# Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson): Final Report/Chapter 3
## 3 What Mr Johnson was told by others, and what he told the House3 What Mr Johnson was told by others, and what he told the House

118. In the previous section of our report we considered Mr Johnson’s knowledge of the Rules and Guidance relating to Covid that were in force at the time of the six gatherings we are focussing upon, and the extent of his direct personal knowledge of those gatherings. In this section of our report we consider what Mr Johnson was subsequently told by other people about compliance at No. 10 with the Covid Rules and Guidance, in advance of his assertions to the House about compliance.

### Mr Johnson’s statements to the HouseMr Johnson’s statements to the House

119. On the afternoon of 30 November 2021, the Daily Mirror contacted No. 10 to say that they were planning to publish an article alleging that events had taken place in Downing Street in November and December 2020 which had broken Covid Rules. It specifically alluded to the gatherings of 27 November 2020 and 18 December 2020 (which we examine in paragraphs 67 to 74 and 75 to 83 above), among others. The article appeared online later that day, and was the paper’s front-page lead the following day, 1 December, with the headline: “Boris Party Broke Covid Rules”.
120. At Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on 1 December Mr Johnson was asked by the Leader of the Opposition whether a Christmas party had been held for dozens of people in No. 10 on 18 December 2020, and he told the House that “all guidance was followed completely in No. 10”. The Leader of the Opposition followed up his initial question about this gathering with further ones, but Mr Johnson avoided directly answering them. During the week that followed, allegations of gatherings in No. 10 continued to have a high political and media profile.
   I understand and share the anger up and down the country at seeing No. 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures. I can understand how infuriating it must be to think that the people who have been setting the Rules have not been following the Rules, because I was also furious to see that clip. I apologise unreservedly for the offence that it has caused up and down the country.
   I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid Rules were broken. That is what I have been repeatedly assured.
123. Pressed by the Leader of the Opposition on this issue, Mr Johnson said:
   I apologise for the impression that has been given that staff in Downing Street take this less than seriously. I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the Rules were not broken.
124. Mr Johnson referred to the assurances a further time, in response to the next question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, stating: “I have been repeatedly assured that no rules were broken.”
125. Later in PMQs, Mr Johnson was asked by the Labour MP Catherine West whether there had been a party in No. 10 on 13 November 2020 (we examine an event that took place in No. 10 that evening at paragraphs 49 to 66 above). He replied, “No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the Guidance was followed and the Rules were followed at all times.” In response to a question from Ian Blackford, Mr Johnson commented that “the Opposition parties are trying to muddy the waters about events, or non-events, of a year ago”.
126. At the same PMQs, on 8 December 2021, Mr Johnson announced that he had commissioned the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, to carry out an investigation into the alleged gathering on 18 December 2020. In written evidence, Mr Johnson argues that by announcing this investigation, he “anticipated the possibility that the statement that I made to the House on 1 December 2020 [sic: error for 2021], and the assurances that I had received by others, may turn out to be incorrect”. Mr Case subsequently recused himself from conducting this investigation, responsibility for which was transferred to the then Second Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, Sue Gray, with a remit extended to cover other gatherings.
127. On 15 December 2021, Mr Johnson told the House: “A report is being delivered to me by the Cabinet Secretary into exactly what went on”. On 12 January 2022, Mr Johnson said to the House in relation to the gathering of 20 May 2020: “All I ask is that Sue Gray be allowed to complete her inquiry into that day and several others, so that the full facts can be established”; he also repeated urged Members to “wait” for the inquiry ​to be concluded in response to Members’ questions about what had happened and the implications for his position as Prime Minister. He further urged Members to wait for the inquiry’s conclusion in similar terms on 19 January.
128. At PMQs on 12 January 2022, after press stories had appeared concerning the gathering in the garden of No. 10 on 20 May 2020, Mr Johnson told the House that when he had attended that event, he had “believed implicitly that this was a work event”.
129. In response to subsequent questioning from the Leader of the Opposition–which was not limited to the gathering of 20 May but more generally referenced “reports of boozy parties in Downing Street during lockdown” and the assurances Mr Johnson had given the House–Mr Johnson said, “I accept that we should have done things differently on that evening [20 May 2020]. 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”.
130. On 19 April 2022 Mr Johnson acknowledged to the House that Covid Rules had not been followed at his birthday gathering on 19 June 2020, for which Mr Johnson and others received Fixed Penalty Notices on 12 April 2022. He stated: “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 […] That was my mistake and I apologise for it unreservedly.”
