Boris Johnson Partygate report: Key findings at a glance

The long-anticipated report by MPs into whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament over Covid lockdown parties in No 10 is finally out.

The report by the seven-member privileges committee followed a year-long investigation and runs to around 30,000 words.

The former prime minister stood down as an MP last week after receiving an advance copy, angrily accusing the committee of bias.

Here are the key findings.

The committee was asked to decide whether Mr Johnson committed a "contempt" of Parliament when he said in the Commons, after the Partygate scandal emerged, that Covid rules were followed at all times in No 10.

They found that he did, in several ways:

The question of the former prime minister's intentions was one of the key aspects of the inquiry.

He had already admitted MPs were misled by his original statements, but he says he believed them to be true at the time, and they were based on assurances he had received.

However, the report found he was "deliberately closing his mind" about a lack of effort within Downing Street to enforce social distancing.

And it found he had made "after-the-event rationalisations" about the advice he had received.

One key bit of evidence came from Martin Reynolds, his former principal private secretary, a civil servant.

He told the inquiry that, while preparing for a session of Prime Minister's Questions in December 2021, he had questioned whether it was "realistic" for Mr Johnson to say rules had always been followed.

Mr Johnson also said he'd been given assurances by his media advisers that rules were followed.

But the committee said this advice, given in response to press stories, should not have been used to make broad statements about rules being followed at all times.

The report said he should have obtained an "authoritative assessment" before saying this, for example by consulting government lawyers.

The report revealed that, before Mr Johnson announced he was standing down, it wanted to recommend suspending him from the Commons for more than 10 days.

This would have meant he would potentially have faced a by-election in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency.

But suspending him is no longer an option, given that he's already stood down as an MP in his blistering resignation statement last week.

However, the report says that now, given what he's said about the committee, they would have recommended a ban of 90 days - an extremely long ban by the standards of recent years.

And it says he should not get a parliamentary pass, which former MPs would normally be able to apply for.

Perhaps the greatest punishment in the report, ultimately, will be the damage it does to his reputation among Conservative MPs - and what it means for his prospects of any future political comeback.