Doug Faulkner
BBC News

With that we are going to end our coverage for today.

We'll be back again tomorrow as Boris Johnson goes before the Privileges Committee to give his evidence in person (and in front of the camera).

Today's coverage has been written by Becky Morton, Emily McGarvey, Michael Sheils McNamee, Nathan Williams and Doug Faulkner.

Thank you for joining us.

We'll be bringing our live coverage to a close shortly so here's a summary of the key points from Boris Johnson's evidence to the Privileges Committee and what else we've learned today:

• In his written submission, Johnson accepts he misled MPs in his statements to Parliament where he said Covid rules and guidance had been followed completely at No 10
• However, he argues he did not "intentionally or recklessly mislead" the Commons because his statements were made "in good faith" and on the basis of what he believed at the time
• Johnson also claims he corrected the record "at the earliest opportunity" - something the committee has previously disputed
• He argues it was "reasonable" for him to rely on assurances from his advisers that the rules were followed
• He rejects the committee's suggestion that it should have been "obvious" to him that Covid guidance was breached because he attended some of the gatherings himself
• If this was the case, Johnson argues it would also have been "obvious" to others but he says the vast majority of those who gave evidence to the committee did not believe they had broken the rules
• He also attempts to discredit the committee's interim report, describing it as "highly partisan"
• The committee says Johnson's submission contains "no new documentary evidence"
• Earlier, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak confirmed MPs will get a free vote on any sanctions recommended for Johnson.

And here is our write up of the day.

Image source, ANDY RAIN/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK group says it is "sickening" that Boris Johnson claimed he acted in "good faith" while accepting he misled the House of Commons over Partygate.

Writing on Twitter, external the group says it is "obvious that Boris Johnson deliberately misled Parliament and should resign as an MP".

It adds: "Far worse though is the lies he deliberately told to bereaved families, after failing to protect our loved ones. His claim that he did so in 'good faith' is sickening."

Meanwhile, a woman whose father died with Covid-19 early in the pandemic says Johnson's latest defence continues to highlight "his lack of shame and humility".

Kathryn de Prudhoe, a psychotherapist from Leeds, says her father Tony Clay died alone in April 2020 and had five people at his funeral.

Speaking about Johnson's defence, she says: "I feel utterly insulted at the obfuscation used to avoid accountability and the subtle yet obvious attempt to paint himself as a victim of people who were out to get him."

As well as Dominic Cummings several other names feature in Boris Johnson’s evidence to the Privileges Committee.

Martin Reynolds

Martin Reynolds served as Johnson's principal private secretary and featured heavily in reporting of Partygate. In May 2020, during lockdown, he emailed about 100 Downing Street staff inviting them along to socially distanced drinks outdoors.

In Johnson's evidence, the former PM says No 10 went to "great lengths to follow" Covid guidance under the direction of Reynolds. Johnson cites his former principal private secretary as someone who believed the events happening were work events.

Image source, Getty Images

Lee Cain

Lee Cain served as Downing Street director of communications, and his leaving do on 13 November 2020 is one of the events Johnson addresses.

Johnson says on that occasion he "made a short speech, and left after approximately 15 minutes".

Cain is also referred to in Johnson's evidence in relation to the event on 20 May 2020, when Johnson says "Lee Cain has also raised the possibility that he raised a concern with me, although he has said that he does not recall if he did so".

Image source, EPA

Jack Doyle

Someone who gets extensive mention in the report is Jack Doyle, the former Downing Street director of communications.

It has previously been reported that Doyle made a speech to 20 or 30 people and handed out prizes at a Downing Street party just prior to Christmas 2020.

In his evidence, Johnson says it was Doyle who first made him aware of the Partygate stories ahead of their publication in the Daily Mirror in November 2021. He says when he was told there had been a party at No 10 in December 2020, he thought it was "some kind of try-on".

