house of lords. >> order, order. this is a public evidence session of the house of commons committee of privileges. the privileges committee purpose in this inquiry is to decide whether or not mr. johnson misled the house of commons, whether or not he had a contempt of the house or whether or not it was intentional or reckless. this is what the house of commons has required us to do by referring this matter to us in the motion which was carried without a vote against in april last year. misleading the house might sound like a technical issue, but it is a matter of great importance. our democracy is based on parliament scrutinizing legislation and holding the government to account for its actions. we proceed on the basis that what we are told by ministers is accurate. parliament expects proactive candor and transparency. if what ministers tell us is not the truth, we can't do our job. our democracy depends upon trust that what ministers tell m.p.'s in the house of commons is the truth, and without that trust, our entire parliamentary democracy is undermined. everyone makes mistakes and when ministers

boris johnson is one of— before the house of commons. e leaders he'll- johnson is one of three former conservative leaders he'll be l johnson is one of three former- conservative leaders he'll be voting against _ conservative leaders he'll be voting against it _ conservative leaders he'll be voting against it today, _ conservative leaders he'll be voting against it today, along _ conservative leaders he'll be voting against it today, along with - conservative leaders he'll be voting against it today, along with liz i against it today, along with liz truss — against it today, along with liz truss and _ against it today, along with liz truss and iain _ against it today, along with liz truss and iain duncan- against it today, along with liz truss and iain duncan save i against it today, along with liz truss and iain duncan save asl against it today, along with liz i truss and iain duncan save as well. there _ truss and iain duncan save as well. there was— truss and iain duncan save as well. there was some _ truss and iain duncan save as well

indeed you previously told the house of commons on the second of september, 2020, and i quote, it's very important to that we get people become into the workplace in a covid-secure way, unquote. then on the 9th of november, 2020, less than a week before the first of the gathering that i'll ask you about, you said at a covid press conference and i quote, neither mass testing nor progress on vaccines are at the present time a substitute for the national restrictions for social distancing and all the rest. so it is all the more important to follow the rules. unquote. and at the press conferences over this period you regularly repeated the phrase, hands, face, space while standing at podiums bearing this phrase. so there can be no doubt you understood what the guidance and rules meant and were intended to achieve. yes or no? >> yes. >> thank you. on the 13th of november, 2020, which we saw katherine west just asking about on the film earlier, there was an impromptu leaving gathering for your then-director of communications, lee kaine. this was held in the vestibule outside the press office i

house of lords. >> order, order. this is a public evidence session of the house of commons committee of privileges. the privileges committee purpose in this inquiry is to decide whether or not mr. johnson misled the house of commons, whether or not he had a contempt of the house or whether or not it was intentional or reckless. this is what the house of commons has required us to do by referring this matter to us in the motion which was carried without a vote against in april last year. misleading the house might sound like a technical issue, but it is a matter of great importance. our democracy is based on parliament scrutinizing legislation and holding the government to account for its actions. we proceed on the basis that what we are told by ministers is accurate. parliament expects proactive candor and transparency. if what ministers tell us is not the truth, we can't do our job. our democracy depends upon trust that what ministers tell m.p.'s in the house of commons is the truth, and without that trust, our entire parliamentary democracy is undermined. everyone makes mistakes and when ministers

you told the house of commons on the 11th told the house of commons on the llth of— told the house ofed to keep as all safe, _ which are designed to keep as all safe, so— which are designed to keep as all safe, so please, to repeat what you have heard — safe, so please, to repeat what you have heard so many times before, stay alert. — have heard so many times before, stay alert, maintain social distancing and keep washing your hands _ distancing and keep washing your hands. you agree those were the rules— hands. you agree those were the rules enforced at the time. yes, thank you _ rules enforced at the time. yes, thank you. lets _ rules enforced at the time. yes, thank you. lets turn _ rules enforced at the time. yes, thank you. lets turn first - rules enforced at the time. yes, thank you. lets turn first to - rules enforced at the time. yes, thank you. lets turn first to the | thank you. lets turn first to the unatherin thank you. lets turn first to the gathering of — thank you. lets turn first to the gathering of the _ thank you. lets turn first to the gathering of the 19th _ thank

