In full: Newbury MP Laura Farris on Boris Johnson

In the end, was it about Chris Pincher? Not really. Disgraceful though it was that a known sexual predator had been promoted to any role in Government, let alone one that gave him responsibility for the welfare of junior MPs.

In truth, the attrition of trust and morale began with the Owen Paterson debacle and, except for a brief reprieve at the start of the Ukraine War, had been growing ever since.

I do not deny Boris Johnson’s considerable strengths. He won a massive majority just over two years ago breaking a political deadlock which had toxified Westminster. He provided excellent leadership over Ukraine. He sorted out a procurement and logistical effort on the vaccines that secured the fastest rollout in Europe. And even though levelling-up is still at a nascent stage, he nonetheless instilled a new optimism in areas like the north-east which have been neglected and, frankly, patronised by successive Governments for years.

But whatever your views of his political performance, it was his personal failings that brought him down. And in particular, his response to each scandal as it arose. Deflecting blame onto others after the Owen Patterson affair. Establishing a shadow whipping operation to patrol the corridors and sniff out dissent after Partygate – then promoting those who had participated including Chris Pincher.

But for many of us the Sue Gray report was the final straw: revealing a string of unethical and disastrous parties, some planned in advance and which organisers knew to be wrong. Vomit up the walls, booze on the carpets, cleaners and security staff belittled while citizens endured the most severe restrictions on their personal liberties. The rules were not arbitrary. They were decided upon by the Prime Minister and were designed to save lives during an unprecedented public health crisis. Lockdowns came with profound and sometimes devastating consequences, especially for those who could not be with their loved ones when they died. Whether Mr. Johnson knew about all of this (which I accept remains a matter of inquiry), he nonetheless presided over the culture that facilitated it.

I recognise that Mr. Johnson had some strong supporters in West Berkshire and that not everyone will agree with me, but in my view these events have had a corrosive effect on public trust and his leadership had become untenable. For that reason, I was among the 148 Conservative MPs who voted against him in June.

When I resigned as a PPS at the Foreign Office a month ago, I did so in order to sit in judgment on Mr. Johnson as a Member of the Privileges Committee. If we were to find that he “knowingly mislead” the House, it would amount to contempt of Parliament which is a resignation matter. I made this decision at the time because I believe that standards in public life matter and our work felt of considerable constitutional importance. However, if this inquiry now takes place at all (which I doubt), Mr. Johnson will be a backbench MP rather than the Prime Minister and the issue of his leadership is now resolved.

I have not decided who I will back in the future leadership race. But my support will go to a unifying candidate who demonstrates moderate Conservative views, the best intellectual and practical skills for meeting the considerable challenges facing the nation, together with a strong sense of personal integrity and respect for the rule of law. I look forward to new leadership and a new direction in the coming months.