Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

Lebedev criticises Labour as MPs debate releasing security advice behind peerage – as it happened

Boris Johnson Evgeny Lebedev Carrie Johnson No 10 Michael Ellis Sue Gray MPS Partygate (Event) Angela Rayner Vladimir Putin

Afternoon summary

  • Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, has accused Labour of “seeking to whip up anti-Russian feeling” by tabling a binding motion calling for the release of internal government documents relating to the decision to give Evgeny Lebedev a peerage. (See 4.13pm.) Labour scheduled a debate on the motion following reports saying that the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) originally refused to back Lord Lebedev’s nomination after the intelligence agencies raised security concerns, but that No 10 asked for a rethink and that led to Lebedev’s peerage being approved. At the start of the debate Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, said concerns had been raised about Lebedev in the past. (See 3.22pm.) Using Twitter, Lebedev said he would be happy to have the security advice published because he had “nothing to hide”. (See 3.02pm.) But he also effectively accused Labour of smearing him. (See 3.10pm.) Some Tory MPs reportedly were unwilling to vote against the Labour motion, and instead of trying to defeat Labour on this, the government instructed its MPs to abstain. That meant, when the debate ended a few minutes ago, the motion was passed unopposed. The government will have to comply, and so by 28 April it will have to publish minutes of meetings where Lebedev’s peerage was discussed, and documents relating to the advice it received on this from Holac.

That’s all from us for today. The full report on Partygate can be found here:

Updated

This afternoon Boris Johnson spoke by phone with President Biden, President Macron, Chancellor Scholz and Prime Minister Draghi - his fellow members of the “Quint”. According to the No 10 readout, Johnson said President Putin was twisting the knife in Ukraine. A No 10 spokesperson said:

The prime minister underscored that we must judge Putin’s regime by their actions not their words. Putin is twisting the knife in the open wound of Ukraine in an attempt to force the country and its allies to capitulate. The prime minister stressed to his fellow leaders that we should be unrelenting in our response.

The leaders discussed the need to work together to reshape the international energy architecture and reduce dependence on Russian hydrocarbons. They agreed there could be no relaxation of western resolve until the horror inflicted on Ukraine has ended.

Boris Johnson at Westminster Abbey today.
Boris Johnson at Westminster Abbey today. Photograph: Kirsty O’Connor/PA

Updated

The superyacht Phi, owned by an unnamed Russian businessman has been detained in Canary Wharf in London as part of sanctions against Russia.
The superyacht Phi, owned by an unnamed Russian businessman has been detained in Canary Wharf in London as part of sanctions against Russia.

 Photograph: James Manning/PA

In the Commons, MPs are still debating the Labour Lebedev motion. (See 12.37pm.) Speaking for the SNP, Brendan O’Hara said that his party fully supported the motion and that, if the government had nothing to hide, it should be happy to release the advice relating to Evgeny Lebedev. O’Hara said:

If there is nothing untoward, the government should publish material and put the matter to bed once and for all.

We do know that the prime minister has been absolutely compromised by his relationship with Lord Lebedev. The public have the right to know if the prime minister gave a seat for life in this parliament to an individual against the advice of the security services.

Conservative MPs are largely boycotting the debate. Only two Tory backbenchers have spoken, and for more than an hour now, all the speakers have been opposition MPs.

Updated

Today the government published its green paper on provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (Send). As my colleague Sally Weale reports in her preview, based on what was briefed in advance, the document proposes wholesale changes.

Unveiling the measures in the Commons this afternon, Nadhim Zahawi, the education secretary, said outcomes for some Send children were “shockingly poor” under the current system. He told MPs:

The reality is the system is not working as it should. Too often decisions about support are based on where a child lives, not what they need. Many have lost confidence in the system.

On top of this, the alternative provision system is increasingly being used to support children with special educational needs, but the outcomes for many of these children remains shockingly poor, and so we have considered alternative provision within this review.

Despite unprecedented investment through a £1bn increase in high-needs funding, taking the total funding to £9.1bn in the coming financial year, on top of the £1.5bn increase over the last two years, the system has become financially unsustainable.

Zahawi said his plans were designed to produce “a more inclusive and financially sustainable system”.

Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, said 12 years of Conservative government have left “a broken, adversarial, aggressive system, which is letting down young people and leaving families in despair”.

Updated

More than half of voters think Downing Street officials who are fined over Partygate should resign, according to a YouGov poll.

ITV’s Paul Brand says some Tory MPs think Simon Case will have to resign as cabinet secretary if he is fined over No 10 parties (see 4.19pm), which might set a precedent for the PM.

Former justice secretary says proposed British bill of rights unnecessary and potentially a 'disaster'

Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, has warned that Dominic Raab’s plans for a new British bill of rights to replace the Human Rights Act risks being a “disaster” and accused his successor of “chasing chimeras”.

In a significant intervention, Buckland questioned the plans being brought in by his successor, who took over the job last autumn. He said the “moment for all this has passed” and questioned “what is the problem that is trying to be solved?” with a new bill of rights.

Buckland told an event for the UK in a Changing Europe that he was mostly concerned about the idea that a new bill of rights could be brought in without retaining European case law. He said:

I think the main problem is that it could inadvertently give rise to reviving this theory that this is somehow a fresh set of rights that need to be interpreted by the courts domestically – disaster. It’s the old war time analogy – is your journey really necessary? No.

He also said that “rather than chasing chimeras such as trying to change retained EU law, for example, or introducing bills of rights”, it would be “far better to look at the mess of the [2005 act], and restore the role of the lord chancellor”.

Labour and Amnesty International have already criticised plans by Raab to replace the human rights act with a British bill of rights.

Raab has argued that the proposal will better protect the press in exposing wrongdoing. He said he feared free speech was being “whittled away” by “wokery and political correctness”.

The proposals, currently out for consultation, are expected to be included in May’s Queen’s speech.

Updated

This morning Downing Street said that, if Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, is fined over Partygate, he would not be named by No 10. Only Boris Johnson would be identified as the recipient of a fine, the PM’s spokesperson said.

This afternoon No 10 said that people will be told if Case receives a fine, my colleague Peter Walker reports.

Minister accuses Labour of 'seeking to whip up anti-Russian feeling' with its Lebedev motion

Michael Ellis, the paymaster general and Cabinet Office minister, was responding to Rayner in the Lebedev debate on behalf of the government. In recent months Ellis has often been the minister defending Boris Johnson in the chamber over Partygate, and Johnson clearly believes that Ellis pleads his case pretty well; in the February mini-reshuffle, Ellis got a promotion.

Here are the main points from his speech.

  • Ellis said that the government was opposed to today’s Labour motion. Asked why government MPs were not, in that case, being asked to vote against it, he claimed that it was normal practice to ignore opposition day motions. (That is true, but this motion is different; if passed, as it will be, it will be binding on the government. The government has told its MPs to abstain because it has decided that trying to vote against would be too problematic. See 12.37pm.)
  • He accused Labour of “seeking to whip up anti-Russian feeling”. He said:

Can I very gently point out to the opposition that they ought, and I say this in all care, be careful of intolerant messaging. Not all Russians are our enemy. Many British citizens of Russian extraction came to this country with a view to an opposition to President Putin. People cancelling Tchaikovsky concerts is not appropriate and Labour seeking to whip up anti-Russian feeling, casting all persons of Russian extraction in a negative light, is wrong.

This is an argument that ministers have used before, with Oliver Dowden recently suggesting opposition attacks on Russians linked to the Tories were racist.

  • Ellis claimed that Labour were abusing the “humble address” mechanism, and that MPs were meant to show “restraint” when tabling these motions. He said a procedure committee report in 2019 said the power should not be used to obtain documents of a personal nature. Today’s motion was a breach of that, he said. He said that, even thought Evgeny Lebedev says he does not mind the release of this information (see 3.02pm), the principle still applied.
  • Ellis claimed the release of the information demanded by Labour would undermine the vetting process followed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Michael Ellis.
Michael Ellis. Photograph: WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto/REX/Shutterstock

Johnson should remain as PM even if he is fined by police, says Matt Hancock

Matt Hancock, the former health secretary who resigned from cabinet because he was caught on camera breaking social distancing rules (embracing an aide with whom he was having an affair), has told BBC News that Boris Johnson should stay as prime minister, even if he is fined by the Met for breaking the lockdown laws. (Hancock himself was never fined.) That is because Johnson is the best person to lead the country, Hancock said. These are from the BBC’s Jess Brammar.

