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 way we do that, we must demand transparency, honesty and integrity from those who hold positions of power. those that stand at the dispatch box, and the leader of the house gave an impassioned speech saying just that.

because we must not tolerate the casual disregard for truth that has become the hallmark of this government. it should shame us all. we are honourable members of parliament. it isn'tjust a title. it is something we should hold dear. we should be honourable in what we do in this place. we should be honourable to the people we serve because they have elected us. and democracy demands honourable conduct and we haven't seen much of that over the last few years. and if we allow lies to go unchecked and deceit to become the norm, then our democracy begins to crumble and that's what's been happening. we sit here time and time again, we see ministers coming to the dispatch box and we say, that's not true and then they say, we aren't allowed to say it isn't true. we have to say that they inadvertently misled the house

and they will correct the record, and they will correct the record, and they will correct the record, and they never come back. they tell and they never come back. they tell a lie, they sit down, they walked out and they never come back to correct the record and that's a problem for our democracy. this house to call truth to power. this house, members of the house, must be able to stand up and say, that is uncorrected, otherwise what is the point and the purpose? we must not be so obsessed with the archaic rules of the house. we must challenge the system of the house if it's not working. i think it's a nonsense that you cannot call somebody a liar if they are lying. it's a nonsense of the house. people say it is going to degrade the

house, everyone will be calling each other a liar, butjust tell the truth. that's the solution and the truth. that's the solution and the truth must prevail. the truth! that is the solution. integrity must be restored and honesty must prevail. the thing is, we are currently in this house, we are the guardians of our democracy right now and i don't think we are doing a very good job. we must do much better. but this reform does bring some of that back. and the thing is, mr deputy speaker, it is quite ironic that two years ago i was thrown out of parliament, this place, for calling johnson a liar. and the irony is that if he wasn't such a weasel and if he didn't resign, he would have been thrown out of this place for 90 days for lying. and that is the irony of this situation. and i think that... i mean... it would have made me a bit

happy to see him thrown out of the house. but ultimately, it isn't about that, it is about our system in this place. and we have got to do better. it wasn't easy breaking the convention of the house. you know, i got a lot of abuse by some of the members opposite. you know, how dare she? 0h... she? 0h. .. laughter buts... laughter buts. .. that was laughter buts... that was a laughter buts. .. that was a jacob laughter buts... that was a jacob rees—mogg impression! laughter and i do talk about the aftermath of what it was like in my book, a purposeful life. and sometimes i wonder, mr deputy speaker, what is the purpose of parliament if we can't hold ministers to account? if we are just can't hold ministers to account? if we arejust going can't hold ministers to account? if we are just going to allow them to live? and, you know, johnson knew he

was lying. we all knew he was lying. and he knew we knew he was lying. but the system protected him. and what we have to do is change the system, so the system doesn't protect a liar or the liars, the system protects parliament and our democracy. we need to change a system. and the thing is, as we get... system. and the thing is, as we net. .. �* , ,., , system. and the thing is, as we net... , ., ~ system. and the thing is, as we get... absolutely. i thank my honourable _ get... absolutely. i thank my honourable friend _ get... absolutely. i thank my honourable friend for - get... absolutely. i thank my honourable friend for making | get... absolutely. i thank my l honourable friend for making a get... absolutely. i thank my - honourable friend for making a very passionate and honest speech. honesty is the best policy. in terms of the system that she alluded to that protected are former prime minister. does she agree with me that the notion we are discussing today, privilege, that privilege is sometimes not afforded to other members of this parliament, even though we are all elected in the same way? that privilege of saying and doing what you want is not afforded to some members in this chamber. i afforded to some members in this chamber. ., ~ , afforded to some members in this chamber. . ~ , ., ., chamber. i thank my honourable friend for that _ chamber. i thank my honourable friend for that important -

friend for that important intervention, and you're absolutely right. some people's privilege extends beyond this house, so when they lie in this house, they also have the privilege of their mates in the newspapers and in the media that then protects that liar and that privilege and puts that coat of protection around them. and actually, our democracy needs to be strong enough to stop that from happening and exposing that from happening. and mr deputy speaker, as we get ever closer to a general election, ministers will try and whip up moral panic. and they will begin to spread further lies and they will push this fake culture war, some of it that we have seen on display today, and we actually can't wait for two years for a privileges committee to find them guilty of lying or misleading the house because that would be too late. so the question has to be, what do we do, where do we go and who is going to stand up for democracy and truth?

