Privileges Partygate

House of Commons
Committee of Privileges
Matter referred on 21
April 2022: summary of
issues to be raised with
Mr Johnson
Fourth Report of Session 2022–23
Report, together with formal minutes relating

to the report
Ordered by the House of Commons

to be printed 3 March 2023
HC 1203
Published on 3 March 2023
by authority of the House of Commons
Committee of Privileges
The Committee of Privileges is appointed to consider specific matters relating
to privileges referred to it by the House. The scope of any inquiry comprises all
matters relevant to the matter referred.
Current membership
Andy Carter MP (Conservative, Warrington South)

Alberto Costa MP (Conservative, South Leicestershire)
Allan Dorans MP (Scottish National Party, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
Yvonne Fovargue MP (Labour, Makerfield)
Ms Harriet Harman MP (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)
Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex)
Sir Charles Walker MP (Conservative, Broxbourne)
Powers
The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing
Orders, principally in SO No. 148A. These are available on the internet via
www.parliament.uk.
Publications
© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2023. This publication may be

reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at
www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament.
Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website and in print by
Order of the House.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Miguel Boo Fraga (Committee Operations
Manager), Paul Connolly (Media Officer), Arvind Gunnoo (Committee Operations
Officer), Dr Robin James (Clerk), Robi Quigley (Second Clerk), Duncan Sim
(Committee Specialist) and Mike Winter JP (Chair Support Officer).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Committee of

Privileges, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number
for general enquiries is 0207 219 1493; the Committee’s email address is
[email protected].
Matter referred on 21 April 2022: summary of issues to be raised with Mr Johnson 1
Contents
1 Report 3
Introduction3
Our inquiry 4
Principal issues to be raised with Mr Johnson 7
Next steps 18
Appendix: Photographs 19
Formal minutes 22
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 23

1 Report
Introduction
1. This report sets out next steps in our inquiry1 into whether the Rt Hon Boris Johnson
MP misled the House of Commons and, if so, whether he committed a contempt. The
report will enable Mr Johnson to have notice before he gives oral evidence to us of the
principal issues that the Committee may raise with him. This was requested by his legal
advisers. We have issued this report to Parliament, on whose behalf we are conducting
this inquiry. We are doing so in public because we are committed to transparency, and
because this is a matter of public interest. The conclusions in this report are not the final
conclusions of our inquiry. We will reach those only when we have heard oral evidence
from Mr Johnson.
2. It is the House, not the Privileges Committee, that decides whether the Committee
should conduct an inquiry. When the House has decided to refer a matter, it is for the
Committee to conduct an inquiry according to the rules and procedures which are laid
down by the House through resolution and precedent. The Committee does not make
the rules and does not have the discretion to refuse to inquire. We follow the rules of
the House. The Committee is required to conduct its own investigation into the matter
referred, and must provide the subject of the inquiry the opportunity to see the results of
the investigation. That is the purpose of this Report.
3. The members of the Privileges Committee are Members of Parliament who have been
appointed to this role by the House. The political balance on the Committee reflects the
political balance in the House. Presently there are four members of the governing party
and three members drawn from opposition parties. There are four Conservative MPs, two
Labour MPs and one MP from the Scottish National Party. By convention the Committee
is chaired by an MP drawn from the official opposition. The Rt Hon Harriet Harman KC
MP was appointed by the House to the Committee on 14 June 2022 in place of Sir Chris
Bryant MP, and chosen by the Committee as its Chair on 29 June.
4. There is a fundamental expectation that members of the Committee leave their party
interests at the door of the committee room and conduct their work in the interests of
the House not their party. That is what each member of the Committee has done in this
inquiry.
1 The inquiry was referred to the Committee of Privileges by the House of Commons without division on 21 April
2022. The terms of the House’s resolution are:
That this House
(1) notes that, given the issue of fixed penalty notices by the police in relation to events in 10 Downing Street
and the Cabinet Office, assertions the Rt hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has made on the floor of
the House about the legality of activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations,
including but not limited to the following answers given at Prime Minister’s Questions: 1 December 2021, that
“all guidance was followed in No. 10”, Official Report vol. 704, col. 909; 8 December 2021 that “I have been
repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were
broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372; 8 December 2021 that “I am sickened myself and furious about that,
but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”, Official
Report vol. 705, col. 372 and 8 December 2021 “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all
times”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 379, appear to amount to misleading the House; and
(2) orders that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the Rt hon
Member’s conduct amounted to a contempt of the House, but that the Committee shall not begin substantive
consideration of the matter until the inquiries currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Police have been
concluded.
4 Matter referred on 21 April 2022: summary of issues to be raised with Mr Johnson
Our inquiry
5. The resolution of the House laid down that the inquiry should commence only when
the Metropolitan Police had completed their investigations. After that was done and
the Second Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office had published the findings of her
investigation into alleged gatherings on government premises during Covid restrictions,2
and after the Committee had concluded its inquiry into a matter previously referred by the
House,3 we began our work on 29 June 2022. We have sought to do that as expeditiously
as possible, while ensuring that our inquiry is rigorous and thorough. Our inquiry was
initially held up by a reluctance on the part of the Government to provide unredacted
evidence (as we set out in paragraph 12 below).
6. This inquiry is considering:
• What Mr Johnson said to the House
• Whether what he said was correct or whether it was misleading
• How quickly and comprehensively any misleading statement to the House was
corrected, and
• If it is established that the House was misled, whether this actually constituted
a contempt of the House by impeding the functions of the House or tending to
do so.
If a statement was misleading, we will consider whether that was inadvertent, reckless
or intentional.4 If we conclude it was in any way reckless or intentional we will consider
what sanction to recommend to the House. It will be for the House to decide whether to
accept or reject our conclusions and recommendations. There has been some misinformed
speculation in the media that the Committee will not be concerned with issues of intention
or recklessness; that is incorrect.
7. We are not conducting an investigation into “partygate” or the culture and behaviour
of No. 10 and officials who worked there over the relevant period. While we are concerned
to establish the facts of what occurred in No. 10 for the purpose of discharging our
obligation under the terms of the House’s resolution, we are not repeating the inquiry
which was conducted by the Metropolitan Police or the investigation conducted by the
Second Permanent Secretary. The issuing by the Metropolitan Police of 126 fixed penalty
notices and the findings in the Second Permanent Secretary’s report are relevant facts
which the Committee will take into account.5 Our inquiry has not considered the conduct
of any individual other than Mr Johnson, because our mandate from the House is to look
specifically at Mr Johnson’s conduct.
2 GOV.UK, Findings of the Second Permanent Secretary’s Investigation into alleged gatherings on government
premises during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022
3 First Report of Session 2022–23, Select committees and contempts: review of consultation on Committee
proposals, HC 401, 16 June 2022
4 We emphasise that the Committee is not a court of law, it is a select committee of Parliament, and its processes
are parliamentary rather than forensic. The Committee will adopt plain-English definitions of key concepts as
used in a parliamentary context.
premises during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022, pp2–3 and pp36–37
8. The expectation is that when the House hears from Ministers, what it hears is the
truth as far as the Minister knows it. The House considers legislation and scrutinises
government activity on the basis that what it is told is accurate. Parliament expects and
requires proactive candour and transparency. This is what is necessary for the House to do
its job properly. If a Minister makes an inadvertent error they are expected to correct it at
the earliest opportunity. Mistakes inevitably happen and corrections are made routinely.
There are, every year, roughly 100 corrections per year by Ministers who have inadvertently
misled the House.6 The more important the issue, the more seriously the House will take
any question of misleading.
9. Contempt of the House of Commons is governed by parliamentary law and customs

