Jess Phillips has said “nothing is off the table” when dealing with the grooming gangs scandal – including a new national inquiry if victims want one.
The safeguarding minister told Sky’s political editor Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast that she would listen to victims on a new panel that was announced by the government this week.
“Nothing is off the table,” she said.
“And if the victims come forward to me in this victims panel and they say, ‘actually, we think there needs to be a national inquiry into this’, I’ll listen to them.”
Politics latest: Tories told to ‘put up or shut up’
Her comments come days after it emerged she had rejected calls from Oldham Council to hold a government inquiry into grooming gangs in the town, and said the council should commission one instead.
That has led to tech billionaire Elon Musk attacking her and Sir Keir Starmer for not holding a national inquiry and accusing the prime minister of being “complicit” in the abuse.
Professor Alexis Jay finished an eight-year national inquiry into child sexual abuse in 2022 and set out recommendations for the government.
Read more: What happened in the grooming gangs scandal? Why the Tories’ attempts to force inquiry won’t work
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:25
Education sec ‘not interested’ in Musk comments
The Conservatives tabled an amendment to the Children’s Safeguarding and Schools Bill on Wednesday to require a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.
However, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told Sky News the Tories “don’t care about children” as the amendment could prevent the entire bill from going forward.
She said: “The measures that I’m setting out today and the legislation in many ways go further because it puts a requirement on all councils to have teams working to keep children safe.
“And the bandwagon jumpers that have come along in recent days, they don’t care about children, they don’t care about making sure that we stop this and we take action.
“They had years to do it and they didn’t do it.”
The Conservatives also rejected a call from Oldham Council for a government inquiry in 2022.
You can listen to Beth’s full interview with Jess Phillips in a special episode of Electoral Dysfunction released on Thursday.
It is one of the most popular times of the year to propose – according to Bridebook, a popular wedding planning app, more than 100,000 engagements happen during the festive period.
But with Britons feeling the pinch after years of high inflation, how much are people spending, what cuts are they going for, and what happens to the ring if you split up?
The Money blog did a deep dive to find out.
The ‘two-month salary rule’
When it comes to budgeting for a ring, the phrase that is often bandied about is that you should spend two months of your salary.
But did you know this actually came from a clever piece of marketing? It was the work of De Beers, a diamond cartel, in the 1930s.
The Great Depression was a disaster for De Beers, and so they began a campaign to link diamonds to getting engaged – and it really worked. In the 1940s, just 10% of engagement rings contained diamonds, but by the end of the 20th century, it was 80%.
They did it by launching an ad campaign that suggested a single month’s salary was the right amount to spend on a ring. The biggest breakthrough then came in 1947 with the phrase “A diamond is forever”.
In the 1980s, the single-month salary was bumped up to two months. A famous ad featuring a woman with a ring said: “Two months’ salary showed the future Mrs Smith what the future would be like.”
Read more BBC licence fee to rise next year Harry Potter star owes £1.8m tax bill How much does it cost to freeze your eggs?
Another featured a ring and said: “How can you make two months’ salary last forever?”
By the turn of the century, De Beers had successfully made diamond engagement rings an essential part of getting married – and dictated how much a man should pay.
According to the Office for National Statistics, the average UK monthly salary is £2,297 after tax, which would mean (if you followed De Beers logic) the average Briton is spending £4,594 on a ring.
Of course, for a huge number of Britons this is unaffordable – while there are also many who can afford to pay more.
Image: The duchess of Sussex’s engagement ring is estimated to be worth between £150,000 and £300,000. Pic: AP
Meghan, the duchess of Sussex, wears a white engagement ring, with three diamonds, including some from Princess Diana’s collection. It is estimated to have cost Prince Harry between £150,000 and £300,000 – but is now likely worth much more.
Image: Molly Mae Hague’s ring could be worth more than £1m. Pic: AP
Molly Mae, meanwhile, who broke up with fiancé Tommy Fury before making it down the aisle, was proposed to with a five-carat, oval diamond ring – worth at least £600,000.
A Sky News poll of more than 3,400 people on LinkedIn found a majority would spend between £1,000 and £5,000 on a ring.
Just 306 said they felt rings were unnecessary – less than the 507 who said they would spend more than £5,000 on a ring.
‘Two months? It’s nonsense – here’s what many people do instead’
Charlotte Leigh, the owner and founder of Lottie Leigh Fine Jewellery, tells clients to spend what they can afford.
“One month, two months, three months… it’s relative nonsense. You should never get yourself into a financial pickle over an engagement ring. Because an engagement ring, as lovely as it is, it’s not going to pay the mortgage or the rent. It’s not going to pay your electricity bill.”
