�*commons whose leader of the house of commons whose constituency i have... leader of the house of commons whose constituency i have. . ._ constituency i have... south northamptonshire. - constituency i have... south l northamptonshire. explained, constituency i have... south - northamptonshire. explained, the courts do not _ northamptonshire. explained, the courts do not have _ northamptonshire. explained, the courts do not have jurisdiction - northamptonshire. explained, the| courts do not have jurisdiction over this parliament, and this is to protect parliament, and by extension, our democracy, from being subverted or undermined by outside pressure from the powerful. to portray this inquisitorial procedure as inherently unfair is simply not credible. i think the agenda for getting late in the excellent speech he is making would she agree with me that today is a good day for the house of commons because the system has fundamentally worked.— commons because the system has fundamentally worked. madam deputy seaker, fundamentally worked. madam deputy speaker. let's — fundamentally worked. madam deputy speaker, let's see _ fundamentally worked. madam deputy speaker, let's see at _ fundamentally worked. madam deputy speaker, let's see at the _ fundamentally worked. madam deputy speaker, let's see at the end - fundamentally worked. madam deputy speaker, let's see at the end of- speaker, let's see at the end of today's debates what happens to see whether the system has worked.

because it is being challenged and we have to accept that and respond to this challenge, which i hope we will be doing in this debate. despite the hysterical reactions of the country can i think it's important to state that this is a properly constituted senior committee of the house as indeed the leader of the house did so in her remarks. it was asked to do a difficult but vitaljob and it discharged its duties with integrity and honour will stop it is our duty now, i believe, before this house to ensure that we support the members of that committee and we support the conclusions that they have come to after this detailed work. i believe also we should thank the members of the privileges committee because they have done the house of commons a very great service under the most intense pressure. instead of being thanked, they have found themselves traduced in the borisjohnson worshiping print and tv media, which

has called into question their motives and their very integrity. they have been egged on in this disgraceful behaviour by the former prime minister himself. it is beneath contempt for serving members of this house in the x prime minister to accuse the committee of being a kangaroo court or of being biased against it. in my view, all of those who have made such baseless accusations should themselves be referred to the privileges committee in contempt of this house. as the committee itself points out, this inquiry goes to the house of the democratic system in this country. this house exists to pass a law but it also exists to hold the governments of the day accountable for its actions. for this crucial purpose to be felt. the house assumes that any government minister tells the truth to parliament, inadvertent errors can and must be corrected at the earliest opportunity, but we cannot work if

we have a rogue minister is lying on the floor of this house with impunity. and deciding to resign prior to the publication of their reports, borisjohnson escaped further programme upon himself. he broke confidentiality by leaking the provisional report ahead of its being finalised for his own ends. he fled thejudgment of being finalised for his own ends. he fled the judgment of his fellow mps in a chamber which contains a large conservative majority. he ran away from the judgment of his constituents in uxbridge without attempting to defend himself to them and he used his considerable public platform to make outrageous accusations of bias against the committee who have had to be provided with extra security as a result. allies of his have threatened any conservative mp who supports the report with a confidence vote and the selection in their local constituency parties.

according to reports of the weekend, borisjohnson according to reports of the weekend, boris johnson believes according to reports of the weekend, borisjohnson believes he left parliament in a blaze of glory. laughter met them to be speaker, he has left in disgrace. he has run from accountability for his lies and untruths. there has been no self reflection, no apology, no acceptance of a shred of responsibility, just the narcissistic howl of a man child who won't see that he only has himself to blame. so egregious and so damaging for public trust in our democracy, borisjohnson and his cheerleaders actions. it is now imperative that this report is accepted. all mps from the prime minister and on down must be seen to be upholding the integrity, professionalism and accountability which are required to ensure that our system operates by uniting to defend truth telling and punish

those who believe they can live with impunity. this is why this is not merely a symbolic debate simply because the former prime minister has fled the scene at the crime. he clearly harbours designs to make a comeback, having fled accountability and a reckoning, which is why we must support the bravery of those we asked to serve on the privileges committee by actively endorsing their recommendations. mass dissension and tonight's vote on the conservative side will be a total dereliction of their duty. and that includes the prime minister. i hope, madam deputy speaker, that we will see all of them in the lobby tonight, voting to defend the integrity of this parliament and our democracy. integrity of this parliament and our democra . . ~ integrity of this parliament and our democra . ., ~ , ., ., integrity of this parliament and our democra . ., ., , , , democracy. thank you, madam deputy seaker. i democracy. thank you, madam deputy speaker- i had — democracy. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i had to _ democracy. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i had to speak— democracy. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i had to speak in _ democracy. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i had to speak in the - democracy. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i had to speak in the house l speaker. i had to speak in the house today because i cannot see where the

