Boris Johnsonâs staunchest allies, including Nadine Dorries and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, could face suspension from Parliament for their roles in a campaign against the committee investigating the former prime ministerâs partygate lies.
The Privileges Committee highlighted comments by senior MPs including Ms Dorries, Sir Jacob and Dame Priti Patel along with peers including Lord Goldsmith â a serving minister â claiming it was part of a co-ordinated attempt to undermine the panelâs work.
The committee said MPs should consider whether their actions could be considered a contempt of Parliament and what further action to take.
Lengthy suspension
The Privileges Committee ultimately triggered Mr Johnsonâs resignation from Parliament in protest at its recommendation that he should face a lengthy suspension for misleading the Commons with his denials of lockdown-busting parties in Downing Street.
His supporters frequently attacked the Labour-led but Tory-majority committee as a âwitch huntâ and âkangaroo courtâ â with Mr Johnson found to be complicit in the campaign against the panel investigating him.
Other MPs quoted in the report include Mark Jenkinson, Sir Michael Fabricant, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Dame Andrea Jenkyns.
The report said the MPs criticised âdid 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 judgmentâ.
Their aim was to âinfluence the outcome of the inquiryâ, âimpede the work of the committee by inducing members to resign from itâ, âdiscredit the committeeâs conclusions if those conclusions were not what they wantedâ and âdiscredit the Committee as a wholeâ, it said.
“Attacks mounted by experienced colleagues”
The report added: âThe committee is 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.â
In a reference to Ms Dorriesâ work on TalkTV and Sir Jacobâs GB News role, the committee said âtwo of the Members mounting the most vociferous attacks on the committee did so from the platform of their own hosted TV showsâ.
The report also highlighted the involvement of Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh, both given peerages by Mr Johnson, in a Conservative Post campaign putting pressure on the four Tory members of the committee to quit.
The report said âpressure was applied particularly to Conservative members of the committeeâ.
âThis had the clear intention to drive those members off the committee and so to frustrate the intention of the House that the inquiry should be carried out, or to prevent the inquiry coming to a conclusion which the critics did not want.â
Impartiality
There were also âsustained attempts to undermine and challenge the impartialityâ of the committeeâs Labour chairwoman, Harriet Harman.
âThis unprecedented and co-ordinated pressure did not affect the conduct or outcome of our inquiry. However, it had significant personal impact on individual members and raised significant security concerns.â
The committee said it will be for the House of Commons to decide âwhat further action, if any, to takeâ in respect of the MPs named in the report.
It suggested that MPs should be asked to agree that seeking to âimpugn the integrity of the committeeâ or attempt to âlobby or intimidateâ its members âis itself capable of being a contemptâ of Parliament.
The report is provisionally scheduled to be considered by MPs on July 10.
The committee also said the Lords should be made aware of the report and consider what action to take over the peers identified as part of the campaign.
Mr Clarke-Smith said he was âshocked and disappointedâ to be named in the report.
Committee members pointed to his tweet from June 9, when he said: âTonight we saw the end result of a parliamentary witch-hunt which would put a banana republic to shame.â
But in response to the latest report the Bassetlaw MP said: âThis raises serious questions about free speech in a democratic society and my colleagues and I will continue to defend these principles going forward.â
Sir Michael was criticised for tweeting in relation to the Johnson probe: âSerious questions will need to be asked about the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
âThese were no jurists, as was apparent by the tone of the examination. The question of calibre, malice and prejudice will need to be answered now or by historians.â
Following his inclusion in the latest report, he said: âI stand by my statement. Some of the members of the Privileges Committee treated their witness, Boris Johnson, with contempt by gestures and other actions.
âHad it been in a law court, the judge would have called them to order. Respect for the committee needs to be earned.â
Mr Jenkinson accused the committee of âgross overreachâ after being named in the report, claiming he was being criticised for âa tweet that did not refer to them and was about the media witch hunt of Boris Johnsonâ.
Related: Governmentâs plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda ruled unlawful