She often sees couples buy a “starter” ring intending to upgrade it later down the line if and when they can afford it.
“It shows an attitude of, ‘I want you to have what you want, but actually that’s not practical right now. So let’s get you something lovely, and then when we’re in a different financial position, we’ll get you something fabulous,'” she said.
And when it comes to picking a stone, diamonds are a “lovely concept” but also practical, she said: “They are very durable and should last you forever.”
In 2024, emeralds are more popular
New research, conducted by Ramsdens Jewellery, has found these days it is the emerald that is more sought after, followed by diamonds and sapphires. The research analysed nationwide Google searches for engagement ring gemstones and cuts to determine the most in-demand in the UK.
Emerald cut, princess cut, and pear cut were the most popular styles.
Image: File pic: iStock
The way we think of rings is changing
In writing this piece, this reporter told Charlotte that her husband didn’t get her an engagement ring at all – and Charlotte didn’t seem surprised to hear about someone doing things differently.
“The average age for marriage these days is 32, and we are settling down much older than other generations,” she says.
“And when we meet people, we now move in with them before getting married. I know some couples who have children who haven’t bothered to get married – it’s a reflection of how our society is changing. People have different priorities.”
But what she sees more often is people (usually women) designing their rings alongside their partners.
“It’s quite symbolic of the way women’s place in society has changed. Before, women would have had a ring bestowed upon them. And I promise you, nine times out of 10, it wasn’t the perfect ring.
“But now what we are doing is saying, this is all about you, you and your happiness, and I want you to have the perfect ring. And I think that is a beautiful concept.”
Charlotte says while a client will sometimes walk in the door asking for the “whitest diamond with the best clarity”, they often change their mind when she shows them different options – as many of the differences aren’t visible to the naked eye.
Lab-grown or mined?
One way to get slightly more dazzle for your coin is to opt for a lab-grown diamond. These are compositionally the same as mined diamonds, right down to the same sparkly atoms – but they’ve been grown in a lab instead of dug from the earth.
On the face of it, it seems more environmentally friendly but most lab diamond growers require 250-750 kilowatt hours (kWh) to produce a rough carat (that would be like running 750 dishwashers for an hour).
Image: Lab-grown diamonds are seen as a more affordable alternative. Pic: iStock
“Whichever avenue you go down with an engagement ring, even if it’s a great diamond, there is an impact to the environment – and anyone who tells you any different is lying,” says Charlotte.
Predictions also show a lab-grown diamonds will eventually “be worth the same as a [cheap] cubic zirconia”, Charlotte says, because the “market is being flooded” as they are easy (if energy-consuming) to make.
“The whole point of a diamond is that it is rare,” she says.
What happens if you break up?
Like Molly Mae and Tommy Fury, not every engagement ends in happily ever after. Paris Hilton’s third engagement to actor Chris Zylka was marked with a 20-carat pear-cut diamond ring said to be worth $2m. After they broke up, the heiress refused to return it because Zylka had reportedly received it for free from a close friend, jeweller Michael Green.
One very expensive ring found itself at the centre of a court battle that went all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, where arguments were heard from lawyers representing Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino. The pair were briefly engaged in 2017.
According to court documents, Johnson bought the engagement ring from Tiffany’s in Boston, paying more than $70,000. Shortly after the pair became engaged, the relationship ended. Massachusetts law said the ring was a “conditional gift”, saying the giver could get it back if they were found to be without fault in the relationship ending.
In the UK, however, the ring is usually classified as an “absolute gift”.
The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 states that: “The gift of an engagement ring shall be presumed to be an absolute gift; this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the condition, express or implied, that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason.”
Nelsons Solicitors says although it seems unfair, this means the recipient is under no obligation to return the ring if the marriage doesn’t take place, or ends in divorce.
We asked our readers and 55% said it should be given back.
Thinking of proposing this Christmas?
Charlotte says that however much you spend should come down to where you place your value.
“Some people place value on that cost per wear and enjoyment factor. So if you have something that you wear every day, and you enjoy it, you might say, well then it’s worth it.
“It’s a bit like a Chanel bag – it is expensive, but is it worth it? That’s down to the individual.”
A government minister has refused to rule out raising taxes for higher earners.
Stephen Kinnock dodged the question nine times when Sky News’ Kay Burley asked whether people who earn more than £100,000 a year are “working people”, under Labour’s definition.
Labour’s manifesto pledged not to raise national insurance, VAT or income tax for “working people”.
