News Reader.info

Tory MPs who loyally defended Boris Johnson against the "kangaroo court" Privileges Committee face a new threat to their seats after the Lib Dems moved to sanction them. On Monday

MPs will debate the Privileges Committee’s "special report" into those MPs who criticised the work of the committee, including Nadine Dorries, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel. Sir

Ed Davey’s party has now laid an amendment, however, calling for those named MPs to “be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the conduct of those Hon. and Rt hon.

members amounted to contempt of the House, and accordingly recommend any sanction they deem fit”. The committee’s special report said they had no ability to issue sanctions, as it would be a

matter for the House. Referring them back to the committee with a mandate to impose sanctions, however, could see them face by-elections. Were the committee to recommend sanctions of over

10 days for those named in the report, and the Commons to vote for it, Mr Sunak could be facing a further seven by-elections to the swathe he’s already battling. A Lib Dem source told the

Telegraph: “Boris Johnson’s cronies used bully boy tactics to undermine this investigation at every turn, all to try to get him off the hook for his Partygate lies. "It’s right they are

held to account.” The amendment names Sir Jacob Rees Mogg, Priti Patel, Nadine Dorries, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, Sir Michael Fabricant, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Mark Jenkinson. The Tories will

wait to hear confirmation of whether the amendment is selected by the Speaker before coming up with a strategy. Lord Goldsmith, who was also named in the report and quit as a minister last

week over concerns about Rishi Sunak’s commitment to the environment, gave his first TV interview last night, telling Channel 4: “My view is that: were that committee a court of law, with a

jury in the normal sense – the jury would have been sacked and replaced almost on day one. “I think it’s very hard to have a hearing of that sort where almost every member of the committee

had expressed their view very publicly before they had even seen the evidence. “I just think there’s a basic lack of fairness there.”