YTread Logo
YTread Logo

Boris Johnson quizzed by the privileges committee on partygate

Mar 10, 2024
We are examining what Mr Johnson told the House about the meetings at No 10. Whether or not what he told the House was correct, and if so, how quickly and thoroughly any misleading statements were corrected. If a statement was misleading, then we will consider whether that was a genuine mistake or whether it was reckless or intentional and whether the record was corrected in time, we have already considered the evidence provided by the government, including emails, WhatsApp messages and photographs taken in that time and written statements taken under oath from Witnesses present at the relevant times to inform us of what Mr Johnson would have known at the time of his statements to the House there has been much comment on whether the

committee

is relying on the material of Sue Gray's report, we do not rely on any such material and nor will we.
boris johnson quizzed by the privileges committee on partygate
Last November we decided to gather direct first-hand evidence from all witnesses under oath and all of this was revealed to Mr Johnson. Sue Gray is not a witness. We have followed the standing orders of the house and Precedence as advised by our secretaries. by the Council's spokespersons and by Sir Ernest Ryder, a former appeal judge, we have not changed the rules or procedure which is not within our powers, they are set by the house, we are obliged to follow them and that is what we have done . In our report of 3 March we set out the main issues we will be asking Mr Johnson about today.
boris johnson quizzed by the privileges committee on partygate

More Interesting Facts About,

boris johnson quizzed by the privileges committee on partygate...

We will talk about standards and guidelines, since Mr. Johnson told house number 10 that he complies with both when we refer to standards. The regulations established by the House that have the force of law and under which fixed penalty notices were issued are guidelines issued by the government, for example, when Mr Johnson was talking about the space between the hands and the face, he was referring to the guidelines on social distancing when he said. space on the basis of information that is in the public domain and evidence that the

committee

has received and in the context of what Mr Johnson told the House of Commons, we will set out what Covid-related rules and guidance were in force at the relevant time.
boris johnson quizzed by the privileges committee on partygate
Mr Johnson's knowledge of those rules and guidance Mr Johnson's attendance law or knowledge of gatherings that were not socially distanced and those for which fixed penalty notices were issued Mr Johnson spoke on the issue of compliance of greed in number 10 of the House of Commons more than 30 times, more specifically on December 1, 2021, December 8, 2021 and May 25, 2022. I would like us all to now remember something of what what Mr Johnson said in Parliament in response to questions starting with "if we can with a question from the leader of the opposition on December 1, while millions of people were in lockdown last year, a Christmas party was held in Downing Street for dozens of people on December 18, Mr.
boris johnson quizzed by the privileges committee on partygate
President, what I can say to the right honorable gentleman is that all guidelines were completely followed during number 10, but I repeat, Mr. President, since these allegations arose I have repeatedly assured that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken and that is what I have been repeatedly assured. I apologize, I apologize for the impression that has been given that Downey Street staff take this less than seriously. I am the second and, furious about it, I told him that I had been repeatedly assured that the rules, the Prime Minister has been caught red-handed, why doesn't he end the investigation right now by simply admitting it?
Because, Mr. Speaker, I have been repeatedly assured that no Republican Prime Minister's rule tells the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on November 13, but I am sure that that and what happened, the instructions and instructions were followed. rules at all times and I am happy to record that when I said that I came to this house and said in all sincerity that the rules and guidance would be followed at all times was what I believed to be true certainly the case when I was present at You will note that my attendance at this time, however brief it was, has not been considered to be outside the rules, but clearly this was not the case at some of those Meetings after I left and at other Meetings when I was not even in the building. .
Thank you, we must understand. Johnson told Parliament that no rules or guidance were breached in numbers. 10 when we have evidence that he knew what the rules and guidelines were and that he was present at the Meetings where those rules and guidelines were violated, we have yet to reach our conclusions in this investigation and we will not do so until we have heard and considered The Mr Johnson's evidence today, the evidence we already have raises clear questions and this is Mr Johnson's opportunity to give us his answers. Could the committee secretary administer the oath, the Bible, and read the terms of the oath?
Yes, I swear by almighty God. that the evidence that I will present before this committee will be the true truth and nothing but the truth, so help me, God, thank you very much, Mr. Johnson, you provided the committee with a written submission that the committee has published. Do you confirm that the contents of that are true. I thank you, Mr. Johnson, please make your opening statement. Thank you, President, if I can before I begin. I am aware that we are all expected to vote in a few minutes. I think at 221 um, I hope not. I don't care if I restart it, I mean it will be split, but what I will say is that we are a parliamentary committee and Parliament continues if a vote is called, which we hope, I will adjourn to allow members to vote. and we can pick up where you left off, but thank you for reminding everyone, thank you, thank you, thank you, Chairman, well, as you just said, there were several days over a 20-month period when meetings were held in Downing.
Street past the point where you could say they were necessary for work purposes, that was wrong. I regret it bitterly. I understand the public's anger and I continue to apologize for what happened during my term and I take full responsibility, but as said president just said, the purpose of this investigation is not to reopen the so-called door of the party, but to discover whether or not I lied to the Parliament, I deliberately misled my colleagues and the country about what I knew and believed about those Meetings when I said that the rules and instructions in No. 10 had been followed.
I am here to tell you with all my heart that I did not lie to the house when those statements were made, they were made in good faith and based on what I honestly knew and believed at the time. At the time this investigation was organized I was quite sure that you would find nothing to show that he knew or believed anything else, as in fact you have not done so. He was sure not because there had been any kind of cover-up. I was sure because I knew that's what I believed and that's why I said it to understand why I believed it, you have to go back to a time before Sue Gray's report, before the police investigation, to a time when, as shows the evidence before the committee, there was an almost universal belief in number 10 that the rules and guidelines were being followed, it is the general belief that has been uncovered by your evidence and it was that belief that governed what I said in the home and as soon as it became clear that I was wrong and as soon as the Sugray investigation and the Metropolitan Police investigation were concluded, I went to the House of Commons and corrected the record as I promised.
Clearly I couldn't have anticipated the outcome if I had come earlier because I didn't really know what the outcome was. The outcome would be and I was deeply shocked when fines were imposed, not least because Sue Gray had told me on a couple of occasions, at least Sue Gray, that she did not believe the criminality threshold had been met. I think the committee's work helps explain why. I was very surprised that you have been researching this for over 10 months and I thank you for what you have done, you have had access to a large amount of evidence, you have collected and reviewed hundreds of pages of transcripts of Sue Gray interviews and you have analyzed many thousands of contemporaneous emails and WhatsApp messages and other material.
He found nothing to prove that I was warned beforehand that the events at number 10 were illegal. In fact, nothing to show that anyone has raised concerns with me about any event, either before or after. If there had been so much anxiety over a rule-breaking event in No. 10, it would certainly have been passed to me. We all knew how vital it was to maintain public confidence in the fight against Covid that we should do what we were doing. ask the public to do, of course, there is only one exception and that is the testimony of Dominic Cummings, which is not supported by documentary evidence and who clearly cannot be trusted, he has every reason to lie, not only does the committee not has found nothing incriminating, but rather has gathered a There is a wealth of evidence which demonstrates very clearly that those working at Number 10 shared my belief that the rules and guidance were being followed and that I received assurances that there were no rules that broke a number 10.
The best and most appropriate course would now be for the committee to publish all the evidence it has gathered so that Parliament and the public can judge for themselves despite my repeated requests. the committee has refused to do so as investigative prosecutor, judge and jury; has chosen to publish only the evidence that it considers incriminating and not the evidence that I rely on that answers the charges and despite assurances that we would be allowed to add material that we rely on to the main package published today last night, we were told that the committee was unwilling to publish a large number of extracts on which I rely in my defense are manifestly unfair and, in the absence of evidence that I deliberately misled Parliament, the committee is trying to argue that I should have known better than to they were following the guidelines and that I buried and Buried in my head as we were fighting Covid was an unspoken belief that even if we followed the rules, we were somehow not following the instructions and you in your fourth report suggested that it must have been obvious for me because it has the photographs. so let me address this point head on because it makes no sense that these photos have been published in the media for over a year and it appears to be the opinion of the committee and unfortunately many members of the public that they show me attending the ruler. -crashing parties where no one was social distancing show nothing they show me giving a few words of thanks at a work event for a colleague who is leaving they show me with my red box passing by on my way to another meeting or returning to my apartment to continue to often work late In the evening they show some people standing together as permitted by guidance where full social distancing is not possible and where mitigating measures are taken they show events that I have never been fined for attending I know the public There will have been the impression that these were covert photographs with their sinister pixelations obtained by the media, the vast majority were actually taken by the official photographer number 10 to say that we would have carried out illicit events in number 10 allowing these events. being immortalized by an official photographer is astonishingly implausible, there are a couple of photos where the event is captured on Zoom and also by the official photographer, which only reinforces the point if we had an event that we believed was illicit or unauthorized, because I would do? we have it on Zoom when you never know who is on the other side, the most important thing of all.
If it was obvious to me that these events were contrary to the guidelines and rules, then it must have been equally obvious to dozens of others, including the most senior officials in the country, all of them, like me, responsible for writing the rules. and it must have been obvious to others in the building, including the Prime Minister's current order, we will now suspend the city while the House of Commons votes and we will reconvene in 15 minutes thank you, thank you very much foreign order order we will now resume this evidence session Mr. Johnson, would you like to resume your opening statement?
Yes, thank you very much Chad and the committee will remember that I just commented on the photographs and I asked why on earth we would have held illicit or unauthorized meetings in the presence of an official photographer, and then I said that the most important thing of all was whether it was obvious to To me that these events were contrary to the guidance and the rules then it must have been equally obvious to dozens of others, including the country's highest officials, all of them, most like me, responsible for writing the rules and it must have been obvious to others in the building, including On the contrary, the current Prime Minister, the overwhelming evidence that you have gathered is that these people believe that the rules and guidelines were being followed and what is so telling is the number of officials who say what himself andthe complete silence of the written or electronic record about concerns that someone wanted to raise with me, it would be one thing if the committee had come here today and said: look, here are the emails or here are the whatsapps that show that you were warned about the violation of the rules before making your request. statements to the house, you don't have any such evidence because that never happened, but if you now say that it must have been obvious that we were going against the rules and guidelines, then let's be clear about what you are saying.
Not only are you accusing me of lying, you're accusing all of those MPS officials and advisors of lying about what they thought was happening at the time, and as far as I know, you're not giving any of them a chance to explain yourself with your own oral evidence I don't think I mean seriously accusing those people of lying and I don't think you can seriously accuse me of lying now that everyone knows that there are some features of this procedure that are extremely peculiar: the greatest respect to you, the president, but you said some things about this matter before reading the evidence that are clearly and wrongly prejudicial to or prejudge the very issue on which you are ruling.
I'm going to attribute your comments above to the general push and pull of politics and trust in what you have. I stressed from the beginning the impartiality that the committee insists on and which it later states in its report; In fact, the committee is supposed to strictly investigate what I said about rule-breaking rather than non-statutory guidance, so much of this questioning is theoretically irrelevant, but I'm going to take it with a grain of salt because I agree. I agree with what you said with an accent, it is your job that I want to help you understand why I said what I said to Parliament and whether I deliberately set out to deceive and I emphatically did not do so.
Their first concern is that I may have knowingly or recklessly misled Parliament on December 1 and 8 when I said that the rules had not been broken and that the guidelines were being fully followed in No 10. When I said those words, I was not trying to cover up or hide anything I said what I said in good faith based on what I honestly knew and reasonably believed at the time that belief what was in my head was based on my understanding of the rules and the guidance that I did not Which means I believed That social distancing was perfectly enforced is because I and others in the building did not believe it was necessary or possible to have a two-meter or one-meter electrified force field after June 24, 2020 around every human being.