However, the party has not revealed its exact definition of “working people”, raising concern it is getting ready to hike up taxes for certain groups at the budget on 30 October, including those who earn more than £100,000.
At present, people who earn between £50,271 and £125,140 pay 40% tax on that income and those who earn more than that pay 45%. People who earn more than £100,000 also currently have smaller personal allowances.
Live politics updates: Starmer urges public to help ‘fix the NHS’
Health Secretary Wes Streeting, talking to Sky News’ Trevor Phillips on Sunday, warned high earners should not expect help at the budget, suggesting it would focus on “people who are on lower or middle incomes”.
Pressed on that today, health minister Mr Kinnock said he would not speculate and added: “The chancellor will set this out on 30 October.”
He insisted the government would “not be breaking any of those manifesto commitments”.
The definition of “working people”, he said, has “to be seen in the round and that’s what’s going to be put on the table on 30 October”.
He added Chancellor Rachel Reeves will make the definition of working people “absolutely clear” during her budget announcement.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:12
‘We’re not going to fix 14 years in one budget’
Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman, when asked if somebody earning six figures is a working person, also dodged the question and referred back to Mr Kinnock’s comments.
Ms Reeves has been saying for months the budget will be “tough” and it was recently revealed she is aiming to fill a £40bn blackhole – much larger than the £22bn Labour said the Tories left them with.
On Sunday, Mr Streeting refused to rule out freezing tax thresholds, which would see more people dragged into higher tax bands.
The row over Labour’s definition of “working people” has ramped up over the past few weeks as it emerged Ms Reeves is expected to raise national insurance for employers.
Labour claimed this would not be breaking their manifesto as they only promised to not raise taxes for working people.
During the election campaign in June, Sir Keir Starmer said “working people” are those who are working but do not have meaningful savings.
Ms Reeves said they are “people who go out to work”, leaving voters none the wiser.
Read more: Could Reeves change Labour’s fiscal rules to raise money? What could be in the budget? Which tax rises could Labour introduce?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:41
What will the budget include?
She is expected to increase capital gains tax, paid on the sale of shares and other assets, to 33% or above, but not as high as 39%.
The current rate for higher earners ranges from 20% to 28% depending on the type of asset.
An increase will be seen as a wealth tax as only about 350,000 people a year pay capital gains, but they contribute £15bn in tax receipts, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Ms Reeves is also expected to cut some reliefs in the inheritance tax system and could keep council tax increases at 5% a year.
Motoring organisations have raised concerns Labour will increase fuel duty for the first time in 14 years by not continuing the 5p cut.
The higher education minister has not ruled out that some universities may be forced to close over the funding crisis facing the sector.
Former home secretary Baroness Jacqui Smith, who Sir Keir Starmer appointed as minister for higher education in his cabinet, told the Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge that universities should be “looking at how they can run efficiently as possible”.
Universities are currently facing a funding crisis due to a drop in student applications and restrictions that prevent international students, who pay higher fees, from bringing their partners and children with them.
Politics latest:Tories ‘planned to spend £10bn on Rwanda scheme’
Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, has said universities should seek to manage their own budgets before hoping for a bailout from the taxpayer.
Asked whether that could mean some universities are threatened with closure, Baroness Smith replied: “I don’t want that to happen. And I’m concerned that students are still able to get those opportunities.”
Pressed again on whether some higher institutions could close their doors, the minister said again:“I hope it doesn’t happen.
“And, you know, that’s what we need to work to try to avoid.”
Image: File pic: PA
She said it was “in the hands of universities to take the action necessary in order to be as efficient as possible”.
“I want to work alongside them in order to make sure that our higher education sector, which is internationally recognised, it’s one of the key enablers in this country for individuals and for the economy,” she added.
“I want that to work successfully, and I’m willing to work in partnership to ensure that that happens.”
Last year, the Home Office announced that international students who come to the UK will no longer be able to bring family with them except under specific circumstances.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:55
December 2023: Visa laws ‘will hit universities’
The curbs have been in force since January and mean overseas students are no longer able to bring dependants with them unless they are on postgraduate courses that are designated as research programmes.
Conservative ministers, who were looking to lower migration numbers to the UK, said at the time that the restrictions would see 140,000 fewer people come to the UK each year.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Tap here
Earlier, Ms Phillipson said a “sharper focus” was needed on regulating the higher education sector to ensure that universities were “on a firm footing” financially.
She said universities were “autonomous” and there were “expectations around how they manage their budgets, and I would expect them to do that without seeking any calls on the taxpayer”.
