Commons Privileges Committee investigation into Boris Johnson

Partygate is the political scandal concerning staff gatherings, mainly in 10 Downing Street, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, that contravened public health restrictions, which only allowed certain gatherings to take place at the time, and which contributed to Boris Johnson's downfall as Prime Minister. The first reporting relating to these events was on 30 November 2021 of 10 Downing Street staff gatherings during the 2020 Christmas season. Johnson said rules had been followed, and Downing Street denied that a party took place. Reports of further events emerged. In January 2022, the Metropolitan Police opened an investigation into potential breaches of COVID-19 regulations, which led to fixed penalty notices being issued. Johnson made several statements to the Commons about the matter.

On 19 April 2022, Speaker of the Commons Lindsay Hoyle approved an application, from the leader of the Labour Party and other leading opposition MPs,[lower-alpha 1] to table a motion for debate followed by a vote on 21 April, on whether Johnson should be referred to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee to investigate whether he knowingly misled Parliament in his comments.[3][4]

On 19 April 2022, the i news website said that a vote would reveal the loyalties of the so-far silent Tory MPs; this could then be used by opposition MPs to influence voters in the unrelated May local elections, even if, as expected by i, they lost the vote.[3] On 20 April, the Conservative leadership initially sought to have their MPs vote the motion down, but faced a potential rebellion among their backbench MPs. They instead tabled an amendment to delay the decision about referring Johnson to the Privileges Committee until after the investigative report into Partygate by Sue Gray was published. However, by the morning of 21 April, further Conservative MPs were threatening to rebel. The Government's position shifted further and they dropped the three-line whip for their amendment.[5]

The chair of the committee, Labour MP Chris Bryant, recused himself on the grounds of comments he had made about the matter previously.[6] The motion was tabled on 21 April 2022, with Tory MPs told not to oppose it.[7] Thus, the Commons approved the motion without a vote.[8] The motion called for the Privileges Committee to launch an inquiry, once the police had finished their own investigation into the gatherings.[9]

The committee began its considerations on 29 June 2022 and appointed the Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder, former President of Tribunals for the United Kingdom and former Lord Justice of Appeal, as their legal adviser.[10]

The committee can recommend a range of possible sanctions, including a suspension from the Commons, and resignation for knowingly misleading Parliament.[6][11] The full Commons would have to approve any sanctions in a vote.[6][12] It was initially unclear if the Recall of MPs Act 2015 would apply to any suspension, but the Commons Speaker subsequently ruled that it would.[6][13]

Johnson announced his resignation as Prime Minister on 7 July 2022, with Liz Truss being appointed the new Prime Minister on 6 September 2022. Truss was replaced by Rishi Sunak on 25 October 2022.

The Government hired Lord Pannick to advise Johnson, who released an opinion critical of the committee's functioning.[14] The Privileges Committee responded, saying, "The Committee accepts the view of its impartial legal advisers and the Clerks that Lord Pannick's opinion is founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law."[15]

The committee is chaired by Labour MP Harriet Harman (Harman replaced Bryant in June 2022 and was unanimously voted chair by the other Committee members[6]) and includes four Conservative MPs (Alberto Costa, Charles Walker, Andy Carter, Bernard Jenkin), a second Labour MP (Yvonne Fovargue) and an SNP MP (Allan Dorans).[16] The committee is traditionally chaired by an opposition MP. They met on 11 January 2023 to examine documents released by the Cabinet Office in late November 2022, soon after Sunak became prime minister.[17] These include WhatsApp messages sent inside Downing Street, emails, Johnson's official diary and his briefing papers to prepare him for Prime Minister's Questions, and entry logs recording who went into 10 Downing Street on 13 November and 19 June 2020.[18] The Telegraph described the question facing the committee in these terms: "Even Mr Johnson’s allies accept he misled Parliament, in that information was given to MPs that turned out to be incorrect. The key question is whether he did so knowingly, deliberately."[16]

As a former prime minister, and as the inquiry relates to statements he made on behalf of the government, Johnson's fees for legal support in the inquiry are being paid by the government.[19][20] Originally £129,000 was made available. This was extended to an additional £90,000 in December 2022. The contract was due to expire 28 February 2023, but there was then a no cost extension to 30 April 2023.[21] The Labour party have criticised the expenditure.[22][23]

On 3 March 2023, the committee published its summary of issues to be raised with Johnson, including some previously unpublished photos of gatherings. It raised at least four occasions on which the Commons might have been misled when Johnson said regulations were followed, and suggested that breaches of COVID-19 guidance would have been obvious to Johnson.[24] This report said there is evidence that advisors to Johnson were "struggling to contend that some gatherings were within the rules".[25][26] For example, it quotes the then Downing Street communications director, Jack Doyle, as writing a WhatsApp message saying, “I’m struggling to come up with a way this one is in the rules” about the 2020 birthday gathering.[27] Another WhatsApp message from 28 April 2021 by an unnamed Number 10 official said: "[No. 10 official]’s worried about leaks of PM having a piss up and to be fair I don’t think it’s unwarranted”.[28]

The 3 March report was reportedly published because Johnson's lawyers asked for details on what issues would be raised when he spoke to the committee, but the committee felt any response should be made public.[29] The committee has first to decide if it thinks any of Johnson's statements were misleading, and if it does, it said it will then "consider whether that was inadvertent, reckless or intentional".[30] Johnson said none of the evidence showed he "knowingly" misled parliament, and that "it is clear from this report that I have not committed any contempt of parliament".[25] A Johnson spokesperson said the committee consisted of members who already "think Boris is guilty".

