Turning to the Covid guidance in place at the time that people should maintain social distancing in workplaces where possible, Johnson says No 10 went to "great lengths" to follow this guidance.

However, he argues "a balance had to be struck between the essential work we were doing and minimising the risk of transmission".

He describes No 10 as "an old, cramped London town house", where social distancing was not always possible.

"We tried to keep our distance, but we knew that proximity was sometimes unavoidable, and we knew that this was acceptable under the guidance," he adds.

Boris Johnson singles out the fourth report by the Committee on Privileges for criticism, external - saying it was "partisan" and making a number of criticisms.

The committee is made up of seven MPs which reflect the balance of the House of Commons, with four Conservatives MPs, two Labour MPs, and one SNP MP.

It is generally chaired by a member of the opposition, with Labour's Harriet Harman MP currently holding the role.

In the report Johnson is criticising, the committee say , externalthat 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."

Nick Eardley
Chief political correspondent

A key argument made by Boris Johnson is that he relied on the advice of officials.

Several times, he lists the discussions he had with key aides – including director of communications Jack Doyle

Johnson says he relied on their advice and had not been told rules had been broken.

The question the committee is likely to ask, however, is whether it should have been obvious.

They have previously said they think it should have been clear to him that they were being broken.

Image source, PA Media

Boris Johnson also rejects suggestions in the committee's interim report that it would have been "obvious" to him that Covid guidance had been breached because he attended some of the gatherings himself.

He says this is "illogical" and amounts to "an allegation that I deliberately lied to Parliament".

He points out the committee's evidence includes photos of events, including several taken by the official No 10 photographer.

"A suggestion that we would have held events which were "obviously" contrary to the rules and guidance, and allowed those events to be immortalised by the official photographer is implausible," he says.

Nick Eardley
Chief political correspondent

In summary, Boris Johnson is arguing Parliament may have been misled – but it wasn’t on purpose.

He goes through his understanding of various events and why he thought they were within the rules.

Johnson also makes clear his aides assured him this was the case ahead of key statements to Parliament – where he said rules were followed.

The committee however isn't on the same page; it has previously said it should have been obvious to Johnson that rules were being broken (because he set them and attended some of the events).

That is likely to be a key element of debate tomorrow when Johnson appears before the committee.

The Privileges Committee says Boris Johnson's final written evidence did not arrive until 08:02 GMT this morning because the original contained "a number of errors and typos".

More pointedly it says: "Johnson's written submission contains no new documentary evidence."

Image source, Reuters

In his evidence, external, Boris Johnson refers to the fourth report produced by Committee on Privileges, external about his behaviour.

He says he does not accept the committee did all it could to ensure "fairness".

"It is important to record my disappointment at the highly partisan tone and content of the Fourth Report," he says.

"The Fourth Report appears to record findings of fact, despite the fact that the Committee has not yet heard any evidence from me."

In that report, the committee said Parliament "may have been misled" multiple times.

The evidence, it added, strongly suggested that breaches of pandemic guidance would have been "obvious" to Johnson at the time.

In his evidence Boris Johnson admits the House of Commons was misled by his statements but says he made them "in good faith" and denies "intentionally or recklessly" misleading MPs.

The Privileges Committee inquiry is looking at:

• What Boris Johnson said to the House of Commons
• 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 the House is misled, the committee has said it will specifically look at whether this actually constituted a contempt of the House by impeding the functions of the House or tending to do so.

Nick Eardley
Chief political correspondent

Johnson argues there is no evidence that supports claims he misled the Commons intentionally or recklessly - saying he relied on "trusted advisers".

He writes: "The Committee also now appears to be alleging that it was in some way reckless for me to rely on assurances that I received from trusted advisers. That allegation is unprecedented and absurd."

He adds: "I was the prime minister of the country, working day and night to manage the government's response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was self-evidently reasonable for me to rely on assurances that I received from my advisers.

"The suggestion to the contrary would have profound and debilitating implications for the future of debate in the House, and for the ability of ministers to rely on the advice of their officials when answering questions in Parliament."

Boris Johnson says he corrected the record at the "earliest opportunity" after the investigation by senior civil servant Sue Gray and the Met Police.

This argument has been disputed by the Privileges Committee in its interim report, external.

"It was not fair or appropriate to give a half-baked account, before the facts had been fully and properly established, including into many events about which I had no personal knowledge," Johnson writes.

Image source, UK Parliament

In his submission Boris Johnson accepts the Commons was misled by his statements that the rules and guidance had been followed completely at No 10.

However, he says his statements were made "in good faith and on the basis of what I honestly knew and believed at the time".

