Boris Johnson has faced a three-hour grilling in front of the Privileges Committee, where he was quizzed about parties in Downing Street during the pandemic. The former PM is accused of lying to parliament when he told MPs that ‘the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times’. The cross-party committee, led by Labour’s Harriet Harman, is looking at whether he inadvertently, recklessly or intentionally misled the House with this statement. Johnson yesterday admitted to misleading the Commons, but said it was not intentional and he made his remarks in good faith.
Here’s how the session played out:
Boris’s trial ends
And that’s a wrap, with the Privileges Committee finishing their questioning of the former PM. In the end the questioning lasted for around three hours, with breaks in the session for Commons votes. The committee will now decide if it plans to punish Boris Johnson by recommending his suspension from the Commons. A suspension of ten sitting days or more, if voted for by MPs, could lead to Boris being recalled as an MP.
5.47pm – The risk with passing the buck
Kate Andrews writes… Today’s evidence session comes to an end with Boris Johnson putting emphasis on what he believes to be the ‘crucial point’:
‘If it was obvious to me, it would have been obvious to those other, distinguished people. And it really wasn’t.’ It’s an attempt to pass the buck — and a risky one at that. From what we know now — revealed both though the partygate revelations and also the ‘Lockdown Files’ published by the Daily Telegraph — there was an infectious attitude that spread across No. 10 that the rules were for others, not necessarily themselves. That others were behaving in a certain way (or looking the other way when parties did take place) is not a robust defence for the person who was supposed to be overseeing the whole show.
5.15pm – Does Boris think the committee is a kangaroo court?
Katy Balls writes… What does Boris Johnson really think of the privileges committee? Read the papers and the various briefings from Johnson supporters and one could be forgiven for thinking that he believes the inquiry is akin to a kangaroo court. Only when pressed by Charles Walker, Johnson appeared to have a very different view. He refused to repeat the phrase ‘kangaroo court’ saying he ‘deprecates’ the term. However, he left space to come to such a conclusion if the committee found him guilty. When pinned down by Alberto Costa on whether the committee could be fair and find him in the wrong, Johnson said he would ‘wait to see how you proceed with the evidence’. So should the committee find Johnson in contempt of parliament, expect the attacks from his allies to continue…
5.16pm – Boris has to praise his critics
Steerpike writes… They saved the best questioner until last. Sir Charles Walker steps up to the mark and demands to know what Johnson thinks of his self-proclaimed supporters labelling the Privileges Committee as a ‘kangaroo court’ even before they produced their final report. Walker highlights a ‘concerted effort’ to delegitimise their work, forcing Johnson to defend the ‘distinguished’ committee. However, Johnson refuses to say if he would accept the result if the committee finds against him.
5.14pm – Boris Johnson’s key problem
Kate Andrews writes… Boris Johnson has implored the committee to stop digging into the details of the parties that took place in No.10: ‘The purpose of this inquiry is not to open so-called partygate,’ he says. ‘It is to discover whether or not I lied to parliament, wittingly misled colleagues and the country about what I knew, believed about those gatherings, when I said that the rules and the guidance had been followed at No.10.’
‘I am here to say to you, 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 on what I honestly knew…at the time.’
The obvious problem with this request is that it is not possible to separate what Johnson understood ‘partygate’ to be, from what he ended up saying in the House of Commons. We have photo documentation of Johnson at some of these events — drinking in the garden and drinking in the office. We know he was present at enough of these events to be aware that the culture inside No. 10 was slightly different to what was taking place everywhere else in the country.
So the committee needs to understand why he ‘in good faith’ and ‘honestly’ thought the boozing taking place in No.10 was either within the guidelines or exempt from the rules. And the longer this inquiry goes on, the more difficult things are getting for Johnson. The afternoon so far has been clutching at technicalities and misunderstandings. But what is becoming clear is that, in the best-case scenario, Johnson wasn’t too bothered to check that his activity sat within the rules. And in the worst-case scenario, that he deliberately ignored them. It is not obvious that even the better scenario rises to the standards he should have been aiming for when updating the House.
4.50pm – The No. 10 bubble
Katy Balls writes… Boris Johnson is repeatedly going back to his perspective on work events when challenged over Covid breaches. When pressed by the committee on the so-called BYOB garden party and how that would have looked to others at the time: ‘You’ve got to understand, in my mind at the time these did not seem to me to be improper or offensive events. They weren’t in my consciousness because I thought they were work events.’ Johnson said with hindsight he now knows that this event went too far. While there will be plenty who treat Johnson’s perspective as highly questionable, it touches on one of the contributors to partygate: No. 10 staff had a very different pandemic experience to the rest of the country from the beginning. Some staff have likened it to living in a work bubble away from the rest of the world. They rarely if ever worked from home – it follows that what was ‘normal’ felt very different to some of those working in No. 10.