Cynics will suspect that these comments tell us almost as much about Hancock’s desire to return to government as they do about his assessment of the prime minister’s leadership abilities.

This is from the Mirror’s Pippa Crerar, on what Labour is saying about the Keir Starmer text to Evgeny Lebedev congratulating him on his peerage. (See 3.10pm.)

Updated

Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, opened the debate on Evgeny Lebedev by summarising what has been reported about how No 10 intervened to ensure that a recommendation that Lebedev should not get a peerage because of security concerns was overturned.

She then said that concerns about Lebedev had been raised in the past. She told MPs:

This isn’t the first time concerns have been raised about Lebedev by British security services.

As long as a decade ago, Sir John Sawers, then head of MI6, made it clear that he did not deem Lebedev a suitable person to meet.

It remains unclear if the prime minister – the then foreign secretary – was made aware of these security concerns.

But his deeply concerning links to Putin are well known – he has been open about them on Twitter where he has promoted the worst conspiracy theories and defences of Vladimir Putin.

And raised questions over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Kremlin critic poisoned in a London hotel.

Lebedev’s father and business partner is a former KGB spy turned billionaire oligarch, who continues to fill his coffers with investments in occupied Crimea and in Russian munitions.

Updated

Lebedev claims Labour criticism of him based on 'pure innuendo'

Evgeny Lebedev has been tweeting more about this afternoon’s debate, and his latest posts are much more combative than his first one (see 3.02pm), implying that Labour is sidelining important issues and responding to “pure innuendo”, and that Keir Starmer is guilty of hypocrisy.

In the Commons a few minutes ago Labour’s Ben Bradshaw said that with these tweets Lebedev was trying to tell MPs what they should be debating and that this was “completely unacceptable”.

In response Dame Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, said if this was an inappropriate matter for debate, it would not be being debated.

Updated

Lebedev says he would welcome publication of security advice about his nomination for peerage

In the Commons MPs are just starting the debate (see 12.37pm) on the Labour motion calling for the publication of papers relating to the decision to grant a peerage to the Evening Standard owner Evgeny Lebedev, whose father is a former KGB agent turned oligarch.

Lebedev has posted a message on Twitter saying he would welcome the publication of the security advice relating to his nomination to the Lords. “I have nothing to hide,” he says.

Earlier this month Lebedev addressed the claims that he was a security risk in an article in the Evening Standard. Here’s an extract.

I am a British citizen. I first moved here as a child and was educated in the United Kingdom at primary and secondary level. I am proud to be a British citizen and consider Britain my home ...

At the moment many with Russian roots are under scrutiny, including myself. I understand the reason for this as it is inevitable when events of such magnitude occur and the world order as we have known it in recent decades suddenly gets torn up.

But I am not a security risk to this country, which I love. My father a long time ago was a foreign intelligence agent of the KGB, but I am not some agent of Russia. The editorial coverage in the Evening Standard and the Independent, of which I am also a shareholder, of Russia and its activities over the time of my involvement in those titles makes that clear. There can be no question of the editorial independence and excellence of both the titles in their coverage of this war.

Evgeny Lebedev taking his seat in the Lords.
Evgeny Lebedev taking his seat in the Lords. Photograph: PRU/AFP/Getty Images

Updated

'No easy answers' to cost of living crisis, Johnson tells cabinet

And here are some non-Partygate lines from the Downing Street lobby briefing.

  • The PM’s spokesperson said that the government did not accept P&O Ferries’ claim that it had to act as it did to save the company. Asked about the letter sent by Peter Hebblethwaite, its chief executive, to the government (see 11.46am), the spokesperson said:

With regards to their response, clearly we recognise that there are significant commercial challenges facing businesses of all sorts and they may face difficult commercial decisions.

But that does not excuse seeking to subvert the law or treat employees in the way that we have seen from this company. That’s why we will continue to seek to take [action to toughen the law].

