Johnson did not remember being told about Pincher misconduct allegation in 2019, minister claims
Michael Ellis is responding to Rayner.
He says Chris Pincher is being investigated. And he says this complaint may be investigated by the police. The sub judice rule should apply, he says.
I ask the house to accept that bearing in mind the member in question [Chris Pincher] had been reappointed to government by a previous prime minister in 2018, and then that he’d been appointed in 2019 as a Foreign Office minister and then, crucially, he was appointed for a third time in February, I doubt whether anyone could in knowledge of those facts say that this prime minister should have acted otherwise than he did.
It is the morally fair thing to do in any case to assess the situation based on evidence, not unsubstantiated rumour. It is incumbent on all of us in this House, as it is in society generally, to act fairly.
If there is no evidence at the time, if there is no live complaint, no ongoing investigation, surely it is not unreasonable to consider making an appointment.
He says in October 2019 officials raised concerns with Simon McDonald, permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. There was an inquiry that reported to McDonald. The exercise reported in due course.
The exercise established that while the minister meant no harm, what had occurred caused a high level of discomfort.
The minister apologised and those who complained accepted this, Ellis says. The PM was made aware of this. He was told that the permanent secretary had taken the necessary action. And so there was no question of Pincher having to leave the government.
Ellis goes on:
Last week, when fresh allegations arose, the prime minister did not immediately recall the conversation in late 2019 about this incident.
As soon as he was reminded, the No 10 press office corrected their public lines.
Key events:
No 10 spokesperson denies misleading journalists about PM’s knowledge of allegations against Pincher
The prime minister’s spokesperson cannot have been looking forward to today’s lobby briefing and the opening question was one of the best. “Are you planning on telling us the truth today?”
Yesterday the spokesperson told journalists that Boris Johnson was aware of some specific allegations against Chris Pincher before he made him deputy chief whip (not what they said last week), but that these were allegations that had been resolved, or where no action had been taken.
This morning it emerged that this was untrue, because Johnson had been told about a complaint about Pincher that had been upheld.
The spokesperson’s response to the opening question was “Yes”. He always provided information “available to me at the time of each briefing”, he said.
He claimed that he had not misled journalists yesterday. Asked to explain the discrepancy between yesterday’s briefing, and what was revealed this morning, the spokesperson said:
Those of you who were here at yesterday’s briefing would have heard me say that [the PM] was aware of allegations that were either resolved – and that would relate to the incident [at the Foreign Office] – or that did not progress to a complaint. And it was important to be clear on that, and that’s why I made the point of updating you all, when we had the information available to us yesterday …
As relates to this incident, a complaint was made. It was looked into through the Foreign Office processes, with support from the propriety and ethics team [in the Cabinet Office]. The complaint was upheld, albeit not dealt with as a formal disciplinary matter.
The spokesperson also said he could confirm that Boris Johnson was told about the complaint about Pincher in 2019.
I can confirm that he was briefed on that about the complaint relating to Mr Pincher in the Foreign Office which was resolved.
I don’t believe that that was a formal meeting to inform him of it but I am still seeking to establish the details.
The spokesperson added that he thought the prime minister was told by “someone in the Cabinet Office” and that had been “a number of months” after the complaint was investigated.
Caroline Johnson (Con) asks if the allegations about Pincher in 2019 involved sexual assualt. If they did, he should have been sacked and the police should have been involved, she says.
Ellis says he cannot answer that. But he says it is important to respect the confidentiality of victims.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Con) says what happened in 2019 should have been enough to tell the PM that appointing Chris Pincher to be deputy chief whip was not wise. The PM could have used Pincher’s talents in another way, she says.
She says there is a need for a complete reboot of standards, and a complete reboot of the ministerial code.
In the Commons Peter Bone (Con) is speaking now. He is the first Tory to defend Boris Johnson in this session (apart from Ellis). He says opposition MPs only turn up to attack Johnson. He says his constituents are more concerned about the national insurance cut coming into force this week than in the conduct of an MP they won’t have heard of.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Con) asked why the government kept promoting people “with the wrong attitudes or the wrong behaviours” to government.
In response, Ellis said the government might not have known someone had the wrong attitude when they were appointed. He said the government could not act on rumours.
Jenkin is a member of the privileges committee that will decide whether or not Boris Johnson lied to MPs about Partygate.
William Wragg (Con), chair of the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee, said most ministers have a sense of decency. He said they should now consider whether they could “any longer tolerate being part of a government which, for better or worse, is widely regarded as having lost its sense of direction”.
Ellis told Wragg he did not accept what he said about the government.
UPDATE: Wragg said:
[Ellis] mentions the sophisticated and robust systems for upholding standards in public life, but those systems are on the whole irrelevant if the participants have no regard for them.
The question that faces the government and I would suggest my honourable and right honourable friends sat on the bench – and I notice a greater degree of propensity of Government whips rather than other ministers at this time – is for them to consider what they are being asked to say in public which changes seemingly by the hour, and I would ask them to consider the common sense of decency that I know the vast, vast majority of them have and ask themselves if they can any longer tolerate being part of a government which, for better or worse, is widely regarded of having lost its sense of direction.
It is for them to consider their positions, this is not a question of systems, it is a question of political judgment and that political judgment cannot be delegated.
