this is bbc news, i'm clive myrie. the headlines: pressure mounts on borisjohnson as his top civil servants face mps over who funded the refurbishment of the downing street flat and other matters. the prime minister responds to criticism of his integrity. if there's anything to be said about that, any declaration to be made, that will of course be made in due course. if there is a straightforward answer, well, give it. and if there isn't, then, there are very serious questions to be asked. as india records a grim world high of daily covid—19 cases for five straight days, doctors say people are dying on the streets outside hospitals. the european commission begins legal action against astrazeneca, over alleged breaches

of its contract to supply the coronavirus vaccine. the british—iranian charity worker nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe is sentenced to a year in prison in iran, after being found guilty of propaganda against the regime. and triumph at the oscars for sir anthony hopkins, who becomes the oldest winner with best actor for his role in the father. here i am in my homeland, in wales and at 83 years of age, i did not expect to get this award, i really didn't. i'm very grateful to the academy, and thank you. good afternoon. borisjohnson is under intensifying pressure over transparency,

after a series of explosive allegations made by his former top adviser dominic cummings — including that he sought money from tory donors to help refurbish his downing st flat. this morning, the prime minister said that "any declaration to be made" on payments for the refurbishment would be made "in due course." mps are today questioning the head of the civil service on a series of potentially damaging issues for the prime minister — including whether a leak inquiry was stopped, and also the rules about lobbying. labour says the claims go to "the heart of ethics and integrity" in the government. here's our political correspondent helen catt. borisjohnson on a visit to wales this morning. but he is still being forced to bat away awkward questions after accusations by his former aide dominic cummings last week. firstly, bertie refurbishment _ dominic cummings last week. firstly, bertie refurbishment office _ dominic cummings last week. firstly, bertie refurbishment office home - dominic cummings last week. firstly, bertie refurbishment office home at l bertie refurbishment office home at number 11 downing st. like many people, borisjohnson and his fiancee redecorated the flat after

moving in. this is what it looked like when theresa and philip may live there. as downing street is a public building, questions continue to be asked about who paid. the government said the prime minister dead. the query is if someone else was involved initially. it dead. the query is if someone else was involved initially.— was involved initially. if there is an hinu was involved initially. if there is anything to _ was involved initially. if there is anything to be _ was involved initially. if there is anything to be said _ was involved initially. if there is anything to be said about - was involved initially. if there is anything to be said about that, l was involved initially. if there is i anything to be said about that, any declaration to be made, that will of course be made in due course. i am finding that actually what people here in north wales want us to concentrate on is making sure we get on with the vaccine roll—out. there on with the vaccine roll-out. there have been — on with the vaccine roll-out. there have been several— on with the vaccine roll-out. there have been several reports - on with the vaccine roll-out. there have been several reports the - on with the vaccine roll—out. there have been several reports the prime minister had planned to have party donors pay for the work. dominic cummings said he told mrjohnson the plans were unethical, foolish and possibly illegal. it is plans were unethical, foolish and possibly illegal.— possibly illegal. it is all well and aood the possibly illegal. it is all well and good the prime _ possibly illegal. it is all well and good the prime minister - possibly illegal. it is all well and good the prime minister saying l possibly illegal. it is all well and - good the prime minister saying that now he _ good the prime minister saying that now he is_ good the prime minister saying that now he is paying for it, but the

critical— now he is paying for it, but the critical question is what was the original— critical question is what was the original arrangement? why is it so com bigoted? if there is a straightforward answer, give it, —— why is_ straightforward answer, give it, —— why is it_ straightforward answer, give it, —— why is it so— straightforward answer, give it, —— why is it so complicated? the election why is it so complicated? tue: election watchdog why is it so complicated? tte: election watchdog is why is it so complicated? t'te: election watchdog is currently gathering information and downing street says that no rules were broken. so why does this all matter? it doesn't effort it is completely transparent who paid for the refurbishment. that's why there are rules around things like gifts. the funding of the downing street ito—something mps are likely to ask simon case, the most senior civil servant in the country later. he will also face questions into an enquiry about who we plans for the second knockdown in england back in late october. dominic cummings said borisjohnson considered halting the enquiry, in case it implicated a friend of his fiancee. downing st says that is absolutely false.

what is the substance of this alleged comment attributed to mr johnson concerning bodies piling up in the pandemic? the johnson concerning bodies piling up in the pandemic?— johnson concerning bodies piling up in the pandemic? the daily mail was re ”ortin in the pandemic? the daily mail was reporting this _ in the pandemic? the daily mail was reporting this reported _ reporting this reported conversation, which the prime minister has said that rather than have another lockdown, according to the paper, he would let the bodies pile high in their thousands. the bbc has been told the prime minister did make remarks suggesting bodies could pile high. this was during a heated discussion about the lockdown and downing street back in the autumn. the prime minister has been out on a visit this morning, and was asked directly whether or not he actually made this comment. no. but, again, the important thing i think the people want us to get on and do as a government is to make sure that the lockdowns work, and they have. and i really pay tribute

to the people of this country, this whole country of ours, that have really pulled together and, working with the vaccination programme, we've got the disease under control. i mean, the number of deaths, the number of hospitalisations, are currently very low. he was asked again you didn't make those comments about the bodies? he said he did not. he was also asked about a number of other issues. you heard his answer early about whether heard his answer early about whether he would have taken donations for the refurbishment of the downing street flat. also whether he had interfered or influence the leak enquiry. the answer he said was absolutely not. there are a number of questions the prime minister is fielding today because that they are likely to come up again this afternoon when the most senior civil servant in the country speaks to mps. a lot of questions being asked today, no sign of that stopping any time soon. joeyjones is

the former spokesperson for the former prime minister, theresa may. clearly mrjohnson and mr symons did not like your old boss's taste in home decor, but i wonder which one of these charges is the most damning for the prime minister? when it comes to integrity in public life, are they all are serious together? to be honest, the story about the refurbishment of the downing street flat is one that has been kicked around for quite some time. i have been rather surprised that it didn't take off as a story before, that borisjohnson was trying to get anybody, and in the end seem to be scouring the conservative party coffers, is the best avenue to try and pay for something his predecessors, to my understanding,

as you say, theresa may who i work for when she was home secretary, david cameron before that, paid for out of their own pocket. but certainly right now it is the incendiary way in which dominic cummings has been framing that particular episode that makes it particularly damaging and potentially dangerous for the prime minister, because he said in his blog he put out on friday night that it was foolish, and indeed, he thought potentially even illegal, the route that borisjohnson was trying to plot. me the route that boris johnson was trying to plot-— the route that boris johnson was trying to plot. we are going to go straiaht trying to plot. we are going to go strai . ht to trying to plot. we are going to go straight to the _ trying to plot. we are going to go straight to the public _ straight to the public administration and constitutional affairs committee. the most senior civil servant is giving evidence. could you give an indication as to the timescale _ could you give an indication as to the timescale of _ could you give an indication as to the timescale of the _ could you give an indication as to the timescale of the conclusion . could you give an indication as to| the timescale of the conclusion of this investigation? _ the timescale of the conclusion of this investigation? i— the timescale of the conclusion of this investigation?— this investigation? i hope weeks, rather than _ this investigation? i hope weeks, rather than months. _ this investigation? i hope weeks, rather than months. could - this investigation? i hope weeks, rather than months. could i - this investigation? i hope weeks, | rather than months. could i press ou rather than months. could i press you further? _

rather than months. could i press you further? as _ rather than months. could i press you further? as i _ rather than months. could i press you further? as i said, _ rather than months. could i press you further? as i said, these - you further? as i said, these investigations _ you further? as i said, these investigations are _ you further? as i said, these investigations are complex. l investigations are complex. different strands to pursue, but i hope it will not be long now before the house can hear of the conclusions. but recognising very legitimate public and parliamentary interest in this, but trying to manage the issues around the fact that the security classifications of the context and the content, you know, it is why we have been updating this week on privy council terms, so at least parliamentary authority, the speaker is aware of progress. t5 authority, the speaker is aware of rouress. , ., authority, the speaker is aware of rouress. , . ., authority, the speaker is aware of arc: fess. , ., ., _, .,. ., , progress. is an outcome actually desiredyes- _ progress. is an outcome actually desiredyes. when _ progress. is an outcome actually desiredyes. when we _ progress. is an outcome actually desiredyes. when we begin - progress. is an outcome actually| desiredyes. when we begin these enquiries, you have to remember, this one related to a matter, i think, of vital public concern. i