It is emphatically not what the guidance prescribes, it specifically says that social distancing should be maintained wherever possible taking into account the working environment and it is clear that in number 10 we had real difficulties both in working efficiently and quickly and in maintaining perfect social distancing. a cramped 18th century house where we had no choice but to gather day after day, seven days a week in a relentless battle against Covid. I had to call a lot of meetings on the spot and, to convene a big mini, make a big mini high-speed decisions. Yes, we certainly had social distancing, we avoided physical contact, we gave way to each other in the hallways and on the stairs, we spread ourselves as widely as possible, but it would have been impossible to have a drill sergeant measuring the distance between us at all hours of the day and night. night, so as per the prescribed guidelines, we had mitigations when I talked about the guidelines that were being followed, I was thinking about all the things that we did to stop the spread of covid, given that where we were working we had a large number of people working. from home we had many meetings at least partly on Zoom we had limits on the number of people per room we had disinfectant dispensers everywhere we had signs on the walls indicating where to walk we kept the windows open and worked outside as much as possible due to Due to the particular difficulties caused by the working environment, we had regular tests and a whole system of tests was installed, I think on the third floor it went far beyond what was required in the guide, so if you say, how could stand up in Parliament and be so adamant about following the guide, what was I thinking, that's what I was thinking and I know you will, like you just did, point to the photos and then the guide and what I said and what you will say It must have been obvious that the guidelines were being violated, but that is simply not true.
My beliefs and my comments to Parliament were based on my knowledge of those events, but you have to understand how I saw them and what I saw during the period I was there. The vast majority of the events the committee relied on are events I attended for 10 or 15 minutes, perhaps a maximum of 25 in one case to say goodbye to a departing colleague. I know people across the country will see those events and think they look like the same kind of events that we or I were banning everyone else from, but I will believe until the day I die that it was my job to thank the staff for what they did. that they had done, especially during a crisis like Covid, which kept coming back and seemed endless and when people's morale did, I'm afraid it started to sink, but no matter what I think the most important point is that the police agreed that they did not find my attendance at any of these Farewell Meetings to be against the rules which I obviously did do.
I don't know at the time if any of these events escalated beyond what was legal after I left. Of course, there is an event for which the current Prime Minister and I received fixed penalty notices, but it never occurred to me, or I think the current Prime Minister. at the time the event was not in compliance with rules and guidelines, at approximately 2:22 p.m. m. On June 19, 2020, I entered the cabinet room where I worked after returning from a long external visit and stood briefly in front of my desk. before another covid meeting started and I ate some kind of salad several officials came in to wish me happy birthday no one sang the famous Union Jack cake it stayed in its tupperware without me noticing and was then discovered and eaten by my private secretaries we spoke As you would expect about Covid and what we were doing to beat the pandemic, it is a measure of how innocent we thought this meeting was, that an exaggerated or slightly exaggerated version was reported to the times with singing and eating cakes and, without However, there was nothing untoward. apparently detected by the journalist or by millions of eagle-eyed readers, so when I spoke to the commoners it did not occur to me for a second, on December 1st or 8th, or at any other time, that this event was the only.
It was later discovered that the only event I was fined for was against the rules and the same goes for all the events I attended. My belief was that we were following the rules and the guidance as best as we could under the circumstances and that was what the guidance required, now they can say I was being obtuse or oblivious and that we should have enforced social distancing more ruthlessly and we can To argue that back-and-forth hindsight is a wonderful thing, we're talking about what I believed at the time. As for the December 18, 2020 event in the press room, I was not there, but my honest belief that it was within the rules was based on what senior advisors told me.
The fact that this was my honest belief is supported by the fact that many other people honestly believed that we were doing nothing wrong and from the evidence produced by the committee it is very clear that they were all operating with the same understanding of the rules and the guidelines if you want more evidence of what was happening In my head I look at Jack Doyle's WhatsApp where I positively urge him to tell the truth to the public. The truth about that December 18 event seems so unfair to me based on what I had been told the event was taking place. presented as a purely social gathering on what I knew would be a monumentally busy day for the media department as they were dealing with the emergence that day of the Kent variant of kovid and what some saw as the risk of a no-deal Brexit that was why I was inclined to believe that this event must be in accordance with the rules and guidelines and that is why I said what I said on December 1st.
Regarding my remarks on December 8, the committee is concerned that I may have misled the House. when I said that I was repeatedly assured that the event was held according to the rules, I do not understand this point, you can see from the evidence that I received these assurances more than once and from more than one person, my statement was completely accurate. The committee criticizes the fact that I had not received assurances regarding the guidance, but I never said yes. I said what I said about guidance based on my own experience and belief. The committee criticizes the fact that I received no guarantees. regarding any event other than the December 18 event, but I never said I had done that, the committee seems to say at times in its fourth report that I should not rely on the advice of political advisors or even officials in this moment.
It's ridiculous I was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I was trying to govern the country during a pandemic the night of November 30, 2021 I was dealing with the emergence of the Omicron variant and the growing clamor for restrictions on another Christmas that could not leave it what I was doing, getting up and going and starting a personal investigation into what sounded like evidence from the Daily Mirror about an event that was now almost a year old that I had to trust and had every right to trust what I was told. by my senior trusted advisers the government would be paralyzed if ministers were unable to do so finally the committee criticizes the way I corrected the file I corrected the file on the day of Sue Gray's final report and six days after completing the police investigation investigation whether the committee's view is that he should have come to the house and provided an inevitably incomplete account while a government or police investigation was underway that included events he had not even attended I fundamentally disagreed throughout I was completely transparent with in the house I made it clear that I had no intention of commenting on any of the factual issues until the investigation had concluded.
I kept the house updated periodically and as soon as the investigations were completed I provided a full correction of my honest but inadvertently misleading statements I apologize I apologize for inadvertently misleading this house, but to say that I did so recklessly or deliberately is completely false as the evidence shows that we were wrong. I think the officials in No 10 in the Cabinet Office, indeed all departments in Whitehall, should be immensely proud. of your efforts to protect this country from a disgusting disease, when I point out to this committee that this disease almost killed me, it is only to emphasize how seriously I took the measures we needed to stop its spread, as I believe everyone did in the dining room number 10.
It was those officials who organized and led the country through lockdowns that, regardless of what people say about them now, were essential for public health. It was those officials who procured the vaccines that ensured that this was the first country in the world to give an approved vaccine. and effective in a patient's arm and it was those officials who helped Mastermind roll out the vaccine faster in Europe. It was thanks to those officials that we were able to come out of lockdown faster than any other European country with all the social and economic difficulties. benefits they entailed and still have a lower excess mortality or a lower excess mortality rate than many other comparable countries.
I am proud to have known and worked with those officials during one of the most difficult times we can remember. I am proud to have given them leadership. and that is what I believe I was doing in each of the events in question and I trust that the committee will be fair to them, fair to me, fair to the evidence about what we and I knew and believed and we will conclude that I did not do it intentionally. mislead the House of Commons or recklessly mislead the House of Commons and that no contempt has been committed to our questions, the shoe that you raised, which your lawyers wrote to me about on Monday and to which I replied this in This morning, you raised the issue of the importance of the committee being fair to officials and we would very much agree with you on that and that is why we are not content with presenting as evidence the interview notes that officials gave to sue Gray until that time. since those officials had the opportunity to verify those interview notes and agree whetherThey are accurate and can then be backed up by a statement of Truth which is like an oath and can then be presented as evidence before us if you wish.
Identify some officials and some aspects of this sweet interview, notes that you would like to obtain underestimations of the Truth and undergo this investigation. The investigation does not end with this session of all tests. You are perfectly free to do so and I would invite you. to do that and we can consider it um thank you I I I I I will do that there are approximately I think there are about 16 points that we wish to elucidate and um uh it will be useful to do it well, thank you and we We are now putting in the public domain the letter that was sent to me by your lawyer and also my response to you this morning so that people can be clear that we will now begin our questions starting with those that cover the six Meetings that the committee considers to be the most relevant to our inquiry when asked in the House of Commons about meetings at number 10 from 21 December 2021 onwards, you told the house that Covid rules and guidelines were followed fully and at all times following the publication in May 2022 of the report that you.
Having been commissioned for Meetings in Government Facilities, he continues to maintain that rules and guidelines were certainly followed at the Meetings he attended to say goodbye to staff leaving Number 10. We will tell you what the coven rules are and the guidance was on those six dates what you knew about the Meetings that took place on each of those dates and your compliance with the rules and guidelines in effect at that time. We will start by looking at two outgoing meetings you attended in November 2020. These meetings focus on compliance with the Covid workplace guidance in place at the time these meetings took place during a national lockdown in England.
Legal rules in place to prevent the spread of Covid included restrictions on indoor gatherings of two or more people. The workplace guidance applied at the time stated that there should be social distancing of two meters in the workplace where possible and that only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings. I will now invite Sir Bernard Jenkin to ask the first question. Mr. Bernard, thank you president. So, as the president describes himself, we will first consider what knowledge he had about the rules and guidelines in effect at the time of each of the events he attended or were aware of, reminding us of what he was telling the country about the rules and guidelines and then we will ask you about those meetings now that you were aware of the importance of following the guidelines that the government had issued to keep workplaces safe, in fact you previously told the House of Commons on the 2nd September 2020 and I quote it's very important that we get people back into the workplace in a Covid safe way, quote unquote and so on.
On November 9, 2020, less than a week before the first of the Meetings that I will ask you about, he said in a covid press conference and I quote that neither mass testing nor advances in vaccines are currently a substitute for the national restrictions for social distancing and everything else, so it is even more important to follow the rules in quotes and at press conferences during this period you regularly repeated the phrase hands look into space while on the podiums with this phrase, so there can be no doubt. that you understood what the guidelines and rules meant and what they were intended to achieve, yes or no, yes, thank you November 13, 2020, which we saw Catherine West was asking in the movie before, there was an impromptu farewell meeting for her then director. of communications Lee Kane this took place in the lobby outside the press office at number 10.
Between 15 and 20 people were present and you made a speech and the evidence of this is on page nine of the evidence pack . Do you accept that these facts are correct, yes, we will now show the images that she has commented on, but we will still ask her about them. The unpixelated photos are on pages 540 and 580 in the total evidence package package. The images show him with at least six to eight other people who are very close. I want to ask first about the compliance of these meetings with the guidance that you told the House of Commons as recently as May 25, 2022, which was the day of the publication of the Sucre report, and I quote.
It is certainly the case that strong words that instructions had been followed at meetings attended to say goodbye to staff at least yes, but photographs show a lack of two meter social distancing that was required by workplace guidance in that moment, could you accept that we are? present at this meeting and that people were not socially distancing while you were there, thank you very much Mr Bernard, I do not accept that people were not making an effort to socially distance from each other and that happened all the time in number 10. Actually, I believe the guidance for November 2020 stipulated that social distancing of one meter should be maintained where possible, with mitigation where two meters is not viable and at least at all stages, the guidance was intended to always be implemented that it was possible and that is absolutely clear in the guide, as I said in my introduction.
It was always so that we understood that the limits of the number 10 We are going to make it impossible all the time to impose total social distancing, as if with an electric force field around each individual. Now this meeting happened impromptu, off the cuff, it had to happen, it happened because, On November 13, two senior staff members and people ask: do you know why this was happening? To leave the building in fairly acrimonious circumstances or in potentially acrimonious circumstances, it was important for me to be there and provide reassurance, and the most salient point I would make is that after that meeting I was not fined for my presence.
The Met considered that it was not illegal. They agreed that it was a work-related event and I believe it was absolutely essential for work purposes. Well, I'm asking about guidance right now, yeah, and I. I'm telling you that I think the guide is like this, so what you have to understand. When I looked at that group, it never occurred to me for a second that we were violating the guidance given the logistical difficulties we faced in numbers. 10 and the need to have urgent meetings like this and you said that, to begin with, you didn't fully answer my question because you suggested that the picture doesn't show that people weren't making an effort to comply with the guidance.
I'm just asking if the evidence is that the guidance was being adhered to and I think by suggesting I think the guidance is being adhered to correctly, okay because I'll get to that because it must have occurred to you that since they weren't socially distancing two liters, could have violated social distancing guidance either while you were at the Meeting, or even when you reflected on it later when the storm broke around your head. You must have been thinking well, I wonder if that was really complying with the guidance that must have happened, so Bernard, forgive me, but I have to correct you on a technical point, but after June 20, June 24, 2020.
The Guidance was changed so that the goal was to maintain social distancing at one meter with mitigations where two meters had not been removed. I'll get to that, I'll get to that, but I think the point is the first one. The point is that it is fair to say that you did not say that we made every effort to comply with the House of Commons guidelines and you did not say no. I'm saying let's follow the guidelines completely because it's not possible. Okay, we'll get to this in a minute, but you can't, you can't expect human beings in an environment like number 10 to have, so to speak, an invisible electrified fence around them, which they will occasionally step into.