as set out in the resolutions of the House and in parliamentary precedent. We have
scrupulously observed the House’s practice and are grateful for the authoritative advice
of the strictly impartial Clerks of the House and the Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder, whom we
appointed as our legal adviser7 and who is the former Senior President of Tribunals and a
Lord Justice of Appeal. We have followed that advice at all times. Our approach has been
to apply the parliamentary rules to this inquiry and to be fair to Mr Johnson with the
objective of ensuring that the rules of the House are respected and complied with by all
Members.
10. Neither parliamentary law nor the procedure of the Committee is the same as that used
in a court. Contempt of the House is different from contempt of court and is governed by
parliamentary rules and precedent rather than by statute and judicial precedent. Decisions
made about questions of parliamentary privilege involving Members of Parliament are
not made by judges in the courts or by the Prime Minister as the head of Government,
they are made by elected Members of Parliament. A Privileges Committee inquiry is also
separate from the Ministerial Code which is the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
They are not the same and they have evolved in different ways over time for different
reasons. We are not adjudicating on whether there has been a breach of the Ministerial
Code. The Committee has taken steps to ensure that its procedures and practice are in
accord with the principles of fairness and natural justice. Select Committees have their
6 There were 122 and 100 formal Written Ministerial Corrections in Session 2021–22 and 2019–21 respectively.
Corrections outside the scope of this formal mechanism may also be made by Ministers via alternative routes
such as written ministerial statements. See: Written Evidence to the Procedure Committee from the Clerk of the
House (CTR0006, para 12), for its current inquiry into Correcting the Record
7 In December 2021 the Committee on Standards commissioned Sir Ernest Ryder to conduct a review of fairness
and natural justice in the House’s standards system. His review was published in March 2022; following a public
consultation the Committee endorsed Sir Ernest’s recommendations in a report published in May 2022, and the
House endorsed his key proposals in October 2022. See Committee on Standards, Sixth Report of Session 2021–
22, Review of fairness and natural justice in the House’s standards system (HC 1183), 4 March 2022; Committee
on Standards, First Report of Session 2022–23, New Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules: promoting
appropriate values, attitudes and behaviour in Parliament (HC 227), 24 May 2022; Votes and Proceedings, 18
October 2022, item 10. On 29 June 2022 the Committee of Privileges appointed Sir Ernest as its Legal Adviser,
pursuant to Standing Order No. 148A(5)(b).
own procedures which we have followed. We have set out those procedures as they relate
to this inquiry in our reports of July8 and September9 2022.10 We have done all we can to
ensure the fairness of our process.
11. The Committee issued a public call for evidence on 30 June 2022. On 14 July, the
Committee wrote to Mr Johnson to request that he supply it with materials in the 12
categories of evidence that we have identified, insofar as such documents were in his
possession.11 The Committee further wrote to Mr Johnson on 21 July, inviting him to
provide an initial submission in writing concerning the allegations set out in the House’s
resolution of 21 April and to identify any witnesses that he believed could give relevant
evidence to the Committee. On 12 August, Mr Johnson replied to our letter of 14 July
and stated that, in relation to the Committee’s request for documents held in his personal
possession, he held no relevant material. Mr Johnson has not provided us with a written
submission as we invited in our letter of 21 July.
12. The Committee wrote to the Government on 14 July, in the same terms as it wrote to
Mr Johnson on that date, to request relevant materials in its possession.12 The Government
responded to our request by providing, on 24 August, documents which were so heavily
redacted as to render them devoid of any evidential value. Some material had been
redacted even though it was already in the public domain. Following further engagement
between the Committee and Ministers and senior officials, which took some months,
unredacted disclosure of all relevant material was finally provided on 18 November.
We have gone to great lengths to protect this information which the Government has
entrusted to Parliament.13 This included records in the investigation by the Second
Permanent Secretary, Mr Johnson’s official diaries of appointments and visits, relevant
emails between officials, and photographs of gatherings in No 10 Downing Street and the
Cabinet Office, all unredacted.
13. Receipt of that material from the Government provided the basis for the Committee
to ask for written evidence from 23 witnesses on 24 January 2023, asking them to provide
their evidence supported by a statement of truth which is equivalent to an oral statement
under oath. The Committee has now received and considered this further written evidence.
14. On 19 January 2023, in response to a direct and specific request by the Committee for
all relevant WhatsApp messages, Mr Johnson’s solicitors supplied us with 46 WhatsApp
messages between Mr Johnson and five other individuals.
8 Second Report of Session 2022–23, Matter referred on 21 April 2022: proposed conduct of inquiry, HC 632, 21
July 2022
9 Third Report of Session 2022–23, Matter referred on 21 April 2022: comments on joint opinion of Lord Pannick
KC and Jason Pobjoy, HC 713, 26 September 2022
10 In particular, it should be noted that our procedures are investigative not adversarial and so, for example,
lawyers are not permitted to address the Committee on behalf of their clients although lawyers may advise
them. The September report included our responses to arguments put forward by Mr Johnson’s legal advisers;
see GOV.UK, Legal Opinion by Lord Pannick KC relating to the Privileges Committee, 2 September 2022
11 Correspondence from the Chair to Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, dated 14 July [published 15 July]
12 Correspondence from the Chair to the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, dated 14 July [published 15 July]
13 By decision of the Committee, members of the Committee, including the Chair, have had access to confidential
unredacted material supplied by the Government only in hard copy, in a secure reading room on the
parliamentary estate, invigilated by Committee staff; they have been permitted to take notes but not
photographs or photocopies of the documents.
15. Mr Johnson’s solicitors have written to us about the Committee’s procedures.14
16. We are making available to Mr Johnson, in addition to a copy of this report: all
of the written statements we have received; all the documents and photographs which
the Government has provided to us; and the interview notes taken during the Second
Permanent Secretary’s investigation. We have made no redactions in any of this material.
For the avoidance of doubt, all evidence received by the Committee will be disclosed,
and the identities of all witnesses will be disclosed to Mr Johnson. Some witnesses have
requested that their identities are not made known to the public at large. The Committee
will consider these requests in due course.
Principal issues to be raised with Mr Johnson

