MPs approve privileges committee report saying Boris Johnson’s allies tried to undermine partygate probe

MPs have accepted a report criticising the conduct of Boris Johnson’s allies after he was discovered to have lied to parliament over partygate.

The movement was accepted on the nod and with out the necessity for a proper vote.

Commons chief Penny Mordaunt earlier mentioned she hoped it will carry an finish to the “sorry affair”.

The privileges committee, which had investigated Mr Johnson for mendacity about partygate, accused 10 Conservative politicians of being a part of a coordinated try and undermine the panel’s report.

Politics newest: Tories accused of ‘dragging status of House by way of mud’

Among these named had been former cupboard ministers Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dame Priti Patel, who used the controversy to push again on the report.

Other Tory MPs listed within the report included Nadine Dorries, Mark Jenkinson, Sir Michael Fabricant, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, together with Conservative peer Lord Goldsmith.

The Conservative Democratic Organisation – headed by Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh – was additionally named for an electronic mail marketing campaign.

Ms Mordaunt mentioned the report was an “exceptional situation” and never a part of the same old “cut and thrust of politics”.

Introducing the movement to approve the report, Ms Mordaunt advised the Commons: “I hope colleagues who have been named will reflect on their actions.

“One of probably the most painful features of this entire affair is that it has concerned animosities between colleagues, and colleagues of the identical political hue.

“But I know of at least one member named in the report who has taken the time to speak with regret to some other members of that committee and I applaud them for doing so.

“I hope that some speeches we would hear this afternoon will acknowledge that obligation we now have to at least one one other as colleagues.”

Referring to former prime minister George Canning, who as foreign secretary was challenged to a duel by war minister Lord Castlereagh in 1809 over a dispute about the deployment of troops, Ms Mordaunt added: “If Castlereagh and Canning might undertake well mannered civility after preventing a duel, I dwell in hope that in the present day would be the finish of this sorry affair.”

Mr Johnson’s supporters had attacked the Labour-led but Tory-majority committee as a “witch hunt” and “kangaroo court docket” – with the previous PM discovered to be complicit within the marketing campaign towards the panel investigating him.

Read extra:
The key findings of privileges committee that sealed Boris Johnson’s destiny
Who was named as criticising the Boris Johnson partygate report?

Sir Jacob, the previous enterprise secretary, mentioned: “There are some issues with this report, I think beginning, as it happens, with its title, ‘co-ordinated campaign of interference’… there is no evidence that it was coordinated.”

He added: “I’m not very often coordinated with the official line to take. Indeed, I have always thought that it is politically rather important that members should be independent in what they say and in how they vote, and therefore to make an assertion of co-ordination without evidence is a problem with this report.”

Asked by Labour MP Dame Angela Eagle if he want to apologise to the committee members for calling them “marsupials”, Sir Jacob mentioned: “I have absolutely no desire to impugn the integrity of individual members of the committee, some of whom I hold in very high regard.”

He additionally advised MPs: “I’ve always thought it is important to get on well with people and to be courteous to them… across the House. But that doesn’t mean that one can’t criticise them.

“And it was legit, and it’s legit, to query the place of the chairman of the committee.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Labour’s Harriet Harman, who chaired the privileges committee, mentioned: “Our special report makes it clear that it’s not acceptable for members fearing an outcome which they don’t want to level criticisms at the committee, so that in the event the conclusion is one they don’t want they will have undermined the inquiry’s outcome by undermining confidence in the committee.”