Moves a motion noting with approval the Special Report from the Committee of Privileges. The report addresses matters of individual conduct and the integrity of the committee members, underlining the importance of parliamentary privilege. It also emphasises that Members should not impugn or intimidate those involved in such investigations. Additionally, it suggests informing the House of Lords about these issues for appropriate action. Mordaunt highlights the pre-emptive strike against undermining a Committee and expresses hope for civility amongst colleagues.

Some MPs attacked the personal character and integrity of individual members of the Committee from their TV shows, undermining democratic institutions but failing to stop the vote approving the report. Telling the truth is the foundation of a functioning Parliament; improper pressure on the Committee must be stopped in future. The named Tory MPs attempted to discredit the Committee and its conclusions, encouraging others to take part. The Committee detailed its processes in advance, ensuring fairness and transparency. Named MPs should apologise for their actions, as there were other legitimate ways open to them as MPs who want to influence any Privileges Committee inquiry.

Agrees with the report's recommendation that the House should maintain its protection of inquiries into individual conduct referred to the Committee of Privileges. He supports paragraph 8 which lists MPs' control over any Privileges Committee inquiry, including voting rights, submitting evidence, and commenting publicly on the final report.

Commends the motion that acknowledges the importance of the Privileges Committee in defending itself against a Minister misleading it. She criticises the pressure exerted by Boris Johnson and his allies on the Committee, which she describes as discrediting the integrity of its members and processes. She advocates for explicit protections to prevent interference similar to those in place for House of Commons standards cases.

Criticises the report’s title, questions its adherence to proper procedures and legitimacy. Argues for a need to adhere strictly to 'Erskine May' guidelines in addressing matters of privilege, expresses concerns about security implications but maintains that criticism is legitimate and necessary.

Intervenes to ask Rees-Mogg if he would like to apologise for referring to the Privileges Committee as a 'kangaroo court' and its members as 'marsupials'.

Asks Rees-Mogg whether comments made by Members named in the report raised significant security risks, leading to an urgent review of personal safety for Committee members.

Clarifies that footnote 10 refers specifically to Mr Johnson's case prior to this report and questions whether Rees-Mogg correctly interpreted the footnote in relation to Hoffman’s case.

Jenkinson disputed Harman's claim that he had called the Committee a 'witch hunt', stating that his tweet did not refer to the Committee. He sought clarification on how Members like him might seek redress in such circumstances.

Fabricant questioned whether it was courteous for the Committee to warn those listed in its report beforehand, suggesting that this would have given individuals an opportunity to address any mistakes before publication. He also suggested that it is discourteous to partly quote something without providing context.

Clarke-Smith inquired about assurances given by the Government regarding Harman's position as Chair of the Committee. He asked for clarification on what those assurances entailed and from whom they were received.

Leadsom stated that she cannot agree with Harman's premise that the Committee, as a result of being asked by the House to look into the behaviour of one of its Members, should be immune from any form of free speech. She expressed her disapproval and said she would not support the report.

Wright sought clarity on the part of the motion that impugns the integrity of members of the Committee during an inquiry. He asked if it is conceivable to impugn a member's integrity with evidence later, using existing mechanisms for such action.

Eagle agreed that if the motion did not pass, allowing open criticism of future committee members during inquiries would necessitate an external system to assess honesty in Parliament, which she deemed constitutionally novel and dangerous.

Nici questioned Harman about alleged collusion between Guardian reporters and Privileges Committee members before reports were published, seeking clarification on who had access to the reports beforehand.

Roberts asked if Sir Ernest Ryder was still involved in the preparation of the special report and confirmed that he found no impropriety in the work done by the Committee for this report.

Supports the motion as it is important for restoring respect to the Privileges Committee. She emphasises that this is an unprecedented situation with high stakes and warns of consequences if similar behaviour continues. Urges Members to consider seriously the implications of not voting for the motion, calling for apologies from those who have been disrespectful.