"I did not intentionally or recklessly mislead the House on 1 December 2021, 8 December 2021, or on any other date. I would never have dreamed of doing so," he adds.

Our experts are now reading the 52-page document setting out the former prime minister's evidence and we will be bringing you updates here so stick with us for analysis and updates.

Nick Eardley
Chief political correspondent

Last month, the Privileges Committee said in an interim report that it believed Boris Johnson may have misled Parliament several times.

They said evidence suggested it should have been obvious to the ex-PM that Covid rules were being broken in Downing Street.

Right now we're getting a chance to see Johnson’s detailed rebuttal - and tomorrow it will be tested in a televised hearing.

Stay with us as we go through it.

Boris Johnson's evidence to the Privileges Committee has been published.

You can read it here, external.

Image source, Cabinet Office

The Privileges Committee investigation was commissioned last April to examine whether Boris Johnson misled MPs about what he knew about gatherings in government buildings during Covid lockdowns.

On several occasions, Johnson, who was then prime minister, told the Commons the rules had been followed. He later admitted his original statements had since proved incorrect. However, he has insisted he believed them to be true at the time and had been assured this was the case.

The seven MPs on the committee will determine whether Johnson committed a so-called "contempt" of Parliament by preventing it from doing its job of holding him to account.

They have decided that whether he intended to mislead MPs is not relevant when judging whether this offence was committed.

But if they find that it was, his intentions will be considered when deciding any punishment they recommend.

A finding that he deliberately misled MPs is likely to attract the strongest sanction.

Another option is they find he "recklessly" misled Parliament - likely producing a less severe punishment.

You can read more about the inquiry here.

Chris Mason
Political editor

Image source, PA Media

Boris Johnson's reputation is on trial. His political future is on trial too. Not in a court of law. But, rather like a court of law, in front of his peers.

In this instance, the judge and jury are his fellow MPs, exploring a narrow question in relation to all those Partygate revelations.

Did he knowingly mislead parliament about them? Parliament's Privileges Committee will ask him about it on Wednesday afternoon, in front of the cameras.

At the heart of their scrutiny are three words: Inadvertent. Reckless. Intentional.

Attach the word "misleading" to these three words and we get to the crux of all this. The extent to which he was misleading and the intent.

The committee acknowledges that around 100 times a year ministers end up saying stuff in parliament that turns out to be inadvertently misleading and they come back and correct things.

So the real crunch point in all this is whether the committee establishes and concludes that he was reckless, or the more serious, but rather difficult to prove case that he intentionally misled MPs.

Read more here.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says Tory MPs will be allowed to make decisions "as individuals" on any sanctions recommended against Boris Johnson by the Commons Privileges Committee.

Sunak suggested his MPs will be given a free vote on the matter - meaning they will not be "whipped" to vote a certain way.

Ahead of the expected publication of Johnson's evidence, Sunak told BBC Breakfast: "These are matters for Parliament and the House and MPs as individuals, rather than for government. So that is the general process that we will follow."

Asked whether the PM agreed with some of Johnson’s allies that the process was a “witch hunt”, Sunak said: "That’s ultimately something for Boris Johnson and he’ll have the committee process to go through and that’s a matter for Parliament. That’s not what I’m focused on."

Boris Johnson's defence against claims he misled Parliament about Covid rule-breaking parties is set to be published later today.

His legal team handed a dossier of written evidence to the Privileges Committee, which is investigating the allegations, yesterday afternoon.

Since then, the committee have been reviewing the document to make any necessary redactions to protect the identity of some of the witnesses before making it public.

We're expecting that to happen today, although we don't know what time exactly.

Johnson's defence is likely to focus, at least in part, on the advice that he may have received from officials before he told Parliament the rules were adhered to.

It comes ahead of a televised session on Wednesday, when the former prime minister will be grilled by the cross-party group of MPs in person.

Doug Faulkner
BBC News

Hello and welcome to our coverage of all things political on what looks set to be a busy day in Westminster.

We are expecting former PM Boris Johnson’s evidence over Covid rule-breaking parties at Downing Street to be published by the Privileges Committee later - he's due to appear in front of them tomorrow, and we'll cover that in full detail then.

There is also reaction to a damning report into the Metropolitan Police’s culture (see our full live coverage on that here) - we're expecting a statement in the Commons from Home Secretary Suella Braverman.

And shortly the ERG group of Eurosceptic Conservative MPs are to set out their panel’s legal view on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Windsor Framework - parts of which will be put to a vote in the Commons tomorrow.

Stick with us as we bring you all the developments.