Parliament must have a mechanism for policing itself that is beyond reproach
The Privileges Committee process has brought into sharp focus the need for a new mechanism – one beyond reproach – for Parliament to investigate allegations of misleading of the House of Commons
Parliament and the Nation must have confidence that what ministers say is true and as accurate as possible.
Accepting that mistakes do occur, Parliament must have confidence that what ministers tell MPs is true and as accurate as possible. Indeed, when ministers tell the Nation something, the people of the United Kingdom have to the confidence in the integrity of ministers to take what they are told as being true.
This is important because Parliament is where the most grave and important issues confronting the country are discussed, is the place where decisions are made regarding those matters, and where government is held accountable. As such, any unintentionally or intentionally false information fed into Parliament can have grave consequences for the people of the United Kingdom. Such false information also obstructs transparency and, in doing so, challenges our democratic system.
It follows therefore that there must be a recognised duty incumbent upon ministers to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that what they tell the House of Commons and the Nation is correct, and that any minister, including prime minister, who knowingly misleads Parliament should be subject to serious sanction by Parliament.
It also follows that, to be able to determine the facts in any case of an alleged violation of that duty, Parliament must have the ability to investigate the matter.
Why the courts are not the answer.
Some will say, “The answer is surely to refer such matters to the courts?”. The reasons that cannot happen are threefold:
Firstly, Parliament is sovereign. Parliament – constituted of individuals democratically elected by the people to represent them – makes the laws that courts base their judgments decide on.
Secondly, ministers represent the authority of the Crown and judges are appointed by the Crown.
Thirdly, courts judge matters of law, not of Parliamentary procedure. If unelected judges were to rule on Parliamentary procedure, they, and not the elected representatives of the people, would be determining how Parliament should conduct its business. That would largely mean the end of Parliamentary democracy. So, to require the courts, presided over by unelected judges, to judge Parliament, would be to rip up the constitutional order.
No. The answer must lie in Parliament holding its own members to account.
Parliament must have a mechanism for policing itself that is beyond reproach.
However, it is crucial that whatever procedure and processes are applied when investigating allegations of misleading the House of Commons, or indeed of any other matter, are free from bias, prejudice, or subjectivity – that the integrity and objectivity of the process is beyond question. This is important, because any mechanism, the objectivity or impartiality of which can be questioned, will inevitably create antagonism and undermine confidence in the integrity of the entire House of Commons. If that happens, public confidence in our entire system of government is weakened. So, Parliament must have a mechanism for policing itself that is beyond reproach.
In the naturally, but none the less politically tribal cockpit of Parliament, MPs cannot be relied upon to ignore the temptation to misuse or abuse a mechanism through which they may be able to attack or undermine their political opponents, or those they simply dislike. For that reason, it is particularly important that whatever system, mechanism or process is applied, it includes whatever checks and balances are necessary to minimise the opportunities for such abuse.
The need for such a mechanism – one beyond reproach – has been brought into sharp focus by the Privileges Committee investigation of Partgate.
But, before I go into why the Privileges Committee investigation worries me so much, let me say that I am not defending Boris Johnson. I shall repeat that. I am not defending Boris Johnson. I believe that he did not knowingly mislead the House of Commons, but I cannot defend him or condemn him because I simply do not know. I feel I should be able to confidently say whether he did or did not mislead the House, based on the conclusions of the Privileges Committee, but I cannot.
I have little trust in the integrity and objectivity of the Privileges Committee.
Here’s why:
The Chair of the Committee, Harriet Harman, prior to the commencement of the investigation, made clear, publicly and on several occasions, her view that Boris Johnson should go. She compromised her objectivity and indicated that she had already made up her mind. In a court of law, that would disqualify a judge from hearing a case and would likewise disqualify a juror. Even if she is not and was not biased, she created the appearance of bias and that appearance seriously undermines confidence in findings of the committee she chairs.
Several of the witness statements deliberated over and cited by the Committee are anonymous and Boris Johnson had no opportunity to cross examine them.
The Privileges Committee concluded that Boris Johnson had broken the law in cases that had already investigated by the police who had found that he had not broken the law.
There is no appeal against the Committee’s findings.
The Privileges Committee recommendation that Boris Johnson be suspended for 90 days is seen by almost all commentators to be excessive. It is a record period and one that I believe – I can see no other reason for it – to have been designed to inflict political damage on Johnson, not simply to punish him.
The Privileges Committee recommendation that Boris Johnson be denied a former MPs pass to enter the Parliamentary Estate appears petty and vindictive.
The Privileges Committee has indubitably and unwisely left itself open to questions about its impartiality and, as result it has failed the House of Commons.
Inappropriate conflation of issues
On my social media I have received countless comments to the affect “Boris Johnson inflicted the lockdowns on us”, “He misled us over Brexit”. Such comments were also expressed in the House of Commons debate on Monday 19th June, and they are entirely legitimate opinions too. But those matters were not what the Privileges Committee was investigating. The sanctions recommended by the Committee could not therefore be legitimately supported based on decisions made by the Johnson government on lockdowns or his assertions regarding Brexit. That is to conflate entirely separate issues. It’s akin to saying, “Regardless of whether he did or not, Johnson should be found guilty of lying because he led the Brexit campaign and I think lockdowns were disastrous.” You can’t use a disciplinary or judicial system to punish someone you don’t like or whose opinions you disagree with, doing so is disingenuous, if not downright dishonest.
Finally, there is the question of inconsistency.
It is widely accepted that Tony Blair misled Parliament and the Nation regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As a result, the UK found itself at war. It was a war that had and still has far reaching consequences, including many tens of thousands of deaths.
The Privileges Committee has said that Boris Johnson knowingly misled the House of Commons regarding whether the rules were followed when he consumed some cake at a surprise birthday party in Downing Street.
Those two comparisons shows such a degree of inconsistency as to quite rightly raise the allegation that political bias is at play. In other words, that the process allows for political bias and agendas to be exercised. As explained above, the implications of such abuse for our constitutional democracy are extremely serious.
There is an urgent need for reform.
There must now be a serious reform of the investigatory and disciplinary tools at the disposal of Parliament in order to re-establish the integrity of those tools and confidence in them.