17. We set out below the principal issues to which we will be asking Mr Johnson to
respond in oral evidence.
18. On the basis of information that is in the public domain and evidence the Committee
has received, we will consider:
• The rules and guidance relating to Covid that were in force at the relevant time
• Mr Johnson’s knowledge of the rules and guidance in force
• Mr Johnson’s attendance at gatherings that were not socially distanced and those
for which fixed penalty notices were issued
We will compare that with what Mr Johnson said to the House of Commons, particularly
on 1 December 2021, 8 December 2021, and subsequently.
19. Over the period from May 2020 to April 2021 the rules and the guidance imposing
restrictions to prevent the spread of Covid varied. Nevertheless, regulations consistently
imposed restrictions on gatherings between people from different households with a
limited number of exceptions. These exceptions included where a gathering was “essential”
for work purposes under regulations in force before 1 June 2020, or “reasonably necessary”
for work purposes under regulations in force from 1 June 2020. Between May 2020 and
April 2021, workplace guidance specified maintaining social distancing where possible. At
the material time, No. 10 Downing Street circulated all staff working in those offices with
the rules and guidance that they should follow, including social distancing requirements.15
20. Mr Johnson’s knowledge of the rules and guidance is evidenced by the continuous
statements he made at press conferences and to the House outlining and reaffirming rules
and guidance that were in force at the time. A selection of these statements includes:
• On 11 May 2020, Mr Johnson said in the House that people should be “limiting
contact with others [and] keeping your distance to 2 metres apart where possible”,
and that “we are working together as a country to obey the social distancing
14 As part of this correspondence, Mr Johnson’s solicitors submitted to the Committee a further opinion by Lord
Pannick KC and Mr Pobjoy in response to the Committee’s Third Report, Session 2022–23, Matter referred on
21 April 2022: comments on joint opinion of Lord Pannick KC and Jason Pobjoy. The Committee has published
Lord Pannick and Mr Pobjoy’s further opinion on its website. The Committee has nothing further to add to its
comments in the Third Report.
15 Evidence received from the Cabinet Office on 21 December 2022 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed
to Mr Johnson]
rules, which everybody understands”.16 He also noted that the Government was
introducing covid guidance for workplaces, saying: “If you must go to work and
cannot work from home, you should do so, provided […] that your workplace
is covid secure, and that you observe the rules on social distancing. We are
publishing further guidance on that”.17
• On 10 June 2020, at a Covid press conference, Mr Johnson said: “I urge everyone

to continue to show restraint and respect the rules which are designed to keep
us all safe […] So please, to repeat what you’ve heard so many times before, stay
alert, maintain social distancing and keep washing your hands.”18
• On 9 November 2020, at a Covid press conference shortly after the introduction

of a second national lockdown, Mr Johnson said that: “Neither mass testing nor
progress on vaccines […] are at the present time a substitute for the national
restrictions, for social distancing, for hand hygiene and all the rest. So it is all the
more important to follow the rules.”19
• On 30 December 2020, at a Covid press conference, Mr Johnson outlined the

‘Tier 4’ restrictions which had recently been imposed on several areas of England,
and which were analogous to the national lockdown restrictions subsequently
imposed in January 2021, saying: “That means not meeting up with friends or
family indoors, unless they are in the same household or support bubble, and
avoiding large gatherings of any kind.”20
21. There is evidence that a culture of drinking in the workplace in some parts of No.
10 continued after Covid restrictions began, and that events such as birthday parties and
leaving parties for officials continued in No. 10 despite workplace guidance on social
distancing and regulations imposing restrictions on gatherings. In particular, the events
16 HC Deb (2019–21) 676, c 27