4.29pm – Harriet Harman and Andy Carter grill Johnson
James Heale writes… The former PM has just been asked possibly the key question: ‘You say you don’t believe that perfect compliance with social distancing was required by the guidance. If you believe this, why did you not tell the House when you said the guidance was followed at all times?’ He replies that ‘That is a very good question. It would perhaps have been better if I’d elucidated more clearly, that would have helped.’
4.16pm – The laws Boris imposed on others
Fraser Nelson writes… Listening to the ridiculous wrangling over the minutiae of the rules almost provokes sympathy for Boris Johnson – until you remember those caught up in just-as-ridiculous laws which he imposed and decided to criminalise.
- The woman handcuffed for queuing for a coffee shop.
- The young woman from Pontypool fined £2,000 after visiting a home to support a friend who had fled an abusive relationship.
- The man fined for having driven too far to go fishing.
- Parents in Broxborne fined for letting their child have a sleepover with a friend.
- The Horncastle pensioners fined for eating a bag of chips in a laundrette.
- The uncle of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes was told he’d be arrested under lockdown rules if he tried to visit the child, who was murdered weeks later.
The Spectator was arguing for some time that the Covid rules should be decriminalised and reduced to guidance. No. 10 had very little to lose by calling off the cops. I wonder if, by now, Johnson is starting to wish that he had done so.
4.10pm – What did Johnson see in No. 10?
James Heale writes… Allan Dorans, the sole SNP MP on the committee, asks Johnson about a series of gatherings that were held in No. 10. He focuses on the event in the press office on 18 December 2020. How could Johnson walk past the room in which it happened and not see it and recognise that it was wrong? He insists that he was not aware of that happening. He did not hear it and says he was not told about it afterwards. In the year that followed, ‘the thing was a complete blank to me.’
3.56pm – Controlled anger
Isabel Hardman writes… If you thought Johnson was going to change his tone now a different MP is questioning him, think again. He has been more exasperated with Yvonne Fovargue than he was with Bernard Jenkin. He has just said, with real anger: ‘People who say that we are partying in lockdown simply do not know what they are talking about.’ I do not think this is a loss of cool, though. This is a calculated way of underlining that he did not see this as a party, that he did not believe that the rules were being broken, and that he is baffled by the interpretation that he did.
3.49pm – Boris Johnson replays the greatest hits
Steerpike writes… The session is turning into a replay of Boris Johnson greatest hits. Now it’s wallpaper-gate. When pressed on the ‘ambush by cake’ event of cake and orange juice for Johnson’s bday, Johnson was asked about the presence of his wife Carrie Johnson and their No. 10 flat interior designer Lulu Lytle – famous for eye-wateringly expensive rattan furnishing and golden wallpaper. Johnson quickly corrected the record, describing the super-luxury interior designer as a humble ‘contractor’.
3.47pm – Boris Johnson’s cakegate defence
Isabel Hardman writes… Johnson has just described his interior designer, Lulu Lytle, as a ‘contractor’, which makes her sound as though she accidentally attended the ‘cake ambush’ while wearing a hard hat and hi-vis jacket. Her wallpaper has been described as many things, but hi-vis isn’t one of them.
Either way, these details of ‘partygate’ might sound a bit pointless when it comes to the question of whether Johnson deliberately misled MPs when he said no rules were broken, but the attendance of Lytle and his wife is being held out by Labour’s Yvonne Fovargue as a sign that this wasn’t an essential work event and Johnson should have realised that. His argument is that not only is it quite common for the prime minister’s family to be in various parts of the building where they live, but also that the event in particular was briefed to the press, rather than hushed up.
A lot of Johnson’s defence relies on this sort of argument, that there was no attempt to cover up events he was at, and so that showed he didn’t think they were rule-breaking.
3.46pm – Johnson’s difficult line to walk
James Heale writes… Boris Johnson is trying to take a very nuanced, careful interpretation of the Covid rules and guidance. In his answers to Jenkin’s questions, for instance, he tried to concentrate on the number of people present – rather than engage with the substance of the question. But the difficulty is that is not how he was publicly explaining the rules when he was in office. Being a stickler for the rules is something that does not come naturally to him either.
