lets co m e lets come to paragraph 15, because this is important in the report quotes in paragraph 194 the 1978 resolution of this house, that it's been a jurisdiction would be used sparingly in order to provide reasonable protection for the house, its members or its officers from improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction are likely to cause substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions. it does not mean criticism, it's legitimate to criticise the conduct of a committee, to criticise that members of the committee. if that is politics. it is open to us, within this chamber to accuse within the bounds of good order of saying things that we disagree with them

outside this chamber, freedom of speech is paramount. we are allowed to say what we like, the house has historically tried to call people to the bar, indeed, in past times and even imprisons people and it made the house look ridiculous when he was called to that bar of the house because he had set in the sunday express that members were fiddling, it was notjohn who looked ridiculous, but the house, and we must defend the right and freedom of speech, if politicians cannot cope with criticism from the wonder what on earth they are doing with a political career. i have one final question from annex one section seven where it says that sue gray's report was not important in this case. well, it seems to me when witnesses come from sue gray's report, it is odd then to say that

her report is not important and it might also be interesting to know in the interest and how many communications private or public the chairman of the committee had with sue gray. chairman of the committee had with sue gra . . ~ chairman of the committee had with sue gra . ., ~ ,, chairman of the committee had with sue gra. ., ~ i. ., chairman of the committee had with suegra. ., ., ,, , sue gray. thank you, madam deputy seaker. sue gray. thank you, madam deputy speaker- can — sue gray. thank you, madam deputy speaker- can i _ sue gray. thank you, madam deputy speaker. can i begin _ sue gray. thank you, madam deputy speaker. can i begin by— sue gray. thank you, madam deputy speaker. can i begin by commending the privileges committee and indeed the privileges committee and indeed the reports and thanking them and each and every single member, both conservative members and indeed other members of that committee. it would have been an incredibly difficult task. the pressure and media attention and scrutiny was incredibly high on them. so i thank them for thejob that incredibly high on them. so i thank them for the job that they have done. and i think this, madam deputy speaker, i think even... anybody can actually come early and truthfully, will reach that report, that

incredibly detailed and in—depth report would have to conclude the reality. that borisjohnson was a liar. there's no question as far as i am concerned. every time boris johnson stood up, i thought he was spewing out to complete and unadulterated untruths, being honest, about him in this chamber. very often, they would be surprised that he was getting away with the things that he was saying. it's proven now that he is dishonest. but i think for me, madam deputy speaker, there is concerns. i think there are questions raised as a result of this report because the members of the public will wonder why, why on earth borisjohnson was entitled to 250,000 glad for it legal aid, there is no example of any other member being the

privileges and standards committee, former minister or a serving minister of receiving money from the taxpayer to pay lawyers. johnson got 250,000 glad from the taxpayer and the prime minister allowed that to happen. and i say to the premise for this. they should say no now. we know thatjohnson is a liar. we know that he's been discredited. force him to pay up himself. an ordinary member of the public, if they are more than £12,570, don't get legal aid. very often, very difficult legal proceedings, but borisjohnson has had 6 million quid since he left this place, for writing a column undoubtedly again untruths, most of

it. people don't understand how it is possible for the taxpayer, especially in the circumstances of cost—of—living crisis of the taxpayer having to pay up his legal bill. the second point people will be concerned about is this honours list. the very idea that somebody who is left here is discredited, being convicted by a committee of this house of lying should be entitled to put people in the house of lords or give them honours from the king isjust unfathomable of lords or give them honours from the king is just unfathomable for people. especially when we meet at the weekend, that some of which was on his honours list of people partying during the lockdown. boozy shenanigans at tory hq. what an absolutes letter completes contempt

a bsolutes letter com pletes co ntem pt to absolutes letter completes contempt to this country. absolutes letter completes contempt to this country-— to this country. thank you, and he is makin: to this country. thank you, and he is making an _ to this country. thank you, and he is making an excellent _ to this country. thank you, and he is making an excellent speech. - to this country. thank you, and he | is making an excellent speech. just on the point of the revelations of this party that took place, that conservative party headquarters, as we all know, some of those members by the former minister. does he agree with me that those honours should be withdrawn? i agree with me that those honours should be withdrawn?— agree with me that those honours should be withdrawn? i think people, --eole are should be withdrawn? i think people, peeple are more _ should be withdrawn? i think people, people are more important _ should be withdrawn? i think people, people are more important than - should be withdrawn? i think people, people are more important than us . people are more important than us perhaps and will be wondering how on earth it is possible forjohnson to leave here and the prime minister nods through a list of honours for people who are boozing it up in the central tory office when people couldn't see dying relatives. it is utterly deplorable. and anybody who thinks that's all right, i suggest you get out there, knock on doors