at the member, the former prime minister, who is no longer in her place, the memberfor maidenhead, place, the member for maidenhead, said place, the memberfor maidenhead, said that as a prime minister, it was difficult to make decisions on friends. and i understand that because you're going to make a decision on somebody and then you may be standing with them in the queuein may be standing with them in the queue in the tearoom are you going to feel bad about it. so i completely understand where the former prime minister was coming from. so i think, mr deputy speaker, that a solution should be that we should take that responsibility away from the prime minister and it should become the responsibility of the house, when somebody breaks the ministerial the house, when somebody breaks the ministeria �* ., ministerial dawn butler, the labour mp for brent _ ministerial dawn butler, the labour mp for brent central, _ ministerial dawn butler, the labour mp for brent central, one _ ministerial dawn butler, the labour mp for brent central, one of- ministerial dawn butler, the labour mp for brent central, one of many. mp for brent central, one of many mps getting their point across in this debate that's been going on for the best part of four hours and is to continue for potentially for a few more hours. it must be done by

10pm. there is a cut—off. some really strong debate going on, some very emotive statements. the labour mp maria eagle spoke not long ago saying we must draw a line in the sand to stop ministers think that they can lying to parliament whether they can lying to parliament whether they are junior ministers or the prime minister. there was an interesting interchange between the chair of the privileges committee, the right honourable harriet harman, and jacob rees—mogg, a well—known supporter of borisjohnson when he referred to tweets that harriet harman published. i referred to tweets that harriet harman published.— referred to tweets that harriet harman published. i wonder if she could say something _ harman published. i wonder if she could say something of _ harman published. i wonder if she could say something of her - harman published. i wonder if she could say something of her own i could say something of her own position in relation to the president said by thejudiciary committee by the house of lords, when lord hoffmann was involved he was set aside not because he was biased but because of the perception of bias. in relation to herfamous tweets, how does she think she met

the hoffman test? i’m tweets, how does she think she met the hoffman test?— the hoffman test? i'm happy to answer the _ the hoffman test? i'm happy to answer the point _ the hoffman test? i'm happy to answer the point that's - the hoffman test? i'm happy to answer the point that's made. i j the hoffman test? i'm happy to - answer the point that's made. i was appointed _ answer the point that's 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 tonight, were highlighted, because _ brought tonight, were highlighted, because i_ brought tonight, were highlighted, because i am concerned about the perception— because i am concerned about the perception of fairness on the committee and i made it my business to find _ committee and i made it my business to find out— committee and i made it my business to find out whether or not it would mean _ to find out whether or not it would mean the — to find out whether or not it would mean the government would not have confidence _ mean the government would not have confidence in me if i continued chairing — confidence in me if i continued chairing the committee. i actually said i'm _ chairing the committee. i actually said i'm more than happy to step aside _ said i'm more than happy to step aside because perception matters and i aside because perception matters and idon't _ aside because perception matters and idon't want _ aside because perception matters and i don't want to do this if the government doesn't have confidence in me. _ government doesn't have confidence in me, because i need the whole house _ in me, because i need the whole house to — in me, because i need the whole house to have confidence in the work the committee has mandated. i was assured _ the committee has mandated. i was assured that i should continue the work— assured that i should continue the work at _ assured that i should continue the work at the house had mandated, the appointment that the house put me

