Boris Johnson has hit out at “bizarre and unacceptable” new claims he broke COVID lockdown rules after being referred to the police by the Cabinet Office.
The former prime minister’s ministerial diary has revealed visits by friends to Chequers during the pandemic.
The trips to the country residence were highlighted during preparations for a public inquiry into COVID, as well as new allegations about his behaviour in Downing Street, according to The Times which first reported on the story.
Mr Johnson complained of a “politically motivated stitch-up” after the information was passed onto the Metropolitan Police and Thames Valley Police, saying the events in question were “lawful”.
Sky News understands all legal options are being considered by his team.
His spokesperson said: “The assertion by the Cabinet Office that there have been further COVID rule breaches is totally untrue.
More on Boris Johnson
Related Topics:
“Lawyers have examined the events in question and advised that they were lawful.
“No contact was made with Mr Johnson before these incorrect allegations were made both to the police and to the privileges committee. This is both bizarre and unacceptable.
Advertisement
“For whatever political purpose, it is plain that a last-ditch attempt is being made to lengthen the privileges committee investigation as it was coming to a conclusion and to undermine Mr Johnson.”
The Cabinet Office said the information was passed on “in line with the civil service code”.
But Mr Johnson’s statement said: “The events in question were all within the rules either because they were held outdoors or came within another lawful exception. They include regular meetings with civil servants and advisers.
“It appears some within government have decided to make unfounded suggestions both to the police and to the privileges committee.
“Many will conclude that this has all the hallmarks of yet another politically motivated stitch-up.”
Mr Johnson’s lawyers have written to the police “to explain in detail why the Cabinet Office is entirely wrong in its assertions”.
Police ‘assessing’ concerns
Police are currently “assessing” concerns, but a formal investigation has not yet been launched.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:27
The world ‘has moved on’ from partygate
A statement from the Metropolitan Police said the details were passed to them on 19 May and they relate “to potential breaches of the Health Protection Regulations between June 2020 and May 2021 at Downing Street”.
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “Information came to light during the process of preparing evidence for submission to the COVID Inquiry.
“It was identified as part of the normal disclosure review of potentially relevant documents being undertaken by the legal team for inquiry witnesses.
“In line with obligations in the Civil Service Code, this material has been passed to the relevant authorities and it is now a matter for them.”
Rishi Sunak is being dragged back to the past when he wants to focus on the future
We have few details about these further alleged rule breaches. Mr Johnson’s aides insist all these events were lawful and the Cabinet Office’s failure to notify him before passing the information to police is “bizarre and unacceptable”.
Mr Johnson’s aides insist all these events were lawful and the Cabinet Office’s failure to notify him before passing the information to police is “bizarre and unacceptable”.
And some Conservative backbenchers seem concerned at the role civil servants have played in this referral to the police.
Yet if the former PM is found to have met friends without a reasonable exception or excuse, a fine of £50 or £100 is possible.
These latest revelations could delay the privileges committee inquiry into whether Mr Johnson misled parliament.
And yet again it drags Rishi Sunak into answering questions about the past when he’s desperate to focus on the future.
Johnson ‘should consider his position as MP’
The Liberal Democrats have called for Mr Johnson to consider his position as an MP.
Deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: “It’s outrageous that rumours of alleged rule breaking by Boris Johnson are still being drip-fed to the public.
“The fact that it’s one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us still triggers a raw sense of injustice in millions of people.
“Sunak must make sure that not a single penny more of taxpayer money is spent on Johnson’s legal fund, and Johnson should finally do one decent thing and consider his position as an MP.”
What were the lockdown rules at the time?
June 2020 – After the initial ‘stay at home’ order in March, rules are relaxed to allow a maximum of six people to meet outdoors for non-work purposes.
July 2020 – Two households of any size are allowed to meet in indoor or outdoor settings.
August 2020 – People are encouraged to go out again with the introduction of the ‘eat out to help out’ scheme
September 2020 – Rules begin to be tightened again with the ‘rule of six’ banning any social gathering of more than six people.
November 2020 – Second national lockdown – people can leave home to meet only one person outside their support bubble.
Restrictions were eased through December and over Christmas, with a tier system being introduced for different regions in England.
January 2021 – Third national lockdown for England – people were again told to stay at home and not meet anyone outside their support bubble, with limited exceptions for religious gatherings and weddings.
March 2021 – Six people or two households, regardless of size, allowed to mix outdoors again.
May 2021 – Restrictions further lifted with 30 people permitted to mix outdoors, the rule of six or two household rule applied indoors.
Lindsay Jackson, spokeswoman for the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group, branded Mr Johnson “totally unfit for any form of public service” and suggested he “quietly step back from public life”.
Labour called for the taxpayer-funded legal support for Mr Johnson, which is an estimated £222,000, to come to an end and said he had “serious questions to answer”.
Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said: “The public will be shocked that they’re still paying Boris Johnson’s legal bills while he rakes in millions from speaking gigs, all because Rishi Sunak is too weak to put a stop to it.
“The Conservatives are now so preoccupied by their own scandals and haunted by their own failure that they are unable to tackle the problems facing the country. Only a Labour government can turn the page on 13 years of Tory sleaze.”
‘World has moved on from partygate’
However, allies of Mr Johnson have jumped to his defence.
Former cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said he went to Chequers with his children during the period being investigated by police and the visit was “entirely within the rules”.
“The latest stories are just another example of how those who don’t like Boris, mainly because of Brexit, are always looking for something to have a go at him on. It is a supreme non-story,” he said on his GB News show.
Ben Bradley, the Tory MP for Mansfield, said the world “has moved on” from partygate, telling Sky News:“My sense of all of this is that, frankly, the former prime minister has been through that, we’ve investigated that, the country’s dealt with that – I think the world’s moved on.”
The partygate scandal overshadowed the end of Boris Johnson’s premiership and played a major role in his downfall last year.
Image: The partygate scandal overshadowed the end of Boris Johnson’s premiership
Details of drunkenness, fighting and late-night parties at the heart of government while the nation lived under lockdown restrictions were laid bare in a damning report by Sue Gray – who said “senior leadership” must take responsibility for a culture of rule breaking.
Its publication came after the Met Police concluded its investigation into lockdown-breaking events in Downing Street and Whitehall, which resulted in 126 fines being issued for 83 people.
Mr Johnson received one of those fines, for attending his own birthday party in the cabinet room in Downing Street in June 2020.
A former Labour MP who quit the party over Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership has welcomed the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman as a “victory for feminists”.
Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, said the judgment helped resolve the “lack of clarity” that has existed in the politics around the issue “for years”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
How do you define a woman in law?
The judges were asked to rule on how “sex” is defined in the 2010 Equality Act – whether that means biological sex or “certificated” sex, as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Their unanimous decision was that the definition of a “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.
Asked what she made about comments by fellow independent MP John McDonnell – who said the court “failed to hear the voice of a single trans person” and that the decision “lacked humanity and fairness” as a result, she said: “This ruling doesn’t affect trans people in the slightest.
“It’s about women’s rights – women’s rights to single sex spaces, women’s rights, not to be discriminated against.
“It literally doesn’t change a single thing for trans rights and that lack of understanding from a senior politician about the law is a bit worrying, actually.”
However, Maggie Chapman, a Scottish Green MSP, disagreed with Ms Duffield and said she was “concerned” about the impact the ruling would have on trans people “and for the services and facilities they have been using and have had access to for decades now”.
Image: Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland celebrate after the ruling. Pic: Reuters
“One of the grave concerns that we have with this ruling is that it will embolden people to challenge trans people who have every right to access services,” she said.
“We know that over the last few years… their [trans people’s] lives have become increasingly difficult, they have been blocked from accessing services they need.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:12
‘Today’s ruling only stokes the culture war further’
Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: “But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.
Image: Campaigners celebrate outside the Supreme Court. Pic: PA
“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.
“This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association. Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate.”
Asked whether she believed the judgment could “draw a line” under the culture war, Ms Chapman told Fortescue: “Today’s judgment only stokes that culture war further.”
And she said that while Lord Hodge was correct to say there were protections in law for trans people in the 2020 Equality Act, the judgment “doesn’t prevent things happening”.
Apple Podcasts
This content is provided by Apple Podcasts, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Apple Podcasts cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Apple Podcasts cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Apple Podcasts cookies for this session only.
“It may offer protections once bad things have happened, once harassment, once discrimination, once bigotry, once assaults have happened,” she said.
She also warned some groups “aren’t going to be satisfied with today’s ruling”.
“We know that there are individuals and there are groups who actually want to roll back even further – they want to get rid of the Gender Recognition Act from 2004,” she said.
“I think today’s ruling just emboldens those views.”
Arsenal have reached the semi-finals of the Champions League after a dramatic victory over holders Real Madrid in Spain.
The north London side, who became the first English team to win twice at the Bernabeu following their triumph there 19 years ago, will face Paris Saint-Germain in the last four after the French side beat Aston Villa on Tuesday.
It is the third time the Gunners have made it through to the semis of the top club football tournament in Europe, and the first since 2009.
Arsenal went into the second leg of their quarter-final clash on Wednesday with a 3-0 lead.
Backed by a raucous home crowd, Madrid tried to get off to a strong start and Kylian Mbappe scored after two minutes. However, the goal was disallowed for a clear offside.
Arsenal had the chance to go ahead in the 13th minute but winger Bukayo Saka missed a penalty.
The Spanish hosts were awarded a penalty of their own about 10 minutes later when Mbappe stumbled under pressure from Declan Rice in the box – but the decision was overturned by VAR.
More on Arsenal
Related Topics:
Saka atoned for his tepid penalty as he chipped the ball past Madrid’s keeper Thibaut Courtois when put through on goal by auxiliary striker Mikel Merino in the 65th minute.
