brixton
Agreed with Debbonaire that MPs who supported Boris Johnson when he lied to Parliament bear some responsibility for the current situation. She urged them to address this by voting in a certain way.
He expressed concern over the previous speech being overly party political and drew attention to annex 3 of the report, which deals with the purported response of Mr Johnson to the Committee’s warning letter. He emphasised the importance of acknowledging mistakes and apologising for them when one has done something wrong.
Lindsay Hoyle
Speaker
Chorley
Responded to Peter Bottomley, noting that he would have preferred speaking after the Chair of the Privileges Committee if given notice. He called on the Scottish National party spokesperson to continue the debate.
Deidre Brock
SNP
Glasgow North West
Ms Brock emphasises the severe breach of public trust by Boris Johnson and his Government during the pandemic, referring to the Privileges Committee's report which found that Johnson deliberately misled Parliament. She advocates for full endorsement of the committee’s recommendations to recover legal fees wasted on lies, rescind honours bestowed in disgrace, and prevent further financial support for Johnson.
Ms Whitford agrees with Ms Brock that the social media outpouring of personal stories shows the lasting impact of pandemic restrictions on people's lives. She argues that trivialising these issues is an insult to those who have suffered.
Pete Wishart
SNP
Perth and Kinross-shire
Mr Wishart supports Ms Brock's speech, praising her for highlighting the accountability of Conservative MPs in supporting Johnson despite knowing his character flaws. He warns about the impact on upcoming by-elections due to Johnson’s legacy.
Theresa May
Con
Walthamstow
Theresa May acknowledged the rigorous work of the Privileges Committee and emphasised the importance of upholding parliamentary standards. She praised the committee's findings, particularly regarding the Chairwoman, Harriet Harman, for her leadership during sensitive times. May highlighted that actions undermining public trust in Parliament can have severe consequences and urged all MPs to support the report to restore faith in democratic processes.
Tobias Ellwood
Con
Bolton West
Ellwood supported Theresa May’s stance, reinforcing the need for a decisive conclusion to the debate regardless of Boris Johnson's absence. He stressed that the nation expects MPs to follow through with their responsibilities and maintain integrity in parliamentary proceedings.
Harriet Harman
Lab
Camberwell and Peckham
The report is based on evidence and recognises the seriousness of misleading the House. The Committee unanimously agreed that a sanction under the Recall of MPs Act was justified due to Mr Johnson's deliberate misleading, and they increased it to 90 days due to the severity of his actions. Harriet acknowledges the dedication and resilience shown by members of the Privileges Committee throughout their work.
Andrea Leadsom
Con
South Northamptonshire
Ms Leadsom argues that it is reasonable for Members to have differing opinions on both the findings of the Committee and the sanctions imposed, but she strongly believes this House must uphold the processes and Committees that they create. She highlights her involvement in establishing the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) during her tenure as Leader of the House and emphasises two key principles: Members should only be removed by electors, and the House should be responsible for its own affairs. She praises the Committee's work and underscores that a non-Member committee would risk undermining democracy.
Angela Eagle
Lab
Wallasey
The Committee’s conclusions are very clearcut and unanimous: the former Prime Minister engaged in serious contempt and wrongdoing. Parliamentary accountability lies at the heart of our democratic system. Boris Johnson left the House in disgrace, undermining the integrity of the parliamentary system he has done so much to bring into disrepute. Despite intense pressure, the members of the Committee have discharged their duties with integrity and honour. All those who accuse them of being biased should themselves be referred to the Committee for contempt.
My hon. Friend agrees that the way my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) dealt with the allegations against her of bias, as she explained earlier, and the reaction of Boris Johnson are in sharp contrast.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the excellent speech she is making. Does she agree that today is a good day for the House of Commons, because the system has fundamentally worked?
Lia Nici
Con
Grimsby
I cannot see where the evidence is that Boris Johnson misled Parliament knowingly, intentionally or recklessly. I read the report and think there were some people who had parties but those unelected officials advised the then Prime Minister again and again that no rules were broken and guidance was followed at all times.
