Boris Johnson faces a formal reprimand for recklessly misleading parliament after MPs investigating the Partygate scandal denounced his “weak” explanations and suggested he had misinterpreted Covid guidance.
The former prime minister was left fighting for his political career after a galling three-and-a-half-hour trial session in which he repeatedly claimed that 10-day matches, with alcohol and little social distancing, were “necessary” for work purposes.
Harriet Harman, chair of the privileges committee investigating whether Johnson deliberately misled MPs about lockdown gatherings, expressed dismay at the “flimsy nature” of the assurances she received that the events were within the rules.
Bernard Jenkin, a senior Conservative MP on the committee, told him that the cross-party group of MPs disagreed with his interpretation of the guide. “The guidance doesn’t say you can have a thank you party and have as many people in the room as you want,” he added.
His comments seem to indicate that the committee is considering concluding that Johnson deliberately misled the House of Commons when reporting after Easter, although sources suggested it was possible they could recommend a penalty just below that required to trigger a by-election.
Johnson’s dramatic return to the political spotlight came as Rishi Sunak was struggling to keep the Conservative Party on track after a turbulent year, narrowly avoiding a too damaging Commons rebellion over Brexit and finally publishing its long-awaited tax data in the middle of the long testing session.
Sunak won a vote on his revised post-Brexit Northern Ireland trade plan, with 22 of his own MPs voting against the deal, including Johnson and Liz Truss, meaning he didn’t have to rely on Labor votes to approve it.
The prime minister was accused by political opponents of “sneaking out” his tax data, which he promised to publish for the first time last summer and which showed he earned almost £2m last year through income and capital gains. , mainly from investments in the US.
Johnson has tried to draw Sunak further into the party gate scandal by suggesting that if the Covid rules had been broken in Downing Street, then it too should have been “obvious” to the current Prime Minister as he spent time in the building.
In its interim report this month, the committee said the evidence “strongly suggests” that the guideline breaches should have been obvious to Johnson when he drafted the rules, and he may have misled Parliament four times when he said all rules and guidance had been followed. Following.
At the start of the hearing, Johnson swore an oath on the King James Bible, saying that “hand on heart” he had not lied to the House of Commons, instead apologizing for “what happened during my shift”. However, he said the committee “had nothing to show” that it had been warned about illegal parties during the lockdowns.
He vigorously defended several lockdown events as having been “essential”, including one in which he was depicted raising a glass at a farewell. However, he admitted of the social distancing guidance: “I’m not going to pretend that it was rigidly enforced.”
Johnson has argued that evidence collected from No. 10 officials shows “conclusively” that he did not deliberately mislead Parliament, having been “repeatedly” assured by No. 10 aides that no rules were broken, unlike the coronavirus guidelines.
Jenkin suggested that he should have sought the advice of lawyers, rather than political advisers. Harman said: “If you were going 100 mph and you saw the speedometer say 100 mph, it would be a little weird, wouldn’t it, if you said, ‘Someone assured me it wasn’t.’
An increasingly exasperated Johnson denounced the committee’s questioning as “utter nonsense”, however he eventually conceded that he got no assurances from his staff that Covid instructions in No 10 had been followed at all times.
In evidence recently released by the committee, Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, denied giving Johnson any assurance that Covid rules and guidance were adhered to at all times at No. 10. He said he was also unaware that anyone else had given guarantees.
Jack Doyle, the prime minister’s then communications director, said he was unsure of Johnson’s statement that he had been “repeatedly assured that no rules were broken”, adding that “these are hard things to say”.
Evidence also shows that Johnson agreed to remove a proposed line for the prime minister’s questions stating that all guidelines were followed after a warning, his former principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, has said.
The new documents laid bare the level of disdain the number 10 felt over the allegations, with Doyle advising a colleague when the media first approached the story in November 2021: “Just be strong and they’ll get bored.”
Johnson, however, acknowledged that people might have thought “we were doing something that other people weren’t allowed to do” if they had seen photos of the meetings, five of which he personally attended.
However, he said he believed they were all within the rules, despite police subsequently issuing 126 flat fine notices, and claimed he would have told businesses from the Downing Street podium that it was up to them if they held events. farewell during the pandemic.
There was no mention during the hearing of the meeting on the 10th floor on November 13, 2020, which Johnson has already admitted to attending, but which neither Sue Gray nor the Metropolitan Police properly investigated.
Johnson launched a direct attack on Harman over tweets suggesting he may have misled the House of Commons, saying his comments were “clearly and wrongly damaging” to the inquiry but that he would trust the committee to act fairly. .
In a heated series of exchanges, Johnson refused to explicitly repudiate his supporters, who have called the committee “a kangaroo court”, arguing that the best way for lawmakers to prove their impartiality would be to clear it of any wrongdoing. Footage from the session showed his lawyer, Lord Pannick, raising her eyebrows and shaking her head.
Johnson said he didn’t like those terms and didn’t want the committee to feel intimidated, but added: “I think people will judge for themselves, based on the evidence that they’ve presented, about the impartiality of this committee. I have full confidence that he will show that he can be fair.”
Pressed by another Tory member, Alberto Costa, on claims that the process was inherently unfair, Johnson said: “I think if you look at this evidence fairly you will come to the conclusion I have given.” He added that it would be “absolutely crazy” for him to have misled parliament and unfair for MPs to conclude that he did so.
The former prime minister drew laughter for relying on civil servant Sue Gray’s Partygate report as evidence, despite spending weeks arguing that it was discredited after Keir Starmer was offered the chief of staff job.
The stakes are high for Johnson. If the committee decides he “recklessly” misled MPs, he faces suspension from parliament. A suspension of 10 days or more triggers a recall petition that could lead to a by-election in his west London seat.