  • Boris Johnson told the cabinet there were “no easy answers” to the cost of living crisis, the spokesperson said. But Johnson also said that measures being implemented this year – such as the energy package, the rise in the national insurance threshold, the cut in fuel duty – amounted to a £22bn package of support. Referring to what was said at cabinet, the spokesperson said:

[Johnson] said there are no easy answers but the £22bn being provided by government would support those most in need.

  • Johnson told the cabinet that “a ceasefire alone would not be cause for UK sanctions to be removed in Russia”, the spokesperson said.

Updated

Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, has confirmed that he will be hosting a family under the homes for Ukraine scheme. He said:

We’re waiting for that family to arrive we hope in the near future. We have got a three-generation Ukrainian family: a mum, her six-and-a-half-year-old boy, and a 75-year-old mother or grandmother, I suppose, and their dog, who is called Max. We are all looking forward to them arriving in the next couple of weeks.

Updated

Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, has been posing for a picture alongside the detained Russian superyacht. (See 12.57pm.)

Updated

This is from my colleague John Crace on the No 10 lobby briefing. (See 1.36pm.)

No 10 refuses to say Johnson now accepts law was broken over Partygate

If anyone expected the announcement that people are now being fined for breaches of the lockdown rules at No 10 to prompt a sudden outburst of candour from Downing Street, they will have been disappointed. At the regular morning lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson largely stuck to the government’s existing positions on this scandal - even where the No 10 line is is increasingly hard to square with reality.

Here are the key points.

  • Boris Johnson has not been told he has been fined, the spokesperson said. That was not surprising. The Met statement this morning implied that none of the people being fined in this batch has yet been notified. (See 9.37am.) And a police source says the first fines are being issued to the “low-hanging fruit” cases. (See 12.53pm.) Johnson’s case is likely to be one of the more complicated ones, not least because he has so publicly asserted that he did not break the law.
  • The spokesperson rejected claims that the issuing of fines meant Johnson lied to MPs about the parties. (See 10.21am.) Asked about this charge, the spokesperson said: “At all times he has set out his understanding of events.”
  • The spokesperson refused to say that Johnson now accepts that the law was broken in Downing Street. Asked repreatedly if the PM did accept this, in the light of the Met’s decision to issue fines, the spokesperson said: “It’s for the Met to make that judgment, rather than the prime minister.” When it was put to the spokesperson that the Met has made that judgment, the spokesperson said that Johnson would be saying more once the whole process was over. When it was put to him that the process was over for the people being fined, the spokesperson said the whole investigation was not yet over. Asked if the PM accepted he may have broken the law, the spokesperson again said it was for the Met to make a judgment on that.
  • The spokesperson refused to issue a fresh apology over Partygate, but he said Johnson would be saying more once the investigation was over. Asked about an apology, he said:

The prime minister has apologised to the House already. He has said sorry for the things that we did not get right. He has said sorry for the ways things have been handled and that mistakes have been made. You can expect to hear more from the prime inister when the investigation is concluded and Sue Gray has set out her report.

  • The spokesperson said Johnson accepts full responsibility for what happens at Downing Street.
  • The spokesperson said that, although No 10 will announce if Johnson is issued a fine, it will not release the names of anyone else who might get a fine. That means that people like Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, or Carrie Johnson, the PM’s wife, could be fined without the public being told.
  • The spokesperson said No 10 staff have not been told they must disclose it to their managers if they receive a fine. But disclosure might be necessary for security vetting purposes, the spokesperson suggested.
  • The spokesperson refused to say whether or not Johnson would resign if he were fined, saying this was a hypothetical question.

Superyacht detained in London under Russia sanctions, says Shapps

A superyacht has been detained in London as part of sanctions against Russia, the UK transport secretary, Grant Shapps, has announced.

First Partygate fines 'low-hanging fruit', says policing source

The people who receive fixed penalty notices over Partygate are likely to be fined £200 or £100. If paid within 14 days, those amounts halve.

If the fines are disputed, the Met will review them. Those identified as facing fines could in theory produce evidence which shows they did not breach the regulations.

And if someone does not pay, and the force believes a fine is still merited, it would be for a magistrate to decide.

One complexity the Met team has to deal with is that different rules were in place during the period offences are alleged to have taken place.

One policing source said: “The Met would not put that application [for a fine] into ACRO if they were not certain of their case. This is the low-hanging fruit.”

