The Privileges Committee has made the defense file for former prime minister Boris Johnson‘s involvement in the Partygate scandal public.
In the 52-page letter, Mr. Johnson, a Tory MP fighting to keep his political career alive, admits he deceived the legislature but says it was what he thought at the time.
At a session that could determine Johnson’s political future, a cross-party committee of MPs will grill him live tomorrow.
The Privileges Committee came under fire for not publishing the report sooner, but it was confirmed that the final written evidence did not arrive until 8.02am today.
This is because the original contained ‘a number of errors and typos,’ they said.
The group also said the written submission contains ‘no new documentary evidence.’
Mr Johnson rejected the committee’s belief that the evidence strongly suggested breaches of coronavirus rules would have been ‘obvious’ to the then-prime minister.
He called the inquiry’s allegation ‘illogical’, arguing that some of those who attended the events ‘wished me ill and would denounce me if I concealed the truth’.
He wrote that it was ‘Far from achieving a ‘cover-up’. He said: ‘I would have known that any deception on my part would lead to instant exposure. This would have been senseless and immediately self-defeating.’
He said it was ‘implausible’ that he would have known the parties photographed and ‘immortalised’ by his official photographer were rule-breaking.
He says the only evidence that he intentionally misled the Commons is from the ‘discredited Dominic Cummings’, and that Cummings’ assertions are not ‘supported by any documentation’
In his evidence to the Privileges Committee Boris said he accepts he misled the House of Commons when he said lockdown rules had been followed in No 10 but insisted the statements were made ‘in good faith’.
In his opening submission he said: ‘As I made clear to the House of Commons on 25 May 2022, I take full responsibility for everything that took place on my watch at No. 10.
‘The revelations in Sue Gray’s report shocked the public, and they shocked me. I therefore begin by renewing my apologies to the British people for what happened on my watch.
‘It is now clear that over a number of days, there were gatherings at No. 10 that, however they began, went past the point where they could be said to have been reasonably necessary for work purposes.
‘That should never have happened, and it fills me with sadness and regret that it did.’
The ex-PM then further appears to rely on an absence of evidence that he broke lockdown rules.
He says: ‘There is not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event may have broken rules or guidance.’
In the document, he says that the ‘vast majority of individuals’ who have given evidence to the privileges committee ‘have not indicated that they considered their attendance in breach of the law’
In one photograph published in the Sue Gray report, Boris can be seen holding a drink in the Cabinet room within Number 10, and raising a toast.
This was on Boris’s birthday, and in the report, he said that for his celebrations, for which he was fined, ‘No cake was eaten, and no one even sang happy birthday.’
He defended attending a number of leaving parties in Downing Street, saying: ‘I might raise a glass to honour a colleague, but that was it.’
‘At the time I was recovering from a serious illness, I was desperately worried about the state of the country, and I was going back to my flat to continue working.’
Mr Johnson claimed he was at none of the events for more than half an hour, and said: ‘When I looked around the room, I did not think anyone was breaking any rules or guidance: on the contrary, I thought that we were all doing our job.’
According to Boris it was his ‘duty’ as the prime minister to ‘say a few words of thanks’ to those departing.
On May 20, 2020, in a photograph published initially by The Guardian, he was seen in the Downing Street garden with a number of other members of Number 10, when lockdown rules were still in place.
He said he was never warned that the gathering might breach lockdown rules, and said he wished ‘in retrospect’ he had considered how such events could be perceived.
He said: ‘I can categorically state that no-one at the time expressed to me any concerns about whether the event complied with the rules or guidance.’
He added that he ‘did not see any of the emails’ relating to the event, after Sue Gray’s report showed around 200 staff were encouraged to ‘bring your own booze’ in an invite.
He wrote: ‘It is simply inconceivable that I would have allowed an event to go ahead if I had known that it would breach the rules or guidance.’
‘Of course, I wish, in retrospect, that we had given some thought to how these events could be perceived.
‘We should have found a way to make it clearer that these were work events, with the specific purpose of thanking and motivating colleagues for their tireless efforts in fighting Covid-19.
‘Hindsight is a wonderful thing.’
He insisted that any lack of social distancing in the ‘old, cramped London townhouse’ of No 10 was not necessarily a breach of guidance.
‘We tried to keep our distance, but we knew that proximity was sometimes unavoidable, and we knew that this was acceptable under the guidance,’ he said.
Mr Johnson accepted he personally attended five of the events considered by the committee but said he ‘honestly believed that these events were lawful work gatherings.’
If Mr Johnson fails to convince the committee he did not deliberately mislead the Commons, he could be found to have committed contempt of Parliament.
A suspension of more than 10 days could result in a high-profile by-election in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat.
The full House of Commons would vote on any recommendations.
Speaking further in the report Mr Johnson said: ‘I accept that the House of Commons was misled by my statements that the Rules and Guidance had been followed completely at No. 10.
‘But when the statements were made, they were made in good faith and on the basis of what I honestly knew and believed at the time.
‘I did not intentionally or recklessly mislead the House on 1 December 2021, 8 December 2021, or on any other date. I would never have dreamed of doing so.’