The other's orbit when I saw that didn't mean to me that we had violated the guidance, it means that we were following the guidance as best we could, which was what the guidance provided and the guidance provides uh freedoms within the practical framework of the operation or of the business to decide how they are going to implement the guidance, the measures that you referred to at the beginning are things that generally have to be met, there were companies that have the right and are asked to decide what practical considerations they want to give to implement the guidance and that is what we did.
Can I just say it so people understand why I believed? Because this is the crucial thing, if I may say so. Why when I woke up on December 1st I believed that the guide was completely followed at all times. What image I had in my head and why that doesn't conflict with that image. The answer is that I knew it on my own. experience that we were doing a lot to stop the spread of covid within the building we had disinfectants that we had uh the windows were kept open we had people working outdoors where they could we had Zoom meetings we had restrictions for multiple people uh in In the rooms we had screens Perspex between the desks and, above all, as I said, we had regular testing that went well beyond what was prescribed by the guidelines and that, in my opinion, helped mitigate the difficulties we had in maintaining perfect social distancing, right? that if he had said all that at that time before the House of Commons we probably wouldn't be sitting here, but he didn't and the question is that, um, the question is about what the guidance actually says and I notice that it's taking an In that time, a little advice on the guide question, can I just read it to you or is it on page six of the packet what the guide actually says?
You should maintain social distancing in the workplace wherever possible, where social distancing guidelines cannot be followed in In relation to a particular activity, businesses should consider whether that activity will be redesigned to maintain a social distance of two meters or one meter with risk mitigations where two meters is not feasible and the mitigation measures include the use of screens or barriers to separate people from each other so that Where in the image are there screens or barriers? There were screens or barriers in the I think in the adjacent uh memory pressure well this is an impromptu meeting that I thank the staff at least one member of staff for their contribution during covid uh I think it was an important part of my work make that was the best place to do it I accept I accept that perfect social distancing uh so Bernard is not being observed but that does not mean that what we do In my opinion, what we were doing is inconsistent with the guidance that the guidance specifically allows for let workplace freedoms decide how to implement it and the operational conditional is whenever possible.
Now I don't believe for a moment that the people in number 10 did it. They didn't operate social distancing because they did and they took it very well after they went to great lengths in my uh, in my opinion, in my memory, to stay apart from each other, but that didn't mean they could stay apart from each other. other. all the time that's what I say it doesn't conflict with guidance no one is devaluing the efforts of anyone in number 10 during greed including you for the way you and the public service you provided during your period as first minister during the pandemic. or they were asking us.
I'm afraid it's our obligation. I'm trying to explain to you why I said the guiding question through a question. All I'm saying is that we have to discover it and establish it in our minds. That? you told the House of Commons that it was strictly accurate and the guidance goes on to say that where social distancing guidelines cannot be followed in full, including by redesigning a particular activity, the business should consider whether that activity must continue for the company to function and, if so, take all necessary measures. possible mitigating actions to reduce the effect the risk of transmission among staff now no one questions that it is the right thing for you to thank your staff the question is whether what you said about this particular way of thanking your staff in the House of Representatives Commons It was strictly accurate.
In fact, it may have been misleading, that's what we're asking. Well, no, I don't believe for a second that it was the guide, it doesn't say, "You can have a thank you party and so many people, it's fine." if you think it's very important to thank people, the guy just doesn't say that, let's just go over that again, uh, I, I, I believed that this event was not only reasonably necessary, but it was essential for work purposes. . The reasons I have given, I have describedthe limitations we were operating under in number 10. If you wanted to have a quick meeting to thank people, this was the place to do it, not that many people, there, I accept, although the pixelation makes it difficult determine exactly who it is, who it is, where I accept that perfect social distance, sure, but the public can't see that, yeah, the public can't see that, yeah.
I accept that not everyone is perfectly socially distanced in that picture, but that didn't mean it to me when I stood in the House of Commons and said that the guidelines had been completely followed. I wasn't thinking about that event or thinking that in any way that contravened the guidance it wasn't at all, we were trying very hard to follow the guidance which was my memory and that's why I said what I said, which is exactly the purpose of this session, that you can defend the case you are presenting. Can we move on to examine this Meeting's compliance with Covid rules, as we heard in the previous clips?
You told the house that the rules were followed at all times, so you must have thought that the Meeting was reasonably necessary for work purposes, as was then required. Under the regulations, we know that the Gathering attracted fixed penalty notices, so in effect the police considered it to be in breach of the rules. Why did you think it was within the rules? I thought it was essential for work purposes or Reason at least reasonably necessary for work purposes. because for the reason that I have given to Sir Bernard that the 13th of November was a day when two senior officials of those senior advisers to the government had left their jobs in very, very difficult and challenging circumstances and it was necessary to stabilize the situation . ship it was necessary to demonstrate that there was no uh no ranker uh that uh government business was being carried out that's what we had to do that's what I had to do I know, but that's what you said about it for the The House of Commons is what matters.
We know it was a farewell event for a staff member. The photographs we just saw, yes, they do not appear to show any actual work in progress. Why didn't it occur to you that it could at least be like that? I have broken the regulations at least because it was not reasonably necessary for work purposes. Said? Did it occur to me that it might not be reasonably necessary for workbooks? Yeah, no, it didn't occur to me for a second. Okay, but it wasn't reasonably necessary for work purposes and to say that particular thing about the way that event went down and you really know that to this day and as I said before, I have a hard time seeing how it could have gone down number 10. execute hundreds of officials uhwho needed to be thanked and appreciated for their work in very difficult circumstances without having a brief farewell, events of a type that, at least as far as my participation is concerned, did not break the rules, we remind you that key point about it. event I wasn't there I was there for a maximum of 20 minutes or 25 minutes I think I gave a short speech what I did I didn't like being in the situation right now because how long you were in the meeting is not a question, I understand that I understand that the Mr.
Bernard is asking you and as you intervened you raised the issue of imperfect social distancing, um social distancing, the hands face the space, which is the part of the space that is two meters at the moment or is one meter. with mitigations two meters two meters where possible or one meter with litigation which is where possible it is also maintaining social distancing whenever possible, which is the notion of less than perfect and imperfect social distancing because you were saying yes, country that did social distancing But but We also did it in number 10 and, by the way, I am sure that throughout the country, despite people's observance of social distancing, there were times when people They moved one or two meters away from each other.
I'm afraid it's inevitable and we had a particular problem in number 10 because, as I said before, we had to call meetings at great speed. We had a lot of staff that had to come into the building because we needed to. I get a variety of opinions even though we had a ton of people on Zoom as well and it wasn't what we had, as you know, because you've been to see it, we had a ton of mess, uh. hallways where it wasn't and spaces where it wasn't always easy to maintain a perfect social distance that didn't mean I liked that space there that didn't mean for me hallways if you could refer to Sir Vernon's next question which Of course, it's an event.
There were many people leading critical organizations across the country and letting everyone else across the country do it was not acceptable under the guidelines and all the rules, so why was it acceptable and necessary for work purposes in number 10? Thank you. you sir well I look I want to repeat what I said at the beginning I understand that people who look at that photograph will think that it looks like a uh a social event it was not a social event I was if anyone thinks that I was partying during the lockdown, they are completely wrong, that It wasn't a party, I was there, I didn't say it was a party, Mr.
Johnson, well, you actually did it before, uh, what you were doing was thanking the staff or thanking a person. in particular for your contribution and, uh, I think that was my job, so if at a press conference with your podium you were asked if the hands look into space, into space, if it was okay for organizations to have farewell meetings with social distancing in the workplace, what would you do? you have said that I would have said that it is up to the organizations, as the guidance says, to decide how to implement the guidance, among which is, of course, social distancing, where they cannot do social distancing, perfectly, they cannot maintain two. meters or one meter, then they are entitled to have mitigations and that is what the guide says and in fact we had many mitigations, including and as I told you before, this was exceptional in number 10, we had a great offer. of the evidence, then the answer is that you would have said it was fine, no.
I said the answer is that you should do what the guidance says and the guidance says that where you put mitigations, where you do what is possible, then, uh. and where you follow social distancing in a way that reflects the realities of your workspace, that will comply with the guidance which was my view and I think that's what everyone else understood, so just repeat this point. is what everyone understood, I believe in number 10. It is for a long period of 20 months of fighting covid during which we were having, as the Prime Minister himself said, describing the experience of going into a bunch of rooms and finding many. of people there, uh, it was just part of the job at number 10 that we were going to come into contact, uh, with a large number of people, but people followed social distancing and they were very aware of it.
I now move on to November 27, 2020. This was another unplanned exit meeting for a different special adviser which again took place in the lobby outside the press office at number 10. and we have three witness statements attesting to the lack of social distancing at this event uh we have and this is on page 17 of your witness panel. We have Jack Doyle, who is his press secretary at the time and later communications director, saying that there were certainly more than 20 people present and do you accept that? I don't know, I wasn't at that event and it wasn't an event that was discovered by being in Bridge, there's no reason to discuss it.
Well, it turns out I know because we've all seen the same evidence, although I think this. Actually, this is one of the things you have, but we haven't been allowed to point out. I think there is, I think there is evidence from at least one of the participants that although there was, there was, there was. There are not so many people now and it lasted a very, very short time, well, of course, make sure this catches our attention. Oh, sorry, sorry, this is the clear event. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, James, I think, I think, I think that name, that name. can we mention um uh my memory of that event uh I think I was at that event but I was there very briefly I was going to correct thank you so I was at that event but I was there very briefly uh no no uh fines were issued for that event, order and pray so we have to suspend the committee again because in 15 minutes I will resume this subverted evidence session. um just on one point, you were arguing about the meaning of the guidance that says whenever possible, but not with respect to less than one meter where mitigations are mandatory uh, that's not whenever possible, it doesn't say mitigations whenever possible. possible, they are essential if you can't do two meters and we couldn't see any mitigation in the photographs, but I'm also sorry, sorry if I can. uh what the guidance says, as far as I can see, is that it ensures that workers maintain social distancing guidelines or two meters or one meter with risk mitigations where two meters is not feasible wherever possible, so that conditional wherever possible govern both two meters and one meter is fine we will address that point in our report we will take into consideration what you are and the next but I don't think we agree with your interpretation of the guidance well can I say whatever is very important? whatever your interpretation of the guide.
What matters, if I may respectfully say, is what I believed our efforts to follow the guidance were, why I thought they were credible and sincere, and what I was thinking at the time. I ask you to allow it, sir. Bernard to ask your next question, of course, thank you very much, we were talking about the statements of the three witnesses, or the event of November 27, 2020, which was a main event for another special advisor at the 10th festival, where surely There were more than 20 people. um and I think you accepted that, um, can I get back to that?
Okay, certainly, uh, I think so, there's conflicting evidence on that point and if you look at what Sue Gray has to say, she says 15 to 20. um, but we. You're not relying on two pieces of Gray's evidence, it's not that ironic, um, so you're saying that evidence is invalid? No, I believe that any evidence collected by Sue Gray should be independently verified with a statement of Truth, so we can not publish the evidence, the material that she has provided to us that has not been accepted. It would be helpful if I gave my evidence on this. Well, no, I think it would be very helpful if there was something in Sue Gray's witness statements. collected in the interview notes would be treated separately as described by the president.
I think it would be helpful if Sir Bernard could ask your question and you give a synchronized response, as you will also see on page 17 of your packet that another witness testified that they couldn't get through the room to get out because there were four to five people standing. in deep. Is there any reason why we shouldn't believe that? Well, I've seen that I've seen all the testimony about this event and there is testimony from uh, there's the Suga evidence that I mentioned and I find it quite incredible that now we can't narrow down what she had to say after extensively interviewing the people who She said it was 15 to 20 uh people, she thought.
From that event it is also the case that the person who was leaving on that occasion, Cleo Watson, I think we can, we can name her, from my understanding, she said that she was a group of officials and that she landed. In fact, it lasted a very short time and she said I think there was a um a speech of mine that lasted 45 seconds in a speech of hers that lasted 15 seconds uh from memory um I was certainly there very briefly and to get To your point, it's about That, the quote you have about that event doesn't really match my own memory, the rich quote is this, uh, from the four or five people deep and more than 20 people present.
In fact, I remember quite well. Me, my memory of the event is much more in line with what Cleo Watson has to say and what Sue Gray said about the event. Okay, find it, you'll see it on page 20 in a 17 year old package that another witness said. that you joked during the meeting that it was and I quote probably the least socially distanced meeting in the UK at the moment, remove the quote from paragraph 63 of your evidence, uh, your written submission, you say you don't remember saying those particular words, but I therefore deny that you said this.