The ACRO website on FPN’s (fixed penalty notices) contains advice to those wishing to contest a fine. It says:

You are welcome to provide an explanation and any supporting information or evidence you wish to be taken into consideration by the force/court.

After the 28-day window outlined in your letter has passed without payment, we will return your case to the force. We will inform them of your contest request and forward any supporting information/evidence that you have provided. The force will then review your case and decide whether to withdraw the fine or proceed the matter to court.

Once your case is returned to the force, ACRO are not involved in the next stages of the process. “You will receive direct correspondence from the force if they wish to proceed the case to court,” the website says.

Updated

No 10 abandons plan to get Tory MPs to vote against release of Lebedev peerage documents

MPs will this afternoon pass a Labour motion calling for the publication of internal government advice and minutes relating to the decision to give Evgeny Lebedev a peerage, my colleague Jessica Elgot reports.

And these are from the Times’s Patrick Maguire who broke the news a bit earlier.

As Maguire says, the government often ignores Labour motions passed by the Commons, but a “humble address” motion is binding. It requires the government to publish certain papers, and this motion says that by 28 April the government would have to release two categories of document:

(a) any document held by the Cabinet Office or the prime minister’s office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the House of Lords Appointments Commission concerning the appointment of Evgeny Alexandrovich Lebedev as a member of the House of Lords;

and (b) the minutes of, submissions relevant to and electronic communications relating to, any meeting within the Cabinet Office or the prime minister’s office at which the appointment of Lord Lebedev, or advice relating to that appointment, was discussed in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.

Labour tabled the motion in response to widespread reports that the House of Lords Appointments Commission initially refused to approve Lebedev’s peerage, because of an intelligence briefing highlighting a possible risk, and that No 10 then pushed for a rethink that led to the risk being reassessed.

The government decision not to order its MPs to vote against the motion is a major victory for Labour. However the government still has the power to decide how it complies with the humble address motion, and in the past confidential information published in response to one of these votes has turned out to be less embarrassing than originally assumed. Also in this case the government may use national security as a reason for withholding any particularly awkward material.

Updated

Rayner says debate about trans rights should not be reduced to questions about genitalia

Yesterday Keir Starmer, in a phone-in, was asked by LBC’s Nick Ferrari if a woman can have a penis. These crude biology questions have become increasingly common in interviews recently, and they are mostly aimed at Labour politicians because Labour is deemed to be divided on trans rights. At PMQs last week Boris Johnson made an intervention that seemed intended to keep the whole process rolling, fuelling suspicions that he sees this as electorally beneficial to the Tories.

In an interview on Times Radio this morning Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, was also asked how a woman should be defined, and she hit back at the whole process of genitalia questioning. She said:

What I’m not comfortable with, and what’s frustrating me, is that we’re having a debate on social media [on] what is a very serious issue ... and it’s all about whether or not you’ve got a penis or whether or not you’ve got a cervix ...

I mean, I don’t get asked – I present as a woman, people don’t ask me, “Have you got a penis?” And I think that’s wholly right.

There’s protections in place to protect women-only spaces and vulnerabilities around that. And there’s protections in place to support people who are transitioning, who have identity concerns.

We have laws at the moment that protect people. And I think we should be making sure that people are aware of that, not debasing it down to what genitalia someone may or may not have. I’d be offended if someone asked me what my genitalia is. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that to any person.

Updated

Keir Starmer arriving at Westminster Abbey for the service of thanksgiving for the life of the Duke of Edinburgh.
Keir Starmer arriving at Westminster Abbey for the service of thanksgiving for the life of the Duke of Edinburgh. Photograph: Kirsty O’Connor/PA

Updated

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot on the significance of the Met’s decision to fine people over Partygate.

And these are from the Telegraph’s Ben Riley-Smith.

P&O Ferries rejects plea from Grant Shapps for U-turn on sackings

P&O Ferries has rejected the government’s call to move this week’s deadline for the 800 sacked workers to accept redundancy offers, saying most had already signed contracts and ministers were “ignoring the situation’s fundamental and factual realities”, my colleague Gwyn Topham reports.