think, of vital public concern. i think there was widespread anger, not only in government, but beyond, about this leak related to a vital part of our covid response. and certainly, from the outset, the prime minister, other ministers, teams and everybody was determined to dry and fine out who was responsible. t5 to dry and fine out who was responsible.— to dry and fine out who was resonsible. , , ., u, , responsible. is usual in the course of such an — responsible. is usual in the course of such an investigation _ responsible. is usual in the course of such an investigation to - responsible. is usual in the course of such an investigation to tell - of such an investigation to tell parties — of such an investigation to tell parties partway— of such an investigation to tell parties partway through - of such an investigation to tell parties partway through that l of such an investigation to tell. parties partway through that they are exonerated _ parties partway through that they are exonerated from _ parties partway through that they are exonerated from the - are exonerated from the investigation? _ are exonerated from the investigation?— are exonerated from the investigation? are exonerated from the investiuation? ,, . ,, ., investigation? shall i spell out the broader process _ investigation? shall i spell out the broader process of _ investigation? shall i spell out the broader process of how _ investigation? shall i spell out the broader process of how these - broader process of how these enquiries are conducted? grey before doing that, could you answer that point. is it usual... t5 it

doing that, could you answer that point. is it usual...— point. is it usual... is it usualto tell peeple _ point. is it usual... is it usualto tell people partway _ point. is it usual... is it usualto tell people partway through - point. is it usual... is it usualto tell people partway through an i tell people partway through an investigation _ tell people partway through an investigation they— tell people partway through an investigation they are - tell people partway through an investigation they are not - tell people partway through an - investigation they are not indicated any further? — investigation they are not indicated any further? for— investigation they are not indicated any further?— investigation they are not indicated any further? for reasons i hope you will understand, _ any further? for reasons i hope you will understand, actually _ any further? for reasons i hope you will understand, actually i - any further? for reasons i hope you will understand, actually i cannot i will understand, actually i cannot comment on individuals. actually, public speculation risks being unfair to individuals and undermining the investigation. but providing updates as the investigation progresses is actually part of the normal process. which as i say i am very happy to set out. please though.— i say i am very happy to set out. please thou~h. ~ ., ., , , , . please though. when a or suspected leak is identified, _ please though. when a or suspected leak is identified, the _ please though. when a or suspected leak is identified, the cabinet - leak is identified, the cabinet secretary decides whether to initiate a leak enquiry or not, usually in discussion with the prime minister. permanent secretaries can also initiate leak enquiries in their own departments, should their

information be released in an unauthorised way. leak enquiries that are instigated by the cabinet secretary or involve one or more departments are referred to the government security group, the cabinet office to investigate using a full range of techniques available to them. i won't go into the exact techniques they use to prevent undermining future enquiries. once the information is gathered, the government security group produces an initial support for the cabinet secretary on what has been established, and if deemed necessary, this report is also shared with the prime minister. going beyond that process, if there is reason to believe that the leaking of the information constitutes a crime. for example, under the official secrets act or misconduct in public office, and this is referred to the metropolitan police through a process known as

the gateway process. that this process involving seniors in the cabinet office, police other relevant organisations that looks at damage, evidence, etc and the threshold for police involvement is high. grey is at usual are indeed possible that investigations can be suspended... possible that investigations can be susnended- - -_ suspended... without conclusion before they _ suspended... without conclusion before they have _ suspended... without conclusion before they have gone _ suspended... without conclusion before they have gone the - suspended... without conclusion before they have gone the full. before they have gone the full course? — before they have gone the full course? i— before they have gone the full course? ~ ., before they have gone the full course? ~' ., ., , course? ithink... i mean, in theory that would — course? ithink... i mean, in theory that would be _ course? ithink... i mean, in theory that would be possible, _ course? ithink... i mean, in theory that would be possible, but - course? ithink... i mean, in theory that would be possible, but i - course? ithink... i mean, in theory that would be possible, but i am i course? ithink... i mean, in theory| that would be possible, but i am not quite sure under what circumstances you would want to conclude an investigation before it had reached that initial stage. i'm assuming we are talking about the initial review by the government security group. i am not aware of circumstances in which that would happen. going back to your knowledge, in your current

post or those of your predecessors, . .. predecessors,... has an investigation _ predecessors,... has an investigation ever - predecessors,... has an investigation ever been | predecessors,... has an - investigation ever been stopped because — investigation ever been stopped because the _ investigation ever been stopped because the outcome _ investigation ever been stopped because the outcome would - investigation ever been stopped. because the outcome would have investigation ever been stopped - because the outcome would have been subsequently— because the outcome would have been subsequently more _ because the outcome would have been subsequently more embarrassing - because the outcome would have been subsequently more embarrassing than| subsequently more embarrassing than the actual— subsequently more embarrassing than the actual matter— subsequently more embarrassing than the actual matter is _ subsequently more embarrassing than the actual matter is self? _ subsequently more embarrassing than the actual matter is self? mgr- the actual matter is self? my knowledge — the actual matter is self? knowledge is limited to my the actual matter is self?- knowledge is limited to my time, i am afraid. no, iam not knowledge is limited to my time, i am afraid. no, i am not aware of any incidents. ., . ., am afraid. no, i am not aware of any incidents. ., ,_, incidents. therefore we can discount what appeared _ incidents. therefore we can discount what appeared in — incidents. therefore we can discount what appeared in the _ incidents. therefore we can discount what appeared in the press - incidents. therefore we can discount what appeared in the press this - what appeared in the press this weekend? _ what appeared in the press this weekend? in— what appeared in the press this weekend? ., , , what appeared in the press this weekend?_ in i what appeared in the press this - weekend?_ in respect weekend? in what sense? in respect that suggestion _ weekend? in what sense? in respect that suggestion was _ weekend? in what sense? in respect that suggestion was made _ weekend? in what sense? in respect that suggestion was made that - weekend? in what sense? in respect that suggestion was made that an i that suggestion was made that an enquiry— that suggestion was made that an enquiry be — that suggestion was made that an enquiry be suspended, _ that suggestion was made that an enquiry be suspended, in- that suggestion was made that an enquiry be suspended, in case - that suggestion was made that an enquiry be suspended, in case it i enquiry be suspended, in case it brought— enquiry be suspended, in case it brought forward _ enquiry be suspended, in case it brought forward and _ enquiry be suspended, in case it brought forward and answer- enquiry be suspended, in case iti brought forward and answer that wasn't _ brought forward and answer that wasn't particularly— brought forward and answer that wasn't particularly helpful. - brought forward and answer that wasn't particularly helpful. i- brought forward and answer that wasn't particularly helpful. i amti wasn't particularly helpful. i am not entirely _ wasn't particularly helpful. i am not entirely sure _ wasn't particularly helpful. i am not entirely sure what - wasn't particularly helpful. not entirely sure what press wasn't particularly helpful.“ not entirely sure what press report thatis, not entirely sure what press report that is, but no. in relation to this particular leak or others, the prime minister has always been clear and

very determined to see these enquiries complete. t5 very determined to see these enquiries complete.— enquiries complete. is that determination _ enquiries complete. is that determination with - enquiries complete. is that determination with any - enquiries complete. is that - determination with any timescale? more _ determination with any timescale? more timely— determination with any timescale? more timely than _ determination with any timescale? more timely than a _ determination with any timescale? more timely than a matter- determination with any timescale? more timely than a matter of- determination with any timescale? . more timely than a matter of weeks, given— more timely than a matter of weeks, given this _ more timely than a matter of weeks, given this leak— more timely than a matter of weeks, given this leak was _ more timely than a matter of weeks, given this leak was october- more timely than a matter of weeks, given this leak was october last - given this leak was october last year? _ given this leak was october last ear? , ., , given this leak was october last ear? , . , ,. , year? yes, as i said, these investigations _ year? yes, as i said, these investigations are - year? yes, as i said, these| investigations are complex. year? yes, as i said, these - investigations are complex. there are usually many threads to them. usually a range of people to interview, they tell, what have you. these are professionals who... they move as fast as they can. grey i don't doubt the professionalism of those conducting any investigation, far from those conducting any investigation, farfrom it, but surely those conducting any investigation, far from it, but surely very few people are relatively few people would have known about the subject matter and october? aha, would have known about the sub'ect matter and october?i matter and october? a rather small ool in matter and october? a rather small

