Boris Johnson has said he is “very much” looking forward to appearing before MPs investigating whether he knowingly misled parliament over partygate.
The former prime minister earlier on Tuesday said he accepts he misled parliament over partygate but insisted his statements were made “in good faith”.
On the eve of his appearance in front of the privileges committee on Wednesday, he said: “I look forward very much to the committee session tomorrow.
“I believe that the evidence conclusively shows that I did not knowingly or recklessly mislead parliament.
“The committee has produced not a shred of evidence to show that I have.”
Mr Johnson and his team are understood to be “very confident” ahead of his appearance.
The former prime minister earlier accused the privileges committee of having gone “significantly beyond its terms of reference” with its probe into whether he knowingly lied to MPs.
In his written evidence to the committee, published on Tuesday, Mr Johnson said it was “unprecedented and absurd” to claim that relying on assurances from “trusted advisers” was “in some way reckless”.
But the committee hit back with a scathing statement which said the submission contains “no new evidence” in his defence, and an earlier version had to be re-submitted because of “errors and typos”.
Advertisement
Boris Johnson to appear in front of the privileges committee from 2pm tomorrow – watch and follow live on Sky News
Image: Boris Johnson pictured at one of the Downing Street gatherings
The committee launched its probe in the wake of Sue Gray’s partygate report, which blamed a “failure of leadership and judgement” for the lockdown-busting parties that took place in Number 10 during the COVID pandemic.
The report criticised the culture that existed “at the heart of government” at a time when the rest of the country was ordered to follow strict social distancing guidelines.
Mr Johnson said he accepts 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,” he added.
Other key points in Mr Johnson’s evidence:
• Mr Johnson insisted that other than the “assertions of the discredited Dominic Cummings”, his former aide, there is “not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event broke” the rules
• He rejected the committee’s belief that the evidence strongly suggested breaches of coronavirus rules would have been “obvious” to him while prime minister, calling the allegation “illogical”
• He argued that some of those who attended the events “wished me ill and would denounce me if I concealed the truth”
• He criticised the “highly partisan tone and content” in the committee’s damning interim report
• Referring to allegations of rule-breaking, the ex-prime minister said that any lack of social distancing in the “old, cramped London townhouse” of Number 10 was not necessarily a breach of guidance
• He said that while he personally attended five of the events considered by the committee, he “honestly believed that these events were lawful work gatherings”
• While he said he accepts the conclusion of the Met Police investigation, he said that it “remains unclear” to him – and possibly Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – about why they were fined for breaching lockdown laws
• He did not deny joking that he was at “probably the most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK right now” during a boozy mid-pandemic leaving do, but said he did not recall making the remark
Mr Johnson conceded in his evidence that his statements to parliament “did not turn out to be correct”, but insisted he corrected the record at “the earliest opportunity”.
“I did not intentionally or recklessly mislead the House on December 1 2021, December 8 2021, or on any other date,” he said.
“I would never have dreamed of doing so.”
Members of the COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group called his defence “sickening” and called for him to resign as an MP.
Becky Kummer, a spokesperson for the group, said it’s “obvious” that the former leader “deliberately misled parliament”, adding: “Far worse though is the lies he deliberately told to families like mine, after failing to protect our loved ones. His claim that he did so in ‘good faith’ is sickening.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:44
Partygate inquiry explained
The 52-page defence dossier was published a day before Mr Johnson faces a live grilling by the cross-party group of MPs in a hearing that could decide his political fate.
In response to his evidence, the committee said Mr Johnson’s legal argument “contains no new documentary evidence” and that it had to be resubmitted on Tuesday because of “a number of errors and typos”.
What is the committee investigating?
If Mr Johnson fails to convince the committee he did not deliberately mislead the Commons, he could be found to have committed a 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 – though MPs will have to vote on any recommendations.
Image: Boris Johnson at a gathering on 14 January 2021
It said it had identified at least four occasions where Mr Johnson may have misled MPs, which will form the backbone of its investigation.
The first instance was when Mr Johnson told MPs in December 2021 that no rules or guidance had been broken – when subsequent investigations by Ms Gray and the Met Police found otherwise.
The second occasion came when the former prime minister failed to tell the Commons about his own knowledge of gatherings where the rules or guidance had been broken, when evidence showed he had been present at some of them.
Image: Mr Johnson could be suspended from the Commons if he is found to have misled the House
Thirdly, the committee said MPs may have been misled when Mr Johnson claimed on 8 December 2021 he had been given “repeated assurances” that rules were not broken.
However, these assurances only applied to one event on 18 December 2020 and not to compliance with the rules and guidance more generally.
Finally, the committee said Mr Johnson gave the impression that he could only answer MPs’ questions once the investigation by Ms Gray had determined whether rules or guidance had actually been broken.
“While repeatedly making that statement to the House he appears to have had personal knowledge he did not reveal,” the committee said.
As well as being required to be truthful to parliament at all times, MPs are also encouraged to correct the record at the earliest opportunity if they have inadvertently said something wrong.
The committee said in its interim findings that Mr Johnson “did not use the well-established procedures of the House” to correct the record, as is convention.
In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment.
For the people of Gaza, for the hostages and their families – this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times.
The key question – will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire?