Ms Patel expressed concern over the process used by the Committee in naming Members without prior notification and argued that it undermines parliamentary traditions. She criticised the selective nature of the annex, suggesting it was not exhaustive or inclusive. Ms Patel also defended her right to speak freely on issues related to parliamentary privilege and accused others of placing undue pressure on the Committee during its investigations. She emphasised the importance of due process in such matters.

Mr Carter responded directly to interventions made by other Members, clarifying that there is no censure of individuals in the report as intended by the Committee. He also explained that the code for Members does not currently include protections against lobbying the Privileges Committee during its investigations and suggested amending this aspect.

Ms Eagle intervened to support Andy Carter's point, emphasising that criticism of a report should be reserved for after it is published and not interfere with the Committee’s process during investigations.

The initial Privileges Committee investigation into the former Prime Minister has set a precedent that if a Prime Minister deliberately misleads this House, there will be consequences. Chamberlain thanks Members on the Privileges Committee for their significant work and acknowledges the cross-party nature of the committee with a Conservative majority. She points out the importance of upholding integrity and accountability in government and criticises the current Prime Minister's lack of engagement with the report's findings. Chamberlain also emphasises that the Government missed an opportunity to set a precedent regarding consequences for those who obstruct independent Committees.

As Chair of the Procedure Committee, Karen Bradley apologises for not going into technical details and instead focuses on general points about parliamentary procedures. She emphasises the importance of Committees in scrutinizing legislation and behaviour within Parliament, highlighting that Members serve on these committees because they are asked to do so by the House. Bradley underscores that there are established ways to interact with Committees during their work, such as tabling early-day motions or making representations to them. However, she also stresses that once a report is published, it should be scrutinized in Parliament without undue influence or criticism outside formal parliamentary channels.

Johnson asks Bradley for clarification on whether Members can criticise the Privileges Committee's process outside of Parliament, such as through social media platforms like Twitter. She seeks to understand if there are other avenues available within Parliament to voice concerns or criticisms about committee procedures.

The Privileges Committee has had an important duty to fulfil. I want to put on the record my thanks to it for the work it has done, and in particular to its Chair, who has been a lightning rod for criticism... When we pick away at the threads that tie our system together, we need to be careful that we do not unravel the whole thing.

Just to clarify, is my right hon. Friend saying that if asked in general by perhaps a journalist for one’s opinion on such things, one should not give an opinion because one should leave it to the parliamentary process?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that Members of Parliament directly elected by our constituents have fewer rights to comment on social media and outside this House than ordinary members of the public and the press.

Given the hon. Member’s point about how we in this House are custodians, does he agree that a report of this nature should at least provide some evidence when it makes a statement such as ‘the most disturbing examples of the co-ordinated campaign’? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that statement. If you are custodians of the House...

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I respect the Privileges Committee's authority while disagreeing with some of its conclusions regarding Boris Johnson's report. Criticism of the Committee’s work can be legitimate, but it must not undermine or seek to influence ongoing inquiries. The motion before us aims to protect the Privileges Committee and ensure that there is no lobbying, intimidation, or impugning of integrity during an investigation. I support this protection but also suggest extending similar protections to the Standards Committee.

Welcomes the opportunity to speak on the issue. Emphasises the importance of Magna Carta and democratic lawmaking. Raises concerns about the Privileges Committee's role as judge, jury, and executioner without allowing MPs under investigation to defend themselves before report publication. Questions why previous instances of offensive speech were not penalised by the House.

Urges speakers to adhere to parliamentary rules, including avoiding direct references to other Members without prior notification. Reminds hon. Members that they cannot refer to other Members by name during debates.

Mr. Fabricant argued against the interference in the Privileges Committee and criticised emails received by committee members. He emphasised that it is wrong to interfere with any committee of the House, as it breaches parliamentary privilege. Mr. Fabricant also stated that his comments were spontaneous reactions to the behaviour of committee members during the hearing, particularly their lack of professionalism when Boris Johnson was giving evidence under oath.