3.41pm – Leaving dos in No. 10
James Heale writes… Jenkin is trying to ask Johnson about the trio of leaving dos he accepts attending – including Cleo Watson’s one in November 2020. The former PM has a tetchy exchange over whether leaving drinks were ‘necessary for work purposes’ to which Jenkin replies ominously: ‘I don’t think we agree with your interpretation of guidance’. Johnson tries to refer to Sue Gray’s report; Jenkin interjects by saying ‘We’re not relying on Sue Gray’s evidence. Isn’t that ironic?’ sparking the first genuine laugh of the session. Jenkin then asks Johnson about whether he joked about one such do being ‘probably the most socially undistanced event’ in the country. Johnson says ‘I don’t remember saying those words, I think it is unlikely that I would have said those words’. However, he accepts that ‘I may well have made observations about social distancing.’
3.36pm – Boris runs down the clock
Isabel Hardman writes… Bernard Jenkin has just scolded Johnson for giving ‘very long answers’ and taking up too much time – which isn’t an accident. The former prime minister is clearly trying to bore everyone out of their minds.
3.34pm – Sunak’s Brexit deal passes in the Commons
Katy Balls writes… As I say in the politics column in the new issue of The Spectator (out tomorrow), few in 10 Downing Street welcome the return of partygate to to the top of the news agenda. But Rishi Sunak has received better news on the other side of parliament. The Prime Minister’s Windsor Framework has won Commons approval at at 515 ayes to 29 noes. Twenty-two Tory MPs voted against the deal – including one Boris Johnson. However, crucially, Sunak did not have to rely on Labour votes to pass the deal. See my full analysis here.
3.18pm – Why was No. 10 special?
James Heale writes… Sir Bernard Jenkin asks the obvious question: lots of people were running critical organisations during Covid but they didn’t have leaving dos. Why was No. 10 different? Johnson tries to say that it wasn’t a ‘party’; Jenkin refers him to his question. Johnson then claims there were ‘mitigations’ within the social distancing guidance. He says ‘everyone’ within No. 10 believed this.
3.12pm – Johnson squirms on social distancing guidelines
James Heale writes… The opening exchange shows that members of the committee want a lot more yes/no closed questions than normal select committee hearings – partly because these arguments have been so well-trodden. But it also is an attempt to cut through Boris Johnson’s waffle. Bernard Jenkin attempts to ask Boris Johnson about a photograph, displayed on the TV screens, showing nine people, including Boris, crammed into a small room and whether it shows social distancing guidelines being followed.
Johnson replies that ‘I believe the guidance is being complied with.’ He then gives a lengthy answer in which he suggests that the gathering was ‘essential’ for work purposes. He adds there were other mitigating measure like extra testing which negates these. Much of Johnson’s argument comes down to whether or not leaving dos like this were necessary for work purposes. He has argued that keeping up morale was a key part of his job – Sir Bernard seems sceptical of that.
3.10pm – On ‘reasonably necessary’ leaving dos for staff
Hannah Tomes writes… In my previous job at the Daily Mail, quite a few people left during the pandemic. All of them were much-loved, hard-working members of staff. And all of their leaving dos were held over Zoom. Come to think of it, the bosses thanked them for their ‘hard work’ via phone or text. Nothing wrong with sending a card, Boris…
3.09pm – Boris sounds exasperated
Isabel Hardman writes… Johnson is not a full hour into his lengthy evidence session and is already sounding exasperated that he is having to answer questions about whether he misled MPs. He has just snapped ‘I’m trying to explain to you,’ at Bernard Jenkin – who is on his own ‘side’ – and is trying to drag the focus away from the question of whether he deliberately misled the House and back onto the regular defence mounted by his supporters during the original partygate row that it was ‘essential for work purposes’ to thank his staff. Why is he doing this when the Committee knows what it is investigating? Because he isn’t really trying to convince the members of that Committee so much as he is trying to sow doubt in the minds of Tory MPs that he deserves a sanction. His core of supporters are confident that this inquiry is a ‘kangaroo court’ conducting a ‘show trial’. Johnson would like that impression to spread among his party colleagues ahead of a possible vote.
2.59pm – Time for questions
James Heale writes… We are 50 minutes in and the opening statements have only just concluded. Harriet Harman hands over to Bernard Jenkin but she picks up Johnson’s point about the inquiry not publishing additional witness points. She says that the committee is not comfortable with putting on record officials’ witness statements to the Sue Gray inquiry that the committee has not yet checked. Johnson accepts this.