[Boris Johnson] “Let me summarise by saying that people should stay alert by working from home if you possibly
can, by limiting contact with others, by keeping your distance to 2 metres apart where possible and by washing
your hands regularly. If you or anyone in your household has symptoms, you all need to self-isolate. If everyone
stays alert and follows the rules, we can control the virus, keep the rate of infection down and keep the number
of infections down. That is how we will be able to save lives and to save livelihoods as we begin to recover from
coronavirus.”
HC Deb (2019–21) 676, c 30
[Boris Johnson] “Perhaps I can sum up. We all share the strong view that people should stay at home if they can,
and that remains the position. The steps we are taking today are modest, and entirely governed by the science
[…] But let us be clear: everybody understands what we are trying to do together. We are working together as
a country to obey the social distancing rules, which everybody understands. The British people understand that
this is the moment for the whole country to come together, obey those rules, and apply common sense in their
application of them.”
17 HC Deb (2019–21) 676, c 42
[Bill Esterson] “[…] Will he take on board the concerns voiced by unions, workers and employers? Will he tell us
how he will enforce those guidelines to keep people safe? Will he say how workers will be able to voice their
concerns about their safety at work?”
Boris Johnson] “[…] Now is the time to make small, calibrated changes, respectful always of the science and the
risk of a second spike. That is why we are emphasising that if you must go to work and cannot work from home,
you should do so, provided—the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this—that your workplace is covid
secure, and that you observe the rules on social distancing. We are publishing further guidance on that.”
18 GOV.UK, Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 10 June 2020, 10 June 2020
19 GOV.UK, Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 9 November 2020, 9 November 2020
20 GOV.UK, Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 30 December 2020, 30 December 2020
that continued included Friday evening drinks gatherings in the Press Office area.21 Mr
Johnson is said by witnesses to have seen Press Office gatherings on his way to the No. 10
flat, and to have occasionally joined these gatherings when his attendance had not been
planned.22 We conducted a site visit to No. 10 Downing Street on 21 February 2023, at
which we confirmed that a line of sight exists from the bottom of the stairs leading up to
what was then Mr Johnson’s flat into the Press Office vestibule where these gatherings took
place, and that for Mr Johnson to have been present in the vestibule during the gatherings
he would have had to proceed from the staircase through a further intervening anteroom.
22. On 20 May 2020, when the rules and guidance in force for the prevention of the spread
of Covid included restrictions on gatherings of more than two people and maintaining
social distancing of 2 metres in the workplace wherever possible,23 Mr Johnson attended a
gathering in the garden of No 10 which was attended by 30 to 40 people.24 The invitation
list was extensive and the planning and communications are evidence that the purpose
of the gathering was social.25 Alcohol was provided by staff.26 Fixed penalty notices were
issued to a number of those who attended.
23. On 19 June 2020, when the rules and guidance in force for the prevention of the
spread of Covid included restrictions on indoor gatherings of two or more people and
premises during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022, pp 29:
“The investigation was told that members of the Press Office have, for some time (including before the
pandemic), brought in wine on Fridays to mark the end of the week. This was known as ‘Wine Time Friday’
where bottles of wine were placed on a table in a small room adjacent to the main Press Office and people
could help themselves.”
22 Written evidence submission received 6 February 2023; Notes of interviews conducted as part of the Second
Permanent Secretary’s investigation into alleged gatherings on government premises during covid restrictions
[evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr Johnson]
23 Regulations stated:
“No person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people”.
Exceptions included “where the gathering is essential for work purposes”. See: The Health Protection
(Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/350) (as amended 13 May 2020), Regulation 7.
Workplace guidance stated:
“You must maintain social distancing in the workplace wherever possible”.
It encouraged business to take “all the mitigating actions possible” where social distancing could not be
followed in full. For meetings, this included using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings, only
absolutely necessary participants attending, and holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms. See:
GOV.UK, Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 19 May 2020.
premises during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022:
”It has been difficult to ascertain exact numbers in attendance, but it is likely that there were approximately
30–40 people in the garden.”
“The email invitation was sent to a number of group distribution lists, as well as individuals, comprising in total
around 200 staff across No 10 Downing Street. The invitation was also sent to special advisers in the Chancellor’s
office and a member of staff in the No 10 Covid-19 Coordination unit. Martin Reynolds also sent a separate
email invitation to other senior officials”; and the email issued on behalf of Martin Reynolds which said “Hi
all, After what has been an incredibly busy period we thought it would be nice to make the most of this lovely
weather and have some socially distanced drinks in the garden this evening. Please join us from 6pm and bring
your own booze!”
“Drinks and pizza were provided and paid for by staff.” On 21 May 2020, a No 10 special adviser emailed Martin
Reynolds saying “Thank you so much for organising these drinks and for providing the wine!”
maintaining social distancing in the workplace of 2 metres wherever possible,27 Mr

Johnson attended a gathering in the Cabinet Room to celebrate his birthday. A cake and
alcohol were provided. The attendees included individuals who were not work colleagues
of Mr Johnson.28 Some attendees, including Mr Johnson, received fixed penalty notices
in relation to this event. The event was neither “reasonably necessary for work purposes”
nor socially distanced. Photographs were taken of the event which the Committee has
received.29
24. On 13 November 2020, when the rules and guidance in force for the prevention of
the spread of Covid included restrictions on indoor gatherings of two or more people
and maintaining social distancing of 2 metres or 1 metre with risk mitigations in the
workplace wherever possible,30 Mr Johnson attended an impromptu leaving gathering in
the vestibule of the Press Office. Mr Johnson joined the gathering and made a speech.31
Photographs were taken of the event which the Committee has received.32 The photographs
show that there was no social distancing.
25. On 27 November 2020, when the rules and guidance in force for the prevention of
“No person may participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place—
(a) outdoors, and consists of more than six persons,
(b) indoors, and consists of two or more persons.
Exceptions included “where the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, or for the provision of
voluntary or charitable services”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations
2020 (SI 2020/350) (as amended 15 June 2020), Regulation 7.
It encouraged business to take “all the mitigating actions possible” where social distancing could not be
followed in full. For meetings, this included using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings, only
absolutely necessary participants attending, and holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms. See:
GOV.UK, Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 15 June 2020.
“A number of individuals gathered in the Cabinet Room in No 10 Downing Street to wish the Prime Minister a
happy birthday. Food, alcohol and soft drinks were provided, having been organised in advance that morning …
Those attending included No 10 officials and Mrs Johnson.”
29 See Appendix for photographs
“No person may participate in a gathering which—
(a) consists of two or more people, and
(b) takes place indoors (including indoors within a private dwelling).”
Exceptions included “where the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, or for the provision
of voluntary or charitable services”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4)
Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1200) (as amended 10 November 2020), Part 3.
It advised social distancing of 2 metres, or 1 metre with risk mitigations where 2 metres was not viable. It
encouraged business to take “all the mitigating actions possible” where social distancing could not be followed
in full. For meetings, this included using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings, only absolutely
necessary participants attending, and holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms. See: GOV.UK,
Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 9 November 2020.
The Prime Minister attended on his way to his Downing Street flat, having left his office at 19.17. He went to the
Press Office area, joined the gathering and made a leaving speech for Lee Cain.”
32 See Appendix for photographs
workplace wherever possible,33 Mr Johnson attended and gave a speech at a gathering in

