MP's Johnson VERDICT: HE KNEW BECAUSE HE WAS THERE 

Daily Mirror 4 March 2023 

EXTRACT “32. There is evidence that the House of Commons may have been misled in the following ways which the Committee will explore: 

a) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson said on 8 December 2021 that no rules or guidance had been broken in No. 10. The Second Permanent Secretary and the Metropolitan Police have already come to the conclusion that was not correct, including in relation to specific gatherings for which Mr Johnson asserted this was the case. 50 - 52 

b) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson failed to tell the House about his own knowledge of the gatherings where the rules or guidance had been broken. That is because there is evidence that he attended them. 53 

c) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson said on 8 December 2021 that he relied upon repeated assurances that the rules had not been broken. Initial evidence to us suggested Mr Johnson was assured by two individuals who had worked at No. 10 at the time that they did not think the gathering of 18 December 2020 had broken Covid rules. 54 

However, we note that:

i) Mr Johnson had personal knowledge about gatherings which he could have disclosed, although his personal knowledge about the gathering of 18 December 2020 may have been limited as he did not personally attend. 

ii) We have received evidence that there was no assurance about any gathering’s compliance with the guidance that was in place at the time (as opposed to compliance with the Covid rules). 55

iii) The purported assurances were only about the gathering of 18 December 2020, not more generally about No. 10’s compliance with the rules and guidance. We have received no evidence that an assurance was provided in relation to the specific gatherings of 20 May 2020, 19 June 2020, 13 November 2020, 27 November 2020 and 14 January 2021. 

iv) The context for the initial purported assurance was in response to a media inquiry and the assertion that Covid rules were followed was initially developed as a media line to take. 56 

v) The initial purported assurance came from the Director of Communications at No. 10, a special adviser appointed by Mr Johnson, not a permanent civil servant. 

vi) The purported assurances consisted only of what those individuals themselves believed about the compliance of the gathering of 18 December 2020 with the rules. Whether those who gave these purported assurances to Mr Johnson ever intended for him to rely upon them in the House, and whether it was appropriate for Mr Johnson to do so, is a question the Committee will want to consider. 

d) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson gave the impression that there needed to be an investigation by the Second Permanent Secretary to establish whether the rules and guidance had been broken before he could answer questions to the House. While repeatedly making that statement to the House he appears to have had personal knowledge that he did not reveal. 

33. It appears that Mr Johnson did not correct the statements that he repeatedly made and did not use the well-established procedures of the House to correct something that is wrong at the earliest opportunity. 

• On 19 April 2022 Mr Johnson acknowledged to the House that rules had not been followed at his birthday gathering on 19 June 2020 for which Mr Johnson and others received fixed penalty notices. 57

• On 25 May 2022 he made a statement after the Second Permanent Secretary’s report had been published. That statement maintained that the gatherings which Mr Johnson attended had not been found to be outside of the rules at the time he attended them. His purported correction did not set out his own knowledge of the gatherings. 58

The evidence strongly suggests that breaches of guidance would have been obvious to Mr Johnson at the time he was at the gatherings. 59 There is evidence that those who were advising Mr Johnson about what to say to the press and in the House were themselves struggling to contend that some gatherings were within the rules. 60 

• The Director of Communications stated in a WhatsApp of 25 January 2022 to a No. 10 official in relation to the gathering of 19 June 2020 that “Haven’t heard any explanation of how it’s in the rules”. 61  

• In a separate WhatsApp exchange with a No. 10 official of 25 January 2022 in relation to the gathering of 19 June 2020, the Director of Communications stated: “I’m struggling to come up with a way this one is in the rules in my head”, and in response to a suggestion that they describe the event as “reasonably necessary for work purposes”, “not sure that one works does it. Also blows another great gaping hole in the PM’s account doesn’t it?”. 62

Footnotes

50–61 

50 See for example: HC Deb (2021–22) 706 c564

[Keir Starmer] “[…] The Prime Minister pretended that he had been assured there were no parties—how that fits with his defence now, I do not know. Then the video landed, blowing the Prime Minister’s first defence out of the water. So then he pretended that he was sickened and furious about the parties. Now it turns out he was at the parties all along. Can the Prime Minister not see why the British public think he is lying through his teeth?”

[Boris Johnson] “[…] As I have said to the House, I believe that the events in question were within the guidance and were within the rules, and that was certainly the assumption on which I operated, but can I say to him that he should wait—he should wait—before he jumps to conclusions, and a lawyer should respect the inquiry? I hope that he will wait until the facts are established and brought to this House.”

HC Deb (2021–22) 706 cc 572–573

[Chris Bryant] “The Prime Minister did not spot that he was at a social event. That is the excuse, isn’t it? Come off it […] Would it not be absolutely despicable if, in the search for a scapegoat, some junior member of staff ended up losing their job while he kept his?”

[Boris Johnson] “[…] I really think, with all humility, I must ask him to wait for the result of the inquiry, when he will have abundant opportunity to question me again and to make his party political points again.”

51 See for example: HC Deb (2021–22) 707 c321

[Wendy Chamberlain] “Last year, we were told by the Prime Minister that there were no Downing Street parties. Then it turned out that there were parties, but we were assured that no rules were broken. Last week, we heard that rules may have been broken, but that he thought it was a work event. Yesterday, from the man who wrote the rules, we heard, “Well, nobody told me what those rules were.” […] Does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time for him to resign?”

[Boris Johnson] “No, but as I said to the House last week, I apologise sincerely for any misjudgments that were made. The hon. Lady must contain her impatience and wait for the inquiry next week before drawing any of the conclusions she has just asserted.”

