Former ministers Nadine Dorries and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg have been accused of waging a co-ordinated campaign to interfere with a Commons investigation into Boris Johnson.

Sinister! – Owl

By Becky Morton and Chris Mason www.bbc.co.uk

The ex-PM quit as an MP after a committee found he misled Parliament over Covid breaches at No 10.

In a new report, the committee accused the allies of Mr Johnson of mounting “vociferous attacks” on its work.

Other Tories criticised include Dame Priti Patel and Lord Zac Goldsmith.

The former home secretary and current Foreign Office minister are among seven MPs and three peers identified as attacking the committee.

The others were Tory MPs Mark Jenkinson, Sir Michael Fabricant, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Dame Andrea Jenkyns and peers Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh.

The report, by the cross-party Privileges Committee, said “unprecedented and co-ordinated pressure” was placed on committee members, which although it did not affect the outcome of the inquiry, raised significant security concerns.

It said comments on social media and TV amounted to a “co-ordinated campaign to interfere with the work of the committee”.

The committee said it was particularly concerned by attacks mounted by experienced politicians, including Lord Goldsmith, Sir Jacob and Ms Dorries.

It added that two of the individuals mounting “the most vociferous attacks” used their own TV shows as a platform to do so.

Ms Dorries hosts a show on TalkTV, while Sir Jacob has one on GB News.

The report highlighted comments made by Ms Dorries on TalkTV, when she described the committee as a “kangaroo court”, as well as Sir Jacob calling it “a political committee against Boris Johnson” on GB News.

It also referenced tweets by Mr Jenkinson and Mr Clarke-Smith, who said there had been a “witch hunt” against Mr Johnson.

An email campaign instigated by the Conservative Post website, urging Tory MPs on the committee to stand aside and describing the investigation as “deeply flawed, biased and unfair”, was highlighted in the report as an example of “selective pressure” on committee members.

Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh, who lead the Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO) which is linked to Conservative Post, were among more than 600 people who contacted committee members using the email template.

Lord Cruddas said it was “factually incorrect” that the emails came from the peers.

The CDO is a vocal supporter of Mr Johnson and grew out of the unsuccessful campaign to give Tory members a vote on reinstating him after he resigned as prime minister.

The report said it would be for the House of Commons to consider what further action, if any, should be taken. It will be debated by MPs on Monday 10 July.

Sir Jacob has previously defended his actions, saying it was “perfectly reasonable” for MPs to challenge the findings of the committee.

Mr Clarke-Smith said he was “shocked and disappointed” to be named in the report, adding that it raised “serious questions about free speech”.

Mr Jenkinson and Sir Michael also defended their previous comments about the investigation.

The committee’s report said free speech was “at the heart of parliamentary democracy” but some politicians had interfered with disciplinary proceedings set up by the Commons in an “unacceptable” way.

It suggested abuse of committee members could deter others from serving on the committee in the future.

The row prompts a big debate at Westminster – the tussle between freedom of expression and the capacity of a committee of MPs to examine the conduct of a colleague without feeling their own integrity is being questioned by doing so.

In short, the committee is pleading for MPs to be responsible in the manner and tone of their criticisms, with some wondering who would want to serve on the committee in the future if they felt they would face such an onslaught again.

Others say privately it is ridiculous to limit the capacity of MPs to criticise fellow MPs, pointing out the committee is not and should not be treated like a court of law.

Labour’s shadow Commons leader Thangam Debbonaire called on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to “personally condemn” the MPs named in the report and accept the committees conclusions.

Commons leader Penny Mordaunt said the fact a debate had been scheduled on the report showed “how seriously the government takes these matters”.

She added that it was “vital” that MPs were prepared to serve on the Privileges committee.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats said Lord Goldsmith should be sacked as a government minister.

The Lib Dems also pointed out that four of the individuals named in the report – Dame Priti, Sir Jacob, Sir Michael and Dame Andrea – had recently been put forward for honours by Mr Johnson.

It called for an investigation into whether there was any “collusion” between Mr Johnson and the MPs – and to commit to revoking their honours if there was.

Mr Johnson announced he was resigning as an MP days before the committee published its initial findings, branding the investigation a “kangaroo court”.

The year-long inquiry found Mr Johnson made multiple deliberately misleading statements to Parliament about lockdown parties at Downing Street.

It ruled he should have been suspended for 90 days had he remained in the Commons.

