i a prime minister is so today. i a prime minister is so withering _ today. i a prime minister is so withering. perhaps it is too close to home — withering. perhaps it is too close to home given his own fixed penalty fine. to home given his own fixed penalty fine~ what— to home given his own fixed penalty fine. what a spineless dereliction of the _ fine. what a spineless dereliction of the responsibilities of his office — of the responsibilities of his office did not show active support for the _ office did not show active support for the accommodations of the committee. the committee concludes thatjohnson committee. the committee concludes that johnson deliberately misled the and committee, breached confidence, impugned _ and committee, breached confidence, impugned the committee, thereby undermining the democratic process of the, _ undermining the democratic process of the, and — undermining the democratic process of the, and was complicit in the campaign — of the, and was complicit in the campaign ofabuse of the, and was complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee. what of the _ intimidation of the committee. what of the prime minister's mantra of integrity. — of the prime minister's mantra of integrity, professionalism, and accountability at every level? not only must — accountability at every level? not only must this endorsed the report in full, _ only must this endorsed the report in full, we — only must this endorsed the report in full, we must recover the legal fees wasted on borisjohnson's lies, rescind _ fees wasted on borisjohnson's lies, rescind the — fees wasted on borisjohnson's lies, rescind the honours bestowed in disgrace. — rescind the honours bestowed in disgrace, and prevent a single penny more _ disgrace, and prevent a single penny more of— disgrace, and prevent a single penny more of public money entering his

pocket _ more of public money entering his pocket. we have suffered enough at his hands _ pocket. we have suffered enough at his hands and the hands of his government. borisjohnson lied to parliament, deliberately misled the country. _ parliament, deliberately misled the country, and has shown no remorse for his— country, and has shown no remorse for his behaviour. while time and money— for his behaviour. while time and money and — for his behaviour. while time and money and energy have been spent on examining _ money and energy have been spent on examining what was a self—evident truth _ examining what was a self—evident truth and _ examining what was a self—evident truth and long time ago, the cost of living _ truth and long time ago, the cost of living crisis— truth and long time ago, the cost of living crisis continues to balloon and our— living crisis continues to balloon and our constituents are suffering. is it and our constituents are suffering. is it not _ and our constituents are suffering. is it not shameful and depressing that it _ is it not shameful and depressing that it has — is it not shameful and depressing that it has taken this prolonged detaited — that it has taken this prolonged detailed scrutiny by the privileges committee to finally force some of the members opposite to finally admit _ the members opposite to finally admit to— the members opposite to finally admit tojohnson's the members opposite to finally admit to johnson's vaults, and shocking — admit to johnson's vaults, and shocking that even now some of them are refusing _ shocking that even now some of them are refusing to accept its conclusions? scotland deserves better _ conclusions? scotland deserves better than this outdated corrupted westminster system that allows the likes of _ westminster system that allows the likes ofjohnson to rise to the top, and i_ likes ofjohnson to rise to the top, and t fear— likes ofjohnson to rise to the top, and i fear that even these recommendations from the committee, decisive _ recommendations from the committee, decisive as _ recommendations from the committee, decisive as they are, will not prevent— decisive as they are, will not prevent the same happening in the future _ prevent the same happening in the future i_ prevent the same happening in the future. i worry that some

conservative mps think that by accepting the recommendations and... this will— accepting the recommendations and... this will all— accepting the recommendations and... this will all go away, and that cannot— this will all go away, and that cannot be _ this will all go away, and that cannot be allowed to happen. in conclusion, yes, it clearly is beyond _ conclusion, yes, it clearly is beyond time at westminster abandons the damaging traditions that protect those _ the damaging traditions that protect those lying in parliament, reforms protocol— those lying in parliament, reforms protocol and enables mps to accurately hold ministers to account _ accurately hold ministers to account. of course, all members of this should — account. of course, all members of this should vote for this committee's recommendation. the question— committee's recommendation. the question for me is this: is anything going _ question for me is this: is anything going to _ question for me is this: is anything going to change to really change on the back— going to change to really change on the back of this report? if parliament fails to reform after this most— parliament fails to reform after this most egregious and obvious case: _ this most egregious and obvious case, then— this most egregious and obvious case, then it willjust prove westminster is incapable of even the most trasic_ westminster is incapable of even the most basic scrutiny of power, or reform — most basic scrutiny of power, or reform or— most basic scrutiny of power, or reform or improvement. are we confident— reform or improvement. are we confident the standards here will keep other ministers to account when they stand _ keep other ministers to account when they stand up at the dispatch box?