the vestibule of the No. 10 Press Office to thank a member of staff who was leaving.34 We
received evidence that there was no social distancing and people were standing 4–5 deep.35
We received evidence that Mr Johnson said that it was “probably the most unsocially
distanced gathering in the UK right now”.36
26. On 18 December 2020, when the rules and guidance in force for the prevention of
workplace wherever possible,37 Mr Johnson was present in No 10. The Press Office held a
‘cheese and wine Friday’ which was neither socially distanced38 nor reasonably necessary
for work purposes. It was billed as a Christmas gathering and between 20 and 45 people
attended.39 Fixed penalty notices were issued to some of those who attended.
“No person may participate in a gathering which—
(b) takes place indoors (including indoors within a private dwelling).”
Exceptions included “where the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, or for the provision
of voluntary or charitable services”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4)
Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1200) (as amended 10 November 2020), Part 3.
Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 27 November 2020.
“The Prime Minister finished a meeting at 18.19 and then attended the Press Office to say goodbye. He
remained for a short time, saying a few words of thanks and 20 farewell, before returning to his office for his
next meeting which was scheduled for 18.45. The special adviser left the building by 18.58.”
35 Written evidence submission received 7 February 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr
Johnson]
“It must have been about 4 deep, where the press office moved into this offending room, I remember vividly
that it was about 4–5 people deep.”
36 Written evidence submission received 7 February 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr
Johnson]
“I do remember him saying “this is probably the most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK right now”.
37 On this date, London was classified as a ‘Tier 3’ area. Regulations stated:
“No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 3 area which—
(b) takes place in a private dwelling or in any indoor space.”
voluntary or charitable services”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England)
Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1374) (as amended 2 December 2020), Schedule 3 Part 1.
Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 14 December 2020.
premises during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022; Written evidence submission received 24 January 2023
premises during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022; Written evidence submission received 7 February 2023; Written
evidence submission received 24 January 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr Johnson]
27. On 14 January 2021, when the rules and guidance in force for the prevention of the
spread of Covid included restrictions on indoor gatherings of two or more people and
maintaining social distancing of 2 metres or 1 metre with risk mitigations in the workplace
wherever possible,40 Mr Johnson attended and gave a speech at a leaving gathering for
two officials involving 15–20 people.41 The photographs show Mr Johnson in attendance.42
Fixed penalty notices were issued to staff for this event.
28. On 1 December 2021, Mr Johnson told the House: “All guidance was followed
completely in No. 10”.43 We will consider why Mr Johnson told the House that no guidance
had been broken in No. 10 when he knew what the guidance was and was in attendance
at gatherings where the guidance was breached; and why he failed to tell the House about
the gatherings at which he had been present.
29. On 8 December 2021, Mr Johnson told the House: “The guidance was followed and
the rules were followed at all times”.44 We will consider why Mr Johnson told the House
that no rules or guidance had been broken in No. 10 when he knew what the rules and
guidance were and was in attendance at gatherings where the rules and guidance were
breached; and why he failed to tell the House about the gatherings at which he had been
present.
30. On 8 December 2021, Mr Johnson told the House “I have been repeatedly assured
since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were
40 On this date, London (together with the rest of England) was classified as a ‘Tier 4’ area. Regulations stated:
“No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 4 area which—
(b) takes place in a private dwelling or in any indoor space.”
voluntary or charitable services”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England)
Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1374) (as amended 6 January 2021), Schedule 3A Part 2.
“Currently, you can only leave home for work purposes where it is unreasonable for you to do your job from
home. If it is unreasonable for you to do your job from home, you must maintain social distancing in the
workplace wherever possible”.
Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 7 January 2021.
premises during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022; Notes of interviews conducted as part of the Second
Permanent Secretary’s investigation into alleged gatherings on government premises during covid restrictions
42 See Appendix for photographs.
43 HC Deb (2021–22) 704, c 909
[Keir Starmer] “As millions of people were locked down last year, was a Christmas party thrown in Downing
Street for dozens of people on 18 December?”
Boris Johnson] “What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that all guidance was followed
completely in No. 10.”
44 HC Deb (2021–22) 705, c 379
[Catherine West] “Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13
November?”
Boris Johnson] “No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were
followed at all times.”
broken”;45 and that “I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”.46 We
will examine the basis of his assertion that he had received “repeated assurances” that all
rules had been complied with to discover why he sought to rely on purported assurances
from others when he was there at gatherings in question. We will consider why he said
he had been given repeated assurances when the evidence is that the assertion that all
rules were followed was taken primarily from a line-to-take developed by the Director of
Communications at No. 10, a special adviser appointed by Mr Johnson, as a response to a
media enquiry about specific gatherings rather than having been a general assurance as to
the fact that no guidance or rules were broken in No. 10.47
31. On 15 December 2021, Mr Johnson told the House: “A report is being delivered
to me by the Cabinet Secretary into exactly what went on”.48 On 12 January 2022, Mr
Johnson said to the House in relation to the gathering of 20 May 2020: “All I ask is that
Sue Gray be allowed to complete her inquiry into that day and several others, so that
the full facts can be established”;49 he also repeatedly urged Members to “wait” for the
inquiry to be concluded in response to Members’ questions about what had happened
45 HC Deb (2021–22) 705, c 372

