Former British prime inister Boris Johnson is fighting for his political future after MPs investigating his partygate denials denounced the “flimsy” assurances on which they were based on.
During a testimony that lasted three hours, where he was short-tempered at times, Mr Johnson insisted there was not a “shred of evidence” to show he lied to MPs.
It would have been “utterly insane” for him to have misled Parliament, he told the privileges committee, which could recommend his suspension from the Commons.
If a proposal for a 10-day suspension is voted through by MPs, a by-election could be held in Mr Johnson’s constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, possibly spelling the end of his parliamentary career.
He told MPs with “hand on heart” that he did not lie to Parliament as he gave evidence to a committee hearing into claims he misled parliament over the partygate scandal.
Mr Johnson frequently stressed he believed he was acting within the rules and guidelines, for work purposes, despite accusations that there were social gatherings.
He also dragged Rishi Sunak into his hearing by suggesting that if it should have been obvious to him that lockdown rules were being broken in No 10, it should also have been apparent to “the current Prime Minister”.
If Mr Johnson is found in contempt and sanctions are recommended, this is likely to cause a headache for Mr Sunak.
He has said he would not seek to influence MPs on the committee and was expected to grant a free vote in the Commons on any sanction that may be recommended.
In an interim report the committee said the evidence strongly suggested that breaches of coronavirus rules in No 10 Downing St should have been “obvious” to Mr Johnson.
Shown a picture of one gathering, he sought to defend the decision to proceed, despite Covid-19 stipulations on social distancing.
"I accept that perfect social distancing is not being observed but that does not mean that what we were doing, in my view, is incompatible with the guidance."
Committee member Sir Bernard Jenkin asked Mr Johnson whether his advice to other organisations during the coronavirus pandemic would have been that leaving celebrations were acceptable.
He told him the coronavirus guidance “does not say you can have a thank-you party”.
Mr Johnson said: “I believed that this event was not only reasonably necessary but it was essential for work purposes.”
The scandal, which rocked the government in 2021 and 2022, led to police fines for many of those involved, including Mr Johnson, and damaged the reputation of the government.
Members are examining evidence related to at least four occasions when he may have deliberately misled MPs with his assurances to the Commons that rules were being followed.
Chairing the Tory-majority committee, Labour veteran Harriet Harman said the evidence raises “clear questions” and that the hearing was Mr Johnson’s “opportunity to give us his answers”.
If he fails to convince the committee that he did not deliberately mislead the Commons, he could be found to have committed a contempt of Parliament.
The full House of Commons would vote on any recommendations and Mr Sunak has agreed to give Tory MPs a free vote on their conscience over Mr Johnson’s fate.
In a defence dossier published on Tuesday, Mr Johnson acknowledged that he misled Parliament, but that he did so unknowingly based on information he had received from aides.
In his opening statement, Mr Johnson told the committee there were a number of gatherings over “tricky months” which went past the point where they could be said to be necessary for work purposes.
“I'm here to say to you, hand on heart, that I did not lie to the house," he said.
"When those statements were made they were made in good faith and on the basis of what I honestly believed at the time."
Mr Johnson placed great stock in the assurances he had received as prime minister and the fact that no one around had expressed concerns themselves, while also making much of the fact there is no evidence that he ever received warnings about breaches of guidance.
He said the committee had been investigating the events for more than 10 months and found nothing to show he was warned in advance that the gatherings broke lockdown rules.
Mr Johnson said claims by his former aide Dominic Cummings that he had raised concerns with him was “unsupported by any documentary evidence” and “plainly cannot be relied on”.
“He has every motive to lie,” Mr Johnson said.
He called on the committee to release all the evidence it has assembled.
“The best and fairest course now would be for the committee to publish all the evidence it has assembled so parliament and the public can judge for themselves,” Mr Johnson said.
“Despite my repeated requests, the committee has refused to do this.”
Mr Johnson said it “seemed to be the view of the committee and, sadly, many members of the public” that pictures showed him attending “rule-breaking parties when no one was social distancing”.
“They show nothing of the kind,” he said. “They show me giving a few words of thanks at a work event for a departing colleague.”
Boris Johnson delivers farewell speech at 10 Downing Street — in pictures
“They show me with my red box, passing on the way to another meeting or heading back into my flat to carry on working, often late into the night.
“They show a few people standing together as permitted by the guidance where full social distancing is not possible and where mitigating measures are taken.
“They show events which I was never fined for attending.”
Mr Johnson said the public will have had the impression that these were “covert photos” that have been obtained by the media.
“The vast majority were in fact taken by the official Number 10 photographer.
"To say that we would have held events in Number 10 while allowing these events to be immortalised by an official photographer is staggeringly implausible."
Mr Johnson said he and others in the building did not believe it was necessary or possible to have a two-metre or one-metre “electrified force field around every human being”, and that is “emphatically not what the guidance proscribed”.
He said there were “real difficulties” working efficiently and at speed in a “cramped and narrow 18th-century townhouse”, but people working in Downing Street did socially distance and “gave way to each other as wide a berth as we could”.
“My belief was that we were following the rules and the guidance to the best of our ability given the circumstances,” he said.
Asked where the screens and mitigation measures were in a photo at a leaving do for Lee Cain, the former director of communications at Downing Street, Mr Johnson said: "There were screens or barriers, I believe, in the adjacent press room.
"This is an impromptu gathering at which I am thanking staff ― at least one member of staff ― for his contribution during Covid.
"I believe it was an important part of my job to do that, that was the best place to do it."
Mr Johnson, referring to the image of Mr 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."
Asked whether he would have told other organisations, if asked at a government pandemic 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 two metres or one metre, they are entitled to have mitigations.
"And we did indeed have plenty of mitigations."
He said he corrected the record on the day of Sue Gray's report and six days after the completion of the police investigation.
“If the committee's view is that I shouldn't have come to the house and provided an inevitably incomplete account while a government investigation was going on, including events I hadn't even attended, I fundamentally disagree.”
Opening the session, Ms Harman said “everyone makes mistakes” but they are required to correct them at the earliest occasion.
“In this inquiry we are not looking at the rights or wrongs of the first Covid rules or guidance,” she said.
“What the house has mandated us to look at is whether Mr Johnson told the truth to Parliament.
“It is about the truth and that is why the inquiry goes to the heart of the trust on which our system of accountability depends.”