and see what your electric think of you. the fact thatjohnson gets 150,000 let a year, i think it is. for his office costs. to run an office to assist him as a former prime ministerfrom the office to assist him as a former prime minister from the taxpayer. people won't get it. people don't understand that. and let me warn people on the other side. it will cost them will cost them at the ballot box. if we allow that nonsense to carry on and the people will not be very happy about it. the fourth point, madam deputy speaker, where is the prime minister? elected in 2010, as far as i was business is concerned i think this is the most important piece of business that i've ever witnessed since i was elected. the very idea that the former prime minister has left here

to avoid further scrutiny of this house after a committee took place has found that he's a liar is pretty deplorable. but the fact that the prime minister hasn't got the bottle, frankly, to be here to see whether he agrees or disagrees is an absolute scandal and the prime minister should be ashamed of himself. my final point is this. i don't know what happened during lockdown, can speak to myself and my family. but i think it is absolutely despicable and insult to injury that johnson alleges as he believes in a letter to the chair of the committee prudent effectively whether a member of that committee, whether it's true

or not, perhaps it matters to them that the met police to investigate which speaks i think to the fact that the man is a complete and utter disgrace and should never get anywhere near this place again. doctor carolyn johnson, anywhere near this place again. doctor carolynjohnson, is... ok. doctor carolyn johnson, is... ok. doctor_ doctor carolyn johnson, is... ok. doctor carolyn johnson, is... ok. doctor carolyn johnson. doctor carolyn johnson, is. .. 0k. doctor carolyn johnson.— doctor carolyn johnson, is... ok. doctor carolyn johnson. thank you, madam deputy _ doctor carolyn johnson. thank you, madam deputy speaker. _ doctor carolyn johnson. thank you, madam deputy speaker. stand - doctor carolyn johnson. thank you, madam deputy speaker. stand up. doctor carolyn johnson. thank you, | madam deputy speaker. stand up if ou want madam deputy speaker. stand up if you want to — madam deputy speaker. stand up if you want to catch _ madam deputy speaker. stand up if you want to catch my _ madam deputy speaker. stand up if you want to catch my eye. - madam deputy speaker. stand up if you want to catch my eye. thank i madam deputy speaker. stand up if. you want to catch my eye. thank you, madam deputy _ you want to catch my eye. thank you, madam deputy speaker. _ you want to catch my eye. thank you, madam deputy speaker. madam - you want to catch my eye. thank you, i madam deputy speaker. madam deputy speaker, at schools when i discuss my work in parliament, we often discuss speaking at the dispatch box. that was something i was truly honoured to do myself on the a handful of times, sadly, last year. and we discuss what is in the boxes, what is in the boxes as we all know in this house is copies of a religious text, such as the bible. this is important because ministers

don't speak under oath, but it is a reminder of the truth of what they say. that said, none of us are perfect. we all make mistakes and ministers are challenged with remembering a lot of specific facts, figures and wording between rules and guidance, for example, and they may also make mistakes. if they do, they must correct the record, but thatis they must correct the record, but that is only once they are aware of theissue, that is only once they are aware of the issue, and the opportunity to do so at the first opportunity. in the privileged report, the committee have considered whether boris johnson as prime minister lied to this house, but that is a very serious allegation to which they have found him guilty and they have recommended a very substantial extension. i look back for precedence in finding a very helpful house of commons library briefing on privileges committee showing they had only been 20 to privileges committee referral since 1979, so that's about it, only four of those,

but when a decade on average had related to very specific are members of parliament. two members were sanctioned in 1994, that was part of the cast for questions, when was sanctioned for ten days and one for 20. in 2005, another member was found to have been untruthful but not to have lied. so presumably that was an unintentional one. this is an unusual case, other examples before the recall act, 90 days does seem, as others have said rather long because it adds notjust suspension itself, which others have served before but also the prospect of recall. like other breakdown honourable and honourable members have spoken, i'm concerned fundamentally that members should not be removed from parliament by other politicians except in circumstances that are already highlighted in the recall act for criminal convictions which meet the threat to the next threshold. that is imprisonment or those people who have been convicted of essentially