pool in which _ matter and october? a rather small pool in which to _ matter and october? a rather small pool in which to fish? _ matter and october? a rather small pool in which to fish? mr— matter and october? a rather small pool in which to fish? mr chair, - matter and october? a rather small pool in which to fish? mr chair, i - pool in which to fish? mr chair, i am not trying — pool in which to fish? mr chair, i am not trying to _ pool in which to fish? mr chair, i am not trying to frustrate - pool in which to fish? mr chair, i am not trying to frustrate you i pool in which to fish? mr chair, i am not trying to frustrate you orj am not trying to frustrate you or other members of the committee on this, but we are going here into the details of the investigation and who knew what, and this is an area where i am constrained, because if i go further on this, it will start to reveal the details of the investigation... reveal the details of the investigation. . .- reveal the details of the investigation... reveal the details of the investiuation. .. ., , , investigation... that is fine, but on something — investigation... that is fine, but on something you _ investigation... that is fine, but on something you have - investigation... that is fine, but on something you have said - investigation... that is fine, but on something you have said so l investigation... that is fine, but i on something you have said so far, you site _ on something you have said so far, you site updates— on something you have said so far, you site updates are _ on something you have said so far, you site updates are provided... i on something you have said so far, j you site updates are provided... to him are _ you site updates are provided... to him are those — you site updates are provided... to him are those provided? _ you site updates are provided... to him are those provided? are - you site updates are provided... to him are those provided? are they. him are those provided? are they provided — him are those provided? are they provided to — him are those provided? are they provided to the _ him are those provided? are they provided to the prime _ him are those provided? are they provided to the prime minister? i him are those provided? are they. provided to the prime minister? yes, via me. i provided to the prime minister? yes, via me- i am — provided to the prime minister? yes, via me- i am going — provided to the prime minister? yes, via me. i am going to _ provided to the prime minister? yes, via me. i am going to go _ provided to the prime minister? yes, via me. i am going to go to _ provided to the prime minister? yes, via me. i am going to go to my - via me. i am going to go to my colleague _ via me. i am going to go to my colleague david _ via me. i am going to go to my colleague david jones, - via me. i am going to go to my colleague david jones, please. j via me. i am going to go to my - colleague david jones, please. thank ou. you colleague david jones, please. thank you- you will— colleague david jones, please. thank you. you will appreciate _ colleague david jones, please. thank you. you will appreciate the - you. you will appreciate the questions we are asking you now, are in the light of the blog post published on friday last week by

dominic cummings, which i am sure you have read... is that right? yes. in that you have read... is that right? yes. in that blog — you have read... is that right? yes. in that blog post, _ you have read... is that right? yes. in that blog post, mr— you have read... is that right? jazz in that blog post, mr cummings refers to conversations that he had with you, apparently in circumstances when no one else was present. do you accept the truth of what mr cummings says in that regard? what mr cummings says in that reaard? �* . ., ., ., what mr cummings says in that reaard? . . ., ., ., regard? again, i am afraid i am genuinely _ regard? again, i am afraid i am genuinely not — regard? again, i am afraid i am genuinely not trying _ regard? again, i am afraid i am genuinely not trying to - regard? again, i am afraid i am| genuinely not trying to frustrate the committee, but i am constrained in what i can say. because it is in the context of an ongoing investigation. so i am apologetic, as i've said, recognising legitimate parliamentary concern in we have gone down the exceptional route of providing briefings to the speaker

of the house on privy council turns, so as far as we can, parliament is being updated on the detail of the investigation. pare being updated on the detail of the investigation.— being updated on the detail of the investigation. are you able to help the committee? _ investigation. are you able to help the committee? did _ investigation. are you able to help the committee? did you _ investigation. are you able to help the committee? did you authorise | investigation. are you able to help - the committee? did you authorise the prime minister's then official spokesman to tell the media that your enquiry had shown that neither mr cummings northe your enquiry had shown that neither mr cummings nor the then director of communications... ? yellagain, i really am sympathetic to the committee two this really am sympathetic to the committee two— really am sympathetic to the committee two , , ., ., committee two this is drawing into details of an _ committee two this is drawing into details of an ongoing _ committee two this is drawing into | details of an ongoing investigation, and for the reasons set out, i cannot go into them in the setting. which is why we have taken the exceptional step of updating the speaker of the house on privy

council turns to make sure the parliamentary authority is aware of the content and detail of the investigation.— the content and detail of the investiuation. ., . ~ ,., investigation. you make the point earlier we don't _ investigation. you make the point earlier we don't want _ investigation. you make the point earlier we don't want to _ investigation. you make the point earlier we don't want to be - investigation. you make the point earlier we don't want to be unfair| earlier we don't want to be unfair on anyone who was being investigated, but of course, if you were to simply confirm what ijust put to you, you could immediately exclude both mr cummings and the director of communications from the enquiry, couldn't you? but director of communications from the enquiry, couldn't you?— enquiry, couldn't you? but again, ou are enquiry, couldn't you? but again, you are inviting _ enquiry, couldn't you? but again, you are inviting me _ enquiry, couldn't you? but again, you are inviting me to _ enquiry, couldn't you? but again, you are inviting me to comment i enquiry, couldn't you? but again, i you are inviting me to comment on the day of an ongoing investigation, which as i have said, i am under constraints relating to classification etc, so i'm afraid i cannot go into these sorts of details, but as i say, we have been updating the speaker on the progress with this enquiry, and as soon as it is concluded, the prime minister is committed to setting out the conclusions for parliament so you will be able to see where we have

got to. bid will be able to see where we have not to. , , ., will be able to see where we have cotto., , . .,, will be able to see where we have cotto., , . ., , ., got to. did you give instructions to the official spokesman _ got to. did you give instructions to the official spokesman to - got to. did you give instructions to the official spokesman to confirm l the official spokesman to confirm that neither mr cummings nor the director of communications where the leakers? element again, i'm afraid, mrjones,... mr; leakers? element again, i'm afraid, mrjones.---— leakers? element again, i'm afraid, mrjones,... my answer is the same as before- — mrjones,... my answer is the same as before- i— mrjones,... my answer is the same as before. i can _ mrjones,... my answer is the same as before. i can go _ mrjones,... my answer is the same as before. i can go into _ mrjones,... my answer is the same as before. i can go into these - as before. i can go into these details relating to an ongoing enquiry —— i can't go into these details. it is not out of rudeness or disrespect to the committee, but there are constraints on what i can say in this forum, which is why we have taken the exceptional steps of keeping the speaker updated on progress, and the prime minister has said we will update parliament on the conclusions as soon as they are available. . ~ the conclusions as soon as they are available. ., ~ , ., the conclusions as soon as they are available-_ i— the conclusions as soon as they are available._ i wonder - the conclusions as soon as they are available._ i wonder if i i available. thank you. i wonder if i could ask when _ available. thank you. i wonder if i could ask when the _ available. thank you. i wonder if i could ask when the speaker - available. thank you. i wonder if i could ask when the speaker was i available. thank you. i wonder if i i could ask when the speaker was last

updated? _ could ask when the speaker was last updated? i— could ask when the speaker was last u dated? . could ask when the speaker was last u dated? , ., , ., updated? i believe it was a fortnight — updated? i believe it was a fortnight ago. _ updated? i believe it was a fortnight ago. i— updated? i believe it was a fortnight ago. i will- updated? i believe it was a fortnight ago. i will come i updated? i believe it was a . fortnight ago. i will come back updated? i believe it was a - fortnight ago. i will come back to you if i have got that day wrong. thank you. do you if i have got that day wrong. thank you-— you if i have got that day wrong. thank ou. ,, ~' . ~' thank you. do you think the leaker has broken — thank you. do you think the leaker has broken any _ thank you. do you think the leaker has broken any laws? _ thank you. do you think the leaker has broken any laws? are - thank you. do you think the leaker has broken any laws? are we - has broken any laws? are we discussing lawbreaking here we discussing lawbreaking here we discussing embarrassment? —— or are we discussing embarrassment? this was looked at _ we discussing embarrassment? this was looked at as _ we discussing embarrassment? tt 3 was looked at as part of a gateway process, and it concluded that the process, and it concluded that the process involving the police and crown prosecution service etc, concluded this leak did not meet the threshold for an offence under the official secrets act, or the offence of misconduct in public office. thank you, so if it doesn't meet and offence criteria, it doesn't

threaten national security, and the official secrets act, can i ask why we are unable to know more detail of the questions that we have asked you? particularly around questions where we have asked whether you have said thing to press officers, for them to pass on publicly, and you're not able to confirm or deny that? these are not legal matters any more? , ., , , these are not legal matters any more? , ., _ , these are not legal matters any more? , more? obviously, 'ust because something h more? obviously, 'ust because something isn't _ more? obviously, 'ust because something isn't a — more? obviously, just because something isn't a criminal - more? obviously, just because i something isn't a criminal offence doesn't mean there aren't national security issues involved, or classified matters rather, i should say specifically, in relation to how that investigation is conducted. that is why i am unable to comment. are the national security services involved in this investigation? figs