2.51pm – ‘Full responsibility’ Boris?
Steerpike writes… Boris began his testimony by declaring he took ‘full responsibility’ for what went on in No. 10 during Covid. But he has shown no compunction in dropping others in it today, arguing that if he lied about ‘parties’ then so did his officials. He has also referred several times to ‘the current Prime Minister’ knowing what he knew – ignoring the fact that, er, it is Boris Johnson’s statements as PM which are under scrutiny. ‘Full responsibility’ eh Boris?
2.42pm – Johnsonian flourishes in this opening statement
James Heale writes… Johnson’s 52-page submission yesterday was full of jargon and legalese: his statement today has much more a taste of Johnson the journalist. His rhetoric is peppered with rhetorical flourishes to highlight the absurdity of the Covid rules. He says ‘it would have been impossible to have a drill sergeant measuring the distance between us at all times’ in No. 10. He didn’t believe that there ought to be a ‘forcefield’ between everyone in the ‘narrow cramped townhouse’ of Downing Street. The difficulty, of course, is that his government expected others to abide by those rules in workplace settings across the country.
2.41pm – Why are MPs playing lockdown Cluedo with Boris Johnson?
Fraser Nelson writes… So the trial of Boris Johnson has finished its first act, and it comes across as theatrical nonsense. Boris Johnson has already admitted that he misled the Commons by falsely denying that parties took place in No. 10: his defence is that he thought he was telling the truth at the time. As he said, in ten months the parliamentary investigation has seen or heard no evidence to the contrary. The seven-member committee, four of them Tories, need to work out not what he did but what was in his mind. A hard task, especially without any evidence. And four hours of Johnson commentary is unlikely to change that.
I find this irritating because lying to parliament – which he did – would not even make the top 50 of his lockdown mistakes. We learn today that 140,000 kids never properly came back to school: how many minutes will that get on the BBC Six O’Clock News? This is the Boris effect: he holds more interest than the fate of tens of thousands of children who ended up casualty to his policies. But parliament is not dictated by ratings. So what’s to stop the MPs actually uncovering something new and important, rather than play lockdown Cluedo? Where’s the parliamentary inquiry into why the police were ever used in lockdown when voluntary guidance would suffice? What about the way he collapsed our democratic architecture during lockdown? What about the rule by WhatsApp that he allowed, as disclosed in such devastating detail by the Daily Telegraph’s investigation? But these are hard questions: far easier to poke Boris’s political corpse – laying on a circus for the cameras.
But then again, there is one way the public is certainly served by this spectacle. He did draw up these laws; he did needlessly send the police after tends of thousands of people. So it’s not just right but important that politicians end up ensnared in the traps they set for others. So next time a Prime Minister intends to abridge the liberty of millions, they may remember the scenes of the Boris trial and pause.
2.38pm – Boris goes on the attack
Isabel Hardman writes… Johnson has been briefed not to give the impression that he is bored by this inquiry and to show respect to the MPs on the committee at this hearing. To that end, he has thanked the committee for the work it has done, but he is still going into great detail about why he believes the inquiry is wrong and why the pictures have been taken out of context, referring to ‘sinister pixellations’ of photos which had been obtained by the media. He told the room that ‘late last night we were told that the committee was not willing to publish a large number of extracts which I intended to rely on in my defence’. Now, after a brief hiatus while MPs went to vote, he is saying that the committee members are accusing civil servants of lying, as well as him.
2.23pm – Boris Johnson contrite
James Heale writes… Eight months ago Boris Johnson was making his last appearance before a panel of MPs at that infamous last stand at the Liaison Committee. Then he was defiant; today he seeks to mix that with contrition about what went on in No. 10 on his watch. In his opening statement he tells the committee today ‘that was wrong. I bitterly regret it. I understand public anger and I continue to apologize for what happened on my watch and I take full responsibility.’ But he then moves on to the committee’s failure to release all evidence relating to this inquiry. It is a difficult balancing act to get right.
