is actually very important for deciding whether or a reminder that the privileges committee recommended borisjohnson committee recommended boris johnson quit committee recommended borisjohnson quit as an mp, he labelled the report as a kangaroo court, and the select committee recommended he faced a 90 day suspension and have his parliamentary pass taken away. so the mps have been debating now since lipm, and they will or will not vote on that later this evening. i think it's fair to say that over the last couple of hours, most of the mps speaking have very much been in favour of approving that report which essentially said that boris johnson misled parliament when he made a series of statements about

parties which happened during lockdown. 0ne parties which happened during lockdown. one of his most prominent supporters though, jacob rees—mogg, has been talking and there was an interesting back—and—forth between him and harriet harman, the chair of the privileges select committee, and this is when mr rees—mogg brought up some critical comments that she had made on borisjohnson�*s remarks ahead of taking over, let's take a listen. i ahead of taking over, let's take a listen. ., , _, _ listen. i wonder if she could say something _ listen. i wonder if she could say something of— listen. i wonder if she could say something of her— listen. i wonder if she could say something of her own _ listen. i wonder if she could say something of her own position i listen. i wonder if she could say| something of her own position in relation to the precedent set by the judicial committee of the house of lords when a decision on which lord hoffman was involved, was set aside not because he was biased, but because of the perception of bias. in relation to herfamous because of the perception of bias. in relation to her famous tweets, how does she think she met the hoffman test?— how does she think she met the hoffman test? well, i'm happy to answer the _ hoffman test? well, i'm happy to answer the point _ hoffman test? well, i'm happy to answer the point that _ hoffman test? well, i'm happy to answer the point that he - hoffman test? well, i'm happy to answer the point that he made. i | hoffman test? well, i'm happy to - answer the point that he made. i was appointed _ answer the point that he made. i was appointed by this house in the

expectation that i would chair the committee with no one speaking against — committee with no one speaking against it — committee with no one speaking against it. after the tweets were brought— against it. after the tweets were brought to light and highlighted, because — brought to light and highlighted, because i am concerned about the perception— because i am concerned about the perception of fairness on the committee, and i agree that perception matters, i made it my business — perception matters, i made it my business to find out whether or not it would _ business to find out whether or not it would mean the government would not have _ it would mean the government would not have confidence in me if i continued _ not have confidence in me if i continued to chair the committee. and i_ continued to chair the committee. and i actually said, "i'm more than happy— and i actually said, "i'm more than happy to— and i actually said, "i'm more than happy to step aside because perception matters and i don't want to do— perception matters and i don't want to do this _ perception matters and i don't want to do this if— perception matters and i don't want to do this if the government doesn't have confidence in me, because i need _ have confidence in me, because i need the — have confidence in me, because i need the whole house to have confidence in the work that the committee has mandated." and i was assured _ committee has mandated." and i was assured that — committee has mandated." and i was assured that i should continue the work— assured that i should continue the work that— assured that i should continue the work that the house had mandated with the _ work that the house had mandated with the appointment that the house had put me into, and sol with the appointment that the house had put me into, and so i did just that _ had put me into, and so i did 'ust that. , that. cheering the chair - that. cheering the chair of - that. cheering the chair of the that. cheering _ the chair of the privileges committee, harriet harman there, saying that perception matters. with

me as rob watson, political correspondent. you've been watching the debate, what has particularly, or who has stood out to you? i think the first thing _ or who has stood out to you? i think the first thing that's _ or who has stood out to you? i think the first thing that's really _ or who has stood out to you? i think the first thing that's really stood - the first thing that's really stood out, and i'm revealing my age a bit, but having watched debate secure on and off for a0 years, rarely have i seen anything quite that passionate and impassioned. and i think that's understandable because it's about the rights of that building, it's about the place of parliament and britain's democracy. so you had mp after mp saying, "look, if we don't approve this report, we will be undermining the faith and parliament, we will not be making it clear there's one rule for the government and one rule for everyone else. and on that front, there is a really powerful intervention from theresa may, a conservative mp and of course former prime minister, saying it's really hard to sit in judgment on your friends, on people on your side, but if parliament didn't approve the very harsh findings of this report, what would