Image: Bridget Phillipson says universities should seek to manage their own budgets before hoping for a bailout
But the University and College Union (UCU) has called on the government to take action to help universities across the country who were struggling with their finances.
In a letter sent to Labour on Friday, Jo Grady, general secretary of the UCU, warned: “Anything short of an emergency rescue package for the sector will be insufficient to stave off catastrophe.”
Read more from Sky News: UK test-fires laser beam that can destroy targets at speed of light Scrapped Rwanda scheme ‘has already cost £700m’
Susan Lapworth, chief executive of the Office for Students, the higher education watchdog, said a recent analysis it had conducted showed “increasing financial risks” facing the sector.
“These risks include the decline in the real-terms value of tuition fees, an over-reliance by some institutions on international students, and misplaced and unrealistic optimism about student recruitment,” she said.
“We are not expecting an increase in the number of institutions exiting the market in the short-term.
“But all universities should carefully consider the sector-wide risks, and ensure they are taking steps to secure their long-term futures.”
Good care for pregnant women “is the exception rather than the rule”, a landmark inquiry has said.
A parliamentary inquiry into birth trauma has found there was “shockingly poor quality” in maternity services, which resulted in care that lacked compassion and a system where “poor care is all too frequently tolerated as normal”.
The inquiry’s report is set to be released later this morning and was first reported by The Times.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Tap here
The report also found that women were “treated as an inconvenience” and errors were covered up by hospitals that “frustrated parents’ efforts to find answers”.
Victoria Atkins, the health secretary, said that the experiences uncovered in the report were “harrowing”.
The Times reported that the inquiry found new mothers had been left on blood-soaked sheets for hours, berated by midwives, or in one case been dismissed as an “anxious mother” when her baby then later died from complications that she was warning about.
The report calls for a new maternity commissioner who will report to the prime minister.
Each year, around 30,000 women will suffer a negative experience before, during or after delivery.
In 2011, Sarah Embleton suffered a serious birthing tear which was missed by doctors for more than a year – leading to complications.
Image: Sarah Embleton
“I was in a lot of pain a lot of the time because obviously things that healed by themselves in a way that they shouldn’t have done, she told Sky News.
“So, urgency, not being able to hold in, needing to go to the loo, that sort of physical side was pretty horrendous.”
Read more from Sky News: Women ‘failed at every stage’ of maternity care Mother left with injuries after giving birth breaks ‘silence’ Grieving parents demand nationwide guidance after failings
She added: “Also the psychological side as well, I was diagnosed with PTSD.
“There is no area of my life that was untouched by it.”
The home secretary has warned the Speaker against changing Commons conventions due to intimidation from outside parliament, telling Sky News: “The only thing MPs should fear is the ballot box.”
James Cleverly offered his support to Sir Lindsay Hoyle to stay in post – despite 68 MPs having now signed a no-confidence petition against him after Wednesday’s chaotic scenes in the Commons – calling him “a breath of fresh air”.
But he added: “We should not be changing our procedures in response to threats or intimidation. That would indicate that the threats and the intimidation is working – that is the opposite of the message that we want to send.
“If peoplethink that they can target members of parliament, they are wrong. The full force of the law will be brought down.”
Politics live: Speaker comes out fighting
A huge row erupted on Wednesday as parliament held an opposition day debate over the Israel-Hamas conflict, with the SNP calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Pressure had been mounting on the Labour Party to move away from the government’s position of calling for a pause in fighting to echo the SNP’s stance – and they announced they would put forward their own amendment, calling for a ceasefire, albeit with a number of caveats.
Electoral Dysfunction
Listen to Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips and Ruth Davidson as they unravel the spin in a new weekly podcast from Sky News
Tap here to follow
Commons conventions say that opposition motions cannot be amended by opposition parties, but Sir Lindsay took the decision to let Labour’s position be debated and voted on, claiming it gave MPs the widest range of positions to discuss and back, and citing the safety of members who were facing threats and intimidation unless they supported calls for a ceasefire.
But his decision was met with rage from the Conservatives, who pulled their own amendment and “played no further part” in the proceedings, and ended with the SNP not even getting to vote on their own motion.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:37
‘I have a duty of care to protect’
Despite the Speaker making two apologies in the Commons on both Wednesday and Thursday for how his decision had played out, calls for him to resign grew – led by the leader of the SNP, Stephen Flynn, who said his position was now “intolerable”.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also criticised Sir Lindsay’s actions, calling them “very concerning”, while former home secretary Suella Braverman wrote an angry piece in the Daily Telegraph, saying it had “undermined the integrity of Parliament” and that “the Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now”.