I do not remember saying those words and I think it is unlikely that I would have said those words given what I had to say to the committee a moment ago about my memory of the event when when My visual memory of the event is that it was very much as Claire Watson describes it , it was a group of people around that table, the same table you just looked at. I don't remember that there were four or five people. deep I don't remember saying I'm sorry, you're getting very long responses and it's taking longer than we need and you're repeating yourself a lot.
Can we continue with the questions? Thank you so much. Then you. Actually, I'm not denying that you said this, but you don't remember saying it. I think it's unlikely that I said that, but yeah, I didn't saythings about social distancing. You've answered the question you also posed in your um. written presentation of Paradise 63 and I quote you could well have made observations in speeches about social distancing in quotes, so what kind of observations? I might as well have made observations about the importance of social distancing since it was very much on our minds, okay, but how?
The correct thing to do would be to conclude that you can't be sure what you did, that you didn't comment on the lack of social distancing and in this or any of the other meetings you attended because otherwise why would you have raised it? Sorry, I didn't do it. I do not understand the question. You're just not denying it. You could have said that. I think I think you know what I read. Given the number of people I remember seeing it, I think it's unlikely given the number of people, it would be pretty fair to conclude that um uh, if you commented on the lack of social distancing at the events, it's pretty quick, it's certainly likely that It would have drawn attention to the importance of social distancing, since that was very high. of social distancing, if everyone was referring to social distancing, it is obviously because, as we have just discussed at length, there could be occasions where people were gathering at high speed and where social distancing was imperfectly observed, that is not meant that you thought the guidance was Not being followed, but given everything I've said before about observing social distancing where possible, well, you accept that the evidence we have under the Truth statement, um, indicates that those who were at this Meeting indicate very clearly that there was not enough social. distancing in this Meeting you accept that I say that I some of them do some of them others don't um and who established that you were familiar with the social distancing guidance that was in the Meetings there was a lack of social distancing So there must be It might have been obvious to you at the time and even more obvious upon reflection later, when all of this came up around you, that it violated workplace guidelines regarding social distancing, no, no, that's not right, which I thought. was. that we had done everything possible to implement the guidance and indeed we had fully and completely implemented it, but clearly when it came to things like social distancing, as the guidance explicitly states, it was not possible at all times to have social distancing perfect and and that could have mitigations, but as recently as May 25 you said that certainly was the case.
On May 25, 2022 of last year, it was certainly true that social distancing guidelines were respected at all times, but I think I am now saying that it was imperfect. Sorry, I'm trying to do it. There is confusion between social distancing and guidance. The guidance covers social distancing among other things, and what we were trying to do was follow the guidance as best we could, which meant that sometimes social distancing could not be observed perfectly, we implemented other mitigations and the guidance also said that only the necessary part of the participating visitors you should physically arrive at the workplace meetings absolutely necessary participants usually said generally when you try when you attended these events uh when you didn't even know who was attending how are you so sure that everyone present Were they absolutely necessary to attend these events?
Bernard these events were of course not personally organized by me. I relied on my excellent staff to make sure we had the right people in the chat room. Fine, thanks. We will now move on to examine two meetings that took place in early 2020. At which Mr. Johnson attended, we will look at the meeting that took place on June 19, 2020. This was a meeting in the cabinet room to mark the birthday of he. We will also look at the meeting that took place on May 20. 2020, which was a meeting for staff in Garden number 10. Yes, the legal regulations in place to prevent the spread of covid varied between May and June 2020, but at both times the relevant regulations included restrictions on gatherings of two or more people and guidance in the workplace.
Force at the time stated that there should be two-metre social distancing in the workplace wherever possible and that only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings. I will now invite Yvonne Forvard to ask our questions about these meetings and I would ask her if she could. because we've already covered enough ground, if she could answer as succinctly as possible, of course, because she might repeat it when I need to say thank you, Mr. Johnson, before I ask my questions. Can we again confirm her knowledge of her rules? guidance in force at the time reminding us what he is telling the country: he told the House of Commons on May 11 that and I quote: if you must go to work and you cannot work from home, you will do so as long as your place of work Work is covered safely and respects social distancing rules.
We are issuing further guidance on the fact that he also told a household on May 11 that people should limit contact with others and keep two meters apart where possible. just a week before the May 20 meeting and then on June 10, just over a week before the June 19 meeting, you said that at a press conference on covid, quote, I urge everyone to continue to show restraint and respect the rules that are designed to keep us all safe, so please repeat what you have heard so many times before stay alert maintain social distancing and continue washing your hands you agree that those were the rules in place at that time moment yes, thank you, let's turn first For the meeting on June 19, 2020, where non-compliance with both Covid rules and guidelines is an issue, we will show images of this meeting on the screen and the unpixelated photos are on the pages 359 and 414 in package one of the total evidence.
Photos show you attended a meeting in the cabinet room that day to mark your birthday with at least 17 other people present. Now the attendees included your wife and your interior designer, right? They certainly included my wife and son, and yes. There was a contractor who was working on the building who stuck his head in the door very briefly. I was alone for this event and you just confirmed that at least two people who were not co-workers attended. Why did you think this was reasonably necessary? for work reasons as the rules required at the time, but this was an event that took place, as you say, on my birthday.
I returned from a long external visit. I thought it was reasonably necessary for work reasons because I was on my feet. at my desk surrounded by officials who had been asked to come and wish me a happy birthday, recently recovered from Covid illness and it seemed like a perfectly appropriate thing to do, you're about to have another meeting and they were very much the same Officials and presumably his wife and the contractor did not attend that meeting. It is one of the peculiarities of number 10 that my Prime Minister and his family live in the same building and, as I understand it, the rules are that the process that the family has the right to use that building and use every part of that building, Turning now to the guidance in respect of that event, the workplace covered guidance in place at the time said that workplace gatherings should be socially distanced and attended only. by those whose participation was absolutely necessary now the two images we see on the screen show that the Gathering was not socially distanced and attended by people who were not absolutely necessary to be there, so wouldn't it have been obvious to you that the event was a garden rape, no and it's a measure of how unobvious it was to me, uh, that this was some kind of rape, that actually or the press publicized this meeting in the Times newspaper, reported it as I did.
I said it before with a slightly embellished story. Can. It made absolutely no sense while this event was taking place and, in fact, later on, at any time, this event contravened the rules or the guidelines, nor did anyone before me speak in the House of Commons suggest to me that so it was and I think the then chancellor who also received an fpn would have been as surprised as I was, so he didn't reflect on the event afterwards as to whether it was in both the rules and the guidelines. before I spoke in the House of Commons no, I didn't and that's because it was a long time ago, I'm afraid I had completely forgotten and I thought it was a completely innocent event, it was a very brief event, uh, I am standing at the desk, in the place where I would normally have sat, it seemed to me nothing more than an ordinary event in the Garden workplace, a meeting at 10 Garden for staff with evidence that you.
If you were present at this meeting, while you were there there were up to 40 people also there and at that time a meeting had to be essential for work reasons to be within the regulations. We now have evidence that the email invitation for this meeting which was sent by a principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, was sent to 200 people and encouraged staff who attended to bring their own alcohol. That's on page 35 of his package. Did you see the invitation email at any point before it was made public? No, he did not do it. I didn't see the email itself, but did you know that the email was sent to 200 people and guests?
It's alcoholic beverages, so what was your understanding of the purpose of the meeting to thank the staff who had been working very hard on covid and uh, it seemed to me and I think they told me about it shortly before, uh, before it was done, I should add that the purpose was to uh, thank you in an obviously ventilated area. God, did you argue something? official official yeah, I think they would have told me um, I mean, I don't remember, but I think they would have told me that Kobe's team is meeting outside, it's been a very difficult time, this was a day when the cabinet The secretary had just resigned.
I think public officials needed to feel that, as I said with respect to another event, business and government were being carried out and they needed to feel grateful and motivated for their work and that's it. what I did before it happened um briefly, yeah, but I think it was, you know, one of those things that, as I think Sue Gray May points out in her report, I don't know what value we place on it now, uh, but uh, when your prime minister you move very well your officials give you the next thing to do and you go and do it and this was the next thing to do Then I went and had a telephone audience with His Majesty with evidence that some officials and advisors felt that the event should not go ahead on page 34 of its packet, the event's communications director, Lee Kane, described the tone of the email invitation as clearly social and in violation of Covid guidelines and said he expressed concerns about. with Martin Reynolds, another official gave us evidence saying and I quote: I heard that there were so many people who were not happy with the party that they were not going to go and they themselves told another official that they thought it was Magnus, that evidence is on the page . 38 of your package were concerns about the government's compliance with Covid rules or guidance raised directly with you at that time no and the person you mentioned raising concerns uh read uh was, if you read what it says, was concerned for the Optics it is not about the rules and he himself attended the event and certainly will not raise any concerns with me the event had been within the rules why were you worried about the Optics?
I guess I can't say that I think I was worried about the impression that people We could win if they looked over the Garden Wall if they came from the Roman media and thought we were doing something that other people weren't allowed to do. do and in my opening comments I made it clear that I can see why people might have felt that way, but as I told the house, when I came to report on that event, I still believe it was within the guidance and within the rules, the diddly came to discuss or raise concerns about meeting you at the time and your evidence suggests that he might have done so, he said, quote, I don't remember if I personally had a conversation with the Prime Minister about the garden party, but It would have been highly unusual for me not to have posed a potentially serious communications risk. with the piano and if he had thought and his and if he had thought and if Dominic Cummings had thought that this was really against the rules and he should not go ahead they would have told Martin Reynolds and it is inconceivable that Martin Reynolds would have gone ahead discuss or raise any concerns about the meeting at any other time and again is evidence thatyes for us, it may have.
He said it may have raised concerns. Not that I remember now, otherwise he would be aware of any concerns? what you have heard or read before or after the government took place not, as I said, I told the House of Commons and gave quite a long series of comments about this event when I went out to God and it seemed to me implicit it was implicit in what We were making out that this was a work event, as we will see on pages 34, 40 and 41 of your packet, we have evidence that Trestle tables were set up on which alcohol was placed and that attendees included his wife and advisors who They were not from number 10 but from other government departments.
Did you see that when you are at the Gathering, I had nothing to do with the organization of this with the Trestle tables and so on? no prohibition, sorry, tables with alcohol. She was asking if she saw the Trestle tables with I saw, I saw, I don't remember, uh, what exactly was on The Trestle tables. I remember going and thanking the staff for what they did. What we were doing during Covid is now perfectly possible that my wife was also in the garden, but she had a right to be there. No, she certainly did not receive a fixed penalty notice for that event nor did I see it on page 34.
It was a purely social function. Did you share that opinion? No, then that was certainly not what she said at the time because if she thought it was purely social and therefore contrary to the rules, it is inconceivable that she would have gone ahead, the Metropolitan Police confirmed. that fixed penalty notices were issued in relation to that Meeting, so we know that she breached Covid regulations. We know that you knew what the regulations were and we know that you were present, so it would have been obvious to you when you were there that the Meeting was non-essential for work purposes and was partially a social event, right?
And in fact, if I am, I am highly respected. I want to challenge the idea that it was not an essential meeting or gathering. that was reasonably necessary for work purposes. I don't know why the fpns were issued, but it may be that they were issued to people who did not have a good enough reason to come from home to that meeting or to people who had come from other places. to that Meeting, but my strong impression is that I think I would certainly still think that Martin Reynolds believed that that Meeting was within the rules and indeed within the guide country if he had been asked at one of the press conferences at that time that they had a big social gathering in their garden, it wasn't a big social gathering, it was a planned gathering and I really have to stress this point, people who say we were partying in lockdown simply don't know what they are talking about.
People who say that this event was a purely social gathering are quite wrong. My purpose there was to thank the staff to motivate them in what had been a very difficult time and what was also a very difficult day, in which a cabinet secretary had just resigned. accepting and working with distancing guidelines that did not apply to hospitals and nursing homes, the workplaces that were also operating were incredibly different, difficult and challenging circumstances, of course not, and that's why we continued, that's why We had all the stipulations that I have discussed at length with Suburbanon on how to follow the guide.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, back to the presidency, thank you. To complete this section of our questions, we will look at two meetings that took place in late 2020 early 2021. The first one we will look at took place on January 14, 2021, which was a farewell meeting of two officials held in the room with columns of number 10. The next one we will look at was a Christmas gathering in the lobby on December 18, 2020. At the time of both gatherings, the legal regulations in place to prevent the spread of alcohol and the spread of covid included restrictions on gatherings of two or more people and to the workplace.