131. Following the publication of Sue Gray’s report on 25 May 2022, Mr Johnson made a statement to the House. That statement maintained that leaving events for No. 10 staff which Mr Johnson had attended had complied with the Rules and Guidance at the time when he was in attendance. Mr Johnson said:
   I am happy to set on the record now that when I came to this House and said in all sincerity that the rules and guidance had been followed at all times, it was what I believed to be true. It was certainly the case when I was present at gatherings to wish staff farewell […] but clearly this was not the case for some of those gatherings after I had left, and at other gatherings when I was not even in the building. So I would like to correct the record— to take this opportunity, not in any sense to absolve myself of responsibility, which I take and have always taken, but simply to explain why I spoke as I did in this House.

### The purported assurancesThe purported assurances

132. At an early stage in our inquiry we asked the Government to supply briefings for PMQs on 1 and 8 December 2021. The briefing pack for 1 December 2021 contains no assurances. The Cabinet Office was unable to provide us with the pack for 8 December.
​ 133. In his written and oral evidence, Mr Johnson addressed the question of who gave him the assurances he referred to in the House on 8 December 2021, and what those assurances related to. He stated that he had received assurances from Jack Doyle and James Slack, successive No. 10 Directors of Communications, and cited evidence provided to the Committee by Mr Doyle and Mr Slack to support this. He also cited evidence to the Committee from Martin Reynolds, his Principal Private Secretary, who said he “believed that reassurances were provided by some of the senior communications staff team who were present at the [18 December 2020] event, including Jack Doyle”, and from his two Parliamentary Private Secretaries (PPSs), Sarah Dines MP and Andrew Griffith MP, who both recalled Mr Johnson being given assurances on one occasion by “more than one person in the room” (Dines) and “by multiple different 10 Downing Street staff” (Griffith).
134. In his written evidence Mr Johnson insisted that his statements that he had received assurances were correct and did not mislead the House. He stated that when he had said (on three occasions) that he had “repeatedly” received assurances, “[b]y ‘repeatedly’ I meant on more than one occasion and by more than one person”.
135. In the paragraphs that follow we consider in turn each of the claims listed above by Mr Johnson and other witnesses that assurances were given. We will examine both the content and the source of the assurances Mr Johnson referred to in the House, in order to consider whether it was appropriate for Mr Johnson to refer to those assurances in answer to questions in the House in the way that he did.

#### Assurances from Jack Doyle and James SlackAssurances from Jack Doyle and James Slack

136. Jack Doyle was a former Daily Mail journalist who was appointed Mr Johnson’s Press Secretary in early 2020 and served as Director of Communications at No. 10 (a role providing political advice, rather than a permanent civil service role) from April 2021 to February 2022. James Slack was Mr Doyle’s predecessor as Director of Communications, being in that post from January to March 2021, having previously been the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson from 2017, serving under both Theresa May and Mr Johnson, and before that the political editor of the Daily Mail. Both Mr Slack and Mr Doyle were personally present at the 18 December 2020 gathering.
137. Mr Johnson has stated that the “initial assurance” was given to him by Mr Doyle following the Daily Mirror’s inquiry to No. 10 referred to in paragraph 119 above on 30 November 2021. In oral evidence, Mr Johnson recalled a conversation with Mr Doyle on this date. He said:
   I talked to Jack Doyle about what had happened at that event [the gathering of 18 December 2020]. This is the evening of 30 November 2021; my diary says it was about 6 o’clock. He comes in and says, as you say, that the Daily Mirror is going to run this story […] I asked him about this 18 December event and I asked him to describe it […] He told me that it was within the rules. He said that people were sitting at their desks, drinking admittedly, but that was not banned; under any of either the rules or the guidance, ​it was not prohibited. It was regular, I am afraid, for people to drink on Fridays. I concluded that it sounded to me as though that event was within both the rules and the guidance. That fortified me in what I stood up to say the following day.
138. Mr Johnson indicated that this conversation, together with the press line that was issued to the Daily Mirror that “covid rules were followed at all times”, was the basis for his statement in the House on 1 December 2021 that “all guidance was followed completely in No. 10” when he was asked by the Leader of the Opposition whether a Christmas party had been held in No. 10 on 18 December 2020. In his written evidence, Mr Johnson states that he had “no basis on which to disbelieve Jack’s account of the event”, and that it “sounded like it was firmly within the work exemption”; but we note that Mr Johnson’s evidence does not indicate that he made any efforts to double-check Mr Doyle’s account with anyone else or to verify (in particular, with any impartial civil servant or legal adviser) his assessment that it was within the Rules before relying on it in PMQs the next day.
