sir bernard, forgive but sir bernard, forgive but i've bernard, forgive but i've gotnard, forgive but i've got to 'd, forgive but i've got to correct ve but i've got to correct you me, but i've got to correct you on the point of , a technical on the point of, a technical point. but after 20 june 24, 2020, the guidance was changed. so that the objective was to maintain social distancing at at one metre with mitigations, where to meet. it will not come to that. i'll come to, but i think the point the first point is that it's fair to say that you didn't say that we did every effort to comply with the guidance, the of commons and you didn't say that. no i'm saying that it's only guidance completely because you can't you will come to you can't you can't expect human beings in an environment like number 10 to have, as it were , invisible have, as it were, invisible electrified fence around them. they will occasionally drift into each other's orbit. when i saw that it did not mean to me

that we had breached the guidance. it means it meant it meant we were following the guidance to the best of our ability which was what the guidance provided and the guidance provided and the guidance provides for freedoms within the practical framework of the operation of the to business how you're going to implement the guidance the measures you referred to at the outset are things that need usually to be complied with . the usually to be complied with. the businesses are entitled to then asked to decide what practical considerations they wish to give to implementing the guidance and thatis to implementing the guidance and that is what we that is what we did. can i just say that people understand why i believed? because this is the crucial if i may say so , why i believed where may say so, why i believed where i stood up on december the first that the guidance was followed completely at all times and nobody what what i had in my head and why that doesn't conflict with that that picture . the answer is that i knew from

my personal experience that we were doing a huge amount to stop the spread of covid within building. we had sanitisers had windows were were kept open. we had people working outdoors wherever they could. we had zoom . we had restrictions on number of people in rooms. we had perspex screens between desks and above all, as i said , we had and above all, as i said, we had testing regular testing , which testing regular testing, which went way beyond what the guidance prescribed and which in my view helped mitigate the difficulties we had in maintaining perfect social. i went to say that if you'd said all that at the time to the house of commons, we probably wouldn't be sitting. but you didn't. and the question is that the question is about what the actually says. and i you taking actually says. and i you taking a little advice at that point on the question of the guidance can

i just read to john the page six of the bundle what the guidance actually you must maintain social distancing in the workplace possible where the social distancing guidelines cannot be followed in full in relation to a particular activity the businesses should consider that activity be redesigned to maintain a two metre social distance or one metre social distance or one metre with risk mitigations where. two metres is yes and the mitigations mitigating actions using screens barriers to separate people from each other. so where in the picture are there screens or barriers ? there there screens or barriers? there were screens or , barriers in were screens or, barriers in the, i believe in the adjacent press from here, from memory . press from here, from memory. this is a this is a an impromptu gathering in which i'm thanking staff . at one member of staff staff. at one member of staff his contribution during covid. i believe it was an important part of my job to do that that the

best place to do it. i accept i accept the perfect social distancing . sir bernard is not distancing. sir bernard is not being observed, but that does not mean that what we were doing , my view is incompatible . the , my view is incompatible. the guidance, the guidance specifically allows for freedoms to decide to implement it and it and the operative conditional is where possible not do not for one moment believe the people in number 10 did not operate distancing because . they did and distancing because. they did and they took great effort. they made great efforts in my in my view to my memory to try to stay apart each other. but that didn't mean that they they were able to stay apart from each other the whole time. that's what i'm saying. that did not conflict with the guidance. nobody devaluing efforts nobody is devaluing the efforts of anybody number during the of anybody number 10 during the covid you by way. covid including you by the way. and the public service you gave dunng and the public service you gave during your period as prime minister during pandemic. all we're asking to i'm afraid it's

our obligation . i'm trying to our obligation. i'm trying to explain to you , i said i'm going explain to you, i said i'm going to question and please through a question. all i'm saying is we've , got to find out. we've, got to find out. i stopped this in all minds whether you told the house of commons was strictly and the guidance goes on to say where's social distancing guidelines cannot be followed in full, even through redesigning a particular activity business, you should consider whether that activity needs to continue for the business to operate and. if so, take all the mitigating actions possible to reduce the effect the risk of transmission between the risk of transmission between the staff . now, nobody is the staff. now, nobody is disputing it's the right disputing that it's the right thing for you to thank your staff. the question is whether what about this particular what you about this particular way of thinking or staff in. the house of commons was strictly accurate indeed may be misleading. that's what we're asking. well, i, i don't believe for a second that it was the guidance does, not say you have a thank you party and it's okay if think it's very important to

thank people the guidance doesn't stay there let's just let it just go go back over over that i believed that this event was not only reasonably necessary but it was essential work purposes for the reasons that i have , i have given the that i have, i have given the i've described constraints in which we were operating in number 10. if you wanted to have a rapid gathering to thank people. this was place to do it. there aren't in fact that many people that i accept there the pixelation makes it difficult to work out exactly is who is where i accept that perfect social distancing on pictures is you've got some pixelation, but the pubuc got some pixelation, but the public comes to you that the pubuc public comes to you that the public don't see, that but but it i accept that not everybody is perfectly socially distanced in that picture. but that did not mean to me when i stood up in the house of commons and said that the guidance was followed

completely. i was not thinking of that event and thinking that somehow contravened the somehow that contravened the guidance? absolutely not. we were making a huge to follow the guidance that was my memory. and thatis guidance that was my memory. and that is that is why said what i said. this is exactly the purpose this session that you can the case you're making. can make the case you're making. can move on to examine the can we move on to examine the compliance with the covid of this ? as we heard in this gathering? as we heard in the clips earlier, you told the house the rules were at all times. so you must have thought the gathering was reasonably necessary work purposes as necessary for work purposes as then required by the regulations . we know that the gathering attracted fixed penalty notices . so in fact, the police have judged it broke the rules. why did you think it was within the rules ? i thought it was rules? i thought it was essential for what? or reason, at least reasonably , for work at least reasonably, for work purposes, for the reason purposes, because for the reason i'm given this about it, that we november the 13th was a day in which two senior officials in the senior advisers in government had left their jobs

in very, very difficult and challenging and it was necessary to steady the ship . it was to steady the ship. it was necessary to show that there was no no rancour that the business of the government was being carried on. that's what we had do. that's what i had to do . i do. that's what i had to do. i think it's you said about it to the house of commons is what matters . we know it was matters. we know it was a leading event for a member of staff photographs we've just seen. yes do not seem to show any actual work being done. why it not occur to you that it at least might have been in breach of the regulations because it was not reasonably necessary for work purposes. so what did you say? did it occur to me that it might not be a reasonably necessary for purposes? it didn't occur to me? 31 second. okay, it reasonably okay, but it reasonably necessary for what but in that particular way and say that particular way and say that particular thing about the way that event was actually carried on. i really, you know , to this

on. i really, you know, to this day and as i as i said earlier on, i, i struggle to see how i could have run number 10, run of officials who needed to be thanked and appreciated that work in very trying circumstances without having a brief farewell events of a kind that at least insofar as my part as a patient was concerned , did as a patient was concerned, did not fall foul of the rules . i not fall foul of the rules. i remind you of that key point about , that event. i was not about, that event. i was not i was i was there for a maximum of 20 minutes or 25 minutes. i think i gave a short speech . think i gave a short speech. could i cut in? what i did was not found to be cut in at this point. because how long you were at the gathering is not a question. i understand that is parm sandhu on it is asking you. and i'm interjecting you and while i'm interjecting you raised the question of imperfect . social social distancing hands face space which is the spaced part is either two metres at

this time or it's one metre with mitigation to do it two metres metres where possible , two metres where possible, two metres where possible, two metres or one metre with which is screen. it doesn't say one two what you possible. so say thatis two what you possible. so say that is the objective of social distancing is to maintain social distancing is to maintain social distancing possible that is what is the notion of a less than perfect and imperfect social distance . but as you were distance. but as you were telling country to do social. yes, but but so did we in number 10 and but i'm sure , by the way, 10 and but i'm sure, by the way, that up and down the country , in that up and down the country, in spite of people's observance of social distancing , there were social distancing, there were times when people drifted within one or two metres of each other . that is, i'm afraid, just in and out. we had a particular problem in number 10 because as i said on we had to call

meetings at great speed. we had large numbers of staff that had to come into the building because we needed to get a variety of opinions even though we had loads loads of people also on on zoom and it was not we had as is as you know because you've been to look at it we had lots of higgledy piggledy corridors where it wasn't and where it wasn't always easy to maintain perfect social distance , not mean to like that space that did not mean to me that we higgledy piggledy corridors , if higgledy piggledy corridors, if you could just refer yourself sir bernard's next question, which of course , an event . there which of course, an event. there were lots of people leading critical organisations , the critical organisations, the country . and leaving due for country. and leaving due for everyone else around country was not acceptable under . the not acceptable under. the guidelines or the rules. so why was it acceptable and necessary for work purposes ? number ten. for work purposes? number ten. thank you, sir bernard. well, i

look, i want to repeat what, i said at the beginning, i understand the people at that photograph will think that it looks like a social event. it was not a social. i if anybody thinks that i partying during lockdown there are the completely wrong that was not a party i was that i haven't said it was a party. mr. johnson, when you did actually earlier on i what i what i what was doing was thanking for thanking one individual in particular for their contribution . and i their contribution. and i believe that was my job. so if you've been asked at a press conference with your podium saying hands space whether it was okay organisations to hold on socially distanced gatherings in the workplace, what would you have said i would have said that it's up to organisations , as the it's up to organisations, as the guidance says, to decide how and they are going to implement the guidance amongst which is of course social, where they can't social distancing perfectly ,

social distancing perfectly, can't maintain two metres or one metres, then they're entitled have mitigations . and that's have mitigations. and that's what the guidance says and we did indeed have plenty mitigations including and as i've said to you before , this i've said to you before, this was exceptional in, in number 10, we had a great deal of testing so answer is you would have said it was okay. no, i, i said the answer is that you should do what the guidance and the guidance says that where you where you put in mitigations, where, where you do what is possible , then and where you possible, then and where you follow social in a way that the reflects the realities of your workspace that will be compliance with the guidance. that was my view and i think that's what everybody else understood so that it just kind of repeat this point . this is of repeat this point. this is what everybody understood . i what everybody understood. i believe in number 10 for a long of 20 months of the struggle

against covid, during which we having the prime minister himself had said, describing the experience of walking into loads of rooms and finding lots of people that it was simply part of the working number 10 that we were going to come into contact with a great number of people. but people did follow social and they they were acutely conscious of it . and i now turn to the of it. and i now turn to the 27th in november 2020. this was another unplanned leaving gathering for a different special adviser that again took place in the vestibule outside the press office in number 10. and we have three witness statements attesting a lack of social distancing at this event . we've got and this is social distancing at this event .we've got and this is on social distancing at this event . we've got and this is on page .we've got and this is on page 17 of your witness bubble . we've 17 of your witness bubble. we've got jack doyle is your press secretary at the time and subsequently all director of communications saying that there were certainly more than 20 people in attendance and do you

accept that? i i don't know . i accept that? i i don't know. i wasn't at that event . it wasn't wasn't at that event. it wasn't an event that was found to in breach of the rule. there's no reason to dispute it. well, i happen to know because we've all seen the same evidence bundled , seen the same evidence bundled, though. i think there's actually this is one of the things that you have that we haven't allowed to point to. i think. there is i think there is evidence from at least one of the of the participants that there were there were the weren't that many people now. and it lasted a very a very short time . well, by by a very short time. well, by by all means make that's drawn to our attention . i'm sorry. sorry. our attention. i'm sorry. sorry. this is clear. then sorry, sorry. you must have mentioned names. i think. i think. i think that that name we can mention that that name we can mention that that name we can mention that that that event , my that that name we can mention that that that event, my memory of that event . i that that that event, my memory of that event. i think i was at that event. i was that very brief. i was going to correct. sir, thank you. so i was at that event, but i was there very no,

no fines were issued for that event. order! order i'm afraid we have to suspend the committee again. this is a division , the again. this is a division, the commons . will return in 15 commons. will return in 15 minutes . on commons. will return in 15 minutes. on let's just. but yes is me patrick christys you now mark longhurst has done his stands what you been stands what you have been watching to that watching and listening to that is of course boris johnson giving the privileges giving to the privileges committee to whether committee in relation to whether or not he essentially knowingly parliament or recklessly over these alleged lockdown parties issued a strong opening statement that earlier on and was pretty in his defence and he said that he hand on harms did not lie swore in a copy of the bible if anybody else noticed his legal adviser, lord paddick, having a little chuckle himself behind him as he did that, there were many taken that were claims that many taken that were claims that many taken that we now in possession of we all now in possession of those infamous lock down party pictures. he claims taken by number 10 photographer and gleaned off zoom calls using

this to defend fact that he thinks, well, why would we have done that unless it was a work event? he's also saying that the vast of that didn't vast majority of that didn't feel like they were breaking lockdown in he says lockdown rules. in fact, he says nobody as they were nobody that felt as they were breaking lockdown rules, he was being questioned until that latest by bernard jenkin. latest by sir bernard jenkin. he's member this committee, he's a member this committee, the members this the other members of this committee durrant, committee, durrant, harriet harman, costa yvonne harman, albert costa yvonne fogg, you as bernard jenkin, as i've mentioned, uncertain . i've mentioned, uncertain. walker they go round in walker they will go round in turn and questioning, which is why we're expecting this to take as it the latest as long as it is. and the latest round of evidence you had that just before boris was before off by bow was in relation to a by the bow was in relation to a gathering november 20 for a gathering in november 20 for a member of staff. there lee cain. the question whether or not the distance thing should have been two metres. boris johnson is saying that it was completely to do that. given the nature of number and how it was as an office and defence to this, as well appears to rely on the fact that it was essential and necessary to have a brief thank

you gathering for the of lee cain because morale was low in the wake of dominic cummings. his departure and a couple of other people as so that's where we are going to return in probably around 10 minutes or so now. so we'll pick up, let us know what you think of everything you've seen so everything that you've seen so far. gbviews@gbnews.uk far. gbviews@gb news.uk olivia, your directly, far. gbviews@gbnews.uk olivia, your directly, by the way, your views directly, by the way, joins, as our political reporter has. with that . has. i agree with you that. bofis has. i agree with you that. boris started off to quite a robust beginning laid his robust beginning and laid his evidence and he went on the attack very quickly. we knew that there were going to be fireworks. no fireworks, very quickly, because he went in and accused harman, accused harriet harman, the chair of committee of bias, chair of the committee of bias, for tweets she did last for tweets that she did last yean for tweets that she did last year, saying he knowingly lied. he that she had already he suggests that she had already prejudged the of this committee before the committee sat down for the first time. he also rather cleverly lumped himself in with the civil servants who were at the events that he was at suggesting that he is supposed to have lied . then supposed to have lied. then surely they're supposed to have

lied to, yet they're not lied to, and yet they're not being hauled in select being hauled in the select committee is suggesting that it's fair that he is , but he it's fair that he is, but he does feel like he is now on shaky ground because he's talking about this event for the leaving of it. lee cain. lee cain and boris johnson were on very bad terms by the time that lee cain left and boris johnson's defence here is essentially i had to have this party was necessary for work purposes for me to have this gathering is easily done gathering. yes in order to thank lee cain show that there was no rancour and show that government still carries on as expected well. of course, they come to thatis well. of course, they come to that is surely there were similar situations across the whole of the well that is what but that is what bernard said to him i believe possibly the final question before the bell went , question before the bell went, just reminder, we're going just a reminder, we're going to be to that a few be taking you back to that a few minutes, said, minutes, which he said, what would out press would you have out press briefings a of the briefings if, a member of the british media yourself perhaps had said him, well boris, if

had said to him, well boris, if i want to have a leaving do or a thank you , what should i do? and thank you, what should i do? and bofis thank you, what should i do? and boris johnson was saying, well, if it was necessary, if it was necessary to have it for the functioning of your particular office, what he is trying to office, and what he is trying to claim is that it is and was necessary for to be a gathering in order to keep morale high, but show that the business but also show that the business of number ten was continuing as possible. he does keep hammering home the point so it doesn't see that he really at the time that he was in parliament, his statements basically saying everything was fine and that guidance was broken that he genuinely did not believe, that anything that we are seeing in the that we've already seen or anything that the events that we already about he just did already know about he just did not that that not honestly believe that that contravened guidance or rules . contravened guidance or rules. well it's quite interesting this because that is what the that's the defence that was outlined yesterday that essentially. yes rules were broken. he now realises the rules were broken. but when he was speaking at the time he didn't know that rules

are being broken and he's put a bit of meat on, the bones, as it were and he's essentially were now. and he's essentially saying that he he didn't know rules being because wasn't rules were being because wasn't he hadn't been told the rules were being broken and because he he says he was following the and in his mind the guidance was pushing as mitigations in place as possible . so he's outlined as possible. so he's outlined now some the mitigations that were in place. so for example, there was more testing upstairs they gave so they gave each other room on stairways they other room on the stairways they had sanitisers etc. he says other room on the stairways they had when;ers etc. he says other room on the stairways they had when he! etc. he says other room on the stairways they had when he stood he says other room on the stairways they had when he stood up|e says other room on the stairways they had when he stood up insays other room on the stairways they had when he stood up in the and that when he stood up in the and said guidance being said that the guidance was being did the guidance he did too that is the guidance he was thinking of not the two metre rule which he says was only if possible . well, the only if possible. well, the committee isn't having that and they brought this photo of him at one of these gatherings where people clearly aren't social distancing. and one member of the committee, i think it was bernard jenkin said that where the mitigations he had, where the mitigations he had, where the etc. whereas the screens etc. whereas anything to make safer there anything to make safer and there

