Almost certainly more useful, providing not just the tiny bit of understanding from this tweet and the full wording of the letter but also providing context and reasons and, well, actual information (Twitter is so damned useless), is this this article from the Parliament.
> Historically, those found guilty of contempts could be fined or imprisoned, but those sanctions have not been used by the Commons since 1666 and 1880 respectively. For all sorts of practical, legal and constitutional reasons, it is highly doubtful that the modern House would seriously consider this.
I am fairly sure that they cant just put a motion of attainder on the order paper any more :-) But if something really damming came out in the windrush scandal (forcibly repatriating BAME 70 year old citizens).
They could get rid of the current prime minister in 24-48 hours.
"Mr Schroepfer, who was appearing as a witness in the Committee’s inquiry into Fake News, failed to answer fully on nearly 40 separate points, including.....
This is interesting, so are these like a rogue group of MP's who actually take their job seriously and think government should return to its non-theatre basis?
This is possible, but the theatrical value of these (televised) hearings shouldn't be underestimated.
A lot of legislation starts out that way and also they can effectively say Mr/MS x is not a fit and proper person to be a director which is a serious problem for uk domiciled companies as they would have to be fired.
This brief fit of apparent competence is probably just a temporary aberration. Normal service should resume shortly.