involved in this investigation? as ou involved in this investigation? is you know, we have a long—standing policy of neither confirming or denying such things. i'm sorry, as i say, i recognise legitimate public and parliamentary interest in this, which is why we have been updating the speaker and why the prime minister is committed to setting out the conclusions of the investigations as soon as we can. can i ask him has informed you that you cannot answer these questions? yes. this is in collaboration with the government's security group, who own the processes. 50 the government's security group, who own the processes.— the government's security group, who own the processes. so the government security group — own the processes. so the government security group have _ own the processes. so the government security group have deemed _ own the processes. so the government security group have deemed you - own the processes. so the government security group have deemed you are i security group have deemed you are not allowed to answer any questions on any detail of this, or has there been searching parameters set? tia. been searching parameters set? no. the onl been searching parameters set? tip. the only things i say, i'm afraid i am constrained, the ongoing

investigation... i afraid am constrained, the ongoing investigation... iafraid i am constrained, the ongoing investigation... i afraid i am limited to not much more than that. what i can say, i have already said to the committee. ok. what i can say, i have already said to the committee.— what i can say, i have already said to the committee. ok. i will ask one more question... _ to the committee. ok. i will ask one more question... conversations i to the committee. ok. i will ask one more question... conversations thatj more question... conversations that you have had, that are not about the investigation, but are conversations you may have had two people like the press spokesperson, why are you unable to answer our questions on that? i am unable to answer our questions on that? iam not unable to answer our questions on that? i am not asking about the process of the investigation, not asking how the investigation happens, but david jones asked specific questions about conversations you had had with the public press officer. the element because those conversations are covered by the bounds of the investigation... covered by the bounds of the investigation. . ._ covered by the bounds of the investigation... covered by the bounds of the investiuation... �* , . investigation... because those are covered by — investigation... because those are covered by the _ investigation... because those are covered by the banks _ investigation... because those are covered by the banks of _ investigation... because those are covered by the banks of the i covered by the banks of the

investigation.— covered by the banks of the investigation. i'm not entirely convinced- — investigation. i'm not entirely convinced. i— investigation. i'm not entirely convinced. i can _ investigation. i'm not entirely convinced. i can only - investigation. i'm not entirely. convinced. i can only apologise auain, convinced. i can only apologise again. with _ convinced. i can only apologise again, with the _ convinced. i can only apologise again, with the prime - convinced. i can only apologisel again, with the prime minister's permission we have been updating the speaker on privy council turns. t speaker on privy council turns. i wonder, and i don't want to put too much power in our chairman, but i do wonder if there is a case to be updating our chairman on some kind of bases, because i think this is not a parliamentary procedure issue per se, not a parliamentary procedure issue perse, it not a parliamentary procedure issue per se, it is the scrutiny of the cabinet office. no disrespect to the speaker, the speaker is not in charge of scrutiny of the functioning of the civil service, this committee is, and our chairman is. ., ., “ this committee is, and our chairman is. . , this committee is, and our chairman is. look, i am very happy to pick that u- is. look, i am very happy to pick that up with _ is. look, i am very happy to pick that up with the _ is. look, i am very happy to pick that up with the chairman i is. look, i am very happy to pick that up with the chairman and i is. look, i am very happy to pick| that up with the chairman and the relevant authorities. it sounds like a potential way through. again, i really understand and apologise for having to frustrate what art

legitimate lines of enquiry. bean thank you. can i go tojohn mcdonald's? thank you. can i go to john mcdonald's?— thank you. can i go to john mcdonald's? ., , ., mcdonald's? you can understand your frustration. five _ mcdonald's? you can understand your frustration. five months _ mcdonald's? you can understand your frustration. five months on _ mcdonald's? you can understand your frustration. five months on since i frustration. five months on since the beginning of this, it hardly comments on power citation of which should be to you and others a serious matter —— prioritisation. number ten spokespeople are able to issue statements tarnishing the name of others who are obviously subject to the enquiry themselves. i find it incredulous it has taken so long, however, you mentioned that the instigation of these enquiries is at the hands of the prime minister or permanent secretary. could i ask you, as there should be an enquiry into today's leakage of the alleged

statement by the prime minister about the thousands of bodies being piled high in the streets? or his preference to that? this piled high in the streets? or his preference to that?— preference to that? this isn't something — preference to that? this isn't something i _ preference to that? this isn't something i have _ preference to that? this isn't something i have looked i preference to that? this isn't something i have looked at l preference to that? this isn't i something i have looked at today. preference to that? this isn't - something i have looked at today. an investigation hasn't started. but thatis investigation hasn't started. but that is something i will have to take a look into and discuss with the prime minister about whether it is something we need to conduct an investigation into.— investigation into. when you have the -- would _ investigation into. when you have the -- would you _ investigation into. when you have the -- would you have _ investigation into. when you have the -- would you have the i investigation into. when you have l the -- would you have the authority the —— would you have the authority to instigate that yourself? yes. the -- would you have the authority to instigate that yourself?— to instigate that yourself? yes, but i think it would _ to instigate that yourself? yes, but i think it would be _ to instigate that yourself? yes, but i think it would be very _ to instigate that yourself? yes, but i think it would be very unusual i to instigate that yourself? yes, but i think it would be very unusual to i i think it would be very unusual to instigate a leak enquiry without first consulting the prime minister. but you have the independence to do that after that consultation? yes. if that after that consultation? yes. if necessary- _ that after that consultation? yes. if necessary. but _ that after that consultation? yes. if necessary. but in _ that after that consultation? yes.

if necessary. but in my _ that after that consultation? jezs if necessary. but in my experience, not ever needed. but if necessary. but in my experience, not ever needed.— if necessary. but in my experience, not ever needed. but that is for you to consider. — not ever needed. but that is for you to consider, that _ not ever needed. but that is for you to consider, that is _ not ever needed. but that is for you to consider, that is a _ to consider, that is a responsibility you will have after your conversation with the prime minister, and you will consider it? yes. . ~' , ., minister, and you will consider it? yes. . ~ , ., ., minister, and you will consider it? yes. . ~' , ., ., “ minister, and you will consider it? yes. . ~' i., ., 4' ., minister, and you will consider it? yes. . ~' ., 4' ., , yes. thank you. i would like to try and help you _ yes. thank you. i would like to try and help you out _ yes. thank you. i would like to try and help you out a _ yes. thank you. i would like to try and help you out a bit _ yes. thank you. i would like to try and help you out a bit here, i yes. thank you. i would like to try i and help you out a bit here, because i think people watching these proceedings won't have very much confidence in leak enquiries on the basis of what we are hearing. as you mentioned earlier, some of these leak enquiries are inevitably going to be complex. to be frank, if i was wanting to leak information and i was one of a limited number of people that had access to it, there are ways you could go to actually cover that up, and that is going to your network of contacts. this lunchtime the text was published

that was received outlining this decision, and it is very clear goal when it comes to a leak of that kind, obviously you you can look at the protagonist in the meeting, but what else once you have drawn a blank at those. the fact it is not on their phones does not mean they are not guilty of the leak. what we are not guilty of the leak. what we are concerned about here in this committee is that at this length of time, why has there not been more progress? is it not a priority? again, i understand the point of the questioning. i can assure you, i can assure the committee, at no point has this investigation been in any way de—prioritise. it is in the hand of professional investigators, who have a range of tools and techniques at their disposal. you will understand if i don't go into those

in detail in open session, because that would prejudice future enquiries. but i can assure you that this hasn't been de—prioritised in any way. but as you picked up, these things are incredibly complicated, complex enquiries. usually with a range of threads to them. lines of enquiries develop some of those, some get resolved, some take a long time and patient work to resolve. a was of this really is painstaking and patient work. and it is done by professional investigators. if we think back to recently, for example, when it given williamson, that was a very obvious and quick

investigation. but there is a difference between bluntly malevolent, clearly that is important to source. this is not very good disincentive for bad is it? if people are saying leaks are happening with no negative outcome apart from the investigation is being done, do we need to do more to make sure that people understand their obligations and everyone that works with them, which seems to be outside the normal service core? to

outside the normal service core? trr pick up a couple of points that you've made, i think that sense of frustration that you describe, that we are unable to catch more people responsible for leaks is shared by a range of senior people, but only at this prime minister but other prime ministers i've knew, and my predecessors. and of course, under the initial stages of this, that first level of the government security group, all the processes are voluntary. we do have, where it relates to employees, we're able to place clear obligations on employees to cooperate with inquiries, and where they don't, which is very

rare, that in itself would be a sign of something unusualfor rare, that in itself would be a sign of something unusual for somebody not to cooperate. it's only once you reach outside that employment context, it's only once you reach the threshold is for the police to become involved that you've actually got the powers to compel. it's a matter for parliament to decide what powers it's willing to give to authorities in government to conduct these, and i know it's something that's been looked at. that these, and i know it's something that's been looked at.— these, and i know it's something that's been looked at. at that very clear rules — that's been looked at. at that very clear rules about _ that's been looked at. at that very clear rules about material- that's been looked at. at that very i clear rules about material behaviour because, for the past decade, ministers have been going to cabinet meetings and then getting a blow by blow account in newspapers. once you establish behaviour which rose unchallenged, you are setting a code of practice which enables people to