into, and _ appointment that the house put me into, and so i did just that. harriet _ into, and so i did just that. harriet harman, the chair of the privileges committee. the debate continues, it's been going on for almost four hours now. i'm joined by rob watson, our political correspondent. as much as anything this is about borisjohnson but it's also about the integrity of parliament, isn't it?- also about the integrity of parliament, isn't it? , . parliament, isn't it? very much so. this had been _ parliament, isn't it? very much so. this had been billed _ parliament, isn't it? very much so. this had been billed as _ parliament, isn't it? very much so. this had been billed as a _ parliament, isn't it? very much so. this had been billed as a damp - parliament, isn't it? very much so. | this had been billed as a damp squib because borisjohnson has already gone and because there isn't really any doubt that parliament will approve the report and find that borisjohnson has misled mps but it hasn't turned out to be a damp script for the reason you set out. a lot of mps, the vast majority have said that this is about the sovereignty, the importance of this place in britain's democracy and to restore faith in politics and parliament. these mps, they argue, must be able to say that no one is

above the law, now one —— no one is allowed to lie and this is about democracy reasserting itself. said it is difficult to criticise a friend, as she described boris johnson, but voters wouldn't forgive them if they didn't reassert parliament's authority. both sides have reminded _ parliament's authority. both sides have reminded people _ parliament's authority. both sides have reminded people about - parliament's authority. both sides| have reminded people about where parliament's authority. both sides - have reminded people about where we were back in 2020 and widest and why people who were unable to see relatives in hospital, why this cuts so deeply to the public.— so deeply to the public. that's exactly right- _ so deeply to the public. that's exactly right. it's _ so deeply to the public. that's exactly right. it's not - so deeply to the public. that's exactly right. it's not as - so deeply to the public. that's exactly right. it's not as if- so deeply to the public. that'sl exactly right. it's not as if boris johnson has been found guilty by this committee of misleading parliament over parking restrictions. this was about overt restrictions, lockdown restrictions and as one of the mps put it, the idea that we were all in it together. convert was a levelling

exercise, we are all in the soup together and must stick to the rules together and must stick to the rules together and must stick to the rules together and that borisjohnson had essentially misled parliament over something as powerful as that. one of his own mps, john barrett, said he is one of those who followed the rules, he hadn't seen his mother when she was dying in hospital of covid. i think that's what's made this so passionate, so intense. it isn't about a trivial matter, it was literally about life or death for some. ~ , , ,, ., ~ some. the prime minister rishi sunak isn't in the chamber— some. the prime minister rishi sunak isn't in the chamber and _ some. the prime minister rishi sunak isn't in the chamber and hasn't - isn't in the chamber and hasn't been, and indicated he won't be here. how has that gone down with mp5? here. how has that gone down with mps? this here. how has that gone down with mps? ~ , , ., here. how has that gone down with mps? a ., here. how has that gone down with mps? as you can imagine he has been roundly condemned _ mps? as you can imagine he has been roundly condemned by _ mps? as you can imagine he has been roundly condemned by the _ mps? as you can imagine he has been roundly condemned by the main - roundly condemned by the main opposition labour party and all the opposition labour party and all the opposition mps asking where he is, why wouldn't he be here to let the country know how he feels about his predecessor having been found to have misled parliament. it is a risky strategy for rishi sunak