"It seemed implausible to me that there could have been an illegal event at No 10 almost a year earlier that I had not heard about before," he says.

"Nonetheless, I asked Jack Doyle about the event, which he confirmed he had attended."

Image source, ANDREW PARSONS/NO 10 DOWNING STREET

They are yet to comment on Johnson's evidence.

Image source, EPA

Boris Johnson's former chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, has accused him of "misinformation" in relation to his account of a gathering in the Downing Street garden in May 2020.

Writing on his blog, external, Cummings repeats his claims the then-PM was told by himself and another adviser, Lee Cain, that the gathering "seemed clearly outside the rules".

In his submission, Johnson insists no-one expressed any concerns to him at the time about whether the event complied with Covid rules or guidance.

Cummings also references a line from a Times article that Johnson had rejected his claims the gathering was against the rules.

"This is not just obviously false, it's further misinformation from him," he writes.

"Officials were fined therefore the cops concluded it was against the rules, as [Lee] Cain and I warned that morning, and which is referred to in emails given to Sue Gray."

As we reported earlier, Johnson has argued Cummings should not be treated as a "credible witness" because of his "animosity towards me".

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says he hasn't yet seen the evidence from Boris Johnson to the Privileges Committee that has been published today.

Starmer says it is for the committee to conduct their investigation.

He was speaking at a press conference in London following the publication of a report into the Met police (follow our coverage here).

Reality Check

One of the key things the committee investigating Boris Johnson is looking at is how long it took him to correct some of his statements to Parliament.

This is known as "correcting the record". Each year around 100 written corrections are made by ministers who have inadvertently misled Parliament.

Boris Johnson says he corrected the record at "the earliest opportunity at which I could make the necessary correction", which, he says, was after the publication of Sue Gray's report into Downing Street gatherings on 25 May 2022.

That was almost six months after his statements about Covid rules and guidance being followed "at all times" had been made.

The committee said in its interim report that it wanted to know why "instead of correcting the record at the earliest opportunity, he declined to answer questions that were within his direct knowledge".

It said that it should have been obvious to Johnson that not all the guidance was being followed at events that he attended. Johnson disputes this.

You can read more about it here.

We've heard Boris Johnson's defence before he faces a panel of MPs tomorrow over allegations he misled Parliament.

Here are some possible outcomes of the Privileges Committee inquiry:

He is completely cleared of misleading Parliament - This is possible, although it does not, at this stage, seem the most likely outcome.

That is because the committee has already published a report, after gathering evidence, which identifies one statement he made which later turned out to be wrong.

He is found to have misled Parliament, is suspended and loses his seat - At the other end of the scale is the very worst case scenario for Johnson.

Firstly, the committee would have to decide that Johnson had not only misled Parliament but also that what he said had an impact on its "proper functioning". This would mean it was a "contempt".

They would also have to conclude that the contempt was so severe that they decide to recommend one of the most severe punishments available to them: suspension from Parliament for 10 sitting days or more.

He is found to have misled Parliament but gets a different punishment - If the committee does find Mr Johnson was in contempt of Parliament they will take a view on how serious it was.

Punishments could range from: asking him to make a written apology, making him apologise in person in the Commons, up to suspension.

Read more here.

We are starting to get a bit of reaction to the publication of Boris Johnson's evidence to the Privileges Committee.

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper says: "After countless lies, scandals and failures, it’s time to put an end once and for all to this Conservative soap opera."

We'll bring you more as it comes in, although some may be waiting for the ex-prime minister's televised grilling tomorrow before responding.

Nick Eardley
Chief political correspondent

A source close to Boris Johnson has responded to the Privileges Committee - which said Johnson's final written evidence contained no new evidence and only arrived at 08:02 GMT today because the original contained "errors and typos". (See our earlier post.)

However, the source says that only a typo about a date was corrected so that the submission was fully accurate.

"It is not right to suggest that the document had errors," they said."The committee received it in its substantially complete form at 2.32pm yesterday.