139. Mr Doyle corroborates Mr Johnson’s account in his written evidence. He confirmed the description he gave to the Cabinet Office investigation of his conversation with Mr Johnson on 30 November 2021:
   The only thing I said to the PM was that I didn’t regard this as a party and we didn’t believe the rules had been broken and that’s what we said at lobby […] I said that we have had an enquiry from the Mirror, that it was about a series of events–the [redacted] thing, Dec 18 party and a quiz and another one I think–and I said that we are saying that this wasn’t a party and no rules were broken. He said what is our line?
140. The “line” that was sent to the Mirror was “Covid rules have been followed at all times”. Mr Doyle confirmed that “the lines that were drafted for the Mirror became the basis of Mr Johnson’s lines to take in PMQs on 1 December 2021”.
141. It is clear from the evidence that the initial line to take, which became the basis of Mr Johnson’s response at PMQs on 1 December 2021, was developed quickly by the No. 10 media team in response to a press query. Mr Doyle has stated that this was done under pressure of time and that the press team were not able to mount an investigation into all the events about which the Mirror had made allegations:
   You are trying to make decisions in an hour and a half. Not capable of investigating 4 events that the Mirror were alleging–it is not within our capacity to give and manage a bite sized assessment of 4 events when approached by the Mirror.
143. Mr Johnson notes in his written evidence that on the evening of 7 December 2021, i.e. one week after the Daily Mirror’s original enquiry and following ITV’s release of the mock press conference video, he received a WhatsApp from Jack Doyle advising him on what to say in PMQs the following day which stated: “I think you can say ‘I’ve been assured there was no party and no rules were broken’”. Mr Johnson also states that he had a conversation with James Slack where he asked Mr Slack to describe what happened at the event of 18 December 2020, during which Mr Slack “confirmed to me [i.e. Mr Johnson] that the Rules were followed”.
144. We asked Mr Slack to confirm to us Mr Johnson’s claim to the Cabinet Office investigation that Mr Slack and Mr Johnson had spoken the week after the Daily Mirror’s enquiry, and that Mr Slack had told Mr Johnson that No. 10 had followed Covid Rules. Mr Slack confirmed that “[t]o the best of my recollection, the account given by Mr Johnson is correct.” He added, “[t]o the best of my recollection, I had one discussion only with Mr Johnson relating to gatherings in No. 10, which is the telephone conversation referenced above. This discussion concerned the gathering on December 18, 2020, only, and in the terms described by Mr Johnson ie my belief that Covid Rules were followed at the event. I do not recall any discussion of any other events.”

#### Limited scope of assurances from Jack Doyle and James SlackLimited scope of assurances from Jack Doyle and James Slack

145. The evidence we received suggests that the assurances Mr Doyle and Mr Slack provided to Mr Johnson related exclusively to the event on 18 December 2020. In relation to the assurances he had referred to in his opening statement at PMQs on 8 December 2021, Mr Johnson commented in his written evidence that, “[a]s the context of the statement makes clear, the statement related only to the 18 December 2020 event”. As we note above at paragraphs 120 and 123, Mr Johnson subsequently cited these assurances on two further occasions in response to questioning by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Johnson states in his final evidence submission of 22 May 2023 that “the statements made to Parliament on 8 December 2021 were clearly and expressly limited to assurances that I had received in relation to [the 18 December 2020] event”.
​ 146. Mr Doyle has stated that he did not discuss with Mr Johnson whether any gatherings had been compliant with Covid Guidance, as opposed to Covid Rules, and did not advise Mr Johnson to say No. 10 had complied with Covid Guidance at all times. Mr Doyle further stated:
   The Committee is right to draw a distinction between Rules and Guidance. […] Number 10 Downing Street is an old building with limited space. We made every effort to comply with Covid-19 guidelines to the greatest extent that we were able. Where this was not possible, we took measures to mitigate risks, such as installing Perspex screens between desks. It is difficult to say that guidelines of this nature were followed at all times, and it would not be possible for me to say that they were.