leak. what you like to have seen greater measures taken and perhaps that would go some way to starting to set a new set of rules? t that would go some way to starting to set a new set of rules?- to set a new set of rules? i agree with ou to set a new set of rules? i agree with you that _ to set a new set of rules? i agree with you that the _ to set a new set of rules? i agree with you that the culture - to set a new set of rules? i agree with you that the culture is i with you that the culture is absolutely vital, i can assure you that cabinet ministers, officials, permanent and temporary, very regularly reminded of their obligations and i'm not sure that to be more clearly spelt out, including often reminding people at the beginnings of meetings, but i agree with the underpinning point in your question that this is a great deal to do with the culture and valuing

the integrity of government processes is vital. thank you. i think i heard a you say that the last discussion was a fortnight ago, was that right?— was that right? that's my understanding, _ was that right? that's my understanding, but i was that right? that's my understanding, but that l was that right? that's my i understanding, but that wasn't correct, i would come back. there was a huge _ correct, i would come back. there was a huge number _ correct, i would come back. there was a huge number to _ correct, i would come back. there was a huge number to an - correct, i would come back. there was a huge number to an over- correct, i would come back. there was a huge number to an over the past week, not least the publication by dominic cummings last friday, given that the communication with the speaker seems to be the only way parliament has been kept informed at offence, don't you think there should be more regular discussions with the speaker, and there should be discussions with mr cummings? share be discussions with mr cummings? are very happy to take that up with the

speaker and provide a bang up—to—date update. bud speaker and provide a bang up-to-date update. speaker and provide a bang u-to-date udate. �* , , up-to-date update. and briefly, can ou up-to-date update. and briefly, can you remember— up-to-date update. and briefly, can you remember a _ up-to-date update. and briefly, can you remember a time _ up-to-date update. and briefly, can you remember a time when - up-to-date update. and briefly, can| you remember a time when downing street has been more leaky? it’s street has been more leaky? it's uuite a street has been more leaky? it's quite a difficult comparison. i think, if you go back through the edges and you read diaries and historical man was, leaks of government information are a long—standing frustration in government. i think one of the points that underpins your question was downing street being leaky, of course. it is not always proven or even believe that downing street is the source of leaks, there's one point underlining your question to just pick up. as i said before... [30

just pick up. as i said before... do ou just pick up. as i said before... drr you dispute it? has a link not come from downing street? this t you dispute it? has a link not come from downing street?— from downing street? as i said, ou're from downing street? as i said, you're inviting — from downing street? as i said, you're inviting me _ from downing street? as i said, you're inviting me back- from downing street? as i said, you're inviting me back to i you're inviting me back to commenting on an ongoing investigation which i'm afraid i can't do for the reasons set out and i apologise, i can no apologies again for that.— i apologise, i can no apologies aaain for that. ., ., ., ., again for that. you are the guardian of propriety — again for that. you are the guardian of propriety and _ again for that. you are the guardian of propriety and ethics _ again for that. you are the guardian of propriety and ethics and - again for that. you are the guardian of propriety and ethics and civil- of propriety and ethics and civil service conduct in your role. do you think it's acceptable that you come before this committee to discuss these matters having been told that you can't discuss them? you're essentially pleading the fifth, is that acceptable? this t essentially pleading the fifth, is that acceptable?— essentially pleading the fifth, is that acceptable? as i said, i can only apologise... _ that acceptable? as i said, i can only apologise... that's - that acceptable? as i said, i can only apologise... that's ok, i that acceptable? as i said, i can i only apologise... that's ok, thank ou for only apologise... that's ok, thank you for your— only apologise... that's ok, thank you for your apology, _ only apologise... that's ok, thank you for your apology, but - only apologise... that's ok, thank you for your apology, but is i only apologise... that's ok, thank you for your apology, but is it i you for your apology, but is it acceptable? t’m you for your apology, but is it acceptable?— acceptable? i'm afraid it's necessary _ acceptable? i'm afraid it's

necessary to _ acceptable? i'm afraid it's necessary to protect i acceptable? i'm afraid it's necessary to protect the l acceptable? i'm afraid it's - necessary to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation and the techniques involved. you of an ongoing investigation and the techniques involved.— techniques involved. you said that ou soke techniques involved. you said that you spoke with — techniques involved. you said that you spoke with the _ techniques involved. you said that you spoke with the speaker - techniques involved. you said that you spoke with the speaker two i techniques involved. you said that - you spoke with the speaker two weeks ago. i would you spoke with the speaker two weeks ago. iwould need you spoke with the speaker two weeks ago. i would need to check exactly when you are coming before this committee, but as mrjones has said, given the events of the last two weeks, why at no stage did you think it would be reasonable or acceptable to write to the committee to set out what you were not prepared to talk out to us today? i’m what you were not prepared to talk out to us today?— out to us today? i'm not quite sure i understand _ out to us today? i'm not quite sure i understand a _ out to us today? i'm not quite sure i understand a particular _ out to us today? i'm not quite sure i understand a particular point... . i understand a particular point... the point is, we are gathered to do work to scrutinise the cabinet office and your role and we've spent nearly a0 minutes in a circle because you are not prepared to answer questions that you could have written to us previously and told us that was the case.— written to us previously and told us that was the case. again, accept my a olouies that was the case. again, accept my apologies for _ that was the case. again, accept my apologies for not _ that was the case. again, accept my apologies for not making _ that was the case. again, accept my apologies for not making that - that was the case. again, accept my apologies for not making that clear| apologies for not making that clear in advance to the whole committee.

thank you. just in advance to the whole committee. thank ou., , _, . ., , thank you. just concluding on this, ou thank you. just concluding on this, you mentioned _ thank you. just concluding on this, you mentioned to _ thank you. just concluding on this, you mentioned to mr _ thank you. just concluding on this, you mentioned to mr case, - thank you. just concluding on this, you mentioned to mr case, i - thank you. just concluding on this, you mentioned to mr case, i think| thank you. just concluding on this, i you mentioned to mr case, i think i infer_ you mentioned to mr case, i think i infer from — you mentioned to mr case, i think i infer from one of your answers, that you don't— infer from one of your answers, that you don't think the official secrets act is_ you don't think the official secrets act is up— you don't think the official secrets act is up to — you don't think the official secrets act is up to scratch, do you think we need — act is up to scratch, do you think we need a — act is up to scratch, do you think we need a new one, then, to bring it up we need a new one, then, to bring it up to— we need a new one, then, to bring it up to date? — we need a new one, then, to bring it up to date?— up to date? this is something that either is or — up to date? this is something that either is or will _ up to date? this is something that either is or will be _ up to date? this is something that either is or will be consulted - either is or will be consulted before either is or will be consulted befor ,., . either is or will be consulted befor , ., . , either is or will be consulted befor ., , ., ,, before so, that will be happening. i'm aware of— before so, that will be happening. i'm aware of a _ before so, that will be happening. i'm aware of a leak _ before so, that will be happening. i'm aware of a leak inquiries - before so, that will be happening. i'm aware of a leak inquiries thatl i'm aware of a leak inquiries that began _ i'm aware of a leak inquiries that began in— i'm aware of a leak inquiries that began in august of 2020 and hasn't yet concluded, saw an even longer leak inquiry. i don't expect you to id leak inquiry. i don't expect you to go into_ leak inquiry. i don't expect you to go into any— leak inquiry. i don't expect you to go into any specifics of inquiries that began in august 2020, but will they be _ that began in august 2020, but will they be completed anytime soon? i�*m they be completed anytime soon? i'm afraid they be completed anytime soon? afraid i'm not they be completed anytime soon? in afraid i'm not sure which particular case you're talking about? can broadly, getting on for nine months

or so, broadly, getting on for nine months orso, is broadly, getting on for nine months or so, is not sufficient time for a leak inquiry? it depends entirely on the circumstances of investigation, sometimes the sense can take a very long time indeed. when professional investigators believe that there are no strands or lines of inquiry left, they will close an investigation of. but i'm very happy, i will look at the particular case, if the clerk would let me have more details. moving on, lord hayward listed one of the _ moving on, lord hayward listed one of the key— moving on, lord hayward listed one of the key roles of the cabinet secretary as the guardian of propriety and ethics, mr cereal and civil service — propriety and ethics, mr cereal and civil service conduct. how do you see your— civil service conduct. how do you see your role in that respect? i think see your role in that respect? think the see your role in that respect? i think the specific role of cabinet secretary, there are two aspects to that in relation to propriety and ethics. one is the overall structure

