MP, Leader of the Labour
Party, opening the House of Commons debate on a motion
to refer the Prime Minister to the Standards and Privileges
Committee over Downing Street law-breaking, said:
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The motion I have tabled seeks to defend the simple principle -
That honesty, integrity and telling the truth matter in our
politics.
This is not a principle that I, or the Labour Party, have a
special claim to. It is a British principle, Cherished by
Conservatives for as long as their Party has existed. Embraced by
unionists and nationalist parties alike, and still guiding
Members from every political Party in this House. But it is a
principle under attack.
The Prime Minister has been accused of repeatedly, deliberately,
and routinely misleading this House over parties held in Downing
Street during lockdown. This is a serious and grave accusation,
it amounts to contempt of Parliament. It is not—and it should not
be— and accusation to be made lightly.
But rather than defend the Prime Minister from the accusation,
some of his supporters have sought to dismiss its importance.
They say there are worse crimes, he didn’t rob a bank, it was all
a long time ago.
Every time one of these arguments is trotted out, our standing as
a House falls a little further and our democracy becomes a little
weaker.
Because the conventions that Parliament must not be misled and
that we will not accuse each other of lying in this House are not
anachronisms. They are not curious quirks of this strange place.
They are the fundamental pillars on which our constitution stand
and they are observed wherever Parliamentary democracy thrives.
With them, our public debate is elevated.
When Members assume good faith on behalf of our opponents, we can
explore, test and interrogate our reasonable disagreements about
how to achieve our common goals and what our nation’s commons
goals should be.
This is what makes democracies make good decisions and avoid bad
ones. It is what makes democracies grow in ways that reflect the
hopes, and tackle the fears, of those that we represent.
It is what makes democracy thrive. It is what makes this House
thrive. It is what makes Britain thrive.
We need only look across the Atlantic to see what happens when
that faith is lost and there is no hope of reason resolving
disagreements.
A nation divided, living into two different worlds with their own
truths and their own alternative facts. The only hope of change,
the only hope of representation, rests in defeating the other
side. A winner takes all politics, where everyone loses out.
Our conventions and our traditions are not an accident. They have
been handed down to us as the tools we need to protect Britain
from that malaise. To preserve the democracy that those that came
before us have built.
The case against the Prime Minister is that he has abused those
tools - used them to protect himself, and turned them against the
very democracy they are supposed to support.
He has stood before this House and said things that are not true.
Safe in the knowledge that he will not be accused of lying. He
has stood at that despatch box and point blank denied rule
breaking took place, when it did.
As he did so, he was hoping to gain extra protected from our
assumption, and from the public assumption, that no Prime
Minister would deliberately mislead the House.
He has used our good faith, to cover up his misdeeds. Just as he
attacked and undermined the weaknesses in the Ministerial Code,
the Business Appointments Committee and the Standards procedure
Because after months of denials, of false assurances all the
rules were followed, of feigned outrage at his staff even
discussing rule breaking - we now know that the law broken.
We know that the Prime Minister himself broke the law. We know he
faces the possibility of further fines.
Because the police investigation is ongoing, we do not need to
make a final judgement about the Prime Minister’s contempt of
Parliament today. But we already know he has a case to answer.
Anyone who denies either has their head in the sand or have given
up interest in the truth for the sake of loyalty to a
law-breaking Prime Minister
So, the motion today would refer the matter to the committee for
Privileges. A committee with a government majority, reflecting
the balance of the House. So, no one can call this a partisan
stitch up.
That committee would only investigate the Prime Minister for
contempt once the police have concluded their investigation. So,
no one can say this is prejudicial to their rest of their
inquiry.
Any findings they come to, and sanctions they propose, would then
come back before the House as a whole. So, no one can say it is
too soon for the House to decide.
It is a system of self-governance, as it should be, because with
the great privilege that comes with sitting in this House, comes
the great to responsibility to protect the conventions that
underpin our democracy.
If we fail in our duty, if Members put party before country, the
public will not forgive and forget.
This will be the Parliament that failed. Failed to stand up for
honesty, integrity and telling the truth in politics. Failed to
stand up to a Prime Minister who seeks to turn our good faith
against us. Failed to stand up for our great democracy.
