Boris Johnson says No 10 leaving do was ‘absolutely essential for work purposes’

Boris Johnson has sworn “hand on heart” he did not lie to MPs about partygate events in Downing Street – and said a gathering where he was pictured holding a glass in the air was “absolutely essential for work purposes”.

The former prime minister also said the size of Number 10 made it difficult to social distance inside with staff following the guidance “to the best of our ability”.

Mr Johnson faced about three hours of questioning by the cross-party Privileges Committee as they determine whether he misled parliament by denying events in Number 10 during the pandemic broke COVID regulations. He could be suspended from the Commons and face a by-election if they find he purposefully misled the House.

Follow Boris Johnson hearing live

In his opening remarks, Mr Johnson swore “hand on heart, I did not lie to the House” after taking an oath on the King James Bible to tell the truth during the session.

“When this inquiry was set up I was completely confident that you would find nothing to show that I knew or believed anything else, as indeed you have not,” he said.

“I was confident, not because there has been some kind of cover-up. I was confident because I knew that was what I believed and that is why I said it.”

He added that there is no evidence of officials raising issues about breaking rules “because that never happened” as he accused the committee of not giving people at the events the chance to explain themselves.

But he claimed it had been a mistake to say guidance had been “followed completely at No 10”.

“I was misremembering the line that had already been put out to the media about this even, which was ‘COVID rules were followed at all times’,” he said.

Mr Johnson, as he did in his written evidence published on Tuesday, said it was difficult to social distance in No 10 as it is a “cramped, narrow 18th Century town house” and they had no choice but to meet “day in, day out, seven days a week in an unrelenting battle against COVID”.

“I will believe till the day I die that it was my job to thank staff for what they had done, especially during a crisis like COVID, which kept coming back, which seemed to have no end,” he said.

He said the most important point was that the police, in their inquiry, agreed his attendance at the events was not against the rules.

And he mentioned his former chief adviser Dominic Cummings, who he said has no evidence to show he raised concerns and has “every motive to lie” after the pair fell out.

‘Essential for work purposes’

When questioned about a photo of one of the events in November 2020, which shows the former PM appearing to toast staff with a drink at a leaving do for departing communications chief Lee Cain, he said: “I believe it was absolutely essential for work purposes.”

He said the meeting, which happened while social distancing was in place, was “necessary” because two senior members of staff were about to leave “in potentially acrimonious circumstances”.

“I accept that perfect social distancing is not being observed but that does not mean that what we were doing is incompatible with the guidance,” he added.

The former PM insisted time and time again during the grilling that his officials assured him no rules were being broken and nobody raised any problems with him.

At one point he got frustrated at being continually asked if anybody had assured him guidance was being followed, and said: “It’s clear from what I’ve said that I was assured repeatedly by different people and on different occasions that the rules have been followed.”

But chair and veteran Labour MP Harriet Harman called his reassurances flimsy.

“Do you actually think we would be entitled to be a bit dismayed about the flimsy nature of this assurance?” she asked.

Ms Harman said it appeared his assurances “did not amount to much at all”.

Mr Johnson acknowledged he could have given a fuller explanation to MPs about his view on following COVID guidance in No 10.

“Perhaps if I had elucidated more clearly what I meant and what I felt and believed about following the guidance, that would have helped,” he said.

Read more:
New evidence published hours before Johnson hearing
What happens if Johnson found to have misled MPs?

Sue Gray crops up several times

Mr Johnson took several aims at former top civil servant Sue Gray, who carried out a partygate inquiry that criticised the leadership in No 10 at the time of the events. She has recently resigned from the civil service to become Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.

Committee chair Harriet Harman said in her opening remarks they are not relying on any material from Ms Gray’s report “and nor will we”, adding she is not a witness in their inquiry.

The former PM mentioned her several times in his opening remarks and answers to MPs, saying Ms Gray told him “on a couple of occasions at least” she “did not think the threshold of criminality had been reached”. He also mentioned the Sue Gray report a handful of times.

At times the interactions between committee members and Mr Johnson were terse, with the former PM at one point saying a gathering in the garden of Number 10: “I really must insist this point, people who say that we were partying in lockdown simply do not know what they are talking about.

“People who say that that event was a purely social gathering are quite wrong.”

When asked if Mr Johnson believed exceptions to the workplace rules and social distancing guidelines applied to No 10 but not to hospitals and care homes, he said: “Of course not.”

The committee has been looking into denials made by Mr Johnson in 2021 and 2022 after a deluge of stories in 2021 claimed illegal gatherings were held in No 10 while the public was being told to stay at home.

Mr Johnson was asked about the events time and time again in the Commons, and he repeatedly denied any COVID rules were broken.

But after further articles, police and Cabinet Office investigations, and more than 100 fines, it became clear that was not the case.

MPs from all sides of the Commons questioned whether Mr Johnson had misled the Commons over what he knew – a serious breach of parliamentary rules – and they voted in favour of the privileges committee carrying out an inquiry.

An initial report from the cross-party group of MPs said it would have been “obvious” to the prime minister at the time that rules were being breached, and the Commons may have been misled multiple times.

But while he accepted in his evidence, published ahead of his appearance yesterday, the Commons had been misled, Mr Johnson insisted his statements were made “in good faith” and to the best of his knowledge at the time.