the common law. i don't develop the common law. i don't think there can be any doubt that is what has happened in this case. think there can be any doubt that is what has happened in this casem is often said that a lawyer who acts for himself has a feel for a client. it is also worrying that if the lawyer is not aware of the costs of the case in continuing with the advice. could the attorney general when he makes a statement about the cost to the taxpayer, include the cost to the taxpayer, include the cost of the house of of having to reconvene on 2a others and the inconvenience to the staff here? may i place on record my endorsement for your expression of gratitude to the staff of the house. they do an extraordinarily greatjob and we are deeply grateful to them and the speed with which they have been able to facilitate the resumption of parliament. the question of who had sight of the legal advice before the decision was taken remains unanswered. so i ask the attorney

general once again. did the cabinet have sight of the legal advice, and did the prime minister chief adviser, dominic cummings have sight of the legal advice? she will know that i cannot disclose whether i give advice, or the content of any such advice. it has covered by the law offices convention. the question is was the advice shown presumes there was advice. so it simply contradicts the law offices convention. i wish i could answer, but i can't. following yesterday's supreme court judgment, the but i can't. following yesterday's supreme courtjudgment, the prime minister presumably got in touch with the buckingham palace and offered his apologies to her majesty the queen for unlawful advice. my question is that the attorney general speak to the prime minister before that conversation took place?

i didn't, no. seems he can't remember! would he agree with me that any reasonable attorney general acting with due care would challenge and perhaps even laugh at any suggestion that five weeks of prorogation was necessary in order to prepare for a queen's speech?” think i understood the question but i don't agree with his premise. has accepted thejudgment i don't agree with his premise. has accepted the judgment that the government acted illegally, but will he add accept his duty, his fundamental duty to uphold the rule of law and democracy and not fan the fla mes of law and democracy and not fan the fla m es of of law and democracy and not fan the flames of hatred with the people against the court, the people

against the court, the people against democracy, on the road to fascism, as he appears to be doing today, by making fun of the supreme court and saying they are making things up as they go along. we make the law, they interpret the law and he and all of us should obey the law. he really needs to listen more closely to what i sight. the supreme court was perfectly entitled to reach the view it did. it did so i reasoned decision. decision—making. it was entirely within the scope of its jurisdiction. it was entirely within the scope of itsjurisdiction. but it was entirely within the scope of its jurisdiction. but there it was entirely within the scope of itsjurisdiction. but there is no question it developed the common though in doing so, that is all i am saying. —— common law. though in doing so, that is all i am saying. -- common law. it is not fear of the electorate that drives some of us in this house of the pit is ever determination to do the right thing by our commitments scratch my constituents against the

government determined to deliver brexit at any price. you have government ministers saying that the judgment handed down has been distributed, but they did not see what they disagreed with. could the attorney general let us know when ministers cast doubt on this judgment, what exactly the disagree with and why they are doing that in parliament? he asks me about why ministers might contest parts of the judgment. there is nothing wrong with the government or the honourable gentleman or any other member of the public, seeking to argue that parts of the judgment we re argue that parts of the judgment were either mistaken or pearly reasons, i don't necessarily agree with that, but there is no harm in people doing it because that is part of democratic debate. —— poorly.

what is wrong, and what irg all members not to do, is to impugn the motives of those who make the decisions. because these are fine judgments who make their decision impartially on what they think is the best view of the law and i know thatis the best view of the law and i know that is what the supreme court did in this case. i am not going to go into all the areas of the judgment that are fragile or vulnerable to alternative arguments. the argument is where set out in government, the judgment of the lord chiefjustice in the provisional court was brilliantly reasoned, and in the governments view, entirely right. but the supreme court chose to disagree with it! despite the repeated, it has been obvious that this attempt at prorogation was about brexit. isn't the real reason why nobody would testify under oath as to what the governments reasons

where was that, even in the government, no one believed that the prime minister's reasons where the truth? if the prime minister had wished to prevent this house from debating brexit, he would have prorogued it from the 5th of september two 14th of october. because he allowed, even we knew, does it seriously suggest that the government was blind to the possibility that in the first few days of resumption after the 4th of september, it was not possible that exactly what happened would happen? if we had wished to close down all debate, and prevent the option of legislation, which was ultimately taken by this house, with the consent of mr speaker, we could have prorogued it from the fifth, but we didn't! and furthermore, on the 14th of october, there would have been 2.5 more weeks for this house to act. with respect, all this talk about a coup isjust act. with respect, all this talk about a coup is just nonsense! inflamed political tripe, invented