evidence is, where borisjohnson misled parliament knowingly, intentionally or recklessly. i'm from grimsby and i have to say it as i see it. ., , i see it. order, order. it is important to _ i see it. order, order. it is important to listen - i see it. order, order. it is important to listen to - i see it. order, order. it is important to listen to the | important to listen to the honourable lady.- important to listen to the honourable lady. important to listen to the honourable lad . ., ~ ., honourable lady. thank you, madam deu honourable lady. thank you, madam deputy speaker- _ honourable lady. thank you, madam deputy speaker- i — honourable lady. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i have _ honourable lady. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i have to _ honourable lady. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i have to say, - honourable lady. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i have to say, as - honourable lady. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i have to say, as i i deputy speaker. i have to say, as i see it, because that is what my constituents would want me to do. yes, i have read it, and i think that's quite an appalling question to ask a member in this house. the reality is that is that boris johnson did not knowingly or intentionally mislead this house. the reason... the reason, if people would like to listen... that i say thatis would like to listen... that i say that is that lasted for six months i was on a borisjohnson�*s parliamentary part private

secretaries. and i was the only member of parliament who was with him for the whole day on the publication of the sue gray reports. when he read that... titer? publication of the sue gray reports. when he read that...— when he read that... very grateful for the honourable _ when he read that... very grateful for the honourable lady _ when he read that... very grateful for the honourable lady getting . when he read that... very grateful. for the honourable lady getting way. she says having read the report that she sees no evidence of boris johnson's wrongdoing. as she agree with me that there is none so blind as those who will not see? i with me that there is none so blind as those who will not see?- as those who will not see? i think the honourable _ as those who will not see? i think the honourable gentleman - as those who will not see? i think the honourable gentleman for - as those who will not see? i think the honourable gentleman for his| the honourable gentleman for his comments, but for those people, i haven't got anything more interesting to do than actually spend their time reading the whole of the reports, of which i did. i am aiming this at members of the public, is that i suggest people go to pages 85—88 and actually read the quotes. the reality is that there were some people who had parties. sadly, those people where an

officials. who still should have stood by as making sure that they were not putting ministers in difficult situations by advising them incorrectly.— difficult situations by advising them incorrectl . ., ~ ., them incorrectly. thank you, madam de - u them incorrectly. thank you, madam deputy speaker- _ them incorrectly. thank you, madam deputy speaker. the _ them incorrectly. thank you, madam deputy speaker. the prime - them incorrectly. thank you, madam deputy speaker. the prime minister| deputy speaker. the prime minister headed all of those people, he was the team leader for all of those working at number ten and in the cabinet office who are at those parties. during lockdown, i volunteered at west middlesex hospital taking food to words because the staff working in them are not allowed to go to the canteen, and they certainly were directed by the chief executive of the hospital trust that they could have no parties, not even leading parties, not even wine fridays, they had no parties for that call period. does the honourable member have any

comprehension of what her constituents in the same position where feeling like when they heard the evidence? i where feeling like when they heard the evidence?— where feeling like when they heard the evidence? ~' ., ., ., , the evidence? i think the honourable lad , es, the evidence? i think the honourable lady. yes. i — the evidence? i think the honourable lady. yes. i do. _ the evidence? i think the honourable lady. yes. i do- iout— the evidence? i think the honourable lady, yes, i do. but what— the evidence? i think the honourable lady, yes, i do. but what we - the evidence? i think the honourable lady, yes, i do. but what we need i the evidence? i think the honourablei lady, yes, i do. but what we need to look at here is actually what i witnessed first—hand and what had happens was that people advising that then prime minister act no points advised him that there were parties, they advised him again and again... no, iwant to parties, they advised him again and again... no, i want to give way at the moment, thank you. they advised him again and again that no rules were broken and that guidance was followed at all times. everybody in this place no is no minister stands at best dispatch box and knowingly misleads. they have to take counsel from people who advise them. many of

