The Privileges Committee report into Boris Johnson

Yesterday I voted against the Privileges Committee report and recommendations into Boris Johnson.  I want to set out clearly and unambiguously, for my constituents in Beaconsfield, why I believed this vote mattered and I could not, in all conscience, support it or abstain from it.
 
I believe the Privileges report and the vote in the House of Commons was about far more than Boris Johnson.  It was about the rights of Parliamentarians to speak without fear or favour for their constituents. It was about not setting precedents we will long regret.
 
I believe the report is deeply flawed.  It interprets the evidence by focusing on that which supports the case it wants to make, and ignoring evidence that sets against it. It prefers the evidence of certain witnesses, but not others.  It decides with hindsight that where advice was given to support Prime Ministerial statements, they weren’t the right people to have given advice. It re-defines intent as something that is inferred from what someone should have known, rather than actual evidence of what they intended to do or say.  It is so brittle in the face of criticism that it seeks to punish beyond all reasonable proportion.
 
I do not believe the report has proven that Boris Johnson knowingly misled the House of Commons.
 
Many of my colleagues took a decision to abstain and it is a path I could also have taken.  This is painful for the Conservative Party. It is energising our opponents and it is distracting from the excellent work of our Prime Minister in delivering our 5 key priorities.  I understand and respect why many of my colleagues took this course.  I simply could not. I do not agree with the report. Moreover, the threats of sanction to other Parliamentarians who had challenged the committee was something I felt I could not walk past.
 
It is the greatest honour of my life to represent Beaconsfield, the place where I live with my family. That honour, together with the responsibilities I carry to discharge my duties to my constituents in Parliament, matter to me enormously.  During Covid I was a strong opponent of Covid passports because I believe passionately in individual freedom.  I pushed for the return of children to schools as soon as possible during Covid because as a mum home-schooling my child I knew the pressures parents were experiencing and the difference teachers make to our young people.  I could speak up on these matters – often against the prevailing orthodoxy of the moment – because our Parliament confers the privilege on its Members to speak without fear or favour.  That matters.  We lose that at our peril.
 
This report with all its flaws risks a chilling impact on the rights of Parliamentarians and I felt I needed to make a stand against that. It sets precedents that will last long and reach deep.  Ministers standing at the dispatch box depend on political or civil servant advice.  With this report, we move from the important principle of protecting Parliament from being “knowingly misled” to one where being misled in any circumstances can carry sanction if intent is inferred rather than proven.
 
I know that not all of my constituents will agree with the stance I have taken. As I respect their positions, so I hope they will respect mine. It is important to me that my constituents know that when I vote for them in Parliament, I do so determined to be a local champion for Beaconsfield, steadfast in my Conservative values and authentic to my principles of fairness and freedom of speech. I considered this a moment where I needed to stand in opposition to a report I did not agree with and which set precedents I simply could not ignore.
 
I voted with my conscience yesterday and in my passionate belief in our Parliament and its rights. That is why I voted against this Privileges Committee report.
 
Joy Morrissey MP
Member of Parliament for the Beaconsfield Constituency