and inflated so that this gang can justify clinging to their green benches for another few undeserved weeks. that is what it is all about! the authors of this failed political trick, the prime minister and dominic cummings, have fallen in treating parliament with contempt. what is truly contemptible is dominic cummings refusing to give evidence to a select committee and being in contempt of parliament, and no hiding behind the skirts of the prime minister, which is, who is supporting an individual who is working for the government in not giving evidence to a select committee. does the attorney general think that is a respectable position? i am not sure it is a question for the attorney general. i

am sure the honourable gentleman can find somebody who is able to deal with it better than i, but what i would say, that attacking people who cannot answer for themselves in this houseis cannot answer for themselves in this house is not appropriate. and i would not, myself, choose to do it. the attorney general explained why thatis the attorney general explained why that is a lack of signed witness state m e nts that is a lack of signed witness statements or is it the case, we although, seven servants could not defend indefensible and they thought the government was at it all along. asi the government was at it all along. as i have said, i can't answer questions about witness statements or the internal preparations of the government case for this supreme court. the attorney says that this parliament doesn't want to do any work, does not wish to legislate. he is wrong. there are very many

important issues that we are desperate to legislate on. none more important than the domestic abuse belt, the members across this place and the other plays have worked together for two years and could easily come before the space, get this into law and make this, and improve the lives of tens of thousands across the country. will the attorney put aside his confected outrage and speak to his honourable friend, the leader of the house, and asking to schedule tomorrow and next week, the important stages of this crucial bill? i certainly will talk to the chief whip about it if there isa to the chief whip about it if there is a consent on all sides from the south, we might as well do something while we're waiting for them to make up while we're waiting for them to make up their minds to go for an election. the queen has been misled, the law has been broken and scotland's supreme court has ruled that the prime minister has been less tha n that the prime minister has been less than honest. yet there is not a hint of humility from the benches opposite. what sanctions does the

attorney general think the prime minister playing fast and loose with democratic institutions merits? and is it, ac coming for us to tell us the prime minister is position is terrible. is it not the case that the decent thing for the prime minister to do is go? can i encourage her to ensure that we vote for the election motion that will be coming shortly? that way she can ensure that what she hopes she thinks, no doubt will take place. but the reality is i don't agree. the supreme court found no impropriety. the prime minister or anybody else. does the attorney general believe that the judgment has left 17.5 million people feeling more disenfranchised and they have ever been. i completely agree. the

actions of the sows are bringing it into discredit. it is abandoning all reasonable precedent. —— of this house. the time has come to have a general election and to resist it is undemocratic but that is a decision this opposition has taken. let us wait and see. what the electorate make of it. but i hope that they will understand that what this government is doing is trying to fulfil the mandate of those 17.4 million people. and we will never cease until we succeed! million people. and we will never cease untilwe succeed! it is reassuring to see we are indeed carrying on where we left off. as a senior lawyer himself, well the attorney general agree with me that any attempts to describe the considered unanimous and unambiguous decision of the supreme court as a

constitutional coup, are nothing more than constitutional ball. —— bull. this was a proper decision of the supreme court. we should be proud of ourjudiciary, proud of its independence, in alljurisdictions, i apply that to the inner house, the outer house, the divisional court, lawyers will disagree on some of these complex and fundamental principles, and that is what has happened here. if the point of order relates to the matter of which you have just treated, that is to say, this statement, then i will, at my discretion, take it. during that question and answer session, the attorney general made a joke about

the phrase when did you last stopped beating your wife. but of the reason people are so upset about the prorogation is because i domestic violence bill has fallen as my honourable friend has just mentioned. can i seek your advice on how the attorney general can learn to moderate his language and not makejokes to moderate his language and not make jokes about domestic violence? two it is open to him to respond if he so wishes although he is not obliged to. let me say if i have given a defence, i did not mean to. it is an old saying of the bar which... no, no, no, listen. which simply relates to a cross examination technique of asking a question that presumes the premise. and it is the way in which we were taught, if i had given offence, i apologise. disgusting! ithank the

attorney for responding. this is a matter of extreme sensitivity. and what i would say to the honourable lady and more widely to the house is that it lady and more widely to the house is thatitis lady and more widely to the house is that it is incredibly important... that we are sensitive to the wider implications and interpretation of what we say. and the mores of society do change and sometimes one can find that things one has said in the past without causing offence can no longer be said without causing offe nce. no longer be said without causing offence. but each member must make his or her own judgment. offence. but each member must make his or her ownjudgment. the attorney has made his and said what he has said and i thank him for that. i apologise for not giving advance notice for this. it is advice i think is very relevant to this debate. we have heard much of how the supreme court has extended its remit into the actions of the