But Arsenal were pegged back just two minutes later as Vinicius Junior caught William Saliba dawdling on the ball and fired Real Madrid level.
Arsenal’s resolute defending kept the home side at bay until Gabriel Martinelli made a late break through the home side’s defence to put his side 2-1 ahead three minutes into injury time, as the Gunners made it 5-1 on aggregate.
Image: (L-R) Arsenal’s Declan Rice and Mikel Merino celebrate after the defeat against Real Madrid. Pic: AP
‘We knew we were going to win’, says Rice
Arsenal midfielder Declan Rice has insisted his team are intent on winning the Champions League after their victory in Madrid.
Speaking to TNT Sport, Rice, who was named player of the match, said: “It’s such a special night, a historic one for the club. We have the objective of playing the best and winning the competition.
“We had so much belief and confidence from that first leg and came here to win the game. We knew we were going to suffer but we knew we were going to win. We had it in our minds, then we did it [in] real life. What a night.
“I knew when I signed, this club was on an upward trajectory. It’s been tough in the Premier League but in this competition we’ve done amazingly well.
“It’s PSG next, who are an amazing team.”
‘We have to be very proud of ourselves’, says Arteta
Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta told TNT Sport: “One of the best nights in my football career.
“We played against a team with the biggest history.
“To be able to win the tie in the manner we have done, I think we have to be very proud of ourselves.”
He added: “The history we have in this competition is so short. The third time in our history of what we have just done and we have to build on that. All this experience is going to help us, for sure.”
Real Madrid were seeking their third Champions League title in four seasons.
Mbappe twisted ankle
Their forward Mbappe twisted his right ankle during the game and was jeered by part of the crowd when his substitution was announced after a lacklustre performance.
The French star, who is still looking for his first Champions League title, was replaced by Brahim Diaz in the 75th minute following his injury. He was able to walk off the pitch by himself, but was limping slightly.
The other semi-final will be between Barcelona and Inter Milan.
The first legs are set to be played on 29 and 30 April, with the second legs on 6 and 7 May.
After a dramatic weekend with ministers passing legislation to wrest control of British Steel from its Chinese owners, Labour’s China policy is under the spotlight.
Sir Keir Starmer’s government came in, promising a “strategic and long term” relationship with Beijing, after years of “inconsistency” under the Conservatives.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds appeared to turn the tables this weekend, suggesting Chinese parent company Jingye had neglected or even sabotaged British Steel after buying it five years ago. He told Sky News he would not personally “bring a Chinese company into our steel sector”.
He changed his tune on Tuesday, while visiting Scunthorpe to oversee the delivery of a shipment of materials, saying the row was just with one company.
It’s now emerged he is expected to travel to China later this year, to restart a joint economic and trade commission which has been on ice since 2018.
But this is no return to the golden age of some years back.
Tensions in government over China may well emerge in the coming months – as the Treasury’s drive for investment and growth jars with concerns over security.
Ministers are discussing whether parts of the Chinese state should be designated a national security threat, under new rules on foreign influence, due to come in this summer.
Russia and Iran will be covered by the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme – but ministers are yet to say anything about China.
Applying it even in a limited way would be controversial with large companies and within government – seen as a barrier to doing business.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:52
Reynolds rows back on China comments
The Treasury’s view is that engagement with the world’s second largest economy is essential to economic growth.
Ed Miliband’s energy department is pursuing big clean energy projects, many of them backed by Chinese investment.
Wholly state-owned companies already own stakes in Heathrow Airport and Thames Water.
While Huawei was dramatically banned from the UK’s 5G network back in 2020, Chinese companies fund nuclear power, and the National Grid network.
Senior Conservatives, some sanctioned by the Chinese government, have been vocal about what they see as national security risks from this approach.
A report by parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023 said China had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy. It warned that “Chinese money was readily accepted by HM Government with few questions asked”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Some Labour MPs view this with growing concern. One senior MP, speaking privately, said: “The problem is it costs billions of pounds to build reservoirs and nuclear reactors, and we’re not raising that from taxes, so China is where we get that investment.
“There are significant concerns in the party – whether it’s about the security of critical sectors, espionage, or concerns about the use of slave labour in their products.”
Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the business and trade committee, said there needed to be clearer ground rules on Chinese investment.
“If we want to stay ahead of our adversaries, we’ve got to make sure that we’re not handing the most advanced technology to our adversaries,” he said.
“We need a clear definition of economic security from the government, we need a clear threat assessment, and we need a clear way in which business and government are going to work hand in hand to keep our country safe in what are now very different and more dangerous times.”
After a rebuke from the Chinese embassy, which defended the actions of Jingye, the government insists nothing has changed in the relationship.
China is now embroiled in a trade war with the US, and the global trade rules are changing.
The tension emerging is whether economic growth overrides security concerns.