The guidance stated that there should be two-metre social distancing in the workplace wherever possible and that only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings. I will invite Alan Dorens to ask you about these meetings Mr. Doris, thank you, good afternoon Mr. Johnson Mr. Jones before I ask my questions. Can we again confirm his knowledge of the rules in force at that time by remembering what he is telling the country? He told the House of Commons on September 2 that it was very important that we get people back into the workplace in a covered and safe way, this shows that he is aware of the workplace guidelines and its content.
Then, on Nov. 9, he said in an undercover press conference that no amount of testing or advances in vaccines is a substitute for national restrictions at this time. for social distancing and everything else, so it's even more important that we follow the rules. Furthermore, in the first conference on 30 December you outlined a level 4 restriction that was applied in London a fortnight later, on 14 January. took place you said the reception meant not meeting friends or family and doors unless they are in the same household or support bubble and avoiding large gatherings of any kind. My first question for you is do you understand division, yes, thank you, thank you.
My first question will focus on the Meeting of 14 January 2021. This was a live event for two officials held at the pilgrim at number 10. We have evidence that approximately 15 people attended. Now we will show you a picture of this meeting on the screen, the unpixelated photo is on page 757 of package 2 of the total evidence here we see that the image below the screen Mr. Johnson, the photograph shows you and at least others. Another 11 people present in the unpixelated image have been confirmed by the Metropolitan Police. A fixed penalty notice was issued to some people who attended this Meeting as it was in breach of the covert regulations in force at the time and was not reasonably necessary to work this bridge in the covert rules which were obvious to you when you were there, right? ?
No, I must respectfully disagree with you completely, Mr. Dorans, uh, on the contrary, what I see is a and I know there are some bottles on the table, but you have that and you're looking, I actually think it's a zoom. that's someone, that's someone, a screenshot taken from Zoom, I guess because you have people at this event, a lot of people were actually on Zoom, you have people who work with each other every day and who use that. uh meeting space and that they are meeting briefly to say thank you and say goodbye to I think they are too talented uh young officials I think Malcolm Reed and Alex Burns uh was the was the occasional um and uh was the I'm sorry, forgive me.
Should not? Should not? I should not mention the names of the officials. I said they have talent, but anyway, those two, those two officials were leaving and it was my job to thank them and show that their work. it was appreciated uh I was there very briefly I didn't get an fpn there's nothing I can see and I have to tell you there's nothing I can see in that photograph that seems to me to be against the rules or the guide and I would actually do it What I really see and depending on how you are, your perspective is what I really see is that there are people trying to stay reasonably far away from each other, that's what I see now.
I don't know what happened next, but I can tell. You who during the period I was there seemed holy to me according to the rules and guidance and a proper use of my time, even if it was brief, would you agree with the fall of an official who attended and who described a meeting as not strictly an event about work this statement is on page 47 of your evidence good I I I I I don't agree with that because I think it was essential to thank staff during the pandemic, there weren't many of these At times when they occurred I thought it was It was right and appropriate to motivate staff by telling them how we were doing and thanking them for what they had done.
It wasn't just the staff leaving that needed to be there. It is appreciated that it was the staff who were there who needed motivation. Thank you. The image shows this meeting. It appears to show several bottles of alcohol in the lower right corner of the photograph. Would you say it's strictly necessary for a work event? It is customary to have a safer world for the people in this country with a toast. I didn't see any signs of drunkenness or excess and uh I had no knowledge of I don't know why anyone would have been fined for that event.
I don't know what happened next. The next type of thing we want to ask you about is a meeting on December 18, 2020, but if you know that you did not comply with the code regulations, some attendees received fixed fines. This meeting was a previous meeting. The press office planned a wine and cheese drinks event and it was widely reported in the press. We have evidence that between 25 and 40 people attended. You will find the relevant statements on page 54 of your income candle. His official diary confirms that I intend to only Fleet that night did you attend the team?
Join this meeting? No December 18 Sorry December 18 25 absolutely not right um your official journal on page 56 so they have this blender it shows a gap between the hours of 1917 and 2024 and I understand this is difficult but can you confirm where were you at that moment? I imagine I was working, I think from memory there was one night when we were dealing not only with the emergence of uh, the Kent Variant with Delta, I think it was, but also with a lot of anxiety about whether we were going to have a Brexit without agreement. I thought the anxiety was unfounded, of course, and we didn't do it, but it was a very long and very difficult evening.
I think we had a prolonged Covid-uh session, but I certainly didn't attend that event and haven't had direct knowledge of it. Well, thank you, we held the Committee of Privileges and made a visit to reject your feet while We know that we established that you can clearly see from the suppressed plant where this meeting was taking place from the bottom of the stairs leading up to then what was your flight in Downing Street your diary says you went to your flight in 2158 apparently the meeting continued until after Midnight is your proof that you did not see or hear the noise of a count of between 25 and 40 people taking place in the vegetable room.
A vegetable when you go to an apartment, if we simply explain to you that there is a corridor, a narrow corridor that leads to the vegetable before reaching it, the staircase on the left leads to its flight your direct line of sight would be interceptable at no more a few meters away there is a meeting with between 25 and 40 people, I had a clear direct line of sight to that room you are telling me that your evidence is that you are absolutely unaware of the noise or the event that is occurring and everything that I would have uh if I had looked uh what I would have seen I'm sure there were people doing a lot of work on a very, very busy night right now.
I didn't, I didn't look. Suddenly, I have no memory of ever seeing any kind of illicit party or gathering in the press room. That night, the first time I heard about this, the first time I knew about it was when Jack Doyle informed me about it. I think almost almost a year later, you will see that this Meeting was described and there is evidence that What they received was beyond their strength and much more relaxed than it should have been, where people were sure not to support each other and that a member of staff number 10 did not attend said that the letter said that the Meeting had turned into a party.
Well, no, they didn't and this is the crucial point. No one expressed any anxiety to me about that event. Before I showed up in the House of Commons, no one told me we had anything. I have done something that in the almost year that followed between December 18, 2020 and November 30, 2021, when Jack Doyle came to see me, the thing was completely blank for me, yes, Red Bull and the police are confirmed . A fixed penalty notice was issued to some attendees at that Meeting clearly therefore breaking the rules. There are no witnesses to say that you were at the Meeting, but we did not inform you at the time or after it happened that you had not complied with the covered standards? the rules are not right, Mr Jones, before we go on to discuss what you said in the house about the meetings at number 10, you will be aware that fixed energy for tickets was issued in relation to meeting number 10 in another two days in addition of the noise we have asked about. you about these meetings took place on December 17, 2020 and April 16, 2021, this is confirmed by the Metropolitan Police statement at the end of Operation Hillman, which you will find in the cafe on pages 89 and 91 of your package of tests.
Have you ever had any reason to think that the covered wheels may have broken at this meeting or any of these dates prior to 2021? You know, December 2021. So which states forgive me? On December 17 and April 16, what can I tell you? The committee is none of these. WasI was aware that none of these events were in any way violating the rules or going against the guide until stories started surfacing about them and that was after I had talked in the comments about them, so that's what they were. They weren't at all on my radar as things I should be worried about.
Thank you sir, you have to return to the president the covid related guidelines that were applied at the time of the meetings we have discussed with you. your knowledge of the rules and guidelines then apply and we have considered your attendance to be an awareness of gatherings that were not socially distanced and for which fixed penalty notices were issued, this is combined with what you told the House of Commons After media reports about these meetings began to emerge, we will focus particularly on what you said to the house on December 1 and December 8. We will first examine your claims that Covid rules and guidelines were followed in Number 10 and I would like to invite Andy.
Carter to ask our questions about this president, thank you Mr Johnson, um, on the afternoon of November 30, as I understand it, the Daily Mirror contacted the Downing Street press office saying that they were planning to publish an article indicating that the events had taken place in Downing Street. in November and December 2020 where covered rules were broken, now the article appeared online later that day and it was the front page of the Splash newspaper on December 1st and I think you can see a copy of that on page 58 in your evidence. package, I suppose you must have known that you would be asked about this at Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons, the next day, the first of December, and sure enough, you were asked if it was Christmas.
The party was held at number 10 on December 18 and you told the house that all instructions at number 10 were completely followed. Going back to the things you said in your opening statement and the evidence you provided, you knew what the guidance was: maintain social distancing whenever possible? Making sure mitigation was implemented if that wasn't possible and you knew of gatherings where social distancing and mask wearing hadn't necessarily been maintained, for example, they weren't warm and the shouting wasn't? It is not in place because we have seen some of the photographs there, so why did you tell the house that all the instructions were followed completely in number 10?
Thanks, so I'm not sure there was any, just quickly. I'm not sure there is any requirement for masks indoors after mitigation. I see I'm with you so the reason I said all the guidelines in number 10 were followed and you know you have to back Mr. Dorans and the general many of the questions that have been raised between the event that took place and when I stood up to speak in all the cases you mentioned, no one came to me and said, "We have a problem with this." you need, you have to worry about this and I want you to do it, I want you to do it and there is no trace of it in the written evidence or in the electronic record and that is a very extraordinary thing, given how serious the reason was.
I said what I said was because I thought I think then that all of the number 10 team are making a great effort to follow the guidance and I spoke to Jack Doyle about what had happened at that event. this is the afternoon of November 30, 2021. and it's about uh, I'm not my newspaper says it was around six o'clock, he comes in and says that, as you say, the Daily Mirror is going to publish this story, he mentions a few other events, two of which I knew directly and knew there was not as I believed at the time, I knew there was no problem with them, the other was something I believe.
There was something to do with an event at the conservative CCH, so an officer I knew absolutely nothing about. I asked him about this event on December 18 and told him to describe it and take into account everything I said about that night, which was a terribly busy and difficult night and we had had a long time discussing what to do about the Kent variant. He told me he was within the rules. He said people were sitting at his desk. Drinking. It's true, but that was not prohibited. It was under either the rules or the guide it wasn't too bad, it was average I'm afraid people drink it on Fridays um and I concluded that it sounded to me like that event was within both the rules and the guide. and that 45 million in what I got up to say the next day, as it happened when I said that the guidance had been completely followed during number 10, which is actually what I said.
I was misremembering the line that had already been published in the media about this event being covered, the rules were followed throughout, but you must understand that I didn't think there was any real distinction from the public's point of view between the rules and the guidance in the sense that or our observance of let me put it this way, I didn't think that the public would do something, they would expect us to follow both the guidelines and the rules, and so even though I said something slightly different, I still believe . was true, can I just if you said something slightly different?
Can I ask you why you didn't correct the record? Because that would have been obvious. No and I understand the point you make. There is confusion between guidance and rules. but yes, I could have corrected the record at that time, but I didn't think it made any appreciable difference because it was our job to follow the instructions as much as it was to follow the rules and My opinions, as I have said repeatedly. to the committee this afternoon is that I believe we were following the guidance and despite the photos we have all seen that seemed to show a lack of perfect social distancing, I believe what we were doing was in compliance. uh with the rules, they certainly were for the period that I was there and I think the behavior was reasonable, uh, given the limitations of the building and therefore in accordance with the guidelines, that's why what I said, what I said , I know you did.
You will not attend the meeting on December 18. You've been very clear about this, but you've attended some of the other meetings we've talked about and you just said that you asked Lee Kings to Kane about the meeting on the 18th, so why didn't you tell the home? At that time, when they asked you what were some of the meetings at number 10. I told him, I said it was Jack Dollar. I'm sorry, but um, but as you know, this goes to the heart of what we're trying to establish, I didn't think that those events were an issue that no one had previously brought them up to me as things that I should be concerned about and they didn't and like I told you. repeatedly at that time, call me uh obtuse or oblivious, but it didn't seem to me that they were in conflict with the rules or the guidance as we were trying to implement in number 10.
Well, the next question from the prime minister was on December 8, a week later . I think it probably would have been fair to say that you would have guessed that the group leader would have brought up the topic again. opposition um because the night before ITV had published a video of a mock press conference where staff numbers 10 were apparently joking about the meetings on December 18 um pmq it's December 8 they asked you if there was a party in number 10 on November 13 and you told the house that instructions and rules in Downing Street were followed at all times. By December 8, a full week had passed since he was first asked in the house about the meetings. at number 10.
