I agree with Boris Johnson. Parliament’s mechanisms for dealing with liars are fundamentally flawed. Johnson was, of course, finally held accountable for (some of) his deceptions. But only after the damage was done. Throughout the Privileges Committee inquiry, he was allowed to perpetuate further falsehoods, not least about the inquiry itself. The affair involved a gargantuan expenditure of resources and political capital to address a tiny part of the real problem. As Full Fact reports, Johnson misled parliament at least seventeen times while prime minister. Matt Hancock (four), Priti Patel (two), Suella Braverman, Nadine Dorries, Victoria Atkins and Jacob Rees-Mogg (one each) all made false statements to the Commons while serving in government. None corrected the record (as required by the Ministerial Code).
Rishi Sunak came to power promising “integrity, professionalism, and accountability”. Yet his relationship with the truth is just as tendentious as that of his predecessor. Sunak’s lies include the claim he “reintroduced” the nurses’ bursary (he imposed a new grant at a lower level), a “record number of new homes were built in the last year” (housebuilding actually declined), the UK had the fastest vaccine rollout in Europe “because of our freedoms after leaving the European Union” (vaccine procurement occurred while the UK was bound by EU law and was facilitated by EU mechanisms), Labour under Jeremy Corbyn wanted to “abolish our armed forces” (no such proposal, or anything like it, was ever made), and that his priority was to “reduce debt” before the next election (his budget increases debt until at least 2028).
Sunak’s ministers are little better. Suella Braverman, whose parliamentary deceits received political reward, was recently caught in a lie while making a statement to the Commons. She claimed that: “The asylum initial decision backlog is down by 17,000.” The Home Office’s published figures showed the backlog actually increased by over 10,000. The Deputy Speaker, Eleanor Laing, gave Braverman the opportunity to correct the record. The Home Secretary declined.
The yah-boo theatrics of the House are anathema to the objective approach required to ascertain facts
These may seem like “small” lies, but they are important. Parliamentary debates can have a huge impact on public discourse. To mislead parliament is to mislead the country. Moreover, (at least in theory) it wields awesome power. Its decisions must be rooted in reality. Yet an increasing number of the laws may have passed on the basis of misinformation. In 2020 the government gained powers to change the law without parliament’s consent when implementing the Brexit trade agreement. In that debate many MPs believed that a vote against the powers would mean a “no deal” Brexit. As I pointed out at the time, the treaty was never before the House of Commons (treaties are ratified by the executive and do not require a vote). It would have been implemented either way. Also in 2020, parliament gave the government (in effect) legal immunity if its negligence caused injury to British soldiers. That was based on claims that cases against the Ministry of Defence impacted on operational decisions. There is no record of this ever happening. The government’s “Illegal Immigration Bill” received support from MPs appearing to believe that international law requires asylum seekers to seek sanctuary in the first safe country (it doesn’t) and that it’s illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel in a small boat (it isn’t).
There is little, in practice, to deter lying in parliament. There is no formal mechanism for MPs to call out liars (doing so often results in the MP who calls out the liar being punished). The Ministerial Code requires members of the government to correct the record if they mislead the House. But this can only be enforced by the prime minister and, as such, is often more honoured in the breach. A Privileges Committee investigation requires the Speaker to grant time for a debate and a majority MPs to vote to refer the matter to the committee. The current incumbent, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, does not think it’s his job to protect parliament from liars, claiming: “The Speaker cannot be dragged into arguments about whether a statement is accurate or not. This is a matter of political debate.” For him, it seems, power is truth.
The Committee itself lacks clear procedural rules or sanctions. This made it easy for Johnson’s allies to wax lyrical about “procedural unfairness”. It is, ironically, likely that a court (applying ordinary rules of procedure and fairness) would have treated Johnson far less leniently. Submitting evidence late (as Johnson did) often results in that evidence being discounted (or an adverse costs award) and leaking embargoed decisions (as Johnson also did) is treated as contempt of court, punishable by an unlimited fine or imprisonment.
Moreover, parliament is institutionally ill-suited to ensure truth-telling. It is a decision-making, not an investigative, body. The yah-boo theatrics of the House are anathema to the objective and forensic approach required to ascertain facts.
Those who have criticised the Privileges Committee’s procedures are still in parliament. If procedural fairness is their concern then they could propose new procedures, such as for accusations of lying to be referred to a judicial tribunal. The courts could (as they do for urgent injunctions) respond in a matter of weeks rather than years (particularly if properly funded). We could, if we wanted, address the problem of lying in parliament. The real question, however, is whether MPs (of all parties) value integrity enough to do so?
Sam Fowles is a barrister, Director of the ICDR, and a lecturer at St Edmund Hall, Oxford. He tweets at @SamFowles