2.22pm – Boris sets out his stall
Katy Balls writes… It’s opening statement time. Boris Johnson has embarked on a lengthy monologue in which he has begun to address the various flaws he has identified in the process. Johnson suggests that not all evidence submitted has been made public. He also says Dominic Cummings – his former top aide turned nemesis – should be ignored by the committee and any evidence he gives cannot be taken at its word given Cummings’s personal issues with Johnson. Luckily we won’t have to wait long to hear Cummings’s response given the former No. 10 aide is live blogging the event on his Substack…
2.18pm – Harman attempts to undermine one of Boris Johnson’s key attacks
Isabel Hardman writes… Harriet Harman has attempted to undermine one of Boris Johnson’s key attacks on her committee, that it is relying on the report by Sue Gray. When the former senior civil servant was hired by Keir Starmer, Johnson said he would have ‘cross-examined her more closely about her independence’ if he had known what he now knew before appointing her to lead the inquiry. Harman today said the Committee was ‘not relying on any such material’ from Gray and that it had been gathering its own evidence. She is clearly not in a good mood with Johnson today: just before he started his opening statement, the former prime minister said he was mindful that a vote was due shortly and that it would cut into what he was going to say. Harman curtly replied that this was a parliamentary committee and would suspend while the voting took place – but thanked him for reminding everyone about the vote.
2.14pm – Watch: Boris swears on the King James Bible
‘I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.’
2.12pm – Parliament TV crashes
Steerpike writes… It seems that there is such public interest in Johnson’s evidence session that Parliament TV has crashed under the traffic. Fortunately several YouTube live streams are still going to give the public what they want. You wouldn’t get that for Defra questions…
2.09pm – Harriet Harman: this is a matter of great importance
Katy Balls writes… The committee chair Harriet Harman has kicked off proceedings – declaring the need for today’s session comes down to a simple matter of truth: ‘Misleading the House might sounds like a technical issue but it is a matter of great importance. We proceed on the basis that what we are told by ministers is accurate.’ Harman also insisted that party politics will be left at the door. After months of Boris Johnson’s supporters suggesting the hearing amounts to a show trial, this is an attempt by Harman to assure those with concerns about the partiality of the panel.
2.03pm – Harriet Harman is making her opening remarks
James Heale writes… The chair of the committee is now making the first statement of the session. She explains that this is not about examining the ‘rights and wrongs’ of the Covid rules or reopening the partygate inquiry; rather it is about the truth of Boris Johnson’s statements to the House of Commons. Her comments appear to be an attempt to ward off some of the pre-session criticisms: she notes, for instance, that this inquiry is completely separate to that conducted by Sue Gray, who was not a witness for the committee’s probe. She notes that the balance of the committee reflects that of the House – four of the seven are Conservative – but insists that they will leave their party labels ‘at the door’. We await to see if that proves to be the case…
1.37pm – The stakes are high for Boris Johnson
Katy Balls writes… Boris Johnson will shortly sit down in the Grimond room of parliament for a four hour (or more) grilling by the Privileges Committee. The task facing the seven MPs who make up the committee? To establish whether he intentionally or recklessly misled parliament when he insisted last year at the despatch box that Covid rules and guidance were followed at all times.
The former prime minister has spent weeks and months preparing for his moment in the spotlight. The stakes are high. If MPs find him guilty, he could face a suspension from the House of Commons. If this suspension is for ten sitting days or more this could lead to a recall petition in his constituency and a by-election.
In evidence submitted this week – and published on Tuesday – the former prime minister admits that he misled parliament in his comments but that this was not intentional. He says that senior aides assured him that events had been in line with the rules. However, a further evidence dump this morning shows how he faces doubts over such claims.
In written evidence submitted to the committee, his principle private secretary at the time Martin Reynolds says he advised Johnson that when speaking in the House he should avoid saying ‘all guidance had been followed at all times’ but he was ignored. Top mandarin Simon Case denies telling Johnson all rules and social distancing guidance were followed in No. 10. Johnson’s then director of communications Jack Doyle also says he did not tell Johnson guidance was followed at all times.
Strap in.
1.30pm – Simon Case sticks the knife in
Steerpike writes… The Privileges Committee has today released a final 100-page dossier of material before Johnson’s 2pm showdown. And one of the pieces of written evidence is a pithy submission by Cabinet Secretary Simon Case in which he denies that he gave any assurances to the then prime minister that ‘Covid rules were followed at all times’, ‘Covid guidance was adhered to at all times’ and that ‘no parties were held in No. 10’. By contrast, Johnson’s Parliamentary Private Secretary Sarah Dines MP told the committee she was ‘90 per cent sure’ that she heard Case’s voice at a meeting in which Johnson was told that his staff had followed the rules ‘at all times’.
Who to believe eh? That’s for the committee to find out…
Comments