isn't really no such that so again it feels like he's on shaky but at least he has clarified what he means by the fact only one thing that stood out to me. and it's always important as well before we take you back to lord pannick is you back to this lord pannick is potentially johnson's potentially boris johnson's legal sat to boris legal boffin who is sat to boris johnson's right behind him. okay so you will get a good look at our guide. it's always worth keeping on, especially keeping an eye on, especially because there was something i thought very telling when thought was very telling when bernard and bernard junkee came out and said, if said, essentially, boris, if you'd said this, what you'd have said this, what you've now in the you've just said now in the commons, we quite possibly wouldn't today. but the wouldn't be here today. but the fact boris johnson fact is that boris johnson basically more basically came out a lot more bombastic, saying, nothing bombastic, saying, no, nothing had and no panic. grint had happened and no panic. grint at that moment in time. and what read into that, olivia, was that when it comes to this committee's ambition, which is to essentially that boris johnson knowingly lied, boris johnson knowingly lied, boris johnson is currently doing quite a good job of being able to say, well, when i in front of the commons at that i did not know everything i know now. and so at the i was not knowingly lying

and i think that pleased his legal team . i think that does legal team. i think that does pleased his legal team. the issue is that boris johnson's defence rests on this idea that his advisers told him that it was okay to up in the commons and say that all guidance has been followed well. his advisers are now disputing that we have dominic cummings which understandably boris johnson that he has every every reason to lie because he has animus , as to lie because he has animus, as bofis to lie because he has animus, as boris johnson puts it, against the former prime minister. but then also dechaine. again, relationships aren't great between the two, but simon case well has now come out though. but private secretary has come out and said that cabinet secretary has come out and said that no, didn't tell that no, he didn't tell categorically that it was okay for him to stand up and say that no guidance has been followed. and martin reynolds well, so you've few these you've got quite a few these advisers johnson's now advisers to boris johnson's now relying on contradicting evidence which he's given so if lord panic's gli rest on the idea that boris johnson is only

relaying his advisers said to him that i'm not sure if it's going to hold. so we're getting a few emails and keep them coming in gbviews@gbnews.uk and the phrase kangaroo court keeps coming up. and i'd just like to address because address all of you, because bofis address all of you, because boris johnson say at the boris johnson did say at the outset there are things outset of this, there are things that he wishes were able to be published and able to be read aloud and shown to the public in this particular session , which this particular session, which he believes are being withheld, doesn't say and that is going to play doesn't say and that is going to play into his narrative that this is a little bit of a one sided kangaroo court. well, yes. so his narrative is that the commission was with bias is biased because of what harriet harman him. he also harman about him. he also believes that the committee has gone in its scope, in gone too far in its scope, in its investigation , breaches of its investigation, breaches of the of the guidance as as the regulations then there's the regulations and then there's the issue of this material, which he gave to committee, which the gave to the committee, which the committee refusing to committee is refusing to publish. harriet harman committee is refusing to pubaddress harriet harman committee is refusing to pubaddress heand harman committee is refusing to pubaddress heand ha|that did address that and say that the they haven't the reason they haven't published it is because it's the evidence civil . and those evidence of civil. and those civil servants need be given the

opportunity to look over it's interviews that they did with sue gray, and they need to be given the opportunity to look over and check over those interviews and check what , what happened what they said, what happened before this, because suspect before this, because i suspect i don't know if you, but i suspect a of will have been a lot of people will have been billing. okay, billing. this is right. okay, this it. is thing we're this is it. this is thing we're going to hear from. we're going to the round. to have everything in the round. we're hear it straight we're going to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. boris johnson actually, what johnson and actually, now what they're go, they're saying is, hey, you go, boris, stuff they're saying is, hey, you go, borirwe're stuff they're saying is, hey, you go, borirwe're going stuff they're saying is, hey, you go, borirwe're going to stuff they're saying is, hey, you go, borirwe're going to question you that we're going to question you with. later on we're with. and then later on we're going have people as yet going to have people who, as yet we're to name. we're not allowed to name. i mean, there some confusion of this last segment that showed this last segment that we showed you before the second bell you just before the second bell rang. quite rang. it again was quite farcical went well. farcical because it went well. we at this we don't know if at this gathering gathering, we gathering or this gathering, we don't this person don't plans to name this person or is or that person. and this is kind of we are it. and so boris of where we are it. and so boris johnson now have to wait for other people gave evidence to sue to say or not that sue gray to say or not that evidence is correct and they saw it then that will be it off and then that will be looked at by the policy committee as part of that bigger file. is very confusing for file. it is very confusing for people. well, think to be fair

people. well, i think to be fair to committee, boris johnson to the committee, boris johnson has quite long time to has had quite long time to submit dossier and he only submit his dossier and he only misses it 48 hours before. it's not one of my university. exactly yeah. and then it was apparently filled with typos or issues . the final version wasn't issues. the final version wasn't submitted until a m yesterday . submitted until a m yesterday. so i think harriet harman is suggesting the problem is that there hasn't been enough time since that evidence was submitted for the committee to then pass over evidence of then pass over the evidence of civil so they can check civil servants so they can check it . that might be boris it. that might be boris johnson's so it might johnson's fault. so it might just boris's fault . who would just be boris's fault. who would have well, have thought it? okay, well, look, got couple of look, we've just got couple of minutes, olivier, to have a quick an actual quick chat about an actual bit of that took in of political that took place in the house commons on which the house of commons on which was big vote wasn't it, on the was a big vote wasn't it, on the windsor framework and, a win for rishi, a win rishi. yes. so there were 29 mps voted against there were 29 mps voted against the bill, which is lower than than some were predicting and it seems to say the erg rebellion has essentially been contained. we knew that the dup and one

independent were going to be voting against it. so that's nine. so if actually a pretty small number of really smart and brexiteers and interestingly all all of the 22 have have no political left that sort of spent forces within the party that people who form former big piece who are now either at the next election or planning to quite soon and apparently is being heaped on the whips for keeping this as small as it was. so the danger was we always knew that the vote was going to get through. danger was that through. the danger was that soon going relying on soon was going to be relying on opposition didn't opposition votes. he didn't realise certain opposition votes. he didn't realis

clearly was not able to whip staff members to not give evidence or certainly. right people out, etc, versus a prime minister now who has actually had quite a big win in the windsor framework and whips have done their job and not had to rely on an opposition votes to get through . and when you get it through. and when you look at it in context as look at it in that context as well it's starting to look well now, it's starting to look very organised. what you that very organised. so what you that you couldn't have two more opposites could you. almost opposites could you. is almost like present . like past and the present. absolutely. and i think rishi sunak be well aware of that and also rishi sunak because apparently in the commons chamber thanking both conservative and labour mps for voting in favour of this framework, his whips are being congratulated for their good manners and sort of gentle cajoling to vote in favour of the government and the whole image out of number 10 is that back to kind of slick rishi as it were. and the contrast with the chaos of boris is , is very the chaos of boris is, is very stark. i'm just going to give people a little reminder as to what we've heard so far and

where we're at, because as soon as realise that people as we realise that people are going into that particular committee , we will love you. committee, we will love you. back over it . committee, we will love you. back over it. but boris back over to it. but boris johnson is giving evidence , the johnson is giving evidence, the privileges committee. it's in relation not he lied, relation to whether not he lied, misled parliament. the alleged lockdown policies in terms of who was on that committee. allan dodds, harman, albert dodds, harriet harman, albert costa, gave to costa, yvonne fava gave to bernard sir charles bernard jenkin and sir charles walker . we bernard jenkin and sir charles walker. we can go back to it right now. boris johnson is the meaning of the guidance, which does say wherever possible, but not in respect of less than one metre where mitigations are obligatory. that's not wherever possible. it doesn't say mitigations wherever possible they are essential . you cannot they are essential. you cannot do two metres and we couldn't see any mitigations the photographs, but also also sorry, sorry, sorry . if i may sorry, sorry, sorry. if i may what the guidance says as far as i can i can see ensures workers maintain social distance guidelines of two metres one

metre with risk mitigations where two metre is not available wherever possible i'm not pursue that that conditional wherever possible. gavin has both two metres and one metre. okay. well we address that point in our report will take consideration of your and the next and of what your and the next and that i don't think we agree with your interpretation of the guidance . well but i mean guidance that. well but i mean whatever this very important point is, whatever your interpretation the guidance may be, what if i may respectfully say is what i believed to been our efforts to follow the guidance, why i thought that they were credible. and in and what i was thinking of at the time was perhaps ask you to allow sir bernard , ask his next allow sir bernard, ask his next question course . thank you very question course. thank you very much . we were talking about the much. we were talking about the three witness statements or about the 27th november of 2020 event, which was a leaving event for another special adviser in the festival number 10, where there were certainly than 20 people. and i think accepted

that. people. and i think accepted that . and i can come back that. and i can come back certainly . i think we had that. and i can come back certainly. i think we had this conflicting evidence on that point. and if you look if you look at what sue gray has to say, she says 15 to 20. but we're not relying on sue gray as evidence isn't that ironic? the similarity this time ? so you similarity this time? so you that that evidence is invalid? no think that any evidence collected sue gray has to be independently verified with a statement of truth which is why we can't publish the evidence, the material which you've given us, which is not being accepted. can be helpful. if i gave my evidence about well, i think it'd be very helpful. if anything gray is witness anything in sue gray is witness statements that were collected in the interview notes would be dean in the interview notes would be dealt with separately, as the chairman describing think it'd be helpful if sir bernard was enabled to ask his question , you enabled to ask his question, you would give a succinct answer right ? so you'll see also page

right? so you'll see also page 17 of your bundle that another witness stated stated that they couldn't get through the room to leave because people were standing 4 to 5 people to . is standing 4 to 5 people to. is there any reason why we should disbelieve. well, the i've seen that. i've seen all the testimony about this event and those testimony from the sue gray evidence that i mentioned . gray evidence that i mentioned. and it seems quite incredible to me that we now can't adduce what she had to say after extensively interviewing people. she said there were 15 to 20 people she thought at that event . it's also thought at that event. it's also the case that the person who leaving on that occasion , clea leaving on that occasion, clea watson i think we can we can name her according my understood she said that it was a clutch of officials in the land that it a very short time indeed and she and she said i think that there

was a speech by me that lasted 45 seconds in a speech by her that i said 15 seconds from from memory . i was certainly that memory. i was certainly that very briefly indeed . and to get very briefly indeed. and to get your point sir but it the quotation that you have about that event it does not actually accord with my own memory which quotation is this a v fortified people deep and more than 20 people deep and more than 20 people in attendance actually remember quite as i might my of the event is much more in with what clare watson has to say and what clare watson has to say and what sue gray had to say about. the event. okay, i find it you will see on page 20 on 17 the royal bank that another witness that you chose during gathering that you chose during gathering that it was and i quote probably the most unsocial edition gathering in the uk right now . gathering in the uk right now. i'm quite apparent how 63 of your evidence, your submission, your evidence, your submission, you do say that you don't remember saying that those

particular words that are in fact for denying you said this, i don't remember saying those words and i think unlikely that would have said those words, given what i've had to say to the committee just now about my memory of , the event when i when memory of, the event when i when i my visual memory of the event is that it was more as clare watson describes it , a clutch of watson describes it, a clutch of people around that table the same, the same table that . same, the same table that. you've just been looking at. i don't remember people being four or five deep. i didn't remember saying, well, i will i will say that i'm you're giving that i'm sorry. you're giving very answers and it's very long answers and it's taking longer. we need and is repeating yourself quite a lot. can we just get on with the questions? thank you very much. so your not denying you said this but your you can't recall saying it. that's i think unlikely . i said that, but unlikely. i said that, but i didn't say things about social justice. you answer the question you also stated in your written submission of paragraph 16 three and i quote that you might well have made observation points in

speeches about social distancing , unquote. so sort of observations. i might well made observations. i might well made observations about the importance of social, since it was very much on our minds. okay. but how right would it be to conclude that you can't be sure what you that you you did not comment on the lack of social distancing . and at this social distancing. and at this or any of the other gatherings attended because otherwise why would you have raised it. so i don't understand the question i'm just sorry you're not denying that you might have said that that what i read i think you are might i think you are unlikely given the number of people that i. but you are meant to see. i think it unlikely given the number of people it would fair to conclude would be quite fair to conclude that you did comment on the lack of social distancing events. it's quite fair. certainly likely that i would have drawn attention to the importance of social distancing, since that was , you know, very high. people

was, you know, very high. people saw the importance of social distancing . if everyone was distancing. if everyone was about social distancing , then about social distancing, then obviously it's because as we've just extensively that there might occasions when people together at high speed and where social distancing was imperfectly observed. well that did not mean that i thought the guidance was not being followed. but given all that i've said earlier about observing social distancing where possible . well distancing where possible. well you do accept that the evidence we have under statement truth that indicate that those who were at this gathering very indicate that there was insufficient social distancing at this gathering. you do accept that? i say that some of them , that? i say that some of them, some of them, some of them don't . i'm i'm. you established that you were familiar with the social distancing guidance you were at the gatherings . there were at the gatherings. there was a lack of social distancing . so it must have been . yes. . so it must have been. yes. obvious to you at the and even more obvious on reflection

afterwards , as this whole thing afterwards, as this whole thing broke around you, that it was in breach workplace guidance relating to social distancing no , i know that's not correct. what i thought that we had done a best to implement the and in fact had thoroughly and completely implemented the guidance but clearly when it came to things like social distancing , the guidance distancing, the guidance explicitly provides for it was not possible at all times have perfect social distancing and that you could have mitigations . but as recently as the 25th of may, you said it was certainly the case 24 to may 2022 last yean the case 24 to may 2022 last year, it certainly the case that social distancing, social distancing guidance was being respected at all times . but i respected at all times. but i think you're now saying it was imperfect. sorry i'm trying there's a confusion between social distancing and the guidance . the guidance comprises guidance. the guidance comprises social distancing amongst other

things. and . what we were trying things. and. what we were trying to do was follow the guidance, the best of our ability. that meant that sometimes social distancing could not be perfectly observed. there were other mitigations we put in place the guidance also said that only necessary part of it is permitted. participants should physically attend the workplace meetings absolutely necessary. participants said you should usually . it said usually should usually. it said usually when you when you attended these events, when you didn't even know who was attending, how you so that everyone that was absolutely necessary to attend these events but these events were of course not organised by me personally, i relied upon my excellent officials to make sure we had the right people in the room. thank you , mr. cummings. room. thank you, mr. cummings. chair chair thank you. will now move on to examine two

gatherings that took place earlier in 2020, both which you attended. mr. johnson . we will attended. mr. johnson. we will look at the gathering which took place on the 19th of june 2020. this was a gathering in the cabinet room to mark your birthday will also look at the gathering that took place on the 20th of may 2020, which was a gathering for staff in the number 10 garden. the legal rules force to prevent the spread of covid very between may and june 20, but at both times the relevant rules included on gatherings of or more people in the workplace guidance in force at that time stated that there should be social distancing of two metres in the workplace wherever possible , and that only wherever possible, and that only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings . participants should physically attend meetings. i'll participants should physically attend meetings . i'll now invite attend meetings. i'll now invite yvonne survived to ask questions about these gatherings and i would if you could because we've already covered a lot of ground if you answer as simply

possible, of course, because i may be what you just said . mr. may be what you just said. mr. johnson , before i ask my johnson, before i ask my questions can we again confirm your of the rules and guidance in place at the time by reminding ourselves of what you're telling the country ? you you're telling the country? you told the house of commons on the 11th of may that and i quote, if you must go to work and cannot work from home, you should do so provided your workplace is provided that your workplace is covid secure and that you observe the rules on social distancing , observe the rules on social distancing, we are publishing further guidance on that. you also told the house on the 11th of may that people should be limiting contact with others and keeping your distance to two metres apart where possible . metres apart where possible. that was just a week before the gathering on the 20th of may and then on 10th of june, just over week before the gathering of the 19th of june, you said at a covid press conference, i quote, i urge everyone to continue to

show restraint and respect the rules which are designed to keep us all safe . so please , to us all safe. so please, to repeat what you've heard so many times before. stay alert . times before. stay alert. maintain social distancing and keep washing your hands. maintain social distancing and keep washing your hands . you keep washing your hands. you agree that those with the rules enforce at the time? yes. thank let's turn first to the governor and the 19th of june 20, 20, where breaches of both the covid rules and the guidance are an issue . we'll show pictures of issue. we'll show pictures of gathering on the screen and then pixilated photos are on page three, five, nine and four, 14 and bundle. one of the total evidence pictures show that you attended a gathering in the cabinet room on date to mark your birthday with at least 17 other people in attendance . now other people in attendance. now the attendees , your wife and the attendees, your wife and your integrity signer, didn't they ? they they certainly they? they they certainly included my wife and son and there was a contractor who was

