What to know about the report on Boris Johnson's most damaging scandal yet

By Leo Sands

LONDON - Three and a half years ago, Boris Johnson led Britain's Conservative Party into its most triumphant election landslide since Margaret Thatcher.

On Thursday, top British lawmakers called for the former prime minister to be stripped of his right to a visitor's pass to Parliament's grounds, capping off the one of the most dramatic character arcs in recent political memory.

Johnson resigned last week as a member of Parliament after receiving draft excerpts from a long-awaited parliamentary report into whether he had misled fellow lawmakers over breaches to Covid rules that he himself announced.

The report, released on Thursday, found that he had - multiple times. It also found Johnson was "deliberately disingenuous" and in "contempt" of Parliament. Johnson accused the committee of political bias, insisting he could not have misled anyone because he believed he was following the rules all along.

Here's what to know about the blistering 30,000-word report.

Why was Boris Johnson being investigated by Parliament?

In April 2022, British lawmakers decided that Parliament's Privileges Committee should investigate whether the then-prime minister had misled fellow lawmakers by holding gatherings at 10 Downing Street, while the rest of the country was prohibited from mixing with other households.

The committee, which is composed of four Conservative MPs, two Labour MPs, and one Scottish National Party MP, was tasked with establishing three things: Did Johnson mislead Parliament? If so, did it constitute "contempt of Parliament?" And finally, how contemptuous was his behaviour?

It was one of three official investigations into the swirl of accusations that Johnson and top aides had breached their own Covid rules. The reports began as a trickle, but eventually became a flood including photographic and video evidence appearing to show the gatherings at Number 10. The scandal became known as "Partygate."

Last year, a police investigation concluded that Johnson had breached the rules in Downing Street's Cabinet Room on June 19, 2020, and issued him with a fine for breaking rules that prohibited gatherings of "two people or more indoors."

A separate investigation by senior civil servant Sue Gray concluded that some of the events "should not have been allowed to take place," and blamed the top leadership in Johnson's government for a string of lockdown-breaking parties, including some marked by "excessive consumption of alcohol."

Did Boris Johnson mislead Parliament about the lockdown gatherings?

Yes - on at least five occasions, according to Thursday's report.

The investigation concluded that Johnson was fully aware of the Covid guidance, had knowledge that it was breached at Downing Street, and yet still assured the House of Commons that the rules were being followed at all times.

The report identified four occasions in 2021 and 2022 in which it said Johnson deliberately misled lawmakers by telling them that the Downing Street gatherings followed the Covid rules.

"He misled the House on an issue of the greatest importance to the House and to the public, and did so repeatedly," it said.

"Someone who is repeatedly reckless and continues to deny that which is patent is a person whose conduct is sufficient to demonstrate intent," it added.

As a result, it concluded that the former prime minister had treated Parliament with "serious contempt." There is no precedent for this in the history of the British Parliament, the report said.

What is contempt of Parliament?

Contempt of Parliament refers to any behaviour considered to interfere or prevent lawmakers in either of its chambers from getting on with their duties.

It's loosely defined, but according to the Institute for Government think tank, it includes criminal acts, financial misconduct, leaking private proceedings and misleading the House.

Parliament has the power to punish those who breach its rules: In 1880, Parliament imprisoned an atheist MP in Big Ben after he refused to swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. But these powers have weakened over the years, and Parliament's authority to lock anyone up has since lapsed, according to the Institute for Government.

What sanctions did the Privileges Committee recommend for Boris Johnson?

The committee is not able to issue sanctions, but can propose them for Parliament to vote on and implement.

On Thursday, it requested that Johnson be stripped of his member's pass, a perk granted to former MPs that allows them to continue accessing the parliamentary estate in London's Westminster.

Moreover, given that Johnson resigned from Parliament days before the committee made its report public, there are few other sanctions available. The committee said that if he hadn't resigned, it would have proposed that he be suspended as a lawmaker for 90 days.

How has Boris Johnson responded?

Johnson released a 9,000-word statement in response to the report, ferociously denying the committee's findings as "rubbish" and accusing its members of participating in a "protracted political assassination."

He repeated his insistence that he always believed that the gatherings in Downing Street constituted work events, meaning that - in his view - they were exempt from Covid restrictions at the time.

"I knew exactly what events I had attended in Number 10. I knew what I had seen, with my own eyes, and like the current PM, I believed that these events were lawful. I believed that my participation was lawful, and required by my job," he said in a statement, reported by local media.

Johnson also repeated his accusations that the committee's members - including opposition Labour MPs as well as fellow Conservative lawmakers - were politically and personally biased against him, even suggesting that his role as a key Brexit supporter made him a target.

In response to similar accusations made by Johnson last week, committee members said his lashing out against their integrity and impartiality was "unacceptable."

"This attack on a committee carrying out its remit from the democratically elected House itself amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions," they said.

The Washington Post