because on the one hand he is keen to distance himself from boris johnson, to say he's a very different kind of leader in terms of his personal probity but on the other hand he doesn't want to upset those in the governing party who still like borisjohnson and think he is the victim of a stitch up and think of him as good old boris. the opposition parties are going to make it very uncomfortable for him and the rest of the conservative party if they don't roundly condemn boris johnson. the line of attack will be that this is a party, under boris johnson's leadership, that has lost its moral leadership of what is right and proper in british politics. right and proper in british olitics. �* ., , right and proper in british olitics. , politics. boris johnson resigned as an mp. politics. boris johnson resigned as an mp- what's _ politics. boris johnson resigned as an mp. what's next _ politics. boris johnson resigned as an mp. what's next for— politics. boris johnson resigned as an mp. what's next for him - politics. boris johnson resigned as an mp. what's next for him and i politics. boris johnson resigned as. an mp. what's next for him and can he still cause problems for the conservative party?— he still cause problems for the conservative party? anyone who thinks boris _ conservative party? anyone who thinks boris johnson _ conservative party? anyone who thinks boris johnson is _ conservative party? anyone who thinks boris johnson is going - thinks borisjohnson is going quietly will be very much mistaken. those who like him, don't worry, he will be around. he's very young, he's in his 50s, he is ambitious,

witty and clearly has an amazing gift for communication but in terms of a political comeback it seems unlikely for the following reason. he has become that unusual thing, and unpopular populist. 25 years ago when he burst onto the scene in the country he was someone, people didn't know if he was labour or conservative but he was a fanny gibert, witty, didn't seem like other politicians. he's sort of lost that. that doesn't mean there isn't a significant minority of people in the country who love boris, but can he make a political comeback? even people on his own side think that would be very difficult.— people on his own side think that would be very difficult. thank you. we are going _ would be very difficult. thank you. we are going to — would be very difficult. thank you. we are going to go _ would be very difficult. thank you. we are going to go back _ would be very difficult. thank you. we are going to go back to - would be very difficult. thank you. we are going to go back to the - we are going to go back to the house. ian blackford speaking. plenty more mps wanting to have their say on the report by the privileges committee. in, day out, who was stuck to do what they were told by this government. it is hypocrisy on stilts. his other get out was that he followed the guidance as he understood it. how can he be held

accountable if he didn't even understand his own laws? it was the last desperate stand of a desperate man. he tried to treat the committee of the public like idiots. he knew the rules. he broke them and then he lied about it afterwards. not content with these most dishonourable actions, his behaviour during a dark his investigation has been almost contemptible. he has deployed the full trump handbook of trying to burn those around him to save his own skin. not only did the committee found that he misled them in parliament, but he also engaged in parliament, but he also engaged in a campaign of abuse towards their memos billie members to undermine death findings. he called a kangaroo court, theirfindings deranged and called into question their motives and impartiality at every turn. and let's remember, mr deputy speaker, this

it's classic which is why is well rid of borisjohnson. —— classic trump. johnson, not drunk, every issued for the ill—gotten gains —— not trump. i could always see these traits from johnson, is on so pleased that the committee has stood up pleased that the committee has stood up to his threats and let the truth prevail. the truth has also, whilst johnson is an avid tory sleaze, he wasn't the only one who attended these parties. he was in charge at these parties. he was in charge at the time, but remember dozens, literally dozens around number ten received similarfines. literally dozens around number ten received similar fines. johnson has perhaps shown is one thing — that actions do have consequences and lies will catch up with you. as it is, borisjohnson is once again the top of the town for all the wrong reasons. the committee concluded that he should be suspended from

parliament. he of course took the current way out and survived all my survive and to instead of basic —— instead of facing up. a mark of the man if they're everyone's one. he will continue to over nine the attack process trump does. however, i hope that the public now largely see through his bluster. it is now something that his ego will take severely. i sincerely hope he's legacy is seen to be precisely that. he has no power now. make sure he is never allowed it again. as we close the door and borisjohnson, more more is coming out to the public— the contempt but those that the

christmas party has witnessed in the video published. the behaviour of contempt is still with us. his resignation honours orjust the latest example. junior special adviser in her 30s given a job for life, for life, as a member of the house of lords. many were implicated in partygate receiving honours. to the public, this is sickening. where is the leadership of the current prime minister? he should have stepped in to stop borisjohnson offering such tainted honours. the next prime minister in disgrace cannot be allowed to confer honours. will the prime minister step in now and bring a stop to this? will he reverse the owners? let us tonight put this report to a vote. let the house endorse the privileges committee report and let's have a

