an excellent write up !
Tory minister Zac Goldsmith has publicly clashed with Rishi Sunak after resigning from the government with an attack on the prime minister’s “apathy” towards the environment. Mr Sunak accused the Conservative peer of quitting rather than apologising for his role in a campaign to undermine a parliamentary committee’s probe into Boris Johnson.
The close ally of Mr Johnson, who appointed him to the Lords, has quit his environmental role, claiming Mr Sunak was “simply uninterested” in the issue. The day before, the Tory peer, an ex-MP, was chastised by the privileges committee for tweeting about its finding that the former prime minister had lied to parliament about the parties. In a letter released by Downing Street, it was revealed that Mr Sunak asked him to apologise to the committee, but he refused.
Mr Sunak wrote to the peer: “You were asked to apologise for your comments about the privileges committee as we felt they were incompatible with your position as a minister of the crown. You have decided to take a different course.”
Goldsmith is a man of (dubious) principle, then … 
MPs are expected to have a free vote on the committee’s special report. The report suggested attempts to “impugn the integrity of the committee” or “lobby or intimidate” committee members could be a contempt of Parliament.
In the Commons for the next three hours or so, MPs will be debating the privileges committee’s special report that accused seven Tory MPs and three peers of putting “improper pressure” on the Commons investigation into whether Boris Johnson lied to MPs over Partygate.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is expected to stay away. (1)
(1) Some leader - always finding excuses to avoid confrontation and controversy …
Opening the debate on the privileges committee’s special report, leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, was clear that there it is a difference between criticising the work of the privileges committee and undermining the committee itself .
She noted that “A special report of the privileges committee regarding interference in its work is entirely unprecedented,” she said.
Good for Pen … 
Privileges committee chair passionately defends report amid furious interventions from named MPs
Harriet Harman - who chairs the privileges committee - has spoken in the debate on its special report, and made clear that “members own this entire process”. They can object to an appointment to the committee, speak and vote against a reference to the committee, give evidence, and debate and vote on reports, she said. “This is not a process imposed on the House by the privileges committee - the opposite is the case. It is the House which imposes this responsibility on the privileges committee.”
She said: “Our special report makes it clear that it’s not acceptable for members fearing an outcome which they don’t want to level criticisms of the committee so that in the event that the conclusion is the one that they don’t want, they will have undermined the inquiry’s outcome by undermining confidence in the committee.”
Mark Jenkinson - who was named in the report - intervened to say that he was alerted to his being named in the report through stories in the press, and asked how he might “seek redress”. Ms Harman replied that he “named himself on Twitter by calling the committee a witch hunt”, which she said was in the public domain, adding: “We have taken what was in the public domain and put it in our report.”
A rather furious Sir Michael Fabricant - who was also named - intervened to ask if MPs such as him should have been warned so that if a mistake had been named, they could have had the opportunity to make their points before the report was published. Ms Harman replied that their comments were in the public domain, but Sir Michael attempted twice to intervene again and was shut down firmly by the deputy speaker.
Continuing her address, Ms Harman said: “The House by supporting this motion tonight will be making it clear that in such an inquiry, the committee’s responsibility is to gather the evidence, and that it is the evidence which must prevail. That is the basis - the only basis - on which a decision should be made.”
In response to further interventions from the Conservative benches, Ms Harman reiterated that MPs have full control over the process, as well as numerous opportunities to object to parts of it.
But she added: “What they cannot do is say that something is a witch hunt, a kangaroo court, that there’s collusion, and impugn the integrity of the individual members of the committee and also undermine the standing of the committee.”
Well said, Harriet … 
The “10” did not criticise the evidence in the report but conspired to attack the probity of members of the committee in a Trumpian attempt to sabotage the findings of the report.
MPs have approved a report criticising the conduct of Boris Johnson’s allies after he was found to have lied to parliament over partygate.
The motion was approved on the nod (1) and without the need for a formal vote.
Commons leader Penny Mordaunt earlier said she hoped it would bring an end to the “sorry affair”.
The privileges committee, which had investigated Mr Johnson for lying about partygate, accused 10 Conservative politicians of being part of a coordinated attempt to undermine the panel’s report.
Among those named were former cabinet ministers Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dame Priti Patel, who used the debate to push back on the report.
Other Tory MPs listed in the report included Nadine Dorries, Mark Jenkinson, Sir Michael Fabricant, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, along with Conservative peer Lord Goldsmith.
The Conservative Democratic Organisation - headed by Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh - was also named for an email campaign.
Well done the House … 
(1) by general agreement and without discussion
ETA
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle did not select a Liberal Democrat amendment which sought to refer Johnson loyalists back to the Privileges Committee to decide if their conduct amounted to contempt. That means the MPs named in the report will not face any punishment.
Why is it that those MPs on the further right of politics frequently get themselves indignantly angry? It strikes me as a technique rather than a genuine anger because on examination there is rarely anything to get so angry about. In this case Faberge, sorry
sir Fabricated, should really only be angry with himself. But no, he’s all self righteous and furious.
Well the whole partygate thing was a storm in a teacup to be honest.