Boris Johnson: how did former Prime Minister mislead Parliament? What Privileges Committee said

Boris Johnson misled the House of Commons in five different ways, according to a just-released report.

The Privileges Committee - which was appointed last year to investigate claims that the former Prime Minister lied to MPs about his knowledge of lockdown gatherings at Downing Street - concluded on Thursday (15 June) that he had committed “repeated contempts” of Parliament. It said Johnson, who last week resigned as an MP after seeing an advance copy of the report, had made “denials and explanations so disingenuous” that it believed they were “deliberate attempts to mislead the committee and the House”.

The former PM has already hit out at what he branded a “deranged” conclusion - calling the MPs on the committee “beneath contempt”. In a furious statement, he continued: “This is rubbish. It is a lie. This is a dreadful day for MPs and for democracy”.

But the committee was unrelenting in its findings, recommending both that Johnson should be suspended from Parliament for a period of 90 days - a punishment he has escaped given his recent resignation - and that he not be allowed the pass granting access to Parliament which is normally given to former MPs.

But what exactly did the committee find, and what was said in the report? Here’s everything you need to know about its conclusions - including the five ways Johnson misled Parliament.

After a lengthy investigation, the Privileges Committee has concluded both that Johnson misled Parliament over Partygate - and that he did so on multiple occasions: twice in December 2021, once the following month, and again in May 2022.

It argued his misleading of MPs was “deliberate” - stating he had “personal knowledge about [lockdown] gatherings which he should have disclosed” and that he had on several occasions “closed his mind to the truth”. The report also further condemned Johnson’s actions on account of his political position, writing: “The contempt was all the more serious because it was committed by the Prime Minister, the most senior member of the government”.

There is “no precedent” for a Prime Minister having been found to have “deliberately misled the House”, the committee added in yet another blow.

It also argued that Johnson had committed a further contempt in how he responded to its investigation - arguing that he had been “complicit” in “a campaign of abuse and intimidation”. This comes after Johnson’s repeated attacks of the committee, which he labelled a “kangaroo court” and branded as “beneath contempt”.

1. Claiming Covid rules and guidance were followed at all times in Number 10

The first way Johnson misled Parliament, according to the committee, is by “claiming Covid rules and guidance were followed at all times” in Downing Street - which it said he did on four separate occasions.

In his evidence to the Privileges Committee, Johnson argued he had made these statements to the House - in which he repeatedly insisted Number 10 was abiding by lockdown rules - because he genuinely believed them to be the truth. He said that, although he had been present at some events, he thought the people there were following the guidance by attempting social distancing - and that all of the gatherings had been work-related.

But the MPs on the committee decided they did not believe the former Prime Minister. They wrote: “A workplace ‘thank you’, leaving drink, birthday celebration, or motivational event is obviously neither essential or reasonably necessary,” adding that Johnson should have known this better than anyone as he was making the rules.

They also criticised his persistence in arguing this “unsustainable interpretation” of the rules when it came to what he told the committee - adding that his comments had been “disingenuous and a retrospective contrivance to mislead”.

2. Failing to tell the House about his own knowledge of gatherings

The report argues that in failing to tell Parliament “about his own knowledge of the gatherings where the rules or guidance had been broken”, Johnson had again misled the House.

When the committee grilled Johnson over his knowledge of Partygate, it showed crucial photos which revealed the then-Prime Minister was present at gatherings with non-socially distanced people and bottles of alcohol. Again, Johnson argued that he still believed these occasions to be within the rules - but in a damning piece of evidence, the report was told that security sent notes to those in Number 10 telling them “to be mindful of cameras”.

The witness added that Downing Street was “an oasis of normality” during the pandemic - “despite setting the rules to the country” - with events such as Wine Time Fridays, birthday parties, and leaving dos continuing throughout the lockdowns imposed upon the public.

3. Saying he relied on “repeated assurances” that rules had not been broken

At PMQs on 1 December 2021, Johnson asserted in the House, following reports of parties at Number 10, that “all guidance was followed completely”.

Then, at PMQs on 8 December 2021, after a video emerged of Number 10 Press Secretary Allegra Stratton talking about a lockdown gathering - Johnson stated he had been “repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken.” He added: “That is what I have been repeatedly assured”.

The Privileges Committee accepted that Johnson had been given these assurances by Number 10 officials - including his Director of Communications Jack Doyle. It also accepted that on 1 December 2021 this “line” had been prepared “under pressure of time“ pre-PMQs, and it would be “unrealistic” to expect Johnson to have made any further assessments before facing MPs.

However, the report argued that, by 8 December 2021, “following a period in which the issue of gatherings at Number 10 had continued to dominate the news media”, Johnson should have further reflected on these assurances he had been given - and sought out “more solid, legally based, and authoritative” advice.

4. Waiting on Sue Gray’s report before answering questions in the House

Another way Johnson misled the House according to the Privileges Committee was by “insisting on waiting for Sue Gray’s report to be published before he could answer questions in the House”, when he had “personal knowledge which he did not reveal”.

When he was questioned about allegations of lockdown parties, Johnson often avoided giving answers by saying the House needed to wait for the publication of the report by Sue Gray, which he had commissioned. But the Privileges Committee argued it was untrue to suggest that the report was needed “to establish whether the rules and guidance had been broken”, suggesting that the “personal knowledge” Johnson had was enough to prove this to him.

It then argued that by not “revealing” this information, Johnson had misled the House. The implication is essentially that Johnson was aware that rules and guidance had been broken, and the “wait for Sue Gray” line was a delay tactic.

5. Claiming rules and guidance had been followed when he ‘purported to correct the record’

Finally, the Privileges Committee argued that Johnson further misled Parliament when he set out to “correct the record” on 25 May 2022. Following the publication of the Sue Gray report, the then-Prime Minister made the following statement:

“I am happy to set on the record now that when I came to this House and said in all sincerity that the rules and guidance had been followed at all times, it was what I believed to be true. It was certainly the case when I was present at gatherings to wish staff farewell […] but clearly this was not the case for some of those gatherings after I had left, and at other gatherings when I was not even in the building. So I would like to correct the record — to take this opportunity, not in any sense to absolve myself of responsibility, which I take and have always taken, but simply to explain why I spoke as I did in this House”.

But the report decided that it was “misleading” to state that all rules and guidance had been followed when Johnson was present at gatherings - pointing to evidence of the ex-MP appearing at events where alcohol was present and there was a lack of social distancing. Therefore, this statement “represented a continuation of his previous misleading of the House”, it said, and, crucially, was done so while he was “purporting to correct the record”.

Aside from these five occasions of misleading Parliament, the Privileges Committee also found that Johnson had committed further contempts by being “complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee” - referring to his frequent condemnation of the committee’s investigation. This, it argued, “undermined the democratic processes of the Commons”.

The report then added that Johnson had committed another contempt by criticising the committee’s provisional findings in his resignation statement last Friday (9 June). “Mr Johnson’s conduct in making this statement is in itself a very serious contempt,” it said.