johnson that came in relation to mrjohnson that came to the standards committee where the commission had found against mr johnson but we as the committee found in his favour. so i don't think that this was in any sense a biased committee. anyone who thinks the speaker counsel or earnest writer, who ran the whole of the tribunal service in england and wales would not stand up for a fair england and wales would not stand up fora fair hearing england and wales would not stand up for a fair hearing and due process i think is misleading themselves and doing so almost recklessly. i'm tempted not to give way. i'm very hopeful that he will have an opportunity to speak to the house fully later. madam deputy speaker, some people have attacked the process for a different reason and i understand the nature of this attack. they sayjohnson won a general election and they argue that on the voters should therefore be allowed to remove him from office. i

passionately disagree with this view. and i hold a different understanding of democracy. never mind how we got the majority and we have a release of office for five years so what are you going to do about a? that is only small party pattern which will not go down with the masses of this country. those are not my words, they are churches, talking to the labour government in 1947 and he went on... there is a i947 and he went on... there is a broad feeling in our country that that people should rule, continuously roll. and public opinion expressed by all constitutional means should shape, guide and control the actions of ministers who are there servants and not their masters. i agree with that, and i think it is important to note that public opinion on this matter is extremely clear. most people thinkjohnson lied. a few of

them don't think that that matters very much, but most do. most think that ministers who live think that ministers should be removed and punished. and being truthful is the one quality they seek above all else and a member of parliament. harold wilson said in the debate in this house whenjohn had just been forced to resign for lying in 1963, the sickness of an app representative sector of our society should not be detracting from the robust ability of our people as a whole to face the challenge of the future. and in preparing to face that challenge, let us frankly recognise that the inspiration and leadership must come first here in this house. leadership said mean taking a stance, abstention is a failure of leadership. today i believe is actually a good day for democracy. we have remarkably few checks and

balances in our system, the only real check is the collective conscience of the members of this house. and that is the burden of our elected office, and i pay tribute to conservatives and people of every party who have had to face a difficult decision in relation to this. we exercise our conscience on behalf of our constituents, and bert said that the most important thing we owe our constituents is our conscience. thereby we tarnish or we burnish the representation of parliament. so let us assert today that nobody is above the law. the rules apply to all stop because every is another excuse, and i repeat wilson's words, the leadership must come first here in this house. we leadership must come first here in this house-—

this house. we still have a lot of seakers this house. we still have a lot of speakers who — this house. we still have a lot of speakers who went _ this house. we still have a lot of speakers who went to _ this house. we still have a lot of speakers who went to contribute j this house. we still have a lot of i speakers who went to contribute to this debate. sol speakers who went to contribute to this debate. so i would advise that about_ this debate. so i would advise that about ten— this debate. so i would advise that about ten minutes each will probably make sure _ about ten minutes each will probably make sure we can get everybody in equally _ make sure we can get everybody in euuall . . ~ make sure we can get everybody in euuall. ., ~ i. make sure we can get everybody in euuall. ., ~ ., make sure we can get everybody in euuall. ., ., ,, , equally. thank you, madam deputy seaker. i equally. thank you, madam deputy speaker- i rise _ equally. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i rise as _ equally. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i rise as one _ equally. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i rise as one who - equally. thank you, madam deputy speaker. i rise as one who if- speaker. i rise as one who if there is going to be a vote on this motion tonight or a vote in support of committee, i share with the house that i sincerely hope there isn't a vote because there shouldn't be a vote. we should remind ourselves that the committee of privileges was set the task on a government motion and that passed through the commons unopposed. i would like to ask two members of that committee for a diligent and no doubt at times difficult task, which they carried out to the rest of the house, and it

is customary for mps to accept the recommendations of such a report without a vote. but if there is a boat, a division, i will vote as i've said to support the committee's report. it's recommendations unfortunately in many respects trying with my own view that boris johnson knowingly misled parliament. which is why i withdrew my support from hand, then prime minister in may of last year. and ask ten in a meeting to retire at that stage, perhaps with a modicum of grace. sadly, i continue to believe that he knowingly misled parliament as the report has duly concluded. and this debate, and if there is a vote, a vote, it is terribly important. it is of the utmost importance that we