Dave Doogan
SNP
Angus and Perthshire Glens
Asked Lia Nici if she agrees there is none so blind as those who will not see, implying that she does not acknowledge the evidence against Boris Johnson.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
Questioned whether Lia Nici understands what her constituents felt like during lockdown when they heard the evidence about parties at No. 10, implying that the Prime Minister led those who were partying.
Suggested Lia Nici might be deflecting blame from Boris Johnson to unelected members of staff, and questioned if people would find this unedifying.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Pointed out that the Prime Minister at the time was not just the caretaker of No. 10 but also of the nation’s health, wellbeing and trust; she argued Boris Johnson let people down.
Jess Phillips
Lab
Birmingham Yardley
Asked Lia Nici if there is any chance that Boris Johnson could have lied to her too.
Diane Abbott
Ind
Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Cited Max Hastings’ comment about Boris Johnson in 2019, suggesting that his lying should not come as a surprise due to his past behaviour.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Stated that Boris Johnson deliberately lied about the rules being followed during lockdowns; emphasised that the pattern of behaviour is far worse than carelessness or recklessness.
Emphasised that this debate is not academic and urged colleagues to support the motion to sanction Boris Johnson, following the former Prime Minister's departure from Parliament.
John Baron
Con
Basildon and Billericay
He supports the Committee of Privileges' report, expressing hope that there will not be a vote but will support it if necessary. He emphasises the importance of truthfulness from Ministers at the Dispatch Box for accountability and the integrity of Parliament's system. Baron also warns against external bodies regulating MPs and highlights the public's reaction to rule-breaking during lockdowns as undermining trust in political figures.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
She underscores the significance of telling the truth for maintaining public trust, particularly regarding accountability. Margaret Hodge pays tribute to the Privileges Committee's work and the journalist who revealed key information. She also addresses broader issues such as attacks on Executive power checks and the cultural erosion threatening democracy under Boris Johnson’s leadership.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Con
North East Somerset
Rees-Mogg challenges the views presented in the report, arguing that it incorrectly interprets Mr Johnson's actions and activities. He cites legal precedents to argue against the committee's interpretation of a fixed penalty notice as an admission of guilt. Rees-Mogg also criticises paragraph 83 for assuming internal thoughts without evidence and highlights inconsistencies in how other ministers were briefed compared to Mr Johnson.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Lewis's contribution is not provided in the given text, so there is no detailed position available from this speaker based on the information given.
Karl Turner
Lab
Kingston upon Hull East
Commends the Privileges Committee and its report, stating that Boris Johnson was a liar. Raises concerns about legal aid, honours list, office costs, Prime Minister's absence during debate, and Johnson's allegations against other parties.
Caroline Johnson
Con
Sleaford and North Hykeham
Discusses the importance of truth in parliamentary proceedings and the rarity of referrals to the Privileges Committee. Expresses concern over the potential political motivations behind suspensions and recalls, suggesting a debate on clear guidelines for such actions.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Supports the report by emphasising its significance in upholding trust in British democracy. Acknowledges the importance of supporting the committee's conclusions to defend constituents and uphold democratic principles.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda
Intervenes to point out that there is a House motion stating Members will always represent themselves and not be represented by legal counsel. Also mentions page 7 of the report which states Boris Johnson was guilty of contempt for 'deliberately misleading the House'.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Intervenes to ask Bill Cash if he will divide the House today so that Members can cast their vote either against or in favour of the report.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
It is clearly a very serious matter when one of our number is found in contempt of the House, and no one can or should take any pleasure in the report that we are debating this evening. However, it is important to remember the anger and distress caused by the revelations about parties at 10 Downing Street, which contrasted with what people did while upholding rules and guidance at great personal cost... Having looked at the evidence, our colleagues formed their judgment and I think we have a duty to accept their report. The Privileges Committee gave Mr Johnson every opportunity to explain his actions, its conclusions were unanimous, and it is important that we uphold the integrity of the House.