working in the building who popped working in the building who popped head round the door very briefly . so your wife and your briefly. so your wife and your designer were present and you were issued with a fixed penalty for this event. were issued with a fixed penalty for this event . and you've just for this event. and you've just confirmed that at least two people attended who were not working . why you think this was working. why you think this was reasonably necessary for work purposes? this was covered by the rules at the time . but this the rules at the time. but this was an event that took place , as was an event that took place, as you say, on my birthday , come you say, on my birthday, come back from a long external visit. i thought it was reasonably necessary for work purposes because i was standing at my desk surrounded by officials who'd been asked to come and wish me a happy birthday and only recently recovered from an illness from covid. and it seemed to me to be a perfectly proper thing to do. we were to have another meeting and they were very largely the same

officials . i your wife in the officials. i your wife in the contract were not attending that meeting . it contract were not attending that meeting. it is contract were not attending that meeting . it is one of the meeting. it is one of the peculiarities of number 10 that my the prime minister and his family live in the same building and the man's tightening of the rules is that the premises family is entitled to use that building and use every part of that building. he notes the guidance in respect of that event the covid workplace guidance been in place that workplace meetings should be socially distance and only attended by those whose participation was absolutely necessary. now the two pictures we see on the screen show, the gathering wasn't socially and it was attended . people who were was attended. people who were not absolutely necessary to be there. so would it not have been obvious to you this was in breach of the conditions? no. and it's a measure of how i'm it was to me that this was any kind

breach at all, that we actually or the press actually publicised this meeting in the times newspaper, briefed it out. as said earlier on, with a slightly embellished account , said earlier on, with a slightly embellished account, i can i had absolutely no sense while this event was taking place and indeed , later on at any time indeed, later on at any time that this event in contravention of either the rules or , the of either the rules or, the guidance nor did anybody before ispoke guidance nor did anybody before i spoke in the house of commons suggest to me that it was and i think that the then chancellor , think that the then chancellor, who also received an fpn would have been just as surprised as i was. you reflect on the event afterwards as to whether it was an oath, rules and guidance before we spoke the house of commons. no, i didn't. and that's because it was a long time ago . i'm that's because it was a long time ago. i'm afraid it's entirely slipped my mind and i thought it was a completely

event. it was a very brief event . i'm i'm standing at the desk at the place. i would have normally sat. it did not strike me as being anything other than an ordinary communal garden workplace event event . so can we workplace event event. so can we now turn to the 20th of may 2020? and that was the gathering in the number 10 garden for staff . we've evidence that you staff. we've evidence that you present at this gathering while you were there. there were up to 40 people also there. and at this time, a gathering had to be essential for work purposes to be within the regulated channels. now we've got evidence that the email invitation for this gathering, which sent by your principal private security , terry martin reynolds, was sent to 200 odd people and a sitting staff who attended to bnng sitting staff who attended to bring their own alcohol. sitting staff who attended to bring their own alcohol . that's bring their own alcohol. that's on page 35 of your bundle. did you see the invitation email at any time before it was made

public? no you didn't the email itself. but you aware that the email was sent to 200 people, alarmed two staff. there are now alarmed two staff. there are now a couple. so what was your understanding something of the purpose of the gathering to thank staff who had been working very hard on covid and it seemed to me i think i was told about only shortly before it , before only shortly before it, before i was ushered into . the purpose of was ushered into. the purpose of it was to thank them in a obviously a ventilated area. and they got to discuss the purpose of the gathering with any officials before it took place. yes, i think i would have been told i didn't remember it, but i think i would have been told the covid team is gathering outside . it's been a very tough time . . it's been a very tough time. this was a day when the cabinet had just stepped down. i think the civil servants needed to feel that. as i said in of

another event , that the business another event, that the business of government being carried on and they needed to be able to feel thanked and motivated for their work and. that's what i did. so you were aware of the gathering before it took place? a briefly, yes, but i it was one of those things where as i think sue gray point out in her and in what value we now attached to it, but when you're prime minister, you move around quite rightly, your officials give you the next thing to do and you go and do it. and this was this was the next thing to do. i then went and had a telephone audience with with her majesty with evidence that some officials and advisers the officials and advisers felt the event shouldn't go on page 34 of your bundle here, then director of communications cain described the tone of the email invitation as clearly social and in breach of covid guidance and certainly raised concern about it with martin reynolds . another martin reynolds. another official gave us evidence saying, and i quote , i heard

saying, and i quote, i heard there were so many people who were unhappy the party that they were unhappy the party that they were not going to go and they themselves to another official that they thought was madness, that they thought was madness, that evidence on page 38 of your bundle. well concerns about the governing compliance with covid rules or guidance raised directly with you at the time. no the individual that you mentioned who raised concerns lee had the was if read what he says he was he was concerned about the optics not about the rules and he himself the event and certainly no concerns were raised me. the events have been within rules why i would be concerned about the optics i think i can't say i think he was concerned about the impression that people might gain if they looked over the garden wall if they were coming from the media room and thought that we were doing something that other people weren't allowed to do and my opening remarks, i made clear

that i my opening remarks, i made clear that! can my opening remarks, i made clear that i can see why people might have felt that way. but as i told the house when i came to report on that event, i, i still believe it was within the guidance , within the rules that guidance, within the rules that actually discussed or raised concerns about the gathering with you at the time. and his evidence suggests he might have . he said, i quote , i don't . he said, i quote, i don't recall if i personally had a conversation with the about conversation with the pm about the garden party, but it would have been unusual me not have been highly unusual me not to potentially to have raised potentially serious communications risk with the pm and if he had thought and he has, and if he had thought, if dominic cummings had thought that this thing really was the rules and should not go ahead , rules and should not go ahead, they would have told martin and it is inconceivable that it have gone ahead, didn't it, martin reynolds discussed raising concerns about the gathering with you at the time as it again is evidence to what he may well have done. he said it's possibly raised concerns with, you know , raised concerns with, you know, not that i can remember now . not that i can remember now. were you otherwise aware of any

concerns , what you've heard or concerns, what you've heard or read either before or after the government took place? no. as i as i told the house of commons and i gave a quite a long series of remarks about this event when i walked out into the into the garden, it to me implicit it was implicit in what we were doing that this work event . i that this was a work event. i feel in pages 34, 40 and 41 feel safe in pages 34, 40 and 41 and people know we have evidence the trestle tables are set up on which was laid out and the attendees included your wife as well as advisers who were not from number 10 but from other government departments. did you see that when you were at the gathering? i had no hand in organising this when you talk about trestle tables and so on, it was that i was there is no prohibition sort of committee if you would is that she was not asking whether you organised trestle tables with the alcohol. all right. she was asking whether you saw the trestle with the. see i did , i don't remember

the. see i did, i don't remember what was on the trestle tables . what was on the trestle tables. |, what was on the trestle tables. i, i remember going around and thanking staff for what they were doing during covid. it is perfectly possible that my wife was in the garden . well, but was in the garden. well, but she's but was entitled to be there . and i think she certainly there. and i think she certainly didn't receive a fixed penalty nofice didn't receive a fixed penalty notice for that event. and nor did i? you'll also see from page 34, if you lee claims that he briefly attended gathering and in his view is clear from observing it that it was a purely social function . did you purely social function. did you share that view? no, and that's certainly not what he said at time. but if he thought that it was purely social and therefore against the rules, it is inconceivable that it would have gone ahead . the metropolitan gone ahead. the metropolitan police have confirmed that fixed notices were issued in relation to that gathering. so we know breached the covid regulations . breached the covid regulations. we know that you knew what regulations were and we know were in attendance . so it would

were in attendance. so it would have been obvious to you when were there that the gathering not essential for work purposes and was partially a social event , wouldn't it? no. and i actually i if i if i mean great respect for i want to dispute idea that it was not an essential gathering or a gathering that was reasonably necessary for work purposes. i don't know . the fpns were , but don't know. the fpns were, 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, i think it's certainly still the case that martin reynolds believes that that gathering was within the rules and indeed within the guidance . would you have advised guidance. would you have advised anyone else in the country if i'd asked at one of the press conferences at that time to have a large social gathering in the garden? it was a large social gathering. it was it it was a gathering. it was it it was a

gathering intended . and i really gathering intended. and i really must on this point , gathering intended. and i really must on this point, people who say that were partying in lockdown simply do not know what they are talking. people who say that that event was a purely social gathering are quite wrong . my that my purpose there was to thank staff to them in what had been a very difficult time and what was also very difficult day in which the cabinet secretary had just resigned . did secretary had just resigned. did he think, mr. johnson, that except applied in number 10 to workplace rules and social guidelines that didn't apply to the hospitals , the care homes, the hospitals, the care homes, workplaces were also operating under incredibly different, difficult and challenging circumstances. of course , and circumstances. of course, and that's why, we continued. that's why had all the stipulation is that i've discussed a great length with sir bernard about about following the guidance and

kudos to john. jonathan, back to the chair. thank you . complete the chair. thank you. complete this section of our questions. we'll look at two gatherings that took place at the end of 2020 and the start of 2021. the first we'll look at took place on the 14th of january 2021. that was a leaving gathering for two officials held in the pillared of number 10. the next one we'll look at was a christmas in the vestibule of . christmas in the vestibule of. the 18th of december 20, 20, at the time of gatherings, the legal rules force to prevent the spread of alcohol, spread of covid included . on gatherings of covid included. on gatherings of two or more people and workplace stated that there should be social distancing of two metres in the workplace possible and that only absolutely necessary participants should physically meetings. i'll invite alan to ask you about these gatherings. mr. dawkins good afternoon, mr. johnson . mr. jones . before you

johnson. mr. jones. before you ask my question is, can we confirm your knowledge of the rules and guidance in place at that time? my reminding ourselves of all your the country told her to comment on the 2nd of september, but not it was very important that get people back into the workplace in a covid secure way . people back into the workplace in a covid secure way. this shows you are aware of the workplace guidance and its contents then on the 9th of november you said that the covid press conference that neither my staff no progress on vaccine or the present time a substitute for national restrictions for social distancing and all the rest who . it is all the more rest who. it is all the more important that we follow the rules in addition. at a press conference on the 30th of december. you know they a tier four restriction which were enforced london a fortnight later the 14th of january got into place . you said the into place. you said the restriction meant no meeting up with friends or family indoors

unless they are in the same household or support bubble and avoiding gatherings of any kind . my first question to you is that your understanding of the rules? yes, thank you. thank you, mike, my first question will concentrate on the gathering of . the 13th of gathering of. the 13th of january 2021. this is a leaving event for two officials held the panel room at number 10. we have evidence that approximately 15 people attended we will not show you a picture of this gathering on the screen the pixelated . is on the screen the pixelated. is on the screen the pixelated. is on page 7571, two, two of the total. on page 7571, two, two of the total . here, which is a picture total. here, which is a picture .then total. here, which is a picture . then the screen was chosen . . then the screen was chosen. photograph shows yourselves and at least other people we live in other people in attendance and pixelated picture the metropolitan have confirmed six penalty notices were issued to some in individuals who attended this as breached the covid

regulations in place other time and was not reasonably necessary for this breach of the covid rules which have been over tier four when you were there. wouldn't know. i must respectfully disagree with you strongly, mr. on the contrary , i strongly, mr. on the contrary, i see there is an i know that there's some some bottles on my on the table, but you have that a you're looking actually i think that's a zoom that's somebody that's somebody a screenshot taken from from zoom i would guess because you've got people at the summit a large number of the people were actually on zoom you've got people who with each other every day who use that room for meetings and who are meeting to say thank you and then farewell to, i think, two talented young officials. i think malcolm was the was the it was the occasion

. and it was the sorry, forgive me. i shouldn't i shouldn't i should mention the names of the equivalents of the talented . but equivalents of the talented. but anyway . those two those two anyway. those two those two officials were . leaving and it officials were. leaving and it was my job to thank them to and show that their work was i was there very briefly. i didn't receive an there's nothing i can see. and i got to tell you, there's nothing i can see in that that photograph that strikes as being either against the rules or the guidance. and i would i would i actually see and it depending on how you your is what i actually see is people trying to stay reasonably far apart from each other that's what i see now don't know what happened later on, but i can tell you that for the period i was there, it seemed to me to be wholly in with the rules and the

guidance and a proper use of my time, even if it was only brief , you would you agree with the description of the gathering we received in evidence from an official who attended and who described the gathering as strictly an event about work. this statement is on page seven of your evidence when the. well i don't agree with that because i don't agree with that because i think that it was essential to thank staff throughout the pandemic. the one very many of these occasions when they when they occurred i thought it was right and proper for me to motivate staff saying how we were doing and to thank them for what they'd done. it wasn't just the staff who were leaving who needed appreciated. it was needed to be appreciated. it was the staff who were there, who needed you. if needed to be motivated you. if the gathering the picture is this gathering appears to show multiple photos of alcohol in the bottom hand corner of the photograph would . corner of the photograph would. you say that that is strict or necessary for a work event . it's

necessary for a work event. it's customary to safer well to people in this country with a toast. i didn't see any sign of drunkenness or or excess and i had no knowledge of i don't why anybody would have been fined for that event i didn't what what happened later on in the next gathering. we want to ask you about the gathering on the 18th of december 20, 20, if you knew was , not complying with knew was, not complying with covid regulations , some covid regulations, some attendees receive fixed penalty tickets without a notice . this tickets without a notice. this gathering was a free flowing and press office drinks event with cheese wine and was widely reported in the press. we have evidence he was attended by between 25 and 40 people. you find the relevant statements on page 54 of your evidence. produce the official diary that you're in ten downing street, that evening digital . join this that evening digital. join this gathering making the of december. i'm sorry , the

december. i'm sorry, the december. i'm sorry, the december 20 your official diary on page 56 of their display shows is a gap between the hours of 1917 and 2024. and i this is difficult but you confirm where you were that time i imagine i was working i think from from memory there was a was this was an evening when we were dealing not just with the emergence of the kent variant with delta. i think was but also a great deal of anxiety about whether we were going to have a no deal brexit. i thought that anxiety was of course , and we didn't, but it course, and we didn't, but it was a very long and very difficult evening. i think we had a an extended covid komeito session , but i certainly did not session, but i certainly did not attend event and i had no direct knowledge of it . okay, thank knowledge of it. okay, thank you. we've conducted a privilege . the committee conducted a

visit to downing street. tell you, as you know , we established you, as you know, we established you, as you know, we established you clearly see from the you can clearly see from the press question , bill, with this press question, bill, with this gathering was taking place from the bottom of the stairs leading up to it. and what was your in downing street ? your diary says downing street? your diary says you went to your flight at 2158. apparently the gathering went on until after midnight visual evidence that you did not see or hear the noise . a gathering of hear the noise. a gathering of about 25 to 40 people were taking place and events were room the best of all when were going to your flight. if we just perhaps excluding there was a corridor no record of leading to the of all before get the best of all before you get to is on the left is to your to it is on the left is to your flight your direct line of sight would be into vestibule no more than a few metres away there's a gathering taking place with between five and 40 people. you had clear line of sight of that that room. are you telling me

that room. are you telling me that your evidence is that you're not aware of the noise or that event taking place? absolute and all i what i look what i would have if i had looked , what i would have seen. looked, what i would have seen. i'm sure , was people doing i'm sure, was people doing a huge amount of work on a very, very busy evening. now, i, i didn't look i certainly have no memory of seeing any kind of party or illicit gathering going on the press room on that evening. the first night, the first i heard about this thing, the first i knew about it was when it was brought to my attention by a jackdaw. i think it almost almost a year later. thank you, mr. holzer. turn to page 52 or 56. if you just one there, you will see that this gathering described in evidence previously lived beyond their strings and far more than it should have been with . people should have been with. people who were shoulder to shoulder with each other and one number 10 staff member did not attend

said letter held that the gathering turned into a party did any material about that well does no they didn't and this is the crucial point nobody raised the crucial point nobody raised the any anxieties about that event with me before . i stood up event with me before. i stood up in the house of commons. nobody said to me that we are we've had something we've done something that we've done something that we've done something . in a year that something. in a year that followed between december the 2020 and 30th of november 2021, when came to see me, the thing was a complete blank to me right in the report the police have confirmed a fixed penalty notice were issued to some attendees at that gathering clearly therefore it breached the there are no witnesses to say that you were at the gathering but did anyone make you aware at the time or after happened that had not been complying with court rules ? no, complying with court rules? no, thank you , mr. host. before we thank you, mr. host. before we move on to discuss what you said in the house about gatherings in

number 10, you would know that face penalty tickets were issued in relation to gatherings ten on two days, other than those two other days, other than those we've asked you about . these we've asked you about. these gatherings took place on the of december 20, 29 to 16th, april 2021. this is confirmed the metropolitan police statement , metropolitan police statement, the end of operation hillman . we the end of operation hillman. we shall find a copy of on page 89 and 91 of you have just one of did you ever have any reason to think that covid rules may have been broken out of this gathering or in either of these dates prior 2021? you know , dates prior 2021? you know, december 22, it was . so which december 22, it was. so which which dates is . 70 17th of which dates is. 70 17th of december and the 16th of april. i i don't, i don't i don't know. i i don't, i don't i don't know. i don't remember hearing so what. well, i can tell the committee is none of these. i was of none of these events as being in any way rule breaking against the guidance until all

stories started to emerge about them. and that was after i had spoken in the in the commons about them . so they weren't, about them. so they weren't, they weren't at all on my radar as things we that i should be concerned about . thank you mr. concerned about. thank you mr. jones 202 that you and mr. johnson we've now considered the rules and guidance relating to covid that were in force at the time of the gatherings we've discussed with you we've considered your knowledge of the rules and guidance then enforce and considered your and we've considered your attendance at knowledge of attendance at a knowledge of gatherings that not socially distanced which fixed distanced and for which fixed penalty issued . we penalty notices were issued. we will now compare that with what you said to the house of commons after media reports of these gatherings emerging will concentrate particularly on what you said to the house on the 1st of december and the 8th of december will first examine your assertions that . covid rules and assertions that. covid rules and guidance were followed number 10 and i would like to invite andy carter ask our questions carter to ask our questions about this. thank you, chair mr.