"There is significant new material in the document that is new to the public domain," they add.

The Privileges Committee said evidence suggests it should have been "obvious" to Boris Johnson that Covid rules were not being following in Downing Street.

Johnson argues that if it was "obvious" to him, it would have been obvious to dozens of others who also attended gatherings. He goes on to say that the "vast majority" of people who have given evidence to the committee have indicated they did not consider their attendance broke the rules.

Johnson also writes that he does not accept the Committee has ensured a fair process in its report.

He goes on to once again question MPs' assertion that it would have been obvious to him that rules were broken.

However, the committee cited its political balance in the report, highlighting that it is made up of four Conservatives MPs, two Labour MPs, and one SNP MP - to reflect the balance in the House of Commons.

The committee report said:

We're combing through the detail of Boris Johnson's evidence dossier, which will be his defence when he goes before the Privileges Committee tomorrow.

We've highlighted some key lines from the document, including this one where he accepted that the House of Commons was misled by his statements but said they were made in good faith.

In this section of his defence, Johnson says that the allegation he was reckless to rely on assurances he received from advisers is "unprecedented and absurd" adding that it was reasonable for him, the prime minister, to do so.

Of course the committee has said that evidence "strongly suggests that breaches of guidance would have been obvious to Mr Johnson at the time he was at the gatherings".

Citing WhatsApp messages, they said:

Image source, Reuters

One of the key players in Boris Johnson's No 10 team was his chief adviser Dominic Cummings.

Addressing the event on 20 May 2020, external - when people were invited to "socially distanced drinks" in the No 10 garden - Boris Johnson rejects a suggestion he had been briefed by Cummings that the gathering was a breach of the rules.

"I do recall a conversation with Dominic Cummings on the afternoon of the event, but he did not mention the event, let alone express any concerns that the event would breach the rules or guidance," he says.

The former prime minister says Cummings, who left his team in November 2020, "cannot be treated as a credible witness".

"It is not clear what, if any, work the Committee has done to test the credibility of what is now said by Dominic Cummings, including his animosity towards me."

On his blog Cummings says Johnson's claim is "further misinformation from him" and repeats that he warned the event was against the rules.

Reality Check

Boris Johnson says in his dossier: "The evidence before the committee demonstrates that those working at No 10 at the time shared my honest belief that the rules and guidance were being followed."

But the Privileges Committee - which is investigating him - has published evidence that contradicts this.

Its interim report, external earlier this month included a series of WhatsApp messages between the then director of communications and a No 10 official on 25 January 2022.

In response to a suggestion that they should describe an event as "reasonably necessary for work purposes", the director of communications says: "I’m struggling to come up with a way this one is in the rules in my head", and "not sure that one works does it. Also blows another great gaping hole in the PM’s account doesn’t it?"

There was another message from the director of communications in relation to the gathering of 19 June 2020 saying "Haven’t heard any explanation of how it’s in the rules".

In his dossier, Johnson says these are "internal messages between advisers. There is no suggestion at all that these concerns were passed on to me".

You can read more about it here.

An earlier version of this post stated the messages were sent in 2021, they were sent in 2022.

Boris Johnson claims "there is no evidence at all that supports an allegation that I intentionally or recklessly misled the House".

He says there is "not a single document" indicating he was warned or advised that any event may have broken Covid rules or guidance.

"In fact, the evidence before the Committee demonstrates that those working at No 10 at the time shared my honest belief that the rules and guidance were being followed," he adds.

He notes the committee has been investigating for 10 months, has obtained evidence from 23 people, and had access to all of the information collated by Sue Gray.

Despite accessing a "colossal amount of contemporaneous material" he says there is "no evidence at all that supports an allegation that intentionally or recklessly misled the House".

He adds the only exception to this is the evidence provided by Dominic Cummings, who he claims is "discredited".