attach due deliberation to what it represents. our parliamentary system compares well with others and is the beating heart of our democracy. a central component of the system depends on ministers telling the truth at the dispatch box, at that dispatch box. indeed the ability of the legislative to question the executive can only be properly executed if ministers tell the truth at that dispatch box. if they don't, accountability is impossible and then we are on a very, very slippery slope. no party, no individual, no ego is bigger than parliament. it is the very system that safeguards our freedoms and through which we try to

create a more prosperous, fair society regardless of party. history will be very unkind to anyone who impugns its integrity. members who are found to have knowingly misled the house bring it, and by extension, other members, into public disrepute. this does nothing for the dignity and calling of politics. indeed, in this perhaps lead to another for their point, if some members maintain that we members cannot regulate ourselves, they are in effect asking for an independent body to do thatjob. the thought of unelected officials regulating the conduct of elected members of this house should concern every parliamentarian. and that is why i think, in many respects, today is a good day because as it should

be, the parliamentary system itself is putting right a wrong or certainly i hope it will be doing so. now, the reason, as we all know, the rule breaking in downing street during the pandemic resonated so strongly with the public is because the rest of us went through real pain during the lockdown. at the instigation and compulsion of the then prime minister. ifor one and i know there were many others did not say goodbye to my beloved mother as she lay in hospital and passed away because we were abiding by the rules, and there are many, many people who have similar experiences of that. to find that unlawful gatherings were taking place at the heart of government was bad enough,

but this has been compounded by the then, by the failure of that then prime minister to be truthful to this house. it is simply not acceptable, and i know that this chamber will find that to be unacceptable later this evening. agreeing with the recommendations of the report is thus, in my view, an essential step in restoring standards in public life, into restoring the centrality of truthfulness to our parliamentary system. finally, madam deputy speaker, to my conservative colleagues, i would say the last year or so we have spent deliberating on the base aspects of predicate have served as a massive distraction from the otherwise good work that we have been doing a ready

frauds. it's this to bed. and this report is the best way of doing this. . ~ report is the best way of doing this. ., ~ , ., report is the best way of doing this. ., ~ i. ., report is the best way of doing this. ., ., ,, , this. thank you, madam deputy seaker. this. thank you, madam deputy speaker. there _ this. thank you, madam deputy speaker. there are _ this. thank you, madam deputy speaker. there are moments i this. thank you, madam deputy i speaker. there are moments when this. thank you, madam deputy - speaker. there are moments when we know that our parliamentary debates will form part of our nations history. and for the wrong reasons, todayis history. and for the wrong reasons, today is such a moment. everything that we do in westminster, whether it's addressing that a crisis facing our communities with spiralling inflation to sky rocketing mortgage rates, or whether it's about strengthening support for the brave ukrainians all our actions, all our words will only matter if we are trusted. and that trust on exists if we tell the truth. especially when we tell the truth. especially when we are called to account for our decisions. confidence that this is a place where politicians are honest

and accountable is completely central to the effectiveness and sustainability of any healthy democracy. conversely, a culture where lies are ignored, tolerated or even excused is a culture that inevitably damages democracy. that is exactly the dangerous culture we sign nurtured under borisjohnson. that is like madam deputy speaker, the privileges committee report and its recommended sanctions are so important. and why it is vital that they are supported by everyone in their entirety. i pay tribute to my right honourable friend, the member for peckham into all the members of the privileges committee for their forensic and painstaking work sifting and evaluating the evidence. evidence that might not have been available but for the revelations

