Tory MPs are torn about whether or not to back the former prime minister
By Ione Wells & Kate Whannel
BBC News
Conservative MPs are split over whether or not to approve a report condemning Boris Johnson for misleading Parliament over Covid rule-breaking.
The former PM has branded the Privileges Committee’s findings “deranged” – and his most loyal supporters are set to vote against it.
But other Tory MPs are torn about what to do, as Mr Johnson remains popular with many party members.
No 10 has not said if Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will attend the vote.
“He hasn’t yet had time to fully consider the report. He does intend to take the time to do that,” said the PM’s official spokesman.
The committee’s long-awaited report was published on Thursday morning.
It said the former PM had deliberately misled Parliament over lockdown parties and had committed repeated offences with his Partygate denials.
MPs will get the chance to approve or reject its recommendations on Monday.
If Mr Johnson had still been in Parliament, MPs would be voting on whether to suspend him for 90 days, which would have triggered a by-election to replace him.
But Mr Johnson has already stood down, with a by-election set for 20 July in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency.
So the main punishment available is stripping him of the parliamentary pass former MPs are normally entitled to hold.
Nevertheless, many Conservatives face a dilemma. Voting against the report’s recommendations risks alienating those local party activists who want Mr Johnson gone, but voting for it risks angering fans of Mr Johnson, who believe he has been unfairly hounded out of Parliament.
Many, as a result, may well choose to abstain to keep their distance from the vote.
The BBC has spoken to several Conservative MPs who did not want to be named.
One former government minister told the BBC they were planning to vote for the report on Monday, but in a sign of the febrile mood did not want to say so publicly yet in case “something happens” over the weekend.
Another said: “I think I’m hovering between voting for the report and abstaining, the latter solely because voting for it will rile members.”
One senior party figure said: “The report speaks for itself.” They described the 90-day suspension as “a bit tough, but hey-ho”.
Tim Loughton, MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, told the BBC he was likely to support the report, describing the committee as “legitimate” and their conclusions “damning”.
Asked if most Conservatives would also vote in favour, he said: “I think so – there may be some who will want to abstain, there will be some of his dwindling band of loyalists who want to repeat some of the barbs he has thrown at the committee, but I’d be really surprised if this doesn’t go through very easily next week.”
One Conservative was critical of Mr Sunak, telling the BBC: “What disappoints me is the current PM has made no public comments that this is a sad end to a distinguished political career – the failure of the PM to say something complimentary about Boris Johnson seems to me irresponsible.”
So far 12 Conservatives have publicly criticised the committee, with Johnson ally Nadine Dorries suggesting Tories who vote for the report should be kicked out of the party. Sir James Duddridge tweeted: “Why not go the full way, put Boris in the stocks and provide rotten food to throw at him?”
Liz Truss, who followed Mr Johnson as prime minister, told GB News she would not question the integrity of the committee, but added their decision seemed “very harsh”.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said he would “probably” vote against the report, but added that MPs as a whole would be likely to vote in favour. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP are all expected to support the committee’s findings.
MPs will be able to amend the motion approving the report, when it comes before the House of Commons on 19 June, which is also Mr Johnson’s 59th birthday.
Watch: Key moments from Boris Johnson’s Partygate grilling
Following a year-long investigation, the seven-person Privileges Committee’s report found Mr Johnson had “personal knowledge” of Covid-rule breaches in Downing Street but had repeatedly failed to “pro-actively investigate” the facts.
The committee said officials had not advised Mr Johnson that social distancing guidelines were followed at all times – contrary to what he said in the House of Commons at the time.
In key evidence, one of Mr Johnson’s most senior officials, Martin Reynolds, said he advised the prime minister against making the claim, questioning whether it was “realistic”.
The former prime minister announced on Friday last week that he was standing down as an MP with immediate effect after being shown a draft of the Committee’s report.
In an eviscerating statement he branded the committee a “kangaroo court” and its findings “deranged” and accusing Harriet Harman, the Labour chairwoman of the committee, of bias.
The Privileges Committee said the initial proposed sanction was increased “in light of Mr Johnson’s conduct” over the past few days – including breaching confidentiality rules and “being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee”.
Mr Johnson’s statement was “completely unacceptable”, they said.
Responding to the report, Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said Mr Johnson had “disgraced himself”, and the Liberal Democrat’s Daisy Cooper said he had treated Parliament with “total disdain”. SNP leader Humza Yousaf said it was a “dark day” for Westminster.
The day before the report was published, Mr Johnson called for one of the committee members – Conservative Sir Bernard Jenkin – to resign over claims that the MP had himself breached Covid restrictions in Parliament.
The BBC has not been able to independently verify the claims. Sir Bernard has been approached for comment.
The Met Police said it had received “a third-party report following media reporting of alleged breaches of the Health Protection Regulations”.
It added: “The information is being assessed. There is no investigation and officers have not been in contact with the Speaker’s Office about this matter.”