people make of that? so it was about restoring the rights of parliament. and of course one other thing that left out was mp after mp, particularly opposition ones, saying what an extraordinary liar boris johnson had been. in the past they were unable to use that word because you can't use in parliament, but of course now this report is out with the finding of deliberate misleading, that's what stood out. the green benches aren't packed, particularly on the conservative side, and prime minister rishi sunak�*s name has been mentioned by several mps, upset at the fact that he hasn't come?— several mps, upset at the fact that he hasn't come? yes, and one of the difficulties rishi _ he hasn't come? yes, and one of the difficulties rishi sunak_ he hasn't come? yes, and one of the difficulties rishi sunak faces - he hasn't come? yes, and one of the difficulties rishi sunak faces is - he hasn't come? yes, and one of the difficulties rishi sunak faces is he . difficulties rishi sunakfaces is he wants to both distance himself from borisjohnson, in terms of the type of leader and person he is, but he also wants to somehow do that without upsetting those in the governing conservative party who still like borisjohnson, particularly some of those activists who have that view of good old boris. so it's a difficult act to

pull off, but you're right there haven't been many conservative mps on the benches, 1—2 have even spoken out in favour of borisjohnson, we heard a flavour of that with jacob rees—mogg. but the moral hazard they face is that the opposition labour party may well turn around, if there is no vote or some conservatives abstain or object and say, "goodness gracious, under borisjohnson's gracious, under boris johnson's leadership, gracious, under borisjohnson's leadership, the conservative party has lost their moral compass." you mentioned — has lost their moral compass." you mentioned the _ has lost their moral compass." you mentioned the vote, still unclear whether the or not there will be a vote? clearly there are people in there who oppose the report, but that doesn't guarantee they will vote to oppose it and cause a division. can you just explain how this system works? i’m division. can you just explain how this system works?— division. can you just explain how this system works? i'm about to make a total hash — this system works? i'm about to make a total hash of — this system works? i'm about to make a total hash of this, _ this system works? i'm about to make a total hash of this, but _ this system works? i'm about to make a total hash of this, but i'll give - a total hash of this, but i'll give it a stab. normally when a debate ends, the speaker says, "all in favour of the motion, say i'm back."

and if everybody agrees, then there's no need for a vote because you since the chamber is in favour. so i guess what we are waiting to see is that when this debate comes to an end and when the speaker says "all in favour of the motion," does anyone shout no? and if there are enough noes, then we may well have a vote and that would be the point that was interesting, isjust vote and that would be the point that was interesting, is just how many conservative mps abstain or vote against the report, in other words voting in favour of boris johnson. �* ., , words voting in favour of boris johnson. i, _ ., ,., words voting in favour of boris johnson. _ ., words voting in favour of boris johnson. ., , johnson. boris johnson has told his su orters johnson. boris johnson has told his suoporters not _ johnson. boris johnson has told his suoporters not to _ johnson. boris johnson has told his supporters not to oppose _ johnson. boris johnson has told his supporters not to oppose - - johnson. boris johnson has told his supporters not to oppose - why - johnson. boris johnson has told his i supporters not to oppose - why would supporters not to oppose — why would that be? some of his critics are saying it's because he doesn't want to highlight how few supporters he has? .�*, to highlight how few supporters he has? ., �*, ., ., , , ., has? that's a theory, it might show he wasn't very _ has? that's a theory, it might show he wasn't very popular— has? that's a theory, it might show he wasn't very popular at _ has? that's a theory, it might show he wasn't very popular at all. - has? that's a theory, it might show he wasn't very popular at all. the i he wasn't very popular at all. the other theory is he said it would be pointless, "i've already left parliament, i went before i was pushed," so it's just a bit of a