johnson. i'm only on the 30th of november. i understand the daily mirror contacted the press officer at downing street saying . they were planning to publish an article that events are taking place downing street in november and december 2020, where covid rules have been broken . now, the article broken. now, the article appeared online later that day and. it was the paper's front page and. it was the paper's front page splash on the 1st of december, and i think you can see a copy of that on page 58 in your evidence bundle. and i'm guessing you must have known you would be asked about this at prime minister's questions in the house of commons the following day . the, the 1st of following day. the, the 1st of december and sure enough you were you were asked whether a christmas party was held number 10 on the 18th of december and you told the house all guidance was followed complete neatly in number 10, picking on the things

that you said in your opening statements and the evidence that you've given you knew what the guidance was , i.e, maintaining guidance was, i.e, maintaining social distancing possible and showing mitigation was in place. if that wasn't and you knew that being where social distancing, having been maintained and wear masks example weren't being worn and screens weren't in place because we've seen some the photographs there . so why did photographs there. so why did you tell the house or guidance was followed completely in the meeting . thank you . i'm not meeting. thank you. i'm not certain that there any just quickly. i'm not certain there's any requirement for masks indoors for mitigation. but i see with you. okay. so the reason i said that all guidance was followed completely in number 10 and mr. dorries in the general. a lot of the questions that have been raised between . that have been raised between. the events that took place and when i stood up to, to speak in all the cases that i that you mentioned, nobody came me and

said, we've got a problem with this one. you need to need to worry about this. and i want to i want you to. and there's no trace of that in the written evidence or in the in the electronic record. and that is a very extraordinary thing, given how serious that was . the reason how serious that was. the reason i said what i said was because i thought i believed then that the whole of the number 10 team were doing a huge amount to follow the guidance and. i, i talked to jack doyle about what had happened at that event this on the evening of . the 30th of the evening of. the 30th of november 2021. and it's about i don't think my diary says it was 6:00. he comes in and he says the as you say the daily mirror is going to this story. he mentions a few other events to

which i. i knew directly about and knew there was no as i as i believed at the time. i knew there was no issue with those and the other was something i think there was to do with an event at cch to be consulted. so all of a sudden you have seen nothing about i asked him about this december 18th event and i asked him to describe it. and bearin asked him to describe it. and bear in mind everything i said about that , which was a about that, which was a horrendously and difficult evening, and we'd had a long covid over discuss what to do with with the kent variant . he with with the kent variant. he told me that it was within the rules . he said the people were rules. he said the people were sitting at their desks i drinking a bitterly, but that was not banned that was under any of the either the rules or the or the guidance it was not a but it was regular i'm afraid for people to drink it. on and i

that it sounded to me as though that it sounded to me as though that event was within both the rules and the guidance . and that rules and the guidance. and that fortified me in when i stood up to say the following day as it happens when i said the guidance has been followed completely dunng has been followed completely during number 10, which is actually what i said, i'm i was misremembering the line that had already put out to the media about this event, which was covid rules were followed at times. but you've got to understand that i didn't think that there was any real distinction from the public's point of view between the rules and the guidance in the sense that our observance of let me put it this way i didn't think that the public would make any they would expect us to follow guidance as much as as the rules can. and so that's why and so even though i'd said something different, was

different, i still believe was true. can i just if you something slightly different, can you why didn't you can i ask you why didn't you correct record then ? because correct the record then? because that would have been an obvious thing but understand thing to do. but i understand the point you make there confusion guidance and confusion between guidance and the i like to correct the rules. but i like to correct the rules. but i like to correct the to point. but the record to that point. but 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. my view as i've as i've said repeatedly to the committee this afternoon is i believe we were following guidance and in spite the pictures that we've all looked at which which seemed to show a lack of perfect distancing, i believe that what we were doing was in conformity with the rules for the certainly was for the penod for the certainly was for the period i was there . and i period i was there. and i believe that the behaviour was reasonable given the constraints of the building and that therefore in accordance the guidance. so that's why when i said , okay, sir, i know you said, okay, sir, i know you attend the gathering on the 18th of december, you just been very

clear about that . but you had clear about that. but you had attended some of the other gatherings that we've talked about. and you just said that you asked lee cain, mr. cain . you asked lee cain, mr. cain. about the gathering on the so why didn't you tell the at that point when you were asked that there were of the gatherings in number 10. i told it was jack dolan i'm sorry but because and this goes the heart of what we're trying to establish . i we're trying to establish. i didn't think that those were an issue . nobody had previously issue. nobody had previously raised them with me as being the things that i ought to be concerned and they didn't. and as i as i've said repeatedly to the to you at the time , call me the to you at the time, call me obtuse or oblivious, but they did not seem to me to be in conflict with the rules or the guidance, because were trying to implement in number 10. okay. the next prime question was on the 8th of december, a week later, it probably would later, i think it probably would

have to say that you have been fair to say that you would have guessed the would have guessed that the topic brought up again topic have been brought up again by of the opposition by the leader of the opposition because the previous evening itv had published a video of a mock press conference numbers and number 10 stuff were were seemingly joking about the gatherings on the 18th of december at pmqs december you were asked if there was a party in ten number on the 13th of november and you told the house the guidance was followed and the guidance was followed and the rules were followed in downing street at all times . by downing street at all times. by the 8th of december. it's been a full week. you were first asked in the house about gatherings in number 10. the issue would continue feature on the front page continue feature on the front page of many of the newspapers and as we later saw on television, what did you do in that week to prepare for any further questions about gatherings to decide whether you needed to correct your previous statement, the guidance been followed and whether you should it? well, i did . as the it? well, i did. as the committee knows, i did the most

the most obvious thing, which was when the allegro video emerged on the evening of, i think the seventh of december. i decided that i was getting conflicting information about what had happened at this gathering the 18th of december. i was troubled by that. i hadn't been at the thing i was relying on what thought were the honest and well—intentioned 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. that's the most important thing that i did by the end of that. prime minister's questions on the 8th of december, you've been asked, i think, multiple times about the issue of gatherings in downing , at point downing street, but at no point did you tell the house that you knew there have been gatherings

that you had attended in particular raised particular five. we've raised you. why did you fail ? tell the you. why did you fail? tell the house on the 8th of december that there were gatherings that you'd but mr. carter. you've got to understand that in my mind at the time did not seem to me to be improper or it is so that they did not they weren't in my consciousness because . i thought consciousness because. i thought i thought they were work events, as i said to the house when we came to discuss the may 20th event and i came to the house to explain , i made it very clear explain, i made it very clear that i thought that that was a work event. and indeed i still do think having told the house on the 8th of december that the guidance was following the rules were all times in were followed at all times in street. then reiterate to street. you then reiterate to this the following month you told the house at prime minister's question on january the 12th. i believe the events in question were within the and were within the rules. you knew what the rules and guidance were. and you personally

attended at least four gatherings. those the 20th of may, the 19th of june, the 13th of november, and the 14th of january 2021, for which penalty notices were issued. attendees, which hadn't been with the rules and at which of the rules and guidance, must have been obvious to you, because you were there when you did so . to you, because you were there when you did so. no. so to you, because you were there when you did so . no. so the only when you did so. no. so the only fpn that i received was for the event that i we've been in some detail, which was the, the event in the cabinet room . and i think in the cabinet room. and i think that even this committee, i, i you know, i venture to suggest might concede that had they been in my shoes at that event it might have occurred even to then that this was a an event that against either the rules or the guidance, it certainly didn't occur to me. it didn't occur to the then chancellor of the exchequer. it didn't occur to the department. we the media department. we breached any of those any event for received fpn all the for which i received fpn all the other for the period other events are for the period i was there . i can only conclude

i was there. i can only conclude were deemed by the match to be not rule breaking events because wasn't issued with an epa . wasn't issued with an epa. therefore you have sets of events. the one the for which i received an fpn which boggles my mind because i couldn't understand why i got it and others where i aware of rule breaking at the time and believed we were following the guidance . so there was nothing guidance. so there was nothing i could say to the house on that score. if you tend page 61 of the evidence, you can see a statement there from the then principal private secretary martin reynolds in which he says that he directly questioned with you whether it was realist to argue that guidance had been followed at all times in number 10. d0 followed at all times in number 10. do you accept that you were advised not to say guidance was followed all times in number 10, and you told the house that and yet you told the house that it 8th of december, it was on the 8th of december, on 12th january. so on on the 12th of january. so on the. there's a couple of important points. it is absolutely true that martin

reynolds cautious about what i should say in the house on the 8th of december because we'd already the process of the inquiry we were looking at the december the 18th event i had received assurance is about the rules on december the 18th but i hadnt rules on december the 18th but i hadn't received assurances about the guidance . well, what martin the guidance. well, what martin was trying to get at, if you look at his what he says, it's he's talking about social distancing and whether it was whether we had maintained social distancing within number 10 and whether that would that would whether that would that would whether we had maintained perfect social distancing within number 10. and if you look at paragraph . 50, the second martin paragraph. 50, the second martin makes it clear that he that the nature of the working . in in nature of the working. in in number 10 might make it

difficult to claim that full social distancing was observed social distancing was observed so forgive me let's just spend while the bells ringing . don't while the bells ringing. don't need to vote, but sorry. okay this is a very again it's very, very important point. this just goes to the of i think the confusion and what work remember what in his report comments to me martin is talking about whether or not we observed perfect social distancing he is not saying that we did not observe the guidance and i can prove that if you just reflect for a second on what it would mean if he had said that throughout the pandemic, we were not observing the guidance. he didn't mean that he and i were responsible for making sure that we were observing the guidance to best of our ability if ask simon case or any of the senior where we following the other way

around what you flouting the guidance in number 10 they'd have said no we were following guidance but with mitigations at hand with social distancing where as specified in the guidance . on reflection and guidance. on reflection and given that mr. reynolds says that you agreed to delete the reference to guidance, do you wish you'd have corrected rest of the record at that point? no . first of all, we'd already begun the inquiry and it was i know what to i didn't know what sense the guidance had been broken. i didn't know. i didn't i had no evidence that anybody had had broken the guidance. it wasn't clear to me what. i would say to the house commons, the second nobody had nobody was advising to correct the record . advising to correct the record. and martin and i, as i've tried

to explain, were talking about two different things. i was talking the total of following the guidance . he was talking the guidance. he was talking about maintaining perfect social distancing , the advice that he distancing, the advice that he was giving me was in relation a statement that i was making the december . the 18th event, and december. the 18th event, and about the reassurances i had received. and it was true to say that i had received reassurances that i had received reassurances that event as far as the rules went, but it was also to say that nobody had explicitly reassured me about the guidance and he fully prudent to take out the reference to the guidance i. it is true that , as you just it is true that, as you just said, mr. carter that i then went on to later in to talk to katherine west . i knew when i katherine west. i knew when i was going to come to this point, but she asked a question. and as you as you've as you said, i the shields question was whether

there had been a party on november the 13th. i said no, but i was sure that the rules and the guidance had been observed. i said no, but whatever i was told that the rules and guidance have been observed at all times and said that confidence . because i that with confidence. because i knew about the events was talking about on november the 13th and i had my own personal reasons to believe that that was true . i knew a written statement true. i knew a written statement to paragraph one to you say you believe that compliance with social distancing was required by the guidance . if you believe by the guidance. if you believe this , why did you not make it this, why did you not make it clear when you told the house that the guidance followed at all times ? well, that's a very all times? well, that's a very good question , mr. carter, and good question, mr. carter, and perhaps it would have been perhaps would have been as think submitted said earlier on perhaps if i'd elucidated more clearly what i meant and what i felt believed about following

guidance that would have helped . probably find a question paragraph 28 of your submission quote an excerpt from the workplace guidance which says the social distancing guidelines cannot followed in full in relation a particular activity business should consider whether that activity needs to continue for the business to operate and so take all the mitigating actions possible to reduce the risk of transmission . are you risk of transmission. are you saying you thought gatherings were critical to the function were so critical to the function of government was of government that it was permissible to hold them even if they couldn't socially they couldn't be socially distanced? is, yes, distanced? the short is, yes, i thought that it was essential to thank staff for their work . i thank staff for their work. i think that is even though the pictures seem to show festive events i think those efforts events i think those efforts evenin events i think those efforts even in those pictures are being made to do social distancing . made to do social distancing. and what i saw what i had in my head when i was talking to the house of commons was a memory , a

house of commons was a memory, a strong memory of people over a long period doing everything they could to stop the spread of disease within the building and just so we're clear at those events in the vestibule, the first pictures we saw what mitigate were put in place that were required by the guidance . were required by the guidance. so i i've i've listed some of them but . we avoided physical them but. we avoided physical contact we didn't for instance as the guidance says we didn't touch each other's pens . we touch each other's pens. we didn't pass stuff each other. if we could if we could possibly avoid it . we kept we kept those avoid it. we kept we kept those would that i wouldn't i would not wish to say that that was perfectly impermeable. people were passing drinks each other because we've seen the picture of course, and i'm not. but this is guidance . this is guidance. is guidance. this is guidance. and i'm not going pretend that it it was enforced rigidly, but that's explicitly what guidance

provides for. we had zoom meetings , had a great reduction meetings, had a great reduction in the numbers of people in the in the numbers of people in the in the numbers of people in the in the overall we had signs telling you which way to walk . telling you which way to walk. we had perspex screens i mentioned all this before but it's worth it really is worth going over again is asking you about that specific event you took the december the 18th event. when you see the photographs in the vestibule, none of those seem to be evident . yes, because the system which you've been really talking about in this regard, the first photographs saw . yes, photographs that we saw. yes, the november the 13th. the leaking of it. yes and that is because that was the space where congregated fast , if i wanted congregated fast, if i wanted get a message out, it was the natural place to do it the yes don't see that you don't see perspex screens there. but that

doesn't mean there wasn't sanitiser and efforts to restrict the spread of covid. and a question for me and just just in all of this , bear in just in all of this, bear in mind that believed martin reynolds believed everybody responsible for the health, the building and the health of employees . the building believed employees. the building believed that the guidance was being very consider augmented in a way that went beyond the guidance by. the testing regime that i i've i think any members of this committee don't recognise the challenges that you were facing team were facing in downing street and the that were being put in place to try and keep people safe. i do want to just finish if i may with the comment that you made to the house on the 12th of january that you believed implicitly that the gatherings of the 20th of may, which you attended, had been a work event that you'll see events in the garden. i mean, it's was termed

it's being termed it was termed in the press to bring your own boo. was a garden party. many boo. it was a garden party. many is suggesting was clearly not essential for work purposes and that therefore in breach of the covid rules at the time , why did covid rules at the time, why did you say that to the house? because i and i implicitly believe that it was a work event and as i said to the committee just now , i was i was ushered just now, i was i was ushered out into the garden , having been out into the garden, having been briefed shortly about what the event entailed , i met and event entailed, i met and thanked various groups of people who had been working on covid. you see, the numbers are calculated of between ten and 30 or 40. i couldn't say exactly how many were there, but it was, i thought, an appropriate use of the garden. i felt it was the of the garden. i felt it was an obvious work event, but what i said to sue gray afterwards. if we if we can mention sue gray , can we share what i said to sue gray was that when i looked back at that event and what i

was what i, what i, what i, what i said was why i said what i said to the house and i to put myself in the, in the, in the place of somebody, a member of the public looking the the public looking over the garden . and i garden and seeing that. and i had to accept that, even though it was, i believe within the guidance and within the rules , i guidance and within the rules, i have to accept that members of the public at it would have thought that looks me like something that he's not allowing us to do . and i felt that very us to do. and i felt that very keenly. and in retrospect that i didn't but i didn't feel it at the time. do you . so i'm trying the time. do you. so i'm trying to say i understand that. can i can i ask you one further question? i think probably all employees that have been on on days where we're very busy going from meeting to meeting, rely on our advisors to guide us through where we're going. i understand what about the prime what you said about as the prime minister on a schedule. minister working on a schedule. did any point , minister working on a schedule. did any point, any of the did you at any point, any of the events were going when events that you were going when the were taking you to the advisors were taking you to 7 the advisors were taking you to ? look at hindsight. it's a