[Boris Johnson] “I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was
no party and that no covid rules were broken. That is what I have been repeatedly assured. But I have asked the
Cabinet Secretary to establish all the facts and to report back as soon as possible. It goes without saying that if
those rules were broken, there will be disciplinary action for all those involved.”
46 HC Deb (2021–22) 705, c 372
[Keir Starmer] “Last week, I asked the Prime Minister: was there “a Christmas party…in Downing Street for
dozens of people on 18 December?”. The Prime Minister and the Government spent the week telling the British
public that there was no party and that all guidance was followed completely. Millions of people now think the
Prime Minister was taking them for fools and that they were lied to; they are right, aren’t they?”
Boris Johnson]: “I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably missed what I said at the beginning, but
I apologise for the impression that has been given that staff in Downing Street take this less than seriously. I am
sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that
the rules were not broken […] I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate exactly what happened, and I
repeat that there will be consequences for those involved if the rules were broken.”
47 Written evidence submission received 1 March 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr
Johnson].
See also, written evidence submission received 7 February 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed
to Mr Johnson]: “To the best of my recollection Mr Johnson’s Director of Communications agreed the statement
directly with Mr Johnson”
48 HC Deb (2021–22) 705 cc1050–1051
Keir Starmer] “Can the Prime Minister not see that he has no hope of regaining the moral authority to deliver
that difficult message if he cannot be straight with the British public about the rule breaking in Downing Street
last Christmas?”
Boris Johnson] “I have repeatedly answered that question before. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman
knows, a report is being delivered to me by the Cabinet Secretary into exactly what went on.”
N.B. on 17 December 2021 the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, recused himself from leading the investigation
into alleged gatherings on government premises during Covid restrictions. The investigation was subsequently
led by the Second Permanent Secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Sue
Gray.
49 HC Deb (2021–22) 706 cc562–563
[Boris Johnson] “[…] No. 10 is a big department, with the garden as an extension of the office, which has been
in constant use because of the role of fresh air in stopping the virus. When I went into that garden just after 6
o’clock on 20 May 2020, to thank groups of staff before going back into my office 25 minutes later to continue
working, I believed implicitly that this was a work event, but with hindsight, I should have sent everyone back
inside. I should have found some other way to thank them, and I should have recognised that even if it could be
said technically to fall within the guidance, there would be millions and millions of people who simply would
not see it that way […] All I ask is that Sue Gray be allowed to complete her inquiry into that day and several
others, so that the full facts can be established. I will of course come back to this House and make a statement.”
and the implications for his position as Prime Minister.50 He further urged Members
to wait for the inquiry’s conclusion in similar terms on 19 January.51 He did not reveal
to the House what he knew when he answered direct questions about his knowledge,
instead saying that he would have to wait for the outcome of the Second Permanent
Secretary’s investigation. The Committee will want to hear from Mr Johnson why, instead
of correcting the record at the earliest opportunity, he declined to answer questions that
were within his direct knowledge, instead telling the House to await the report of the
Second Permanent Secretary.
32. There is evidence that the House of Commons may have been misled in the following
ways which the Committee will explore:
a) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson said on 8 December 2021 that no
rules or guidance had been broken in No. 10. The Second Permanent Secretary
50 See for example:

HC Deb (2021–22) 706 c564
[Keir Starmer] “[…] The Prime Minister pretended that he had been assured there were no parties—how that
fits with his defence now, I do not know. Then the video landed, blowing the Prime Minister’s first defence out
of the water. So then he pretended that he was sickened and furious about the parties. Now it turns out he
was at the parties all along. Can the Prime Minister not see why the British public think he is lying through his
teeth?”
[Boris Johnson] “[…] As I have said to the House, I believe that the events in question were within the guidance
and were within the rules, and that was certainly the assumption on which I operated, but can I say to him that
he should wait—he should wait—before he jumps to conclusions, and a lawyer should respect the inquiry? I
hope that he will wait until the facts are established and brought to this House.”
HC Deb (2021–22) 706 cc572–573
[Chris Bryant] “The Prime Minister did not spot that he was at a social event. That is the excuse, isn’t it? Come
off it […] Would it not be absolutely despicable if, in the search for a scapegoat, some junior member of staff
ended up losing their job while he kept his?”
Boris Johnson] “[…] I really think, with all humility, I must ask him to wait for the result of the inquiry, when he
will have abundant opportunity to question me again and to make his party political points again.”
51 See for example:
HC Deb (2021–22) 707 c321
[Wendy Chamberlain] “Last year, we were told by the Prime Minister that there were no Downing Street parties.
Then it turned out that there were parties, but we were assured that no rules were broken. Last week, we heard
that rules may have been broken, but that he thought it was a work event. Yesterday, from the man who wrote
the rules, we heard, “Well, nobody told me what those rules were.” […] Does the Prime Minister agree that it is
now time for him to resign?”
Boris Johnson] “No, but as I said to the House last week, I apologise sincerely for any misjudgments that were
made. The hon. Lady must contain her impatience and wait for the inquiry next week before drawing any of the
conclusions she has just asserted.”
HC Deb (2021–22) 707 c323
[Keir Starmer] “Not only did the Prime Minister write the rules, but some of his staff say they did warn him
about attending the party on 20 May 2020. I have heard the Prime Minister’s very carefully crafted response to
that accusation; it almost sounds like a lawyer wrote it, so I will be equally careful with my question. When did
the Prime Minister first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the 20 May party?”
Boris Johnson] “I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for repeating the question that he
has already asked. We have answered that: it is for the inquiry to come forward with an explanation of what
happened, and I am afraid that he simply must wait.”
HC Deb (2021–202) 707 c323
[Keir Starmer] “If the Prime Minister’s new defence were true, it requires him […] to expect us to believe that,
while every other person who was invited on 20 May to the party was told it was a social occasion, he alone was
told it was a work meeting. It also requires the Prime Minister to ask us to accept that, as he waded through the
empty bottles and platters of sandwiches, he did not realise it was a party. Does the Prime Minister realise how
ridiculous that sounds?”
[Boris Johnson] “I have said what I have said about the events in No. 10 and the right hon. and learned
Gentleman will have to wait for the report.”
and the Metropolitan Police have already come to the conclusion that was
not correct, including in relation to specific gatherings for which Mr Johnson
asserted this was the case.52
b) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson failed to tell the House about his own
knowledge of the gatherings where the rules or guidance had been broken. That
is because there is evidence that he attended them.53
c) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson said on 8 December 2021 that he relied
upon repeated assurances that the rules had not been broken. Initial evidence
to us suggested Mr Johnson was assured by two individuals who had worked at
No. 10 at the time that they did not think the gathering of 18 December 2020 had
broken Covid rules.54 However, we note that:
i) Mr Johnson had personal knowledge about gatherings which he could