and framework, decodes and what have you that are often in support of the prime minister. to make sure the integrity of is adequate. and, in extremis, the cabinet secretary words have a role in particular cases or casework that comes up in relation to proprietary and ethics. the point i would make and this is made in all the codes and is spelt out, encapsulated in the nolan principles, proprietary and ethics is the responsibility of everybody in a public service. and to pick up one of the points made before, actually maintaining standards in public life is as much about culture as it is rules and regulations, and it's observing that the spirit of those rules is thejob it's observing that the spirit of those rules is the job of all senior

leaders. you pick up lord hayward's quote, i have the pleasure of being able to talk quite regularly to my predecessors in this role, and they consistently say that one of their most difficult moments in the job were proprietary and ethics work, so this is a constant feature of cabinet secretary is' lives. find this is a constant feature of cabinet secretary is' lives. and i believe your _ cabinet secretary is' lives. and i believe your predecessor - cabinet secretary is' lives. and i believe your predecessor described the role _ believe your predecessor described the role as — believe your predecessor described the role as the greatest keeper of secrets _ the role as the greatest keeper of secrets. so, with that in mind, what levers _ secrets. so, with that in mind, what levers do _ secrets. so, with that in mind, what levers do you — secrets. so, with that in mind, what levers do you have is cabinet secretary _ levers do you have is cabinet secretary to ensure that decisions on policy— secretary to ensure that decisions on policy are made in the proper way? _ on policy are made in the proper wa ? ., ., on policy are made in the proper wa? . way? yeah, i think probably three articular way? yeah, i think probably three particular levers _ way? yeah, i think probably three particular levers that _ way? yeah, i think probably three particular levers that the - way? yeah, i think probably three particular levers that the cabinet l particular levers that the cabinet secretary has. the first, as

mentioned, it is around the guidance and codes. the second is actually the civil service in the round is there to support ministers in decision taking, to make sure they're properly done. to the weight of the seven support ministers, their training, skills and what have you, it is important to support proper decision—making. and then, finally, the third area is the cabinet secretary is responsible for advising the prime minister on the collective system of government and the operation of cabinet government, which are there to make sure that decisions are made properly. find decisions are made properly. and cominu decisions are made properly. and comin: to decisions are made properly. and coming to you. — decisions are made properly. and coming to you. i— decisions are made properly. and coming to you, i realise you are in the very— coming to you, i realise you are in the very early days of your post and were _ the very early days of your post and were grateful to have you with us this afternoon. given a report about the recent— this afternoon. given a report about the recent site contributor to your predecessor's departure to the role, how concerned are you of having to

tell ministers and indeed others, no? ., ., tell ministers and indeed others, no? ., ~ , ., tell ministers and indeed others, no? ., ~' ~ tell ministers and indeed others, no? .~g ~ ., ., �* tell ministers and indeed others, no? .mg. ~ ., ., �* ., no? thank you, mr chairman. i'm not concerned about _ no? thank you, mr chairman. i'm not concerned about that _ no? thank you, mr chairman. i'm not concerned about that at _ no? thank you, mr chairman. i'm not concerned about that at all. - no? thank you, mr chairman. i'm not concerned about that at all. i - no? thank you, mr chairman. i'm not concerned about that at all. i think i concerned about that at all. i think it's worth saying, in my experience, is a private sector and senior adviser to ministers, the reality is that most ministers come to official seeking advice on propriety and ethics issues because they want to stay within the letter and spirit of the codes. i'm expecting in thisjob at the vast majority of the work to be incoming requests from ministers from me and the team, and i have spoken to my predecessors and they confirm that's what happens with them. so i don't think you should see it as me sitting here waiting to say no to something, i believe the role is more enabling the function and with working ministers and permanent secretaries to enable them to get the business of government on in the best way we can. mitt to get the business of government on in the best way we can.— in the best way we can. will bring ou back

in the best way we can. will bring you back in _ in the best way we can. will bring you back in at _ in the best way we can. will bring you back in at some _ in the best way we can. will bring you back in at some point, - in the best way we can. will bring you back in at some point, but. in the best way we can. will bring you back in at some point, but go in the best way we can. will bring i you back in at some point, but go to david _ you back in at some point, but go to david jones — you back in at some point, but go to davidjones. mr you back in at some point, but go to david jones-— david jones. mr case, what the cost of refurbishing _ david jones. mr case, what the cost of refurbishing the _ david jones. mr case, what the cost of refurbishing the prime _ david jones. mr case, what the cost of refurbishing the prime minister's| of refurbishing the prime minister's flat at number 10 downing street be paid for via prior donations? i am willin: to paid for via prior donations? i am willing to set _ paid for via prior donations? i am willing to set out _ paid for via prior donations? i am willing to set out for _ paid for via prior donations? i am willing to set out for you - paid for via prior donations? i am willing to set out for you thinking on this set out so far. i won't go through how downing street works in detail, but it's relevant to this. there are working officers and state rooms and then the residences. the working rooms, state rooms, etc, the refurbishment is funded through the cabinet office's states budget. the residences, for decades, has been an annual allowance of up to £30,000 a

yearfrom the public annual allowance of up to £30,000 a year from the public purse to support the prime minister of the day in contributing to the costs of refurbishing the residence. any costs beyond that are met by prime ministers privately. on the question of a trust, there's work had been going on for more than 12 months on this idea, that was begun under our predecessors, you may know that chequers and only were directly supported by trust, won to trust and won a charitable trust, and equipment buildings are in the world, the white house understand is supported by a trust no downing street trust currently exists. work was begun last spring when lord brownlow agreed to beat the chair of a putative trust. there was work

done to identify cross party attentional trustees. on the trust itself, when i became aware of this, earlier this year, along with alex chisholm, the accounting officerfor the cabinet office, although other officials have been working on it before, we've actually been looking at this question in much more detail, of how a trust could work. as i said, building on the models from elsewhere. it's safe to say, this is a genuinely complicated legal and policy, proprietary issue and questions for government and the charity commission who were to regulate the operation of a charitable trust. i think there are two areas i would pick out...

forgive me for the redness, mr case, forgive me forthe redness, mr case, in terms _ forgive me forthe redness, mr case, in terms of— forgive me forthe redness, mr case, in terms of answering the question, it would _ in terms of answering the question, it would he — in terms of answering the question, it would be most useful if you would do so _ it would be most useful if you would do so. at _ it would be most useful if you would do so. �* , ., do so. at the first thing i would sa is do so. at the first thing i would say is such _ do so. at the first thing i would say is such a — do so. at the first thing i would say is such a charitable - do so. at the first thing i would say is such a charitable trust i do so. at the first thing i would i say is such a charitable trust can't cover private areas of downing street, cover private areas of downing street. ".— street, forgive me for interrupting, _ street, forgive me for interrupting, you - street, forgive me for interrupting, you say - street, forgive me for interrupting, you say a i street, forgive me for- interrupting, you say a charitable trust can't cover private areas of downing street, i think we understand that, but in any event, i understand that, but in any event, i understand there is no such trust nbn yet? understand there is no such trust nbn et? �* . , understand there is no such trust nbn et? . ,, understand there is no such trust nbn et? . ,. ., nbn yet? are correct, this is one of the thins nbn yet? are correct, this is one of the things being _ nbn yet? are correct, this is one of the things being explored. - nbn yet? are correct, this is one of the things being explored. so - nbn yet? are correct, this is one of the things being explored. so my i the things being explored. so my ruestion the things being explored. so my question was. — the things being explored. so my question was, essentially, - the things being explored. so my question was, essentially, are i the things being explored. so my| question was, essentially, are any private donations being used to pay the cost of refurbishing the prime minister's flat in downing street? as the prime minister has said, all

of this will be declared in the proper way, the prime minister will make relevant declarations. who proper way, the prime minister will make relevant declarations. who are ourt answering _ make relevant declarations. who are ourt answering that _ make relevant declarations. who are ourt answering that question - make relevant declarations. who are ourt answering that question now. i ourt answering that question now. are you aware yourself if any private donations have been used to cover the costs of refurbishing the flat downing street? but cover the costs of refurbishing the flat downing street?— cover the costs of refurbishing the flat downing street? but i'm happy to tell ou flat downing street? but i'm happy to tell you is _ flat downing street? but i'm happy to tell you is that _ flat downing street? but i'm happy to tell you is that the _ flat downing street? but i'm happy to tell you is that the prime - to tell you is that the prime minister has asked me to conduct a review, because i've cannot have been involved directly in the face, the prime minister has asked me... forgive me, mr case, i'm so sorry to interrupt, i asked whether you are aware whether or not any private donations had been used to refurbish the flat? i mean, that's straightforward yes or no. tags the flat? i mean, that's straightforward yes or no. as i said, straightforward yes or no. as i said. the _ straightforward yes or no. as i said, the prime _ straightforward yes or no. as i said, the prime minister has asked me to conduct a review into how this has been done and asked that i share the details of those conclusions with the committee...