published in the last few and has said that borisjohnson and this document does accept that the house of commons i'lljust read you a little bit of what he says. he accepts there house of commons was misled by his statements, but the rules and guidance had been followed at number ten. mrjohnson goes on, when the statements were made, they were made in good faith, on the basis of what i honestly knew and believed at the time. he goes on further to say that i did not intentionally or recklessly mislead the house in december 2021 and the 8th of december 2021 and the 8th of december that year or on any other date. i would never have dreamt of doing so. one of the key point to pull out, it is clear from the investigation that there is no evidence at all to support the allegation that i intentionally or recklessly misled the house. just lookin: at recklessly misled the house. just looking at point number six, boris johnson says, notwithstanding clearer evidential picture that emerges, despite the absence of any warnings or advice, it should be obvious to me that the rules and guidance were not being fo

should _ house of commons? through a by-election? should he - house of commons? house of commons? through a| by-election? should he lose his house of commons? through a - by-election? should he lose his seat by—election? should he lose his seat and his livelihood as a politician? i think he should. i don't think he is a suitable person to be in politics and not high office. it is bad enough they were having parties indiscriminately through these traumatic events. but then to lie about it and then to lie about lying about it and then to lie about lying about it, and also to be in charge of the pandemic response that led to one of the worst death tolls in the world, people are now still dying from covid—19, still suffering from covid—19, he has had such an impact on the government's pandemic response which is ongoing, there should be no place for him in politics in my view.— politics in my view. and his evidence. _ politics in my view. and his evidence, he _ politics in my view. and his evidence, he does - politics in my view. and his evidence, he does deny - politi

and what i saw what i had in my head when i was talking to the house of commons was a memory , a housewas a memory, a strong memory of people over a long period doing everything they could to stop the spread of disease within the building and just so we're clear at those events in the vestibule, the first pictures we saw what mitigate were put in place that were required by the guidance . were required by the guidance. so i i've i've listed some of them but . we avoided physical them but. we avoided physical contact we didn't for instance as the guidance says we didn't touch each other's pens . we touch each other's pens. we didn't pass stuff each other. if we could if we could possibly avoid it . we kept we kept those avoid it. we kept we kept those would that i wouldn't i would not wish to say that that was perfectly impermeable. people were passing drinks each other because we've seen the picture of course, and i'm not. but this is guidance . this is guidance. is guidance. this is guidance. and i'm not going pretend that it it was enforced rigidly, but that's explicitly what guidanc

should, that something that is notjust against him as a serial code but the resolution of the house of commonsas because _ -- the ministerial code. he said it was because sue _ -- the ministerial code. he said it was because sue gray _ -- the ministerial code. he said it was because sue gray was - was because sue gray was investigating. in terms of how the mps make the decision, are they getting any legal advice? in courts, as you know very well, there are different levels of trying to establish whether something is true or not, the level of evidence required etc.— or not, the level of evidence required etc. or not, the level of evidence reuuired etc. , required etc. boris johnson is the to- kc, required etc. boris johnson is the top kc, the _ required etc. boris johnson is the top kc, the top — required etc. boris johnson is the top kc, the top barrister - required etc. boris johnson is the top kc, the top barrister in - required etc. boris johnson is the top kc, the top barrister in the i top kc, the top barrister in the country in this area of law, but the committee has gone one better and

the house of commons is not composed of a load of judges. is composed of a of politicians , and they will make politicians, and they will make that judgement and they will have their vote on the basis of polity, believe me. and i understand that at least on the conservative side, it's quite likely to be a free now if boris is actually sanctioned by this committee to the base , suspended committee to the base, suspended for ten days or more and if the commons actually agrees with that and it's at least possible that and it's at least possible that that might happen , then the that that might happen, then the next stage could be an automatic byelection . it needs a number of byelection. it needs a number of collection of signatures. indeed, only 10,000 and he'll get that because labour will put everything into known date. i'm with you and that is very points. right. done then hadley will have its decision to take and they they don't agree with the way boris johnson has proved they can get rid of him if they do agree that the house commons has

questioning from brenda jenkins where he said, why if you knew you had to give statements to the house of commonset some and authoritative give you the confidence that the statements in the house of commons were true and it's notjust a smoking gun but talking significant is when he says he had assurances from people that he had assurances from people that he was acting within the rules, they didn't come from lawyers, they can come from civil servants, they came from political appointees inside downing street and i don't think that was the impression that the house of commons are given when borisjohnson was making his statements at the time and parties having taken place.— having taken place. interpreted as the wa in having taken place. interpreted as the way in which _ having taken place. interpreted as the way in which boris _ having taken place. interpreted as the way in which boris johnson - having taken place. interpreted as. the way in which boris johnson runs the way in which borisjohnson runs the way in which borisjohnson runs the ship. the way in which boris johnson runs the shi. �* the w