whom are giving legal advice. they know that to be the truth, but the public don't necessarily know that thatis public don't necessarily know that that is the case. and if you are a prime minister and you are advised in that way again and again, no matter how you question, then you have to stand at the dispatch box and actually give those statements because that is what you have been legally advised to do. the people in may not like that, but that is the truth, and that is why i am standing here and saying this. the sad thing is is that many people who gave that advice are still working in and around number ten and whitehall on the but we don't know who they are because they are not a high—profile politician. i’m because they are not a high-profile olitician. �* , ., ., politician. i'm very grateful to the honourable _ politician. i'm very grateful to the honourable lady _ politician. i'm very grateful to the honourable lady for _ politician. i'm very grateful to the honourable lady for getting - politician. i'm very grateful to the honourable lady for getting way. | politician. i'm very grateful to the | honourable lady for getting way. i wonder if she might reflect that it sounds to those of us here as if

what she is trying to do is deflect blame from boris johnson what she is trying to do is deflect blame from borisjohnson and put it on unelected members of staff people here and people at home may find that, to put it mildly, rather unedifying. i that, to put it mildly, rather unedifying-_ that, to put it mildly, rather unedi inc. ~' ., ., ., , unedifying. i think the honourable lad . unedifying. i think the honourable lady- what _ unedifying. i think the honourable lady- what i _ unedifying. i think the honourable lady. what i would _ unedifying. i think the honourable lady. what i would say, _ unedifying. i think the honourable lady. what i would say, actually, | lady. what i would say, actually, that i have had the privilege to work with many unelected officials, special advisers and civil servants who have been very professional and have worked very hard and are very good at getting accurate advice. but we all know from the evidence that then here that they are, and we cannot shy away from that. we know that's the case. so, the end of i think my honourable friend for getting way. and just to build slightly on the plane she is making, the report needs to be narrow scope. it is about what the prime minister said to this house. i wonder if i could draw her attention to

paragraph 20 and page 71 which seeks to go much further than that. it talks about, it's not what the prime minister said, talks about, it's not what the prime ministersaid, it's talks about, it's not what the prime minister said, it's the interpretation given by members of this house, by the media and by the public. the former prime minister, borisjohnson cannot be held responsible for what people thought he may have meant. he should be held responsible if this report is to hold any water on what he said. i think my right honourable friend for that. of course, we... taste think my right honourable friend for that. of course, we...— that. of course, we... we really must here _ that. of course, we... we really must here what _ that. of course, we... we really must here what the _ that. of course, we... we really must here what the honourable | that. of course, we... we really- must here what the honourable lady has to _ must here what the honourable lady has to say _ must here what the honourable lady has to say. it is not fairjust to muddle — has to say. it is not fairjust to muddle away when she's making her argument _ muddle away when she's making her art ument. . ~ muddle away when she's making her aruument. ., ,, i. ., muddle away when she's making her aruument. ., ., , , , argument. thank you, madam deputy seaker. i argument. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i think _ argument. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i think my _ argument. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i think my right _ argument. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i think my right honourable| speaker. i think my right honourable friend for identifying data because, of course, he is absolutely right. and i have to say, i do respect the amount of hard work that has been put into this report, but throughout, if i was grading this in

my formerjob as a college lecturer, it is not impartial, the way it is written, borisjohnson claimed, boris written, boris johnson claimed, borisjohnson written, borisjohnson claimed, boris johnson purported written, borisjohnson claimed, borisjohnson purported that written, borisjohnson claimed, boris johnson purported that this written, borisjohnson claimed, borisjohnson purported that this is not impartial language. and therefore i believe that in my opinion, that this report does not give an impartial report in the way that it give an impartial report in the way thatitis give an impartial report in the way that it is written. but to go back to my original discussion, that on the day that the sue gray report was written, was published, the prime minister at the time was horrified that he had read what was going on at no time, and in here, at no time did anybody get on oath or evidence that they reported that there were parties or there was rule breaking to the prime minister. now, some people might say, well, he lives in number ten or lived in number ten, he should have known. well,

actually, those people who have worked in number ten will know that it is a rapid warren of rooms, thick walls, people are working there, running the country, and the prime minister is not to the caretaker of the building. it is not theirjob to go around and look in rooms and decide who may be working and who may not be working. in fact, in that sue gray report, it did state that those unelected officials were rude to the door keeps and staff, but yet at no time, if there were rules being broken in their were seen, number ten is full of police officers in the fall of security people, why did nobody report this to the prime minister so that he was aware that? i to the prime minister so that he was aware that? ~ to the prime minister so that he was aware that?— aware that? i think the honourable lady forgiving _ aware that? i think the honourable lady forgiving way- _ aware that? i think the honourable lady forgiving way. she _ aware that? i think the honourable lady forgiving way. she makes - aware that? i think the honourable lady forgiving way. she makes a l aware that? i think the honourable i lady forgiving way. she makes a very good points that the prime minister was not the caretaker of the

