Boris Johnson continues attack on Sir Bernard Jenkin over partygate

Yesterday, Mr Johnson accused Sir Bernard of “monstrous hypocrisy” after the Guido Fawkes website claimed the MP had gone to a drinks party in Parliament while Covid restrictions were in place in 2020.

It came ahead of the publication of a long-awaited report on the Privileges Committee’s findings on whether the former Prime Minister misled Parliament over the partygate scandal.

The findings of the cross-party committee, published this morning, revealed the former Tory leader committed “repeated contempts” of Parliament by deliberately misleading MPs with his partygate denials before being complicit in a campaign of abuse and intimidation.

The 106-page claims Mr Johnson, who resigned as an MP on Friday, misled the House of Commons by claiming Covid rules and guidance were followed at all times in Number 10 on four separate occasions.

If he had not pre-emptively resigned, the committee said it would have recommended a 90-day suspension from the Commons.

They also suggested the former Conservative Party leader should not be granted a former member’s pass – which is normally available to former MPs, allowing them limited access to Parliament to meet former colleagues.

But despite the findings against Mr Johnson, he has now hit out against the members of the Privileges Committee, including the Harwich MP.

Committee member - Harwich and North Essex MP Sir Bernard Jenkin (Image: Archant)

For news updates straight to your inbox, sign up to our newsletter here.

In a statement issued following the publication of the damning report, Mr Johnson said: “It is now many months since people started to warn me about the intentions of the Privileges Committee.

“Some alarmists even pointed out the majority of the committee voted remain and they stressed Bernard Jenkin’s personal antipathy to me was historic and well-known.

“The committee cannot possibly believe the conclusions of their own report – because it has now emerged Sir Bernard Jenkin attended at least one ‘birthday event’, on December 8, 2020 – the birthday of his wife Anne – when it is alleged alcohol and food were served and the numbers exceeded six indoors.

“Why was it illegal for me to thank staff and legal for Sir Bernard to attend his wife’s birthday party?”

Rulebreaker - Boris Johnson (Image: free)

December 2020 saw the re-introduction of a tiered lockdown system which saw London enter the second tier, which prevented individuals from mixing indoors with people from outside their household or support bubble.

Taking a further jab at Sir Bernard, Mr Johnson added: “It is a measure of the committee’s desperation that they are trying incompetently and absurdly to tie me to an illicit event – with an argument so threadbare that it belongs in one of Bernard Jenkin’s nudist colonies.”

'Quite bizarre'

MPs have been divided over Partygate following the report by the Privileges Committee.

Nadine Dorries, one of Mr Johnson’s most vocal supporters, urged voters to turf out Tory MPs who back the committee’s report.

Johnson supporter - Nadine Dorries (Image: Chris McAndrew)

Ms Dorries, who announced her resignation as an MP on Friday but has since U-turned on that decision while she awaits information on why she was denied a peerage, labelled the report as "quite bizarre”.

She tweeted: “Harman declared her position before it began. [Sir Bernard Jenkin], the most senior MP on the committee, attended an actual party.

“Any Conservative MP who would vote for this report is fundamentally not a Conservative and will be held to account by members and the public. Deselections may follow. It’s serious.”

Sir Bernard has said he would not comment on the allegations today.

Asked about the allegations regarding Sir Bernard, senior Tory MP Tobias Ellwood told Sky News: “If Boris Johnson is unhappy with the committee’s findings, or indeed anybody on the committee, the personalities and so forth, he could easily have made a personal statement in the Commons – that’s the process – and presented his arguments prior to a full vote from the House, because it will be for the House to determine whether they support this publication or not.

“He’s chosen to abandon all those possible avenues of approach and quit Parliament in its entirety.

“Now coming late in the day and saying ‘I’m unhappy with this individual’, this isn’t the process of somebody I believe is going to win the argument.”