have disclosed, although his personal knowledge about the gathering of 18
December 2020 may have been limited as he did not personally attend.
ii) We have received evidence that there was no assurance about any gathering’s
compliance with the guidance that was in place at the time (as opposed to
compliance with the Covid rules).55
iii) The purported assurances were only about the gathering of 18 December
2020, not more generally about No. 10’s compliance with the rules and
guidance. We have received no evidence that an assurance was provided
in relation to the specific gatherings of 20 May 2020, 19 June 2020, 13
November 2020, 27 November 2020 and 14 January 2021.
premise during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022:
“Whatever the initial intent, what took place at many of these gatherings and the way in which they developed
was not in line with Covid guidance at the time. Even allowing for the extraordinary pressures officials and
advisers were under, the factual findings of this report illustrate some attitudes and behaviours inconsistent
with that guidance.”
53 See Appendix for photographs of Mr Johnson’s attendance of gatherings
54 Notes of interviews conducted as part of the Second Permanent Secretary’s Investigation into alleged
gatherings on government premises during Covid restrictions, 14 January 2021 and undated [evidence not yet
published but being disclosed to Mr Johnson]
Johnson] evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr Johnson]
“Don’t think I advised the PM to say that — I mean that the socially distancing guidelines — to say they were
followed completely, they are difficult things to say”
Written evidence submission received 1 March 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr
Johnson]
“Evidence we have received from the Cabinet Office shows that you and others attended an “office meeting”
with Mr Johnson on the morning of 1 December 2021, on which date Mr Johnson told the House of Commons
“all guidance was followed in No. 10”. Was there discussion in this meeting of the following points […] ii.
Whether Covid Guidance was adhered to at all times in No. 10
I do not believe we discussed this with Mr Johnson during the meeting”
“Evidence we have received from the Cabinet Office shows that you and others attended two “catch up”
meetings with Mr Johnson on 8 December 2021, on which date Mr Johnson told the House […] that “the
guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”. Was there discussion in this meeting of the
following points […] ii. Whether Covid Guidance was adhered to all times in No. 10
I did not advise the PM to say this, no”
iv) The context for the initial purported assurance was in response to a media
inquiry and the assertion that Covid rules were followed was initially
developed as a media line to take.56
v) The initial purported assurance came from the Director of Communications

at No. 10, a special adviser appointed by Mr Johnson, not a permanent civil
servant.
vi) The purported assurances consisted only of what those individuals

themselves believed about the compliance of the gathering of 18 December
2020 with the rules.
Whether those who gave these purported assurances to Mr Johnson ever

intended for him to rely upon them in the House, and whether it was appropriate
for Mr Johnson to do so, is a question the Committee will want to consider.
d) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson gave the impression that there needed
to be an investigation by the Second Permanent Secretary to establish whether
the rules and guidance had been broken before he could answer questions to the
House. While repeatedly making that statement to the House he appears to have
had personal knowledge that he did not reveal.
33. It appears that Mr Johnson did not correct the statements that he repeatedly made
and did not use the well-established procedures of the House to correct something that is
wrong at the earliest opportunity.
• On 19 April 2022 Mr Johnson acknowledged to the House that rules had not
been followed at his birthday gathering on 19 June 2020 for which Mr Johnson
and others received fixed penalty notices.57
Johnson], WhatsApp messages:
[Director of Communications, 30/11/2021, 16:13:16] “Can you pull together our best possible defence on this one.
I don’t know what we say about the flat”
[No. 10 official, 30/11/2021, 16:13:47] “Don’t we just do a generic line and not get into whether there was a
drinks thing or not”
[No. 10 official, 30/11/2021, 16:14:16] “‘Covid rules have been followed at all times’ or something”
[Director of Communications, 30/11/2021, 16:14:18] “I think we have to say something as robust as we can
manage but see what you think”
Written evidence submission received 1 March 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr
Johnson]
“Evidence we have received from the Cabinet Office shows that you and others attended an “office meeting”
with Mr Johnson on the morning of 1 December 2021, on which date Mr Johnson told the House of Commons
“all guidance was followed in No. 10”. Was there discussion in this meeting of the following points […]
iii. Whether parties were held in No. 10 during the period of Covid restrictions
Part of the lobby script agreed between myself and [No. 10 official] was to deny that the events described in the
Mirror article were ‘a party’
iv. How Mr Johnson should respond to any questions relating to media reports of breaches of covid rules and
guidance in No. 10
The line issued to the Mirror became the basis of the proposed statement for the Prime Minister to deploy at
PMQs.”
57 HC Deb (2021–22) 712, c 48
[Boris Johnson] “Let me also say—not by way of mitigation or excuse, but purely because it explains my previous
words in this House—that it did not occur to me, then or subsequently, that a gathering in the Cabinet Room
just before a vital meeting on covid strategy could amount to a breach of the rules. I repeat: that was my
mistake and I apologise for it unreservedly.”
• On 25 May 2022 he made a statement after the Second Permanent Secretary’s

report had been published. That statement maintained that the gatherings which
Mr Johnson attended had not been found to be outside of the rules at the time
he attended them. His purported correction did not set out his own knowledge
of the gatherings.58
The evidence strongly suggests that breaches of guidance would have been obvious to
Mr Johnson at the time he was at the gatherings.59 There is evidence that those who were
advising Mr Johnson about what to say to the press and in the House were themselves
struggling to contend that some gatherings were within the rules.60
• The Director of Communications stated in a WhatsApp of 25 January 2022 to

a No. 10 official in relation to the gathering of 19 June 2020 that “Haven’t heard
any explanation of how it’s in the rules”.61
• In a separate WhatsApp exchange with a No. 10 official of 25 January 2022 in

relation to the gathering of 19 June 2020, the Director of Communications stated:
“I’m struggling to come up with a way this one is in the rules in my head”, and
58 HC Deb (2022–23) 715, cc295–296