first made, so i pay tribute to peppa as one of the most talented journalists of our time. the committee's conclusions are based entirely on evidence, and that evidence is incontrovertible. the attempt by few people today to reduce the members of the privileges committee to delegitimize the process is utterly shameful. i’m process is utterly shameful. i'm crateful process is utterly shameful. i'm grateful to _ process is utterly shameful. i'm grateful to the right honourable lady forgiving way and i'm conscious that the chain said we shouldn't make too many comparisons to the criminaljustice make too many comparisons to the criminal justice system, make too many comparisons to the criminaljustice system, the reality is where the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. we ask them to look at the evidence and inferred the actions and intent by the perpetrator. as she agreed with me that it's quite strange that there are some colleagues looking for an even higher level of evidence the nafta? i even higher level of evidence the nafta? ~ ., , even higher level of evidence the nafta? ~ . , , nafta? i think that is extremely interesting _ nafta? i think that is extremely interesting point, _

nafta? i think that is extremely interesting point, and - nafta? i think that is extremely interesting point, and as- nafta? i think that is extremely interesting point, and as a - interesting point, and as a nonlawyer, i thank her for it. if it is true, madam deputy speaker that attempts were made to bully and, yes, to blackmail privilege committee members so that they came to conclusions that were not based on the evidence, but prioritised boris johnson's own on the evidence, but prioritised borisjohnson's own personal interest, that is shocking. the integrity of parliament must, above all else. it takes courage to stand up all else. it takes courage to stand up against such political pressures, but showing integrity and leaving party tribalism at the door is absolutely vital if we are to uphold democracy and protect this place from a further erosion of trust. today's debate... i from a further erosion of trust. today's debate. . ._ from a further erosion of trust. today's debate... i think my right honourable _ today's debate... i think my right honourable friend _ today's debate... i think my right honourable friend forgiving - today's debate... i think my right honourable friend forgiving way i today's debate... i think my right l honourable friend forgiving way and she makes a very important to think about integrity and the protection of this house. i had young people contacting me about this debate which they are following. does she agree with me that for a former

prime minister to lie to the house, lie to the privileges committee, seek to undermine the committee and then threaten parliamentarians who are supporting the committee's findings as a behaviour in which we must take a stand in the interest of our constituents in the next generation. voting for this motion todayis generation. voting for this motion today is important that we take this decisive stand and integrity that will have impact for generations to come with confidence in his house. i do agree and i'm also pleased that the privileges committee will be looking at the conduct of some members of both houses in attempting to intimidate members of the committee. today's debate, madam deputy speaker, has to be considered as part of a bigger problem that is facing us. over the last six years, we have seen consistent attacks on the fragile pillars that act as vital checks on executive power. we have seen judges and judicial review

denigrated. senior civil servants sacked for speaking truth to power a step cronies appointed to keep public positions, tiles awarded with contracts. and our parliament systematically bypassed. boris johnson allowed this creeping culture of corruption and unchecked executive power to affect our democracy. so that's not beat about the bush. borisjohnson did recklessly and deliberately mislead this house. his behaviour helps support a culture that threatens our democracy. today, i hope we are beginning to undo the damage that has been done. we are reaffirming the importance of ministers and prime minister is being properly, honestly and truthfully accountable to parliament, and through us to the

public. mrjohnson wasn'tjust called an honourable member, he led a major political party. he was our prime minister, yet he misled us time and time and time again and he did so with impunity. the members opposite i have to say knew this man before he became their leader. they knew he had been sacked as a journalist for lying, they knew he had been sacked from the opposition front bench for lying. they knew he routinely bent the rules and misspent public money at city hall. they knew he was a liar, yet they still may be a terrible mistake of electing him as their leader. so today i hope all members of this house and particularly members on the opposition benches do not make another terrible mistake by choosing either not to turn up or choosing