Mr. Bottomley interjected to highlight an example from a form letter sent to colleagues on the Privileges Committee that called for members to protect their integrity by resigning, which he agreed was unacceptable.

Mr. Costa interjected to ask Mr. Fabricant if he now accepted that referring to the Privileges Committee as a 'kangaroo court' is wrong.

I have highlighted the comments made during my tenure on the Privileges Committee and emphasised that such conduct undermines the proper functioning of Parliament. I have also defended the integrity of those involved in the Committee, including the Mother of the House.

I echoed the thanks to the Chair of the Privileges Committee and distanced myself from any comments that might impugn her integrity. I also criticised what I perceived as a partisan tone in some of the debate, emphasising that this is an issue for all MPs regardless of party.

He intervened to support the idea that freedom of speech should not harm or unfairly impact others. He also questioned whether there has already been a chilling effect on free debate in Parliament due to threats made by other Members.

Congratulates speakers for their contributions, praises specific speeches for defusing the debate and focusing on key issues. Criticises the tendency to not know when to stop in controversial areas. Opposes sanctions against Committee members named in the report appendix. Suggests the Committee should have anonymised quotes to avoid justifying naming individuals. Emphasises that those who accept a judging process must also accept its result, using his parliamentary researcher's history as an example.

He emphasises the importance of respect for the House, its traditions, and processes. He recounts his experience being called to Westminster with short notice in December 2019 and feeling a duty and responsibility towards representing his community. He mentions meeting various colleagues including Lee Anderson from Ashfield and discusses his efforts to understand parliamentary procedures to avoid mistakes. He expresses frustration with the media's portrayal of MPs as untrustworthy, using examples like exaggerated conflicts of interest stories that mislead readers. He supports the importance of respecting the inquiry process regarding Boris Johnson’s conduct and criticises those who undermined this process after agreeing without dissent. He shares his personal experience being investigated for violating sexual misconduct policy and his subsequent silence out of respect for the House despite facing threats and bullying.

The Member agrees with her right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East that the hon. Member for Broxbourne is one of the kindest, finest and fairest Members in this place. She received a request from constituents to speak up about the current situation regarding freedom of expression and democracy. The Privileges Committee's actions are seen as unconstitutional and overreaching by her constituents. The Select Committees are political constructs and any decision brought before the House is inherently political. She refers to historical instances where censuring or expelling Members has damaged Parliament. She argues that the current Privileges and Standards Committees lack legitimacy compared to other Select Committees, which should be reformed for democratic accountability. She emphasises the importance of open political debate as a fundamental British value. The issue of accountability is crucial due to its impact on representation; she criticises the lack of natural justice and due process in the reports made by these committees. Finally, she argues that the actions of Members here affect broader society's perception of fairness and justice.

Expresses disappointment at not having the opportunity to review the report beforehand. Criticises leaks of information before official publication and questions the selection process for those included in the annex. Argues that the circumstances were unprecedented, involving the removal of a Prime Minister due to an inquiry leading to their resignation and loss of parliamentary privileges. Stresses that the Privileges Committee is not a court but must ensure fairness while upholding parliamentary sovereignty. Clarifies his comments made previously about the report and its conclusions. Emphasises the importance of scrutiny by Members and respects the work done by the Committee despite disagreements with its decisions. Defends free speech, due process, and fair accountability in light of international perceptions of British democracy.

Mr Carter argued that Members should refrain from making public comments while an investigation is ongoing, as this could interfere with the Committee's deliberations. He also mentioned receiving over 600 emails attempting to influence the committee's decision on a specific motion and emphasised the impartial advice received by Clerks of the House and Speaker’s Counsel.

Mrs Mordaunt welcomed Members' consideration of the issues at hand. She reiterated that the Committee is entitled to make the report as confirmed by Mr Carter, and clarified that no sanctions were suggested by the committee. She also highlighted different aspects of the report that members agreed or disagreed with and emphasised the importance of free speech with responsibility.