1 Introduction
The establishment of this inquiry
1. On 21 April 2022 the House of Commons resolved that:
Given the issue of fixed penalty notices by the police in relation to events in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, assertions the Rt hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has made on the floor of the House about the legality of activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations, including but not limited to the following answers given at Prime Minister’s Questions: 1 December 2021, that “all guidance was followed in No. 10”, Official Report vol. 704, col. 909; 8 December 2021 that “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372; 8 December 2021 that “I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372 and 8 December 2021 that “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 379, appear to amount to misleading the House.[1]
2. The House accordingly ordered that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether Mr Johnson’s conduct amounted to a contempt.
3. Our task in this inquiry has been to decide whether or not Mr Johnson misled the House of Commons, whether or not he thereby committed a contempt of the House, and if so, what was the nature and extent of his culpability. This is what the House of Commons required us to do, by referring the matter to us in the terms of the motion quoted above, which was carried without a vote against.
The importance of this inquiry
4. This inquiry goes to the very heart of our democracy. Misleading the House is not a technical issue, but a matter of great importance. Our democracy is based on people electing Members of Parliament not just to enable a government to be formed and supported but to scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account for its actions. The House proceeds on the basis that what it is told by Ministers is accurate and truthful. The House expects pro-active candour and transparency. Our democracy depends on MPs’ being able to trust that what Ministers tell them in the House of Commons is the truth. If Ministers cannot be trusted to tell the truth, the House cannot do its job and the confidence of the public in our democracy is undermined.
5. The House expects all Members to act with integrity, which is why we refer to each other as Honourable Members. Untruthful or misleading statements from Ministers are more damaging even than those from Opposition or backbench Members because they frustrate and impede the House in its vital role of scrutinising the Government. Where, as in this case, the Minister who is alleged to have misled the House is the Prime Minister,
- ↑ Votes and Proceedings, 21 April 2022, item 3
