MPs approve report on alleged interference in Partygate probe

Nadine Dorries and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg were accused of mounting "the most vociferous attacks" against the committee

MPs have backed a report that accused Boris Johnson's allies of running a co-ordinated campaign to interfere with a parliamentary inquiry into Partygate.

The Privileges Committee accused 10 Tory politicians, including Nadine Dorries and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, of mounting "vociferous attacks" on its inquiry into Mr Johnson.

The committee's report was approved by MPs without the need for a formal vote.

Penny Mordaunt said the animosity between MPs had been "painful".

The leader of the House of Commons said the report outlined an "exceptional situation" and described the criticisms levelled at the committee as beyond the usual "cut and thrust of politics".

• Johnson allies interfered with Partygate probe - report

• Why won't Sunak give Partygate verdict on Johnson?

Mr Johnson quit as an MP last month, after the Privileges Committee found he misled Parliament over Covid-19 breaches in Downing Street when he was prime minister.

In a report, the committee accused the allies of Mr Johnson of mounting "vociferous attacks" on its work during the inquiry.

The report suggested attempts to "impugn the integrity of the committee" or "lobby or intimidate" committee members could be a contempt of Parliament.

But Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle did not select a Liberal Democrat amendment which sought to refer Johnson loyalists back to the Privileges Committee to decide if their conduct amounted to contempt. That means the MPs named in the report will not face any punishment.

Fractious debate

Labour's shadow Commons leader Thangam Debbonaire said the Conservative Party had "dragged the reputation of this House through the mud and left it festering in the gutter" during the fallout from the Privileges Committee report.

The report has led to a free speech row, with several of those named, including Ms Dorries and Sir Jacob, saying there is no reason they should not be able to criticise its conclusions.

Speaking in the debate, former minister Sir Jacob called Parliament the "cockpit of freedom of speech - this is where democracy must run and when we try and silence people because they say things we do not like, we risk looking ridiculous".

He added that he believed the committee's report was flawed and had misinterpreted Parliament's rules.

Dame Priti Patel and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, both named in the report, had proposed watering down the motion, but their amendment was not selected.

Labour MP Harriet Harman, who chaired the committee's investigation into Mr Johnson, faced down fierce criticism by a number of the former prime minister's allies during the debate.

Ms Harman said MPs who try to "wreck the process" of an inquiry by the committee, or say that it is a "witch hunt", risk undermining Parliament.

"We can't have a situation where members are reluctant to serve on the committee because as soon as they take on an inquiry it is open season on them," she said.

The committee also named Tory MPs Mark Jenkinson, Sir Michael Fabricant, Brendan Clarke-Smith and peers Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh.

Tory peer Lord Goldsmith quit as a Foreign Office minister after Mr Sunak asked him to apologise following his naming in the report.

In a scathing resignation letter, which did not mention the Privileges Committee, Lord Goldsmith said he was leaving due to Rishi Sunak's "apathy" over climate change.

PM absent

Mr Sunak, who is due to fly to a crunch Nato summit in Vilnius, in Lithuania, did not speak or appear in the Commons during the debate.

The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Sunak was "fully aware of the findings" of the report.

Mr Sunak has been under pressure over his failure to attend previous votes on the Privileges Committee's reports. Standards Committee chairman Chris Bryant questioned him on his absence from votes on the conduct of former Conservative MP Owen Paterson and Mr Johnson.

But he defended his decision not to attend the crunch debate on the committee's initial inquiry, which found Mr Johnson lied to MPs about pandemic-era events in Downing Street, blaming a diary clash.

During the debate Ms Debbonaire criticised Mr Sunak for being "too weak" to "draw a line" between himself Mr Johnson by supporting the sanctions against him.

"He could have shown some leadership... but as well as not voting, he couldn't even bring himself to give us a view," she said.