Around the same time, it was announced that Sue Gray had been offered the job of chief of staff to Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party. Some supporters of Johnson argued this undermined her earlier Partygate report.[29] A spokesperson for the Privileges Committee stressed that their report was not based on Gray's work, but on evidence supplied by the government and from witnesses.[31]

Johnson submitted a response, the final version of which was delivered to the committee on the morning of 21 March 2023.[32] It was published later that day by the committee.[33]

Johnson's defence document acknowledged that his statements to Parliament were misleading, but argued that this was inadvertent. It set up possible key arguments for the subsequent hearings. Johnson argued that it was inappropriate of the committee to consider whether his statements were "reckless", that doing so unduly expands the scope of such investigations, and they should only be seeking to determine whether he his misleading statements were "intentional".[34]

Johnson argued that the committee should only be examining the accuracy of his statements with respect to compliance with regulations, i.e. with what was legal or illegal, and not with respect to compliance with non-legally-binding guidance. However, the statements by Johnson under examination included claims he made that "all guidance was followed completely" at 10 Downing Street.[34]

Johnson also argued that he was never told by advisers that any of the gatherings in question were against the rules. In some cases, he was specifically told they were within the rules. This, he argues, disputes the suggestion that he should have known gatherings were in breach of the rules. The defence document largely relies on advice from Johnson's then-communications chief, Jack Doyle, who was a political special adviser rather than a permanent civil servant. Cummings has claimed he did warn against the garden party, but Johnson argued that Cummings is not a reliable witness.[34]

Johnson gave evidence before the committee on 22 March 2023.[35] The hearing was televised.[23]

On the morning of 22 March, the Committee released 110 pages of evidence,[36] with redactions in places. The unredacted evidence was previously shared with Johnson a fortnight earlier. The evidence in the release was chosen by Johnson or the committee as it was to be referred to in the hearings.[37]

This includes Cabinet Secretary Simon Case denying that he gave assurances to Johnson that rules or guidance were obeyed at all times in 10 Downing Street. It also has Lee Cain, then Downing Street Director of Communications, confirming Dominic Cummings at the time said the garden party should not take place and that he had discussed the matter with Johnson.[38]

Martin Reynolds advised Johnson to not say guidance was always followed in his 8 December 2021 appearance at Prime Minister's Questions. Johnson agreed to delete this line from his response, but then, in the House, verbally said guidance had been followed.[38]

Johnson appeared for three hours in front of the committee on the afternoon of 22 March in proceedings that were described as "tetchy" by the BBC[39] and "frosty" by CNN, with Johnson raising his voice at times.[40] He reiterated his view that he had not lied to Parliament. He also described the committee's processes as "manifestly unfair".[39] However, he distanced himself from comments some of his supporters had made criticising the committee.[41]

Johnson argued that gatherings to note the leaving of a staff member and for his birthday counted as "essential" work events under the COVID-19 rules in place, but committee members disagreed. Johnson argued that he did not deserve to receive the fine he was given.[42]

Johnson argued that he received advice that all rules had been followed before speaking in Parliament, but the committee questioned that he largely meant advice from politically-appointed media advisors, mainly Jack Doyle but also James Slack. They asked why he did not rely on what he had seen himself or why he had not sought advice from lawyers or senior civil servants.[42] Johnson responded, "I asked the relevant people. They were senior people. They had been working very hard."[39][43]

Once the Committee has heard all the evidence, it will work on its conclusions. Johnson will then be given a fortnight to respond, before the final report is published. This is expected to be in late spring or early summer 2023.[44] The committee are expected to meet in late May.[45]

After Johnson’s hearing, a Survation poll found 68% of the public did not believe Johnson when he said he believed he was following the rules.[46]

• Committee of Privileges page on the investigation
• Matter referred on 21 April 2022: summary of issues to be raised with Mr Johnson Report by Committee of Privileges, published 3 March 2023
• In the matter referred to the House of Commons Committee of Privileges on 21 April 2022 Submission of written evidence by Boris Johnson, published 21 March 2023
• Material to be relied upon by The Committee of Privileges and Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP in the oral evidence session of the Committee on 22 March 2023
• Transcript of Boris Johnson's appearance in front of the Committee