time over half a million fewer people in employment than before the pandemic began and total employment remained lower than before the pandemic until this month's statistics. the prime minister made the same untrue claim on the 15th of december 2021, then again on the 5th of january 2022, when he said it three times. on the 12th of january 2022, and on the 19th ofjanuary times. on the 12th of january 2022, and on the 19th of january 2022. times. on the 12th of january 2022, 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 this repeated claim was untrue. the prime minister repeated the claim again on the 2nd of february and again on the 2nd of february and again on the 23rd of february. i thought at first that the prime minister might have just missed understood the numbers. it was true,

as he claimed on a number of occasions that the number on payrolls was higher than before the pandemic. but that was because a lot of the self—employed people gave up self—employment during the pandemic or afterwards and became employees on payrolls instead. the letter from the director general having had no impact, the chair of the uk statistics authority, that then chair wrote to the prime minister on the 24th of february 2022. dear prime minister, he wrote. it is wrong to claim that there are no more people and work than before the pandemic began. the increase in the number of people who are on payrolls is more than offset by the reduction in the number of people who are self—employed. so at the liaison committee in march, i asked the prime minister whether he accepted that correction in sir david's

letter. his reply wasn't straightforward, but the transcript of that meeting does show that mr johnson understood fully and clearly what had happened in the labour market. he didn't misunderstand the figures and he also accepted that employment was in fact a less than before the pandemic. he said he was going to correct the record on that point, which he didn't do, but he did recognise that his claim had been mistaken. but despite that, he carried on subsequently making the claims. he said it again the next month on the 20th of april and again on the 27th of april. in the final question time, prime minister on the 20th ofjuly last year, he said, and i quote, "we have more people in paid employment that at any time in history of this country, despite knowing well that that was untrue.

my knowing well that that was untrue. my conclusion from all of this, which i think does shed some light on the events covered by the report is that mrjohnson just isn't interested in whether a statement is true or not. he is a clever man. he thinks quite tired about what he plans to say, but the criteria, "is this true" is not a important consideration for him. he's concerned about the effect... i will give a. i5 concerned about the effect... i will cive a. , . ~ concerned about the effect... i will iive a. , .," ., concerned about the effect... i will cive a. , w ., concerned about the effect... i will civea. , ., ,, . concerned about the effect... i will civea. ., ,, . ., give a. is making a good speech, and i think boris — give a. is making a good speech, and i think boris had _ give a. is making a good speech, and i think boris had a _ give a. is making a good speech, and i think boris had a complicated - i think boris had a complicated relationship at the truth, and i'm personally not denying that. he's beenin personally not denying that. he's been in this house for a very long time, and it is great that he is saying that truth and integrity are very important. labour had an reputation for injecting lies in the british political processes as never before, and did he, it is true, actually, did he specifically objected to the lies that were told

in the run—up to the bill for? because he was in parliament i was in parliament, and i do not believe that the ministers at that time said things which they knew to be untrue. i think it is absolutely clear as far as i can tell that a former preminger did say in his house, things that he knew well to be untrue. i have the chance to discuss with the liaison committee. he carried on saying it stop he also administers resetting of documents about study od on what they believed them to be true? yes. about study od on what they believed them to be true?— about study cd on what they believed them to be true?— them to be true? yes, i do believe that those — them to be true? yes, i do believe that those who _ them to be true? yes, i do believe that those who made _ them to be true? yes, i do believe that those who made those points| them to be true? yes, i do believe i that those who made those points in the house at the time believed that they were truthful. it became clear that they were not. i do to fight anyone to claim otherwise about borisjohnson given that this particularly history... that approach, as we have been reminded

in this debate, to politics is toxic for democracy. what is the point of this day after day standing up and asking ministers questions if they routinely give us answers they know to —— they know to be untrue. they've got no chance of building confidence in parliament, and democracy, and politics if they don't care whether what they say is true or not. maybe there is a contrary argument that great men shouldn't have to worry about such trivial details. the committee here is absolutely right. if that view prevailed, our democracy would be at very serious risk. i think it is across the atlantic at the moment as well. thank goodness that the committee, borisjohnson, having committee, boris johnson, having made committee, borisjohnson, having made a pretty successful career out of not telling the truth, thank goodness that the committee was willing to take a stand. they are