pushed," so it's 'ust a bit of a charade. . ~ pushed," so it's 'ust a bit of a wash pushed," so it's 'ust a bit of a charade. ., ,, i. �*, ., . ,, pushed," so it's 'ust a bit of a charade. ., ,, �*, ., . ,, ., charade. thank you, let's go back to the chamber. i _ charade. thank you, let's go back to the chamber, i believe _ charade. thank you, let's go back to the chamber, i believe hilary- charade. thank you, let's go back to the chamber, i believe hilary benn l the chamber, i believe hilary benn wasjust talking, the chamber, i believe hilary benn was just talking, let's go back and have a listen to what's being said. report of being non—says, beneath contempt, rubbish. deranged, those are the words that have been used. and especially when it is a blatant attempts to undermine the very democratic system that we are sent here to uphold and has already been said, when the committee is attacked for doing itsjob by a member, and ourformer member, it is us as mps who are also being attacked. and the other thing that worries me about this, and i think should worry all of us, is that this type of conduct that we have seen from mrjohnson is all too reminiscent of what is going on as we speak on the other side of the atlantic ocean because people look at what he has said and done. they see what mr trump is doing over there, and they see the

similarities, which is here are two people who are trying to trash our institutions and our democracy in the process will stop and that is very different from expressing disagreement with the judgment of the privileges committee. and why does this matter? welcome of the word has been used many times this evening. it is, of course, about trust. and i think the committee summed it up perfectly when it said this, the house proceeds on the basis that what it is told by ministers is accurate and truthful. 0ur democracy depends on mps being able to trust that what ministers tell them in the house of commons is the truth. if ministers cannot be trusted to tell the truth, than the house cannot do its job and the competence of the public in our democracy is undermined. let's be honest with ourselves, there is no doubt to the public�*s confidence in

our democracy and in politicians has been damaged by what has gone on. no doubt. and therefore tonight is our chance to show that we to think that telling the truth matters to the house of commons. and that we as a house are collectively determined to uphold this fundamental principle, however high and mighty a member may have been. and to agree this report today will be proof not of the shortcomings of the process or of our democracy or the way in which we work. it will on the contrary be to uphold its integrity and its strength. uphold its integrity and its strength-— uphold its integrity and its strenuth. . ., uphold its integrity and its strenuth. ., ., ,, , strength. thank you, madam deputy seaker. in strength. thank you, madam deputy speaker. in 2019, _ strength. thank you, madam deputy speaker. in 2019, boris _ strength. thank you, madam deputy speaker. in 2019, boris johnson - speaker. in 2019, borisjohnson won a majority that no one expected. what was most important about that majority is that it broke the shackles of socialism in the north

for the first time. whether it was near end of the conservative, the fact that doncaster got a new voice, someone to call out to the neglect that has been allowed to take over should never be forgotten. we should be eternally grateful to the right honourable gentlemen. now, we all know why we are here today. we should remember the right honourable gentleman broke the deadlock of briggs that and put right the consequences of austerity. yes, coalition austerity, caused by the inept economic policies of the opposition. save thousands of households and businesses, and when russia invaded ukraine was the first to offer his support. we must also remember he is a human tail. in addition to running the country, he dealt with the highs and lows that this life brings. during covid, he nearly died. he got married, he lost

his mum. no, iwill nearly died. he got married, he lost his mum. no, i will not give way. all of this under the media spotlight with... the report says that he misled the house. the question is is the committee right that he did it deliberately and is the punishment fair? this is where i struggle. there are some good people who have sat on that committee. annable memberfrom who have sat on that committee. annable member from warrington south is someone i am pleased to call a friend. but i have to say, i think this committee is set up to fail before they start why? let me use a football analogy. before they start why? let me use a footballanalogy. if before they start why? let me use a football analogy. if man city's star player had to sit in front of seven of his peers for hearing, how fair would it be if three of the committee were man united players? not to marry. no, no matter how honourable, the opportunity to take down the opposition's star player would be too much. i think if we are going to use mps as committee

members, which i think we should, who else knows what this job is like, then they must be at the same party. we must select labour members for labour mps and conservative members for conservative mps. many may say they will always find them not guilty, but that is not what happened here. and lay members could still sit on that committee. now, i want to speak to our constituents. the ones that didn't break the rules. i know some dead, but two wrongs don't make a right and we sent these rules in this place so we should always try our best to lead by example. but i want the public to know that most in this place did. the right honourable gentleman paid a fine that i would've challenged him a piece of cake in the cabinet office. let's remind ourselves that this is the only fixed penalty he received after previous inquiry.

