Harriet Harman has revealed the Government provided her with assurances that she would not be perceived as biased when making judgments regarding Boris Johnson.
The Labour veteran and chairwoman of the Privileges Committee made the revelation after Conservative former cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg asked her about her “famous tweets” and whether she believed she met the Hoffmann test — an assessment of impartiality.
Ms Harman’s suitability has been repeatedly questioned by Mr Johnson and his loyalists over an April 2022 tweet, in which she suggested that by accepting a fine for breaking Covid rules the former prime minister was also admitting to misleading the House.
Responding to Sir Jacob, the Camberwell and Peckham MP acknowledged that the spotlight on her tweets had raised concerns about the perceived fairness of the committee’s proceedings, but said she took it upon herself to investigate whether the Government would lack confidence in her chairmanship if she continued in the role.
The exchange took place during a Commons debate on the Privileges Committee’s report, which found that Mr Johnson misled the Commons, and the committee, and that this amounted to contempt of Parliament.
During her speech, Ms Harman also said that if left “unchecked”, the ex-PM’s “dishonesty” would have “contaminated the whole of Government”.
After referencing a precedent regarding the perception of bias in a House of Lords committee, Sir Jacob asked 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.— Harriet Harman
“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 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 told the Commons he was not aware of any “secret agreement” between Ms Harman and the Government.
He said: “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 also thanked all members of the committee for their “outstanding dedication and commitment” but specifically acknowledged the Conservative members for their exceptional fortitude in the face of a relentless campaign of “threats, intimidation, and harassment”.
She then announced that the committee would prepare an additional report for the House, putting forth proposals to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
She said: “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 cabinet minister also said: “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.”