HC Deb (2021–22) 707 c323

[Keir Starmer] “Not only did the Prime Minister write the rules, but some of his staff say they did warn him about attending the party on 20 May 2020. I have heard the Prime Minister’s very carefully crafted response to that accusation; it almost sounds like a lawyer wrote it, so I will be equally careful with my question. When did the Prime Minister first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the 20 May party?”

[Boris Johnson] “I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for repeating the question that he has already asked. We have answered that: it is for the inquiry to come forward with an explanation of what happened, and I am afraid that he simply must wait.”

HC Deb (2021–202) 707 c323

[Keir Starmer] “If the Prime Minister’s new defence were true, it requires him […] to expect us to believe that, while every other person who was invited on 20 May to the party was told it was a social occasion, he alone was told it was a work meeting. It also requires the Prime Minister to ask us to accept that, as he waded through the empty bottles and platters of sandwiches, he did not realise it was a party. Does the Prime Minister realise how ridiculous that sounds?”

[Boris Johnson] “I have said what I have said about the events in No. 10 and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait for the report.

52 GOV.UK, Findings of the Second Permanent Secretary’s Investigation into alleged gatherings on government

premise during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022:

“Whatever the initial intent, what took place at many of these gatherings and the way in which they developed was not in line with Covid guidance at the time. Even allowing for the extraordinary pressures officials and advisers were under, the factual findings of this report illustrate some attitudes and behaviours inconsistent with that guidance.”

53 See Appendix for photographs of Mr Johnson’s attendance of gatherings

54 Notes of interviews conducted as part of the Second Permanent Secretary’s Investigation into alleged gatherings on government premises during Covid restrictions, 14 January 2021 and undated [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr Johnson]

55 Written evidence submission received 1 March 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr

Johnson] 

“Don’t think I advised the PM to say that — I mean that the socially distancing guidelines — to say they were followed completely, they are difficult things to say”

Written evidence submission received 1 March 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr Johnson] 

“Evidence we have received from the Cabinet Office shows that you and others attended an “office meeting” with Mr Johnson on the morning of 1 December 2021, on which date Mr Johnson told the House of Commons “all guidance was followed in No. 10”. Was there discussion in this meeting of the following points […] 

ii. Whether Covid Guidance was adhered to at all times in No. 10 I do not believe we discussed this with Mr Johnson during the meeting”

“Evidence we have received from the Cabinet Office shows that you and others attended two “catch up”meetings with Mr Johnson on 8 December 2021, on which date Mr Johnson told the House […] that “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”. Was there discussion in this meeting of the following points […] 

ii. Whether Covid Guidance was adhered to all times in No. 10

I did not advise the PM to say this, no”

56 Written evidence submission received 1 March 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr

Johnson], WhatsApp messages:

[Director of Communications, 30/11/2021, 16:13:16] “Can you pull together our best possible defence on this one.

I don’t know what we say about the flat”

[No. 10 official, 30/11/2021, 16:13:47] “Don’t we just do a generic line and not get into whether there was a

drinks thing or not”

[No. 10 official, 30/11/2021, 16:14:16] “‘Covid rules have been followed at all times’ or something”

[Director of Communications, 30/11/2021, 16:14:18] “I think we have to say something as robust as we can manage but see what you think”

Written evidence submission received 1 March 2023 [evidence not yet published but being disclosed to Mr Johnson]

“Evidence we have received from the Cabinet Office shows that you and others attended an “office meeting”with Mr Johnson on the morning of 1 December 2021, on which date Mr Johnson told the House of Commons “all guidance was followed in No. 10”. Was there discussion in this meeting of the following points […]

iii. Whether parties were held in No. 10 during the period of Covid restrictions

Part of the lobby script agreed between myself and [No. 10 official] was to deny that the events described in the

Mirror article were ‘a party’

iv. How Mr Johnson should respond to any questions relating to media reports of breaches of covid rules and guidance in No. 10

The line issued to the Mirror became the basis of the proposed statement for the Prime Minister to deploy at PMQs.”

57 HC Deb (2021–22) 712, c 48

[Boris Johnson] “Let me also say—not by way of mitigation or excuse, but purely because it explains my previous words in this House—that it did not occur to me, then or subsequently, that a gathering in the Cabinet Room just before a vital meeting on covid strategy could amount to a breach of the rules. I repeat: that was my mistake and I apologise for it unreservedly.”

58 HC Deb (2022–23) 715, cc 295–296

[Boris Johnson] “Those staff working in Downing Street were permitted to continue attending their office for the purpose of work, and the exemption under the regulations applied to their work because of the nature of their jobs, reporting directly to the Prime Minister […] The exemption under which those staff were present in Downing Street includes circumstances where officials and advisers were leaving the Government, and it was appropriate to recognise them and to thank them for the work that they have done. Let me come to that, Mr Speaker. I briefly attended such gatherings to thank them for their service—which I believe is one of the essential duties of leadership, and is particularly important when people need to feel that their contributions have been appreciated—and to keep morale as high as possible. I am trying to explain the reasons why I was

there, Mr Speaker. It is clear from what Sue Gray has had to say that some of these gatherings then went on far longer than was necessary. They were clearly in breach of the rules, and they fell foul of the rules. I have to tell the House, because the House will need to know this—again, this is not to mitigate or to extenuate—that I had no knowledge of subsequent proceedings, because I simply was not there, and I have been as surprised and disappointed as anyone else in this House as the rev