fiddling of expenses. my concern is that a process which does allow parliamentarians to remove other parliamentarians to remove other parliamentarians who have been duly elected without clear guidance on where those thresholds align, which currently nine or ten date suspension, but there is no guidance on what will be nine days and what will be ten, it could lead to the seeming of political motivation. we've seen that with this committee because what it does agree or disagree with the committee, there is nobody who hasn't noted that some people consider it politically motivated. there is an of the imputation — motivated. there is an of the population who _ motivated. there is an of the population who do _ motivated. there is an of the population who do believe i motivated. there is an of the i population who do believe that. we need to make sure that everybody, wherever they are and wherever they were, whatever the political allegiance is, can see the process is fair. the other danger is it kid people play the man and set up the bulk and instead of taking on arguments, trying to take down the person. that would weaken our parliamentary faith and processes. therefore, i hope the leader of the house will make space for debate on where the house believes that threshold for ten days should and should not be met because it seems

to me this is crucial, and indeed in the market very report, the standards in this matter given further consideration. i standards in this matter given further consideration.- standards in this matter given further consideration. i speak for all the members _ further consideration. i speak for all the members of _ further consideration. i speak for all the members of the - further consideration. i speak for| all the members of the standards committee. we are a bit exercise about how the recall of mps function because when you are deciding on sanctions, if you go for nine days, it looks like you've deliberately avoided the possibility of a recall, but if you go for more than ten days, it is likely you've decided thatis days, it is likely you've decided that is the end of someone's career. so we do want to look into this more fully and we intend to launch an inquiry in the autumn into that precise issue of. i inquiry in the autumn into that precise issue of.— inquiry in the autumn into that precise issue of. i think the right honourable _ precise issue of. i think the right honourable gentlemen _ precise issue of. i think the right honourable gentlemen for- precise issue of. i think the right honourable gentlemen for his i honourable gentlemen for his intervention and i hope that he will be asking his committee to look at that for members of the whole house to contribute because this is something that the house needs to decide, not, with due respect, but half a dozen or so members of the committee. there is also coming the

other thing i want to raise his members being critical of the committee. we are here today because there was a vote in parliament, a vote in parliament means we have the opportunity to say yes or no. the fact that we can say no means that it's perfectly legitimate to respect the committee and to respectfully disagree with the committee. first they would like to say i do have respect for my colleagues and indeed some friends who make up the committee who have taken on the unenviable job of the highly politically charged decision and i'm sure they've given their full due diligence of her quite a long period. the committee must never be intimidated. it should not be blackmailed. they should not be bullied. and as the leader of the house set in her opening remarks, it is in contempt of house to be seen to intimidate a member of committee. a balance must be struck. we are here to debate and discuss, and as i said we are free to disagree and question whether it's processes and procedures are fair. it is in my view entirely legitimate to question

if a person is politically behind on an issue and canjudge it impartially. it is reasonable to consider, do i agree with the report? to i think they've given sufficient... 0rthe report? to i think they've given sufficient... or the honourable memberfor sufficient... or the honourable member for south downs sufficient... or the honourable memberfor south downs in their witness statements. do i think the insufficient weight was given to breastjohnson's evidence when he said, "how is it obvious that this event was a transgression if it was published in the newspapers and of the complaint." i'll be to presume, for example, that no members of the opposition read the times, that none of his political opponents read the times are that it wasn't obvious to them? that said, i understand the committee is also cross their letter was leaked in advance of the report and having looked at what constitutes contempt of the house, i would agree the leaking of the report or letter is a contempt of the house and for that one should apologise and if they went, have a

sanction. but due process is important and if someone has done something wrong they deserve due process the same as those who may be innocent and we should always in my view assume that anyone is innocent until proven guilty. today we are asked to vote on a sanction based in part on the statement that boris johnson was complicit in the campaign ofabuse johnson was complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee. that is a very serious allegation that having read the report i don't see where that is evidenced. my understanding, if i understand the right honourable lady correctly, that it will be in a future report when they were discussing the evidence given there. i'm happy to take an intervention if she wants to say it's in the report and i've missed it. the time being concerned we are being asked to vote on a sanction with only half of the evidence and i'm not able to do that. i

evidence and i'm not able to do that. , ., ., ,, .,~ that. i rise today to speak in su ort that. i rise today to speak in support of — that. i rise today to speak in support of the _ that. i rise today to speak in support of the report - that. i rise today to speak in support of the report and i l that. i rise today to speak in i support of the report and i would like to thank the committee and its members for all the work that they have done in protecting us and our privilege in the work that we do for our constituents. many of us i'm sure hope that this will be the final act in one of the most disreputable episodes in british politics for many, many years. and at a time when the country was looking to its premier elected politician, its prime minister, to lead us through the most difficult and traumatic of times, and one that i hope we never have to endure again. at that time, what people went through, the lives that were lost, the lives that were interrupted for two years, the young people who couldn't sit their exams, start the employment, people who

