Key clashes in Boris Johnson’s Partygate probe grilling

Boris Johnson swore “hand on heart, I did not lie to the House” as he fought to defend himself during questioning by MPs over whether he misled the Commons with denials about Partygate – in a hearing that could determine his political fate.

The former prime minister, in bullish remarks, claimed that after 10 months of investigations, the privileges committee had found “nothing” to prove that he was aware any of the gatherings that took place were illegal or breached the rules.

He criticised the committee for not accepting his demands to publish all the evidence it had gathered. He said that the committee, as “investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury” had only published the evidence it had considered incriminating.

He insisted mid-pandemic gatherings in Downing Street were “essential” and stated he had been “misremembering” when claiming during partygate that rules had been followed at all times.

But committee chair Harriet Harman hit out at the “flimsy” assurances he was relying on for his Commons denials. Here are some of the key clashes from Wednesday’s session:

Mr Johnson accused committee chair Harriet Harman of having said in the past things that were prejudicial to his case.

And he argued that the process being used to decide whether he was in contempt of Parliament was “manifestly unfair”.

“You have found nothing to show that I was warned in advance that events in No 10 were illegal, in fact nothing to show that anyone raised anxieties with me about any event, whether before or after it had taken place,” he said.

“If there had been such anxiety about a rule-breaking event at No 10 it would unquestionably have been escalated to me.”

Committee member and Tory MP Sir Charles Walker said Mr Johnson’s supporters had mounted “a concerted effort to delegitimise the committee, to call us a kangaroo court”.

Asked whether he regretted that, Mr Johnson said: “There should be no intimidation, there should be no attempt to bully any colleague in any matter whatever.”

He said he had raised “questions of fairness” but “I deprecate the term you have just used, I don’t want to repeat it”.

“People will judge for themselves, on the basis of the evidence you have produced, the fairness of this committee. I have every confidence you will show that you can be fair.”

Boris Johnson and committee member Sir Bernard Jenkin were involved in a heated back and forth, in which a senior Tory was accused of talking “complete nonsense”.

Mr Johnson was asked about his comments that it was “no great vice” to rely on political advisers for assurances before making statements to the House.

Sir Bernard expressed surprise that Mr Johnson, if there was even “the thinnest scintilla of doubt” about whether rules were followed, would not have sought out advise from civil servants or government lawyers.

open image in gallery

“If I was accused of law-breaking and I had to give undertakings to Parliament... I would want the advice of a lawyer,” Sir Bernard said, and asked why the then-prime minister did not seek “proper advice” about the party allegations.

Mr Johnson, voice rising and finger jabbing, resented the question. He initially said “Nobody raised with me or had any concern before I stood up on December 1 about those events.”

Questioned further, he seemed to scratch around for words, then, making a fist and seeming tetchy, replied: “This is complete nonsense, I mean, complete nonsense. I asked the relevant people. They were senior people. They had been working very hard.

“Jack Doyle gave me a clear account of what had happened.”

Mr Doyle, who was Mr Johnson‘s communications chief when the Partygate story broke, said he did not tell the ex-PM that all coronavirus guidance was followed.

Insisting that No 10 staff were at pains to follow social distancing guidelines, the ex-prime minister said: “We didn’t touch each other’s pens.”

Committee chair Harriet Harman told him: “But you were passing drinks to each other, we can see the drinks in the photos.”

Mr Johnson said: “Yes, we were of course.”

Veteran MP Sir Bernard suggested the former prime minister may have avoided all the trouble of an inquiry if he had given a fuller account to Parliament.

Mr Johnson said: “Why I believed, when I stood up on December 1, that the guidance was followed completely at all times in No 10, what picture I had in my head - and why that doesn’t conflict with that picture (of Lee Cain’s leaving do) - the answer is that I knew from my direct personal experience that we were doing a huge event to stop the spread of Covid within the building.”

He cited sanitisers, open windows, people working outdoors, Zoom meetings, restrictions on numbers of people in rooms, Perspex screensand - regular testing.

Sir Bernard said: “I’m bound to say that if you said all that at the time to the House of Commons, we probably wouldn’t be sitting here. But you didn’t.”

open image in gallery

Sir Bernard asked Mr Johnson whether his advice to other organisations during the coronavirus pandemic would have been that leaving dos were acceptable.

Mr Johnson, referencing an image of Lee Cain’s leaving event, replied: “I understand that people looking at that photograph will think it looks like a social event. It was not a social event. If anybody thinks I was partying during lockdown, they are completely wrong. That was not a party.”

Questioned on whether he would have told other organisations, if asked at a press conference, that they could hold “unsocially distanced farewell gatherings”, Mr Johnson said: “I would have said it is up to organisations, as the guidance says, to decide how they are going to implement the guidance amongst them.

“Where they can’t do social distancing perfectly, they can’t maintain 2m or 1m, they are entitled to have mitigations. And we did indeed have plenty of mitigations.”

Sir Bernard later admonished Mr Johnson, telling him: “You are giving very long answers… and repeating yourself quite a lot.”

And at another point, he told the ex-PM the guidance “does not say …you can have a thank you party… if you think it is very important. The guidance does not say that”.

open image in gallery

Mr Johnson had a cohort of enthusiastic supporters who stayed in the room for most of the proceedings.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Sir James Duddridge, Lia Nici and Michael Fabricant were a constant presence in the room, while Labour MP Sir Chris Bryant, who recused himself from the partygate probe, sat in the corner of the room.

As proceedings passed the three-hour mark, it appeared that some were getting increasingly frustrated at the committee’s line of questioning.

At one stage, as Sir Charles Walker began his questioning after a particularly testy exchange between Sir Bernard and Mr Johnson, he felt the need to object amid some mutterings at the back of the room.

“There are noises coming from the back of the room, has that stopped?” he asked.

Mr Johnson said he took “full responsibility” for what happened on his watch in Downing Street.

He understood public anger over the gatherings, he said, adding: “I continue to apologise and take full responsibility for what took place under my watch.”

He said “hand on heart that I did not lie to the House. When those statements were made, they were made in good faith and on the basis of what I honestly knew and believed at the time”.

It would have been “utterly insane” for him to have misled Parliament and it would be unfair and wrong for MPs to conclude he had, the former prime minister said.

“I think if this committee were to find me in contempt of Parliament - having come and done something so utterly insane and contrary to my beliefs and my principles as to come here, to come to Parliament and wittingly lie - I think that would be not only unfair, I think it would be wrong.”

Boris Johnson said he did not receive “direct assurances” on guidance in relation to the 18 December 2020 event at Downing Street but nobody said “anything adverse” to him.

The Privileges Committee heard that he told the House of Commons on 8 December 2021 that he had had “repeated assurances” that no rules were broken during the event.

Mr Johnson said he received assurances from advisers Jack Doyle and James Slack. He added: “I did not receive direct assurances about the December 18 event about guidance, but... nobody had said to me anything adverse about our following of the guidance.”

Mr Johnson insisted it was his “impression” that guidance had been followed.