[Boris Johnson] “Those staff working in Downing Street were permitted to continue attending their office for
the purpose of work, and the exemption under the regulations applied to their work because of the nature of
their jobs, reporting directly to the Prime Minister […] The exemption under which those staff were present
in Downing Street includes circumstances where officials and advisers were leaving the Government, and it
was appropriate to recognise them and to thank them for the work that they have done. Let me come to that,
Mr Speaker. I briefly attended such gatherings to thank them for their service—which I believe is one of the
essential duties of leadership, and is particularly important when people need to feel that their contributions
have been appreciated—and to keep morale as high as possible. I am trying to explain the reasons why I was
there, Mr Speaker. It is clear from what Sue Gray has had to say that some of these gatherings then went on far
longer than was necessary. They were clearly in breach of the rules, and they fell foul of the rules. I have to tell
the House, because the House will need to know this—again, this is not to mitigate or to extenuate—that I had
no knowledge of subsequent proceedings, because I simply was not there, and I have been as surprised and
disappointed as anyone else in this House as the revelations have unfolded […] I am happy to set on the record
now that when I came to this House and said in all sincerity that the rules and guidance had been followed at all
times, it was what I believed to be true. It was certainly the case when I was present at gatherings to wish staff
farewell—the House will note that my attendance at these moments, brief as it was, has not been found to be
outside the rules—but clearly this was not the case for some of those gatherings after I had left, and at other
gatherings when I was not even in the building. So I would like to correct the record—to take this opportunity,
not in any sense to absolve myself of responsibility, which I take and have always taken, but simply to explain
why I spoke as I did in this House.”
59 For example see Appendix for photographs of Mr Johnson’s attendance of gatherings
Johnson], WhatsApp message:
[No. 10 official, 28/04/2021, 16:47:12] “[No. 10 official]’s worried about leaks of PM having a piss up and to be fair
I don’t think it’s unwarranted”
[Director of Communications, 25/01/2022, 06:54:30] “Have we had any legal advice on the birthday one?”
[…] [Director of Communications, 25/01/2022, 06:55:06] “Haven’t heard any explanation of how it’s in the rules”
in response to a suggestion that they describe the event as “reasonably necessary

for work purposes”, “not sure that one works does it. Also blows another great
gaping hole in the PM’s account doesn’t it?”.62
Next steps
34. We have written to Mr Johnson to confirm a date on which he will give oral evidence
to us, and to offer him the opportunity to publish a written submission, if he so chooses,
in response to the issues raised in this report and the contents of the evidence we have
disclosed to him. He has been given a period of not less than two weeks in which to
assess the report and evidence before he gives oral evidence. Following Mr Johnson’s oral
evidence, the Committee reserves the right to take further written and/or oral evidence
before concluding its inquiry.
35. This report does not contain our final conclusions - it sets out the principal issues
we intend to raise in questioning when Mr Johnson gives oral evidence, arising from our
investigation and the evidence we have taken. We hope to announce shortly the timing of
that evidence session., as soon as the date is agreed with Mr Johnson.
[No. 10 official, 25/01/2022, 08:04:46] “I’m trying to do some Q&A, it’s not going well”
[Director of Communications, 25/01/2022, 08:05:12] “I’m struggling to come up with a way this one is in the rules
in my head”
[Director of Communications, 25/01/2022, 08:05:20] “PM was eating his lunch of course”
[No. 10 official, 25/01/2022, 08:06:47] “I meant for the police bit but yeah as ridiculous as the cake thing is it is
difficult”
[No. 10 official, 25/01/2022, 08:06:56] “’Reasonably necessary for work purposes’”
[Director of Communications, 25/01/2022, 08:07:40] “Not sure that one works does it. Also blows another great
gaping hole in the PM’s account doesn’t it?”
Appendix: Photographs
This appendix contains a selection of photographs provided to the Committee by
the Cabinet Office. The photographs cover gatherings on three dates, 19 June 2020, 13
November 2020 and 14 January 2021.
19 June 2020 gathering

13 November 2020 gathering

14 January 2021 gathering

Formal minutes
Wednesday 1 March 2023
[Afternoon sitting]
Members present:
Ms Harriet Harman, in the Chair
Andy Carter
Alberto Costa
Allan Dorans
Yvonne Fovargue
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Sir Charles Walker
Draft Report (Matter referred on 21 April: summary of issues to be raised with Mr Johnson),
proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 35 read and agreed to.
Appendix agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Adjournment
The Committee adjourned.
List of Reports from the Committee

during the current Parliament
All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the
Committee’s website.
Session 2019–21
Number Title Reference

1st Select committees and contempts: clarifying and HC 350
strengthening powers to call for persons, papers and records
Session 2022–23
Number Title Reference

1st Select committees and contempts: review of consultation on HC 401
Committee proposals
2nd Matter referred on 21 April 2022: proposed conduct of HC 632
inquiry
3rd Matter referred on 21 April 2022: comments on joint opinion HC 713
of Lord Pannick QC and Jason Pobjoy

Privileges Partygate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Privileges Partygate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Privileges Partygate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

House of Commons

Report, together with formal minutes relating

Ordered by the House of Commons

Andy Carter MP (Conservative, Warrington South)

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2023. This publication may be

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Committee of

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 23

6. This inquiry is considering:

• What Mr Johnson said to the House

• Whether what he said was correct or whether it was misleading

9. Contempt of the House of Commons is governed by parliamentary law and customs

15. Mr Johnson’s solicitors have written to us about the Committee’s procedures.14

Principal issues to be raised with Mr Johnson

• Mr Johnson’s knowledge of the rules and guidance in force

• On 10 June 2020, at a Covid press conference, Mr Johnson said: “I urge everyone

• On 9 November 2020, at a Covid press conference shortly after the introduction

• On 30 December 2020, at a Covid press conference, Mr Johnson outlined the

16 HC Deb (2019–21) 676, c 27

maintaining social distancing in the workplace of 2 metres wherever possible,27 Mr

workplace wherever possible,33 Mr Johnson attended and gave a speech at a gathering in

45 HC Deb (2021–22) 705, c 372

50 See for example:

i) Mr Johnson had personal knowledge about gatherings which he could

v) The initial purported assurance came from the Director of Communications

vi) The purported assurances consisted only of what those individuals

Whether those who gave these purported assurances to Mr Johnson ever

• On 25 May 2022 he made a statement after the Second Permanent Secretary’s

• The Director of Communications stated in a WhatsApp of 25 January 2022 to

• In a separate WhatsApp exchange with a No. 10 official of 25 January 2022 in

58 HC Deb (2022–23) 715, cc295–296

in response to a suggestion that they describe the event as “reasonably necessary

19 June 2020 gathering

13 November 2020 gathering

14 January 2021 gathering

Ms Harriet Harman, in the Chair

Sir Bernard Jenkin

Sir Charles Walker

Paragraphs 1 to 35 read and agreed to.

Appendix agreed to.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

List of Reports from the Committee

Number Title Reference

Number Title Reference

You might also like

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 23