lost loved ones. all of that, at a time when the people of this country are looking to this place, to the rules that it was making, and trusting that everything was being donein trusting that everything was being done in their best interests. and following those rules, having faith in those who have set them. madam deputy speaker, i do not believe this is a day for party politics but for us all, wherever we may sit in this place, to recognise the significance of reporting this report. of this moment for us, for our constituents and as others have said, for our democracy. in criticising the committee, rejecting the validity of its conclusions, mr johnson attacked each of us and what we believe in. he showed contempt for the people that we serve and he purported to. and he undermined

perhaps the most intangible and yet invaluable foundation of our democracy, trust. confidence that our politicians, those we have voted for, tell us the truth in everything that they do. and tell us the truth in what they say we must do, what the public must do in difficult times. the leader of the house talked about the real—life consequences of what we decide today and i believe that they cannot be underestimated. when we return to our constituencies from this place, our constituencies from this place, our constituents will be looking to us to see how we have stood up for them and defended them and protested at the way that they were let down ijy at the way that they were let down by the incumbent of number 10. and to recognise what they endured, the sacrifices they willingly made. we

each of us carry the title honourable or right honourable and if it is not to become meaningless sobriquet in the 21st—century, we have to live up to that in what we decide and in what we do. i believe the only way that we can do that is by supporting the committee, the work that it did, the evidence it looked at in the conclusion it has come to. the owner of this house and of this democracy is at stake and we can't risk it. thank you. the oriainal can't risk it. thank you. the original motion _ can't risk it. thank you. the original motion of— can't risk it. thank you. the original motion of the i can't risk it. thank you. iia: original motion of the 21 can't risk it. thank you. iuaz original motion of the 21 april can't risk it. thank you. ii2 original motion of the 21 april 2022 on the floor of the house in which i happened to speak as did the honourable memberfor happened to speak as did the honourable member for rhondda should never have been allowed through by default. as i said at the time, i

can't understand how it happened and i've never had a copper explanation. what i do know is that it uses the word misleading but does not use the word misleading but does not use the word knowingly misleading. there is a vast, vast difference. it's about intention, it's about whether or not he could have lied or not. this is the crucial issue. i put down an early day motion immediately after the procedure committee produced its process report on the 21st ofjuly 2022. because they themselves as they had proposed drew attention, as i have, to a divergence from the established convention of deliberately or knowingly misleading the house. i'm afraid that the committee did not make that point, as set out in the unanimously agreed

1997 resolution of the house or ministerial accountability. it therefore called for the april the 2ist therefore called for the april the 21st nation to be rescinded. i have not changed my mind, especially as proceedings have unfolded. my concern is also that the procedure followed has pursued a course which could even tend to undermine democratic and ministerial accountability. because it is contained in and fundamentally, importantly unanimous resolution of 1997 which is still very much alive and kicking. every day, the words knowingly mislead supplies to ministers who speak from the dispatch box. it was well said by the great constitution lawyer maitland thatjustice is to be found

in the intestacy is of procedure. the procedures should reflect naturaljustice the procedures should reflect natural justice and the procedures should reflect naturaljustice and the right to fairness and proceedings. the chair has been chair of the human rights committee, one of the most fundamental questions in relation to the human rights act and the european convention on human rights is fairness in proceedings and trials. this committee on privileges is in itself uniquely concerned with personal accusations and complaints, as compared to all other select committees which concentrate largely on departmental policy. natural justice in my view requires cross—examination by council and the rule of law requires where there is an accusation, particularly by members of the house, an individual should be entitled to have his council cross examine the evidence and obtain the names of potential witnesses. indeed, council can be

heard in person and i truly believe the committee on privileges should and could propose this itself. i have already dealt with the question raised earlier with respect to the admission and i pay tribute to him for this saying in the debate on the 2ist for this saying in the debate on the 21st of april 2022 that intention is essential and i gather that he may reconfirm that point today. because intention in my view cannot be excluded by any presumption of strict liability which as i understand it was in fact considered by the legal adviser to the committee and he came to the view that strict liability applied. i don't agree that that is a personal view and it's a view i take as a lawyer. i do not think strict liability is consistent with ensuring that the words intention is applicable in such circumstances but i give way. applicable in such circumstances but i rive wa . ., applicable in such circumstances but iaivewa. ., ,