you're not actually encouraged to make speeches in the of speeches in the house of commons, house of , in the house of lords, because we all up on because if we all stood up on our legs and spoke as our hind legs and spoke as frequently want to, frequently as we might want to, nobody ever get home and nobody would ever get home and nobody would ever get home and no business get done. no business would ever get done. so 16 times doesn't seem to me too real question is, too few. the real question is, is he constituency mp? is he a good constituency mp? does he look after the does he does he look after the correspondence that comes in from his constituents, the individual we call individual case work, as we call it, people who write to him it, the people who write to him with problems they get with problems and they get answers and make answers to jersey and make inquiries on their behalf. of course, he staff helping course, he has staff helping him to mp does . staff to do that. every mp does. staff paid for by the by the authorities by parliament. but does he do that? does he go to his

but i think, sadly, that too few people in the house of commons who realised that the role of the house of commons is to scrutinise everything, even an emergency and we had the powers to scrutinise those and we didn't use them. and i mean went along with having a lockdown for the first few weeks because i, i bought into the idea that the hospitals weren't in a to state with it. but thereafter i was against any further lockdowns , i was against further lockdowns, i was against the mask and all the rest of it. and i think a lot more of my colleagues would have been in similar frame of mind if been presented with the facts. but of course, we weren't allowed to have no. and we are getting the facts. all the european countries have done their reports, reached their conclusions. they're attempting to for the future to learn lessons for the future . the swedes are particularly smug i think not go along touted achieved a better result less harm . when are we going to get harm. when are we going to get what are we going to get an official inquiry? are going official inquiry? when are going to wh

the house of commons is not composed of a load of judges. is composed of a of politicians , and they will make politicians, and they will make that judgement and they will have their vote on the basis of polity, believe me. and i understand that at least on the conservative side, it's quite likely to be a free now if boris is actually sanctioned by this committee to the base , suspended committee to the base, suspended for ten days or more and if the commons actually agrees with that and it's at least possible that and it's at least possible that that might happen , then the that that might happen, then the next stage could be an automatic byelection . it needs a number of byelection. it needs a number of collection of signatures. indeed, only 10,000 and he'll get that because labour will put everything into known date. i'm with you and that is very points. right. done then hadley will have its decision to take and they they don't agree with the way boris johnson has proved they can get rid of him if they do agree that the house commons has

we've heard reaction already in the house of commons from . yvette house of commons from. y who said the home secretary who said the home secretary on a statement had been dangerously complete . and been dangerously complete. and she's actually now talking a little more ahead of sir keir giving his reaction. it's just fabulous what she's got to say in area. as someone who worked so closely on the overhaul policing in northern ireland, as someone who's seen closer hand the kinds of leadership strength and determination that are needed to restore confidence in a police force. and also, who knows what can be done . someone knows what can be done. someone who's worked so closely with the police to prosecute some of the most dangerous criminals and terrorists and has set such a clear standard and made clear that our response to baroness cases to the report is part of our mission. the crime mission that keir has set for the labour party and the next labour government to britain's streets safe . introduce keir starmer , safe. introduce keir starmer, leader of the labour party . le

the political exchange we saw in the house of commons. the difficulty is ublic house of commons. ion _ house of commons. the difficulty is public opinion doesn't _ house of commons. the difficulty is public opinion doesn't always - house of commons. the difficulty is public opinion doesn't always wait i public opinion doesn't always wait for inquiries, we all make up our minds about something. people express their opinions on social media, there are campaign groups, whether it is the public bodies or those representing bereaved families, who will in a sense have been involved in this debate before. it is encoding in a vacuum, and that is presumably part of the problem. he said he was against the lockdown, although she says that wasn't what motivated her. she believes it's in the public interest to be made public and there was no guarantee it would be published. i was public and there was no guarantee it would be published.— would be published. i was given it incompetence. — would be published. i was given it incompetence, and _ would be published. i was given it incompetence, and

that recommendation then has to be endorsed by the house of commons and thenif endorsed by the house committed a serious contempt and trying to spend him for the ten day period, johnson would be

but i think, sadly, that too few people in the house of commons who realised that the role of the housef commons is to scrutinise everything, even an emergency and we had the powers to scrutinise those and we didn't use them. and i mean went along with having a lockdown for the first few weeks because i, i bought into the idea that the hospitals weren't in a to state with it. but thereafter i was against any further lockdowns , i was against further lockdowns, i was against the mask and all the rest of it. and i think a lot more of my colleagues would have been in similar frame of mind if been presented with the facts. but of course, we weren't allowed to have no. and we are getting the facts. all the european countries have done their reports, reached their conclusions. attempting conclusions. they're attempting to lessons for the future to learn lessons for the future . the swedes are particularly smug i think not go along touted achieved a better result less harm . when are we going to get harm. when are we going to get what are we going to get an official inquiry? going official inq