not to vote. this should not be about conservatives versus labour. every parliamentarian needs to look at the evidence and ask themselves if they can honestly ignore the heaps of information that shows borisjohnson lied to us all and through us to the people in the country. i would strongly urge every single mp to walk through the lobbies and register their vote, a vote for the resolution, a vote that demonstrates our support the truth, justice and democracy. so demonstrates our support the truth, justice and democracy.— justice and democracy. so jacob rees-mogg- — justice and democracy. so jacob rees-mogg. thank _ justice and democracy. so jacob rees-mogg. thank you, - justice and democracy. so jacob| rees-mogg. thank you, madam justice and democracy. so jacob - rees-mogg. thank you, madam deputy seaker. it rees-mogg. thank you, madam deputy speaker- it is — rees-mogg. thank you, madam deputy speaker. it is perfectly _ rees-mogg. thank you, madam deputy speaker. it is perfectly reasonable - speaker. it is perfectly reasonable to challenge the views of select committees of this house. it is neither eccentric nor indeed rare. i

would like to start with some of the things that i think are most contentious within the report, bordering on erroneous. if we may turn to paragraph 48 to start with. this makes reference to the fixed penalty notice received by mr johnson for the birthday party. and it seems to think that the fixed penalty notice is in fact an admission of guilt. but lord chief justice thomas said this, it is quite clear that the issue of the notice is not conviction. it is not an admission of guilt nor any proof that a crime has been committed. the scheme of the act makes that clear. any person reading will plainly understand it's not to be regarded as a conviction and will not be held against him. it seems therefore

clear both as a matter of the statutory scheme and as a matter of what a person accepting such a notice would reasonably be led to believe that he was not admitting any offence, not admitting any criminality and would not have any stain imputed to his character. yet this report, against what a lord chiefjustice said, against what is a principle of criminal law, decides to impute a stain upon his character. it seems to me that this is quite clearly a deliberate attempt to take the most unfavourable interpretation that the committee can of mrjohnson's activities. but this is not the only contentious paragraph. let is go to paragraph 83. paragraph 83 decides

as if it were an elon musk particle to insert itself in the brain of mr johnson to work out what he must have thought at a particular moment. well, i'm glad to say that as far as i'm aware mrjohnson does not have one of these little bits stuck in his brain for the committee's benefit. so when it says that we conclude that mrjohnson is unlikely to have been unaware, an obscure use of a double negative, to try and impute mafia sense to somebody where they cannot prove it. they want to impute something because they want to come to a particular conclusion. does he not also agree that the very word disingenuous, which is used in the context of this report, is also in the same category as those things he's just mentioned? i in the same category as those things he'sjust mentioned?— he'sjust mentioned? i entirely a . ree he'sjust mentioned? i entirely agree with _ he'sjust mentioned? i entirely agree with my _ he'sjust mentioned? i entirely agree with my honourable - he'sjust mentioned? i entirely i agree with my honourable friend he'sjust mentioned? i entirely - agree with my honourable friend and i would refer him further, if we go

on in this report, to paragraph 183. 82. on the line to take. mrjohnson as prime minister was advised before prime minister's questions to say that the rules had been followed at all times. and this report goes into great detail as to what was the authority for that? but they don't ask where other ministers given the same breathing? was this the cross government line to take approved, as far as i could be aware, by all the officials? i can tell the house that prior to business questions, for the weeks when this was at the forefront of public interest, the breathing i was given was that the rules were followed at all times with the actual time is emphasised. the only reason i didn't say this to the

house was the honourable lady ogilvy leader never had the wit to ask me the right question. but if she had the right question. but if she had the line to take, what is absolutely clear is a cross government line. and yet this report concludes that the prime minister was not advised, as he then was, by senior enough people. the idea that ministers aren't advised by people who work in communications for them shows quite how long the opposition has been out of government, not to understand this. and then based on this it seems to me tendentious reading of the facts, we come to the sanction. a 90 day sanction. a vindictive sanction, it seems to me, which they can't implement because mrjohnson has left parliament. so they go from the vindictive to the ridiculous with not allowing him a

parliamentary pass. of all the trivial sanctions you could impose on somebody, that seems to be the most miserable. but they emphasise that this sanction, and let us turn to paragraph 229, that this sanction has been made more savage, more brutal, more vindictive, because mr johnson impugned the committee and undermined the democratic process. on what basis is it thought that this house, when it comes to a conclusion, must be obeyed? is it the case that we must not criticise the case that we must not criticise the dangerous dogs act because it was passed by this great and noble house? or are we in fact allowed to criticise as a fundamental free speech that which happens to us, that which is reported about us, that which is reported about us,