absolutely right, and i hope the holes house will support them this evening. holes house will support them this evenina. ., ~ ,, ~ holes house will support them this evenina. ., ~ ~ ., , _ evening. thank you, mr happy seaker. evening. thank you, mr happy speaker- i _ evening. thank you, mr happy speaker. i accept _ evening. thank you, mr happy speaker. i accept the - evening. thank you, mr happy l speaker. i accept the privileges committee, and i think the chair of the committee and everyone who worked on it. trust and integrity is important in politics. people think that politicians sometimes lack that. and i think when there is a chance to show it, when there is a chance to show it, when there is a chance to show it, when there is a chance to show someone the right thing, it's important that it happens. so i will vote for this report, and i accept the substance of it while respecting some of the points made by my underfriends of it while respecting some of the points made by my under friends from northeast somerset and from great grimsby, although, ithink northeast somerset and from great grimsby, although, i think they've got a case, i think i'm afraid to say doesn't quite convince me. i have to say more broadly, i am so over boris, and i am pretty over lockdown as well. and i think sometimes, really, the point i want to make tonight, is that we are in danger of making westminster look

small and petty. do not get me wrong, truth and politicians at the dispatch box telling the truth is a fundamental building block. it's a keystone to this place. but for every person here for every person watching who says, fantastic, you are getting boris. our privileges committee is doing itsjob. i can tell you now, there are other people saying, yet again, you are talking about yourselves. yet again, politicians talking about process. there were other big scandals to do with lockdown, arguably that had more impact on our nation. that is not to deny the importance of boris's casual attitude with the truth. he saw lockdowns as being difficult to obey, and frankly he was right. at that point, a wiser leader would probably have questioned his own rules, not socked to get around them. they were, after all his rules, and you can love for

us, but i think it's true to say that remorse is probably not one of his finer qualities. for me, the scandal of lockdown or co—bed and how he dealt with it is not only whether they are where wine fridays and cake in downing street and people in protests carrying about it. it actually whether or not lockdown worked. the cost of lockdown worked. the cost of lockdown in terms of lies, learning, sanity, in terms of money, and in terms of truth will stop i have to say, since lockdown, we have had an extraordinary little conversation about these critical issues. that gave people a chance to get boris at kicking and we are queuing up to do so. so i'm just going to mention some of these other things which i think are important.— think are important. before the honourable _ think are important. before the honourable gentleman - think are important. before the honourable gentleman moves l think are important. before the l honourable gentleman moves on think are important. before the - honourable gentleman moves on to those other things, i went to reinforce the point he made that he would allow me about this house, because by far the greatest deception i have seen in this house

came when tony blair, that then prime minister, came before us and said that he had secret information that our country was at risk from weapons of mass destruction. now, whether he was knowing or whether he was simply careless about that, the consequences where letty, and we are now introspectively discussing cake and sandwiches. that's how the public sees it, and he is right about that regarding this introspective and self—indulgent. i think for me, cake versus the lives of 179 soldiers, it is pretty easy which i think is more important. but that doesn't excuse misleading the house. i think the other scams, the other really important thing, mr deputy speaker, i will run through them briefly, we are now paying in excess, debts, as our constituents dive cancers and heart diseases that went undetected when we effectively shut down the nhs for co—bed.

exactly as doctors and experts and professors such as carol warned. and they paid a high price for it in the attacks on their integrity or why media should be carrying these comments. given these excess debts, it's not impossible that lockdown may end up killing more people and certainly more life years than actual lockdown dead. there is a plethora of peer—reviewed reports and when does try to follow some of them suggesting that lockdown may have saved 1700 lives. that is the current equivalent of the uk's natural debts in about 26 and a half hours. that is the cost of shutting down our schools, 400 billion, i will come to the next scandal, our schools were shut, a disaster which has stalled education improvement, 100,000 kids, ghost kids disappeared off the rolls. what happened to these kids? drifting through abuse, mental health crisis, crime, solitude, loneliness, we don't know. it is one of the great scandals of

