SIR JACOB REES-MOGG: Preposterous Partygate committee seeks to rebuke MPs and peers who have dared to criticise it… But it’s little more than a whinge-fest
- READ MORE: Crosbie heaps pressure on Boris Johnson accuser Bernard Jenkin
In the hurly-burly of politics, it is essential that MPs speak their mind and voice their criticisms publicly.
That is the rumbustious tradition of our British democracy.
Yet now we have a sinister attempt by a committee of the House of Commons to gag some of its own MPs.
Indeed, not just MPs but also members of the House of Lords.
In its latest report, the Commons’ Privileges Committee seeks to rebuke MPs and peers who have dared to criticise its investigation into Boris Johnson and the so-called Partygate affair.
Sir Bernard Jenkin is the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, and has been an MP continuously since 9 April 1992
JACOB REES-MOGG: ‘Yet now we have a sinister attempt by a committee of the House of Commons to gag some of its own MPs’
I should declare that I am one of the allegedly offending MPs who have thus transgressed but who in all honesty has nothing to apologise about.
My criticisms of the Committee’s first report as unfair and unjust stands.
However, the committee’s latest report – the one that seeks to silence its critics – is even more preposterous than the first.
It is little more than a whinge-fest.
Even its title is not based on evidence.
It claims a ‘co-ordinated’ campaign of interference with its work but provides no evidence for this.
MPs are quite capable of operating independently and on my own account.
I know that both the Whips Office and the Downing Street press office would attest that I was quite difficult to coordinate, even as a matter of collective responsibility.
It even claims coordination between two organisations, incorrectly claiming that Conservative Post is the online magazine of the Conservative Democratic Organisation.
It is not.
The criticism of Conservative Post is that it encouraged people to email MPs.
In its latest report, the Commons’ Privileges Committee seeks to rebuke MPs and peers who have dared to criticise its investigation into Boris Johnson and the so-called Partygate affair
Harriet Harman ought never to have agreed to chair the committee having tweeted her views of Boris Johnson
The right to petition is one of those listed in the Bill of Rights, it is a protected part of our constitution in a foundational document but the Privileges Committee is frightened of the public and criticises them for commenting.
Yet it is the behaviour of particular Privileges Committee members that makes it worse and damages Parliament more.
Harriet Harman ought never to have agreed to chair the committee having tweeted her views of Boris Johnson.
This is not made any better by claiming but providing no evidence for a secret word with an unspecified member of the Government.
It simply shows that she, herself, knew she was on dodgy ground.
The second report makes it worse, for the committee has decided to act as Judge directly in its own cause.
It is quite wrong for the Privileges Committee, in the midst of a public storm, to seek to protect its own members.
If the House were to wish to do this, it ought to set up a new committee to consider the case impartially, uninfluenced by perceived slights and hurt feelings.
It is not what the House asked for and the committee has extended its remit tendentiously..
Sadly, this is exacerbated by the recent imbroglio of another prominent committee member – Sir Bernard Jenkin.
There is a WhatsApp message, first published by the Mail on Sunday and also reported on GBNews, that clearly invites people to a birthday party for his wife during a lockdown in the Deputy Speaker’s room.
It is known that he was there.
This was surely not a business meeting, it was a party.
The invitation says so.
Yet Sir Bernard will not answer questions.
He could be perfectly innocent with reasons similar to Boris’s for not realising it was against the rules or for in good faith having made a mistake.
Unwisely, Rishi Sunak saw fit to make it known that he had asked Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, one of the peers criticised in the Privileges Committee second report, to apologise to the committee
This was not the sympathetic attitude he took when criticising the former Prime Minister during his cross-examination before the committee when he modelled himself on a ‘minor prophet about to rebuke the sins of the people’.
But the presumption of innocence is important even for those who are unwilling to give it to others.
Unfortunately, while he fails to answer questions, it looks as if he has something to hide.
Silence assumes consent, in this case, consenting that he was at a party.
In which case, he ought never to have sat in judgement of Boris, nor had anything to do with the subsidiary report.
When he realised that he too may have sinned he ought to have excused himself.
His failure to do so damages his standing.
This is important because Sir Bernard is important, he is the chairman of the Liaison Committee, the most senior committee to hold the government to account.
In the interests of the Commons scrutinising the executive, he cannot hold this post while the questions are unanswered.
He will not be taken seriously in this role, while people are chortling at him behind their hand, for his own peccadilloes.
Until this is settled, he ought to stand aside.
Virginia Crosbie, a fellow Conservative MP who was also present at this event, has showed him how to behave.
READ MORE: How can Sir Bernard Jenkin still stay silent after fellow MP says sorry for his wife’s lockdown drinks party?
She has with considerable grace confessed to being there and apologised.
However, Sir Bernard has gone to ground.
So long after these events, I am not in in favour of expensive investigations.
Even the Hallett inquiry is over-complicated and further police action would be excessive.
Indeed, I would prefer all inquiries to stop.
The rules were excessive, and must never be tried again.
Lockdown was a mistake.
Yet Sir Bernard, in his serious and sanctimonious situation, will have to be investigated if he will not tackle the issue personally.
‘Judge not that ye be not judged.’
This wise advice from Christ himself was a warning to hypocrites which echoes through the ages.
Sadly, this whole affair has now been compounded by the unnecessary intervention of the Prime Minister.
Unwisely, Rishi Sunak saw fit to make it known that he had asked Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, one of the peers criticised in the Privileges Committee second report, to apologise to the committee.
This is improper.
While the PM is entitled to have such Ministers, as the agent of the Crown he has no right to order a Member of the House of Lords to apologise to a House of Commons’ committee.
The two Chambers have what is called ‘exclusive cognisance’ in which MPs have no jurisdiction at all over members of the Upper House.
This may be an obscure point but it is an essential part of our constitutional balance which the Prime Minister should have known.
* Former Cabinet Minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg is MP for North East Somerset
Partygate accuser ‘should quit key position’
By Brendan Carlin
Boris Johnson Partygate inquisitor Sir Bernard Jenkin was challenged to quit a key Commons post last night pending a full investigation into claims that he himself attended a lockdown-busting party.
The senior Tory MP was also accused of having ‘gone to ground’ over his continued refusal to answer questions over allegations he was at a ‘birthday drinks’ in December 2020 that broke Covid-19 rules.
Last night, former Cabinet Minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg said it was now time for a full inquiry into the event
Sir Bernard, one of Mr Johnson’s chief interrogators on the Privileges Committee inquiry, has remained silent now on the issue for two weeks.
But fellow Tory MP Virigina Crosbie has apologised for being at the gathering – a joint event to mark her birthday and that of Sir Bernard’s wife Anne – although she said she was there only briefly.
Last night, former Cabinet Minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg said it was now time for a full inquiry into the event.
He told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Sir Bernard… will have to be investigated if he will not tackle the issue personally.’ And he called for Sir Bernard to give up his influential position as chairman of the Liaison Committee, which is made up of the heads of all the Commons’ select committees.
Sir Jacob said: ‘He [Sir Bernard] cannot hold this post while the questions are unanswered. He will not be taken seriously in this role, while people are chortling at him behind their hand, for his own peccadilloes.’
Sir Jacob conceded that his Tory colleague could be ‘perfectly innocent, with reasons similar to Boris’s for not realising it was against the rules, or for, in good faith, having made a mistake’.
But he added: ‘Unfortunately, while he fails to answer questions, it looks as if he has something to hide.
‘Silence assumes consent, in this case, consenting that he was at a party.’
Sir Bernard did not respond to approach for comment.
Source: Read Full Article