The sanction, which was lengthy by recent standards, would likely have triggered a by-election in Mr Johnson’s constituency.

The cross-party privileges committee has seven members, four of which are Tory MPs, two are Labour and one is from the Scottish National Party.

The report is worth a read, here are some example quotes from the Annex. – Owl

But is it “safe in our hands” to quote an old Tory slogan? – Owl

Rebecca Pow The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Water is what makes life possible on our planet, and it is essential for our health and wellbeing, as well as for our economy, including the production of food and clean energy. The Government are taking significant steps to ensure that the water industry is delivering the outcomes that bill payers expect and deserve. Water companies have invested £190 billion since privatisation in 1989. In April, the Government published the plan for water, bringing together more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement capacity for regulators in relation to those who pollute.

Richard Foord Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Defence)

We have seen bonuses and dividends put ahead of investment in infrastructure or maintaining sufficient reserves. Our area of Devon and Somerset is covered by South West Water; the company has paid out £112 million in dividends this year, despite having just £144 million in reserves, which is £2.5 billion less than it had two years ago. This week, a water firm chief executive officer has resigned, but no Conservative Minister has ever taken responsibility. When will a Conservative Minister finally take responsibility and get a grip, or step aside?

• Link to this speechIn context Individually
• Tweet Share
• (Citation: HC Deb, 28 June 2023, c290)

Rebecca Pow The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Ofwat has announced new measures to enable it to take action against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance. That is just not happening. I think he needs to look again at some of the stats he has just quoted, because I think they might relate to the wider Pennon Group. I have just visited South West Water to have a really forensic look at its systems and how it delivers water. That is what we do with our water companies. It is Ofwat’s job to hold water companies to account, and it has just got measures through the Treasury so that it has another £11.3 million to tackle enforcement.

Failures in privatised: Rail Companies, Electricity Suppliers and now Water Companies. 

Where and when will it end? – Owl

“Whitehall was on Wednesday night drawing up contingency plans to nationalise swathes of Britain’s water industry as the country’s biggest supplier teetered on the brink of collapse.

Officials are laying the groundwork for the emergency nationalisation of Thames Water as investors refused to give the company a £1bn lifeline…..

Fears are growing that the collapse could trigger a domino effect across the industry, which is laden with £60 billion of debt built up during years of lower interest rates.” (Extract from Telegraph)

A new parliamentary constituency featuring parts of the current East Devon and Exeter seats will be called ‘Exmouth and East Exeter’.

The new boundary follows the increasing urbanisation of the eastern side of East Devon.

Might the Tory “build, build, build” policy result in the loss of a previously “safe” seat? – Owl

Ollie Heptinstall, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

The Boundary Commission has published its final recommendations for a shake-up of England’s map for general elections, which aims to give each MP roughly the same number of voters.

 New borders marked by red line (image courtesy: Boundary Commission)

The changes will give Devon a total of 13 MPs – up one on the existing 12 – although one will be split across Devon and Somerset in a new ‘Tiverton and Minehead’ constituency.

There will also be a newly titled ‘Honiton and Sidmouth’ seat, which current East Devon MP Simon Jupp has announced he will contest at the next election, while the commission has now recommended a new neighbouring seat is called ‘Exmouth and East Exeter’.

The current Exeter constituency has an electorate of just over 80,000, higher than between the 69,724 and 77,062 allowed under the new national proposals.

It will remain largely unchanged, but three wards – Pinhoe, St Loye’s and Topsham – will join the new seat with Exmouth, Cranbrook, Budleigh Salterton and surrounding areas.

Previously Priory had been included, but this was met by opposition from Labour and the Tories. City council leader Phil Bialyk was against the idea, while East Devon MP Simon Jupp said: “The Priory ward is categorically part of Exeter city, with residents identifying themselves as living in Exeter.”

On the new seat being called ‘Exmouth and East Exeter’, the Boundary Commission’s report says: “We noted that there is significant support for changing the name of the Exeter East and Exmouth constituency to Exmouth and Exeter East.

“We noted that the population of Exmouth surpasses the combined population of the three Exeter wards. We therefore revise our proposals and change the name of the constituency to Exmouth and Exeter East.”

It “acknowledged the logic” of renaming Exeter as ‘Exeter West’, but concluded “the constituency, apart from minor readjustments, is otherwise unchanged from the existing constituency and we saw no support for this proposal.”

Subject to MPs adopting the recommendations, the new seats will be contested at the next general election.