147. Mr Johnson’s Principal Private Secretary, Martin Reynolds, said that he had queried with Mr Johnson whether he should say that Guidance had been followed at all times:
   I do recall asking the then Prime Minister about the line proposed for PMQs on 7 December [actually 8 December], suggesting that all Rules and Guidance had been followed. I cannot remember exactly when I did this but believe it would have been in the period (roughly an hour) immediately before PMQs on 7 December [actually 8 December] when the Prime Minister would have been preparing on his own, as he usually did. He did not welcome the interruption but told me that he had received reassurances that the comms event [i.e. the 18 December 2020 gathering] was within the Rules. I accepted this but questioned whether it was realistic to argue that all Guidance had been followed at all times, given the nature of the working environment in No. 10. He agreed to delete the reference to Guidance.
148. Notwithstanding Mr Reynolds’ statement that Mr Johnson had agreed to delete the reference to Guidance, we note that Mr Johnson subsequently on at least three occasions asserted in broad terms that Guidance had been followed (on 8 December 2021, 12 January 2022, and 25 May 2022; see paras 125, 129 and 131 above).

#### Assurances from othersAssurances from others

149. Mr Johnson’s two Parliamentary Private Secretaries (PPSs) at the time of his statements in the House in December 2021/January 2022, Sarah Dines MP and Andrew Griffith MP, submitted evidence in which they stated that assurances were given to Mr Johnson by officials.
150. Mr Griffith explained that as PPS he had attended the ‘Office Meeting’ usually held at 9 am in the Cabinet Room on most parliamentary sitting days. Attendees included “the Prime Minister, his Chief of Staff and their deputies, the Cabinet Secretary, the Principal Private Secretary, the Director of Communications, the PM’s Official Spokesman, the Political Secretary and other civil servants and advisers”. Mr Griffith stated it was probable ​that he had attended the daily Office Meeting on 1 and 8 December 2021 and 12 January 2022, as well as the weekly PMQs preparation session each Wednesday when Parliament was sitting.
151. Mr Griffith stated that:
   In the daily Office Meeting, as newspapers initially published allegations of gatherings in No. 10, Mr Johnson was given assurances by multiple different 10 Downing Street staff present under question 2 (b) (iii) above [this was the Committee’s question: “Did you at any time give Mr Johnson any assurances that […] iii) No parties were held in No. 10 during the period of Covid restrictions”]. This was a daily meeting with a varying cast list of officials and advisers, and I do not recall whom [sic] said this or on which precise dates. The substance (though to be clear not the precise wording) of the assurances by Downing Street staff to Mr Johnson in response to the initial articles was “Are they kidding? We were all working our socks off during Covid–no one had time for any parties!”
152. Ms Dines stated:
   I remember on one occasion whilst I was at a meeting with Mr Johnson with many other people in the Cabinet Room that Mr Johnson asked a question of the meeting “We did follow the Rules at all times, didn’t we?” I recall more than one person in the room said “Yes, of course”. I am not certain who the people were who said yes, but I am certain they were civil servants, and it was more than one voice. I am about 90% sure one of them was Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary. I am afraid I cannot recall the date of the meeting, but it was whilst these events were very much in the eye of the media. Whilst I am not sure of the date, I can say with absolute certainty that this happened. I recall thinking “Thank Goodness”. I was reassured. On balance, I think this would have been around the meetings on 1–8 December 2021, and not as late as January 2022. I am sorry I am not able to be more specific.
153. In regard to the evidence from Ms Dines and Mr Griffith, we note that neither witness is able to supply precise dates when assurances were given, nor to specify who gave them, except that Ms Dines is “about 90% sure” that one of them was Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary. Mr Case himself has given evidence that he did not give Mr Johnson assurances in relation to Covid compliance during the gatherings, and does not know whether anyone else gave Mr Johnson such assurances. In oral evidence, Mr Johnson said: “I don’t remember being specifically assured by any senior civil servant about the Rules or Guidance within No.10.” We note that the two PPSs differ as to the content of the assurances they refer to: Ms Dines refers to an assurance that Rules were followed at all times, where Mr Griffith refers to an assurance not about the Rules or Guidance being followed but that no parties were held.
​ 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.

### Mr Johnson’s responses to questions about his statementsMr 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.
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”.
