Allies of Boris Johnson face censure by the House of Commons after a parliamentary panel highlighted their role in a “co-ordinated campaign” to undermine a probe into the former prime minister’s lies over pandemic lockdown-breaking parties.
(Bloomberg) — Allies of Boris Johnson face censure by the House of Commons after a parliamentary panel highlighted their role in a “co-ordinated campaign” to undermine a probe into the former prime minister’s lies over pandemic lockdown-breaking parties.
The Privileges Committee on Thursday named seven Conservative Members of Parliament, including former cabinet ministers Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg, and one lord — the Tory minister Zac Goldsmith as having interfered with their investigation into Johnson, including calling the probe a “witch hunt” and the panel a “kangaroo court.”
“This unprecedented and co-ordinated pressure did not affect the conduct or outcome of our inquiry,” the committee said in its report. “However, it had significant personal impact on individual members and raised significant security concerns.”
The committee said MPs should consider whether the actions of the lawmakers could be considered a contempt of Parliament — an offense that can lead to suspension. Nevertheless, rather than recommending specific sanctions, the panel said any further measures should be a matter for the House of Commons. House of Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt later said MPs will vote on a motion to approve the panel’s report on on July 10.
“I hope this reassures the house how seriously the government takes these matters of privilege,” Mordaunt said. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s spokesman, Max Blain, later told reporters that Tory MPs are likely to be given a free vote on the matter. He said Sunak retains confidence in Goldsmith — a minister in the House of Lords — and declined to say this far in advance whether the premier himself would participate in the vote.
The motion will pose a fresh dilemma for Sunak, who along with scores of other members of the ruling Tories, avoided casting a vote when the report into Johnson was discussed earlier this month. That probe found the former premier had misled Parliament, and prompted Johnson to quit his seat in protest.
Sunak’s absence meant he avoided inflaming an internal part row with Johnson allies who blame him for his role in the former premier’s downfall. While Sunak cited prior engagements for his failure to vote, it left him open to attack that he wasn’t upholding his pledge to restore integrity to government.
“It’s about time the prime minister showed up and showed some leadership,” Labour’s Thangam Debbonaire said in reply to Mordaunt on Thursday. “If he doesn’t stand up for standards, what does he actually stand for?”
Thursday’s report found Johnson’s allies “did not choose to engage through any proper process such as the submission of letters or evidence to our inquiry, but by attacking the members of the committee, in order to influence their judgment.”
The panel said the aim of those opposing their work was to “influence the outcome of the inquiry; impede the work of the committee by inducing members to resign from it; discredit the committee’s conclusions if those conclusions were not what they wanted. and discredit the committee as a whole.”
As well as Dorries, Rees-Mogg and Goldsmith, it cited in an annex specific examples of undermining behavior from former Home secretary Priti Patel and the MPs Mark Jenkinson, Michael Fabricant, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Andrea Jenkyns.
“Those involved used newspapers and radio and there was extensive use of social media,” the panel wrote. “There were many examples but the committee is particularly concerned about attacks mounted by experienced colleagues.”
Fabricant on Thursday told Times Radio “there was nothing coordinated about it at all,” and accused the Privileges Committee of “petulance” and “paranoia.” Jenkinson on Twitter accused the panel of “overreach,” and Clarke-Smith tweeted that he was “shocked and disappointed” to be named in the report.
(Updates with comment from Sunak spokesman start in fifth paragraph.)
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P.