what is in dispute here is, what did he know at that time when he stood up in the house of commons? , that is looking into this. they are looking into whether he impeded the normal functioning of parliament in terms of what he said. let's assume for a moment that they think he did mislead parliament. what can they do? they could ask him to apologise. it depends again, the scale of wrongdoing that they might think has happened and the reason for it. they might ask him to apologise and that is one possibility. they might suspend him for a few days, another possibility. or, if that suspension were to be ten sitting days or more, we then get into the area of what's called a recall petition, where his constituents would be able to say we don't want this guy as our mp any more, we want a by—election. if 10% of constituents sign up to that, borisjohnson's political career could effectively be over. so, today we had, obviously every politician has been asked this at the moment, but 0liver dowden was asked about this this morning and this is what he had to say. i have known borisjohnson reaso

it's about whether moments like this, in the house of commons, were misleading. d, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times. before he turns up to face questions from a committee of mps tomorrow, we've seen today four main themes to his defence. he accepts that the house of commons "was misled" in some instances, but adds... there's a dollop of blame for the advice he got, or didn't get. mrjohnson says... he adds that it was... "..self—evidently reasonable for me to rely on assurances that i received from my advisers." the committee alleges that it ought to have been obvious to him that the rules or guidance wasn't followed. he replies... "if it was obvious to me, then it would have been obvious to the dozens of others who also attended." mrjohnson also criticises the committee... "it is important to record my disappointment at the highly partisan tone and content." here we are again with borisjohnson making himself the centre of the story. i think after all of his lies, scandals and failures, the british publicjust want to see an end to

in the house of commons. ined details of new illegal migration bill which would remove and ban people who enter the uk illegal . this bill enables detention of illegal arrivals without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention until they can be removed . it puts a duty, can be removed. it puts a duty, the home secretary, to remove illegal entrants and will radically narrow the number of challenges appeals that can suspend removal . only those suspend removal. only those under 18 medically unfit fly or at a real risk , serious and at a real risk, serious and irreversible harm . an irreversible harm. an exceedingly high in the country we are removing to will be able to delay their removal any claims will be heard remotely . claims will be heard remotely. after removal . now more leaked after removal. now more leaked whatsapp messages suggest the former health secretary, matt hancock , considered withholding hancock, considered withholding for learning disability in order to pressure an mp int

this is a public evidence session of the house of commons committee of privilege . or not mr. johnson misled the house of commons, whether or not he committed a contempt of the house and whether or not this was in any way intentional or reckless . this is what the house reckless. this is what the house of has required us to do by referring this matter to us in. the motion which was carried without a vote against in last year , misleading house might year, misleading house might sound like a technical issue, but is it is a matter of great import since our democracy is based on parliament screw analysing legislation and holding the government to account for its actions as we proceed the basis that what we told by ministers is accurate parliament expects proactive candour and, transparency . if candour and, transparency. if what ministers tell us is not the truth, we can't do our job. our democracy depends upon trust that what tell mps in the house of commons is the truth and without that trust are tight. parliamentary democracy undermined . everyone makes undermined. e

more precisely, in the committee on privileges of the house of commons. finally waited for boris jones , where we had to answer for those very parties on down street during one of the waves of the coronavirus pandemic, i remember at first denying the fact of such violations. however, then. still confirmed that they really were. and will he be able to achieve forgiveness, we know our hill roll not alexander khabarov he goes into direct contact with alexander hello so, what does jones have for some convincing excuses. well, the fact is that johnson looked rather pale today, because he began in good health, when he read out , prepared a joint text with lawyers , finished what is called a funeral, when they began to hand over very specific questions and asked him to explain, in fact, what happened in his residence. and why did he argue in parliament that at parties that were held directly in that the house where at that moment he was and lived and even directly took part in them. why did he argue in parliament that all the rules were subliminal to which johns