thank you, mr deputy speaker, i do not intend to dwell on the report's findings, it is rigorous and i except theirfindings. i findings, it is rigorous and i except their findings. i want to comment on the role of the committee, this house, and the importance of today's debate and vote for our political life, this parliament, and our democracy. it is not easy to sit in judgment on friends and colleagues. one day you'rejudging the friends and colleagues. one day you're judging the behaviour, friends and colleagues. one day you'rejudging the behaviour, the next day you might be standing next to them in the queue in the member's tv room. i know it's not easy because as prime minister, i had to take decisions based onjudgements about the behaviour of friends and colleagues, decisions which affected their lives and potentially their careers. but friendship, working together should not get in the way of doing what is right. i commend

the members of the privileges committee for their painstaking work, and for their dignity in the face of slurs on their integrity. to all the members of the committee, this house should, as leader of the house said, say thank you for your service. thank you for being willing to undertake this role, and particular thanks to the right honourable memberfor particular thanks to the right honourable member for peckham for being willing to stand up to share democrat chair the committee when the right honourable member rightfully accused himself —— recused himself. this committee report matters, this debate matters, and this vote matters. they matter because they strike at the heart of the bond and respect in parliament and our democracy. i will give way stop i am very grateful, mr deputy

of the house... the stop i am very grateful, mr deputy of the house. . ._ of the house... the leader of the house spoke _ of the house... the leader of the house spoke about _ of the house... the leader of the house spoke about representing | house spoke about representing portsmouth, i returned from portsmouth, i returned from portsmouth today early from a defence committee meeting to be here to vote in support of this report. does she agree that even though borisjohnson has absented himself from this house, almost to some degree making this report somewhat academic, the nation wants to see its conclusion — the nation who puts us here wants to make sure that this process reaches its conclusion? i repeat again i'll be supporting this report here today in this house. i report here today in this house. i say that i'm pleased to hear the gentleman will be supporting this report. i think he can take it from the fact that i've just the committee report matters, the debate matters, that this vote matters and i do think people want to see us coming to a conclusion today. if people see us making rules for them

and acting as if they are not for us, that trust that i spoke about between the public and parliament is undermined. if they see members of the house trying to save the careers of friends who have been clearly found by due process to be guilty of wrongdoing, as happened in the case of owen paterson, their respect for us is eroded. and without that trust and respect, theirfaith in our very parliamentary democracy is damaged. as mps, we are some democrat in some ways leaders of our community, but we bear the responsibility to put the people we serve first, to be honest with them and one another, and uphold the standards of this place. we all know that in the rough—and—tumble of parliamentary debate, between people of opposing views, there will be exaggeration, careful use of facts, and in some

cases misrepresentation. but when something is said that is wrong and misleads this house, we are all not just ministers, we are all under an obligation not to repeat it and correct it at the first opportunity. above all, we are all responsible for our own actions. beyond that, this house has a response ability to ensure standards are upheld by showing we are willing to act against the interests of colleagues when the facts require it. and in this case, i believe they do. it is important to show the public at there is not one rule for them and another for us. there is not one rule for them and anotherfor us. indeed, i believe we have a greater responsibility than most to uphold the rules and set an example. the decision also matters to show that parliament is capable of dealing with members who