the day, and actually i think that shadow leader of the opposition is shaking her head saying that what has that got to do it this? i think the point i am trying to make, i will take an intervention if she wants, the point i am trying to make is that there are important scandals to do with lockdown, and i don't defend boris. i to do with lockdown, and i don't defend boris.— to do with lockdown, and i don't defend boris. ~' ., ., defend boris. i think the honourable centleman defend boris. i think the honourable gentleman getting _ defend boris. i think the honourable gentleman getting make _ defend boris. i think the honourable gentleman getting make a - defend boris. i think the honourable gentleman getting make a missing i defend boris. i think the honourable. gentleman getting make a missing as he has invited me to. ijust want to clarify, this debate is about the privileges report into whether or not borisjohnson knowingly misled the house. it's not about whether or not the lockdown rules for good or bad. that may be a debate where the of parliamentary time, but that is not this debate. it is of parliamentary time, but that is not this debate.— not this debate. it is a debate where the _ not this debate. it is a debate where the of _ not this debate. it is a debate where the of parliamentary i not this debate. it is a debate . where the of parliamentary time, not this debate. it is a debate - where the of parliamentary time, but when i held a debate of it, not a single labour party member appeared. there were scandals in important things about lockdown in one of the things about lockdown in one of the things we are criticised for as a deputy leader as the shadow leader of the house will know is the obsession with ourselves when there are great and important other things to be discussing abound co—bed and lockdown not only whether it downing

street had... lockdown not only whether it downing street had- - -— street had... order, we have to remember _ street had... order, we have to remember what _ street had... order, we have to remember what we _ street had... order, we have to remember what we are - street had... order, we have to i remember what we are discussing today _ remember what we are discussing today. without going too wide, because — today. without going too wide, because there are 14 other people who because there are14 other people who want— because there are 14 other people who want to contribute to this debate, — who want to contribute to this debate, and i think they want to really— debate, and i think they want to really talk— debate, and i think they want to really talk about what is in the re ort. . ~ really talk about what is in the re ort. ., ~' ,, really talk about what is in the reort. ., ~' , . report. thank you very much indeed. i will wind no — report. thank you very much indeed. i will wind no if— report. thank you very much indeed. i will wind up if you think _ report. thank you very much indeed. i will wind up if you think i'm - i will wind up if you think i'm speaking out of turn or too wide. i was going to say in terms of mental health crisis, that is a scandal with reporting. the fact that across 400 billion, the fact that science was misused and trust abused. lockdown was an experiment, and i do think sometimes the focus of the lockdown debate to be around that the behaviour of the prime minister i think is too narrow and does not do this house a service. as i said and winding up, i will vote to support this. i will support to vote this privileges communities report, but i do wish that the same level of interest, especially from the opposition may sometimes focus on the stuff that actually makes a

difference in lockdown and notjust vindictively going after boris johnson. thank you.- vindictively going after boris johnson. thank you. thank you, mr deu johnson. thank you. thank you, mr deputy speaker- — johnson. thank you. thank you, mr deputy speaker. all— johnson. thank you. thank you, mr deputy speaker. all that _ johnson. thank you. thank you, mr deputy speaker. all that glitters i johnson. thank you. thank you, mr deputy speaker. all that glitters is | deputy speaker. all that glitters is not gold. the window is framed by vignette. and my honourable and right honourable colleagues seem intent on paying homage to it above all else. some will say and some have said that borisjohnson misled the committee and misled parliament. other areas that the committee set out to achieve their predetermined goal of finding him guilty on all charges. the public, many of them hold both of these at once, and it's not mutually exclusive, so this pantomimed staggered sign. the reality is that parliament to the public, and that as far out of lockstep with each other as it has ever been, i'm not sure that the public really care in the real world too much about this any more. i think very few people out there in the real world trust borisjohnson,

and sadly i think through the process, we have seen the collateral damage to this reputation of the house. i think the privilege committee itself has been damaged and may be damaged further by revelations. it's very much public concern as a plague on all our houses. what has caused this loss of public confidence in the procedures of this house? well, the evidence is damning. borisjohnson and his government used behavioural scientists and spin doctors to instill unreasonable fear. to scare the public into seizing their normal lives over the guys of a threat so deadly, they dared not go outside to see another person. we all remember the relentless day in, day out, informing the public by ministers and number 10 informing the public by ministers and number10 of informing the public by ministers and number 10 of death rates and horror stories, and number 10 of death rates and horrorstories, remembering and number 10 of death rates and horror stories, remembering the signs everywhere that we looked at, remember the adverts on the television because make the supermarket car parks? filled with