? i look at hindsight. it's a wonderful in retrospect might have thought about things a post pursued post to the beginning of the of the of the coming to light of everything that did come like i have thought about it. but i know at the time i thought we were working. i thought we were working. i thought we were working. i thought we were working and that what i promise you that is what official in number 10 thought they were doing as well . thank they were doing as well. thank you very much, mr. johnson . can you very much, mr. johnson. can we now turn to the issue , the we now turn to the issue, the assurances that you mentioned to the house on numerous occasions? and i'd like to ask alberto costa to ask you the committee's questions on the issue. we assurances. thank you, charles. good afternoon . mr. johnson, good afternoon. mr. johnson, thank you very much . coming thank you very much. coming before this important inquiry , before this important inquiry, i'm very grateful. could i invite the team to please slide number, please . mr. johnson ,

number, please. mr. johnson, we've just seen on the screen the eve of december 20, 21, in your opening at prime minister's questions , you told the house questions, you told the house that and i quote, i've been repeat oddly assured since these allegations emerged that there was party and that no covid rules had broken in response to subsequent questions, as you said, that , quote, i've been said, that, quote, i've been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken and again, quote , i've been repeatedly quote, i've been repeatedly assured no rules were broken . assured no rules were broken. now, these quotes, which are on screen , are also at pages six screen, are also at pages six four, 265 of your evidence . q four, 265 of your evidence. q mr. johnson , may i ask, did mr. johnson, may i ask, did government law or any member , government law or any member, the government legal department, such as the attorney , solicitor such as the attorney, solicitor general or any one of the hundreds of solicitors and

barristers that work for the government , did barristers that work for the government, did any one of barristers that work for the government , did any one of those government, did any one of those give you the assurance ? thank give you the assurance? thank you very much. mr. costa i know the short answer is no they didn't, but did i seek assurances from from them? nor did i claim that i had didn't think i claimed at any stage i had received assurances from law officers or legal representatives. the people that i said that the people who had given me the assurances that there were there were more than one that it was all indeed or more than one occasion and so would it be helpful i if i if i told you why i said that i was repeatedly assured. mr. costa his questions and that just follow the course of his motion. if to course, if you were to him, of course, your response is, can your full response is, can i ask, did the head the civil service simon case any other career permanent civil servant give you these assurances as well? it follows from from think

from martin reynolds evidence that he thought that the rules had not been broken . if you if had not been broken. if you if you look at what he has to say i don't i don't remember being specifically by any senior civil servant about the rules or the guidance within within number 10. but . the interesting guidance within within number 10. but. the interesting thing is that to the contrary, no , is that to the contrary, no, nobody gave me any contrary . nobody gave me any contrary. come to that an advice we may thank you. in particular those 90 of you were very helpful written . you see that the written. you see that the assurances were given you by jack doyle james slides right there statements confirming this are on pages . 72 and 75 of the are on pages. 72 and 75 of the evidence from the young. they

are both you had personally to the position director of communications at number 10. they were political advisers who deau they were political advisers who dealt with the why . why did you dealt with the why. why did you rely on an assurance from political advisers rather than as i mentioned , a permanent as i mentioned, a permanent civil servant or more importantly a, government lawyer. so here's the simple answer that when i needed discover what had happened, whether the were broken, i first, of course, or i asked first, of course, or i asked first the senior adviser who was there , and that was jack doyle . there, and that was jack doyle. the following week you can see that jack doyle says that he he confirms that he he says, you know, what's up to me ? i've been know, what's up to me? i've been assured you can say, i been assured you can say, i been assured that there was no party in the rules were broken. so he says that again to me . i also

says that again to me. i also then rang james slack who and both jack and james slack of people have the utmost regard for and i believe they would be completely straight with me about what happened and they both said that the rules had not been broken and the reason i didn't ask a lawyer or another senior service , they were senior civil service, they were the been there. yes the people who'd been there. yes and were the direct they and they were the direct they could about the could give a view about the legality of that event that i did. i didn't think a normal eyewitness would be able to do . eyewitness would be able to do. okay. well when you decided to rely on the assurances that you've referred in the house, why you not then discuss assurance with the cabinet secretary case or your principal private secretary? martin reynolds , or a government lawyer reynolds, or a government lawyer at the point at which you'd been given the assurance by the individuals that your questions might double check it with

government lawyer first of all, martin, in addition to being my private , private secretary is private, private secretary is a lawyer . his view of private, private secretary is a lawyer. his view of all private, private secretary is a lawyer . his view of all the lawyer. his view of all the events you'll see from his evidence is he believes that followed the rules at times. and that was certainly what he said to me . you will see evidence , to me. you will see evidence, mr. costa, from the from the from my submission that at least a couple of my colleagues from the morning meeting that i asked generally , did we follow the generally, did we follow the rules were there parties and the view of the assembled civil servants and advisers was that no, we no we hadn't broken the rules and that's what they said the piece that you're referring to are the ones at paragraph 90 of your written submission where you state that the evidence given to us by sarah dines mp

and andrew griffith mp seeing officials gave you assurances that your daily office meetings , those are the additional assurances you're referring to. yes. and it's not clear what date . sarah andrew , remember , date. sarah andrew, remember, they certainly remember me receiving those assurances. and don't forget , if i could just don't forget, if i could just make an important point from the from the seventh . to the 7th of from the seventh. to the 7th of december onwards, as the inquiry is underway . so you ask why? i is underway. so you ask why? i didn't ask simon case. i didn't know simon case. i asked simon case to conduct an inquiry. well, i'm very grateful that you recall. see the times mp, andrew griffith mp giving you the assurances you were present at those meetings. were those two, mp said that assurance is a gift, sir, if i just may ask the question and you can correct me if i misunderstood the point who were the official who gave these

assurances in this meetings that you've referred to at paragraph in your written submissions submissions . well, i can't name submissions. well, i can't name any one. i don't know if i don't know if i can. i think that. why not the i think that most of have indicated they didn't want them themselves be remembered then to be to be named wanted and their anonymity . mr. and their anonymity. mr. johnson, could you just pause and answer question? are you not naming these officials who you say were giving you these assurances because you can't remember who they were or you can't remember their names or because you didn't want to have confidentially at least one adviser that i can think of that who was asked not to be not to be named and that she would it be named and that she would it be would have been in the morning meeting and i don't want to. well, could you that up in writing through lawyers to the inquiry confirming the name of the individual that you recall

gave you the assurance at the meetings referred to by these if i may say so mr. cross. i didn't quite the direction of your of your questions because it's clear from what i've said that i was assured on, i was assured by a different people and on different occasions the rules have been followed. we've tried to ascertain who these individual use were. so be very helpful. if you could follow up with the individual just to stay up to note could i ask the team to please slide nine on the screens please ? slide nine screens please? slide nine refers to comments made by doyle and that will also be found. it page and that will also be found. it page 74 of the bundle. doyle is asked the question was there a discussion in meeting the meeting of the 8th of december 2021, whether covid was adhered to at all times and mr. states , to at all times and mr. states, quote, i didn't advise the prime

minister to see this new. so, mr. doyle says he did not discuss with you whether any gatherings had been complied with covid guidance . is it with covid guidance. is it correct that you received no assurances that the gathering of december 20, 20 or any other gatherings were compliant with covid guidance? yes it's correct to say i did not as far as i remember , i didn't receive remember, i didn't receive direct assurances about december the 18th event, about the guidance . but until martin guidance. but until martin reynolds made his point to me on the morning of the eighth newbury, he had said me anything adverse about our following of the guidance and it was my impression from what we were doing from my lived experience in ten that we were uncertain

about assurances. i think anyone giving me i'll give you the answer. so let me carry on, if i may. mr. mr. johnson can i ask you to turn to pages 70 and 73 of your evidence bundle and you'll see excerpts from mr. doyle's signed witness submission . now, mr. doyle says submission. now, mr. doyle says and quote, the lines that were drafted for the middle , that's drafted for the middle, that's the daily mirror became the bafis the daily mirror became the basis of johnson's lines to take in prime minister's questions . in prime minister's questions. on the 1st of december 2021, end , he also says in relation to a conversation he had with you on the 30th of november, quote , i the 30th of november, quote, i said that we have had an inquiry from the daily mirror. he said , from the daily mirror. he said, what is our line end quote ? page what is our line end quote? page 76 of your evidence bundle shows

the line sent to the middle was, quote covid rules were followed at all times . end quote . so that at all times. end quote. so that line, mr. johnson, the assurance that you on in the house commons on the eve of was initially developed as no more than a media line to hold it b press inquiries wasn't . yes but inquiries wasn't. yes but i don't see any great vice in that i think we have to be absolutely realistic about how government is carried on and if a minister cannot rely . on the advice of cannot rely. on the advice of senior and trusted officials when you have to get a amount of business done , then it would be business done, then it would be impossible for government to carry on. could i ask you to ? carry on. could i ask you to? you've acknowledged that it was developed as a media line . hold developed as a media line. hold that the by the press inquiries

. so i think we need to hear from mr. costa his next question and to thank you to . it is the and to thank you to. it is the case isn't it that jack doyle the person whose purpose supported assurance you sought to rely on was themselves doubtful about compliance of some of these gatherings . the some of these gatherings. the rules and guidance . now, mr. rules and guidance. now, mr. johnson, i don't when, when seem to arise that the whole question a health hill if you turn to page a health hill if you turn to page 79 of the evidence bundle saying he said let's turn to page saying he said let's turn to page 17. i interviewed evidence you will see a selection of what messages sent by doyle. these messages sent by doyle. these messages are discussing the gathering of the 19th of june 2020 that marked your birthday . 2020 that marked your birthday. mr. doyle says that he was, and i quote , struggling to up with a i quote, struggling to up with a way that the gathering was in

the rules and that he was quote not sure it would quote work . to not sure it would quote work. to suggest that was wrong reasonably necessary for work purposes . were you aware , mr. purposes. were you aware, mr. johnson, that your trusted senior adviser, as you put it, mr. doubted whether this gathering was within rules. so no. is the answer to that question. i wasn't aware that he'd sent that whatsapp. he didn't send it to me . this was, didn't send it to me. this was, i think, on january the 25th, which is long after we started the process, which was to become the process, which was to become the sue gray sue gray inquiry was already well underway. a couple other quick points, if i may , on that, that what sap jack may, on that, that what sap jack was not at that event on the 19th of june 20, 20. he knew nothing about had actually taken place. he was then relying on

media descriptions of that event which had subsequently emerged and yes, he an a message to someone else saying he needed to work out a what the justification was. but just to go back to the to the june the 19th event, 2020, which you read over several times at the time. i it was so innocent that it was it it was actually to the to that by what to do. i'm talking about assurance you were given. so let me focus again. so how can it be that mr. doyle this is the point i think is in portant for the inquiry to understand how can it be that mr. doyle, one of your principal advisers you trusted an adviser, the person whose account utilised on in the house of commons was himself clearly doubtful about the complaints of this gathering. but the rules . the complaints of this gathering. but the rules. but you continue to see that you were not working that wasn't at

that event he was struggling to contend with media accounts it long after that event and after . the sue gray inquiry had begun and above all he did not even at that time live alone before i stood up in the house of commons raised with me any concerns that he might have had about that event. he might have had about that event . and even if he knew about event. and even if he knew about i'm almost finished. mr. johnson , why did you tell the house of commons that you had received repeated assurances that no rules had been broken? when you that that was not the case because you knew what the rules you were at gatherings that sort of rules and the breaches of the rules which have been use to you the time that's not the case. so complete the question if you some might see your reliance on the purported assurances you you

received as and forgive me as a deflection mechanism to prevent having to answer questions about you knowledge of these gatherings . would that not be gatherings. would that not be a fair assessment . it would be fair assessment. it would be completely ridiculous upset assessment. i said the in the in the commons on the on the 8th of december that i'd repeatedly assured that there was no party that no rules were broken i was referring to the december the 20th, a sort of 18th event, december the 18th event of the previous year of 2020. i had the that i had received about that event from people that i had the utmost respect for and who were directly relevant to my understanding of what that event consisted of was entirely sensible to talk both to jack and then doyle and then to james

slack to find out to get that on his take about what had happened and. my impression on the 30th of november 2020, from what jack was telling me was that it sounded like it was in accordance with the rules. it sounded like it was necessary for work purposes, but also it sounded, from what he was saying, that it was in accordance with the guidance when that turned out, following the allegro video to be in question , i commissioned simon question, i commissioned simon case, finished the cabinet secretary to an inquiry. so by the time i so and if you look at that statement i say i've been repeatedly assured that there was no and that the rules were followed. but i have asked simon case to investigate. so for the purposes of the house, my statement , it should be seen purposes of the house, my statement, it should be seen in the for the purposes the business vice that statement be

seen in the context of the investigation the inquiry that i have just launched in which in the same pmqs i say going to make sure the findings are placed in the library of the house commons. well, thank you very much indeed for answering my questions . thank you, mr. my questions. thank you, mr. johnson. but i've just put a for a point to you because i, along with colleagues, was in the with my colleagues, was in the house at the time when these assurance given and, we assurance were given and, we took them to be serious assurances. you told the house you've received assurances . you've received assurances. would you not expect us to be a bit dismayed to hear that? it was not from the senior civil servants, it was from political appointees that they themselves had doubts about. it appointees that they themselves had doubts about . it the only had doubts about. it the only caveats it only covered one gathering. it didn't cover the other three and it only covered the rules. it didn't cover the. i think if you'd have said that to us in the house and also you were there at the time. so it's a bit hard to sorry, could you let me finish my point ? you were

let me finish my point? you were there at the time, so it's a bit hard to understand what nature of an assurance is when you have been there and seen it with your own eyes. i mean , if i was going own eyes. i mean, if i was going at 100 miles an hour and i saw speedometer saying 100 miles an arc, it would a bit odd, wouldn't it, if i said somebody assured me no typos because it's what you've with your own eyes. there was a great respect. i actually think that we're a bit we would be entitled to be a bit dismayed about the flimsy nature of this assurance. but we took it at face value that these assurances amounted to something and it looks what you've told this in answer to mr. costa's questions that did not amount to much at. all so first. first of all, i think it's to if you're talking about the december the 18th 2020 event i don't know the some confusion i was not there as one of the three. i was not. but you were there and if you look , the statement that i made look, the statement that i made in the house of commons , because in the house of commons, because this was the relevant issue but

is the allegro video related the december the 18th event. the leader of the opposition's questions. the week relating to the 18th event i answering about the 18th event i answering about the december the 18th event because that was the matter in question i had received as i said , repeated assurances by said, repeated assurances by different people that it a different people that it a different more than one occasion or move one person that the event was in accordance the rules and i had that both from as i say, jackdaw and james slack. now the question that i think the committee is trying to unpick is that a good enough assurance ? is it good enough to assurance? is it good enough to rely on the director of communications? and the former director communications about one event no matter how imminent they may be? and i think the answer is yes. he himself had doubts. i i know. sorry.

answer is yes. he himself had doubts. i i know . sorry. forgive doubts. i i know. sorry. forgive me . he offered that . that's not me. he offered that. that's not correct . the director of correct. the director of communications , jack doyle, did communications, jack doyle, did not at the time that he briefed me about the december the 18th event, that he had doubts about whether the guidance more did have doubts. can i just. sorry, sorry, sorry. wasn't taken. where's your evidence for that evidence within it's in the what's what's continues this question. yeah sorry he tried to cross that he did not express those doubts to me he did express his doubts to meet doubts person whose assurances you were relying on in your capacity only gave assurances in relation to one gathering, not the others . tony gave assurances the others. tony gave assurances of the rules not about covid. so people should like i was being asked about the one gathering the leader of the opposition, you played his clip, which was not that was everybody saw it. he was asking about said was there a party in which loads of

people came to christmas party in downing street last year. that was the question that was then when i that the guidance was followed completely at all times that was then called into question by what allegra stratton to say so . we stratton to say so. we immediately instituted the inquiry by by simon case but that remained the point at the pointed issue was what had happened on december the 18th and really if the committee is going to say that i can't rely on the advice of people like jack dolan and, james slack, who had the advantage of being there, then it's going to be very difficult for government to be carried on. this is not they to mr. johnson. just two points arising from when . you're two arising from when. you're two points arising from the recent questions and answers. first of all, on the question , sarah all, on the question, sarah dines , the statement of evidence

dines, the statement of evidence where she and mentions that either on the 1st of december or the 8th of december , she the 8th of december, she recalls, are you ? we did follow recalls, are you? we did follow the rules at all times, didn't we? and this is in your paragraph 90 of your submission and i recall more than one person in the room said yes, of course. and she says i'm not certain who the people were, but i quote, i'm 90% sure. one of them was simon case, the cabinet secretary, and the difficulty we have with that evidence is the sworn statement from simon case , which i'm afraid is not in the core bundle, but it's on page 33. it's on seven, nine, one, and nine two of the general bundle. and don't waste time fumbling for it, because i will explain . he's asked about both explain. he's asked about both these meetings and he makes it

clear that there was no this was that discussion in the meeting of the following points. and if so, what were the details of that discussion . he i do that discussion. he says, i do not believe any of these topics were discussed at the meeting and he's asked a general question on 793. are you aware of any other meeting where mr. johnson was present? were the points listed in parts e and f were discussed? and that's whether there was any discussion about compliance or the guidance on these and he says no . so we on these and he says no. so we have a difficulty giving any credibility to the evidence we've received from sarah dines albeit i'm sure she that evidence in good faith then . evidence in good faith then. there's the question of your reliance on i mean you've got nothing to say about that. i should give you the opportunity to . well, i mean, i think if to. well, i mean, i think if you're going to question her evidence and then you need to hearit evidence and then you need to hear it from from her, i don't i can't comment. i comment on her.

