31. Asked to comment on Lee Cain’s statement that he might have had a conversation with Mr Johnson about the event, Mr Johnson stated that Mr Cain had not raised concerns about the gathering with him at the time, and that the concerns Mr Cain had raised with others were about the “optics” of the event rather than about a breach of the Rules or Guidance.[1] Asked about Mr Reynolds’ statement that it was “possible” he had raised concerns with Mr Johnson, Mr Johnson replied “No–not that I can remember, no”.[2] Mr Johnson confirmed he had seen the trestle tables set up in the garden, but did not remember whether there was alcohol on them.[3]
32. Asked about the issue of Fixed Penalty Notices to people present at the gathering, Mr Johnson stated:
I want to dispute the idea that it was not an essential gathering or not [a] 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 had not a good enough reason to come in from home to that gathering, or people who had come from elsewhere to that gathering. But my firm impression is–and I think it is certainly still the case that Martin Reynolds believes–that that gathering was within the Rules and, indeed, within the Guidance.[4]
33. Mr Johnson told us that “people who say that that event was a purely social gathering are quite wrong.”[5] He reiterated his belief that the gathering was “essential” for work purposes, stating that its purpose was:
To thank staff, who had been working very hard on Covid. […] This was a day when the Cabinet Secretary had just stepped down. I think the civil servants needed to feel that […] the business of government was being carried on, and they needed to feel thanked and motivated for their work.[6]
34. In supplementary written evidence, Mr Johnson corrected his statement that the Cabinet Secretary “had just stepped down”:
This was incorrect. The Cabinet Secretary, Mark Sedwill, did not resign until 29 June 2020. However, he and I had discussed his potential resignation around the time of the 20 May 2020 event, which is what I had in mind when answering the question.[7]
35. In summary, Mr Johnson claims that concerns by No. 10 officials about the 20 May 2020 gathering were not raised with him at the time, and in any case related to the “optics” of the event rather than whether Rules or Guidance had actually been or were likely to be breached. He claims that at the time that he attended the event, he considered the gathering was “essential” for work purposes and did not breach the Rules or Guidance, and that he continues to believe that, despite the Metropolitan Police having issued Fixed Penalty Notices to some attendees.