transgress the rules of this house. if you like to show the sovereignty of parliament. and following an unsettling period in our political life, support for the report of the privileges committee will be a small but important step in restoring people's trust, and members of this house and parliament. and i also say to members of my own party that it is doubly important for us to show that we are prepared to act when one of our own, however senior, that we are prepared to act when one of our own, howeversenior, is that we are prepared to act when one of our own, however senior, is found wanting. i will vote in favour of the report of the privileges committee. i urge all members of this house to do so, to uphold standards in public life, to show that we all recognise the responsibility we have to the people we serve, and to help to restore faith in our parliamentary democracy. chair of the committee,

harriet harman. mr— democracy. chair of the committee, harriet harman. mr speaker, it - democracy. chair of the committee, harriet harman. mr speaker, it is i democracy. chair of the committee, harriet harman. mr speaker, it is a | harriet harman. mr speaker, it is a rivileue harriet harman. mr speaker, it is a privilege to — harriet harman. mr speaker, it is a privilege to follow _ harriet harman. mr speaker, it is a privilege to follow the _ harriet harman. mr speaker, it is a privilege to follow the right - privilege to follow the right honourable lady, the memberfor maidenhead in her serious and important speech, every word of which i agreed with. the evidence on which i agreed with. the evidence on which our conclusions are based is fully set out in the report. i want to place on record the great debt of gratitude i believe the house owes it to the clerks of the house, to speakers' council and to sir ernest ryder. the quality of their work and their dedication to the house is extraordinary. they are public servants of a quite remarkable calibre. the evidence shows that on a matter which could hardly have been of more importance, mrjohnson are deliberately misled the house, notjust are deliberately misled the house, not just once, are deliberately misled the house, notjust once, but on numerous occasions. the evidence showed that he denied what was true, asserted what was not true, obfuscated and deceived. it is clear that he knew

the rules and guidance. as prime minister, he was telling the country about them nearly everyday. he knew that there were gatherings, he was there. he knew that the gatherings breached the rules and the guidance, yet he told the house that the rules and guidance were followed in at number 10 at all times. misleading the house is not a technicality, but a matter of great importance. our democracy is based on it people electing us to scrutinise the government and on behalf of the people represent, we have to hold the government to account. we cannot do that if ministers are not truthful. ministers must be truthful. ministers must be truthful. if they aren't, we cannot do ourjob. it is as simple and as fundamental as that. the house and asked the privileges committee to inquire into the allegations that mr johnson, who was at the then prime minister, misled the house and that is the mechanism. it is the only

mechanism the house has to protect itself in the face of a minister misleading. we undertook this inquiry scrupulously sticking to the rules and processes laid down by this house, understanding orders, and following the presidents of this house. inn and following the presidents of this house. �* , . ., house. i'm very grateful to the riaht house. i'm very grateful to the right honourable _ house. i'm very grateful to the right honourable lady, - house. i'm very grateful to the right honourable lady, but - house. i'm very grateful to the right honourable lady, but i - house. i'm very grateful to the - right honourable lady, but i wonder she could _ right honourable lady, but i wonder she could say something of her own position. _ she could say something of her own position. in— she could say something of her own position, in regard to the position set try— position, in regard to the position set try the — position, in regard to the position set by the house of lords, when a decision on— set by the house of lords, when a decision on which lord hoffmann was involved. _ decision on which lord hoffmann was involved, was set aside, not because he was _ involved, was set aside, not because he was biased, but because of the perception— he was biased, but because of the perception of bias, in relation to her famous _ perception of bias, in relation to her famous tweets, how does she think— her famous tweets, how does she think she — her famous tweets, how does she think she met the hoffmann test? i�*m think she met the hoffmann test? i'm ha - think she met the hoffmann test? um happy to think she met the hoffmann test? in happy to answer the point that he made. 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 my attention, highlighted, because i am concerned about the perception of fairness on 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. and i actually said, and more than happy to step aside, because perception matters, and i don't want to do this if the government does not have confidence in me because i need the whole house to have confidence in the work that the committee has now mandated. i was assured that i could continue the work that the house had mandated with the appointment that the house had put me into and sol with the appointment that the house had put me into and so i did just that. j had put me into and so i did “ust that. ~ . had put me into and so i did “ust that. ,, . , . . that. i think that is a mic drop, jacob rees-mogg! _

