A series of “disturbing” attacks launched by Boris Johnson’s allies against MPs investigating his Partygate lies have undermined British democracy, a scathing privileges committee report has found.
The damning new dossier said Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries, Priti Patel, serving minister Zac Goldsmith and others made “unprecedented” and “unacceptable” attempts to damage the work of the cross-party inquiry.
The committee said the MPs should now consider whether the actions of Johnson allies should be considered a contempt of parliament and what further action to take – raising the possibility of suspensions.
The MPs catalogued the “most disturbing” examples of a “co-ordinated campaign to interfere with the work of the committee” in a 14-page report condemning the former PM’s most feverent backers.
Their aim was to “influence the outcome of the inquiry”, “impede the work of the committee by inducing members to resign from it”, and to “discredit the committee as a whole”, the report said.
Singling out Lord Goldsmith, Mr Rees-Mogg and Ms Dorries, the committee said it was “particularly concerned about attacks mounted by experienced colleagues – including a serving minister of the Crown, a former leader of the House and a former secretary of state for digital, culture, media and sport”.
The report causes another major headache for Rishi Sunak. The committee made clear that his ministers cannot sit on their hands – urging the government to table a motion backing the committee’s latest conclusions.
Commons leader Penny Mordaunt responded to the Partygate report by announcing that MPs would get the chance to debate it on 10 July. “I hope this reassures the House how seriously the government takes these matters of privilege.”
Calling its work “crucial to our democracy”, the panel recommended that the Commons approve the report to show that MPs and peers should not “impugn the integrity” of the committee.
Though it stopped short of sanctioning Johnson allies, it suggested MPs should be asked to agree that undermining the committee “is itself capable of being a contempt” of parliament.
Pressure was “particularly” applied to the Tory MPs on the seven-member panel, and “sustained attempts to undermine and challenge the impartiality” of Labour chair Harriet Harman were made by Boris’ backers, the report found.
“This unprecedented and co-ordinated pressure did not affect the conduct or outcome of our inquiry,” it said. “However, it had significant personal impact on individual members and raised significant security concerns.”
Earlier this month the privileges committee found Mr Johnson guilty of “repeated contempts” by deliberately lying and being complicit in a campaign of abuse and intimidation against MPs.
The panel chaired by the veteran Labour MP also used its 106-page report ealier this month to warn Mr Johnson’s defenders they would face scrutiny themselves in a special update.
In a bitter resignation statement Mr Johnson – who quit as an MP after learning that the committee would hand him a punishment set to trigger a by-election – labelled the investigation a “kangaroo court” and akin to a “witch hunt”.
Sir Jacob compared the committee to “communist China”, while fellow loyalist Ms Dorries urged voters to turf out Tory MPs who backed the committee, threatening deselections.
Four separate remarks by Ms Dorries were criticised in the report, along with two comments made by Mr Rees-Mogg about a “kangeroo court”. It highlighted the ex-culture secretary’s tweet suggesting that MPs on the panel may have been promised “safe seats” or gongs”.
The committee also objected to comments by Ms Patel on GB News in March 2023, in which she said: “I don’t want to name people, but, you know, it is a fact, the lack of transparency – the lack of accountability … I think there is a culture of collusion, quite frankly, involved here.”
Lord Goldsmith had retweeted a tweet calling the inquiry a witch hunt and kangaroo court, undermining the committee’s work by claiming that “evidence was totally irrelevant to it”.
Brendan Clarke-Smith MP was condemned for calling the inquiry a “witch hunt” that was worthy of a “banana republic”. Mr Clarke-Smith said he was “shocked and disappointed to be named”, saying it “raises serious questions about free speech in a democratic society”.
Boris backers Andrea Jenkyns, Michael Fabricant and Mark Jenkinson were also named in the special report.
Mr Fabricant said “I stand by my statement”, having questioned the “calibre, malice and prejudice” of the committee. Mr Jenkinson, who had dubbed a “witch hunt”, said the special report was “another perfect example of gross overreach”.
The work of Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh as part of their Conservative Democratic Organisation were also singled out. The report highlighted posts in the CDO’s Conservative Post website urging Tory committee members to quit and calling the inquiry “deeply flawed, biased and unfair”.
Firing back on Twitter, Lord Cruddas denied that he had “intimidated” the committee, claimed he was being defamed and argued that he was the victim of class snobbery.
“It is defamatory of me and I suspect it is yet more snobbery directed at someone from the working class who has succeeded in life from these career politicians,” tweeted the Johnson ally. He added: “If they don’t want people noticing they are a kangaroo court then they should hop less.”
The Liberal Democrats called for Mr Sunak to investigate whether Mr Johnson agreed to hand honours to MPs who defended him over Partygate. “This looks like a gongs for cronies scandal,” deputy leader Daisy Cooper said.
She added: “The least he can do now is order an investigation into whether any collusion took place between Johnson and these MPs, and commit to revoking their honours if it did.”
The campaign to undermine the committee did not deter MPs from voting overwhelmingly to back the Johnson report, with only seven voting against the committee’s findings and 354 voting in favour.