Asked about his position on the Sir Lindsay as the row entered its third day, Mr Cleverly said: “I think the Speaker’s done a fantastic job. I think he’s been a breath of fresh air compared with his predecessor.
“He made a mistake. He apologised for the mistake. My view is that I’m supportive of him.”
But the current home secretary said it would be down to MPs to decide his fate, adding: “The selection of the speaker is House business and for the House of Parliament rather than for government.
“And I know that sounds like we’re dancing on the head of a pin, but in our constitution it’s a very important division. So this is House business for members of parliament, rather than for the government.”
There is no formal way for the Speaker to be removed, but he could choose to resign if calls for him to go continue to grow – as one of his predecessors, Michael Martin, did in 2009.
However, with support from the Labour benches and senior Conservatives, Sir Lindsay could instead decide to fight on to stay on post.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:47
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn has told Sir Lindsay Hoyle he no longer believes he can continue in his role as Speaker of the House.
The Tories have sought to blame Labour for the shambolic scenes in parliament this week, amplifying reports that party leader Sir Keir Starmer threatened to withdraw support from the Speaker if he did not select their ceasefire amendment.
A Conservative source told Sky News on Friday: “Starmer’s undermined parliament, bullied the speaker into doing something he admitted was “wrong”, and it sadly won’t be long before more antisemitic views emerge from Labour.”
And Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho told reporters: “I think the speaker is a decent man. He’s a really well respected parliamentarian. I didn’t agree with the ruling that he made, but I think the real culprit here is Keir Starmer.
“I think he’s put the speaker in an intolerable position by saying that we should bow to intimidation and external influences. No intimidation should change the way that we vote in parliament or what we vote on.”
But Sir Keir “categorically” denied making any such threat, telling reporters that when he met Sir Lindsay, he “simply urged” him to have “the broadest possible debate” by putting a number of options in front of MPs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:26
Sir Keir Starmer has
The Labour leader added: “The tragedy is the SNP walked off the pitch because they wanted to divide the Labour Party and they couldn’t, and the government walked off the pitch because it thought it was going to lose a vote.”
Speaking to Sky News on Friday morning, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper insisted Sir Lindsay was “right” to select Labour’s amendment to the ceasefire vote – which ended up passing – “making sure the widest possible range of views can be debated, sit on and can be voted on, that is something that is good for democracy”.
But she agreed decisions on parliamentary procedure should not be made because of intimidation from outside.
Boris Johnson has been referred to the police by the Cabinet Office over new claims he broke COVID lockdown rules.
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.
Politics Live: Boris Johnson’s diary shows friends visiting him at Chequers during lockdown
The Cabinet Office has passed concerns to the Metropolitan Police and Thames Valley Police.
The privileges committee, which is investigating claims Mr Johnson misled parliament over partygate, has also been informed, according to The Times which first reported on the story.
The news has sparked calls for Mr Johnson to step down as an MP.
But sources close to him called the referral “clearly politically motivated” and claimed the Cabinet Office did not give him any notice “so he could put forward the facts before the report was made”.
Mr Johnson has been advised by lawyers that the events were lawful.
A spokesperson for Mr Johnson said: “Some abbreviated entries in Mr Johnson’s official diary were queried by Cabinet Office during preparation for the COVID Inquiry.
“Following an examination of the entries, Mr Johnson’s lawyers wrote to the Cabinet Office and privileges committee explaining that the events were lawful and were not breaches of any COVID regulations.”
Police are currently “assessing” concerns, but a formal investigation has not yet been launched.
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”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:03
‘Hand on heart I did not lie’
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.”
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, 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.
January 2021 – Third national lockdown for England – people were again told to stay at home and and not meet anyone outside their support bubble, with limited exceptions for religious gatherings like weddings.
March 2021 – Six people or two households, regardless of size, allowed to mingle 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”.
“His legacy is one of lying, complete contempt for the ordinary people he was supposed to protect, and above all presiding over the deaths of nearly 200,000 people,” she said.
“If he had any respect he’d quietly step back from public life and reflect on the pain and suffering he has inflicted on so many.”
However Ben Bradley, the Tory MP for Mansfield, said the world “has moved on” from partygate.
He told 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.
He narrowly survived a confidence vote in June 2022 but was brought down a month later over his handling of the Chris Pincher affair.
The privileges committee is now investigating whether Mr Johnson knowingly misled parliament with his repeated insistence that rules were followed at all times.
He could be suspended from the Commons and face a by-election if they find he purposefully misled the House.
