Parliament should be prepared to jail a series of former News International executives for some of the most "flagrant" examples of contempt of parliament, the Labour frontbencher Chris Bryant said on Tuesday.
As MPs agreed to refer the executives to the Commons standards watchdog, Bryant said the House of Commons should consider whether to jail or fine the executives.
Bryant, who has played a leading role in exposing illegal practices at News International, was speaking as MPs debated the recent report by the House of Commons culture select committee which accused three News International executives of giving misleading evidence. MPs decided without a vote and after a short debate to refer the committee report to the commons standards and privileges committee.
Last month's report said:
• Les Hinton, the former chief executive of News International chief executive, "misled the committee in 2009 in not telling the truth about payments to [the jailed former News of the World royal editor] Clive Goodman and his role in authorising them, including the payment of his legal fee".
• Tom Crone, the company's former legal affairs manager, "misled the committee in 2009 by giving a counter-impression of the significance of confidentiality in the [Professional Footballers' Association chief executive] Gordon Taylor settlement ... and sought to mislead the committee about the commissioning of surveillance".
• Crone and the former NoW editor Colin Myler "misled the committee by answering questions falsely about their knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing".
• The News of the World and News International "corporately ... misled the committee about the true nature and extent of the internal investigations they professed to have carried out in relation to phone hacking".
John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the committee, told MPs on Tuesday: "We are under no illusion: these are serious matters. The conclusions we have reached bear profound consequences. I am not entirely clear what those consequences are, but there is no question but that these are very serious matters.
"It was also brought to our attention that those individuals should have a right to rebut the charges and to respond to them. We respected that, and we therefore felt that the right procedure was to refer the matter to the standards and privileges committee, so that it had an opportunity to consider the evidence that led to our findings and to consider the responses that have already been given by two of the individuals named. On that basis, I ask the house to refer the committee's report and the evidence we received to the standards and privileges committee."
Bryant believed the case would be seen as "one of the most flagrant examples of a contempt of parliament in parliament's history". He told MPs: "It is not just that it was one person at one time, it was not just that it was one organisation for a brief period of time, it's that a whole series of people systematically, repeatedly lied so as to protect themselves, to protect their commercial interests and to try and make sure they didn't end up going to prison – that they did fully knowing that they were telling lies to parliament. That, I believe, is a fundamental contempt."
But many MPs have complained that rules governing parliamentary privileges are unclear. There have been suggestions that the Commons may not be able to impose sanctions if the standards and privileges committee endorse the findings of the culture secretary.
Bryant said the sanctions should be clear. He said: "I believe that this house and the committee itself should consider in turn, firstly whether or not the three individuals mentioned, and corporately News International should be summoned to this house. I believe that it must still be an important power for this house.
"Secondly, they should consider whether individuals should be fined, not least because there have been considerable expenses incurred by parliament and the prosecuting authorities by the process of lying to parliament, and thirdly, it has to be right whether or not to imprison.
"If this had happened in the Scottish parliament, it would have gone on to imprisonment, if it had been a contempt of court it would have led to imprisonment, if it had been perjury of a court, it would have led to imprisonment."