Boris Johnson misled Parliament over Covid lockdown parties, report says

Boris Johnson misled British lawmakers about partying in Downing Street, the prime minister’s residence and office, during the Covid-19 pandemic, a powerful committee concluded on Thursday, making public the findings that prompted Mr Johnson’s angry resignation from parliament last week.

The lengthy document, prepared by the House of Commons Privileges Committee, delivered a damning verdict on Mr Johnson’s conduct, honesty and integrity, concluding that his conduct was deliberate and that he had committed “gross contempt” of the House of Representatives.

“We have come to the conclusion that some of Mr. Johnson’s denials and explanations were so disingenuous that they were in their nature deliberate attempts to mislead the Committee and the House, while others showed deliberateness because he often covered up the truth,” says the report.

Mr Johnson received a draft of the report last week and he immediately resigned from the House of Commons, describing the committee investigating him as a “kangaroo court” bent on a politically motivated witch-hunt against him. In fact, most of its members are from the Conservative Party, which Mr Johnson led until last year, and two are known supporters of Brexit, his flagship policy.

The Privileges Committee, which oversees some internal parliamentary matters, had the power to recommend a suspension of parliament, which could have forced Mr Johnson to contest an election to keep his seat. Faced with this uncertain prospect, Mr. Johnson resigned rather than risk his record as an election winner.

But by condemning the committee, Mr. Johnson seemed only to harden its judgment. Its members have been offered extra security following comments from the former prime minister and his supporters questioning their impartiality.

In light of Mr Johnson’s reaction, the committee recommended that the former prime minister revoke his parliamentary pass, preventing him from visiting parliament as he would normally be entitled to. Had he remained as a lawmaker, the committee would have recommended a 90-day suspension from parliament – a serious punishment that has been deemed controversial since Mr Johnson’s resignation.

The document, released on Thursday, detailed the veracity of Mr Johnson’s account of how he and his senior aides behaved during the pandemic. While there were rumors of parties and social mingling breaking the rules, Mr Johnson told parliament that he had been assured that all lockdown rules were being followed in Downing Street.

However, Mr Johnson ended up becoming the first sitting Prime Minister to be fined by the police for breaking the law. More revelations emerged and the “partygate” scandal ensued. one of several which contributed to his resignation under pressure as Prime Minister last year.

The issue at stake for the committee was not the violation of the rules, but Mr. Johnson’s denial of it. Lawmakers see a refusal to tell parliament the truth as a serious matter because without accurate information from ministers they cannot effectively hold the executive to account – an important part of their job.

When Mr Johnson appeared before the committee in March, he admitted he had made misleading statements to parliament when he had previously assured lawmakers there had been no breach of the lockdown rules. But he denied that he consciously made the distortions. “I’m here to tell you with my hand on my heart that I did not lie to the House of Representatives,” he said at the time. “When those statements were made, they were made in good faith based on what I honestly knew and believed at the time.”

However, Mr Johnson admitted he could not recall any of his most senior civil servants giving him specific assurances that the lockdown rules and guidance had been followed at all times in Downing Street.

Instead, he referred to the advice of two political aides, prompting committee chairwoman Harriet Harmon to ask Mr Johnson whether he had relied on “fanciful” assurances.

He also rejected accusations of recklessness in his remarks. In doing so, he may have closed off one potential avenue for the committee to recommend a lesser sentence, which could have allowed him to remain in parliament without risking an election.

Since his ouster from Downing Street last year, Mr Johnson has made no secret of his desire to get his old job back, and when he announced his resignation from Parliament on Friday, he added the condition that he was leaving the House of Commons “for the time being”. No place, political comeback – which seems unlikely anyway – it would be impossible.

But his latest setback revealed the limits of his support among conservative lawmakers, with relatively few of them coming to his defense.

Mr Sunak’s resignation from Mr Johnson’s cabinet last year helped precipitate his exit from Downing Street, and this week tensions between the two erupted into public row over the seemingly esoteric issue of nominations to the unelected House of Lords the second chamber of the parliament.

Outgoing prime ministers have the right to nominate candidates for a seat in the House of Lords, known as a peer, but candidates must give up their seats in the House of Commons if they hold them. When, after months of delay, Mr Johnson’s nominations were vetted, three of them did not promise to do so because they were under the impression that they could stay in the House of Commons until the next general election, effectively delaying their peerages.

The issue was discussed at a recent meeting between Mr. Sunak and Mr. Johnson, but they came away with different understandings of the arrangement. As a result, three lawmakers, including Nadine Dorries, a former cabinet minister and staunch ally of Mr. Johnson, were dropped from the list that was finally approved.

When asked about the episode on Monday, Mr. Sunak suggested that Mr. Johnson wanted him to break the nomination rules or, as he put it, “do something I wasn’t prepared to do.” Mr Johnson responded hours later with a statement saying: “Rishi Sunak is talking nonsense.”