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”. ​ 159. Mr Johnson replied:
   When the Allegra [Stratton] video emerged on the evening of 7 December, I decided that I was getting conflicting information about what had happened at this gathering on 18 December. I was troubled by that. I had not been at the thing; I was relying on what I thought were honest and wellintentioned descriptions of this from my trusted advisers, but clearly there was a difference of opinion, so I commissioned the Cabinet Secretary to conduct an inquiry.
160. Asked why, in response to the question from Catherine West on 8 December 2021 about the gathering on 13 November 2020, Mr Johnson had said that “whatever happened, the Guidance was followed and the Rules were followed at all times”, he replied that in the case of that gathering, as he was there, he knew from his personal experience that the Rules and Guidance had been complied with.
161. When questioned further on why he had told the House that Guidance had been followed “at all times” in No. 10, when his Principal Private Secretary, Martin Reynolds, had raised with him before PMQs on that date whether it was realistic to argue that Guidance had been followed at all times, Mr Johnson stated that Mr Reynolds’ advice had been limited to whether or not “perfect” social distancing was observed, and related only to the assurances Mr Johnson had received specifically in relation to the gathering on 18 December 2020. Mr Johnson elaborated:
   Martin Reynolds was cautious about what I should say in the House […] I had received assurances about the Rules on 18 December, but I had not received assurances about the Guidance. […] Martin is not saying that we did not observe the Guidance […] Martin and I […] were talking about two different things. I was talking about the totality of following the Guidance; he was talking about maintaining perfect social distancing. […] it was true to say that no one had explicitly reassured me about the Guidance. He thought it prudent to take out the reference to the Guidance.
162. When we asked Mr Johnson about the assurances he cited in his opening statement and in response to questions at PMQs on 8 December 2021, he confirmed that he had not sought assurances as to Covid compliance in No. 10 from the Attorney General or any other Law Officer or government legal adviser. Asked whether the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, or any other career senior permanent civil servant had given Mr Johnson these assurances, he replied, “I don’t remember being specifically assured by any senior civil servant about the Rules or Guidance within No. 10.” He added, “But the interesting thing is that, to the contrary, nobody gave me any contrary advice.” Later being asked about Sarah Dines’ statement that she was “about 90% sure” that Mr Case had given an ​assurance at a morning meeting, Mr Johnson noted that “[s]he is not sure”, that “[f]rankly, I don’t [remember]” Mr Case doing so, and that “I never claimed that one of those people I had giving me assurances was Simon Case”.
163. Mr Johnson was asked why he had relied on assurances from Mr Doyle and Mr Slack, rather than from permanent civil servants or government lawyers. He replied:
   The simple answer is that, when I needed to discover what had happened, and whether the Rules were broken, I went first of course to—or I asked first—the senior adviser who was there, and that was Jack Doyle. The following week, you can see that Jack Doyle says in a WhatsApp to me: “you can say ‘I’ve been assured there was no party and no Rules were broken’”. So he says that again to me. I also then rang James Slack. Both Jack, and James Slack, are people who I have the utmost regard for, and I believed they would be completely straight with me about what had happened, and they both said that the Rules had not been broken.
   The reason I didn’t ask a lawyer or another senior civil servant was because they were the people who had been there, and they were the direct—they could give a view about the legality of that event that I didn’t think a non-eyewitness would be able to do.
164. Mr Johnson subsequently wrote to us to state that:
   In this exchange, Mr Costa incorrectly implied that James Slack was a political adviser rather than a permanent civil servant, and I failed to correct that impression. In fact, James Slack was a permanent senior civil servant as he was the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson, appointed under Theresa May, from 10 February 2017 until 9 February 2021. However, he was no longer a civil servant or working within Downing Street in December 2021 when I spoke to him about the event on 18 December 2020.
165. We note that while the position of Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson is not a politically appointed role, Mr Slack had not been a career civil servant prior to his appointment to that role; he was a journalist and had worked as political editor of the Daily Mail. We also note that Mr Johnson appointed Mr Slack to serve as his Director of Communications, a role that is a political appointment, in early 2021.
166. In the oral evidence Mr Johnson was further asked why, when the initial assurances had been given to him by Mr Doyle and Mr Slack, he did not subsequently discuss the assurances with the Cabinet Secretary, his Principal Private Secretary, or a government lawyer. Mr Johnson replied that Mr Reynolds, who had given evidence that he believed the Rules had been followed at all times, was a lawyer; and he drew attention to the evidence from Ms Dines and Mr Griffith that at a morning meeting “the view of the assembled civil servants and advisers was that, no, we hadn’t broken the Rules”.