In 2019, Boris Johnson won a majority that broke the shackles of socialism in the north. While he is a human who faced highs and lows during his time as Prime Minister, I struggle with whether the Privileges Committee was right to conclude that he deliberately misled the House and whether the punishment is fair... The report looked at six events but not the most recent videos where parties happened. He was not there, but I understand the hurt caused by these revelations... If I vote for the report, my haters will love me for five minutes and then hate me again; if I abstain or vote against it, I please no one. But I am here to do what is right, so I will vote against because the process is flawed, he has been punished enough, and this country needs to move on.
Maria Eagle
Lab
Liverpool Garston
Eagle highlights the seriousness of the report, noting its damning and excoriating findings. She stresses that every Member should support the Committee’s recommendations to uphold parliamentary integrity.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Hayes questions Eagle about the sanctions proposed by the Privileges Committee, suggesting a need for sentencing guidelines. He underscores the importance of adhering strictly to procedures in managing privileges.
Richardson thanks the Privileges Committee and its Clerks for their work over many months. She emphasises that this debate is about whether misleading statements constitute a contempt, not wrongdoing itself. She also condemns attacks on committee members and expresses support for the Committee’s findings.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
The former Prime Minister repeatedly claimed there were more people in employment than before the pandemic began. This was untrue based on actual figures showing a half million fewer employed individuals. Despite being corrected by the UK Statistics Authority and his own officials, he continued to make these false claims.
Bob Seely
Con
Isle of Wight
While supporting the Privileges Committee report on Boris Johnson's statements, Bob Seely argued that there were more significant issues related to lockdown policies and their impacts on lives, learning, sanity, money, and truth. He highlighted other important scandals such as excess deaths due to halted NHS services and stalled educational improvement.
Andrew Bridgen
Con
Holborough and Swale
Parliament and the public are out of lockstep due to Boris Johnson's misleading actions, causing damage to the reputation of both Parliament and the Privileges Committee. The public lost trust in the Government's messaging during the pandemic, which was seen as a misuse of power and an infringement on people’s dignity.
Nigel Evans
Con
Cannock Chase
Called upon other Members to focus their contributions on the contents of the report rather than diverging into unrelated topics. Emphasised the need for relevance in discussing the report's findings.
Jess Phillips
Lab
Birmingham Yardley
Focused on the importance of parliamentary democracy and truth-telling within Parliament, highlighting cases where people’s lives were affected by following Boris Johnson's directives during lockdowns. Criticised the Prime Minister for his lack of clarity in response to the report and questioned his commitment to democratic principles.
Dawn Butler
Lab
Brent East
We owe a debt of gratitude to the Privileges Committee and its Chair for addressing issues related to democracy. The trust between Government and governed has been damaged, necessitating transparency, honesty, and integrity from those in power. The Leader of the House called for this but lies have gone unchecked. MPs must challenge the rules that allow misleading statements without correction. Integrity is crucial; otherwise, democracy suffers. Ministers who lie should face consequences without political interference, as the responsibility should rest with the House rather than the Prime Minister. Dawn Butler also mentioned her re-tabled early-day motion on ministerial code of conduct and plans to correct the record regarding calling Boris Johnson a liar.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Eshalomi supported Butler's speech, emphasising that honesty is the best policy. She highlighted that while privilege exists in Parliament for some Members, it does not extend equally to all MPs who are elected through the same process.
Ian Blackford
SNP
Ross, Skye and Lochaber
The Hon. Member emphasises the seriousness of Boris Johnson's actions in misleading the Privileges Committee and undermining democracy. He highlights that Boris Johnson was known to be dishonest even before becoming Prime Minister and that his behaviour during the pandemic was hypocritical and disrespectful towards those who followed the rules. The report confirms that Boris Johnson deliberately misled the House, impugned the Committee, and engaged in a campaign of abuse against its members. He argues for the importance of honourable conduct in political leadership and calls for accountability. Furthermore, he criticises the current Prime Minister's failure to intervene on the issue of Boris Johnson's resignation honours and demands that these honours be reversed.
Alison McGovern
Lab
Birkenhead
McGovern expresses her disappointment in Boris Johnson's misleading behaviour during his tenure as Prime Minister, emphasising the impact on parliamentary democracy and trust. She acknowledges the hard work of the Privileges Committee but stresses the importance of addressing structural inequality and ensuring that all voices are heard equally in Parliament.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Abrahams supports the Privileges Committee report, highlighting Boris Johnson's deliberate deception during the pandemic and beyond. She points out his violation of Nolan principles and discusses the need for an independent ethics commission to strengthen political integrity.