executive, and how that may play out into the future. i wondered if you could give advice, perhaps to your successor, whether the actions and decisions of the speaker of this house should be similarly subject to judicial review and how that may work in the future. i am extraordinarily grateful, but as an attempted point of order, frankly, in old—fashioned or level terms, with which i am familiar and of which the honourable gentleman is probably aware, that would get an unqualified. i'm afraid. it wasn't even a good try. i don't bear any elbow to the honourable gentleman but people are going to have a go at these things, —— neilwill. there is a grade and i am afraid it is way, way below the grade. point of order, if it is on these matters but not

beyond. apologies i did not give you advanced notice. during the exchange before, the attorney general said this parliament is a dead parliament. he said it repeatedly. and it should no longer sit, it has no moral right to sit on the screen benches. can you advise me to how to ensure the attorney general retracts those statements. i was sent here by the people of livingston in scotland as when i colleagues and our position should not be undermined by, frankly, such flippant and ridiculous language. there is an important issue here. as something that causes offence required to be withdrawn? the answer to that, i must say in all candour, whose sincerity i respect, is no. lots of things are said which may cause

offe nce, things are said which may cause offence, provoke and bridge and about which there will be disputed, but there was nothing disorderly about what the attorney said. she has registered her view with considerable force and alacrity and it will be on record for her constituents to observe. no impropriety has taken place. i think we can now proceed to the urgent question. to ask the secretary of state of digital sport will she make a statement on how would her department manages possible conflicts of interest. i thank the honourable lady for raising this question today and diane answering it because it is my portfolio. —— i am answering. my

department runs a cybersecurity immediate impact fund. it is one of a range of programmes this designed to increase the numbers of people pursuing careers in cybersecurity. and we want to support new creative and innovative delivered by a range of projects including start—ups. we have supported a variety of initiatives awarding grants of between £20,000 and £500,000, since march, 2018. hacker house is one of the businesses that was awarded a £100,000 grant, in february 2019. as pa rt £100,000 grant, in february 2019. as part of our second funding round. to date, they have been paid some £47,000 for work completed. this is a grand met was awarded by officials from the department for education, and others. including people from the national cybersecurity sense. if she wishes to impugn the motives of

those officials, i would invite to think very carefully before she does so. think very carefully before she does so. to date, we have awarded 11 companies to deliver 12 initiatives. over 400 people have benefited from support through this fund and our objective is that even more people will benefit as the businesses with him we partnerfurther will benefit as the businesses with him we partner further invest in a sector that i know she agrees is vital to the future of security and our economy. this is part of our mission as a department, to identify untapped talent, and to have a broader range of individuals with talent and attitude to develop their career in cybersecurity. i would assure the house, all grants are awarded through a competitive and transparent process. each grant is judged on specific assessment criteria and is approved by a panel i referred to earlier with cross departmental and industry representation. we are, of course, aware of the claims raised recently

by the sunday times and the department is reviewing the decision that was taken. we monitor all grant funding and treat any impropriety with the utmost seriousness and as soon with the utmost seriousness and as soon i have any further information to share on this matter, i will update the house at the earliest possible opportunity.” update the house at the earliest possible opportunity. i thank the minister for his reply. i should make clear, i care very little about the personal life of the prime minister, but i care a lot about how this government manages conflicts of interest and how it spends taxpayer money. on that basis, i am concerned that the department appears to have given hacker house a £100,000 grant injanuary 2019 given hacker house a £100,000 grant in january 2019 as part of the cyber skills immediate impact fund. a grant met was open to initiatives based in and that operate from britain. and that furthermore these grants should not exceed 50% of the

company revenue. we now know that hacker house is not based in the uk. the sunday times reports that its owner moved back to the usa injune 2018. these grants went open for application until november. the registered address of the company is, in fact, house on chester which she used to rent. and the current occu pa nt she used to rent. and the current occupant sends any post addressed to her back to sender. where is the due diligence? what steps did the department take to ensure that hacker house was, indeed, based in and operating in the uk? why did officials waive the rule that the grant could not exceed 50% of the company collective income ? grant could not exceed 50% of the company collective income? and i ask, how many of the other 11 companies have had this kind of preferential treatment? and did the

prime minister, then the backbencher, did he make any representations official or otherwise, to the department, recommending hacker house for this funding? the department says that it will investigate the awarding of the grant, but will the minister tell us when will this review conclude and will it be made fully public? but the misuse of public funds, and conflicts of interest run deeper than this matter. mr speaker, i appreciate that the minister will not be able to speak for the actions of the prime minister when he was the meyer of london. but what she on half of the government ensure that all departments will fully cooperate with the investigation being launched by london's assembly oversight committee? into how the mayors on office handled this. the