masked citizens forced to stand in their own car parking bay. the relentless messaging from number 10, stand on the stickers, follow the signposts, wash your hands, don't see your loved ones. the government decided it was itsjob see your loved ones. the government decided it was its job to see your loved ones. the government decided it was itsjob to be see your loved ones. the government decided it was its job to be that of a parent and saw the country as a toddler, turning out to police into teaching assistants and dare i say it nannies. and every single account they robbed the public of their dignity. it was nothing short of unacceptable, our ancestors would be rightly ashamed of the situation. we saw some of the largest demonstrations of kindness we've ever seen and those demonstrations under immense pressure show a real spirit of the british people. their altruism held up a mirror to the

true nature of the behaviour at number 10. any contention that number 10. any contention that number 10. any contention that number 10 had the most accurate scientific data in front of them and therefore these measures were justified in the face of the extreme risk now have absolutely no bearing on the truth. the fact is that the sane people who took the unprecedented powers to suspend our freedoms knew that these measures were nothing short of political posturing. they knew they were pointless. if the risks were really what they said they were under science without demonstrable, surely they would have... mr science without demonstrable, surely they would have. . ._ they would have... mr andrew bridaen, they would have... mr andrew bridgen. we — they would have... mr andrew bridgen, we are _ they would have... mr andrew bridgen, we are talking - they would have... mr andrew bridgen, we are talking about| they would have... mr andrew i bridgen, we are talking about the contents— bridgen, we are talking about the contents of the report and you're going _ contents of the report and you're going way— contents of the report and you're going way wider than that now. well, i think the behaviour _ going way wider than that now. well, i think the behaviour of _ going way wider than that now. -ii i think the behaviour of number 10... i think the behaviour of number 10. .. ~ i think the behaviour of number 10...~ ., ., 10. .. will the honourable gentlemen . ive 10. .. will the honourable gentlemen rive wa ? 10. .. will the honourable gentlemen give way? thank _ 10. .. will the honourable gentlemen give way? thank you. _

10. .. will the honourable gentlemen give way? thank you. whilst - 10. .. will the honourable gentlemen give way? thank you. whilst it's i give way? thank you. whilst it's very exciting to see what's going on, to remove a prime minister with an 80 seat majority, can we notjust think about what happened here or didn't happen here? so, the police, sue gray, what did they actually come up with? the guy being delivered a piece of cake. i would have been the first person, if boris had had parties in the flat or whatever, i would have stood up here and talked about it. but the reality is what we know is that he accepted a piece of cake. so, can people not accept that just possibly the guy stood there and really did not believe he was misleading the house? i thank him for his question and his misplaced loyalty to borisjohnson. i think it's laudable. but the behaviour in downing street will close a resemblance to the set of love island than a collection of our

country's top minds and high performers working tirelessly to steer us through dangerous waters. this at the same time as they went further than any of the british government has gone before them to take more and more powers under the wing of the state. the question is, our internal parliamentary committees and state inquiries agenda driven? who can fault the public for thinking they probably are? when you look at the covid inquiry that started now, they are requiring all participants to take lateral flow tests. the bubble surrounding the westminster political elite has become absolutely opaque. the public can't understand it and they can't understand it and they can't understand the public. mr deputy speaker, i'm afraid the bubble has well and truly burst. the consensus still around the lockdowns are that they were sensible and acceptable for the public and the only discussion ever allowed in this

place is how long the lockdowns should be but lockdowns and restrictions, they went for anybody at number 10, only for the little people. so, if the data had really indicated that the virus was the most vicious threat the country has ever faced most vicious threat the country has everfaced in our most vicious threat the country has ever faced in our lifetime, most vicious threat the country has everfaced in our lifetime, they most vicious threat the country has ever faced in our lifetime, they are the words of the former prime minister himself, then why were those who have seen the date of first hand and were privy to all the briefings were continually breaching their own rules? what they looked us in our houses, they went to parties. when they. to wear masks they broke up when they. to wear masks they broke up the party hats. they closed our schools and open to the bottles. i'm glad they had such a good time because the rest of our experience and collective memories... i've already given away. the rest of our experiences and memories of lockdown were not that great, to be honest. it was isolation which destroyed our