And Ellis replied:
[Wragg] is quite wrong. The fact of the matter is, this is a government that knows its direction and that is to serve the British people in dealing with the issues that matter to them, including cost of living, the crisis in Ukraine and those other issues including the pandemic which this prime minister and this government have dealt with in an exemplary fashion.
Johnson did not remember being told about Pincher misconduct allegation in 2019, minister claims
Michael Ellis is responding to Rayner.
He says Chris Pincher is being investigated. And he says this complaint may be investigated by the police. The sub judice rule should apply, he says.
I ask the house to accept that bearing in mind the member in question [Chris Pincher] had been reappointed to government by a previous prime minister in 2018, and then that he’d been appointed in 2019 as a Foreign Office minister and then, crucially, he was appointed for a third time in February, I doubt whether anyone could in knowledge of those facts say that this prime minister should have acted otherwise than he did.
It is the morally fair thing to do in any case to assess the situation based on evidence, not unsubstantiated rumour. It is incumbent on all of us in this House, as it is in society generally, to act fairly.
If there is no evidence at the time, if there is no live complaint, no ongoing investigation, surely it is not unreasonable to consider making an appointment.
He says in October 2019 officials raised concerns with Simon McDonald, permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. There was an inquiry that reported to McDonald. The exercise reported in due course.
The exercise established that while the minister meant no harm, what had occurred caused a high level of discomfort.
The minister apologised and those who complained accepted this, Ellis says. The PM was made aware of this. He was told that the permanent secretary had taken the necessary action. And so there was no question of Pincher having to leave the government.
Ellis goes on:
Last week, when fresh allegations arose, the prime minister did not immediately recall the conversation in late 2019 about this incident.
As soon as he was reminded, the No 10 press office corrected their public lines.
Tories defending the indefensible, says Rayner
Angela Rayner says Michael Ellis speaks of personal responsibility. But he needs to remind the PM of his personal responsbility for what has happened.
Was Lord McDonald telling the truth?
Why was nothing done about Chris Pincher at the time. A minister of state at the Foreign Office has a sensitive role in national security.
Why was this conduct not considered a breach of the ministerial code? Why did the prime minister allow him to stay in post?
Rayner says there is no accountablity in place. The PM does not have an ethics adviser in place. There is now an “even bigger ethical vacuum” in place in Downing Street.
What message does this send about the standards of this government?
When will this minister stop defending the indefensible and say enough is enough?
Cabinet Office minister urges MP not to ‘prejudge’ allegations under investigation
Angela Rayner, the Labour deputy leader, asks her question.
Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, replies. He says the UK is fortunate to have mechanisms in place for upholding standards in public life.
He says he is willing to explain them. But he wants to say something about victims first.
He was a barrister for 17 years, he says. It is important that we do not prejudge any particular case, he says.
Additional rules and guidance are in place to help ensure consistency, he says.
Independent bodies are there to provide a broad oversight of standards.
Those mechanisms exist as a result of the decisions of MPs, he says.
He lists some of the bodies that maintain standards. And standards regimes are in place, he says.
He says it is “incumbent on us not to prejudge these decisions”.
The confidentiality of those who make complaints should be protected.
But he says personal responsibility is also vital.
Cabinet Office minister to answer Commons urgent question prompted by latest Chris Pincher revelation
In the Commons a Cabinet Office minister will be responding to an urgent question at 10.30am tabled by Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader. It is expected to be Michael Ellis, who by now has extensive experience defending Boris Johnson’s ethics record in the Commons. Rayner has asked for a statement “on the mechanisms for upholding standards in public life”, but in practice this is certain to focus on the Chris Pincher scandal.
This is from Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser and now one of his fiercest critics, on the news that the PM has had another call with the Ukrainian president this morning. (See 12.10pm.)
The much-delayed Downing Street lobby briefing (see 11.54am) has now started. What is said is embargoed until it is over.
Johnson has call with Ukrainian president as No 10 faces renewed claims it lied over Chris Pincher scandal
“Hello, is that President Zelenskiy’s office? It’s Downing Street here. Prime Minister Johnson was wondering if the president is free to take a call?”
This seems to be a regular occurrencee in Kyiv and, amazingly, such calls often seem to coincide with days when Boris Johnson is facing some sort of domestic turmoil in London. No 10 has denied that Johnson reaches for the hotline to Ukraine as a distraction technique but, as the i’s Jane Merrick reported recently, the evidence to the contrary is compelling.
And, lo and behold, guess who Boris Johnson has been calling this morning. This is from Volodymr Zelenskiy.
Held talks with @BorisJohnson. Thanked for the unwavering support of ?? – the recent decision to provide £1 billion in security aid and today’s – £100 million. Talked about food security for the world and security guarantees for ??. Grateful for ??’s willingness to host #URC2023
— Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) July 5, 2022
John Penrose, the Conservative MP who resigned as the government’s anti-corruption champion over the Sue Gray report, and Boris Johnson’s response to it, says Simon McDonald’s letter is “dynamite”. He says the reset promised by No 10 after Partygate “has no credibility”.
This is dynamite. Honesty is 1 of 7 Nolan Principles of integrity in public life & at the core of the Ministerial Code so a) #10 not telling the truth is another serious breach & b) the PM’s promised reset has no credibility because their behaviour hasn’t changed at all. https://t.co/0k4CnsAgas
— John Penrose (@JohnPenroseNews) July 5, 2022