Boris Johnson arriving at Westminster Abbey for the Service of Thanksgiving for the life of the Duke of Edinburgh this morning.
Boris Johnson arriving at Westminster Abbey for the service of thanksgiving for the life of the Duke of Edinburgh this morning. Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA

Updated

The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group has issued a statement in response to the news that 20 fines are being issued over Partygate saying Boris Johnson should have resigned months ago over this. It said:

A year ago today, bereaved families from across the UK drew the first hearts on the National Covid Memorial Wall. One heart for every life lost to the virus.

A year on, far from offering closure, the prime minister’s team are being fined for breaking their own rules regularly and blatantly. The same rules that families across the country stuck with even when they suffered terribly as a consequence.

It’s crystal clear now that whilst the British public rose to the challenge of making enormous sacrifices to protect their loved ones and their communities, those at 10 Downing Street failed.

Frankly, bereaved families have seen enough. The PM should have resigned months ago over this. By dragging it out longer all he is doing is pouring more salt on the wounds of those who have already suffered so much.

These are from ITV’s Paul Brand.

Adam Wagner, the barrister and lockdown regulation specialist, posted a good thread last night on the fixed penalty notice process. It starts here.

SNP says all senior officials and ministers fined over Partygate should be named

The SNP also says the announcement that fines are being issued over Partygate shows that Boris Johnson gave MPs assurances that were untrue. The party has released this statement from Kirsten Oswald, its deputy leader at Westminster.

Like the other main opposition parties, the SNP first called for Johnson’s resignation some time ago. It is now calling for all ministers and senior civil servants fined over Partygate to be named.

In practice, apart from Johnson, few, if any, ministers are likely to be fined. The Partygate offences were largely committed by officials.

Oswald says:

The confirmation by the Metropolitan police that the law was broken and initial fines have been issued expose Boris Johnson’s remarks that no parties were held or that the rules were followed as being flatly untrue.

This damning development once again highlights the scale of rule-breaking at the heart of Boris Johnson’s corrupt government.

While the public were following the rules imposed upon us all and making difficult sacrifices to protect each other, Boris Johnson and his Tory colleagues were breaking them without a care.

The public will rightly want answers and accountability, and it is vital that there is transparency in this ongoing investigation and that must involve full disclosure of precisely who, among ministers and senior civil servants, is being fined for breaking the law.

Boris Johnson should have resigned a long time ago over the boozy rule-breaking parties, but his ego and lack of dignity led him to desperately cling on.

The reality is that the longer he stays in office the more lasting the damage will be.

Sue Gray has just started giving evidence to the House of Lords common frameworks scrutiny committee. This is not one of Westminster’s more high profile committees and, as occasionally happens in parliament, it will be taking evidence from a witness without asking them about the one topic dominating the headlines. Gray conducted this Cabinet Office’s investigation into Partygate, but she is appearing today to talk about a matter she deals with in her day job, as second permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, with responsibility for the constitution.

You can watch the hearing on the parliamentary website - although, judging by the opening exchanges, you can probably find a more exciting way to spend the morning. In her opening spiel Lady Andrews, the committee chair, did not make any reference at all to the story of the day, and Gray has not mentioned it yet either.

The common frameworks programme is a mechanism for ensuring Westminster and the devolved governments implement powers repatriated from the EU in a way that avoids clashes.

Sue Gray giving evidence to Lords common frameworks scrutiny committee
Sue Gray giving evidence to Lords common frameworks scrutiny committee Photograph: Parliament TV

Labour says Johnson responsible for law breaking at No 10 because 'culture set from very top'

And here is the official Labour party response to the news that 20 fines are being issued over Partygate, in the form of a statement from Angela Rayner, the deputy leader.

She also renews Labour’s call for Johnson’s resignation - althought in a more muted way than the Lib Dems are doing (Labour may be making more allowance for the fact that this seems unlikely to happen). But mostly Rayner focuses on her claim that Boris Johnson is responsible for law breaking at No 10 because “the culture is set from the very top”.

She says:

After over two months of police time, twelve parties investigated and over a hundred people questioned under caution, Boris Johnson’s Downing Street has been found guilty of breaking the law.

The culture is set from the very top. The buck stops with the prime minister, who spent months lying to the British public, which is why he has got to go.

It is disgraceful that while the rest of the country followed their rules, Boris Johnson’s government acted like they did not apply to them.

