211. Having taken into account the factors set out above, we considered what sanction would be appropriate in this case. We unanimously concluded that the minimum sanction we should recommend to the House should be suspension from the service of the House sufficient to engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act.
212. In agreeing to recommend that sanction, we took into account that this case will set a precedent for the standards of accountability and honesty that the House expects of Ministers. We have no doubt that Parliament and the public expect the bar to be set high and for there to be serious consequences if a Minister, as in this case, impedes or obstructs the functioning of the House by deliberately misleading it.
213. Having reached this provisional conclusion as to the recommended sanction, we then followed the procedure we had set out in our procedure resolution, and communicated to Mr Johnson the Committee’s proposal to recommend a sanction of suspension for a period long enough to engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act, inviting his comments. This material was sent to Mr Johnson under conditions of strict confidentiality.[1] We set out the events that followed, and our view of their implications for sanctioning Mr Johnson, in the next section of this report.
- ↑ Those conditions were set out in the Chair’s “warning letter” of 8 June 2023 as follows: “The enclosed document is confidential to Mr Johnson and his nominated legal advisers. It is protected by Parliamentary privilege and may not be disclosed to any other person or body. Publication, précis or quotation in any form will be reported to the House as a contempt. No copies of the document exist. It may not be copied or photographed and must be viewed in invigilated conditions as agreed with the Committee.”