livelihoods, a new relationship with our state that bought an uncomfortable resemblance to history lessons and modern china, something none of us would ever believe could be true in present—day britain. we are all human with all our human failings and our health is incredibly important to us all and we all welcome advances in modern medicine which have reduced the nasty realities of life, but we never wanted this. what has happened to the top of our government? will makers dinged their work meetings were more important than our children's education. it's almost as if they wanted to make incompetence endemic. we can never get the children back the years they've lost of their schooling, we can never give the public back the sum we robbed from them but we can give them answers and reassurance we will never ever replay this fiasco. finally, let's sign the whole thing off as a job badly done, a chapter

to consigned to history, a stark lesson of how not to govern. the people feel betrayed and they have been betrayed and it must never ever happen again. aha, been betrayed and it must never ever happen again-— happen again. a gentle reminder, it is this report _ happen again. a gentle reminder, it is this report we _ happen again. a gentle reminder, it is this report we are _ happen again. a gentle reminder, it is this report we are talking - happen again. a gentle reminder, it is this report we are talking about . is this report we are talking about today— is this report we are talking about today and — is this report we are talking about today and its findings. so if people could _ today and its findings. so if people could perhaps, even if they've got speeches — could perhaps, even if they've got speeches they wrote three days ago and it— speeches they wrote three days ago and it contains things that aren't relevant, — and it contains things that aren't relevant, please could they lose those _ relevant, please could they lose those pages and concentrate on this, please? _ those pages and concentrate on this, please? jess phillips is going to show— please? jess phillips is going to show us — please? jess phillips is going to show us how to do it. | please? jess phillips is going to show us how to do it.— show us how to do it. i will very much focus _ show us how to do it. i will very much focus on _ show us how to do it. i will very much focus on the _ show us how to do it. i will very much focus on the report. i show us how to do it. i will very much focus on the report. so, i show us how to do it. i will veryl much focus on the report. so, to comment on the last two speakers, not necessarily the wildly tangential line they went down but the idea that everybody is a bit sick of this and i don't want to be talking about it, well, quite a lot of people have been in touch with me while the debate has been going on watching this debate and one of the people who got in touch with me is a

brilliant woman called mina whose daughters were killed during the period that our country was on lockdown in a double murder and she has said to me please mention their story. have they broken the rules they would still be alive because they would still be alive because they went to picnic in a park and they went to picnic in a park and they staggered it so they wouldn't be too many people because they understood the regulations and because of that they were murdered. she also says sarah everard was so frightened of the covid regulations she ended up dead. so, there were people in our country who listened to borisjohnson talking on the television, they took away from hen what the rules were as the primary

message giver in a pandemic. they understood the rules and it cost them their lives in a completely different way to that that has been discussed so far. the idea that borisjohnson didn't understand the regulations, i mean, it's a cracking defence on his part because it basically means he is too stupid, he's either lying or he is thick. as somebody said earlier, it isn't mutually exclusive. i think that is the case in this instance as well, they are not mutually exclusive. i didn't come to this place is a big cheerleader of it. ifelt didn't come to this place is a big cheerleader of it. i felt like didn't come to this place is a big cheerleader of it. ifelt like i didn't come to this place is a big cheerleader of it. i felt like i was going to think that parliamentary procedure was silly in locks of regards and all of this has not disavowed any of that in the last couple of weeks. but what i found

here was that i became a total cheerleader for parliamentary democracy. and i hadn't expected to. it's really been quite a shock to me that i became such a cheerleader of parliamentary democracy. but because it matters, the people in our country putting trust in us to do the right thing really, really matters. and i think that since i have been here i have seen the fragility of it, where lies, misdirection... constant feeling like you're never getting an answer. i tell you one thing. if we were to hear something from my constituents that they say over and over again is, just answer the question. that is, just answer the question. that is the most depressing thing for most people, could you just get someone to answer the bloody question, excuse my language. i'm quoting the public. they said it