The topic had continued to appear on the front page of many of the newspapers and, as we later saw on television, what did you do that week to prepare for future questions about Gatherings and decide if you needed to correct? his previous statement that the instructions had been followed and whether he should restate it well. I did it as a committee you know. I did the most obvious thing, which was when the Allegra video came out on the night of I think uh, December 7th I decided that I was getting conflicting information about what had happened at this meeting on December 18th.
I was worried that I hadn't been relying on what I thought were the honest things. and well-intentioned descriptions of this by my trusted advisers, but there was clearly a difference of opinion, so I commissioned the cabinet secretary to carry out an investigation, which is the most important thing I did at the end of the Prime Minister's Questions on On December 8th, I think he was asked several times about the issue of the meetings in Downing Street, but at no time did he tell the house that he knew that there were meetings that he had attended, in particular the five that we have raised.
Why didn't he tell the house on December 8 that there were meetings he had attended? But Mr. Carter, you have it. You have to understand that, in my opinion at that time, they did not seem to me to be inappropriate or offensive events so that they did not do it, they were not on my Consciousness because I thought they were work events as I told the house when we came to discuss the event on May 20th and I came to the house uh to Explain: I made it very clear that I thought this was a work event and, in fact, I still believe that.
Having told the house on December 8 that instructions and rules were followed at all times in Downing Streets, you reiterated this. The following month you answered the First Minister's Questions of the House on 12 January. I believe the events in question were within the guidelines and were within the rules. You knew what the rules and guidelines were and personally attended at least four meetings, those on May 20, June 19, November 13 and January 14, 2021 for which penalty notices were issued fixes attendees who had not followed the rules and in which the violations of the rules and guidelines must have been obvious to you because you were there so no, so the only fpn I received was for the event I , uh, we have gone over in some detail, which was the event in the cabinet room and I think that Even this committee, you know, I dare to suggest, might concede that if they had been in my place at that event, perhaps not even It would have occurred to them that this was an event that was against the rules or the guidance which it certainly didn't occur to me, it didn't occur to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, it didn't occur to the Department of Media, we agreed that that It was anyway, that was the only event for which I received a fpn, all the other events, uh, for I can only conclude that the period I was there was considered by the uh met as events that did not violate the rules because I did not they issued an fpn, so you have two sets of events, the one for which I received an fpn which blew me away. because I couldn't understand why I got it and the others, uh, where I wasn't aware of the rule violation at the time and I believed that we were following the guidance, so there was nothing I could tell the house at that school to the one you sent.
On page 61 of the evidence package you can see a statement from the then principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, in which he says he was asked directly by him whether it was realistic to argue that the guidelines had been followed at all times. At number 10, do you accept? that he was advised not to say that instructions were followed at all times in number 10 and yet he told the house that it was December 8th and January 12th, so there are a couple of important points, it is Absolutely true. that Martin Reynolds was cautious about what he should say in the house on December 8th because we had already begun the vetting process that we were seeing at the December 18th event.
I had received assurances about the rules around December 18, but I had not received assurances about the guidance of what Martin was trying to get at if you look at his uh what he says, it's clear that he's talking about social distancing and if we had kept the social distancing within number 10 and if that would be if we maintained perfect social distancing within number 10 and if you look at the paragraph um um Martin makes it clear that he believes that the nature of the working environment in number 10 could make it difficult to say that full social distancing was observed so forgive me just spend while the bell rings we don't need to vote but sorry ok that's a very very important point it just goes to the heart of I think the confusion and What Works in your comments to me, Martin, is talking about whether or not we observe perfect social distancing.
He's not saying we don't observe the guidance and I can prove that if you think for a second about what would happen. That is, if he had said that during the pandemic we were not observing the guidelines, he did not mean that he and I were responsible for making sure that we were observing the guidelines to the best of our ability if I had asked Simon's case or any of the seniors Officials, if we were following the police in reverse, if you had included the guidance in number 10, they would have said no, we were following the guidance, but with mitigations, and with social distancing where possible, as specified in the guidance on thereflection and given that Mr.
Reynolds says that you agreed to remove the reference to guidance, would you have liked to have corrected the arbitrator on the record at that time? not because, in the first place, we had already started the investigation and I didn't know what, I didn't know in what sense the guide had been broken. I didn't know otherwise. I had no evidence that anyone had broken the guide. It wasn't clear. I what I would say to the House of Commons um at the time no one had no one was advising me to uh correct the record and um Martin and I, as I tried to explain, we're talking about two different things.
I was talking. About the entirety of following the guidance, I was talking about maintaining perfect social distancing. The advice he was giving me was in relation to a statement he was making about the December 18 event and assurances he had received that were true. to say that I had received assurances about that event, as far as the rules were concerned, but it was also true to say that no one had explicitly assured me about the guide and thought it prudent to remove the reference to the guide. It's true, as you just said, Mr. Carter, I later stopped by PMQ to talk to Catherine West.
I don't know when everyone was going to get to this point, but she asked him a question and like you, like you said I said that uh she asked if there had been a party on November 13th I said no but I was sure that the rules had been followed. and guidelines uh what I said no but whatever happens I was sure that the rules and the guidance have been deserved at all times and I said it with confidence because I knew about the events that I was talking about on November 13th and I had my own reasons personal to believe that was the true statement for us, paragraph 81 also, uh you say you don't believe the guidance required perfect compliance with social distancing.
Yes, what did she make clear when she told the house that the guidance was followed at all times? That's a very good question, Mr. Carter, and maybe you would have asked it. been um maybe it would have been like I think Sir Bernard said earlier um maybe if I had clarified more clearly what I meant and what I felt and believed about following the guidance uh that would probably have helped the final question in paragraph 28 of your In the submission you quote an extract from workplace guidance which says where social distancing guidelines cannot be fully followed in relation to a particular activity.
The business should consider whether that activity must continue for the business to operate and, if so, take all possible mitigating measures. to reduce the risk of transmission, are you saying that you thought these gatherings were so critical to the function of government that it was permissible to hold them even if they couldn't be socially distant? The short answer is yes, I thought it was essential. Thanks to the staff for their work. I think even though the images seem to show holiday events, I think our efforts even in those images are being made to achieve social distancing and what I saw what I had in my head when I was.
Speaking to the House of Commons was a memory, a strong memory of people who over a long period did everything they could to stop the spread of disease within the building and, to be clear, at those events in the lobby, the first images we saw Mitigations were implemented that were required by the guide, so, I have listed some of them, but we avoided physical contact. We didn't, for example, as a guide and it says we don't touch each other's pens. uh, we didn't pass things to each other if we could, if we could, possibly, uh, avoid it, um, we kept, we kept, I wouldn't want to say that was perfect, people passed drinks to each other because we've seen the picture, of course, and I'm not good and this is a guide, this is a guide and I'm not going to pretend that it was rigidly applied, but that's explicitly what the guide provides.
We had Zoom meetings we had a huge reduction in the number of people in the building overall we had signs telling you where to walk uh we had Perspex screens and I've mentioned all of this before but it's worth repeating again because it does ask you about that specific event when you see the pictures in the lobby, none of those. the mitigations seem to be evident, yes, because then what event are you talking about? Sir, the first photographs we saw. Yeah, okay, November 30th, the Lee Kane event, yeah, and that's because, that was the space where people would congregate quickly, uh, if they wanted to. send a message, it was the natural place to do it uh yeah, you don't see um you don't see um uh perspex screens there, but that doesn't mean there wasn't sanitizer and efforts to To restrict the spread of greed, the last question for me and , in a way, you know, in all of this, keep in mind that we believed that Martin Reynolds believed that everyone responsible for the health of the building and the health of the employees in the building believed that uh, the guidance was being significantly increased from a way that went beyond the guidance of the testing regime I have described.
I don't think any member of this committee didn't recognize the challenges the team was facing. we were facing in Downing Street and the steps that were being put in place to try to keep people safe. Although I want to end, if I may, with the comment you made in the house on January 12 that I implicitly believed that the May 20 meetings that you attended had been a work event, that was the event at which garden, I mean, they said it in the press, bring your own drink, it was a garden party, um, many are. suggesting that it was clearly not essential for work purposes and therefore in breach of the rules covered at the time, why did he say that to the house?
Because I, like myself, implicitly believe that it was a work event and as I told the committee that was there a moment ago, they accompanied me to the garden and informed me shortly beforehand about what the event entailed. I met and thanked several groups of people who had been working at Covert. You see, the numbers are calculated between 10 and 30. or 40. I couldn't say exactly how many were there, but I thought it was an appropriate use of the garden. I felt like it was an obvious work event, but what I said is sue Gray afterwards, if you can, if we can mention. uh Sue Gray chamber chair well, I said sue Gray was that um when I looked back on that event this is what it was what it was what I said is why I said what I told the house you know I tried to put myself in someone's place, a member of the public, looking over the garden wall and seeing that, I had to accept it, even though I think it's within the guidance and within the rules, I have to accept that.
Members of the public who saw it would have thought that to me it seems like something he doesn't allow us to do and I felt it very deeply, in hindsight I didn't feel it at the time, see? What I'm trying to say, I understand, can I? Can? I ask you one more question. I think probably all the MPS that have been on um on days where we're very busy going from meeting to meeting depend on our advisors to guide us. where are we going, I understand what he said about it, as a Prime Minister who was working with a very busy schedule, did he at any point question any of the events that he was going to attend when advisors were taking him to them?
I look back, it's a wonderful thing, uh, in retrospect, I might have thought of uh, some things, you know, a post post, suede poster, uh, the beginning of the coming to light of everything that went right . I've thought about it, but um, no, at the time I thought we were working, I thought we were working and that's what I promise you, that's what the officials at number 10 also thought they were doing. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. Can we now move on to the issue of guarantees which you mentioned to the House on numerous occasions and I would like to ask Alberto Costa to ask the committee's questions on the issue of guarantees.
Thank you. Greetings. Good afternoon. Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much for attending this important investigation. I am very grateful, could you invite the team to put up slide number eight please Mr Johnson, as we have just seen on the screen on December 8, 2021 in your opening remarks at Prime Minister's Questions, you did he say that to the camera and I quote? I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations surfaced that there was no party and no covered rule was broken in response to subsequent questions. You said that quote. I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken and again I quote.
I have been repeatedly assured that no rules were broken. assured that no rules were violated now these quotes that are on the screen are also on pages 64 to 65 of your evidence package. May I ask if any government legal official or any member of the government legal department, such as the Attorney General or anyone else? Of the hundreds of lawyers and attorneys who work for the government, did any of them give you the guarantee? Thank you very much Mr. Costa, well I know the short answer is no, they didn't, but I didn't ask for guarantees from them either.
I didn't claim to have done it either. I don't think I ever stated that I had received assurances from the Law Offices or from the legal representatives of the people that I said, uh, from the people who had given me assurances that there were uh. there was more than one and in fact it was on more than one occasion, so would it be helpful if I told you why I said that I was repeatedly assured that Mr. cluster asks his questions and then simply follows the course of his imagination ? If he is very interested in healing, of course, the full answers from him, can I ask the head of the Civil Service, Simon Key, for any other permanent senior career civil servant to give him these assurances?
Well, it is clear from, I think, Martin Reynolds, the evidence that he thought the rules had not been broken um if you look at what he has to say um No, I don't remember any senior official specifically reassuring me about the rules uh or the guide inside uh inside Number 10, but the interesting thing is that, on the contrary, nobody gave me any country. If we may thank you, in paragraph 90 of his very useful written submission, you say that the assurances were given to him by Jack Doyle and James, that's right, his statements. confirming this are found on pages 70, 72 and 75 of his evidence package.
Yes, they are now both people you personally appointed to the position of communications director at No 10. They were political advisers who dealt with the media. Why did you trust a guarantee? of political advisors rather than, as I mentioned, a permanent civil servant or, more importantly, a government lawyer, so here's the art, the simple answer is that when I needed to find out what had happened if they had broken the rules, I went first Of course, or I asked the senior advisor who was there first and that was Jack Doyle. Next week you can see that Jack Doyle says that he confirms what he tells me in a WhatsApp.
I have been you. I can say that they assured me there was no party and no rules were broken, so he says that again. I also called James Slack, who and both Jack and James Slacker have the utmost respect for uh and me. I think they would be completely honest with me about what and they both said the rules had not been broken and the reason I didn't consult a lawyer or other senior public official because they were the people who had been there and were directly, they were able to give an opinion about the legality of that event.
