Boris Johnson's political future blowing in the wind as committee weighs truth

He repeatedly refused to acknowledge wrongdoing for gatherings at Number 10, saying the lockdown events including alcohol were reasonable work events which were important to boost staff morale, and that he had been "deeply shocked” when the Met Police issued fines.

The Marathon exchange at the Privileges Committee yesterday afternoon was effectively Mr Johnson’s last opportunity to change the minds of the seven-member panel, which will now consider all the evidence before making its final recommendations later this year.

His political ambitions now lay in their hands. Should they decide that he knowingly misled Parliament, any sanctions will be put to Parliament, in what Rishi Sunak has said will be a free vote

A suspension of 10 days or more would trigger a recall petition which would leave Mr Johnson vulnerable to a high-profile by-election in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, where he has a majority of 7,210.

Among the stark revelations from yesterday’s at-times fractious session was Mr Johnson’s insistence that gatherings for leaving drinks had been “absolutely essential”, at a time when gatherings for funerals were banned by law.

But the first sign of fluster at the three-and-a-half hour session came when Mr Johnson was asked what he would have said if asked at a press conference whether leaving drinks were permissible.

Then, asked about the witnesses who had heard him describing a gathering as the “most un-socially distanced gathering in the UK”, Mr Johnson said he thought it “unlikely”.

He was also asked about the attempted undermining of the committee from his allies, including Jacob Rees-Mogg, who had described it as a kangaroo court.

On this, he said he did not approve of the term, but said he was confident the committee would come to the decision that he was innocent.

He did not reply directly when asked whether he would respect the independence of the committee should it find he had broken the rules.

But perhaps the most crucial exchange came during the final questioning by the chairwoman of the committee, Harriet Harman.

She offered him the chance to correct the record when he told the House that guidance – as well as rules – had been followed at all events he was at, and he declined, which the committee may yet interpret as misleading the House again, during an inquiry into whether he misled the house.