Met says Partygate investigation now closed, with 126 fines issued – UK politics live – The Guardian

Until now the Met has said little about how it has carried out its Partygate investigation. But today’s statement is far more extensive than its previous statements on the inquiry (which have tended to run to just a sentences), and it sheds quite a lot of light on what has been going on. I will post a summary soon.

This is from Helen Ball, acting deputy commissioner at the Metropolitan police, on the conclusion of the Partygate investigation.

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}There is no doubt that the pandemic impacted all of us in so many ways and strong feelings and opinions have been expressed on this particular issue.

When Covid regulations were introduced, the Met was clear that whilst we would not routinely investigate breaches of regulations retrospectively, there may be occasions when it would be appropriate to do so.

The information that we received with regard to the alleged breaches in Downing Street and Whitehall was sufficient to reach our criteria to begin such an investigation.

Our investigation was thorough and impartial and was completed as quickly as we could, given the amount of information that needed to be reviewed and the importance of ensuring that we had strong evidence for each FPN referral.

This investigation is now complete.

With the Met investigation now closed, the government will now have to publish the full Sue Gray report into what happened. This is expected to be damning because it will contain detail about what actually happened at the No 10 parties. The Met has said almost nothing about what took place, beyond confirming that lockdown rules were broken.

The Metropolitan police has a major Partygate announcement.

• A total of 126 fines have now been issued in connection with Partygate, it says.

• The Met says it has now closed the investigation.

As of yesterday No 10 were telling journalists that Boris Johnson had not received a further fine. Unless we get a confirmation very soon that there has been a second one, this means that Johnson will have got through this with just one fine.

The Met says:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Of the referrals, all resulted or will do so in a FPN being issued. The breakdown of recipients is, 53 were men and 73 were women. Some people received more than one FPN.

We will not be releasing or confirming the identity of anyone involved in this investigation or providing further details of our findings, in line with the approach we’ve taken throughout the pandemic.

The full Met statement is here.

Q: So down the line some Channel 4 content could be paid for by subscription?

Dorries says that won’t happen while it remains a public sector broadcaster.

Julian Knight (Con), the committee chair, is taking over now.

Q: Should a privatised Channel 4 consider a subscription model, perhaps with the BBC?

Dorries says that is a matter for whoever buys it.

But she says privatisation is definitely happening. She says the media bill allowing this is coming soon. And Channel 4 will have to carry on making distinctive British content, she says.

Nicolson says a lot of Tories think Channel 4 is being privatised for political reasons, and because Channel 4 News is deemed hostile to the Tories.

Dorries says she is not responsible for what her colleagues say.

She says the government cannot allow Channel 4 to borrow to invest, because the taxpayer would be liable for those debts.

Q: It is making record profits.

That means it would be a good time to sell, says Dorries.

She says the government will receive a “creative dividend” from the sale that it can invest in the production sector.

Q: Channel 4 is the country’s biggest free streaming service. Can you guarantee that it will not move to a subscription model?

Dorries says Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster and this will continue. It will be part of the sale condition.

Q: For how long?

Dorries says she will not discuss that.

Nicolson says that means she is not guaranteeing that, over the long term, it will not move to a subscription model.

Dorries says Channel 4 will have to continue to make distinctive programmes. She cites Derry Girl as an example.

Q: What percentage of the 56,000 responses to your consultation supported privatisation?

Dorries says 46,000 of those respondents were from 38 Degrees, a politcally motivated campaign group. She accuses them of rewriting the consultation language to distort what it was saying.

She says polling shows that 53% of people did not realise that Channel 4 was state owned.

Nicolson says 96% of those who responded to the consultation opposed privatisation.

Dorries goes back to an earlier question. She says the terms of sale will maintain Channel 4 as a public service organistion for 10 years.

Dorries says Channel 4 is dependent on one stream of revenue – advertising.

But this revenue is going down, she says. And she says advertisers have more choice.

Netflix would be a good choice for people spending their advertisting budget, she says.

Nadine Dorries is here. The SNP’s John Nicolson goes first, and he is asking about the privatisation of Channel 4.

Q: Why did you refuse to go on Channel 4 News to discuss this?

Dorries replies: “Because it is my right to do so.”

Nicolson says she should be accountable. Dorries says that she is answering questions today, but that she can choose what media she does.

Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, is about to give evidence to the Commons culture committee.

Here is the committee’s summary of the topics that will come up.

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In a wide-ranging session, MPs are expected to examine the secretary of state’s priorities and strategic vision. The government’s plans to ensure online safety, in the context of the current online and social media landscape, are expected to be examined. Also on the agenda is the future of public service broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4.

The secretary of state may answer questions on the impact of Brexit and Covid-19 on the cultural sector. Sports policy, amidst allegations of racism in cricket and proposals for a football regulator, may also be discussed.

The government has announced new sanctions against three Russian airlines. Aeroflot, which is owned by the Russian government and which is the country’s largest airline, Ural Airlines and Rossiya Airlines will not be allowed to sell their unused landing slots at UK airports. This will cost them an estimated £50m, the government says.

Petrol and diesel prices continue to climb to new highs, PA Media reports:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Statistics from data firm Experian Catalist show the average cost of a litre of petrol at UK forecourts on Wednesday was 168.2p.

That is up from 167.6p per litre on Tuesday.

Diesel prices reached an average of 181.0p per litre on Wednesday, up from 180.9p a day earlier.