does my honourable friend realise that, actually, he was advised by advisers not to charge them? i think my honourable _ advisers not to charge them? i think my honourable friend _ advisers not to charge them? i think my honourable friend for— advisers not to charge them? i think my honourable friend for that - my honourable friend for that intervention. no, ididn't my honourable friend for that intervention. no, i didn't know that. and i think it's good that that. and i think it's good that thatis that. and i think it's good that that is on record under the house. the report looked at six events and produced photos that concluded they were in breach but not the inventions that were seen in the most recent videos. parties have happened, and stronger leadership may have prevented these, but the right honourable gentlemen wasn't at these parties. i have seen the video this weekend of the other parties, but the right honourable gentlemen wasn't there. i can see the hurt that it has caused, and i know people feel wronged and want justice. i know people lost loved ones. i did too. but the stirring up of hate for these people won't bring our loved ones back. so i ask for their own side, somehow, we need to find it in our hearts to move on.

the right honourable gentlemen has lost the topjob. the right honourable gentlemen has lost the top job. he has the right honourable gentlemen has lost the topjob. he has not resigned his post as a member of parliament. trust me, he has paid the price. as for the young people in the video, they should've known better, and they really don't deserve to be on it, but i cannot ask the public to forgive and not do so myself, so i do. i asked them to learn from these, or life is going to be tough for them and everyone around them. the video was posted by media, the media was on the intention is to sell papers. they are bastian z free press and not always for the right reasons. so i say to the press, do the job by all means, but think of the implications. ask them to use their power wisely. implications. ask them to use their powerwisely. now implications. ask them to use their power wisely. now i come to today. if i vote for this report, my haters will love me for five minutes and then hate me again. if i vote

against, the ones who have lost loved ones will think i don't care. and i desperately do. if i abstain, i appease no one. but i'm not here to please. i'm here to do what i think is right. therefore i will vote against this report today. i will vote against it because i think the process is flawed postop i will vote against it because pleasing the opposition won't bring back their loved ones for my constituents. i will vote against it because the right honourable gentleman has already left. the vote in some cases is already futile. i will vote against because i think the right honourable gentlemen has been punished enough. i will abstain because i mean i will vote against because i mean i will vote against because if i asked the people to forgive, then so must i. i will vote against because this country has had enough and so fi. i will finish by asking the right honourable gentlemen, if he cares about our country and his party as much as i

think he does, he will back down —— our prime minister, our party and help get this country back on track. this country and its people have suffered enough their covid and it's time to move on. decade of opposition will be terrible. cani can i begin by saying that in my 26 years also in the house, i've never read a report from the standards and privileges all privileges committee that has been so damning and so excoriating. and nor have i read one which has been so carefully prepared over such a long period of time by members from across the house who have clearly ta ken members from across the house who have clearly taken the obligations placed upon them by the house with the greatest seriousness in difficult circumstances. so can i begin by saying we all owe the right

honourable and honourable members of the privileges committee who have conducted this work and produce this report that we are considering today and extensive debt of gratitude. i'm not the only person who said that but it bears repetition because it matters to all of us, whichever party we are in, whether we are backbenchers, whether we are ministers, whether we hope to be ministers, whether we hope to be ministers, whether we hope to be ministers, whether we were ministers for 80 weeks or whether we intend to remain backbenchers or intend to stand down or whether we end up getting defeated at a general election. it matters to everybody in this house that the privileges of this house that the privileges of this house that the privileges of this house are properly upheld because if they are not then our representative democracy cannot properly function and the report made it perfectly clear at the beginning of its conclusion that that was the case and i agree with