that. i think that is a mic drop, jacob rees-mogg! our - that. i think that is a mic drop, jacob rees-mogg! our report i that. i think that is a mic drop, | jacob rees-mogg! our report is that. i think that is a mic drop, - jacob rees-mogg! our report is based on two things. — jacob rees-mogg! our report is based on two things. on _ jacob rees-mogg! our report is based on two things, on the _ jacob rees-mogg! our report is based on two things, on the evidence, - jacob rees-mogg! our report is based on two things, on the evidence, and i on two things, on the evidence, and on two things, on the evidence, and on a keen awareness of the seriousness of misleading the house. the committee was unanimous that a sanction which would trigger the recall of parliament act was justified in the light of our conclusion, that mrjohnson deliberately misled the house and deliberately misled the house and deliberately misled the committee. we then felt it necessary to increase the sanction to 90 days, to reflect the seriousness of his preaching the confidence of the committee, impugning the committee, thereby undermining the democratic process of the house, and his complicity in a campaign of abuse, attempting to intimidate the committee, stop us from carrying out our work, and to discredit it. like the honourable memberfor the honourable member for maidenhead, the honourable memberfor maidenhead, with whom i share a great interest, including necklaces, it turns out... laughter. or i want

to thank, as she did, i want to thank every member of the privileges committee. over the course of the last year, they have considered thousands of pages of evidence and participated in over 30 meetings were to do the job the house asked them to do, with outstanding dedication and commitment. but particularly the conservative members of the committee and 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 committee and thereby frustrate the intention of the house. but this inquiry should be carried out. yet, through all of this, they have not given into the intimidation, they have been influencing to their duty to the house and we owe them a huge amount. we need members to be

prepared to serve on the privileges committee. they must be free to base theirjudgments on the evidence my free from pressure, one way or the other. if the house once its rights to be protected in future, it must act to stop intimidation of members of the privileges committee. attacks by honourable members on other honourable members on other 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. none of that is a threat to free speech of members. members can

engage in the process throughout. they can speak and vote against a referral to the privileges committee. they can speak and vote against the appointment of any member of the privileges committee. they can bring to the house proposals for changes to the procedure. they can speak about a report's conclusions. but what they must not do is interfere with the work the house has mandated. this report does not create a chilling effect on what ministers say at the dispatch box. if ministers make mistakes, which inevitably happens, and inadvertently say something that is misleading, they are expected to correct it at the earliest opportunity, and that is what is done routinely. inadvertent misleading, promptly corrected, is not an issue. it is the system working. and the house understands if ministers declined to answer, for example, in matters of national security or market sensitivity. too

many members of the public already think that we are dishonest. but hitherto, i have found in my a0 years in this house that most ministers in all governments are at pains to tell the truth. the sanction in this report reinforces and upholds ministers' high standards, and shows the public that thatis standards, and shows the public that that is the case. i will give way. i that is the case. i will give way. i am most grateful to the right honourable lady. she has of course referred to the wording misleads, which was in the original motion on the 21st of april. those words are not the words of the resolution of 1997, which still pertains today, which uses the words, quite explicitly "knowingly mislead". does she not accept that there is a huge difference when that decision was made unanimously by the house and is still in existence and still pertains? i think the committee found on the

evidence that mrjohnson knowingly and deliberately intended to mislead the house. because he was prime minister, mrjohnson's dishonesty, if left unchecked, would have contaminated the whole of government, allowing misleading to become commonplace, and thus improve the standards which are essential for the health of our democracy. i want to say something about the press. this episode has shown that wrongdoing has not gone undiscovered and attempts to cover it up have failed. but it would have been undiscovered had not the press doggedly investigated. many journalists played their part, and in particular, i want to mention pippa crerar and paul brand. democracy needs a free press. the