​ 167. Mr Johnson was asked to name the officials who gave him assurances at the meeting or meetings referred to by Ms Dines and Mr Griffith. The following exchange occurred:
   Boris Johnson: I cannot name these officials—
   Alberto Costa: Name me one.
   Boris Johnson: I don’t know if I can. I think that—
   Alberto Costa: Why not?
   Boris Johnson: I think that most of them have indicated they don’t want to be named, and—
   Chair: Are you not naming them because you can’t remember their names or because you don’t want to breach their anonymity? [ … ]
   Boris Johnson: There is at least one adviser that I can think of who has asked not to be named. She would have been in the morning meeting, and I don’t want to—
   Alberto Costa: Could you follow that up in writing through your lawyers to the inquiry, confirming the name of the individual that you recall gave you the assurance at the meetings referred to by these two MPs?
   Boris Johnson: Yes, but if I may say so, Mr Costa, I don’t quite follow the direction of your questions. It is clear from what I have said that I was assured repeatedly by different people and on different occasions that the Rules had been followed.
   Alberto Costa: And we are trying to ascertain who these individuals were, so it would be very helpful if you could follow up with the individual that you have just referred to.
   Boris Johnson: Okay.
168. Mr Johnson gave the above undertaking, to supply further information about an adviser who gave an assurance but did not wish to be named, at the oral evidence session on 22 March. On 27 March Mr Johnson’s lawyers wrote to us as follows:
   As is clear from the transcript, at Mr Costa’s invitation, Mr Johnson thought of an official who was in the morning meetings referred to by Andrew Griffith MP and Sarah Dines MP in their evidence to the Committee. However, he did not say that he knew precisely who was in each meeting and who specifically gave him the assurances remembered by the MPs. On reflection, Mr Johnson is still not sure of these matters and does not wish to speculate.
   The Committee has evidence from Jack Doyle, Andrew Griffith MP and Sarah Dines MP that Mr Johnson was provided with assurances about the event on 18 December 2020 by officials at these meetings. Therefore, irrespective of the identities of those officials, there can be no dispute that (i) assurances were received from Jack Doyle and James Slack; (ii) three witnesses have given evidence that Mr Johnson received assurances in at least one of the PMQ prep meetings; and (iii) Mr Johnson was given assurances by more than one person and on more than one occasion.

### Purported assurances: conclusionsPurported assurances: conclusions

170. On 1 December 2021 Mr Johnson asserted in the House, based on the assurances he had received in relation to the event on 18 December 2020, that “all guidance was followed completely in No. 10”. He has subsequently acknowledged that he should have said “rules” rather than “guidance”, and said that he did not correct the record because he did not think the public made any distinction between Rules and Guidance. However, the distinction between Rules (which were legally enforceable) and Guidance (which was not, but which related to important matters not covered by the rules such as social distancing) is important–as Mr Johnson, who had been making almost daily announcements to the nation about the Covid Rules and Guidance, would have been well aware. This was therefore a significant error: Mr Johnson had an opportunity to correct it through one of the means available to Ministers to correct such errors, but he never did so.
171. Had Mr Johnson asserted that “all Rules were followed completely in No. 10” in relation to the 18 December 2020 gathering, that would have been in accord with the “line to take” developed by the No. 10 Director of Communications, Jack Doyle, the previous evening, in response to advance notice of the story about to break in the Daily Mirror. We accept that this line was prepared under pressure of time and that it would probably have been unrealistic in the time available before PMQs on 1 December for the No. 10 staff to make an authoritative assessment of whether the Rules and Guidance had been complied with at the 18 December 2020 gathering. It would however have been open to Mr Johnson to tell the House that he had commissioned, or planned to commission, such an assessment, rather than categorically assert that either the Guidance or the Rules had been followed completely. Mr Johnson did not attend this gathering and therefore claims he was dependent on receiving assurances from others that Rules had been complied with. If, as we have concluded, Mr Johnson was likely to have been aware of the gathering, having personal knowledge of it as he returned to the stairs leading up to his flat a few metres away, then his claim that he was dependent on assurances was misleading and disingenuous to the point of being deliberately misleading.
172. At PMQs on 8 December 2021 Mr Johnson asserted in the House, after referring to the video of No. 10 Press Secretary Allegra Stratton talking about the 18 December 2020 gathering which had appeared on ITV News the previous day, that “I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and ​that no Covid rules were broken. That is what I have been repeatedly assured.” On two further occasions in this session of PMQs Mr Johnson iterated that he had been “repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”. Asked whether there had been a party in No. 10 on 13 November 2020, Mr Johnson replied, “No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”.