worse, it could have been much worse. so it really, really matters. it really matters is that the institution of this place be protected. and that it's considered to be truthful and honest. and the only people who are served by the public hating politicians and hating the institution of parliament at the same people who already hold power. it is so important for the people to feel empowered in the thing that represents them, that is there to drive them. and if they opt out and say you're all the same, you're all liars and cheats, the same people who always ruled always will rule. they don't mind that people say that. the importance of telling the truth in this place and respecting the systems that we all have to live by, that we all vote through, like

this committee we all voted for it, we'll all passed it through this building, it matters so much more. and that is why i really stand here to say that i've watched it degrade and for the first time in this privileges committee report, ifelt like it has a chance to come back. i felt like there is a valve to release the pressure. that what i have seen for the past five years of people lying and deceiving, specifically borisjohnson, lying and deceiving, ifelt specifically borisjohnson, lying and deceiving, i felt like specifically borisjohnson, lying and deceiving, ifelt like it's ok, the system is bigger than this demagogue, it is bigger than this man who thinks he's bigger than the world. who thinks he is more important than the world. the system fought back with honour and i thank the members of the committee for their hard work and his demagoguery

in its receipt of the report should surprise absolutely no one. it is to be laughed at, frankly, and the public is laughing at it. it looks really desperate and some of the defences i have heard today on behalf of members trying to stick up for borisjohnson looks a little bit like people dancing on the head of a pin. and frankly they were laughable. and people are watching. i feel very bad laughable. and people are watching. ifeel very bad for laughable. and people are watching. i feel very bad for the fact that thatis i feel very bad for the fact that that is going to be represented as if it's the conservative party's view when there are very decent members who will absolutely do the right thing and stick up for democracy. i think it is a crying shame that in this moment of release valve, that the prime minister of our country cannot even express how he would vote if he were to turn up today. in my view, that is a

dereliction of duty. democracy has been degraded. it is important to fight for it. i cannot believe that he couldn't take five seconds out of parroting his pledges to tell us what he thinks. should happen. i cannot believe and i praise the leader of the house today for showing leadership in this regard. i cannot believe that the prime minister cannot even express what his view is one way or another. interestingly enough, he didn't express a view on owen pattinson either stop express a view on owen pattinson either sto_ ., ., , , either stop there are many things that i either stop there are many things that i think _ either stop there are many things that i think are _ either stop there are many things that i think are matters _ either stop there are many things that i think are matters of- that i think are matters of consciousness —— matters of conscience in this place that when i look back and see the prime minister hasn't expressed a view on it, i think it's hasn't expressed a view on it, i think its weak. and i think there's

quite a lot of words are not allowed to say but i can now say that boris johnson is a liar. and i believe that the memberfor johnson is a liar. and i believe that the member for brent central will be speaking after me and has been completely vindicated by the fact we can all say that boris johnson is a liar. ijust wish that there had been a united front today. i understand that it's a matter of conscience and there will always be people who feel a different way and i respect that. i think it's a real shame if the house cannot express today how important democracy is to us because of the failure of one leader leading to the weakness of the next. �* leader leading to the weakness of the next._ thank i leader leading to the weakness of| the next._ thank you, the next. dawn butler. thank you, deu the next. dawn butler. thank you, deputy speaker- — the next. dawn butler. thank you, deputy speaker. we _ the next. dawn butler. thank you, deputy speaker. we all _ the next. dawn butler. thank you, deputy speaker. we all owe i the next. dawn butler. thank you, deputy speaker. we all owe a i the next. dawn butler. thank you, i deputy speaker. we all owe a depth of gratitude to the privileges deputy speaker. we all owe a depth of gratitude to the privileges committee and to the chair who has committee and to the chair who has had to sit through some of the had to sit through some of the strangest speeches but i've heard in strangest speeches but i've heard in

this house. owe a depth this house. and i thank the memberfor birmingham yardley for mentioning nina, mother of nicole smallman, who is an amazing woman who continues to fight to keep the this is all about democracy. the trust that should exist between the government and those that are governed has been badly damaged and the question must be, to every single member of the house, how do we repair that damage? the