building number ten. at the prime minister at the time was that caretaker of the nation's health, the nation's while being in the nation's trust. and in that, he left people down step misled this house, and that is why this report has come up and that is why this report has come up with the conclusions that it did. from i'm from grimsby and i can only say it as i see it. i can say that borisjohnson had not been aware of these parties that had been going on. �* ., �* ., ., on. i'm from birmingham and i say it as i see it- — on. i'm from birmingham and i say it as i see it- is— on. i'm from birmingham and i say it as i see it. is there _ on. i'm from birmingham and i say it as i see it. is there any _ on. i'm from birmingham and i say it as i see it. is there any chance - as i see it. is there any chance boris — as i see it. is there any chance borisjohnson could have as i see it. is there any chance boris johnson could have also lied to her? _ boris johnson could have also lied to her? �* , to her? laughter i thank _ to her? laughter i thank the - to her? laughter - i thank the honourable lady to her? laughter _ i thank the honourable lady phyll stop i don't believe he did. i think

actually i'm a very good person who can actually see character and i saw what was going on in and around number 10 on that day and i believe unelected officials, some of them, because many many other very good and very professional, but some of the major choice not to inform the then prime minister because they wanted to cover their own backs. i'm very, very to say. i’m wanted to cover their own backs. i'm very. very to say-— very, very to say. i'm very grateful to the honourable _ very, very to say. i'm very grateful to the honourable lady _ very, very to say. i'm very grateful to the honourable lady phyll - very, very to say. i'm very grateful to the honourable lady phyll stop l very, very to say. i'm very grateful| to the honourable lady phyll stop is she aware — to the honourable lady phyll stop is she aware that in 2019 max hastings the editor— she aware that in 2019 max hastings the editor of the daily telegraph under— the editor of the daily telegraph under tory said this about boris johnson — under tory said this about boris johnson. full would not recognise truth _ johnson. full would not recognise truth weather about his private or poiiticai _ truth weather about his private or political life if confronted by it in identity parade. isn't the truth

that boris— in identity parade. isn't the truth that borisjohnson has lied for so lon- that borisjohnson has lied for so iong and — that borisjohnson has lied for so long and so often that it can come as no— long and so often that it can come as no surprise that he's lying this instance? — iam nota i am not a conservative party grandee. i haven't followed boris johnson's political career for a long time. i'm somebody who came here to actually serve my constituents. the majority of whom the reason why i'm here supported borisjohnson and his policies and his vision for the country. but sadly, what this whole saga seems to be doing in and out of the media is actually, sadly, this is all becoming a kind of political opportunism. forthose

becoming a kind of political opportunism. for those people who don't like borisjohnson's approach, don't like boris johnson's approach, don't like boris johnson's approach, don't like borisjohnson's approach, don't like his policies, don't like his plan. i have to say that that isn't what i'm getting on the doorstep but perhaps if the opposition had a plan and had the people, maybe they might have a chance of getting into government sometime soon. this actually is about people who want a formidable opponent out of their way because they don't believe they will get into government in any other way. that is my stance, i thank you very much, madam deputy speaker. madam deu much, madam deputy speaker. madam deputy speaker. _ much, madam deputy speaker. madam deputy speaker. can — much, madam deputy speaker. madam deputy speaker. can i _ much, madam deputy speaker. madam deputy speaker, can i first _ much, madam deputy speaker. madam deputy speaker, can i first thanked - deputy speaker, can i first thanked the right honourable memberfor camberwell and peckham. i can probably thank her more than anybody in the chamber because i think the wisest thing i've ever done in my political career was recuse myself from chairing the committee. and she

has done an absolutely admirable job. i also want to thank all the members on the committee as has often been referred to, the conservative members in particular. i won't go into the other matters that for other reasons the chair of the committee referred to above privilege and whether they should be referred back again but i simply point out that i know all the conservative members on the committee because they are also on the standards committee and they do a wonderfuljob every single time. the former prime minister was right to say it's very difficult to sit in judgment on your colleagues. including your opponents. that isn't actually any easier than sitting in judgment on people who have sat on the same benches as you all had been in the same party as you. let's face it, borisjohnson lied. he said the guidance was followed completely, it wasn't. he said that the rules and guidance were followed at all times.