it all comes down to whether this was knowingly deceiving the house of commons or if it was reckless,ch i believe will carry a slightly lesser charge against him, get less punishment. >> in terms of his attempts to criticize or put question on the committee itself, is it the right practice to go by? >> no, that is the wrong way to enter a committee such as this, or any committee. you don't start out from the precept of you are wrong, i'm right, and i'm going to tell you how right i am, which is how mr. johnson turned up at the committee. i think it leads people to have their backs put up, they are being questioned, integrity being questioned without them having even stted the process. i think mr. johnson was ill-advised, sending out his friends and supporters to put out rumors it was a kangaroo court, i think you don't go around these things. it is the house of commons wish to happen. >> this is the process, but depending on how the committee judges and finds in its deliberations, the sanctions, and the punishment will come from mp's. in this context, boris johnson is addressing two a

the home secretary, suella braverman, made a statement to the house of commons. use of commons. here are the key parts of what she said.— parts of what she said. in the face of today because _ parts of what she said. in the face of today because my _ parts of what she said. in the face of today because my global - parts of what she said. in the face . of today because my global migration crisis, yesterday's laws are simply not fit for purpose. —— today's global migration crisis. to anyone proposing de facto open borders to limited safe and legal routes is the alternative, let's be honest, there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. let's be clear. they are coming here. we've seen a 500... we've seen a 500% increase in small boats crossings in two years. and this, mr speaker, is the crucial point of this bill. they will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed. removed back to your country if it's safe or to a safe country, a sa

and i think the way— the house of commons. and i think the way he — the house of commons. ested that he had been reassured that he _ the way he suggested that he had been reassured that he was - the way he suggested that he had| been reassured that he was within the guidance _ been reassured that he was within the guidance, that's— been reassured that he was within the guidance, that's the _ been reassured that he was within the guidance, that's the problem. | the guidance, that's the problem. just a _ the guidance, that's the problem. just a quick— the guidance, that's the problem. just a quick thought _ the guidance, that's the problem. just a quick thought on _ the guidance, that's the problem. just a quick thought on this - the guidance, that's the problem. just a quick thought on this one. i the guidance, that's the problem. i just a quick thought on this one. as you say, borisjohnson came in a very, very clear in his own mind that the inquiry had no evidence upon which to base the case. do you think something emerged during that three—hour sequence that was evidence?

, it will members of the it will be for members of the house to decide. and house of commonsthink on duty as i think on duty bound as a government minister to respect the independence , the house of the independence, the house of commons, to make own commons, to make its own determinations to determinations and not to give that commentary. i know that bofis that commentary. i know that boris will has a his arguments make a strong case to make and he will make that case to the committee i know you've got a very wide reaching reach brief at the cabinet office that you've been involved in some of the coronation planning. have you received your invitation and how many and do we think are going to attend the ceremony on may the sixth ? well i think the may the sixth? well i think the convention is, which i think will be followed, again, that cabinet ministers do attend the coronation. so i would hope to be and i think i have been ianedin be and i think i have been invited in that capacity as a cabinet minister. invited in that capacity as a cabinet minister . sadly, there cabinet m

from the house of commons . was small breaking news . we're being told that news. we're being told that johnson's written defence to the allegations that he lied to parliament over the so—called party has now been handed to the privileges committee that's being reported by the pa news agency. a source to the former prime minister saying boris's formal submission has made to the committee as planned . the the committee as planned. the committee controlled the timing of that publication. we encourage them to publish it as soon as possible. now earlier downing street had denied delaying the announcement because of the official spokesman saying it's a committee that's carry out a function. asked to by parliament. it's a parliamentary matter and therefore leader of the house sets out how we would want parliamentarians to with it. tom assistant deputy political editor with us. clearly we were getting into questions that his submission is fairly comprehensive. it's not just a one side of a full. yes, this is lengthy sub

have to say that that second interview done just a few after he definitively said no to the house of commonsed, how can i put it pretty shifty . but ahead of looked, how can i put it pretty shifty. but ahead of this committee meeting that will take place this four hour grilling tomorrow afternoon . boris tomorrow afternoon. boris johnson has put out , i think, johnson has put out, i think, a very key state moment today. he accepts that . did ms. lee accepts that. did ms. lee parliament. i accept that the house of commons was misled by my statements that the rules and guidance i could be incomplete completely followed and unbuttoned. so what he's saying is i did mislead parliament, but it wasn't my fault, guv , because it wasn't my fault, guv, because people at number 10 told me that actually everything we were doing was within the rules. so my question to you is, do you believe , boris? give me your believe, boris? give me your views of garage at gbnews.uk . i views of garage at gbnews.uk. i have to say this and a lot of you watching this and listening to this will not like this one little b