i can't comment on her. i can't comment on what simon case has said, what i what i, what i, what i, what i do remember are general affirmation from from colleagues that it was the line i was about to use in pmqs that the about the rules being followed was supported . do you followed was supported. do you remember simon case saying frankly , frankly, i but this frankly, frankly, i but this time i'm not questioning that you should ask him. i'm not questioning the veracity in you because were there. i'm not because you were there. i'm not questioning veracity of her statement . she believes it statement. she believes it because she is quite open she says she's only in 90, not she's not sure i sort of i wasn't relying for what i said on on it's terribly that we interrogate sarah dines we will. no i don't think i don't i think it's probably a period of it. i think that the key point is that when i said that i'd had repeated assurances i was not

okayi repeated assurances i was not okay i never claimed that i had one of those people giving me those assurances was simon case okay. but there's another more general point you say, i see no great vice in that that is relying on the assurance of mr. who was an appointed political adviser, not a professional civil servant and not an impartial like sue gray. civil servant and not an impartial like sue gray . well impartial like sue gray. well we're not relying on a sue gray, sir. that's in this inquiry. we're not relying on a sue gray, sir. that's in this inquiry . the sir. that's in this inquiry. the obugafion sir. that's in this inquiry. the obligation and not to mislead parliament is very serious obugafion parliament is very serious obligation on any member of parliament, let alone a minister and it requires the mp or the minister to take due , doesn't minister to take due, doesn't it. yes yes. so if i have to say if i was accused of lawbreaking and i had to give undertakings to the house of commons of all places that i have not broken the law, i would want the advice of a lawyer. i would want the advice of somebody really independent and capable. and you

didn't ask the cabinet, i interrupt you for 10 seconds. i accused of law breaking. i was to say what had gone on at a party. okay and he was asked to show us to the media room on the 18th of december 20, 20. if i was asked to give undertake things that rules and guidance been followed and there was any doubt about it, been followed and there was any doubt about it , there was the doubt about it, there was the most finished scintilla of doubt about it , well, most finished scintilla of doubt about it, well, you'd want a copper plate your assurances by showing that you would take them proper advice perhaps i could put it to mr. johnston . you did put it to mr. johnston. you did not take proper advice comment. well, can't respond first by saying that if you look what i said on december the first you have these truths . mr. carter have these truths. mr. carter said that i expected something like that. question two to come up, but actually, i thought that the leader or the opposition would not bother with that story . okay, please make sure relevant it is relevant. is why

did you not take proper advice? sorry sir. sorry the answer is quite simply that over the and i've tried to describe what i felt about these events as they were happening. nobody raised with me or had any concern before i stood up on my own. on december first about those events . did not ask, asked them events. did not ask, asked them . i did say this complete nonsense. i mean complete nonsense. i mean complete nonsense. i mean complete nonsense. i asked the relevant people and they were senior people. they been working very hard. they gave me a jacket and gave me a clear account of what had happened. secretary how was the cabinet so people do that sort of wrong because i did ask the cabinet secretary. i think i did ask the cabinet secretary to conduct inquiry on the 7th of conduct an inquiry on the 7th of december, not about whether you were undertakings to the house of correct. of of commons. correct. but of course that was what he was. he can move on. can we turn to .

can move on. can we turn to. charles for our next questions and sorry, that's noises coming from the back of the room. is that stopped? okay mr. johnson, housekeeping matters. your opinion . and i'm the opinion. and i'm the parliamentarian so we do have a duty to parliament there's been lot of noises off human about the legitimacy of inquiry which i do think we need to address you sort of to it in your opening statement . and i'll just opening statement. and i'll just give you an example of an organisation that claimed to have your interests at heart is called conservative posts posts . a recent article published its website on the 12th of march. it stated was the headline revealed the privilege committee's great british stitch of boris and the sentences when labour proposed refer boris johnson to the

privileges committee for misleading paalam and many conservative mps didn't it? i just want to part that for a second and take you back about 11 months before that and on 21st of april, when your case was referred to the privileges committee the government minister, the honourable michael ellis qc, the then minister for the cabinet office and paymaster , said the following in winding up the government recognised the serious illness of the issue under consideration let me say it be that the prime minister has always been clear that he is happy to face. whatever inquiries parliament sees fit to hold, he is happy for the house to decide how it wishes to proceed. today and this is important because because because at the end of at the end

of that the was put and there was no vote and that is a matter of fact . indeed wasn't even a of fact. indeed wasn't even a cry of abject from anyone. can you accept was the case? yes, i people to support so it is actually ms. leading of concern that it posed to say many mp didn't oppose it the truth is not a single nor a single conservative mp opposed it. yes that's a completely correct that's a completely correct that's great. you know this is really good. this is good. we're making progress in your opening statement you . to the chair the statement you. to the chair the appointment of the chair you suggest to some extent that you know, you had concerns you were willing to set those concerns aside on the 14th of june 2020

to the right honourable lady for camberwell and peckham , there camberwell and peckham, there was a motion to add to the committee . on the 14th of june committee. on the 14th of june 2020 to and it went through at the end of a debate on the privatisation of channel 4 and there were colleagues of ours in there were colleagues of ours in the chamber and when the motion put and the right honourable ladies name was mentioned, there was not a single crier. the object not one, not even from a little mouse scuttling across the floor, not a single cry, abject on the 14th of june. can you accept as well? i of course , if these concerns were life about the committee and our legitimacy or the trajectory of the chair somebody have shouted object . i've listened . i was object. i've listened. i was kind just come back quickly on this on this point my anxiety about the fairness are contained in my submission. the i've said what i've had to say about the

previous remarks of the chair and i've said what i had say about my belief in the ability of this committee, which is very distinguished committee be impartial, which would make and for her and 14th and i come before you this afternoon in full confidence that you will be impartial and that you will look at the evidence and that you will conclude that i did not wittingly or recklessly mislead parliament. there's not a shred evidence to suggest that i did and i hope that you will exonerate me. and i think you should exonerate me of any contempt, so we contempt, whatever. so we received evidence bundle, which was really well put together. it's been a long afternoon and we've shared the talking. had to do it on your own. so, so thank you for answering our question . you for answering our question. but it is a well put together. i just feel that the things have been conduct it is that your supporters not seeing you and saying your supporters seem to want it both ways, hoping that

the evidence given in 52 pages will exonerate you giving give you a clean bill of health and that's what your desired outcome is . but just in case that's what your desired outcome is. but just in case that doesn't there has been a concerted effort to de—legitimize committee to call us a kangaroo court. de—legitimize committee to call us a kangaroo court . you us a kangaroo court. you characterise this as a kangaroo court. you tell by my presence this afternoon by the seriousness with which i've taken your questions by, my attempts to answer in detail what you the points you've you've put to me, how seriously itake you've put to me, how seriously i take you and your committee the respect i have for this institution of parliament and for or worse, whatever the, the issues of fairness that i may have raised in my submission, this is the body that decides on standards and this is the committee that does it. there's no other way of doing it. that's why i have come here out of respect for the committee, out

of respect for parliament. and because i do not believe that you can conceivably find me guilty of the wittingly misleading on the basis of the evidence that you have assembled. so as as a parliamentarian , do you regret parliamentarian, do you regret that colleagues of ours, who are also parliamentarians have called the privileges committee a kangaroo court ? i don't want a kangaroo court? i don't want anybody to call any colleague , anybody to call any colleague, anybody to call any colleague, any . there should be no there any. there should be no there should be no intimidation or there should be no to bully any colleague in any matter whatever. yes or no you respect, you regret, you regret that. sorry, i'm not because i regret it. i'm not a parliament. my, my questions of fairness are well documented in my submission . i documented in my submission. i think that the don't i deprecate the term that you've just used. i don't want to repeat it but i

think the people will judge for themselves on the basis of the evidence that you have produced the fairness of this committee. ihave the fairness of this committee. i have every confidence that you will that you can be fair nearly. i'm done . can i just nearly. i'm done. can ijust interject to meet your will you accept that this committee can be fair and wrong rather than being unfair and a witch hunt? i certainly think that let me put it this way, mr. costa. i if this committee were to find me in contempt of parliament and having it, which would be having come and done something so insane and to my, my beliefs and my principles is to come here, to come to parliament and wittingly , i think that would be wittingly, i think that would be not only i think it would be wrong, but indeed, but you wouldn't categorise it, as a witch hunt or a kangaroo court. that's the only time i seen it.

i think he really she doesn't think so. i have to wait to see how you proceed with the evidence that you have. but i do i do not wish to . but i will i do not wish to. but i will study. i will study your conclusions from the evidence. i deprecate terms that you've used.i deprecate terms that you've used. i don't want to see good colleagues that they're under pressure either way . believe pressure either way. believe that if you study this evidence impartially . you will come to impartially. you will come to the conclusion that that i have given it nearly done on the 25th of may. you number 10 and here are the speech marks a building thatis are the speech marks a building that is 5300 metres square across five floors, excluding the flats . hundreds of staff are the flats. hundreds of staff are in title to work there . i'm in title to work there. i'm really sorry. i think this is probably the last time you're going to be taken back to these dates on the 1st of december. you will well aware that you you will be well aware that you said to the leader of the opposition all guidance followed completely in number 10 on the

8th of december against the leader of the opposition. you said i have been repeat rudely assured that the rules were not broken and then i rattled through this quickly on the 8th of december to catherine west regarding 13th of november, alleged party. i'm sure whatever happened.the alleged party. i'm sure whatever happened. the guidance was followed and the rules were followed. it all times . but you followed. it all times. but you you received assurances from a number of people, i suppose the question i've got is how on earth would they have known that the rules were being were being followed over time? it is impossible because you didn't have cameras in every room . i have cameras in every room. i mean, they had pairs of eyes. yeah. so you're. right. so i didn't have omniscience about what was going on in the building and i had to rely on what people told me. you're completely right. the job but what they had say was extremely and they were extremely people

at all extremely reputable . and at all extremely reputable. and they gave a description of that event and a to get back to the point that the chair was raising initially it was it was one event that was under consideration, under discussion and i'm i took my cue from them . so i want to say this because think you worked incredibly hard . i accept you worked incredibly hard. i accept your officials worked incredibly hard. i accept that you were hospital based , that you were hospital based, got the vaccines out. you worked hard. i suppose what i'm left and i'm not sure if this helps or hinders your case is when you look at 126 fixed penalty notice notices handed out to number 10, it is clear that simon case martin reynolds , jack doyle, martin reynolds, jack doyle, leek and james all of them really had no idea what was going on. if they had it. highly unlikely. 126 fixed penalty notices would have been handed out . and can i kind of say this

out. and can i kind of say this to charles? you put your finger on crucial point because . if on the crucial point because. if the thinks that i must have known all to get back to conversation we've had it's the doctrine if was obvious to then it would have been obvious . it would have been obvious. those other senior distinguished people. it really wasn't. and i was very shocked to get my own fpn and i'm amazed by the number of other fpn . but clearly what of other fpn. but clearly what happened , you know, if we don't happened, you know, if we don't want to go over it again don't re—investigate but i think what happened was on a few happened was that on a few evenings events did simply go far too long and i can't apologise for that enough about about we are where we are. i don't want to try, try, try your patience because you have been here a long time if deliberate. if not deliberate is it that it

was reckless or slightly reckless? not to have caveats . reckless? not to have caveats. your statements to the house with you know to the to the best to the best of my knowledge so i've do hope it was it was the certainty of the statement so yeah.is certainty of the statement so yeah. is it possible to accept that actually there was a degree of recklessness. no mean no what nobody wants to be in a position where they're misleading, that nobody to say something to the house of commons that is going to be turned not to be true, to be turned out not to be true, especially originally especially as originally falsifiable . the guidance was falsifiable. the guidance was followed completely. it was was my belief that that was case. i apologise and i continue to apologise and i continue to apologise for inadvertently misleading us and i had the committee understands that. but it was it was it was not deliberate it was based on my genuine understanding and belief about what were doing, what we had been doing for a long time.

and i think that you will your point just now was was was was one of the most important ones in this whole business. it it wasn't obvious to me that there were problems with some events. and it wasn't obvious to the other senior people that you've described described . thank you . described described. thank you. i just to finally explore the question of the correcting the record issue, because there's been a lot of discussion about you having corrected the record and i just want to explore one aspect of that and put this to you what you said . on the 25th you what you said. on the 25th of may 2002, you said i'm happy to sit on the record. now that when i came to this house and in all sincerity that the rules and had followed at all times , had been followed at all times, it was what believed to be it was what i believed to be true . and you've that to us true. and you've said that to us this afternoon, you go on to say it was certainly the case that

when i was present at gatherings to wish staff farewell . so what to wish staff farewell. so what you said to the house by way of a purported was that it was certainly the case when you were present gatherings to wish staff that the guidance had been followed at times do you want to reassert or do you want to correct the record acknowledge here that actually the guidance not followed at all times just so we're clear because you correct the record to this so what i want say is first of all that the rules were followed and that's for my period the events and that's clear the episode and it was my was my belief at the time that i made those statements that the guidance was and actually it remains my

belief for the time the time i was that the question but when i was that the question but when i was when i was looking at events i thought they were within the guidance given what i knew about what we were trying to do, given what we were trying to do, given what i knew about the limitations we faced , limitations we faced, maintaining perfect social distance . and so your belief is distance. and so your belief is now so what i don't wish to dissent from what i said on may the 25th, well, may the 25th was five months after this had first been raised , and you'd had time been raised, and you'd had time to consider all the issues that were being raised . and even were being raised. and even further, time has elapsed . but further, time has elapsed. but till here we are now and there's a lot of evidence that's been produced and you've the opportunity to consider do you still want to assert but it was certainly case when you were present at gatherings to wish farewell that the guidance had been followed at all times. do want to say i do as i do and i

will do what i what i want to make i do and because i see no reason withdraw what i said on may the 25th. because at that stage i made the 25th, i was possession of and i think the committee in the possibly the world was it was in possession of all . the material that we've of all. the material that we've looked at today . my view remains looked at today. my view remains the allowed for social not to be carried out with rigid drill sergeant precision particularly in difficult circumstances such as the ones in which we were operating provided. you had mitigations and so i think that was my that was my you are means you're sticking with that point and you don't wish to. i do. thank you for the record. thank you. that concludes our

questions are there any final points that you haven't already mentioned? not once that you have mentioned, but once which you would like to mention, which haven't up in our questions we'd to give you the opportunity to use those. thank thank you very much. i much enjoyed our discussion . well i, i think it's discussion. well i, i think it's been a useful genuinely think it's been a useful discussion and i hope it's clear to the committee what was in my and my mind on december the first and december the eighth of 2021 and may the 25th and numerous other occasions. okay thank you. mr. johnson's committee will consider the evidence you've given us alongside the other evidence we've reviewed in the course inquiries, we may course of our inquiries, we may take further written and oral evidence the end our inquiry. evidence the end of our inquiry. and before we our final and before we reach our final conclusions. if deem that necessary. and we've already the possibility . but for now possibility of that. but for now that concludes session today. order! order thank you . okay

order! order thank you. okay right. well, that was a rather extend it privileges committee offering that just had that. i'm going to do my best now to what you just heard. for the best part, the last 3 hours and then going to bring our political reporter, oliver utley in and well, political panel. so well, our political panel. so they covered various different highlights lowlights. highlights or indeed lowlights. the johnson's birthday , the boris johnson's birthday, they garden party. they they had the garden party. they had an event on the 14th of january, which was a leaving do they had the christmas they also had the christmas party they also had a leaving due as those were due before that as so those were the were outlined. so the ones that were outlined. so all of those boris johnson was absolutely that a they absolutely adamant that a they were allowed to take place . they were allowed to take place. they were allowed to take place. they were events. he also said were work events. he also said that had no knowledge or any that he had no knowledge or any idea whatsoever at time. nothing was obvious to him at all to any of those occasions that anything was rules or guidance. was breaking rules or guidance. and the really key sticking point that he's going to have here, which is something that was extrapolated towards the end of committee of that rather long committee hearing, he'd hearing, is whether or not he'd taken appropriate taken the appropriate measures

to whether, frankly, to find out whether, frankly, any guidance was broken and whether he had recklessly misled the house. so once he'd gone the house of commons and said, i have assurances that this have had assurances that this was all above board and fine, whether he then did enough after that and asked the relevant people to make sure to copper bottom what he'd said to make sure he is relying on sure was okay. he is relying on the fact that his top advisers of whom is indeed a lawyer , gave of whom is indeed a lawyer, gave him the assurances that he needed is punching back needed and he is punching back to panel in robust to the panel in very robust terms, saying, else do terms, saying, well, who else do you me to what else you want me to go to? what else is indeed as well, is there? and indeed as well, charles , one the mp, charles walker, one of the mp, the mp questioned the final mp that questioned him, that was saying, well, how could known could you possibly have known he didn't every room didn't have cctv in every room to the obvious answer well, to the obvious answer is well, presumably would have had to have gone to those parties himself checked. that's himself and checked. so that's kind of the level we're at. olivia is with me now, our olivia utley is with me now, our political what political reporter. olivia, what are takeaways for you are the main takeaways for you from events we're from the key events we're analysed that. analysed in that session that. well, thought well, yes. so i thought there were there are a number of areas. boris johnson was actually quite ground actually quite safe ground and when fact when he talked about the fact that obvious him

