Page:Fifth Report - Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson).pdf/17

 absolutely necessary participants should usually physically attend meetings. Mr Johnson told the House of Commons on 11 May 2020 that, “If you must go to work and cannot work from home, you should do so, provided […] that your workplace is covid secure. We are publishing further Guidance on that”. He also told the House on 11 May that people should be “limiting contact with others”.

24. On Wednesday 20 May 2020, Mr Johnson attended a gathering in the garden of No 10. The invitation list was extensive and the planning and communications are evidence that the purpose of the gathering was social. We have evidence that the email invitation for this gathering, which was sent by Mr Johnson’s Principal Private Secretary, Martin Reynolds, was sent to “200-odd people”, and that it encouraged staff who attended to “bring your own booze!” Alcohol was provided by staff. Fixed Penalty Notices were issued to a number of those who attended.

25. We have evidence that some officials and advisers felt this event should not go ahead. Mr Johnson’s then Director of Communications, Lee Cain, describes the tone of the email invitation in the evidence he gave us as “clearly social and in breach of covid Guidance” and says he raised concerns about it with Martin Reynolds. Another official has given evidence to us saying, “I heard that there were so many people who were unhappy about the party that they were not going to go” and that they themselves said to another official that they “thought it was madness.”

26. Mr Cain stated in evidence: “I do not recall if I personally had a conversation with the PM about the garden party but it would have been highly unusual for me not to have raised a potentially serious communications risk with the PM directly”. Mr Reynolds, with whom Mr Cain had raised his concerns, stated in evidence “it is possible” that he (Reynolds) raised concerns with Mr Johnson. However, he added that “it seems more likely that I believed that any issue had been resolved. If I had spoken with the Prime Minister about the event, I believe I would have flagged the comms risk, not that the event was against the Rules (which I did not believe to be the case).”