but but fundamentally keeping him in the house of commons, that's that's what question that what the estion now that , think a very good , i think is a very good analysis. well, we'll see what happens over the course of the next days . i have to say, next few days. i have to say, i think to actually prove that some fully. yes. he misled parliament. i've said for the last 18 months that it was obvious that misled parliament, but to actually prove fairly that he wilfully misled parliament is a very difficult thing. and that's why alex is right. ultimately it'll be tory mps that decide his fate in minute. lord green house will join me. former deputy mayor for policing london is dame louise casey. right when she decries the met police as being institutionally racist, homophobic . institutionally racist, homophobic. in fact, virtually every crime you can commit in modern britain . is she right? modern britain. is she right? does the met any breaking up or is it simply over the top? back with you in a couple of minutes so your reactions to my question, do we believe boris is telling the tru

the urgent question in house of commons. lots of in the house of commons. uestion marks over sue grey's appointment there and whether or not should any of not should any kind of relationship sit with some of the labour policy before hand and frankly integrity of and as well frankly integrity of the civil service . other news, the civil service. other news, though, as well, we have got the man himself, prince harry, back in hot water. harry has basically promoted would say promoted needs drugs for mental health. and a lot of people are saying harry is bad for your mental health and it can kill you. meghan markle's cop you. meghan markle's also cop two rock, two as well. chris rock, prominent american prominent black american comedian, has said that. meghan markle the hands of our markle face by the hands of our royal was racism. royal family was not racism. it was normal in law, drama, all that coming your way and much, much more. obviously and 5 pm. you lucky people saying it's . you lucky people saying it's. a just a quick reminder of the email gbviews@gbne

he accepts that the house of commons was misled in some instances, but adds, when the statements wereknew and believed at the time. i did not intentionally or recklessly mislead the house. there is a dollop of blame for the advice he got, or didn't get. mrjohnson says... he adds that it was... the committee alleges that it or to have been obvious to him that the rules or guidance wasn't followed. he replies, if it was obvious to me... mrjohnson also criticises the committee. me... mrjohnson also criticises the committee-— committee. here we are again with boris committee. here we are again with ltoris johnson _ committee. here we are again with boris johnson making _ committee. here we are again with boris johnson making himself i committee. here we are again with boris johnson making himself the l borisjohnson making himself the centre of the story. i think after all of his lies, scandals and failures, the british publicjust want to see an end to this soap opera. want to see an end to this soap o era. ., . want to see an end to this soap oera, ., ., ., ., want to see an end to this s

i i'm on my way back to the house of commons where i'll find out more about it. me for not commenting too much until i know the story. now, of course, kaczynski thank so much for kaczynski, thank you so much for joining here this morning to joining us here this morning to talk through and react to those stories that we really appreciate time. now should say that neil coyle has been recommend for suspension for five days. that suspension has not yet taken place. there is a that takes place now . but moving that takes place now. but moving on, we were talking a little about prosperity there , about about prosperity there, about the relative prosperity of poland , france and the united poland, france and the united kingdom . well, the legatum kingdom. well, the legatum institute's prosperity index report was released week monitoring global prosperity across the developed and developing economies and of course, how the pandemic has impacted these countries. well, i'm delighted be joined live in the studio by dr. stephen bryan, the studio by dr. stephen bryan, the dire

and that is, in fact, of the house of commons. d them rather similar and the whole point of debate is to listen, to learn, even change your mind during it and that's what's lacking at the moment . what's lacking at the moment. final question, your best political or your best scoop ? political or your best scoop? choose. choose which one you like best. it's got to be cecil parkinson eavesdropper. going to have no question of that. did you ever speak to you after that? yes but not in a terribly friendly way. well, i will always talk to in a friendly way . viewers is looking forward to seeing even more of you than they have already. and i'm certainly looking forward to formally being colleagues come tomorrow nigel nelson to thank. coming up , tomorrow nigel nelson to thank. coming up, leader of the scottish conservatives douglas ross of invite you to say something nice . her yeah something nice. her yeah absolutely. for one very good reason that we had to be on together and she still got to pick up. i bet that she wouldn't be the lead

god actually occasionally in the house of commons . but you're house of commons.ome on very regularly into political discussion . do into political discussion. do you think william hague . right, you think william hague. right, when he said that nobody who now not in favour of gay marriage could become a leader, the conservative party and ruling out anyone who shares the orthodox teaching of the church. we both belong to. well, not only our church. i mean, that is the teaching of islam as well. and that that is also in it. and it's vague way still the teaching of the church of england, because you cannot have a priest performing gay in an anglican church just so it is very widely held by different religions. but what really struck me this, you know, kate forbes was challenged and they said would she want to reverse the measure ? you know, wouldn't the measure? you know, wouldn't you want to undermine it in any one? she said no. but she answered straightforward widely when i asked, she been when i asked, had she been voting which way would voting on it, which way w

