154. Mr Johnson himself was questioned in oral evidence about Ms Dines’s evidence. The exchange was as follows:
Sir Bernard Jenkin: […] We have difficulty giving any credibility to the evidence we have received from Sarah Dines, albeit I am sure she gave that evidence in good faith. Have you got anything to say about that? I should give you the opportunity.
Boris Johnson: If you are going to question her evidence, I think you need to hear it from her. I can’t comment—
[…]
Sir Bernard Jenkin: Okay. If you think it is terribly important that we interrogate Sarah Dines, we will consider that point.
Boris Johnson: No, I don’t. I think it is probably totally irrelevant. I think the key point is that when I said that I had had repeated assurances, I never claimed that one of those people I had giving me those assurances was Simon Case.[1]
Mr Johnson’s responses to questions about his statements
155. In oral evidence we explored with Mr Johnson various issues relating to the statements he made to the House about No. 10’s compliance with Covid Rules and Guidance, and the assurances he claimed to have received from Mr Doyle and Mr Slack.
156. Mr Johnson was asked why he told the House on 1 December 2021 that “all Guidance was followed completely in No. 10”. He replied that:
I was misremembering the line that had already been put out to the media about this event [the 18 December 2020 gathering], which was that Covid Rules were followed at all times. But you have to understand that I did not think there was any distinction from the public’s point of view between the Rules and the Guidance. […] I thought that the public would expect us to follow the Guidance as much as the Rules, so even though I had said something slightly different, I still believed it was true.[2]
157. When asked why he had not corrected the record when he realised he had misspoken, Mr Johnson replied that “I didn’t think there was any appreciable difference because it was our job to follow the Guidance as much as to follow the Rules”.[3]
158. Mr Johnson was asked what further work had been done in No. 10 before PMQs on 8 December to look into allegations relating to gatherings, given the limited work it had been possible to do in the short time between the initial Daily Mirror enquiry and PMQs on 1 December, and in particular what he had done “to decide whether you needed to correct your previous statement that the Guidance had been followed and whether you should reaffirm it”.[4]