173. It is not in dispute that Mr Johnson received assurances in advance of PMQs on 1 December 2021 from Jack Doyle, Director of Communications at No. 10, and in advance of PMQs on 8 December 2021 from James Slack, Mr Doyle’s predecessor in that role. In addition to Mr Johnson’s evidence, Mr Doyle and Mr Slack in their evidence confirm this.
174. In addition, Sarah Dines MP and Andrew Griffith MP, Mr Johnson’s PPSs at the time, stated in evidence that assurances were given to Mr Johnson by officials at one of the ‘morning meetings’ in advance of PMQs. However, neither Ms Dines nor Mr Griffith can remember the exact date of the meeting or meetings, nor can they specify which individuals gave these assurances, other than that Ms Dines is “about 90% sure” that one of them was Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, and each remembers the content of the assurances differently. Mr Case himself has given evidence that he did not give an assurance to Mr Johnson and does not know that anyone else did. Mr Johnson himself told us that he does not claim Mr Case gave him an assurance.
175. When asked in oral evidence to identify any official who had given him an assurance at one of the morning meetings, Mr Johnson was unable to do so other than to undertake to send the Committee details of “one adviser that I can think of who has asked not to be named”. His lawyers later wrote to us that “[o]n reflection, Mr Johnson is still not sure of these matters and does not wish to speculate”. On this matter we conclude that either Mr Johnson was being deliberately evasive with the Committee or that he has deliberately failed to abide by his undertaking to be candid about an important issue of fact.
176. The only assurances that can therefore be said with certainty to have been given to Mr Johnson were those from his then Director of Communications, Mr Doyle, and his previous Director of Communications, James Slack. Both men were concerned chiefly with media-handling and both were, at different times, political appointees of Mr Johnson in that role. Mr Slack had previously been appointed Downing Street Press Secretary by Theresa May, but his overall career arc–having been political editor of the Daily Mail before coming to work for the Government, and having moved on subsequently to work as a political correspondent on The Sun–suggests that, as with Mr Doyle, it would be incorrect to see his role at No. 10 as that of a politically neutral career civil servant, or someone with the necessary competence to judge on matters of Covid compliance.
177. It was understandable, given the timing, that Mr Johnson’s initial comments in the House on 1 December 2021 were heavily reliant on the advice of his media team at No. 10. However, by the time of the next PMQs on 8 December, following a period in which the issue of gatherings at No. 10 had continued to dominate the news media, he had had a ​further week to reflect on the answers he had given and to seek more solid, legally based and authoritative assurances including from government lawyers or permanent career civil servants such as the Cabinet Secretary. In the event he chose not to do so, but to double down on the answers he had given earlier.
178. Asked why he had not sought advice from government lawyers, Mr Johnson stated that Jack Doyle and James Slack were “the people who had been there, and they were the direct—they could give a view about the legality of that event that I didn’t think a non-eyewitness would be able to do”. In his written evidence, Mr Johnson likewise argues that “it was reasonable for me to find out what had happened from the people who were actually there”. Neither Mr Doyle or Mr Slack, of course, were professionally qualified to adjudicate on the legality of the proceedings they had witnessed.
179. We have already addressed, in paragraphs 103 to 108 above, Mr Johnson’s argument that the Committee should give significant weight to an absence of evidence that he received advice that Rules and Guidance were broken in No. 10.
180. The overall thrust of Mr Johnson’s evidence to the Committee has been to downplay the significance and narrow the scope of the assertions he made to the House. He has argued that (a) the assurances he referred to related only to one gathering, that on 18 December 2020, and were correct in relation to that gathering; (b) his assertions to the House relating to assurances about Covid compliance were only in respect of the Rules, not the Guidance; and (c) when he referred three times to having repeatedly been assured about compliance, by “repeatedly” he meant “on more than one occasion and by more than one person”.