I did it. I didn't think a normal witness could do well when you decided to rely on the assurances you have referred to in the House, why didn't you discuss the Assurance with the case of Cabinet Secretary Simon or his principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, or with a government lawyer at the time the people you have questions gave you the Guarantee, so double check? with a government lawyer in the first place, well, Martin Reynolds, as well as being my private secretary, is a lawyer and his view of all events, as you will see from his evidence, is that he believes we follow the rules. at all times and that was certainly what he told me uh you will see evidence uh Mr.
Costa from uh from uh from uh from my presentation that uh at least a couple of MP colleagues remember from the morning meeting that I In general, it was asked if we followed the rules, if there were parties and the opinion of the public officials gathered and the advisors was that no, no, no, we had not broken the rules and in the end and that is what they said, the MPS that you 'The ones you are referring to are those in paragraph 90 of your written submission where you said that the evidence given to us by Members Sarah Dimes and Andrew Griffith, upon seeing officials give their assurances in their daily office meetings, those are the additional assurances that you' I mean yes and it's not clear what date Sarah and Andrew remember, but they certainly remember that I received those assurances and don't forget if I could make an important point from the seventh to the from December 7th onwards, The investigation is underway, so you ask me why I didn't ask the Simon case.
I asked the Simon case. YouI asked the Simon case to carry out an investigation. Well, I'm very grateful that you remembered the MP for Cedar Dam and Andrew Griffith MP giving him the assurances, but you were present at those meetings where those two MPS said that the assurance has not been given, so if I just ask the question and You can correct me if I misunderstood the point, who were the officials who gave these assurances in these meetings that you referred to in paragraph 90 of your written submissions. Well, I can't name anyone. I don't know if I don't know if I can.
I think why not. I think most of them have indicated that they don't like themselves, Mr. Johnson, could you just pause and answer my question? I don't remember their names or because you don't want to, at least for confidentiality, there is at least one advisor that I can think of, who was asked not to be named and she would have been at the tomorrow uh meeting and um I don't want well, Could you follow up in writing through your attorneys to the investigation confirming the name of the person Utica gave you assurance that the meetings these refer to, but if I may say so?
Mr. Foster, I do not entirely follow the direction of your questions because it is clear from what I have said that I was repeatedly assured by different people and on different occasions that the rules had been well followed and we have tried to determine who these people were, so It would be helpful if you could follow up with the person just referenced. Could you ask the team to put slide 9 on the screens? Now slide nine refers to a comment made by Mr. Doyle and that will also be found on page 74 of the packet. Mr Doyle is asked if there was a discussion at this meeting, the meeting on 8 December 2021, whether the coveted guidelines were adhered to throughout and Mr Doyle states that I quote: he did not advise the Prime Ministers to say not this, so Mr Doyle says he did not discuss with you whether any Meeting had complied with the covert guidance.
Is it correct that he received no assurances that the December 18, 2020 Meeting or any other Meeting would comply? with covid guidance yes, it is correct to say that as far as I can remember I received no direct assurances about the December 18th event about the guidance, but until Martin Reynolds made me aware of the point from him. On the morning of the eighth, no one had said anything adverse to me about our following of the guide and it was my impression, from what we were doing, based on my experience in number 10, that we worked on guarantees, so let me continue yes I mean, Mr.
Johnson, may I ask you to turn to pages 70 and 73 of your evidence package and you will see extracts from the witness submission signed by Mr. Doyle? Now Mr Doyle says and I quote the lines that were written for the mirror that is the Daily Mirror. it became the basis of Mr Johnson's lines assimilating the Prime Minister's questions on 1 December 2021. Final quote he also says in relation to a conversation he had with you on 30 November. Appointment. I said we have received an investigation from The Daily Mirror said what is our line. End of quote. Page 76 of his evidence package shows that the line sent to the mirror was that the rules of the date were followed at all times.
December 8th was initially developed as nothing more than a media line for Bay Press inquiries, right? Yes, but I don't see any great advice in that and I think we have to be absolutely realistic about how government is run. and if a minister cannot rely on the advice of senior officials when he has a great deal of business to do well, then it would be impossible for the government to continue. Could I ask him? Have you acknowledged that this was the case? Oh, I think we need to hear Mr. Costa's next question from him. Thank you, thank you president.
It's true, isn't it? Jack Doyle, the person on whom the Assurance you sought to rely was supposedly based, had concerns about the compliance of some of these meetings. with the rules and guidance now Mr. Johnson I'm sorry, I don't know where, whereWhere, when do you drive there? If you turn to page 79 of your evidence package, saying yes it's time to go to page 79 of your evidence package, you will see a selection of WhatsApp messages sent by Mr Doyle. These messages are about the Assembly on June 19, 2020, which marks his birthday, Mr. Doyle says that he was, and I quote, struggling to find a way for the Meeting to be within the rules and that he was not sure that cited work to suggest that it was reasonably necessary for work purposes.
We were you, Mr. Johnson, his trusted senior advisor, as you put it, Mr. Doyle doubted whether this meeting was within the rules, so no, it is the answer to that question. He didn't know that he had said that WhatsApp didn't do it. They didn't send it to me, I think it was January 25th, which is long after we started the process that would become the great Sue. I think the Sue Gray investigation was already underway, a couple of other quick points. If I may, that WhatsApp Jack was not at that event on June 19, 2020. He didn't know anything about what had actually happened, so he was relying on media descriptions of that event that had subsequently emerged and Yes , he messaged someone else saying he needed to figure out what the rationale was, but just to go back to the June 19, 2020 event, which we've already talked about several times at that point, I thought.
He was so innocent, uh, that was, he was actually informed at the time I'm talking about the assurances that were given to him, so let me focus again, how could it be that Mr. Doyle and this is the point that I think What is important? for the inquiry to understand how it could be that Mr Doyle, one of his senior advisers, his trusted adviser, the person whose guarantee he used in the House of Commons, clearly doubted this meeting's compliance with the rules, but you continue to see that you were not there, how can those people if he was not at that event?
I was struggling to deal with the media reports long after that event and after the Sue Gray investigation had already begun and, most importantly, not even at that time. time let alone before I appeared in the House of Commons raised any concerns you may have had about that event thank you even if I knew I am almost done Mr Johnson why did you tell the House of Commons that you had received repeated assurances that no rules had been broken when you knew that wasn't the case because you knew what the rules were, you were in meetings that reached the Turtles and the rule preachers would have been obvious to you at the time. is not the case, yes, I could see your reliance on the supposed assurances you received and forgive me as a deflection mechanism to avoid having to answer questions about your knowledge of these meetings.
It wouldn't be a fair assessment. No, that would be a completely ridiculous assessment. I said in the House of Commons on December 8 that I had been repeatedly assured that there was no party and that no rules were broken. I was referring to the event on December 20th, sorry, December 18th. the 18th event of the previous year of 2020. I had the assurances I had received about that event. They were from people I had the greatest respect for and who were directly relevant to my understanding of what that event was about. It was completely sensible. talking to Jack and then Jackdoll and then James Slack to get their honest opinion on what had happened and my impression on November 30, 2020 from what Jack was telling me was that it sounded like agreeing with the rules sounded like it was necessary for work purposes, but it also sounded from what I was saying that I agreed with the guide when it turned out that after Allegra's video I was in doubt.
I commissioned Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, to carry out an investigation, so when I said it, if you look at that statement, I say that I was repeatedly assured that there was no party and that the rules were followed, but I asked Simon to will investigate the case. the purposes of the house my my statement uh should be seen in the for the purposes of the business of the house that statement should be seen in the context of the investigation the investigation that I just started in which in the same pmqs I say I'm going to make sure that that the findings be placed in the House of Commons library for answering my questions.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I have just pointed out to you because I, along with my colleagues, were in the house at the time these assurances were given and we took them as serious assurances you have told the house that you have received assurances wouldn't you expect us to feel a little dismayed to learn that they did not come from senior officials? was one of the political appointees who themselves had doubts about it not only did they poll only covered one meeting did not cover the other three and only covered the rules did not cover the orientation I think if you did it We told it to us in the house and you were also there at the time, so it's a little hard to understand.
I'm sorry, could you let me finish my point? You were there at the time, so it's a little difficult to understand what the nature of a guarantee is. It's when you've been there and seen it with your own eyes. I mean, if I was going 100 miles per hour and I saw the speedometer saying 100 miles per hour, it would be a little strange, wouldn't it, if I said someone insured me. I said no, because it is what you have seen with your own eyes. You actually think that we have a bit of a right to be a bit literal, that these guarantees amounted to something and it can be seen from what you have told us. in response to Mr.
Coss's questions, he said they didn't mean much, so first, first of all, I think he's a great president, uh, if you're talking about the December 18, 2020 event, I don't know, there's some confusion. I wasn't there that's one of the three, I wasn't there and if you look at the statement I made in the House of Commons and because this was the relevant issue because Allegra's video related to the December 18 event of the leader of the opposition. Questions from the previous week related to the December 18 event. He was responding about the December 18 event because that was the issue at hand.
I had received, as I said, repeated assurances from different people that they are different on more than one occasion and on more than one. person that the event was according to the rules and I had it from both uh, like I said, Jack Doyle and James Slack. Now the question that I think the committee is trying to resolve is whether it is a good enough guarantee. good enough to trust the communications director and the former communications director about an event, no matter how eminent and I think the answer is yes, he had doubts himself. I don't think so, I'm sorry, sorry, he said that's not right, Chad. uh the communications director, Jack Doyle, didn't say at the time he informed me about the December 18th event that he had concerns about the guide being smaller.
He had doubts. Can I just be sorry? Sorry, where is the evidence for that in relation to one? He didn't rally the others, he only gave assurances about the rules, not about covid, for sure, they asked me about it. He brought the opposition leader together, you played the clip of him just now, everyone saw it, he was asking, he said, what was there? party where a lot of people came, a Christmas party in Dining Street last year, that was the question that arose then, when I said that the instructions were completely followed throughout, which was later questioned by what Allegra uh Stratton I had to say. uh so we immediately started the investigation into the Simon case, but that remained the point at issue, the key issue was what had happened on December 18th and, really, whether the committee was going to say I can't trust, uh.
Following the advice of senior people, like Jack Dolan and James Slack, who had the advantage of being there, is really going to make it very difficult for the government to continue. Mr. Johnson, only two points come up when you're ready. Two points that arise from the recent Q&A, firstly, about Sarah's question cena a statement of evidence where she mentions that whether it's December 1st or December 8th, she remembers: are you asking? We follow the rules at all times, right? And this is in paragraph 90 of her presentation and I remember more than one person in the room said yes, of course, and said, I'm not sure who the people were, but I am, and I quote.
I'm 90 sure that one of them was the Simon case, the cabinet secretary um and um uh, the difficulty we have with that evidence is in the Simon case affidavit, which I'm afraid is not in the call packet, but it's on page 33. It's at 791 and 792 of the overall package and don't waste your time looking for it because I'll explain that you asked him about both meetings and make it clear that there was no discussion at the meeting of the following points and if so , what would be the blue cells in that discussion? He says I don't think any of these issues were discussed at the meeting and he has asked a general question about 793.
Is he aware of any other meetings in which Mr. Johnsonwas present? The points listed in Parts E and F were discussed and that is whether there was any discussion about compliance with the guidance of the years and he says no, so we have difficulty giving credibility to the evidence we have received from Sarah Dines, although "I'm sure she gave that evidence in good faith, so there's the question of your trust in her. I mean, if you have anything to say about it, I should give you the chance. Well, I think if you're going to question her evidence , so then you need to know about it I can't comment on it I can't comment on it I can't comment on what Simon Cater said from colleagues that was the line I was about to use in pmqs that relied on the rules that followed each other do you remember the case of Simon saying frankly frankly I I I I I I I I I I'm not questionable but you should ask her I'm not questioning the veracity because you were there I'm not questioning the veracity of her statement as she believes it because she's quite open, she says she's just in 90, I'm not sure, not sure, sorry, I didn't trust what I said. in the chamber I think it's tremendously important that we interrogate Sarah Downes, we will because no, I don't think no, I think she's probably she's totally irrelevant.
I think the key point is that when I said that, I had been repeatedly assured uh, it wasn't okay. I never said that one of those people gave me those guarantees. The Simon case is fine, but there is another more general point. You say that I don't see any great vice in trusting the guarantee of Mr. Doyle, who was an unappointed political advisor he is not a professional public official uh uh it is not an Empire thank you sorry um well, we don't trust elephants by Sue Gray in this particular investigation um the obligation not to mislead Parliament is a very serious obligation for any Member of Parliament let alone a Minister and it requires the MP or the Minister to take due care, doesn't it?