they weren't. and i take the plain meaning of his words. you don't have to investigate any further, just the plain meaning will do. he said he had repeated assurances. he didn't. he misrepresented the facts as he knew them. meanwhile, people died in isolation or lost their livelihood, we often forget that bit, or missed out on a wedding or an important moment in theirfamily out on a wedding or an important moment in their family life because they are abided by the rules and they are abided by the rules and they thought that the big truth of they thought that the big truth of the pandemic was that we were all in this together. and that's why there is for civil anger. —— visceral angen is for civil anger. —— visceral anger. i hear it often about those who think that some people didn't abide by the rules and those with the people who wrote the rules. this wasn't a single instance either. many members have said of course that happens and we have a proper process we've had since 2007 for a minister correcting the record. the

only time mrjohnson corrected the record as a minister was when he corrected the record that he had said that roman abramovich had been sanctioned and he realised he hadn't been. so, a russian oligarch is perhaps more important than other matters. yes, he was careless, reckless you could say about the truth. but far, far worse than that, he deliberately, intentionally and with knowledge and forethought sought to cover his tracks. it was a pattern of behaviour, a string of lies and i don't much care for the version of the it was alljunior officials and they should be thrown under the bus. 0r officials and they should be thrown under the bus. or that it was the police's fault because they didn't bother to deal with it. i went if she doesn't mind. well, no, of course i will. i she doesn't mind. well, no, of course i will.— course i will. i think it most graciously _ course i will. i think it most graciously for _ course i will. i think it most graciously for giving - course i will. i think it most graciously for giving way. . course i will. i think it most i graciously for giving way. but actually it wasn't just about junior

unelected officials, actually wear were the senior managers? web with a line managers stopping this happening? does he know? sometimes when ou happening? does he know? sometimes when you tried — happening? does he know? sometimes when you tried to _ happening? does he know? sometimes when you tried to take _ happening? does he know? sometimes when you tried to take the _ happening? does he know? sometimes when you tried to take the spade - happening? does he know? sometimes when you tried to take the spade of - when you tried to take the spade of somebody when they are digging the hole, they are absolutely determined to bring it back and bring a pitchfork and thejcb as to bring it back and bring a pitchfork and the jcb as well. to bring it back and bring a pitchfork and thejcb as well. mr johnson says he's been brought down ijy johnson says he's been brought down by a witch hunt but in all honesty the only person who brought down mr johnson was mrjohnson. and i suspect he knows that. i think this house feels that he should be ashamed of himself and that will be what it concludes later on today. but i fear that he remains completely shameless. so, is the sanctioned proportionate? it is difficult to sanction somebody who has already taken the option of running away from this house, face the music here, orfor that matter in their constituency. but i think

it's still important, it's not actually an academic matter what we debate today. i'm not having a criticism... now i've prompted another intervention. irate criticism. .. now i've prompted another intervention.— criticism... now i've prompted another intervention. we all now know very. _ another intervention. we all now know very. very _ another intervention. we all now know very, very clearly - another intervention. we all now know very, very clearly if - another intervention. we all now know very, very clearly if we - another intervention. we all now. know very, very clearly if we didn't know very, very clearly if we didn't know before that this isn't academic. many people, on our side of the benches will treated as academic because boris has left the building. this is wrong and i've learnt that as well. it's important that colleagues follow the former prime minister and vote to support the motion today. he’s prime minister and vote to support the motion today.— the motion today. he's absolutely riaht the motion today. he's absolutely ri . ht and the motion today. he's absolutely right and i've _ the motion today. he's absolutely right and i've looked _ the motion today. he's absolutely right and i've looked around - the motion today. he's absolutely right and i've looked around for i right and i've looked around for some parallels of what you can do about a member who is already left the house by the time the or standards and privileges or standards and privileges or standards or independent expert panel has adjudicated. the only one i can really find was sir michael brill who was involved in the cash for questions row in the 1990s. he

stood down in the 1997 general election so he wasn't an empty by the time the standards and privileges committee reported on him. it said quite categorically in relation to the question of whether lying to parliament is contempt, deliberately misleading a select committee is certainly a contempt of the house. were sir michael grill is still a member we would recommend a substantial period of suspension augmented to take account of his deceit and that is precisely what the privileges committee has done in its report. the treaties mrjohnson was a senior member of the house, a long—standing member. it wasn't the first time he had got into trouble with either the standard system or the rules. he has shown absolutely no contrition. he chose to attack, intimidate and bully the committee which could indeed be a breach of the rules in itself. everything he