i have to say if i was accused lawbreaking and i had to give undertakings to the house of commons oflaces, i would the advice of a lawyer. it must have been. yes, obvious to you at the time and even obvious on reflection afterwards , as on reflection afterwards, as this whole thing broke you that it was in breach of workplace guidance relating to social. would it not have been obvious you that that was in breach of the election? are you not naming these officials who you say were giving these assurances because 7 giving these assurances because ? you can't remember who they were? there has been a concerted to de—legitimize the committee to de—legitimize the committee to call us a kangaroo . have you to call us a kangaroo. have you characterise this as a kangaroo court ? if you look if you look court? if you look if you look at what sue gray has to say, but we're not relying on sue grey's. isn't that ironic? the let me be clear . even isn't that ironic? the let me be clear. even if you despise boris johnson and hope he never returns number 10, this committee must not be allowed to dri

the most serious punishment normally applied by the house of commons is suspension from the house of unknowingly. how does it get corrected? it would _ knowingly or unknowingly. how does it get corrected? it would normally l it get corrected? it would normally get corrected by the number of parliament concerned, going to the speaker or officers who work there, to say he would like to make a statement to put the record straight on a particular matter. because he unknowingly made a mistake at some particular point in the statements he made, but in this case, of course, he made a large number of statements denying that there had been a breach of the rules, and he has not taken any opportunity to put the record straight. what do you make of the defence line being he said there was no evidence he knowingly misled parliament? well, the privileges committee will look at them knowingly, and if people are interested, they should look at the report, it isn�*t too long. it gives a great deal of evidence, you have to look at the footnotes as welcome, where they are referring to either whatsapp m

i have to say if i was accused lawbreaking and i had to give undertakings to the house of commons ofll places, i would the advice of a lawyer. it must have been. yes, obvious to you at the time and even obvious on reflection afterwards , as on reflection afterwards, as this whole thing broke you that it was in breach of workplace guidance relating to social. would it not have been obvious you that that was in breach of the election? are you not naming these officials who you say were giving these assurances because 7 giving these assurances because ? you can't remember who they were? there has been a concerted to de—legitimize the committee to de—legitimize the committee to call us a kangaroo . have you to call us a kangaroo. have you characterise this as a kangaroo court ? if you look if you look court? if you look if you look at what sue gray has to say, but we're not relying on sue grey's. isn't that ironic? the let me be clear . even isn't that ironic? the let me be clear. even if you despise boris johnson and hope he never returns number 10, this committee must not be allowed to

borisjohnson may have repeatedly misled the house of commons over gatherings at downing street duringtrictions. mps investigating his conduct during partygate say that evidence strongly suggests that breaches of coronavirus rules inside number 10 would have been "obvious" to mrjohnson. the former prime minister was among those fined by police for breaking lockdown rules at gatherings in downing street. he said there was no evidence he "knowingly" misled parliament. mrjohnson is due to give evidence to the mps later this month. our political correspondent helen catt reports. did borisjohnson did boris johnson know did borisjohnson know more about lockdown parties in downing street than he told mps? for months now mps on the privileges committee have been building a picture. they have studied photos with lots of booze but little social distancing, taking evidence and even gone on a tour of number 10. the report says the evidence suggests breaches of guidance would have been obvious to mrjohnson at the time he was at the gatherings. i mrjohnson at the time he was at the unatherins. , .,

and that is, in fact, of the house of commons. d them rather similar and the whole point of debate is to listen, to learn, even change your mind during it and that's what's lacking at the moment . what's lacking at the moment. final question, your best political or your best scoop ? political or your best scoop? choose. choose which one you like best. it's got to be cecil parkinson eavesdropper. going to have no question of that. did you ever speak to you after that? yes but not in a terribly friendly way. well, i will always talk to in a friendly way . viewers is looking forward to seeing even more of you than they have already. and i'm certainly looking forward to formally being colleagues come tomorrow nigel nelson to thank. coming up , tomorrow nigel nelson to thank. coming up, leader of the scottish conservatives douglas ross of invite you to say something nice . her yeah something nice. her yeah absolutely. for one very good reason that we had to be on together and she still got to pick up. i bet that she wouldn't be the lead