house sent this report to the privileges committee without division. it unanimously endorsed the membership of the committee. we were done —— we have done the work were done —— we have done the work we were asked to. this is the moment for the house, on behalf of the people of this country, to assert its rights to say loud and clear that government will be accountable, ministers will be honest, there is no impunity for wrongdoing, even if you are the prime minister, especially if you are the prime minister, you must tell the truth to parliament. i urge all members to support this motion. thank you, mr speaker. the motion before the house today is of the utmost importance. yes, it is about the behaviour of a member, but there is also a huge degree of controversy around the process and the make—up of the committee itself. i want to say from the outset that it is

entirely reasonable for honourable and right honourable members to have differing opinions on both the findings of the committee and the sanctions imposed by the committee. but where i part company with those who would vote against today's motion is that i strongly believe this house must uphold the processes and committees that we create. as a former leader of the house during 2017-2019 in the former leader of the house during 2017—2019 in the hung parliament, and when the harassment scandal hit this place, many colleagues in the chamber today and on the other place worked for the best part of the year to put together the independent complaints and grievances scheme. i certainly don't defend the scheme is being perfect, and i myself have some grave concerns about how it has been implemented that are not for discussion today. however, what i believe the original 16 cs is a agreed by the cells in 2018 got right was to uphold the principle

that those who are elected to this place should only ever be removed by those same electors. in the second principle that underpinned it was that the house should be responsible for its own affairs, and showing a collective responsibility to uphold standards, and giving all members of the right to bejudged by a group of their peers. the committee of privileges that is responsible for the fifth report, and is the subject of today's debate, has, in my opinion, been entirely properly established and has carried out its duties with great care, and with every opportunity for the provision of both evidence and opinion to be taken into account, and i want to thank and congratulate all members of the committee for what i am certain will have been an exhaustive and an exhausting process. i do remind colleagues, the vast majority of whom will have been involved in cross—party committees such as

select committees and inquiries, to recall that all the participants on a committee have an equal voice, and that this particular committee, with a majority of government members, simply cannot reasonably be accused of political bias. our standing member who spoke before me, the ex leader of the ht our standing orders, whilst farfrom perfect, orders, whilst far from perfect, ensure orders, whilst farfrom perfect, ensure that members are judged by a politically balanced group of their peers, and that the ultimate sanction available to them gives the right and the obligation to that member's own electors as to whether to call a by—election in the first place, and if that 10% threshold is met, then it is for those voters to return or reject that member. so what is the alternative, madam deputy speaker, to our privileges committee? well, the only alternative is a committee made of nonmembers, and this might address the fears around political bias, but surely the risk of lay members having their own agendas is also

great, and with lay members, there is a vital constitutional issue around unelected people having the power to dismiss those that are elected. if we don't uphold this crucial principle of our democracy, we risk undermining the preferences of voters by appointing unelected assessors to wield power. this would be a dramatic change to one of the world's greatest and longest lived democracies, and we would effectively be saying that we are unable to govern ourselves, overturning a precedent that is hundreds of years old. that is a reality that many, right across the country, would be deeply uncomfortable with. so, madam deputy speaker, in my opinion, the time to challenge the make up all the proceedings for the fifth report of the committee of privileges is long, long past. colleagues with concerns about the committee quite rightly raised those before the house

instructed the committee in april 2022, but they were overruled by a significant democratic majority. madam deputy speaker, the procedures and processes of this house are in constant need of review and reform, of that there can be no doubt. however, we must make sure that a proper process of reform is followed, and not seek to rewrite the process at the 11th hour because some do not like its conclusions. for my own part, i will be supporting today's motion to approve the fifth report. i'm sad that it has come to this, and i'm particularly sorry to all of my constituents who have written to tell me that they kept to the rules when others clearly did not. i now urge all members across the house to approve this motion without a division. thank you. thank you very much, madam deputy

