Jacob Rees-Mogg leads final fightback against ‘vindictive, ridiculous’ Boris Johnson ban from Parliament

Boris Johnson’s allies in the Commons staged a final fight back against Privileges Committee’s findings as they insisted there was no evidence that he “deliberately or recklessly” misled Parliament.

Dozens of Tory MPs chose to skip the vote on the watchdog’s report, including Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who was absent due to “diary commitments”.

But several of Mr Johnson’s diehard supporters spoke out against the verdict of the committee’s investigation that found he lied to the Commons over partygate.

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg said it was “perfectly reasonable” to challenge the views of parliamentary committees.

The former Cabinet minister highlighted the fixed penalty notice handed to Mr Johnson for his birthday celebrations in the Cabinet Office, which he said was “not an admission of guilt”.

He said the report “decides to impute a stain on his character”, and suggested that the committee “wanted to come to a particular conclusion” about the former PM.

Sir Jacob claimed that the committee “decides as if it were an Elon Musk particle to insert itself in the brain of Mr Johnson to work out what he must have thought at a particular moment.”

He added: “Mr Johnson does not have one of these bits stuck in his brain for the committee’s benefit.”

And he attacked the decision to prevent the former prime minister from holding a parliamentary pass as going “from the vindictive to the ridiculous”.

Lia Nici, MP for Great Grimsby, said she was compelled to speak in the House because she “could not see in the report where the evidence is that Boris Johnson misled Parliament knowingly, intentionally or recklessly”.

“The reality is that Boris Johnson did not knowingly or intentionally mislead this House,” she said, adding that she knows this because she served as his parliamentary private secretary for six months last year.

Ms Nici pointed the finger of blame at the “people advising the then prime minister”, who she claimed failed to tell him that there were parties in Downing Street.

“They advised him again and again that no rules were broken and that guidance was followed at all times,” she added.

The Tory MP said that ministers are given legal counsel before standing at the Despatch Box, and that Mr Johnson would have no option but to “give those statements” regardless of how much he questioned the advice.

Ms Nici added that the decision by the committee to find against the former prime minister was down to “political opportunism” by opposition MPs who wanted a “formidable opponent out of their way because they dont believe they will get into government in any other way”.

Jake Berry, another of Mr Johnson’s staunchest allies, said the report ruled on not what the former prime minister said, but how it was interpreted by other MPs, the media and the public.

“The former prime minister Boris Johnson cannot be held responsible for what people thought he may have meant, he should be held responsible – if this report is to hold any water – for what he said.”

His comments came after Sir Jacob questioned whether the committee’s chair Labour MP Harriet Harman should have recused herself after several tweets she posted suggested Mr Johnson may have been guilty.

Ms Harman said she asked if the Government still had confidence in her when the tweets came to light, stating she was “more than happy to step aside because perception matters”.

She added: “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.”