Yes, so if I am, I have to say if I was accused of breaking the law and I had to compromise with the House of Commons of all. places where I had not broken the law I would want the advice of a lawyer I would want the advice of someone really independent and capable and you did not respond the cabinet dropped you for 10 seconds yes they did not accuse me of breaking the law They asked me to say what there was happened at a party or event in the press room on December 18, 2020. If I was asked to commit that the rules and guidelines had been followed and there was any doubt about it, there was the completest hint of doubt about it, Well, you would want to reaffirm your guarantees by showing that you have followed the right advice.
I'm warning you, Mr. Johnson, you didn't follow the right advice. Can I first respond by saying that if Look at what I said on December 1st, you should do it. It's true, as Mr Carter said he expected something like that to come up, but I actually thought the Opposition Leader wouldn't bother with it. story, uh, okay, it's relevant, the question is why didn't you take the right advice. Sorry, sorry, sorry, the answer is simply that and I have tried to describe what I felt about these events as they were happening, no one brought it up. I, uh, or had any concerns before I showed up on December 1st about those events that you didn't do.
I asked for. I saw that this is complete nonsense. I mean, complete nonsense. I asked the relevant people who were seniors. They had been working very hard. I was told that Jack Doyle gave me a clear explanation of what had happened. How was the cabinet secretary? I'm not really sorry that you were wrong because I asked the cabinet secretary. I asked the cabinet secretary to conduct an inquiry on December 7. What if you are assuming that the House of Commons was right? But of course, that was what he was. I could move on. Can we turn to Charles Walker for our next questions?
Sorry, that noise is coming from the back of the room. stopped, okay Mr Johnson, housekeeping matters, you are an MP, I am an MP, so we have a duty to Parliament. There has been a lot of human screaming about the legitimacy of this investigation, which I think we need to address. I sort of alluded to that in your opening statement. I'll just give you an example of an organization that claims to have your interests at heart it's called a conservative publication uh in a recent article published on their website on March 12th it is stated that this was the headline that revealed Boris's British sewing by the committee of Privileges and the rulings when the job was proposed Refer Boris Johnson to the Privileges Committee for misleading Parliament.
Many Conservative MPs did not object. I just want to leave this for a second and go back about 11 months before that, on April 21, when his case was referred to the Privileges Committee. Government Minister the Right Honorable Michael Ellis QC, the then Minister for Cabinet and Remuneration, Master General, said this in Settlement: The Government recognized the seriousness of the issue under consideration, let me say at the outset that the Prime Minister It has always been clear. that he is happy to face any investigation that Parliament sees fit to carry out, he is happy for the house to decide how it wants to proceed today and this is important because at the end of that the motion was put forward and there was no vote and that is a matter of fact In fact, there wasn't even a cry of objection from anyone.
Can you accept that that was the case? Yes, I encourage people to support it, so it's actually misleading for conservative publications to say so. many Conservative MPs did not object the truth is that not a single Conservative MP opposed it yes that is completely correct that is great now this is really good this is good we are making progress in your opening statement you referred to the president, the appointment from the chair, suggests to some extent, that he knows he had concerns, but was willing to put them aside on 14 June 2022, the honorable Lady of Camberwell and Peckham, there was a motion to add it to committee on 14 June 2022 .and um, it happened at the end of a debate on the privatization of Channel 4 and there were colleagues of ours in the chamber and when the motion was put forward and the honorable lady's name was mentioned that there was not a single Object Shout, not one, not even from a little mouse scurrying across the floor, not a single Object Scream on June 14, can you accept that too?
Of course, if these concerns were real about the committee and our legitimacy or the legitimacy of the presidency someone might have shouted object so Charles, just quickly come back to this at this point uh my anxiety is about uh justice uh are contained in my uh submission uh that I have I said what I had to say about the Chairman's previous comments and I said what I had to say about my belief in the ability of this committee, which is very important to the distinguished committee, to be impartial. before his appointment on the 14th and I have come before you this afternoon with full confidence that you will be impartial and that you will examine the evidence and that you will conclude that I did not knowingly or recklessly mislead Parliament.
One shred of evidence to suggest that I did it and I hope they exonerate me and I think they should exonerate me of any contempt, so look, we received your evidence package, which was very well put together. It has been a long afternoon that we have shared. the conversation you've had to do on your own, so thank you for answering our questions, but it's a well put together package. I feel that the way things have been carried out is that your followers, not saying I'm saying that his followers seem to have it both ways, expect that the evidence he has provided in 52 pages will exonerate him, give him a clean bill of health.
Cheers, that's the outcome you want, but in case it doesn't happen that there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize the committee and call us a kangaroo court? Have you characterized us as a kangaroo court? You can tell by my presence this afternoon by the seriousness with which I have taken your questions uh by my attempts to answer in detail uh what are the points that you have raised with me how seriously I take you and your committee uh the respect that I have for this institution of Parliament and for better or worse, whatever the questions of justice that I may have raised in my presentation this is the body that decides on our standards and

privileges

this is the committee that does it there is no other way to do it is why I have come here out of respect for the respect for Parliament committee and because I do not believe that you can find me guilty of deliberately misleading Parliament on the basis of the evidence that you have gathered as a parliamentarian, are you sorry that our colleagues , who are also parliamentarians, have called the Kangaroo Court Privileges Committee I I don't want anyone to call any colleagues. uh uh there should be no bullying or there should be no attempt to bully any colleague on any matter or it's a yes or no, yes, but you regret it, you regret that they regret it, I, I don't do it because I regret it, I'm not like a book, so my questions about justice are well documented in my presentation, I think the me, not me. disapprove of the term you just used.
I don't want to repeat it, but I think people will judge for themselves based on the evidence you have presented about the impartiality of this committee. I have full confidence that he will do it. uh, show that you can be fair, okay, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm almost, I'm almost done, can I just chime in? Yes, will you accept that this committee can be fair and wrong rather than unfair in a witch hunt? um, I certainly think that let me put it this way, Mr. Costa, I think that if this committee found me in contempt of parliament, I would have come and done something so absolutely crazy and contrary to my beliefs and my principles is to come here to come to the Parliament and deliberately, uh, lying, I think that would not only be unfair, I think that would be wrong, but you wouldn't actually classify it as a witch hunt or a kangaroo court, that's the point.
I think he Waits to see how you proceed with the evidence that you have, but I, no, I don't want to, you know, I will study, I will study your conclusions, from the evidence, I disapprove of the terms that you have used, no. I want to see good colleagues feeling like they are under pressure in any way. I think if you study this evidence impartially, you will come to the conclusion that I have almost given it to you on May 25th. You describe the number 10 and here are the discursive marks: a building of 5,300 square meters distributed over five floors, excluding apartments, hundreds of employees have the right to work there and I am very sorry.
I think this will probably be the last time I go. to return to these dates on the first of December, you will know very well that you told the leader of the opposition that all instructions were followed completely in number ten, on December 8, against the leader of the opposition, you said that I have state I repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken and then I will quickly tell this on December 8th to Catherine West about the alleged party on November 13th. I am sure that no matter what happened, the instructions were followed and the rules were followed at all times.
Did you receive guarantees from several people? I guess the question I have is how they would not have the land and were following the rules all the time. It's impossible because you would have cameras in every room. I mean, well, no, but I had his pair of eyes, so you're right, so I didn't have omniscience about what was happening in the building and I had to rely on what people told me. You're absolutely right about Charles, but what? They had to say that it was extremely valuable and that they were people of great reputation and that they were people of great reputation and they gave a description of that event and to get back to the point that the chair was rising, initially it was an event that was under consideration under discussion and um I took my cue from them so I wanted to say this because you worked incredibly hard.
I accept you. He works incredibly hard. I accept that your officials worked incredibly hard. I accept that you were hospitalized. um, we get the vaccines out. you worked incredibly hard I guess what I am left with and I am not sure if this helps or hinders your case is when you look at the 126 fixed penalty notices served to No 10 it is clear that the case of Simon Martin Reynolds Jack Doyle Lee Kane James lame, they all really had no idea what was going on because if they had it is highly unlikely that 126 fixed penalty notices would have been served and can I tell Sir Charles that you put your finger on the crucial point? uh, because, uh, if the committee believes that I should have known or, to get back to the conversation, we've had the doctrine of obviousness. uh, if it were obvious to me, then it would have been obvious to other important and distinguished people.
It really wasn't and I was very surprised to have my own fpn uh and frankly I'm surprised by the number of other fpns. Clearly what happened, uh, you know, if we don't want to go over it again, we don't. I want to reinvest it, but I think what basically happened was that some nights the events just went on too long and I can'tApologize enough for that, but we are where we are. I don't want to test your patience because you have been here for a long time, if not deliberately, if not deliberately, is it possible that it was reckless or a little reckless not to have given any warning about your statements to the house ? you know, to the best of my knowledge, or I really hope that it was the truth of the statement, so yes, is it possible to accept that there was actually a degree of recklessness?
No, I mean, no one wants to be in a position where they're cheating. No one wants to say something in Hazard Commons that will turn out not to be true, especially something as easily falsifiable as instructions being followed completely, was my belief, that was the case. I apologized and continue to apologize. by uh by inadvertently uh misleading that and and and I hope the committee understands that but it was, it was not deliberate, it was based on my genuine understanding and and uh belief about what we were doing, what we had been doing for a long time. time and I think, right now, you will point out that it was one of the most important in this whole business.
It wasn't obvious to me that there were problems with some events and it wasn't. It's not obvious to the other high-level people you've described, thank you for addressing the issue of registration because there has been a lot of discussion about correctness of registration and I just want to explore one aspect of that and express to you what you said. on May 25, 2022 you said: "I am happy to put on record that when I came to this house and said with all sincerity that the rules and guidelines had been followed at all times, that is what I believed to be true and you told us said that this afternoon and then goes on to say that it was certainly the case that when I was present at the meetings to say goodbye to the staff, what he told the house by way of supposed correction was that it was certainly the case that he was present at the meetings to say goodbye to staff, that the guidelines had been followed at all times, do you want to reaffirm that or do you want to correct the record and acknowledge here um, that in fact the guidelines were not followed at all times. we are clear because the can be corrected record of this committee, so what I want to say is, first of all, that the rules were followed and that is for my last period those events and that is clear from the FPS certainly and it was my it was my I believed, at the time in that I made those statements, that the guidelines were followed and, in fact, President, it remains my belief throughout my time there when I was observing these events.
I thought they were within the guidelines given. what you knew about what we were trying to do given what you knew about the limitations we faced in maintaining perfect social distancing, and so what is your belief now? So what I said, I don't want to descend from what I said on May, uh, the 25th, well, May 25th was five months after this was first raised and you had time to consider all the issues that were being raised. posing and even more time has passed until here we are now and a lot of evidence has been produced. and you have had the opportunity to consider, do you still want to claim that this was indeed the case when you were present at the meetings to say goodbye to the staff? that the instructions were followed at all times? do you want to help?
I make this committee. do what I did what I want to do what I do and because I don't see any reason to take back what I said on May 25th because at that time on May 25th I was in possession and I think the committee in the world was possibly in possession of all the um uh um stuff that we've seen today. My opinion remains that the guidance allowed for social distancing not to be carried out with a rigid drill sergeant. Accuracy, particularly in difficult circumstances like like the ones we were operating in, as long as you had mitigations and that was my, that was my request, it's still, you stick to that point and you don't want to accept a proper thank you for the record, thank you um That concludes our questions.
Are there any final points you haven't mentioned yet, not the ones you've mentioned, but the ones you'd like to mention that haven't come up in our questions? We would like to give you the opportunity, thank you. thank you very much I really enjoyed our discussion. I think it has been useful. I really think this has been a useful discussion and I hope it is clear to the committee. What was in my heart and mind on December 1 and December 8, 2021 and May. on the 25th and on many other occasions, okay, thank you Mr. Johnson, Litty will consider the evidence you present to us along with the other evidence we have reviewed in the course of our investigations.
We may obtain further written and oral evidence before our investigation is completed and before we reach our final conclusions if we consider it necessary and we have already discussed the possibility of that, but for now this concludes our session for today order order thank you

If you have any copyright issue, please Contact