the details of those conclusions with the committee. . .- the details of those conclusions with the committee... forgive the impotence — with the committee... forgive the impotence of _ with the committee... forgive the impotence of the _ with the committee... forgive the impotence of the question, - with the committee... forgive the impotence of the question, but i with the committee... forgive the impotence of the question, but at| impotence of the question, but at the last— impotence of the question, but at the last review you spoken of has gone _ the last review you spoken of has gone on — the last review you spoken of has gone on for— the last review you spoken of has gone on for months, so how long with this review— gone on for months, so how long with this review take?— this review take? again, i suspect it would be _ this review take? again, i suspect it would be only _ this review take? again, i suspect it would be only a _ this review take? again, i suspect it would be only a matter- this review take? again, i suspect it would be only a matter of- this review take? again, i suspect. it would be only a matter of weeks. i still would like mr case to tell the committee whether or not he is aware whether any private donations were used to make the cost of refurbishing the flat? are you aware of that, mr case? i do refurbishing the flat? are you aware of that, mr case?— of that, mr case? i do not have all of that, mr case? i do not have all ofthe of that, mr case? i do not have all of the facts _ of that, mr case? i do not have all of the facts and _ of that, mr case? i do not have all of the facts and details _ of that, mr case? i do not have all of the facts and details at - of that, mr case? i do not have all of the facts and details at my - of the facts and details at my disposal on this, this is why the prime minister has asked me to conduct this review and set up as conclusions... conduct this review and set up as conclusions. . .— conduct this review and set up as conclusions... that's absolute find. so, ou conclusions. .. that's absolute find. so. you don't— conclusions... that's absolute find. so, you don't have _ conclusions... that's absolute find. so, you don't have all _ conclusions... that's absolute find. so, you don't have all those - so, you don't have all those details. could you tell us what preparatory issues to consider to be related to this?—

related to this? yes. there are predominantly _ related to this? yes. there are predominantly two _ related to this? yes. there are predominantly two areas. - related to this? yes. there are predominantly two areas. the | related to this? yes. there are - predominantly two areas. the first is making sure that any donations are of sound, from a proprietary point of view, making sure that donations aren't being used to seek preferment or such. and then the second point is ensuring that such donations are declared in the proper way, which i know the prime minister's committed to doing in relation to his own declaration of the register of ministerial interest. and that's the sort of detail i'll need to get back to the committee on or through this review. 50, just to be absolutely clear, you so, just to be absolutely clear, you indicated there is no charitable trust in existence to cover the cost of maintenance or refurbishment of the flat. is if the case therefore

that any such donations, if there are any combo would be political donations? i are any combo would be political donations?— donations? i can't answer that ruestion donations? i can't answer that question today, _ donations? i can't answer that question today, i _ donations? i can't answer that question today, i don't - donations? i can't answer that question today, i don't have i donations? i can't answer that l question today, i don't have all those details, that's one of those things that i'll have to look at as part of this process and i am happy to set those out in writing for the committee. it’s to set those out in writing for the committee-— to set those out in writing for the committee. �* , , ,., ., committee. it's been reported that the electoral— committee. it's been reported that the electoral commission - the electoral commission investigating this issue, is that right? as investigating this issue, is that rirht? �* . investigating this issue, is that rirht? a , ., ., right? as i understand it though, there is an _ right? as i understand it though, there is an ongoing _ right? as i understand it though, there is an ongoing conversation| there is an ongoing conversation between the electoral commission ncc hq. between the electoral commission ncc h0, but that's not a matterfor civil servants or governments, sol have not in of those details. mr case, have not in of those details. mr case. you _ have not in of those details. mr case, you have a know date you have been _ case, you have a know date you have been coming — case, you have a know date you have been coming to this committee for niany_ been coming to this committee for many weeks now, there are a number of topical—

many weeks now, there are a number of topical issues about the place at the moment, one of which is the vexed _ the moment, one of which is the vexed question of the flat's refurbishment. i'm surprised that you've _ refurbishment. i'm surprised that you've haven't been better furnished with the _ you've haven't been better furnished with the answer is to give it to the committee — with the answer is to give it to the committee. has no conversation taking _ committee. has no conversation taking place between yourself and others _ taking place between yourself and others as — taking place between yourself and others as to what on earth, is it a storm _ others as to what on earth, is it a storm in — others as to what on earth, is it a storm in a — others as to what on earth, is it a storm in a teacup? i'm surprised you haven't_ storm in a teacup? i'm surprised you haven't been— storm in a teacup? i'm surprised you haven't been briefed further. what storm in a teacup? i'm surprised you haven't been briefed further.- haven't been briefed further. what i reall want haven't been briefed further. what i really want to _ haven't been briefed further. what i really want to avoid _ haven't been briefed further. what i really want to avoid doing _ haven't been briefed further. what i really want to avoid doing is - really want to avoid doing is misleading the committee in any way by giving you partial insights. the prime minister's asked me to do this review, which i was to comment he's asked me to share those conclusions with you. have you done so yet? no, but were to come i have you done so yet? no, but were to come i will— have you done so yet? no, but were to come i will come _ have you done so yet? no, but were to come i will come back _ have you done so yet? no, but were to come i will come back to - have you done so yet? no, but were to come i will come back to us -

have you done so yet? no, but were to come i will come back to us as i i to come i will come back to us as i can with the times gone for this. i don't wish to be rude, but this is coming across like a badly scripted version of yes, minister. let me ask you one thing, could you please provide us, within a limited period of time, within say a week, of the information about about that minister was given and by whom about the propriety issues of the flat refurbishment being funded by party political donations? if we can have just the trail of when the prime minister was advised and by whom, it would be very helpful if we can have that quickly. it shouldn't require a detailed review or a time—consuming review, we can simply have that, that would be very helpful. i am very happy _ that would be very helpful. i am very happy to _ that would be very helpful. i am very happy to do _ that would be very helpful. i am

very happy to do that. _ that would be very helpful. i am very happy to do that. thank i that would be very helpful. i am i very happy to do that. thank you, chair. i very happy to do that. thank you, chair- i am _ very happy to do that. thank you, chair. i am sure _ very happy to do that. thank you, chair. i am sure both _ very happy to do that. thank you, chair. i am sure both what - very happy to do that. thank you, chair. i am sure both what will. very happy to do that. thank you, l chair. i am sure both what will have something to add to this, there is an advisor responsible for advising ministers had to comply with the mysterio code but we haven't had one for five months since the last one resigned. how is this impacted on your role of oversight impropriety and ethics in government more generally? —— comply with the ministerial code. fist generally? -- comply with the ministerial code.— generally? -- comply with the ministerial code. �* . ministerial code. at the independent adviser on ministerial— ministerial code. at the independent adviser on ministerialjustice - ministerial code. at the independent adviser on ministerialjustice is - ministerial code. at the independent adviser on ministerialjustice is an i adviser on ministerialjustice is an important role and only one part of the jigsaw important role and only one part of thejigsaw underpinning important role and only one part of the jigsaw underpinning proprietary and ethics. the independent adviser has a couple of specific functions, one relating to ministerial interest and the other to do with

investigations. i think, and the other to do with investigations. ithink, in my experience so far, i've could not had a particularly significant... it is clear he needs to get a new independent fighter in post as soon as possible. just independent fighter in post as soon as ossible., , ., ., independent fighter in post as soon as possible-— as possible. just to add that the rinci al as possible. just to add that the principal source _ as possible. just to add that the principal source of _ as possible. just to add that the principal source of advice - as possible. just to add that the principal source of advice for i principal source of advice for ministers _ principal source of advice for ministers as— principal source of advice for ministers as permanent - principal source of advice for- ministers as permanent secretaries, so they— ministers as permanent secretaries, so they still— ministers as permanent secretaries, so they still have _ ministers as permanent secretaries, so they still have access _ ministers as permanent secretaries, so they still have access to - ministers as permanent secretaries, so they still have access to that - so they still have access to that during — so they still have access to that during this _ so they still have access to that during this period, _ so they still have access to that during this period, and - so they still have access to that during this period, and they. so they still have access to that| during this period, and they can come _ during this period, and they can come to— during this period, and they can come to be _ during this period, and they can come to be on— during this period, and they can come to be on my— during this period, and they can come to be on my team - during this period, and they can come to be on my team if- during this period, and they can come to be on my team if there during this period, and they can. come to be on my team if there is something — come to be on my team if there is something particularly— come to be on my team if there is something particularly complex. l come to be on my team if there is i something particularly complex. 50, something particularly complex. so, five months — something particularly complex. five months were notes one and something particularly complex.“ five months were notes one and no one seems to have noticed, is that the case? job and i don't think it's five months and no—one's notice, i don't think you can say that, it has been noticed and it is an important role, which is why the prime minister is seeking to appoint somebody very shortly. which are involvement have been different had