The Privileges Committee's interim report says evidence "strongly suggests" it would have been obvious rules were not being followed and WhatsApp messages show staff questioning if events could be considered within the rules.

The two key questionspublished at 13:25 Greenwich Mean Time 21 March 2023

13:25 GMT 21 March 2023

Chris Mason
Political editor

I’ve just finished reading the 15,000-word submission from Boris Johnson.

Honesty time: anyone this lunchtime claiming to have ingested the subtlety of every syllable over the last hour or so is exaggerating.

But here’s the thrust of it: Boris Johnson admits he misled parliament but says it was unintentional.

He denies it was reckless or on purpose. He goes in studs up on the committee itself - saying it is unfair and partisan in its approach.

The former PM pleas for an understanding of context: an old town house with people working 18-hour days in the middle of a pandemic.

Johnson seeks to use the evidence against him - photos - as proof of his defence: they were taken by the official photographer, the view in the building was they were operating within the rules.

Clearly not everyone in the building thought so: the pictures and the stories leaked.

What will now matter to the committee - and the wider public - is two key questions:

• Given the extent of the parties in No 10, is Johnson’s account credible?
• And given what he said in the commons, can an intent to mislead be proven?

In his submission, Johnson responds to claims from a No 10 official that he described an event on 27 November 2020 as "probably the most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK right now".

The former prime minister says he "briefly attended" the gathering in the press office to mark the departure of a No 10 official.

"I do not believe that anything that I saw in the short period of time that I was at the gathering was contrary to the rules or guidance," he says.

Johnson claims he doesn't remember saying the words quoted by the official but says it "seems unlikely" given it was "a small and impromptu event".

He adds: "But I might well have made observations in speeches about social distancing, and whether it was being perfectly observed. That does not mean that I thought the guidance was contravened."

He argues that he did not believe the guidance required full social distancing at all times, "provided you did what you could overall".

Image source, Sue Gray Report/Cabinet Office/PA Media

Turning to a gathering in the Cabinet Room on 19 June 2020 - the then-prime minister's birthday - Johnson says it "never occurred to me" that the event did not comply with Covid rules or guidance until he was issued with a fixed penalty notice by police.

He says he was in the room for a work meeting and was joined by "a small gathering of people, all of whom lived or were working in the building".

"We had a sandwich lunch together and they wished me Happy Birthday," he says.

"I was not told in advance that this would happen. No cake was eaten, and no-one even sang 'happy birthday'.

"The primary topic of conversation was the response to Covid-19."

Reality Check

A key part of Boris Johnson’s defence is that leaving events were necessary for work purposes.

In his dossier, he says: "My view has always been that thanking and encouraging staff, and maintaining morale at No 10, was absolutely essential for work purposes."

While the guidance for England varied, at the time of one of the key gatherings it was that "only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings" and they should maintain social distancing.

There was nothing in the guidance from the time that implied that leaving drinks or other forms of socialising at work were allowed.

We also learn from the committee's interim report that there was tailored guidance issued to Downing Street staff laying out the rules and guidance for their workplace, including on social distancing.

That guidance has not yet been made public.

You can read more about it here.

In his evidence, external, Johnson defends his attendance at an event in the No 10 garden on 20 May 2020, saying he believed it was a work event.

About 100 people were invited by email to the "socially distanced drinks" and witnesses have previously told the BBC about 30 people attended.

However, the Met Police investigation found the event did not breach rules in place at the time.

Johnson says he attended for less than half an hour, when he thanked groups of staff for their work.

"I understood this to be a socially distanced outdoor meeting to boost staff morale and teamworking after what had been a very difficult period," he says. "In my view, an opportunity to thank staff and boost morale was essential for work purposes."

The former prime minister says he had no involvement in organising the event and if he believed it broke Covid rules or guidance he would not have allowed it to go ahead.

He claims no one expressed any concerns to him at the time about whether the event complied with the rules or guidance - despite his former advisers Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain suggesting they may have.