them, it matters. this matters. so those who take the view that it's a trivial punishment that we are now considering given that mrjohnson has left couldn't be more wrong. it is important that the house which established and asked the committee to do this report consider its findings and vote as it wishes to do. but i hope that every member of this house votes in favour of the committee's findings and its recommendations. there have been ample opportunities for those who object fundamentally to the way in which the report has been produced to have had an influence on it. the motion today was amendable but it hasn't been amended. there have been opportunities, there is of the members and right honourable members who have spoken or made clear

throughout this process, which has taken over a year to have an impact on the membership of the committee, on the membership of the committee, on the membership of the committee, on the terms of reference and the work that it's been asked to do. it has done what we've asked it today and the findings are quite shocking. the report sets out egregious behaviour by the former prime minister amounting to multiple contempt of parliament. we must draw a line in the sand to stop ministers thinking that they can lie to parliament, whether they are the mostjunior undersecretary, whether most junior undersecretary, whether they are mostjunior undersecretary, whether they are the prime minister, they cannot go to the dispatch box and deliberately lie. if they do they must be punished for it by this house. if they do it and get away with it as is the way with lawyers, they think they can do it again. mr johnson appeared to think that one

should lie repeatedly under liebig but if we do what we should support the he will have been stopped in his tracks. he will have been dealt with for the lying that he did at that dispatch box and that can only be good for our democracy. that is why every member of this house should be looking to vote today in favour of the report. ifind it strange in those circumstances. i commend those members of the opposition benches who have made it clear they will support the report. i had rather hoped to see the prime minister and more of the cabinet because it should matter to them as much as it matters to, if someday in the future which i think will happen, they will be in opposition, they will want to know they are being told the truth

from that dispatch box just as much as any other member of the house. i think it's a shame the prime minister isn't here, it doesn't send the right signal that the house takes the matter seriously enough that some parts of it decide on a party political basis that the party political management reasons it's easy to run away and hide. that is a shame. madam deputy speaker, the debates we've been having about knowingly are esoteric, in some ways legally esoteric but the committee did find that mrjohnson had deliberately misled the house, that could take knowledge or forethought. that he deliberately misled the committee. that he breached confidence of the committee when he didn't like the findings that he was

shown in the report that he got to see before the committee had finalised it and before it was published, and then impugning the committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the house, being complicit in the campaign of using abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee. this has gone on over an extended period of time. not only did the committee find that there were five times when he misled the house, when he said guidance was followed completely at two, that events at number 10 were within the guidance and they had been followed at all times when he was present. when he failed to tell the house about his own knowledge of the house about his own knowledge of the gatherings where guidance have been broken, even though he was there and could have said what he saw. when he relied on repeated assurances that the rules hadn't been broken, the assurances he received weren't accurately

represented by him to the house, when he gave the impression they needed to be an investigation by sue gray before he could answer questions about which he had personal knowledge which he didn't reveal and when he purported to correct the record but instead continued to mislead the house and it's pretty clear. the evidence cannot be read that he was being deliberately disingenuous when he tried to reinterpret his statement to the house to avoid the plain meaning and reframe the impression that he intended to give. when he advanced on sustainable interpretations of the rules and guidance to advance the guidance that the lack of social distancing was permissible within the exceptions. when he advanced reasons tojustify exceptions. when he advanced reasons to justify the gatherings. it's pretty clear that this isn't an inadvertent or occasional slight slip. this is a pattern of behaviour. i will give way to him.

i'd heard several of the speeches prior to her and i'm gratefulfor her giving way nonetheless. she made a point about the difference between being deliberate and knowing but not dwelling on that. will she comment on the sanction because it seems to me she's right that the privileges of this house do matter and the way the privileges managed matter too what one might have expected the privileges committee to have some kind of sentencing guidelines. 0ne kind of sentencing guidelines. one might have expected the honourable date to have insisted on that at the beginning. it’s date to have insisted on that at the bearinnin. v , date to have insisted on that at the bearinnin. 3 ,~ date to have insisted on that at the beaiannin. 3 ,~ ., beginning. it's entirely a matter for the committee. _ beginning. it's entirely a matter for the committee. it _ beginning. it's entirely a matter for the committee. it seems - beginning. it's entirely a matter i for the committee. it seems pretty clear that the proposed sanction was increased following the further contempt that occurred when the draft report was sent to him because of the way in which he behaved in