that it wasn't obvious to him that it wasn't obvious to him that the rules were being broken that it wasn't obvious to him th.me1e rules were being broken that it wasn't obvious to him th.me that les were being broken that it wasn't obvious to him th.me that didnere being broken that it wasn't obvious to him th.me that didnere twell broken to me that did quite well because the point about because he made the point about the report made the times report and he made the point having official point about having the official photographer that no one did seem pick on that times seem to pick up on that times report at the time. that seems fair. the fact well that fair. the fact as well that there so many other other there were so many other other civil we civil servants that i thought we did job in lumping did quite a good job in lumping in with those civil servants and saying that, you know, if he's being in front the being holed up in front of the committee, essentially, why they be that the be and the idea that the committee prejudiced i mean those harman from those from harriet harman from last year saying that she is she tweeted saying that boris johnson knowingly lied. well that particularly that doesn't sit particularly well on other hand , there well on the other hand, there are a number of issues where i thought that boris johnson really did struggle. and the first of those which you've alluded to, that is this idea that he recklessly misled parliament, not knowingly , parliament, not knowingly, recklessly in that he didn't take the advice of a lawyer when he stood up and said the that the that he hadn't broken the rules , took the advice of his rules, took the advice of his political advisers as jack doyle

and james slack and then once he he'd made statement he had a week or so and then he stood up and made another statement and he didn't set the record straight. and in that time , was straight. and in that time, was it not should he not have belt and braces approach should he not have spoken to a parliamentary do really made sure copper plated what he was saying in not doing that doesn't that amount recklessly misleading parliament. yeah and it is worthwhile saying as well that they were around different events, said boris was having to shift completely to different almost just on that on a sixpence his defence in one of these ones is that martin reynolds was his one of his chiefs of staff that it was his private secretary is a lawyer when they were saying to him he didn't consult any of the government lawyers consult any of the top top top brass . one of of the top top top brass. one of his things there is well, did his things there is well, i did ask else do you want his things there is well, i did ask to else do you want his things there is well, i did ask to ask? else do you want his things there is well, i did ask to ask? and else do you want his things there is well, i did ask to ask? and those do you want his things there is well, i did ask to ask? and those people want his things there is well, i did ask to ask? and those people who me to ask? and those people who i were actually at those i asked were actually at those events, can't rely on that

events, if i can't rely on that testimony, he can rely on, testimony, whose he can rely on, i'm going to bring in my panel now. thank you very much. you've been given to call the long now. thank you very much. you've been �*we've to call the long now. thank you very much. you've been �*we've beento call the long now. thank you very much. you've been �*we've been sittingthe long now. thank you very much. you've been �*we've been sitting to long now. thank you very much. you've been �*we've been sitting to the g stand we've been sitting to the long really, i'm going long set, really, and i'm going to a couple these to say a couple of these events , bofis to say a couple of these events , borisjohnson's , terms of boris johnson's birthday carry birthday policy. i carry apparently pop to head around the door. boris johnson's with an slash an interior designer slash contract was asked, was that necessary at this gathering? he said, well , they live there. and said, well, they live there. and this is one of the things that it centres around to around all of these gatherings, leaving birthday christmas birthday parties, christmas party, can call it i'll party, if we can call it i'll just call it policy, whatever a garden party event . okay. garden party event. okay. whether these were whether any of these were necessary in the workplace at the time that the guidance . the time that the guidance. dennis macshane i'll go to you first very simple because i was in number 10 a fair bit and look the so—called committee refer to a contract that is very famous lulu lytle the most famous designer to the rich, and they aristocracy in that car. but was well known. i just to as a work person who was there that's

typical of evasiveness but the number 10 flat where they all live is spacious. it's very comfortable. it's kitchens, bathrooms, living rooms a lot. the lulu and wants to redecorate it's upstairs far away from the offices of number 10. so i thought there he was once again a true spending bit to the inquiry. the mpesa would have known that maybe they republic would write a piece. i'm going to ask you now. we sat through in george might be a better interface. we jawed around three and a half hours of a committee heanng and a half hours of a committee hearing there and from where i'm sitting the might a sitting the phone might have a privilege committee with countless sources interviewed any document that they wished at their disposal so pooling the mental capacities of six esteemed members , the house of esteemed members, the house of parliament that did not a clear gotcha moments. boris johnson i think you're right. the patriot. there was no kind of this the moment. i think that's why this is kind of billed as like a box office. boris deal. everybody's

back. everybody watching, back. what? everybody watching, what's and don't what's going on. and i don't think a single moment in think there a single moment in the where the privilege committee anti committee or anybody who is anti bofis committee or anybody who is anti boris really say that's why boris can really say that's why we him. i think the a lot of we got him. i think the a lot of the questioning seemed to be a little meandering. seemed little meandering. it seemed a little meandering. it seemed a little the place. a little all over the place. a couple of the actual questioners little all over the place. a cougto of the actual questioners little all over the place. a cougto of correctedl questioners little all over the place. a cougto of corrected onrestioners little all over the place. a cougto of corrected on whatners little all over the place. a cougto of corrected on what the had to be corrected on what the guidance the but what guidance was at the but what they were talking about and, some the questions even some of the questions even looked be in looked surprised to even be in the admit, the room. yeah, i have to admit, i don't it was i don't think it was parliament's greatest if parliament's greatest moment. if being don't think what being honest, i don't think what we witnessed necessarily we witnessed that necessarily turn politics. turn people onto politics. olivia a fascinating turn people onto politics. oliviof a fascinating turn people onto politics. oliviof defence,| fascinating turn people onto politics. oliviof defence, boris nating turn people onto politics. oliviof defence, boris johnson line of defence, boris johnson here the here when it comes to the guidance i think if guidance actually i think if ordinary of the public ordinary members of the public could they could realise that they have been get away this been able to get away with this at possibly it would at the time, possibly it would have to a more people have led to a lot more people sticking which sticking to this guidance, which was the basically you stick was the basically you can stick to possible to. so to wherever it's possible to. so and boris johnson is quite fast and boris johnson is quite fast and loose with how impulsive it was to stick to our guidance is downing . yeah, i think downing. yeah, i think absolutely. and i think the other line defence which other line of defence which which little bit thin was which felt a little bit thin was that the drinks party or drinks

gathering that he held when lee left was essential because he needed to morale up in downing . needed to morale up in downing. well, there were plenty of workplaces which were operating in person because they had to supermarkets, hospitals etc. would they be allowed to have had a gathering ? when boris had a gathering? when boris johnson was asked that would if he'd been that in parliament, what would he have said ? he what would he have said? he didn't really have a clear answer. and i think this is very important because if we think a little bit beyond this committee . whatever the committee finds . . whatever the committee finds. what does boris johnson want next? and if what he wants is a return parliament, then even if this committee him innocent of all charges and it might be a bit of a pyrrhic victory for him because all he said that all of this about the guidance, it wasn't that there was a bit of room for manoeuvre. well, no one thought that at home, but definitely no one at home thought that they would have been to drinks party if been to have a drinks party if it for morale . so

it necessary for morale. so i think yes , the most think that, yes, the most technical sense that could possibly exonerate him. but how will it play with the public? yeah, obviously . and there was yeah, obviously. and there was one question asked to one question that was asked to him, come you him, denis, i'll come you on this. this is relation to this. and this is in relation to the christmas party. okay? i'm quoting on radio the quoting that people on radio the 18th december, the cheese 18th of december, the cheese and wine and of this stuff. wine and all of this stuff. okay. so well, they in on okay. so well, they zoomed in on him for this. they there is him for this. they said there is a gap him for this. they said there is a gap in. your personal diary of around 25 minutes on the evening when that party was taking place , can you guarantee to that you weren't at this event and he by going, no, i wasn't at this event. i didn't know about it. and i was working on two things, how we handled the new covid variant and what i deal brexit would mean . and those are two would mean. and those are two quite big things . could you quite big things. could you forgive him for maybe not being able to remember exactly where he wasn't? exactly what he was doing at all times? look really, because prime minister is because the prime minister is always doing and important always doing big and important things it's horrible things. it's a horrible job every minute is filled with

really decisions . that really tough decisions. that didn't cut it with me . and if didn't cut it with me. and if i may just very quickly say thank you for today was the 365 tory mp elected for boris johnson in december 2019? only 21 of them turned up to vote with today against the sunak deal with ireland mean this was the tory party in parliament say boris please go away. it's well i mean it is the first he has been dragged to this so i mean it's not as if yeah but these are i'll ask you there was a really bizarre line of questioning at the end i thought from charles walker who could have asked walker that who could have asked him anything quite could have asked about a thing and decided to ask him whether or not he felt as though that the committee itself was. and it is clearly light the fact that clearly in light the fact that harriet harman has previously tweeted about that in tweeted about the fact that in her view, the tweet, could be construed to be believe that she's already formed her opinion that a rampant that boris johnson is a rampant liar maybe

liar. so that would maybe insinuate why. what's he doing chairing the right. so he was basically questioning his legitimate record legitimate he was also on record saying are two points of evidence here and people i would like the record like to have gone on the record which telling me i which you were telling me i cannot learnt and that cannot we learnt today and that i frustrating for boris i think is frustrating for boris johnson. you think that this johnson. do you think that this was any kind of kangaroo ? i it's was any kind of kangaroo? i it's a difficult question to answer because . on one hand i because. on one hand i completely understand people can construed harriet harman's tweets. i mean, me personally idea that she was allowed to even chair that committee just on a kind of pr basis i thought was absolute nonsense. i thought when stepped aside when chris bryant stepped aside and oh, i you know, i've and said, oh, i you know, i've already tweeted i thought, already tweeted out, i thought, oh, we parliament's oh, here we go. parliament's actually taking this really seriously . know, said seriously. you know, they said we actually some trust we could actually see some trust you be brought back to parliament. thought parliament. but i thought harriet the harriet harman chaired, the committee rather well, i thought she it as as she herself out of it as much as she herself out of it as much as she surprise she could, which did surprise me. didn't think we see me. i didn't think. we would see the show, but the harriet harman show, but i do a lot of people can do get why a lot of people can construe what we've just watched as a kangaroo court. i think there is some legitimate

argument to it, and i think the committee some very committee has to have some very strong answers . what it was strong answers. what it was about, as just mentioned about, as you've just mentioned about, as you've just mentioned about give evidence, about who can give evidence, who can they've can give. and i think they've kind fluffed that a little bit. one thing i thought was interesting i'm to interesting and i'm going to play interesting and i'm going to play a second and then play a clip in a second and then i'll to you. olivia was as i'll come to you. olivia was as time progressed and boris johnson pushed and johnson was being pushed and pulled dates were pulled around and the dates were shifting centre and shifting right and centre and things right, you things weren't right, can you refer on refer to this technicality on the 18th december. then we're off november and then we're off into november and then we're off into november and then we're off garden party and it off into a garden party and it must have been obviously quite tncky must have been obviously quite tricky him, mean, tricky for him, but i mean, that's a team of that's why he has a team of incredibly well—paid, which, by the way, supposedly the government and the way, supposedly the gove means and the way, supposedly the govemeans i and the way, supposedly the govemeans i we're and the way, supposedly the govemeans i we're paying and the way, supposedly the govemeans i we're paying fori that means i we're paying for it. but they would go and he was waiting for him to get a bit rattled, maybe and maybe rattled, maybe lose it and maybe we gotcha moment that we get that gotcha moment that potentially people were expecting know what you expecting. i don't know what you think like james, but i don't think like james, but i don't think boris ever really lost it but is clip things but there is a clip of things getting bit tetchy , which i getting a bit tetchy, which i believe for you believe that we can play for you right nearly i'm done. right now. i'm nearly i'm done. can just interject the meat here. will you accept that this

committee be fair and wrong rather than being unfair and a witch hunt ? i i certainly rather than being unfair and a witch hunt? i i certainly think that let me put it this way, mr. costa i think if this committee were to find me in contempt of parliament having, which would be having come and done something so utterly and contrary to my, my beliefs and my principles is to come here, to come to parliament and wittingly lie. i think would be not only unfair, i think it would be wrong. yeah, i think you actually held it together relatively well. olivia, your views on that, do think? views on that, do you think? yeah think he did hold it yeah i think he did hold it together pretty i think together pretty that i think there moment where he got there was a moment where he got angry was when line of angry and that was when line of questioning to why didn't questioning turned to why didn't he copperplate his evidence ? he copperplate his evidence? he'd given evidence. why he'd given the evidence. why didn't he set the record straight? that is me very straight? and that is me very much where he was on wobbly ground. fact he stood up ground. not the fact he stood up and the given to him by and relayed the given to him by his advisers that he could he could say was fair enough, but

that didn't correct the that he didn't correct the record , check with record later, check it with a government lawyer. that's when he to get rattled. he started to get rattled. yeah. and it really important to just remind ourselves in all of the guff heard last three guff that we've heard last three and a half hours, really, in all of that that of the bluster, that that committee, desperately committee, that was desperately trying whether trying to zone in and whether or not johnson knowingly not boris johnson had knowingly misled recklessly misled the misled or recklessly misled the house of commons in, his statements. and in order to do that, they to basically into that, they to basically get into bofis that, they to basically get into boris head and prove boris johnson's head and prove that that when he stood up in that he that when he stood up in parliament said things that he was misleading the house and whether or not they've managed to do that is was up for discussion suppose do you think they managed to do that then? do you think they managed to nail it johnson we can it down? boris johnson we can now actually prove you will now actually prove that you will you were lying. think in a you were lying. i think in a scottish jury case, the verdict would not be not proven . there would not be not proven. there is enough evidence previous evidence i thought was very flustered. you said was blustery. boris does blustery a great job. he comes up with a

magical formula of words wordsmith. i thought today was told obviously by the very expensively hired lord paddick to concede behind him just to cancel that he got more and more flustered by the junket. the very tory sir bernard to all of us. jenkin yeah . a brexiteer. us. jenkin yeah. a brexiteer. and back in the 1990s with boris's walk, you're the other side of the street, a passionate anti european and he just very calmly completely took him apart very early on in the hearing that's conservative. you can't pin this labour hurry and just very very quickly very quickly philip do you that boris johnson with the documents you will then off the back of what boris johnson has said reason to be able to go away and say boris you knowingly recklessly you knowingly and recklessly misled . i don't you knowingly and recklessly misled. i don't think you knowingly and recklessly misled . i don't think they can i misled. i don't think they can i don't think really don't think they've really unearthed significant unearthed any significant whether testimony or whether it be testimony or electronic evidence, they can really that boris johnson knowingly , deliberately misled knowingly, deliberately misled parliament. i think it's there .

parliament. i think it's there. all right. look, everyone who is going to stay with me, we got olivia, peter and denis who are going to with until the end going to with me until the end of i'm going wait you of the hour. i'm going wait you over to your headlines in a second. come back, we'll second. when we come back, we'll be playing some clips of best bits boris johnson at bits of that. boris johnson at the privileges the hands of the privileges committee, pulling out with your headunes. committee, pulling out with your headlines . patrick, thanks very headlines. patrick, thanks very much, indeed. well, your stories this hour on gb news. as you've been hearing, boris johnson has told the privileges committee hand on heart. he did not lie to mps partygate the former prime minister says, although he takes full response ability for the gatherings in downing during lockdown, his statements in the comments were made in good faith . he went on to criticise the committee of bias in his investigation and the chair harriet harman being prejudicial, suggesting proceedings were extremely peculiar. really must insist on

this point . people who say that this point. people who say that we were partying in lockdown simply do not know they are talking about people who say that that event was a social gathering are quite wrong. my put my purpose there was to thank to motivate them in what had been a very difficult time and what was also a very difficult day in which the cabinet secretary had just resigned . well, the former prime resigned. well, the former prime minister says although he takes full for the gatherings in downing during lockdown, his statements in comments were made in good faith . now moving to the in good faith. now moving to the next piece of news, the prime minister has released his long awaited personal tax returns , awaited personal tax returns, showing he paid £432,000 in tax. in the 2020 122 financial year rishi sunak published his personal tax documents the last four years. it follows the commitment he first made during

his leadership campaign last summer and the prince wales has made a surprise visit to poland .thank made a surprise visit to poland . thank uk troops involved in ukraine war. prince william . the ukraine war. prince william. the cooperation of british and poush cooperation of british and polish troops in working to support the people of ukraine and their freedom. he met the poush and their freedom. he met the polish defence minister as well as soldiers to personally thank for working together . 25 people for working together. 25 people have been injured after a ship toppled over in a dry dock in edinburgh . a major incident was edinburgh. a major incident was declared this morning when the vessel, which belongs the microsoft co—founder paul allen, became dislodged keeled over at a 45 degree angle. 15 of those injured have been taken to hospital for further treatment. those are your latest news headunes. those are your latest news headlines. i'm those are your latest news headlines . i'm back at six. see headlines. i'm back at six. see them .

