the head of the Government, the effect of any misleading is exceptionally serious both for the potential impact on public confidence and because the Prime Minister sets the standard for all other Ministers of the Crown in how they account to the House.
6. It is inevitable that Ministers make mistakes and inadvertently mislead, and when they do, they are expected to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. This happens routinely. When a Minister makes an honest mistake and then corrects it, that is democracy working as it should. There is no basis for any fear that the requirement to be truthful with the House has a “chilling” effect on the ability of Ministers to be candid with the House. The House will also be understanding if a Minister declines to answer, for example, on matters which relate to national security or market sensitivity. But misleading intentionally or recklessly,[1] refusing to answer legitimate questions, or failing to correct misleading statements, impedes or frustrates the functioning of the House and is a contempt.
7. The subject on which Mr Johnson is alleged to have misled the House could not have been more serious. The Covid-19 pandemic was the biggest crisis our country has faced in generations and the greatest peacetime challenge in a century. It disrupted lives, separated friends and families, closed businesses, damaged livelihoods and, most tragically of all, has been associated with the deaths of over 150,000 people in the UK. In response, in the interests of protecting public health, the Government and Parliament imposed extensive restrictions on people’s freedom.
8. It has not been the purpose of this inquiry to examine the rights or wrongs of the Covid Rules and Guidance, nor have we sought to repeat the inquiry commissioned by Mr Johnson from the then Second Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office (Sue Gray) into the conduct of individual Ministers and officials in No. 10. What the House mandated us to do was to investigate whether Mr Johnson told the truth to Parliament, to the best of his knowledge, about No. 10’s compliance with those Rules and Guidance. The inquiry has been about what was the truth, which is why it goes to the heart of the trust on which our system of accountability depends.
9. This Committee is made up of Members of Parliament who have been appointed to this role by the House of Commons. The political balance on the Committee reflects that in the House, as far as is possible. The Committee comprises four Conservative and three Opposition MPs (two from Labour and one from the Scottish National Party). Having said that, we leave our party interests at the door of the committee room and conduct our work in the interests of the House. That is what we have striven to do throughout this inquiry.
The procedures in this inquiry
10. The House’s procedures for dealing with cases of privilege are long-established and we have worked within these procedures. Committees do not have power to hear Counsel, unless they have been given it by the House. They must proceed in an inquisitorial way. However, as has been done before, given the seriousness of this case, the Committee agreed and published a procedure for the investigation, setting out both the way in which
- ↑ As stated in the Committee’s Fourth Report, the Committee is adopting plain-English definitions of these and other key terms as used in a Parliamentary context. See: Committee of Privileges, Fourth Report of Session 2022–23, Matter referred on 21 April 2022: summary of issues to be raised with Mr Johnson (HC 1203), published 3 March 2023, footnote 4