181. The problem with Mr Johnson’s attempts to portray his assertions to the House as narrow in scope is that this interpretation is directly at odds with the overall impression Members of the House, the media and the public received at the time from Mr Johnson’s responses at PMQs. The message which Mr Johnson clearly meant to convey was that Rules and Guidance at No. 10 had been complied with at all times. Indeed, Mr Johnson initially asserted that Guidance had been complied with when he had meant to say Rules, and rather than correcting what he now admits to have been an error, subsequently reiterated this assertion despite having been advised by his Principal Private Secretary not to make this claim. He was content to convey the impression that the events (plural) against which allegations had been made were in fact “non-events”, and, to paraphrase, that it was nonsense to suggest that the rule-makers at the heart of government were also rule-breakers.
182. The impression the House would have taken, and we conclude, would have been intended to take, from Mr Johnson’s repeated references to assurances was that those assurances had been overarching and comprehensive, and to be given great weight. In fact, as we have seen, the only assurances that we can be certain were given to Mr Johnson were arrived at in haste based on a press “line to take”, were not subject to investigation before either session of PMQs, and did not emanate from senior permanent civil servants or government lawyers but from two media advisers and were based only on their personal recollections. Although Mr Johnson claimed several ​times to have been given the assurances “repeatedly”, in evidence to us he scaled down that claim by arguing that by “repeatedly” he had meant “on more than one occasion” (so possibly only twice).
183. Mr Johnson’s attempt in his evidence to us to claim that his assertions at PMQs were narrow in scope amounts to ex post facto justification and was clearly not the message he intended to convey at the time. As an ex post facto justification, it is false. Mr Johnson’s failure to seek adequate assurances has also to be seen in the context of his direct personal experience of non-compliance with Covid Rules and Guidance at a series of gatherings which he attended or was aware of, as detailed earlier in this report.
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p58
* ↑ HC Deb, 1 December 2021, Vol 704 col 909
* ↑ ITV, Downing Street staff shown joking in leaked recording about Christmas party they later denied, 10 December 2021 (first published 7 December 2021)
* ↑ HC Deb, 8 December 2021, Vol 705 col 372
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ HC Deb, 8 December 2021, Vol 705 col 372
* ↑ HC Deb, 8 December 2021, Vol 705 col 373
* ↑ HC Deb, 8 December 2021, Vol 705 col 379
* ↑ HC Deb, 8 December 2021, Vol 705 col 376
* ↑ HC Deb, 8 December 2021, Vol 705 col 372
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 92
* ↑ HC Deb, 15 December 2021, Vol 705 col 1051
* ↑ HC Deb, 12 January 2022, Vol 706 col 563
* ↑ See for example, HC Deb, 12 January 2022, Vol 706 col 564, and col 573; see also Annex 2
* ↑ See for example, HC Deb, 12 January 2022, Vol 707 col 321, and col 323; see also Annex 2
* ↑ HC Deb, 12 January 2022, Vol 706 col 562
* ↑ HC Deb, 12 January 2022, Vol 706 col 564
* ↑ HC Deb, 19 April 2022, Vol 712 col 48
* ↑ HC Deb, 25 May 2022, Vol 715 col 296
* ↑ We note that there is no evidence that Mr Johnson ever asked Mr Reynolds directly for advice on this matter.
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 90
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 90
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, pp 54, 70, 71, 75
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 91(4)
* ↑ Q89
* ↑ Q89. Mr Johnson also indicated that his statement of 1 December 2021, in which he referred to “guidance” being followed, was a “misremembering” of the press line that Covid Rules were followed at all times. See paragraph 156 below.
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 78
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p70
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p76
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p73; see also p74
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p71
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p76
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p73. For the answers referred to, see pp 70–71
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 86
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p75
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p75
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), paras 90, 91(3)
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0004), para 21
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p74
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p72
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p61
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p68
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p68
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p67
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p66
* ↑ Qq128–30
* ↑ Q89
* ↑ Q90
* ↑ Q92
* ↑ Q92
* ↑ Q97
* ↑ See paragraph 147 above, and Core evidence bundle materials, p61
* ↑ Qq96–97
* ↑ Qq96–97
* ↑ Q106
* ↑ Q107
* ↑ Qq129–30
* ↑ Q109
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0003), para 6
* ↑ Q110
* ↑ Qq112–17
* ↑ Additional evidence materials, p12
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ See paragraphs 156 to 157 above
* ↑ See paragraph 83 above
* ↑ See paragraph 122 above
* ↑ See paragraphs 123 and 124 above
* ↑ See paragraph 125 above
* ↑ See paragraphs 137 to 144 above
* ↑ See paragraphs 149 to 154 above
* ↑ See paragraph 168 above
* ↑ Q109
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 99