fa ct mayors on office handled this. the fact we're back in commons today is because the prime minister has been shown to ride roughshod over the laws of this land. it would indeed be disappointing if we were to find that the prime minister has form in bending rules for personal or political gain. i want to start by saying that the prime minister and his staff have had absolutely no role in the award of this grant. and i suspect i will be saying that a number of times, but it will remain the case. in answer to the other questions, that she has raised. the review will be reporting by the end of next month and i will update the house where necessary of course we will fully cooperate with any other enquiries. she raises the matter of the match funding, 50%, the officials involved in awarding these

gra nts officials involved in awarding these grants scored this particular application very highly in all other aspects. on that aspect, as they routinely do, in a number of other situations, they decided the other aspects more than outweighed that particular individual criteria. on the question of where the company is based, the officials have done the usual due diligence on this company she herself mentioned the address where it is based. it will, of course, be a part of the review we are doing. but as i say, this is a company based in britain as far as companies house is concerned, it has a british phone number, we will review that, but we have no reason to think, we have no reason to think there's anything untoward in particular matter. jeering. to

address the range of the issues she raised, if she wants to raise matters about a grant that was awarded by officials through the proper process, then this is of course upper legitimate process that might form. if she wants to use it to spread to still handle then i would say she should think very carefully for doing it. —— tittle tattle. . carefully for doing it. —— tittle tattle.. the minister will know carefully for doing it. —— tittle tattle. . the minister will know that evidence is due to be given. qt give a term of reference for the review and also details of other awards made to other companies and how much was given under the same scheme as i thank him for that question. my friend assures me we are more than happy to write to his committee and of course the awards that were made

to other companies. these are no secret. there was a press release put out about these. we will provide more detail to his committee.” would like to welcome the minister to his new role. and thank the memberfor oxford west to his new role. and thank the member for oxford west and abingdon for herforensic member for oxford west and abingdon for her forensic questioning this morning. this company, three got the grant of £100,000. —— hacker house i have looked at the stated aim of this fund, increase the number of those working in the uk cyber sector and develop a sustainable supply of home—grown cybersecurity and talent. asi home—grown cybersecurity and talent. as i understand it, hacker house has a company headquarters headquartered in california. and the principals live in the native states. the company claims to have employees in

london, but refuses to reveal who they are where they are. it is very difficult to see how the company fulfilled the criteria for these brands. so will the secretary of state extreme to us how hacker house met the criteria of these grants, was the connection with the then foreign secretary or any other mp in this house, declared when the application was made? will all applications and paperwork related to hacker house's grant be published in the library or be made available for public scrutiny? did any mps lobby on behalf of this company in regard to this or other grants granted by government departments? the broader questions that he has alluded to, need answering in this case, because they keep coming back to the current prime minister. the issue of whether he has represented

the interest of this company or other companies, require scrutiny. as the chair of the select committee has alluded to. this is fundamentally a question of character and of suitability. is the prime minister of sufficient character to occupy high office and disperse public funds? is he suitable? does he understand that the trappings, and privileges, of power come with restrictions and restraints ? power come with restrictions and restraints? is he capable of restraining himself? the truth is that our prime minister does reckless things. he's a man whose character renders him unsuitable, and unsuitable, for the office he holds. i want answers to these questions. but we all know the broader, essential truth. we can all see whojohnson is.

broader, essential truth. we can all see who johnson is. he said it was a pleasure to see me in my place. it isa pleasure to see me in my place. it is a pleasure to see him still in his all i am not sure how many of his all i am not sure how many of his honourable friends share that view. iam, his honourable friends share that view. i am, of course, his honourable friends share that view. iam, of course, happy his honourable friends share that view. i am, of course, happy to repeat what i said before. the prime minister has had no role, whatsoever, in this application, and it is, i think, important to bear in mind that this is a decision made by officials, including people from national cybersecurity centre, including people from the dfe, these are honourable people, doing the right thing and should not be, their reputation should not be impugned in the way that he seeks to do. was there any lobbying? i have said no there any lobbying? i have said no there was not from the prime minister or any other member of parliament. the data that was submitted in the first place, ——

bid, i will make it public so long as there is no public sensitivity. the aim is to try and build a restraint and depth in what is, i know he agrees, and absolutely vital area. the hacker house did seeks to train more people. that platform has already been dealt, he can check it out online himself and even sign up. but it is something that we will seek to make sure reaches hundreds of people, that is part of the bid, it is an important part of this countries cyber security strategy andi countries cyber security strategy and i would hope he would support it, rather than raise a whole host of issues that are, frankly, not releva nt to of issues that are, frankly, not relevant to this question. i must congratulate my honourable friend is on the assumption