the most senior officials in the country. […] You are not only accusing me of lying; you are accusing all those civil servants, advisers and MPs of lying about what they believed at the time to be going on.[1]
107. The Committee is certainly not accusing civil servants or advisers of lying. We note the comments in written evidence we received from a No. 10 official, that “I was following a workplace culture. Senior people led it”, and that “I look back and wouldn’t do it now. I did it because senior people did it”.[2] We note that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for many staff members, particularly junior ones, to express concerns about the Prime Minister’s behaviour or the behaviour of others in No. 10 as this would have been potentially career-damaging criticism of senior staff or the head of government.
108. Finally, we note that the issue by the Metropolitan Police of 126 Fixed Penalty Notices to 83 attendees at events in No. 10, while not theoretically incompatible with Mr Johnson’s argument that no-one at No. 10 thought they were doing anything wrong, might alternatively be taken to suggest that Mr Johnson was overseeing in No. 10 a culture of laxity towards observance of the Rules and Guidance. Under these circumstances there was little incentive for officials to confront the Prime Minister with advice that the Rules or Guidance were being breached. As Prime Minister, Mr Johnson will have played a role, intentionally or otherwise, in the development of this culture; indeed, he has himself accepted responsibility for what happened in Downing Street.[3]
Gatherings: conclusions
109. We have set out and analysed evidence on six gatherings. This establishes that Mr Johnson had personal knowledge that should have led him, at least after due reflection and as gathering succeeded gathering, to question whether the Covid Rules and Guidance were being complied with.
110. For several of the No. 10 gatherings, as we have detailed, Mr Johnson has argued that it did not occur to him that they were in breach of Rules or Guidance. This is despite the fact that he must have been aware of the number of people attending, of the absence of official work being done, and of the absence of social distancing without visible mitigations. In each case he argues that he genuinely believed the events were covered by a work-related exemption to the Rules. He also argues that efforts to socially distance and the putting in place of some mitigations where possible (albeit somewhere other than where the gatherings were taking place) were sufficient for compliance with the Guidance.
111. With regard to the Rules: the gathering had to be essential or reasonably necessary for work purposes. A workplace ‘thank you’, leaving drink, birthday celebration or motivational event is obviously neither essential or reasonably necessary. Mr Johnson is adamant that he believed all of the events which he attended and of which he had direct knowledge were essential. That belief, which he continues to assert, has no reasonable basis in the Rules or on the facts. A reasonable person looking at the events
- ↑ Qq3–4; see also Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 6
- ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p54
- ↑ HC Deb, 25 May 2022, Vol 715 col 295: “I also want to say, above all, that I take full responsibility for everything that took place on my watch. Sue Gray’s report has emphasised that it is up to the political leadership in No. 10 to take ultimate responsibility, and, of course, I do.”
