Boris Johnson's spokesman refused seven times today to deny claims of a SECOND "party" in the Downing Street flat.
Neither the Prime Minister's team, nor a spokeswoman for Carrie Johnson, denied she was with friends on the PM's birthday on 19 June 2020 - after the cake gathering that got him a £50 fine.
At the time, the law banned social gatherings indoors between people from different households.
Unlike another event in the flat five months later, the gathering did not feature in Sue Gray's bombshell report into lockdown-busting parties in Downing Street.
An alleged 'Abba party' was held in the flat on 13 November 2020, but Sue Gray decided it was "not appropriate or proportionate" to investigate after Scotland Yard issued no fines.
Boris Johnson said it was a work meeting but claims later emerged - and weren't denied - that an original Gray draft saying music was coming from the flat, and stating what time the gathering ended, was watered down.
Now Mrs Johnson faces claims of a different gathering on the evening of 19 June 2020 - which did not feature in the Gray report.
Civil service boss Simon Case was told of messages suggesting the June 19th gathering took place, The Sunday Times reported.
The newspaper said an aide sent her a 6.15pm message saying the PM was returning to the flat. She allegedly replied suggesting she was with male friends, referring to them using a "very specific" and "affectionate" term.
When ITV News first reported allegations of this flat gathering in January, a No10 spokesman said it was "totally untrue".
But yesterday a spokeswoman for Mrs Johnson did not deny a gathering took place, and declined to say what the nature of it was.
And today, Boris Johnson's deputy official spokesman refused at least seven times to deny the gathering took place.
The Commons Privileges Committee could now demand the messages are handed over to its investigation into whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament over Partygate. It could even summon Mrs Johnson to give evidence - though it would have the option to do this in private.
It's understood the committee will only get a new chair in about two weeks after Labour's Chris Bryant recused himself from the probe. Insiders believe its report into whether the PM lied is not likely until October at the earliest.
The PM's deputy spokesman said Sue Gray would have looked into it if there was a "credible allegation", because her report's terms of reference allowed her to look beyond the 16 gatherings she had spelt out.
But invited several times to deny the gathering took place, he declined to do so.
And a spokesperson for Mrs Johnson said: “As the Sunday Times acknowledges, Sue Gray was aware of these exchanges as part of her exhaustive inquiry into alleged breaches.
"Staff were given ample opportunity to present evidence including these messages and all relevant information was passed to the Metropolitan Police for investigation."
Labour wrote to civil service boss Simon Case last night asking him to release correspondence relating to Mr Johnson's "whereabouts" that evening.
And ex-aide Dominic Cummings - who had a bitter rivalry with Mrs Johnson and has since said her husband "obviously lied" - said neither the Met nor Sue Gray investigated "the birthday party in the flat".
He wrote today on his Substack: "Written evidence proving it was organised from the flat was given to the MET. They ignored it. Sue Gray was offered the chance to look at the evidence. She declined."
Here's the back and forth with No10 in all its excruciating detail.
The exchange with 10 Downing Street in full
JOURNALIST: When you were asked earlier about the alleged gathering in the No11 flat on the evening of the PM’s birthday in June 2020, I don’t think you actually denied the gathering took place. Are you?
PM'S DEPUTY OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN: I’m pointing to the Sue Gray report which sets out all the events she investigated and set out the fact that the information she received was passed on to the Met Police, the Met Police made the decision not to issue any fines relating to that event, and Sue Gray set out in the report why she didn’t investigate further.
But that was a different event, that was the event in November 2020 on the night of Cummings’ resignation…
Apologies if I’ve got the events mixed up…
At the weekend it was alleged there was also an event in the Downing Street flat on the evening of the Prime Minister’s birthday, following the birthday cake event in the Cabinet room.
Well, again as I said the terms of reference that Sue Gray set out for her report talked about looking at other gatherings where there were credible allegations, and the fact they would be covered in the general findings in the final report.
So all we know then is that there wasn’t a credible allegation at the time Sue Gray carried out her report - you’re not saying it didn’t happen, you’re not denying that gathering took place, just that there was no credible allegation?
I’m pointing to the process Sue Gray followed in producing her report and the terms of reference.
You’re not denying there was an event, it sounds like?
Well, I’ve seen the same reporting that you have but again I think this covered by the terms of reference in Sue Gray report where she clearly says that any other gatherings that were credible where she received credible allegations would be looked into. I said earlier Downing Street were given clear guidance to retain any relevant information and co-operate fully with the investigation.
So you’re saying you saw the report over the weekend and you’re unable to tell us now that that event did not take place? You’re just able to tell us what the Sue Gray report was asked to do several months ago before that information appeared?
I’ve seen the reporting, I’m obviously not aware of the details of the allegation. But again I point back to the Sue Gray report that clearly set out they were able to look at other gatherings where there was credible evidence.
It just seems strange that, having seen the report, you can’t tell us whether it was true or not or that nobody told you whether it was true or not, and you’re now not in a position to be able to deny. It seems strange.
I’m simply pointing to the process that the Sue Gray investigation followed and the fact all other investigations or any evidence of gatherings where there was credible evidence would be covered by the general findings. I think that’s clearly set out in the terms of reference.
Given where we are - you’re the PM’s official spokesman - can you go back and get a definitive answer, whether you reject these allegations or not? Given last week [when the PM’s spokesman apologised for misleading the press previously over Partygate], and the relationship between the press and No10, I think you should go back and ask that question.
Again, all I can do is point to the investigation that Sue Gray carried out and the fact that Downing Street were asked to provide all details and retain all relevant information and the fact Sue Gray said she would look into all events where there were credible allegations.
You’re inviting us to go out and write that the Prime Minister is not rejecting these allegations.
All I can do is point back to the Sue Gray report which looked at these events and the guidance we gave to staff was to make sure all evidence was retained and relayed to the investigations team. I’m obviously not privy to the details of the investigation, which was handled independently by Sue Gray, but again she submitted and published her final findings last week.