This has been a slap in the face of the millions of people who made huge sacrifices.

Lib Dem leader Ed Davey renews call for Johnson to resign after Partygate fines issued

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has renewed his call for Boris Johnson to resign in the light of the news 20 fines are being issued over Partygate. In a statement Davey said:

If Boris Johnson thinks he can get away with partygate by paying expensive lawyers and throwing junior staff to the wolves, he is wrong.

We all know who is responsible. The prime minister must resign, or Conservative MPs must sack him.

Updated

Partygate fines show Johnson is 'proven liar', says Labour's Wes Streeting

Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, says the Met announcement about people being fined over Partygate shows that Boris Johnson is a “proven liar”.

Many people will agree with Streeting. As the psephologist John Curtice wrote in the i last month, voters do believe Johnson has lied over Partygate. Curtice said:

According to Savanta ComRes, 65 per cent feel that throughout the furore the Prime Minister has either “only told lies” or at least that he has “lied more than he has told the truth”. In contrast, just 13 per cent take the view that he has “only told the truth” or “has told the truth more than he has lied”. Even among 2019 Conservative voters, only 23 per cent believe he has largely been truthful.

But journalists have been more reluctant to say categorically that Johnson lied over this because, although there is ample evidence that he said things about the scandal, including in the House of Commons, that were untrue, it is harder to prove that he did so deliberately and knowingly (the proper definition of lying).

Johnson has been asked about these events many times in the Commons, and generally his line has been that the rules were followed. He has claimed to believe that the events he attended were in keeping with the guidance. Subsequently he adapted this, and started telling MPs that he had been assured that parties did not take place, and that the rules were followed - implying someone at No 10 might have misled him. This is very hard to believe, because of the evidence that Johnson was told in advance that the party in the No 10 garden on 20 May 2020 was in breach of the rules, but perhaps Johnson has convinced himself that other advice took precedence. (Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s former chief adviser, says Johnson cannot distinguish between truth and lies.) Subsequently Johnson started claiming that he personally had not broken the rules. The Full Fact website published an analysis in January of one of the specific allegations about Johnson lying and found the evidence inconclusive.

People being fined have not yet been told, Met statement implies

Earlier I wrote about how the Met announcement about the Partygate fines might be what journalists call a one-fact story. We’ve slightly more information than that, but not much. This is what we now know, based on the Met statement.

  • Twenty fines are being issued for breaches of Covid rules. But that does not mean 20 people are being fined. Some individuals could be getting more than one fixed penalty notice.
  • The people being fined have not yet been told, the statement implies. The Met says:

We will today initially begin to refer 20 fixed penalty notices to be issued for breaches of Covid-19 regulations. The ACRO Criminal Records Office will then be responsible for issuing the FPNs to the individual following the referrals from the MPS.

“Begin to refer” implies that this process might take a bit of time. And the statement suggests that the Criminal Records Office has not yet started sending out the fixed penalty notices.

  • The Met says it will not say how many fines are being issued in relation to each of the 12 events being investigated - at least at this stage. It says:

We will not confirm the number of referrals from each individual event subject to our investigation as providing a breakdown at this point may lead to identification of the individuals.

Updated

Full Met statement confirming 20 fines being issued over Partygate breaches of Covid rules

Here is the full Met statement. It says:

The investigation into allegations of breaches of Covid-19 regulations in Whitehall and Downing Street has now progressed to the point where the first referrals for fixed penalty notices (FPN) will be made to ACRO Criminal Records Office.

We will today initially begin to refer 20 fixed penalty notices to be issued for breaches of Covid-19 regulations. The ACRO Criminal Records Office will then be responsible for issuing the FPNs to the individual following the referrals from the MPS.

We are making every effort to progress this investigation at speed and have completed a number of assessments. However due to the significant amount of investigative material that remains to be assessed, further referrals may be made to ACRO if the evidential threshold is made.

As it has for all fixed penalty notices issued during the pandemic, the MPS will follow the College of Policing Approved Professional Practice for Media Relations which states that “Identities of people dealt with by cautions, speeding fines and other fixed penalties – out-of-court disposals – should not be released or confirmed.”

