Just when Rishi Sunak thought he may have swept the last of the mess left by his predecessor-but-one Boris Johnson, he has found yet more under the carpet that he must deal with.
In its damning special report, the Privileges Committee has named several of Mr Johnson’s outriders as having tried to “impugn” the panel’s credibility and accused them of trying to influence the four Tory MPs who sat on the committee.
Among those named are the diehard Johnsonites Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns and Michael Fabricant.
It also namechecks those in the Lords, notably Lord Cruddas, who spearheaded the attacks against the committee and whose pro-Johnson grassroots group, the Conservative Democratic Organisation, even produced an email template for activists to bombard the Conservatives on the committee in a bid to influence and intimidate them.
In terms of action, the committee has left it to the House to decide what is necessary in order to protect the integrity of the parliamentary committee now and in the future. It states in the first instance that the Government should move a motion in the House that will allow MPs to decide what sanctions, if any, should be imposed on those members that attempted to discredit the work of the committee.
In doing so, it heaps another major problem onto Mr Sunak’s shoulders. As someone who entered No 10 promising to restore integrity, he must now decide on whether to further punish the wing of the party that likes him least.
He must also decide whether to keep Lord Goldsmith, who branded the committee a “kangaroo court”, on as a government minister.
If he fails to take the lead, then any member of the Commons can put forward a motion. Having failed to pass an opinion on the committee’s report, prompting accusations of him being “weak”, he must now decide whether to take further action.
A failure to do so will lead to yet more allegations of him being too weak to take on his own party. A failure to remove Lord Goldsmith will throw his claims of bringing “integrity, professionalism and accountability” to government into serious doubt.