okay welcome back, everybody. now we will have loads on boris johnson very very shortly, but right now, a story that broke conveniently around an hour ago when boris was getting grilled andifs when boris was getting grilled and it's rishi sunak's uk tax returns and they've been published on government website showing that he paid than £432,000 in tax in the 2020 122 financial year. joining me now is our business and economics editor liam halligan with on the money . riley what's the damage ? money. riley what's the damage? there'll be eyebrows raised . the there'll be eyebrows raised. the timing of this, of course. patrick a good day to bury bad , patrick a good day to bury bad, some may say with all eyes obviously on boris johnson . so obviously on boris johnson. so this isn't a tax return . this is this isn't a tax return. this is a letter from his accountant , a letter from his accountant, one of his accountants. the outline means what's in his tax returns over last three years? so this isn't a tax in the uk and of course he's not publishing his us tax return. what the of the tax returns

shows is that over the last tax yean shows is that over the last tax year, 21, 22. rishi sunak . about year, 21, 22. rishi sunak. about £150,000 from his day job being a prime minister and being the mp for richmond up. but that was part of around £19 million that he earns and point 6 million of that was income was in what we call unearned . so dividends and call unearned. so dividends and returns on invest meant in total over last three years. he sunak's about £5 million. to the vast, vast majority of the population . these will seem sums population. these will seem sums are completely otherworldly particularly the fact that so much his income was was unearned . so this is a major problem potentially for him terms of image management. yeah no, i absolutely as sure you've rightly identified the vast majority of people, rishi sunak's is deemed to be

phenomenally wealthy . there were phenomenally wealthy. there were these question marks about whether not he was too rich whether or not he was too rich to because does to rule one that because does not so rampantly out of not make him so rampantly out of touch with people. but the fact is held hands he is it held his hands up. he said, financially fortunate said, i'm financially fortunate he's man. yeah he's a successful man. yeah i mean, from what i know about, people in the uk, the vast of people in the uk, the vast of people in the uk, the vast of people in the uk, they don't mind where you went to school. they don't mind how much money you've made . they think, oh, if you've made. they think, oh, if my could make that much money. right. good them. what do right. good them. what they do care is propriety . care about is propriety. people's affairs being in order and people being open and honest. i think most of that will apply in this case. but i do have to say the timing of this looks a little bit fishy and also the fact that he's only publishing a tax return from one of the jurisdictions , from one of the jurisdictions, from one of the jurisdictions, from one of what we know of the two jurisdiction runs, where he actually submit a tax return . actually submit a tax return. why does that do you think that he is just very concerned about the fact that his true true

extent of his personal wealth , extent of his personal wealth, his wife's personal wealth as well , would his wife's personal wealth as well, would be his wife's personal wealth as well , would be off his wife's personal wealth as well, would be off putting to voters or does it imply that there is something that he doesn't want getting out there ? doesn't want getting out there? i certainly the i think it's certainly the former. that's why he persuaded his wife to change what we call her non—dom status here in the uk to . pay more tax in the uk. uk to. pay more tax in the uk. she wasn't breaking any rules. she wasn't breaking any rules. she wasn't breaking any rules. she wasn't doing anything illegal or it was a question of how looked outside how it looked to the outside world you this a very world and you know, this a very talented extremely young man who is self—made. he hasn't is largely self—made. he hasn't inherited the vast majority of his wealth. he's made it off the back of his investment banking background. and one would suspect his business acumen is just the kind of quirk of history. and maybe his bad luck to some degree sounds strange talking his bad luck when you talk, these sums that he talk, looking these sums that he he is coming to the forefront of our public life at a time so many people are cash particularly a lot of brits three or four years ago before

lockdown or before the war in ukraine before the really lacklustre we've had in recent years would have considered themselves quite comfortable they used to be able to afford to buy a decent house and their kids used to be able to afford buy a decent house at a time also when so many younger people have little capital so many have so little capital so many so chance accessing , so little chance of accessing, you know, housing market, you know, the housing market, building some wealth themselves when they're paying rent to the man , then you're going to have a man, then you're going to have a lot of people looking these lot of people looking at these numbers could guy numbers and thinking, could guy ever understand my life? ever really understand my life? yeah, county, lake county , yeah, county, lake county, relate. yeah, exactly. well, liam, look, thank you very for that. we're going that. i think we're going to come back to that in a but i just wanted to with you over to another you might another story which you might have were talking have missed. we were talking about and about boris johnson and boris johnson a that's all johnson doing a lot. that's all came wasn't for came south, wasn't he, for about three half hours so. three and a half hours or so. what he was that committee, olivia, at least still with now what he was that committee, 0 political.east still with now what he was that committee, 0 political reporterl with now what he was that committee, 0 political reporter and] now what he was that committee, 0 political reporter and. there a political reporter and. there was big vote relates to was a big vote that relates to brexit. the words brexit. it relates to the words the we would the framework we would potentially a bigger potentially a much bigger conservative revolt and conservative revolt on this and wasn't there

wasn't one was that no there were 29 and or 28 mps who voted against the government. eight of those were upnp . so we knew in those were upnp. so we knew in advance we're going to vote against the government the rest were brexiteers in the conservative . but what the conservative. but what the government was hoping to avoid was 34 rebels, which would have meant that they were relying on labour to get the vote through . labour to get the vote through. instead, were only 20 and instead, there were only 20 and i've just been looking at a breakdown of. those rebels who voted against government, none of sort up and coming names of them sort up and coming names . none of them are hoping to make their political grit. most . none of them are hoping to m'them eir political grit. most . none of them are hoping to m'them are )olitical grit. most . none of them are hoping to m'them are fullical grit. most . none of them are hoping to m'them are full up, grit. most . none of them are hoping to m'them are full up, big. most . none of them are hoping to m'them are full up, big beasts of them are full up, big beasts in the party who, who are now sort of very close to retirement and interestingly suggesting earlier that it might be quite tribal and. and indeed, there were quite few names on that list who are very close allies of only the boris johnson or of liz truss. so jacob was there. andrea jenkins was there two very close personal allies of . very close personal allies of. boris, you've got simon clarke. thatis boris, you've got simon clarke. that is a close of trust. so it

does seem like a small rump of brexit is who have their tribal reasons for voting against the government. that said , there government. that said, there were quite a lot of conservative abstention and so there were 48 abstentions. so it seems as though there were quite a lot of people who had some issues with the windsor framework , but there the windsor framework, but there were enough tories who felt that they want to get the party together. they didn't want to they didn't want to give rishi sunak a in the side and they were prepared simply to abstain . it's also a good reflection of rishi sunak's competency in government because this was a slick whipping operation . no one slick whipping operation. no one was pushed through . one lobby, was pushed through. one lobby, as we've heard happening, previous whipping operations under liz truss. so all in it's been a pretty good day for the right. all right. well, there you go. okay just in terms of what was taking earlier on in the i believe we have a few clips when i said boris johnson, of course was facing scrutiny

the privileges in relation to whether or not he lied to parliament misled parliament recklessly misled parliament. the alleged lockdown gathering parties and events we're going to delve into some specifics of now highlights, as it were and there was one moment of boris versus sir bernard jenkin where things did get a little bit heated for boris. just take a look at that. listen to this. if i was asked to undertakings that rules guidance had been followed and there was any doubt about it it was the most finished scintilla of doubt it. well you'd want a copper plate your assurances by showing that you've taken proper advice so i could put it to mr. johnson . you could put it to mr. johnson. you did not take proper advice and i can't respond first by saying that if you look at i said on december the first, you have these truths, mr. carter said that i had expected something like question to come up . but like question to come up. but actually i thought that the

leader of the opposition would not bother with that story again please make sure relevant it is relevant is why did you not take proper advice ? sorry sir. sorry. proper advice? sorry sir. sorry. the answer quite simply that over the and i've tried to describe what i felt about these events as they were happening. nobody with me it had any concern before i stood up on their own on december first about those events you did not? i asked . i did say this complete i asked. i did say this complete nonsense. i mean, complete . i nonsense. i mean, complete. i asked the relevant people . they asked the relevant people. they were senior people. they'd been working very hard. they gave a all gave me a clear account of what had happened. how were the companies that reported that sort of thing? you're wrong . i sort of thing? you're wrong. i did ask the cabinet secretary and i think i did ask the cabinet secretary to conduct an inquiry on the 7th of december.

okay all right. so that was fascinating that little bit because it centred around the idea that boris johnson had there were willing to accept maybe in maybe when he stood in parliament and said what he said about rule and god is about no rule and no god is breaking at that time, the time he actually said it that that's he actually said it that that's he believed so he wasn't necessarily lying then. okay which i think a lot people thought only heard thought was they only heard bofis thought was they only heard boris johnson really had to overcome. but they overcome. but then they introduced, this introduced, didn't they, this idea of whether he idea of whether or not he recklessly misled . did then recklessly misled. did he then do enough check that what it said at the time was true did he ask enough people. did he ask the right people and then did he correct the record? if he was found realised that that found or realised that that was incorrect. olivia , incorrect. okay. and olivia, that's kind where we are now that's kind of where we are now and that. and that is an element that. bofis and that is an element that. boris johnson taking massive boris johnson is taking massive umbrage with, is. well, umbrage with, which is. well, i want . was it my want a minute. was it really my responsibility gone and responsibility to have gone and bottomed this to have gone and gone spoke with as many people as possibly the event to as i possibly after the event to really double, triple, quadruple check every single thing that i said that was definitely

accurate and he's saying that he did ask people and that was enough. did ask people and that was enough . well, think this gets enough. well, i think this gets to very nub of the issue . to the very nub of the issue. bofis to the very nub of the issue. boris johnson felt that this should only be looking into he knowingly misled parliament, i.e, that he lied . he i.e, that he lied. he deliberately told falsehoods . he deliberately told falsehoods. he stood up in the house of commons. that is what president of these committees would suggest. that's what's been done before ascertain whether before. ascertain whether employees lied. well, this employees have lied. well, this committee has chosen to put in a new which is recklessly and it looked to me from that committee that there wasn't this sort of smoking gun evidence that boris johnson had lied , but there was johnson had lied, but there was a very decent argument, really, that he had failed to do as much as he could , done to set the as he could, done to set the record straight . he had record straight. he had accidentally told porky story, but this really does. i'm sorry, but this really does. i'm sorry, but he does play into boris johnson's hands because the narrative of that boris johnson is putting out there essentially is putting out there essentially is that this is a bit of a witch hunt and they've added they couldn't find anything on mygov.

they couldn't find anything. okay, what they're trying to okay, so what they're trying to do caveat okay, so what they're trying to do might caveat okay, so what they're trying to do might get caveat okay, so what they're trying to do might get me caveat okay, so what they're trying to do might get me on caveat okay, so what they're trying to do might get me on thatveat and might get me on that essentially is rightly or essentially this is rightly or wrongly appears what might be happening because they can go up . we can't prove that boris johnson knowingly, they don't appear a dossier of appear to have a dossier of whatsapp go going whatsapp messages that go going to walk into parliament in to go walk into parliament in line he had line today the fact that he had a of people messaging a load of people messaging saying you go outside saying boris if you go outside your downing your front door in downing street just walk street now and just just walk the will see the steps, you will see a massive taking place in your front room there. really any of that? so they are that? was that so they are trying him whether or trying to get him and whether or not back to some of not he then went back to some of these checked these people and double checked as basically whether they had as to basically whether they had seriously broken the guidance and is an interesting caveat. and that is something he is saying isn't say well you shouldn't really be doing this because it does make it look like you couldn't get me the first time. so you're just doing everything you to up? everything you can to stitch up? well, think was. yes, well, yeah, i think it was. yes, that boris johnson will that is what boris johnson will argue what boris argue. suppose what boris johnson is defence. the crux of his defence is that he as prime minister, had a lot on his plate

and was having to rely on his advisers to into the nitty gritty of what exactly the rules were, whether the people this were, whether the people in this building his his building. yes, it's his it's his flat it's workplace. but flat and it's workplace. but it's also a central function of government. and he the minister, actually isn't responsible for the running of number 10. he's responsible for the running of the country. people the country. there are people responsible the country. there are people responsii10. and he listening number 10. and he was listening to their so his defence to their advice. so his defence basically lee although you know that's paraphrasing rests on but then there's that his his as prime minister is to tell the truth to the house of commons and therefore isn't it his duty to make sure that he was telling the truth and when it emerged that when it became clear to him that when it became clear to him that he hadn't told the truth wasn't he duty to set the record straight? so i think the committee will argue that that is why they put the word recklessly in there. absolutely. it is . it's worth reminding it is. it's worth reminding ourselves what boris johnson had to say a little bit earlier on towards the start of this whole

committee hearing that we spent the last three, nearly 4 hours actually looking at. he says that on heart he didn't lie to house. i'm to here say to you hand on heart that i did not lie to the house when those statements were made. they were made in good faith and on the bafis made in good faith and on the basis of what i honestly knew and believed at the time when this inquiry was set, i was completely confident you would find nothing to show . completely confident you would find nothing to show. i completely confident you would find nothing to show . i knew or find nothing to show. i knew or believed anything as indeed you have not. believed anything as indeed you have not i believed anything as indeed you have not. i confident not because there's been some kind of cover up. i was because i knew that is what i believed and thatis knew that is what i believed and that is why said it right. okay. so he hand on heart. he didn't mislead or lied to the house. it is worth that. for what it's worth, boris johnson did swear on a bible earlier, before he actually released a diatribe on all of that and he wanted to

double down on it and that anyone who thinks that he was partying in downing street dunng partying in downing street during lockdown, breaking rules, breaking guidance and guidelines , well, as he says, they don't know what they're talking really must insist on this point. people who say that we were partying in lockdown simply do not know what they talking about . people who say that that event was a purely gathering are wrong. my point, my there was to thank to motivate them in what had been a very difficult time and what was also a very difficult day in which the cabinet secretary had just resigned and right now we have encapsulated in a neat package bofis encapsulated in a neat package boris johnson's key to pretty much all of this, which is that single one of the gatherings that was listed to you, we've got you birthday cake gathering and we all and the garden party. we all know the drill by now with bits of cheese, wine and every single

one ones. johnson one of those ones. boris johnson saying that it was necessary that those gatherings took place mainly was necessary mainly because it was necessary for work morale and to make sure that people staff new and old knew that the of government was still taking place . a general still taking place. a general work atmosphere could continue . work atmosphere could continue. he is also saying and this is important that where guidelines and guidance were broken not rules where guidelines were broken is vindicated because you are allowed to break them where it's not necessary . it basically it's not necessary. it basically is what he says. so basically what's saying is that there are mitigating circumstances. so if it's impossible to socially distance and he is saying it was impossible to socially distance with that many working in the confines of downing street which is basically a townhouse so that is basically a townhouse so that is what boris johnson's was wasn't really a gotcha olivia wasn't really a gotcha olivia was that. well no there wasn't really a gotcha moment but that offence although technically it's sort of works because all bofis it's sort of works because all boris johnson's to do doesn't have to say that that was the

guidance all he has to prove is that that was understanding of the guidance and yes that what he said there probably does technically exonerate him but . technically exonerate him but. there will be lots of people sitting at home who think, well, hang on a minute. i knew perfectly well, i wasn't allowed to have a knees with my colleagues after that was colleagues after work. that was that to me. and the that seemed clear to me. and the guidance it seem guidance why didn't it seem clear him so there is clear to him so there is a question of what to . question of what happens to. bofis question of what happens to. boris johnson now presumably , boris johnson now presumably, why he's so much effort into why he's put so much effort into getting getting this massive dossier together of evidence is because he hopes there is some route back to him into frontline politics has this committee done much for his reputation then or is this a bit one rule for me, one rule for the rest of them? absolutely. well, somebody who will actually have to do a show today and not essentially here and watch telly like you will at home for two and a half hours of my three hour show. why is michelle dewberry. we dewbs& co here you have it. all right. you don't just i mean apparent don't get just i mean apparent

lee. apparently, am still lee. apparently, i am still getting my efforts today. getting paid my efforts today. i never got call it work. i saw you you snacks sitting there watching it. i was very there was no high drama. i watching it. i was very there was no high drama . i always all was no high drama. i always all these things make me think back to and i know it's different before you all tell me but a bit similar they are in bank swan . similar they are in bank swan. oh yes. when there was a select committee him and he got to the end, was like, right. i said, end, he was like, right. i said, i've had enough of you. i've got a lunch appointment. off. a lunch appointment. i'm off. yeah, i thought it was fantastic. that fantastic. i was hoping that there'd less of like a there'd be less kind of like a bit of drama there that would keep me engaged, all the rest of it. was pretty it. but no, it was all pretty dull. found the whole thing dull. i found the whole thing ridiculous and ridiculous at the time and i certainly found as this certainly found it as this afternoon as i've got to afternoon as well. i've got to honest, not long, but honest, we've not got long, but presumably to be presumably you're going to be picking that's picking the brains out, that's all. yes, all. you on your side? yes, indeed. ben habib. indeed. i've got ben habib. well, to his well, can't wait to hear his take phillips as can't take phillips as well. can't wait. so he has and of course while it's a little bit going on, whole windsor on, you've the whole windsor framework been going framework all that's been going on as well about on this afternoon as well about inflation going the opposite direction into lots inflation going the opposite dirgeton into lots inflation going the opposite dirgeton indeed. into lots inflation going the opposite dirgeton indeed. well lots inflation going the opposite dirgeton indeed. well look, to get into indeed. well look,

thank very much. everybody to get into indeed. well look, thank tuningnuch. everybody to get into indeed. well look, thank tuning in. h. everybody to get into indeed. well look, thank tuning in. i've/erybody to get into indeed. well look, thank tuning in. i've been>dy has been tuning in. i've been patrick back patrick christys. i will be back again at 3 pm.

that caring circle kangaroo court to others had . boris court to others had. boris johnson doesn't want it referred to as that he was taking it very seriously indeed. did you see it? what did you think? what will be the outcome of today's goings on? do you think it will just be, say sorry and off you go. could it result in a suspension? your thoughts on all of that? do you care as well? i found that a very key question. i did find it very difficult to care about all of the slices of cakes and glasses of one at the