Battersea
I express gratitude to the Member for Camberwell and Peckham for chairing the Privileges Committee with strength and integrity. The report indicts Boris Johnson for deliberately misleading the House, underlining his unsuitability for high office due to a history of failures and lies. I will vote to endorse the report but regret that it does not ban him for life. Leaders must lead by example and uphold laws, especially during health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic where accountability is crucial. Johnson's actions undermined public trust and disregarded sacrifices made by constituents during lockdowns. He has shown zero accountability despite over 225,000 lives lost to the virus. His undermining of Parliament risks our democratic institutions, questioning public confidence in this place. Additionally, Conservative Members who knew of his deceit yet allowed him to remain in office have failed their duty, exemplified by paying for Johnson’s legal fees with taxpayer money and failing to block his honours list. The current Government's actions further erode trust in democracy, governing only for self-interests and maintaining a double standard.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Emphasised the importance of MPs representing their constituents with integrity, criticised the former Prime Minister for misleading the House and breaching confidence. Highlighted the impact of political misconduct on public trust and young people's perception of democracy. Referenced the tragic death of Ismail Mohamed Abdulwahab to illustrate the serious consequences of rule-breaking in leadership positions. Called for accountability and consequences for those who mislead the House, stressing that high standards are necessary to maintain public trust.
Pete Wishart
SNP
Perth and Kinross-shire
Boris Johnson lied to the House of Commons and there is a profound truth in this statement. The SNP was one of the first to bring up issues about parties during the pandemic, asserting that his behaviour made him unfit for public office. His reign of chaos has ended, and he must be held accountable. Conservative Members knew everything about Johnson's character but still made him Prime Minister, leading to a disaster in Brexit.
Simon Lightwood
Lab Co-op
Wakefield and Rothwell
People in Wakefield wanted Boris Johnson out of office due to his betrayal. The Privileges Committee report is damning but not surprising to the public, with 69% believing Johnson knowingly misled Parliament. I will vote for the report to draw a line in the sand and support fundamental principles of public life, democracy, and truth. In Yorkshire, we call a spade a spade: Boris Johnson is a liar and must be held accountable.
Mike Amesbury
Lab
Newton Abbott
Amesbury thanked the Privileges Committee for their report and highlighted that Johnson misled Parliament, MPs, and the public on multiple occasions during the pandemic. He emphasised that Johnson's actions were not just misleading but also illegal and showed contempt towards those who lost loved ones to COVID-19. Amesbury criticised the disparity in rules between the government and the general public and called for the withdrawal of honours given under Johnson’s leadership. He expressed disappointment with the current Prime Minister for not taking a strong stance against Johnson, calling him weak. Amesbury concluded by stating his intention to vote for the motion to uphold parliamentary democracy and standards.
Barry Sheerman
Lab
Huddersfield
Sheerman intervened to acknowledge cross-party work during the pandemic in constituencies, emphasising the collaborative efforts across parties to combat the virus. He highlighted that such cooperation made people feel let down by the top leadership's actions.
Martin Docherty
Lab
West Dunbartonshire
Docherty emphasised the personal impact of the pandemic on his constituents, criticised Boris Johnson's conduct during the crisis and called for stricter measures against lawbreakers. He also questioned the decision-making process that allowed Johnson to escape severe consequences.
David Linden
Lab
Glasgow East
Linden intervened to support Docherty's stance, suggesting that Boris Johnson should face further restrictions on his privileges beyond losing a former Member’s pass.
Penny Mordaunt
Con
Portsmouth North
Mordaunt thanked the Privileges Committee for their work despite difficult circumstances and acknowledged the emotional aspect of debating such an issue. She encouraged members to follow their conscience in voting on the report.
North Cotswolds
Clifton-Brown interjected to praise the work of the Privileges Committee, noting that they have faced significant criticism and abuse but still managed to produce a comprehensive report. He emphasised the need for gratitude towards those who worked diligently on the matter.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.