speaker. i rise to support the recommendations in the fifth report of the privileges committee into the conduct of borisjohnson. they should be accepted in full, and they should be accepted in full, and they should be accepted in full, and they should be supported by all members of this house who wish to uphold our democratic institutions and our system of parliamentary democracy itself. this is especially the case after the former prime minister's disgraceful reaction to the draft report last weekend. the committee's conclusions are very clear—cut. they are unanimous. the committee has concluded that the most senior member of the government, a sitting prime minister, has engaged in very serious contempt and wrongdoing, which is worthy of the very long suspension which was to be recommended as punishment. he leaves the house in disgrace, spewing trump —like conspiracy theories and attacking the integrity of the parliamentary system, which he has done so much to bring into

disrepute. this report, madam deputy speaker, is not about so—called partygate, although the gravest civilian crisis since the second world war, which took 230,000 lives, is the sombre backdrop against which the prime minister's wrongdoing took place. this is about parliament's requirement that government ministers tell the truth, so that they can be held to account for their actions, and parliamentary accountability lies at the heart of our democratic system. now, serious matters concerning borisjohnson's lack of ability to tell the truth were referred to the committee for a unanimous decision of the whole house on april the 21st, 2022. this was when borisjohnson was still the prime minister, and therefore, it is safe to assume that he consented to this course of action. the committee

was then constituted, as is customary, as we have heard, with a government majority, but chaired by a member of the opposition, in this case, the right honourable member for peckham, who is a distinguished and long serving member of this house. she is also a lawyer. there were no objections at this stage to any member who was asked to serve on the committee for the purpose of investigation. had there been such an objection, the government could have used its majority to change the personnel who had been asked to conduct this inquiry. they did not. and the membership of the committee was agreed unanimously by this house. 1a months of painstaking and forensic work later, and they have produced their excoriating verdict in the report we are debating today. it is a damning verdict, and one which i believe the whole house must not only note that vote to accept. i

will comment on the findings of the report later, but firstly, i wish to make a few further observations about the importance of today's proceedings. borisjohnson and his acolytes have engaged in a systematic attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the committee and its work for their own purposes. they claim it is unfair and biased against the former prime minister. they claim the individuals are biased, and that the procedure is biased, and that the procedure is biased, but anyone who has read the report and the painstaking way in which they went about their investigation, will know that this is false. as the committee itself points out, comparisons between the inquisitorial nature of the committee's proceedings and those of an adversarial court of law are fallacious. i give way. i’m an adversarial court of law are fallacious. i give way. i'm very crateful fallacious. i give way. i'm very grateful to _ fallacious. i give way. i'm very grateful to my _ fallacious. i give way. i'm very grateful to my right _ fallacious. i give way. i'm very l grateful to my right honourable friend. would she agree with me that

the contrast between our right honourable friend the memberfor peckham and the way she dealt with allegations against her alleged bias, as she explained earlier, and the reaction of borisjohnson, are in sharp contrast? and doesn't that just tell us everything that we need to know about this report and the consequences of it? l to know about this report and the consequences of it?— to know about this report and the consequences of it? i agree with my riuht consequences of it? i agree with my right honourable _ consequences of it? i agree with my right honourable friend, _ consequences of it? i agree with my right honourable friend, but - consequences of it? i agree with my right honourable friend, but i - consequences of it? i agree with my right honourable friend, but i alsol right honourable friend, but i also think that we must commend the owner and the steadfastness —— the honour and the steadfastness —— the honour and the steadfastness of all members of the privileges committee, who have been put under enormous pressure during this process. madam deputy speaker, the house of commons has its own rules and regulations, which it must police itself. the courts rightly have nojurisdiction over these, as the right honourable member who spoke before me, the ex

leader of the house