leaking the report of the committee. so i don't know what proposals being considered well before that further contempt. but i don't think 90 days is unreasonable given the extensive period of time, the numbers of contempts and the way he behaved having been confronted with his behaviour. i also think by the way that it's important that the issue about the former members passed, people might think it's trivial, but it is sending a signal of extreme disapproval that this kind of behaviour will not be allowed with impunity, if a former member decides to behave in this manner. and i think that is entirely reasonable. so, madam deputy speaker, i don't wish to go through any more of the details but beyond saying it's an

egregious example, one of the worst i've ever seen, the committee members have done the hausa service, the truth starts here. it starts at that despatch box. it must be observed and if we don't have that we don't have a functioning parliamentary democracy. that is why every member of this house must and should in my view vote this evening to support the committee and approve the motion in respect of the report. i would like to start by putting on the record my thanks to the privileges committee for their diligent work over many months and the clerks to the committee for their supporting of that work. today's debate is focused on the committee's work in their report on the misleading of this house and whether that constituted contempt of the house. not on wrongdoing but what was said in response to

allegations of wrongdoing. no one is perfect, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. but it's how we respond to the errors we make that defines us. i agree with the father of the house's words, he's no longer in his place, if one makes a mistake one apologises. the earliest opportunity, not many, many, many months later. i withdraw those outside chamber to nx one of the report on process and procedure. in brief, the house referred the matter to the committee without division. its members agreed too without division. it has no powers to sanction, only make a recommendation to decide on, which is why we are here today to debate and decide. i deplore the attacks on members of

the privileges committee. whether they come from external commentators ought within this house. the work of the committee is thankless. there is no need to make it potentially dangerous too. the additional security that was needed is deeply shameful. the right honourable memberfor shameful. the right honourable member for camberwell and peckham is an exceptional parliamentarian and it was a privilege to serve with her on the joint committee for human rights. i also deplore the attacks on my honourable friend the member for warrington south, who was a voluntary magistrate as well as serving his constituents. shame, shame, shame on those who are working to undermine him and his future prospects. he is a decent and honourable member as are all members of the privileges committee it is up to each member to decide individually how to vote and how to explain their decision to their

constituents. i will not try to persuade nor urge members to do other than their conscience dictates from these benches. no one should be whipped on a house matter. i will be voting to support the committee's findings today. voting to support the committee's findings today-— voting to support the committee's findinas toda . ~ �* , findings today. we've been reminded in this debate — findings today. we've been reminded in this debate that _ findings today. we've been reminded in this debate that the _ findings today. we've been reminded in this debate that the report - findings today. we've been reminded in this debate that the report makes| in this debate that the report makes the fundamental point that our employment statistics showed at that time over half a million fewe makes in this debate that the report makes the fundamental point that our democracy depends on mps being able democracy depends on mps being able to trust that what ministers tell to trust that what ministers tell them in the house of commons is the them in the house of commons is the truth. 0n the 2ath of november 2021 truth. 0n the 2ath of november 2021 at pmqs, the then prime minister at pmqs, the then prime minister said, and i quote, now almost a said, and i quote, now month afterfurlough said, and i quote, now almost a month after furlough ended, there are more people in work than there were before the pandemic began. that statement was untrue. the monthly employment statistics showed at that

time over half a million fewer at pmqs, the then prime minister saic on 1d i quote, now at pmqs, the then prime minister saic on the quote, now at pmqs, the then prime minister saic on the 19th e, now at pmqs, the then prime minister saic on the 19th of now at pmqs, the then prime minister saic on the 19th ofjanuary 0n and on the 19th ofjanuary 2022. on the 1st of february, the director generalfor regulation the 1st of february, the director general for regulation at the office for statistics regulation wrote to the director of data science at 10 downing street to point out that