now, boris the house of commons?s allies are largely being in the mainstream media hunt to bring him down, but when they are given the opportunity to speak publicly , they are horrified . publicly, they are horrified. how can a handful of members of parliament and the committee know really be that object in light of some of the individual comments that have been made? i don't want to name people, but you know, it is a fact. the lack of transparency, lack of accountability. i there is a culture of collusion quite frankly, i'm concerned that it will be a witch hunt and a concern to read papers that obviously are being briefed by everybody left, right and centre of we're going to of concern that we're going to get a mccarthy like approach to justice on the privileges the committee has decided to stand outside the rule of law and to abandon justice they denied him access to proper legal counsel. they've denied legal counsel the ability to ask questions. they are going to edit defence, continue court which ed defends . de

house of - lacking in the polls? watching the i exchanges in the house of commons todayit exchanges in the house of commons today it is on the front foot with this issue, there was cheering from the tory backbenchers and jeering at sir keir starmer�*s questions, rishi sunak seemed more confident than usual with his answers. they feel labour does not have a plan to tackle what the conservatives at least feel is an important issue, one of rishi sunak�*s fight stated political priorities, but that has not stopped a lot of criticism coming the way of the government from sir keir starmer, the labour party and elsewhere about the latest plan. sir keir starmer puts it is what he sees as the latest utter failure of the government to tackle this issue. he was trying to pin down the prime minister on how many people have been deported over existing laws the government has brought in and when it plans to have the system in place of turning people back and sending them away, because it is not something sir keir starmer has made a political priority of his own, there is a dangerfor him that priority of his own, there is a danger f

bill to the house of commons. a duty on ministers to detain and deport anyone who enters the country illegally, though the government has admitted the bill does �*push the boundaries of international law'. refugee charities and the opposition labour party have called the new plan �*unworkable�*. from dover, duncan kennedy reports. dover yesterday, and more migrants brought ashore after being picked up in the channel. 16,000 people came across like this in the past year, 3,000 more have travelled this year. the government says it has to act to stop these kinds of numbers. we have seen a 500% increase in small boat crossings in two years, and this, mr speaker, is the crucial point of this bill. they won't stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter britain illegally you will be detained and swiftly removed. the new measures will come in the illegal migration bill, which will say that anyone arriving by small boat will be unable to claim asylum. they will be removed to rwanda or another "safe" third coun

now, boris the house of commons?s allies are largely being in the mainstream media hunt to bring him down, but when they are given the opportunity to speak publicly , they are horrified . publicly, they are horrified. how can a handful of members of parliament and the committee know really be that object in light of some of the individual comments that have been made? i don't want to name people, but you know, it is a fact. the lack of transparency, lack of accountability. i there is a culture of collusion quite frankly, i'm concerned that it will be a witch hunt and a concern to read papers that obviously are being briefed by everybody left, right and centre of we're going to of concern that we're going to get a mccarthy like approach to justice on the privileges the committee has decided to stand outside the rule of law and to abandon justice they denied him access to proper legal counsel. they've denied legal counsel the ability to ask questions. they are going to edit defence, continue court which ed defends . de

this is a proceeding of the house of commons. lot legal feel a lot like legal proceedings using proceedings they'll be using that of language, but that same sort of language, but ultimately this committee of seven then can decide what seven mps then can decide what punishment is recommended. if at all for the former prime minister and then that's voted back. i recommend back. and i recommend punishment, yeah punishment, do you think? yeah because. yeah, but but then what the timings on that tom. it's not like they're going to sit at the end of 3 hours and say right well you've got to go and, you know, 100 lines. but know, write 100 lines. but i mean, very school mean, it feels very school making this school and is making this school and this is what like. well, they what it feels like. well, they go decide and do we go away and decide and do we know the timescale will be know what the timescale will be on we don't know precisely on that? we don't know precisely what the timescale would be on that. course, what we that. but of cou

extremely i don't thin house of commons, but with the house of commons, but with a form, prime ministerminister get suspended from the house of commons. serious. pretty commons. serious. it's a pretty serious thing. that committee is chaired labour chaired by the labour mp, harriet who know has harriet harman, who we know has already public, say that already gone public, say that bofis already gone public, say that boris the rules boris johnson broke the rules long was in long before she was put in charge of committee . so charge of this committee. so she's mind up already. she's made her mind up already. now the report is now the sue gray report is interesting. that was going to form a part the form a large part of the committee's deliberations. yeah is disqualified from is that now disqualified from the privileges committee investigation ? because people investigation? because people are rightly calling into are now rightly calling into question whether she was and observer. we don't know when started talking to keir starmer but is going to be his chief of staff . well i mean this sue