i give way. two quick points. he is referred to — i give way. two quick points. he is referred to motions _ i give way. two quick points. he is referred to motions of _ i give way. two quick points. he is referred to motions of the - i give way. two quick points. he is referred to motions of the house. | i give way. two quick points. he is i referred to motions of the house. he will be aware there is also a motion of the house which says that a member will always represent themselves and not be represented by council. so if we're going to part of nations, that is also the will of the house universally expressed. the bit i really can't understand is why he goes on about this intentionality point, when page seven of the report says that he was guilty of contempt by deliberately misleading the house. but it intentionality, they've proved it.— house. but it intentionality, they've proved it. there is more that i they've proved it. there is more that i have _ they've proved it. there is more that i have to _ they've proved it. there is more that i have to say _ they've proved it. there is more that i have to say on _ they've proved it. there is more that i have to say on that - they've proved it. there is more that i have to say on that very . that i have to say on that very question. but only by cross—examination of witnesses country people to be established. the 19 unanimously after a series of many thoughts in the 1990s following the arms sales to iraq saga. there were intensive cross—party were intensive cross— party discussions were intensive cross—party discussions and eventuallyjohn

discussions and eventually john major discussions and eventuallyjohn major and tony blair insisted on the word knowingly misleads in the resolution that was unanimously passed and the house agreed to it and that resolution as i've said repeatedly still prevails to this day. therefore no minister shall be expected to resign forced to resign unless but can be proven. the 21st of april nation deliberately left out the word knowingly. it was a labour bear trap the borisjohnson and the government changing this fundamental principle by new president in my view would affect all governments and democratic accountability in future and would also incidentally apply to civil servants who are also governed under the civil service code of conduct by the civil service code of conduct by the words knowingly misleads. and they are the people who have to put together the answers to questions which are raised on the floor of the

house and indeed for that matter in speeches too. my house and indeed for that matter in speeches too-— house and indeed for that matter in speeches too. my honourable friend is indeed a true _ speeches too. my honourable friend is indeed a true friend _ speeches too. my honourable friend is indeed a true friend and - speeches too. my honourable friend is indeed a true friend and normally| is indeed a true friend and normally we find ourselves in the same lobby under heavy crossfire. but i want to just asking a simple question that i would have asked my right honourable friend the north east somerset had he found time to give way to me, which is this. given that he is so hostile to the report of the committee, will he do people like me a favour and divide the house today so that we can have the opportunity to cast our vote either against the report as he wishes to do more in favour of it as i wish to do? he report as he wishes to do more in favour of it as i wish to do?- favour of it as i wish to do? he is a very good _ favour of it as i wish to do? he is a very good friend, as _ favour of it as i wish to do? he is a very good friend, as indeed i would like to save some of the members on the other side of the house, i would simply like to say this. i am house, i would simply like to say this. iam not house, i would simply like to say this. i am not in control of whether there's going to be an amendment. i

am making the point that as far as i am making the point that as far as i am concerned, there is an issue here which is being debated. many people are absenting themselves from what they believe to be good reasons and i am simply taking the view that somebody may decide that they are going to divide the house and i'm leaving that has an open question for the time being. however, madam deputy speaker, the statements made by borisjohnson on the floor of the house... notjust now, thank you. i just want to get onto this point. the statements made by borisjohnson on the floor of the house were in fact about legal interpretation of the covid rules and the guidance in respect of number 10. the justice committee conducted an excellent

inquiry, reporting in september 2021, on the meaning and effect of the covid rules and guidance. several months before partygate emerged as an issue. their report is of great importance because it endorsed the incisive legal analysis of the former council for domestic legislation, who is now the present parliamentary commissioner. he stops has been a recurring theme of the coronavirl commissioner. he highlighted the legal uncertainty of parliamentary commissioner. he highlighted the legal uncertainty of the regulations and guidance, the regulations and guidance, stating in evidence to the committee stating in evidence to the committee there is a lack of clarity as to there is a lack of clarity as to what regulations apply to specific what regulations apply to specific situations and at what times. and situations and at what times. and the combination of regulations and the combination of regulations and guidance on the lack of clarity as guidance on the lack of clarity as to where one starts and the other to where one starts and the other stops has been a recurring theme of stops has been a recurring theme of the coronavirus regulations. the coronavirus regulations.

is actually very important for deciding whether or a reminder that the privileges committee recommended boris