did fell far, far short of the standards this house and the public is entitled to expect of any member. ijust is entitled to expect of any member. i just want to say a few words about the process. the house has always claimed, as the leader of the house said earlier, it's always claimed exclusive cognizance. that's to say apart from the voters and the criminal law, the anybody who can discipline, suspend or expel an elected member is the house of commons in its entirety. i still hold to that principle. it's why any decision or recommendation to suspend or expel a member has to be approved by the whole house. it is also why the only way to proceed when there is an allegation that a member has committed a contempt of parliament, for instance by misleading the house, is by a committee of the house and a decision of the whole house which is why we have to have the nation today and why we had to have the committee

of privileges. —— to have the motion today. it cannot i believe the court of law, it has to be a committee of the house. i don't think some commentators have fully understood that, including lord pannick and some former leaders of the house. so, i would say to those who have attacked the process that they should be very careful of what they seek. there are those who would prefer lying to parliament to be a criminal offence punishable by courts. but that would drive a coach and horses through the bill of rights principle that freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place up or questioned in any court or place up to parliament. i'm left feeling that those who attack the process simply don't believe that there should be any process for determining whether a member has lied to the house. as i've said before, i kind of admire the personal loyalty but i dislike the

attitude because it is in effect an excuse for appalling behaviour. i give way to the honourable gentleman. give way to the honourable gentleman-— give way to the honourable rentleman. �* .,, ., ., gentleman. i'm most grateful to the chairman of— gentleman. i'm most grateful to the chairman of the _ gentleman. i'm most grateful to the chairman of the standards _ gentleman. i'm most grateful to the l chairman of the standards committee. he and i took part in that debate as he will well remember on the 21st of april 2022 and i raised the question of knowingly mislead is because it wasn't included in the original nation which was then passed which led to the reference to the committee on privileges. but in the course of it i raised with him directly, but he certainly made the remark for which i paid credit, was the fact that intention is at the heart of this question. if you knock out the word knowingly, you knock out the word knowingly, you knock out the word knowingly, you knock out the intention is well and that is a fundamental question of process on which i will hopefully if i catch your eye madam deputy speaker will want to refer. i’m your eye madam deputy speaker will want to refer-— want to refer. i'm going to voraciously _ want to refer. i'm going to voraciously agree - want to refer. i'm going to voraciously agree because | want to refer. i'm going to | voraciously agree because i want to refer. i'm going to - voraciously agree because i said

earlier, he knowingly lied to parliament and that is what the committee has concluded. there was a point at which people thought that they would only consider recklessly but actually they found that he knowingly, with knowledge and forethought, misled parliament and was deliberately duplicitous. i think his point is destroyed. if he doesn't mind i'm going to give way to another gentleman. i doesn't mind i'm going to give way to another gentleman.— to another gentleman. i think he ave wa to another gentleman. i think he gave way to _ to another gentleman. i think he gave way to sir _ to another gentleman. i think he gave way to sirjacob _ to another gentleman. i think he l gave way to sirjacob rees-mogg. gave way to sirjacob rees—mogg. sorry— gave way to sirjacob rees—mogg. sorry to _ gave way to sirjacob rees—mogg. sorry to interrupt my honourable friend. the honourable gentleman is absolutely right, we must maintain exclusive cognizance but that does not mean that we shouldn't follow a proper process and a fair process or admit that this is ostensibly political.

admit that this is ostensibly olitical. ~ ., political. well, the word political can cover a _ political. well, the word political can cover a multitude _ political. well, the word political can cover a multitude of- political. well, the word political can cover a multitude of sins - can cover a multitude of sins because we are talking about the politics of the nation and i would argue that trying to defend the constitutional principle that ministers always tell the truth to ministers always tell the truth to parliament and if they have parliament and if they have inadvertently misled the house they inadvertently misled the house they correct the record as soon as they correct the record as soon as they possibly can, is an important part possibly can, is an important part of ensuring our political health in of ensuring our political health in this nation. but i don't think the this nation. but i don't think the process was unfair. most of our process was unfair. most of our constituents, if they go to a constituents, if they go to a tribunal these days, you get no tribunal these days, you get no representation paid for by the taxpayer. mrjohnson had more than £250,000 worth of representation provided by the taxpayer. the membership of the committee was agreed by the whole house. i think i might be right in saying when he was leader of the house of lords so i'm wrong and i apologise. it was certainly the whole house agree that membership. fully knowing everything that had been set up until that moment, three members of the

committee had sat on a previous case in relation to the truth to