Page:Fifth Report - Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson).pdf/35

 pointed out to Sir Bernard, this requirement is part of a list of “steps that will usually be needed”. Clearly, a step that “usually” is needed is not one that must always be followed.

100. The issue is not whether the Guidance contemplated that there could be circumstances in which it was not possible to maintain the social distancing guidelines of 2 metres, or 1 metre with risk mitigation where two metres is not viable: the Guidance clearly did so. The Guidance equally clearly indicated that “Where the social distancing guidelines cannot be followed in full, even through redesigning a particular activity, business 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 risk of transmission to staff.” The words “where possible” do not provide a blanket exemption to ignore obligations in the Guidance in respect of social distancing.

101. The claim that the word “usually” in the guidance meant prescriptions could be ignored is similarly misplaced. The guidance relating to meetings as it stood in November 2020 stated: "3.4 Meetings

Objective: To reduce transmission due to face-to-face meetings and maintain social distancing in meetings. Steps that will usually be needed: 1. Using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings.

2. Only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings and should maintain social distancing (2m, or 1m with risk mitigation where 2m is not viable).

3. Avoiding transmission during meetings, for example avoiding sharing pens, documents and other objects.

4. Providing hand sanitiser in meeting rooms.

5. Holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms whenever possible.

6. For areas where regular meetings take place, using floor signage to help people maintain social distancing."

102. A reasonable reader of the Guidance would note the objective of reducing transmission, and consider which of the steps which might usually be needed should apply (for example, if a meeting was held outdoors, the provision about hand sanitiser in meeting rooms would be unnecessary). Mr Johnson’s interpretation is not credible. It suggests that any business could have ignored the Guidance by simply deciding mitigations were not possible, and that it was going to disregard most or all of the mitigations which were usually needed.