Government assured me over Johnson judgment, Harriet Harman says
H
arriet Harman has revealed the Government offered her with assurances that she wouldn’t be perceived as biased when making judgments relating to Boris Johnson.
The Labour veteran and chairwoman of the Privileges Committee made the revelation after Conservative former cupboard minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg requested her about her “famous tweets” and whether or not she believed she met the Hoffmann check — an evaluation of impartiality.
Ms Harman’s suitability has been repeatedly questioned by Mr Johnson and his loyalists over an April 2022 tweet, during which she advised that by accepting a superb for breaking Covid guidelines the previous prime minister was additionally admitting to deceptive the House.
Responding to Sir Jacob, the Camberwell and Peckham MP acknowledged that the highlight on her tweets had raised issues concerning the perceived equity of the committee’s proceedings, however mentioned she took it upon herself to research whether or not the Government would lack confidence in her chairmanship if she continued within the position.
The trade befell throughout a Commons debate on the Privileges Committee’s report, which discovered that Mr Johnson misled the Commons, and the committee, and that this amounted to contempt of Parliament.
During her speech, Ms Harman additionally mentioned that if left “unchecked”, the ex-PM’s “dishonesty” would have “contaminated the whole of Government”.
After referencing a precedent relating to the notion of bias in a House of Lords committee, Sir Jacob requested Ms Harman: “In relation to her famous tweets, how does she think she met the Hoffmann test?”
She replied: “I was appointed by this House in the expectation that I would chair the committee with no-one speaking against it.
“After the tweets were brought to light, they were highlighted, because I am concerned about the perception of fairness of the committee and I agree that perception matters, I made it my business to find out whether or not it would mean that the Government would not have confidence in me if I continued to chair the committee.
I actually said I am more than happy to step aside because perception matters and I don’t want to do this if the Government doesn’t have confidence in me, because I need the whole House to have confidence in the work that the committee has mandated.
“I actually said I am more than happy to step aside because perception matters and I don’t want to do this if the Government doesn’t have confidence in me, because I need the whole House to have confidence in the work that the committee has mandated.
“I was assured that I should continue the work that the House had mandated with the appointment that the House had put me into and so I did just that.”
A Labour MP could possibly be heard exclaiming: “Oh dear. I think that’s a mic drop. I think that’s a mic drop, Jacob Rees-Mogg.”
Speaking later, Sir Jacob instructed the Commons he was not conscious of any “secret agreement” between Ms Harman and the Government.
He mentioned: “Suddenly we discover in this transparent approach that there was a secret agreement, that her involvement was all right. Well, I was in the Government at the time, I never heard that this had happened.”
Elsewhere in her speech, Ms Harman additionally thanked all members of the committee for his or her “outstanding dedication and commitment” however particularly acknowledged the Conservative members for his or her distinctive fortitude within the face of a relentless marketing campaign of “threats, intimidation, and harassment”.
She then introduced that the committee would put together an extra report for the House, placing forth proposals to forestall related incidents from occurring sooner or later.
She mentioned: “I want to thank every member of the Privileges Committee…
“Particularly, the Conservative members of the committee. They have also had to be extraordinarily resilient.
“They have had to withstand a campaign of threats, intimidation, and harassment designed to challenge the legitimacy of the inquiry, to drive them off the Committee and thereby frustrate the intention of the House that this inquiry should be carried out. Yet through all this, they have not given into the intimidation.”
She added: “Attacks by honourable members on other honourable members designed to pre-empt the committee’s findings, frustrate the will of the House, erode public confidence and thereby undermine our democracy. They may themselves be contempt of the House because they are attempting to impede the functioning of the House.
“We will be doing a further report to the House on this shortly inviting consideration of what could be done to prevent this happening in the future.”
The Labour former cupboard minister additionally mentioned: “Mr Johnson’s dishonesty if left unchecked would have contaminated the whole of Government, allowing misleading to become commonplace and thus eroding standards which are essential for the health of our democracy.
“Far from undermining ministers, this report does precisely the opposite.”