that which is said of us? when somebody is in court they are allowed to say that the court has made a mistake and the protections of courts, of thejunior courts with juries sitting in them, are quite rightly very strict. but you can still say that the court has got it wrong. indeed, you're allowed to say it's got it so wrong you're going to appeal. you don't have to kowtow but for some reason the privileges committee thinks it's in communist china and that we must kowtow. and then they go on to say that mr johnson was complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee without one single solitary shred of evidence. it is pure assertion. i think this leads us onto the issue of partiality. i was most intrigued by the response

to my intervention by the right honourable and leonard memberfor peckham because she said had told the government it had all been approved and that was fine and dandy. when i refer her to paragraph 12 of her own report, which says that the report would have as its guiding principle being transparent, so suddenly we discover in this transparent approach that there was a secret agreement that her involvement was all right. well, i was in the government at the time. i never heard that this had happened. so it seems to me that it is important to examine the position of the right honourable and learn it lady found herself in, which i notice the committee does not do in annex one. annex one purports to

answer appendix three. i'm sure you're all listening in following very carefully. appendix three is the letter of mrjohnson in response to the draft report. fascinatingly, although in paragraph six on page 100 questions the impartiality of the committee, annex one ignores that. it answers lots of other points but it brushes over this point, perhaps because it thought that it was on relatively thin ice. of that it was on relatively thin ice. of course i will give way. he obviously — of course i will give way. he: obviously called for me to resign or recuse myself from the committee. did he ever ask the right honourable member to recuse herself from the committee before borisjohnson started demanding it? it’s committee before boris johnson started demanding it?— committee before boris johnson started demanding it? it's a matter of record that _ started demanding it? it's a matter of record that i _ started demanding it? it's a matter of record that i said _ started demanding it? it's a matter of record that i said it. _ started demanding it? it's a matter of record that i said it. i _ started demanding it? it's a matter of record that i said it. i said - started demanding it? it's a matter of record that i said it. i said it - of record that i said it. i said it publicly. people clearly are aware of what is it publicly because i

will come to paragraph 14 in due course. the issue here, no, i would have given way to the honourable gentleman. now, in paragraph nine the report says that we leave our party interest at the door of the committee room. and that is all very good and to be encouraged. but it doesn't meet the hoffman test. and why do i think the hoffman test is important is because the judicial important is because the judicial committee of the house of lords, committee of the house of lords, like the privileges committee, was a like the privileges committee, was a committee of parliament following a committee of parliament judicial or in this case quasi judicial or in this case quasi judicial process. and what is the issue here? and i quote from the judgment. the contention is that there was a real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that lord hoffmann might have been biased. that is to say, it is

alleged that there is an appearance of bias not actual bias. the fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause. this principle as developed by the courts has two very similar but not identical implications. first, it may be applied literally. if a judge is in fact a party to litigation or has a financial or proprietary interest, then he is indeed sitting as a judge in his own cause. in that case the mere fact he is a party to the action or has a financial interest in its outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification. the second application of the principle is where a judge is not a party to the suit and does not have a financial interest in its outcome but in some other way his conduct or behaviour may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial. that is the

fundamental point. and that led to thejudicial fundamental point. and that led to the judicial committee overturning a decision that it had made for i believe the only time in its history. it is a reasonable suspicion. if we take the judgment of lord nolan which runs only to four lines, i will read out two of them. i would only add that in any case where the impartiality of the judge is in question, the appearance of the matter is just as important as the reality. and this seems to me to be fundamental that the judicial committee followed proper process which the privileges committee did not. i have slightly exceeded your time—limit and i will finish relatively swiftly but fortunately the previous two speakers were brief, which is encouraging. i won't give way.