Sky’s Sam Coates had a good summary of the confusion in government on how to respond to the cost of living crisis in his report last night.

And the Daily Mirror’s Dan Bloom has a helpful round-up of the options being considered by the government.

In his interviews this morning Kit Malthouse, the policing minister, also said that the government was “intrinsically opposed” to the idea of a windfall tax on energy companies. But he also conceded it was a possibility. He told Times Radio:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}We are intrinsically opposed to that kind of taxation. We want to see a pattern of investment from that industry that will help us with our medium and long-term energy problems.

But the chancellor reserves the right to take all steps he thinks necessary and he’s in conversation with that industry all the time, I’m sure.

It is hard for ministers to answer questions on this topic in interviews because at the top of government there is a split over whether or not to introduce a windfall tax, and it is not obvious which side will prevail. In the Times Matt Dathan and Steven Swinford said the Treasury is now in favour, but No 10 is opposed. They report:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Treasury officials believe that the levy is “politically unavoidable” but are being blocked by the prime minister’s advisers.

Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, has left the door open on imposing a one-off tax on energy suppliers as he comes under increasing pressure to do more to help people with the cost of living. In conversations with No 10, Treasury officials have argued that while a windfall tax would not raise a significant amount it would send a powerful message to the public that the government was “on their side”.

However, Boris Johnson’s advisers are said to be resisting the move because it would be viewed as an attack on business. One of them said it would be an “ideologically unconservative thing to do”, The Times has been told.

Harry Cole has a similar report in the Sun, saying that the Treasury wanted Conservative MPs to abstain in the vote on Labour’s amendment to the Queen’s speech calling for a windfall tax (an abstention would have allowed the amendment to pass), but that No 10 insisted Tory MPs voted against.

Imposing a windfall tax would be a huge U-turn, and a victory for Labour, which has been pushing hard for one for months. But, for the price of a few days of acute embarrassment, the move would also allow the government to neutralise the Labour party’s main attack line, as well as leaving the opposition without its best-known policy.

Andy Cooke, the new chief inspector of constabulary, has said that the cost of living crisis will trigger an increase in crime and officers should use their “discretion” when deciding whether to prosecute people who steal in order to eat. My colleague Vikram Dodd has the story here.

If you think this does not sound like the sort of statement likely to be endorsed by a Home Office run by Priti Patel, you would be right. Kit Malthouse, the policing minister, was doing the morning intervew round on behalf of the government earlier and he told LBC that he did not agree.

Malthouse said that the idea that an economic shock would automatically lead to an increase in theft was “old-fashioned thinking”. And he said that officers should not be turning a blind eye to people shoplifting to get food. He said:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I’m afraid I find it a bit old-fashioned thinking. We first of all believe the law should be blind and police officers should operate without fear or favour in prosecution of the law.

Secondly it’s not quite right to say that as the economy fluctuates so does crime. We’ve seen economic problems in the past, or not, when crime has risen, or not.

Asked if ministers will ensure police do not ignore shoplifters stealing food, he replied:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Absolutely right. In fact I wrote to chief constables just a year or so ago saying they should not be ignoring those seemingly small crimes.

There will be an urgent question in the Commons at 10.30am on food price inflation. It has been tabled by Labour’s Jim McMahon and an environment minister will respond.

Good morning. One of the unusual features about the current economic crisis facing Britain is that some of the loudest calls for government intervention to help the poor have come from big business. Normally you would expect opposition parties, the charity sectors and papers like the Guardian to be the dominant voices on this side of the debate. But recently we’ve had Dame Sharon White, chair of John Lewis, calling government intervention on the scale of Covid to alleviate the “shocking” food poverty problem, John Allan, the Tesco chairman, saying that food poverty is at its highest level for a generation and that there is “an overwhelming case for a windfall tax”, and Bernard Looney, BP’s chief executive, also defending the windfall tax plan, saying No 10 is wrong to think it would halt his company’s investments in the UK. It is as if blue chip, corporate Britain has got a better grasp of the welfare needs of the country than Boris Johnson’s government.

And we had another example this morning. Last night Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, delivered a speech to the CBI’s annual dinner. This morning Tony Danker, director general of the CBI, told the Today programme that Sunak did not go far enough, because he did not have a plan “to help the hardest hit now”. Danker said:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}There are some choices still to be made. And there are some choices you have to make about what you do now and what you do later.

Look, you have to help the hardest hit now. Helping people with heating bills and eating bills will not fuel inflation.

And you need to stimulate business investment now. That’s not going to overheat the economy now. It’s going to make sure that any downturn in our fortunes is short and shallow because growth is coming soon.

But Danker did welcome the suggestion in Sunak’s speech that a mass, untargeted stimulus now would be inflationary. Danker said:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The thing I think [Sunak] has to leave is mass tax cuts in the economy, mass stimulus in the economy. I agree with him that if you do those things too early in this cycle, then you do risk putting up inflation.

So I think he’s got the principles right. But we didn’t hear last night firm decisions that will help the hardest hit now, that will stimulate business and confidence now and will leave other stuff till later.

Sunak is already under intense pressure to announce some sort of cost of living rescue package soon. I will post more on this as the day goes on.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9am: Kit Malthouse, the policing minister, gives a speech at a drugs summit.

9.30am: Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

10am: Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, gives a speech to the Education Policy Institute.

10.20am: Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

12pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions from MSPs.

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.