Boris Johnson’s partygate defences examined as report to rule on whether he misled parliament
The Privileges Committee is set to publish its long-awaited report into whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament over “Partygate” claims on Wednesday.
It is expected that the committee will conclude that Mr Johnson did mislead Parliament after the former prime minister resigned on Friday claiming he believed their “purpose from the beginning has been to find me guilty”.
“I take my responsibilities seriously. I did not lie, and I believe that in their hearts the Committee know it,” he said.
A Privileges Committee spokesperson said its report into whether the former Prime Minister misled MPs over partygate will be published “promptly”, after its members met on Monday to finalise its contents.
Here are the key points of Mr Johnson’s defence, and how the committee may consider them:
One of the times Mr Johnson is accused of having misled Parliament is when he told the Commons on 8 December 2022 that he had been “repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”.
But, in written evidence to the Privileges Committee, former director of communications Jack Doyle appeared to contradict this. He said: “Don’t think I advised the PM to say that – I mean that the socially distancing guidelines – to say they were followed completely, they are difficult things to say.”
Evidence from Martin Reynolds, Mr Johnson’s principal private secretary, also suggests he questioned “whether it was realistic to argue that all guidance had been followed at all times” ahead of the Commons statement.
The Times reports that the committee is expected to view this as evidence that Mr Johnson did deliberately mislead the Commons, as he was not given concrete assurances that rules were not broken.
When Mr Johnson appeared before the committee in March, its chair Labour MP Harriet Harman questioned Mr Johnson’s claims that he had been assured rules weren’t broken.
“If I was going 100 miles an hour and I saw the speedometer saying 100 miles an hour, it would be a bit odd, wouldn’t it, if I said, somebody assured me that it wasn’t,” she said.
Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin also quizzed Mr Johnson on this issue, asking him why he did not take the “advice of a lawyer” on the matter.
Mr Johnson branded his question “nonsense” in the testy exchange, and added: “I asked the relevant people. They were senior people. They’d be working very hard. They gave me a… clear account of what had happened.”
Mr Johnson has repeatedly claimed that some of the gatherings that took place in Downing Street which he attended were a “necessary” part of the working day and within coronavirus rules at the time.
In written evidence to the committee, he said he believed that a Christmas party held in 2020 was “firmly within the work exception”, and that social distancing was not always possible within Downing Street.
Speaking in March, the ex-PM also said: “There is nothing that strikes me as being against rules or guidance. It’s customary to say farewell to people in this country with a toast.”
He added it was “essential” to thank staff who were departing No 10, to help maintain morale.
But written evidence to the committee suggested that officials thought the events were “madness” and should have been shut down.
One unnamed official said: “He had the opportunity to shut them down, but joined in, made speeches, had a drink with staff.
“He could have taken the issue up with Martin Reynolds, his principal private secretary, to shut them down. He could see what was happening and allowed the culture to continue.
Exceptions to coronavirus rules at the time included “where the gathering is essential for work purposes or for the provision of voluntary or charitable services” under regulations in force before 1 June 2020, or “reasonably necessary” for work purposes under regulations in force from 1 June 2020.
The committee is expected to conclude that leaving drinks for staff and other events were not essential to the operation of Downing Street, according to The Times.
The former prime minister has admitted on several occasions that his statements to the Commons were misleading, but insists he made them in “good faith”.
In his written evidence to the committee, Mr Johnson said: “I accept that the House of Commons was misled by my statements that the rules and guidance had been followed completely at No.10.
“But when the statements were made, they were made in good faith and on the basis of what I honestly knew and believed at the time.”
“I did not intentionally or recklessly mislead the House on 1 December 2021, 8 December 2021, or on any other date. I would never have dreamed of doing so.”
The committee has reportedly concluded that Mr Johnson did mislead Parliament, but it is unclear whether it has been considered he did so “intentionally and recklessly.
Towards the end of Mr Johnson’s oral evidence session with the committee, Tory MP Sir Charles Walker asked him about anonymous quotes in some newspapers which questioned the legitimacy of the inquiry.
He said there had been “a concerted effort to de-legitimise the committee – to call it a kangaroo court” before asking if Mr Johnson would characterise the inquiry in those words.
Mr Johnson responded: “You can tell by my presence this afternoon, by the seriousness with which I have taken your questions, by my attempts to answer your questions in detail … how seriously I take you and your committee.”
Asked directly whether he agreed with the comments, he agreed that he “regrets” that some MPs had used the phrase, adding: “I deprecate the term you’ve just used. I don’t want to repeat it.”
He was also asked by Tory MP Alberto Costa if he would categorise the committee as a “witch hunt”. Mr Johnson responded: “I would wait to see how you would proceed with the evidence you have.”
In his 1000-word resignation letter published on Friday, Mr Johnson directly referred to the committee as a “witch-hunt” and said it was behaving like a “kangaroo court”.
It is widely expected that the committee will conclude in its report that these comments amounted to contempt of Parliament by Mr Johnson and his allies.
Mr Johnson repeated he had “anxieties” about the committee, but insisted he had “respect” for the work of the committee.