roll call of those going through the lobby. and then let's find out, put an end to the very sorry chapter that has borisjohnson's political career. that has boris johnson's political career. . ~' that has boris johnson's political career. ., ~ , ., ~ that has boris johnson's political career. ., ~ ,, , career. thank you, mr deputy speaker- _ career. thank you, mr deputy speaker- i _ career. thank you, mr deputy speaker. i want _ career. thank you, mr deputy speaker. i want to _ career. thank you, mr deputy speaker. i want to attain - career. thank you, mr deputy speaker. i want to attain the l career. thank you, mr deputy - speaker. i want to attain the house too long. ijust want speaker. i want to attain the house too long. i just want to speaker. i want to attain the house too long. ijust want to put too long. i just want to put three points on the record on behalf of my constituents. the first being that i am sorry to say to them in particular, i am sorry to say that the feeling of boris johnson particular, i am sorry to say that the feeling of borisjohnson being at that dispatch box as prime minister and coming into this house for prime minister's questions and feeling that it was pointless to ask a question because the answer could not be relied upon will not ever leave me as long as i'm in politics. because, when the honourable member

for maidenhead was at the dispatch box, orwhen for maidenhead was at the dispatch box, or when any other prime minister in this house has been at the dispatch box other than him, i was felt political disagreements put aside if i asked a question. i would get an answer that could be relied upon. i might disagree with this, i might want to be better, but i would rely on it. i will never forget that sinking feeling being in this place on behalf of my constituents was pointless, and i think that that is the truth at the heart of this report. the diligent, hard work of members. gives us the truth for what has happened. i think my second point is that whilst i am sorry that we have been through this terrible

time for parliamentary democracy, i am proud to be in this house today and to have listened to the leader of the house, with whom i agree. to the shadow leader of the house, with my degree. to listen to the right honourable memberfor me my degree. to listen to the right honourable member for me to my degree. to listen to the right honourable memberfor me to him, as whom i agree —— maidenhead. the right honourable member for peckham, the mother of this house, with whom i agree and who has done a diligent job under very difficult circumstances to bring the truth of the situation to the attention of this house. i think we should be glad that we are in this position, we at last have clarity, we know what has happened and we can account for it. and because we can account for it. and because we can account for it, we can begin to try to understand exactly what has happened and how this came to be. because it's kind of a funny thing away that lots of people in public life have commented that we sort of knew the truth of what boris johnson

commented that we sort of knew the truth of what borisjohnson was like for a very long time. we did all kind of know that, and how did it come for this —— to this position where he was able to tell these truths, and then we had to go through this. how was it, i asked myself, that his word was taken with credulous when we all had little reason, really, to believe what he was saying? that's the question i asked myself. ithink was saying? that's the question i asked myself. i think the unfortunate truth that we have to reckon with is that one of the injustices that we face in the country is that some people's testimony is taken as truth more readily than others. i tend to agree with those who've mentioned that structural inequality that we have, that some people's where it is taken for truth. why was it that some

people were so terrified of the covid galatians when other people, particularly borisjohnson as covered in this report, clearly didn't care or clearly felt it didn't care or clearly felt it didn't matter what they did? —— covid restrictions. we know that inequality in our country means that some people's word is taken for truth more readily. it is my final point. we have so much to learn from this report and many members have discussed as well. we have so much to learn from this report and we can all move forward and get it back right across this house. but if we don't reckon with that injustice, that is somehow so much easier for some people to get a hearing than for others in our country, we will never change the power structures. in this house in the future must

