I am really confused. The report says Johnson may have mislead Parliament, yet Johnson has said the following? From the Gruniad:
It is clear from this report that I have not committed any contempt of parliament. It is also clear that what I have been saying about this matter from the beginning has been vindicated.
It is clear from this report that I have not committed any contempt of parliament.
That is because there is no evidence in the report that I knowingly or recklessly misled parliament, or that I failed to update parliament in a timely manner.
Nor is there any evidence in the report that I was aware that any events taking place in No 10 or the Cabinet Office were in breach of the rules or the guidance.
Like any prime minister I relied upon advice from officials. There is no evidence that I was at any stage advised by anyone, whether a civil servant or a political adviser, that an event would be against the rules or the guidance before it went ahead. There is no evidence that I was later advised that any such event was contrary to requirements.
So, when I told the house that the rules and the guidance had been followed, that was my honest belief.
He said that, if he had known about “a matter of such importance” (ie, Partygate), he would have raised it with his team, and they would have raised it with him. He went on:
No such concerns were raised on either side and all my statements to the House of Commons were based on that understanding and advice.