At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: “Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position – Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock.”
The source added: “Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate.”
The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump – which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to – may just amount to Israel’s already-established position.
We don’t know the details and conditions attached to Israel’s proposals.
Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel’s jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don’t know the answers to any of these questions, except one.
We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It’s all about domestic politics.
If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government.
Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition.
If Mr Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days – which domestically he can sell as just a pause – then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer.
It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Mr Netanyahu’s corruption trial to be scrapped.
Without the prospect of jail, Mr Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.
The Women’s Euros begin in Switzerland today – with extreme heat warnings in place.
Security measures have had to be relaxed by UEFA for the opening matches so fans can bring in water bottles.
Temperatures could be about 30C (86F) when the Swiss hosts open their campaign against Norway in Basel this evening.
Players have already seen the impact of heatwaves this summer at the men’s Club World Cup in the US.
Image: The Spain squad pauses for refreshments during a training session. Pic: AP
It is raising new concerns in the global players’ union about whether the stars of the sport are being protected in hot and humid conditions.
FIFPRO has asked FIFA to allow cooling breaks every 15 minutes rather than just in the 30th minute of each half.
There’s also a request for half-time to be extended from 15 to 20 minutes to help lower the core temperature of players.
More on Football
Related Topics:
FIFPRO’s medical director, Dr Vincent Gouttebarge, said: “There are some very challenging weather conditions that we anticipated a couple of weeks ago already, that was already communicated to FIFA.
“And I think the past few weeks were confirmation of all worries that the heat conditions will play a negative role for the performance and the health of the players.”
Football has seemed focused on players and fans baking in the Middle East – but scorching summers in Europe and the US are becoming increasingly problematic for sport.
Image: England are the tournament’s defending champions. Pic: AP
While climate change is a factor, the issue is not new and at the 1994 World Cup, players were steaming as temperatures rose in the US.
There is now more awareness of the need for mitigation measures among players and their international union.
FIFPRO feels football officials weren’t responsive when it asked for kick-off times to be moved from the fierce afternoon heat in the US for the first 32-team Club World Cup.
FIFA has to balance the needs of fans and broadcasters with welfare, with no desire to load all the matches in the same evening time slots.
Electric storms have also seen six games stopped, including a two-hour pause during a Chelsea game at the weekend.
This is the dress rehearsal for the World Cup next summer, which is mostly in the US.
Image: Players are also feeling the heat at the Club World Cup. Pic: AP
The use of more indoor, air conditioned stadiums should help.
There is no prospect of moving the World Cup to winter, as Qatar had to do in 2022.
And looking further ahead to this time in 2030, there will be World Cup matches in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. The temperatures this week have been hitting 40C (104F) in some host cities.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:08
Wildfires erupt in Italy and France amid heatwave
FIFA said in a statement to Sky News: “Heat conditions are a serious topic that affect football globally.
“At the FCWC some significant and progressive measures are being taken to protect the players from the heat. For instance, cooling breaks were implemented in 31 out of 54 matches so far.
“Discussions on how to deal with heat conditions need to take place collectively and FIFA stands ready to facilitate this dialogue, including through the Task Force on Player Welfare, and to receive constructive input from all stakeholders on how to further enhance heat management.
“In all of this, the protection of players must be at the centre.”
Around 14 million people could die across the world over the next five years because of cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), researchers have warned.
Children under five are expected to make up around a third (4.5 million) of the mortalities, according to a study published in The Lancet medical journal.
Estimates showed that “unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030”.
“Beyond causing millions of avoidable deaths – particularly among the most vulnerable – these cuts risk reversing decades of progress in health and socioeconomic development in LMICs [low and middle-income countries],” the report said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:21
March: ‘We are going to lose children’: Fears over USAID cuts in Kenya
USAID programmes have prevented the deaths of more than 91 million people, around a third of them among children, the study suggests.
The agency’s work has been linked to a 65% fall in deaths from HIV/AIDS, or 25.5 million people.
Eight million deaths from malaria, more than half the total, around 11 million from diarrheal diseases and nearly five million from tuberculosis (TB), have also been prevented.
USAID has been vital in improving global health, “especially in LMICs, particularly African nations,” according to the report.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:24
Queer HIV activist on Trump and Musk’s USAID cuts
Established in 1961, the agency was tasked with providing humanitarian assistance and helping economic growth in developing countries, especially those deemed strategic to Washington.
But the Trump administration has made little secret of its antipathy towards the agency, which became an early victim of cuts carried out by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – formerly led by Elon Musk – in what the US government said was part of a broader plan to remove wasteful spending.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:35
What is USAID?
In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said more than 80% of USAID schemes had been closed following a six-week review, leaving around 1,000 active.
The US is the world’s largest humanitarian aid donor, providing around $61bn (£44bn) in foreign assistance last year, according to government data, or at least 38% of the total, and USAID is the world’s leading donor for humanitarian and development aid, the report said.
Between 2017 and 2020, the agency responded to more than 240 natural disasters and crises worldwide – and in 2016 it sent food assistance to more than 53 million people across 47 countries.
The study assessed all-age and all-cause mortality rates in 133 countries and territories, including all those classified as low and middle-income, supported by USAID from 2001 to 2021.