We will not confirm the number of referrals from each individual event subject to our investigation as providing a breakdown at this point may lead to identification of the individuals.

20 fines being issued for breached of Covid rules over Partygate, Met says

PA has just snapped this.

Twenty fixed penalty notices will be issued for breaches of Covid-19 rules following allegations of lockdown-busting parties in Downing Street, Scotland Yard said.

Updated

Good morning. It has been out of the news for weeks, but the Partygate scandal is back in the headlines today, with the Metropolitan police poised to announced that it is issuing the first tranche of fines to people attending parties at No 10 or in Whitehall that broke Covid regulations. My colleagues Aubrey Allegretti and Jessica Elgot broke the story last night.

It is still not clear exactly how today will play out, but it is quite possible that we’ll end up with what journalists call a “one fact story” - in the form of a short announcement from the Met saying that a certain number of fines have been issued. The Met won’t issue a full list of names and, although No 10 has said it will say if Boris Johnson gets issued with a fine, it is not committed to naming other people. And today’s fines will only be the start. The Met has already contacted more than 100 people who may have broken lockdown rules through Partygate, and earlier this month it said its investigation was widening. This process has a lot further to go.

But a one fact story can nevertheless be sensational, and confirmation that people are being fined for breaking Covid rules at No 10 would be hugely significant. When Sue Gray, the civil servant investigating the affair, published her interim “update” in January, she implied very strongly that the law had been broken - but she stressed that ultimately that was not a judgment for her. She said:

It is not for me to make a judgment on whether the criminal law has been broken; that is properly a matter for law enforcement.

Today any lingering uncertainty about whether or not the law was broken at No 10 is expected to be swept away. That, obviously, will revive questions about why Boris Johnson repeatedly assured MPs, and the public, that the rules were followed.

But whether or not No 10 will address these questions today is a different matter. If it does, we might move on to a two fact story. But, judging by what Will Quince, the education minister, said when asked about this on the Today programme, the government is stalling its response. Quince told Today:

I understand the public interest in the considerable upset caused. There’s no question the events that took place shouldn’t have happened. But I know you will appreciate it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment while there’s an ongoing police investigation.

Quince did concede that the parties “shouldn’t have happened”. But that was implicit in Johnson’s statement on MPs on 31 January, when the first Sue Gray “report” was published.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Boris Johnson chairs cabinet.

10.30am: Sue Gray gives evidence to the House of Lords common frameworks scrutiny committee. The common frameworks programme is a mechanism for ensuring Westminster and the devolved governments implement powers repatriated from the EU in a way that avoids clashes. Gray is giving evidence because, when not investigating No 10 partying, her day job is second permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, with responsibility for the constitution.

Around 10.45am: Peter Hebblethwaite, the P&O chief executive, gives evidence to the Scottish parliament’s net zero committee.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

11.30am: Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

Afternoon: MPs debate a Labour motion that would force the government to publish government internal advice and minutes relating to the decision to give Evgeny Lebedev a peerage.

I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Kangaroo on the loose in Texas after escaping enclosure
Rowdy’s owner said the missing marsupial is not aggressive and will not hurt anyone, but will likely only come to her voice
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Dozens of people get the stomach flu at expensive LA Times restaurant event
‘It was pretty painful, probably the most painful experience I have ever had’
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Experts warn the keto and paleo diets come with more risks than benefits
Experts offer their insight of these popular low-carb diets to help you decide what's best for your health.
Fortune
Fortune
New “Throning” Dating Trend Is Driving People Crazy: “Whatever Happened To Love?”
"Throning," a trend among Gen Z, involves dating for social status rather than genuine connection, potentially leading to misunderstandings. The post New “Throning” Dating Trend Is Driving People Crazy: “Whatever Happened To Love?” first appeared on Bored Panda.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
The ‘choking game’ and other challenges amplified by social media can come with deadly consequences
The “choking game” has potentially deadly consequences, as players are challenged to temporarily strangle themselves by restricting oxygen to the brain. It sounds terrifying, but rough estimates suggest that about 10% of U.S. teenagers may have played this type of game at least once.
The Conversation
The Conversation
Takeaways from AP’s reporting on young nuns
Fewer than 1% of nuns in the U.S. today are under 30
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play