welcome people from different backgrounds who speak with different accents, who come from different social classes, who have done differentjobs. we must be a better house at listening for all voices in our country and notjust house at listening for all voices in our country and not just some house at listening for all voices in our country and notjust some people who, for historical reasons, get heard when others don't. thank you so much. heard when others don't. thank you so much- it's _ heard when others don't. thank you so much. it's an _ heard when others don't. thank you so much. it's an absolute _ heard when others don't. thank you so much. it's an absolute pleasure l so much. it's an absolute pleasure to follow my dear friend, the member for wirral south. to follow my dear friend, the member forwirral south. i to follow my dear friend, the member for wirral south. i want to rise in support of the privileges committee report and pay tribute to them, to all the members, but particularly the chairman of this committee, the right honourable member for campbell and peckham. for the dillon suit —— diligence and evidence—based report they have taken an report that they have produced. the finding in that, i think, are clear. as an

evidence—based scientist, i see the line, the golden thread that's going through the report in terms of how they are using that evidence, and i think it is a very strong report in that regard. but what's so disappointing, as much as we have discussed this, it is exposing the shameful behaviour of a prime minister of this country. we talked about the impact that is happening across our country, but has international ramifications as well which we haven't discussed in detail. i have actually no doubt that boris johnson detail. i have actually no doubt that borisjohnson deliberately misled the house of commons, not just in relation to the parties that were reported. and while people in 0ldham east & saddleworth and across the country sacrificed so much during the pandemic, mrjohnson and his team had parties. as they

partied, they knew they were breaking the rules. as prime minister, he lied about it on the floor of the house and up to the community. i also have evidence of how the former prime minister deliberately deceived the house. in february 2021, in relation to the publication of covid contracts, the member for publication of covid contracts, the memberfor brighton publication of covid contracts, the member for brighton pavilion and the member for brighton pavilion and the memberfor member for brighton pavilion and the member for oxford western abington and i were involved in a high court action, which showed absolutely what contracts have been published according to law and what hadn't been. and borisjohnson called, saying "we have a high court decision. " this is the absolute goal of the man who, as i say, was prime minister. when i raise — and this gets back to the point my

honourable friend from wirral south made — when i raise this in the house, it wasn't listened to. it was a question, "this is your view." it was a question of view and i tried a number of occasions, including on the 20th of april 2021. but mr johnson's most recent antics are quite breathtakingly selfish. his denial is quite breathtaking. the absolute polar opposite of what the known principles, standards and public life that we all agreed to abide by demand of us. his pattern of behaviour underpinned by attitude that he is above the law has tarnished the reputation of the whole house and all of its parliamentarians. we are all part of the same branch and the democracy as a whole suffers. the group compassion and politics pulling has

showed eight out of ten people don't trust politicians. that is serious. it is the lowest level of trust that we have ever had by the people that we have ever had by the people that we represent. how can we represent people if they don't trust us. ? this report was ultimately about honesty. another of the seven learned principles of public life. it should mark a sea change with regard to the honesty and politics. in recent years, we have seen politicians believing they can mislead without consequence. earlier this year, i introduced an elective representative's code of conduct to this place, which proposed to establish an ethics commission to look at how we bring our political system into the 21st century. i have to disagree in some regards with my honourable friend, the member for rhonda. i think we are past the

point where we can say that we can govern ourselves. in my bill introduces a number of proposals within that which did look to strengthen these gaps as far as this is concerned. it also looks to ensure the rise in the ministerial standards is fully independent, which of course, he at the moment isn't. and is able to commission that his own, his or her own inquiries be subject to the whims of political leaders acting in the interest of their own internal party dynamics. while the content of the privileges committee report is a truly egregious example, it is far from the only one. ten days ago, i wrote to the prime minister asking him to explain the decision he took wrote to the prime minister asking him to explain the decision he took to ask the adviser ministerial staff to ask the adviser ministerial staff not to investigate allegations that not to investigate allegations that the home secretary pressured civil the home secretary pressured civil servants into assisting her with she servants into assisting her with she

a speeding fines she received. was at asked and he reviewed e—mail sent by the home office civil servants to the cabinet office's propriety team. they expressed