16 events including the Prime Minister’s diary for each day, and subsequently made a formal Order that they should supply us with any agendas or minutes or correspondence that might have a bearing on whether the events were work-related. The Cabinet Office has provided us with this material.
96. From Mr Johnson’s lawyers we received on 22 May a statement that: “None of the events referred to in the documents constitute breaches of Covid Regulations and nobody has ever raised any concerns whatsoever with Mr Johnson about them. Mr Johnson does not accept that any of the events are relevant to the Privileges Committee’s investigation.”[1]
97. Mr Johnson’s lawyers further stated that: “Each event was lawful for one or more of the following reasons: the gathering was reasonably necessary for work purposes; the gathering took place outside; the rule of six applied at the time; the linked household provisions applied; the linked childcare provisions applied; and/or emergency assistance and/or care/assistance was being provided to a vulnerable (pregnant) person”.[2] We requested that Mr Johnson supply specific justifications for each gathering, and on 2 June he made further submissions in response to this request.
98. Mr Johnson has provided, under a statement of truth, explanations of the 16 events referred to in the recent material submitted to us by the Government. We have no evidence conflicting with his account. We do not wish to incur the further delay to our inquiry that would result from a detailed investigation of these events, and therefore we treat Mr Johnson’s explanations as prima facie true. If for any reasons it subsequently emerges that Mr Johnson’s explanations are not true, then he may have committed a further contempt.
Arguments advanced by Mr Johnson
Mr Johnson’s assertions as to the meaning of the Guidance
99. In his final submission to us, Mr Johnson maintains that the Guidance was in fact subject to his flexible interpretation. He states:
The Committee’s interpretation is obviously wrong. The Guidance states in clear and express terms: “Objective: Ensuring workers maintain social distancing guidelines (2m, or 1m with risk mitigation where 2m is not viable), wherever possible, including while arriving at and departing from work, while in work and when travelling between sites”. The Committee appears to be suggesting that “wherever possible” attaches to part of the text in parenthesis but not all of it. That is, with respect, an impossible reading of that sentence. It also entirely ignores the following paragraph which states: “You must maintain social distancing in the workplace wherever possible”. The position could not be clearer.
The Committee also referred on multiple occasions to the part of the Guidance that said “only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings”. The Committee appears to present this as an absolute requirement for all meetings but, with respect, that is also incorrect. As
- ↑ Additional evidence materials, p13
- ↑ Ibid.
