Boris Johnson Defends No 10 Leaving Do as ‘Essential for Work Purposes’.
The former prime minister was questioned for nearly three hours by a cross-party group of MPs investigating whether he misled parliament by denying he violated COVID regulations during events at Downing Street.
Boris Johnson has sworn “from the bottom of his heart” that he did not lie to MPs about party gate events in Downing Street, and has stated that a gathering where he was photographed toasting colleagues was “necessary for work purposes.”
The former prime minister also stated that the size of Number 10 made it difficult to maintain social distance within the building, and that staff adhered to instructions “to the best of our abilities.”
Mr. Johnson was questioned for approximately three hours on Wednesday by the cross-party privileges committee, which is investigating whether he misled parliament by denying that events at Number 10 during the pandemic violated COVID regulations.
ALSO READ: Bordeaux Town Hall Engulfed in Flames Amidst Pension Protests in France
If they determine that he intentionally misled the House, he could be suspended from the Commons and face a by-election.
Boris Johnson Defends No 10 Leaving Do as ‘Essential for Work Purposes’. In his opening remarks, Mr. Johnson swore “hand on heart, I have not lied to the House” after swearing on the King James Bible to speak the truth throughout the session.
“When this investigation was initiated, I was completely confident that you would find no evidence that I knew or believed anything else,” he said.
“I was confident, and not because of some sort of cover-up. I was self-assured because I knew I truly believed it, which is why I stated it.”
He added that there is no evidence of officials raising concerns about rule violations “because that never occurred” and accused the committee of denying participants the opportunity to explain their actions.
Throughout the interrogation, the former prime minister insisted repeatedly that his officials assured him that no rules had been broken and that nobody had raised any concerns.
However, he acknowledged that it had been a mistake to assert that the advice had been “completely followed at Number 10.”
“I erroneously recalled the line that had already been released to the media about this event, which was ‘COVID rules were always followed,'” he said.
It was my responsibility to thank the staff.
Mr. Johnson stated as he did in his Tuesday-published written testimony, that it was difficult to maintain social distance in Number 10 because it is a “cramped, narrow 18th-century townhouse” and they were forced to meet “day in and day out, seven days a week in an unrelenting battle against COVID.”
“I will believe until the day I die that it was my responsibility to thank the staff for what they had done, particularly during a crisis like COVID, which kept returning and appeared to have no end,” he said.
The most important aspect, according to him, was that the police concluded in their investigation that his presence at the events did not violate the rules.
In addition, he mentioned his former chief adviser Dominic Cummings, who he claimed has no proof that he raised concerns and has “every motive to lie” after the pair fell out.
Several times throughout the three-hour session, exchanges became quite terse, including when Brexiteer Tory Sir Bernard Jenkin questioned whether Mr. Johnson had sought “proper advice” regarding the allegations against him.
Before he spoke on December 1 about those events, “no one had expressed concern to me or brought it to my attention,” he explained.
Sir Bernard informed Mr. Johnson that he had not requested additional counsel, at which point Mr. Johnson, pointing his finger at the MP, stated: “This is utter nonsense, and I mean utter nonsense.
“I questioned the pertinent parties. They were elderly individuals. They had been working diligently.”
“Required for work purposes”
When asked about a photograph from one of the events in November 2020 that appears to show the former leader toasting staff with a drink at a farewell party for departing communications chief Lee Cain, he stated, “I believe it was necessary for work purposes.”
Mr. Johnson stated that the meeting, which occurred while social distancing rules were in effect, was “necessary” because two senior staff members were leaving “under potentially acrimonious circumstances.”
“I acknowledge that perfect social distancing is not being observed, but that does not make what we were doing incompatible with the recommendations,” he added.
“Flimsy guarantees”
Mr. Johnson became irritated when he was repeatedly asked if anyone had assured him that the guidelines were being followed.
“It’s clear from what I’ve said that I’ve received repeated assurances from different people and on separate occasions that the rules have been followed,” he said.
However, chair and veteran Labour MP Harriet Harman deemed his assurances to be insufficient.
She asked, “Do you believe we have the right to be somewhat dismayed by the flimsiness of this assurance?”
Ms. Harman stated that it appeared his assurances “amounted to nothing at all.”
Mr. Johnson acknowledged he could have provided MPs with a more detailed explanation of his position on Number 10’s adherence to COVID guidance.
“Perhaps if I had clarified what I meant, how I felt, and what I believed about following the instructions, it would have helped,” he said.
At one point, the former prime minister attacked the committee over a gathering in the garden of Number 10: “People who claim that we were partying during a lockdown simply do not understand what they are talking about.
People who assert that this event was solely a social gathering are mistaken.
Mr. Johnson responded, “Of course not,” when asked if he believed exceptions to the workplace rules and social distancing guidelines applied to Number 10 but not to hospitals and care homes.
Sue Gray appears multiple times
Mr. Johnson took multiple shots at former senior civil servant Sue Gray, who conducted a party gate investigation that was critical of the leadership at Number 10 at the time of the events. She recently resigned from the civil service to become the chief of staff for Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer.
Ms. Harman stated in her opening remarks that they are not relying on any information from Ms. Gray’s report, adding that she is not a witness in their investigation.
The former prime minister mentioned her multiple times in his opening remarks and responses to MPs, stating that Ms. Gray told him “at least on a couple of occasions” that she did not believe criminality had been reached. Additionally, he mentioned the Sue Gray report multiple times.
The committee’s conclusion is anticipated to take several weeks, and Ms. Harman has stated that the committee may request additional written and oral evidence.
If the committee determines that Mr. Johnson misled the legislature, it will recommend a punishment, which could be a suspension, but it will be up to the members of parliament to decide whether to accept the recommendation.
Rishi Sunak has granted Tory MPs a conscience vote on the fate of Mr. Johnson.
HEY READER. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS SITE BY CLICKING ADS. DON’T FORGET TO HIT THE NOTIFICATION BELL FOR MORE UPDATES AROUND THE GLOBE.
