Partygate report: Key findings as Boris Johnson found to have committed ‘repeated contempts’ of Parliament

The former Prime Minister was found to have repeatedly misled MPs.

Boris Johnson committed “repeated contempts” of Parliament by deliberately misleading MPs with his Partygate denials, the report into his conduct has found.

The Privileges Committee also found him complicit in a campaign of abuse and intimidation and recommended that he should not receive the pass granting access to Parliament, which is normally given to former MPs.

Here’s what he was accused of, what they found, and how Mr Johnson has responded.

Boris Johnson raises a glass at what he still insists was a work event.

How did Boris Johnson mislead Parliament?

The committee found Mr Johnson mislead the Commons in six different ways, all relating to how he responded to accusations around Partygate events.

Specifically, his claims that Covid rules and guidance were followed at all times in Number 10, something he said four times.

There was then his failure to tell the House “about his own knowledge of the gatherings where the rules or guidance had been broken”, and his claims he had “repeated reassurances” the rules were not broken.

Waiting for Sue Gray’s report before he could answer questions in the House was also criticised, with the committee finding he had “personal knowledge which he did not reveal”.

Claiming that rules and guidance had been followed while he was present at gatherings in Number 10 when he “purported to correct the record” in May 2022 was also considered misleading.

The committee also found Mr Johnson had been “disingenuous” when giving evidence to them.

What did the committee say?

They claimed Mr Johnson intended to mislead Parliament with his assurances about Partygate and was “disingenuous” in his approach to the Privileges Committee.

The report said: “His personal knowledge of breaches of the rules and guidance, combined with his repeated failures pro-actively to investigate and seek authoritative assurances as to compliance issues, amount to a deliberate closing of his mind or at least reckless behaviour.

“We find it highly unlikely that Mr Johnson, having given any reflection to these matters, could himself have believed the assertions he made to the House at the time when he was making them, still less that he could continue to believe them to this day.

“Someone who is repeatedly reckless and continues to deny that which is patent is a person whose conduct is sufficient to demonstrate intent. Many aspects of Mr Johnson’s defence are not credible – taken together, they form sufficient basis for a conclusion that he intended to mislead.”

The committee dismissed Mr Johnson’s argument that mid-pandemic staff leaving dos were essential to maintain staff morale, noting they attracted police fines while the rules would have been clear to him.

“A workplace ‘thank you’, leaving drink, birthday celebration or motivational event is obviously neither essential or reasonably necessary,” the MPs wrote. “That belief, which he continues to assert, has no reasonable basis in the rules or on the facts.”

They also found he committed an “egregious breach of confidentiality” by revealing the contents of the warning letter he received from the committee when he resigned as an MP on Friday.

What did the committee recommend?

The Privileges Committee recommended a 90-day suspension, which would have paved the way for a by-election for the former prime minister if he had not quit the Commons in anticipation.

Though his resignation means he will escape that punishment, the committee recommended that he should not receive the pass granting access to Parliament that is normally given to former MPs.

The MPs also considered whether it should have recommended expelling Mr Johnson from the Commons, but while the SNP’s Allan Dorans and Labour’s Yvonne Fovargue backed the stronger sanction, it was opposed by Tory MPs Sir Charles Walker, Andy Carter, Alberto Costa and Sir Bernard Jenkin.

How has Mr Johnson responded?

Mr Johnson labelled the report “rubbish”, adding it was “a lie”, and a “dreadful day for MPs and for democracy”.

He said: “The committee is imputing to me and me alone a secret knowledge of illegal events that was somehow not shared by any other official or minister in Number 10. That is utterly incredible. That is the artifice.”

“This report is a charade. I was wrong to believe in the committee or its good faith. The terrible truth is that it is not I who has twisted the truth to suit my purposes. It is [committee chair] Harriet Harman and her committee.

“This is a dreadful day for MPs and for democracy. This decision means that no MP is free from vendetta, or expulsion on trumped up charges by a tiny minority who want to see him or her gone from the Commons.

“I do not have the slightest contempt for Parliament, or for the important work that should be done by the Privileges Committee.

“But for the Privileges Committee to use its prerogatives in this anti-democratic way, to bring about what is intended to be the final knife-thrust in a protracted political assassination – that is beneath contempt.

“It is for the people of this country to decide who sits in Parliament, not Harriet Harman.”