an independent adviser been in post? that's an interesting question. i think, actually, the majority of issues to do with the greenhill affair have actually related to a former government, not current ministers, which wouldn't have been something for the independent adviser. i think under any circumstances, given the scale of issues that have come up through the revelations, i think it certainly would have taken a good deal of our time under any circumstances but i don't think the independent adviser would have been particularly involved. it's another thing that requires a bespoke process which is why the prime minister has asked someone to conduct a review and we

are also looking into this. you mentioned — are also looking into this. you mentioned the _ are also looking into this. ym. mentioned the recruitment of the independent advisers, we were told this last december, michael gove told us that the recruitment for a successor was under way, so when should we expect an announcement? very shortly. the prime minister is in the final stages of discussions with a leading candidates, so i hope we can announce very shortly. weeks rather than months? _ we can announce very shortly. weeks rather than months? i _ we can announce very shortly. weeks rather than months? i hope - we can announce very shortly. weeks rather than months? i hope days - rather than months? i hope days rather than months? i hope days rather than _ rather than months? i hope days rather than weeks, _ rather than months? i hope days rather than weeks, but - rather than months? i hope days rather than weeks, but don't - rather than months? i hope days| rather than weeks, but don't hold rather than months? i hope days - rather than weeks, but don't hold me to that. ~ �* . .. rather than weeks, but don't hold me tothat. ~ �* , ., ,, to that. we're making progress, then. to that. we're making progress, then- given _ to that. we're making progress, then. given the _ to that. we're making progress, then. given the circumstances i to that. we're making progress, - then. given the circumstances under which sir alex departed, are you worried that his successor might lack public confidence? it’s worried that his successor might

lack public confidence? it's always been a tough _ lack public confidence? it's always been a tough job, _ lack public confidence? it's always been a tough job, given _ lack public confidence? it's always been a tough job, given the - lack public confidence? it's always been a tough job, given the role, | lack public confidence? it's always| been a toughjob, given the role, it is an important one, it has to be done by someone of sufficient independence. it's absolutely vital that the independent adviser can command public confidence, i think that's why getting the right criteria, the right person, the right terms of reference, is so important. right terms of reference, is so important-— right terms of reference, is so imortant. ., ., ., ., ., important. nothing to add to that, i arree. the independent adviser is appointed by the prime minister. seeing that it was the prime minister's in action that led to the last adviser feeling like he had to leave, and we've now seen the prime minister texting friends about tax reforms in

the uk so they can come back and not pay their taxes or even some of the stuff on the front pages today, is it important there is a role for other people, other than the prime minister, in the process and what is your role in that process? as you say, this is a direct appointment for the prime minister... i mean, darren can add... we have had three aspects to our role in this. the first is developing the criteria for the role... i mean, in sort of hr speak, the person specification, the characteristics you are looking for, drawing up two we have been involved in drawing up a shortlist of candidates for the prime minister. we have been involved in supporting the prime minister in the remit of the prime minister in the remit of thejob. anything you the prime minister in the remit of the job. anything you want to add? just possibly what the criteria

where — just possibly what the criteria where. integrity _ just possibly what the criteria where. integrity and - just possibly what the criteria - where. integrity and independence, seeking _ where. integrity and independence, seeking expertise _ where. integrity and independence, seeking expertise and _ where. integrity and independence, seeking expertise and experience i seeking expertise and experience with both — seeking expertise and experience with both government _ seeking expertise and experience with both government and - seeking expertise and experience with both government and the i with both government and the constitution, _ with both government and the constitution, and _ with both government and the constitution, and someone . with both government and the. constitution, and someone who with both government and the - constitution, and someone who could command _ constitution, and someone who could command the — constitution, and someone who could command the trust _ constitution, and someone who could command the trust of— constitution, and someone who could command the trust of the _ constitution, and someone who could command the trust of the premise . constitution, and someone who could command the trust of the premise of| command the trust of the premise of the day _ command the trust of the premise of the da . . . . command the trust of the premise of theda. .. ... command the trust of the premise of theda. ,,, .., command the trust of the premise of theda. ,, , .., the day. seismic are you saying there is a _ the day. seismic are you saying there is a preferred _ the day. seismic are you saying there is a preferred candidate l the day. seismic are you saying l there is a preferred candidate the prime ministers considering as we speak? prime ministers considering as we seak? ., . prime ministers considering as we speak?- that _ prime ministers considering as we speak?- that preferred i speak? correct. that preferred candidate is — speak? correct. that preferred candidate is someone - speak? correct. that preferred candidate is someone you - speak? correct. that preferred| candidate is someone you have speak? correct. that preferred - candidate is someone you have put forward? we candidate is someone you have put forward? ~ . candidate is someone you have put forward? ~ , ., ., ., , ., , forward? we put forward a shortlist ofthe forward? we put forward a shortlist of the prime _ forward? we put forward a shortlist of the prime minister _ forward? we put forward a shortlist of the prime minister to _ forward? we put forward a shortlist of the prime minister to discuss - of the prime minister to discuss that with him and he has gone for a preferred candidate from the rest. aha, preferred candidate from the rest. pre—appointment hearing with the preferred candidate, can you undertake to ensure that happens? obviously it could not be a pre—appointment hearing as such, because it is a prime ministerial appointment, but i know that sir alex kane, before this committee earlier in his tenure, and we will

encourage the same of the new independent advisor. do encourage the same of the new independent advisor.— encourage the same of the new independent advisor. do think it is appropriate _ independent advisor. do think it is appropriate this — independent advisor. do think it is appropriate this is _ independent advisor. do think it is appropriate this is a _ independent advisor. do think it is appropriate this is a prime - appropriate this is a prime ministerial appointment? appropriate this is a prime ministerialappointment? i appropriate this is a prime ministerial appointment? i think it is. it ministerial appointment? i think it is- it stems _ ministerial appointment? i think it is. it stems from _ ministerial appointment? i think it is. it stems from the _ ministerial appointment? i think it| is. it stems from the constitutional reality of how ministers are appointed, you know, under the royal prerogative. ministers are appointed on the advice of the prime minister. is the prime minister not also responsible for ensuring that they fulfil the standards that the independent adviser is meant to be laying down?— independent adviser is meant to be la in: down? ,~ , laying down? everybody in government is responsible — laying down? everybody in government is responsible for— laying down? everybody in government is responsible for upholding _ laying down? everybody in government is responsible for upholding the - is responsible for upholding the standards in public life, sorry, have i misunderstood your point? hour have i misunderstood your point? how can the independent adviser be looking at the actions of the prime minister if they are appointed by

the prime minister?— minister if they are appointed by the prime minister? well, i think that is perfectly _ the prime minister? well, i think that is perfectly possible - the prime minister? well, i think that is perfectly possible when i the prime minister? well, i think. that is perfectly possible when you have got an individual in place that meets the sort of criteria that darren has set out, somebody who is capable of commanding public confidence. that person would have the authority by their very nature too, you know, raised with the prime minister questions, i think. too, you know, raised with the prime minister questions, ithink. you too, you know, raised with the prime minister questions, i think.— minister questions, i think. you are confident the _ minister questions, i think. you are confident the person _ minister questions, i think. you are confident the person that _ minister questions, i think. you are confident the person that has - minister questions, i think. you are confident the person that has been| confident the person that has been recommended to the prime minister is such a _ recommended to the prime minister is such a character?— such a character? yes, we wouldn't have ut such a character? yes, we wouldn't have put the _ such a character? yes, we wouldn't have put the person _ such a character? yes, we wouldn't have put the person on _ such a character? yes, we wouldn't have put the person on the - such a character? yes, we wouldn't| have put the person on the shortlist if we did not believe that.— if we did not believe that. thank ou. sir if we did not believe that. thank you- sir alec— if we did not believe that. thank you. sir alec had _ if we did not believe that. thank you. sir alec had to _ if we did not believe that. thank you. sir alec had to resign - if we did not believe that. thank. you. sir alec had to resign because the prime minister _

you. sir alec had to resign because the prime minister refused - you. sir alec had to resign because the prime minister refused to - you. sir alec had to resign because l the prime minister refused to uphold his advice. what addition would this candidate have to prevent the prime minister doing that?— minister doing that? actually, as art of minister doing that? actually, as part of this _ minister doing that? actually, as part of this round, _ minister doing that? actually, as part of this round, the _ minister doing that? actually, as part of this round, the prime - part of this round, the prime minister has asked us to look at the remit of the role and the powers that the independent adviser has. seismic i wonder about the juncture i could perhaps bring rachel hopkins in,... to i could perhaps bring rachel hopkins in,... ., . , ., i could perhaps bring rachel hopkins in,... .,. , ., i could perhaps bring rachel hopkins in,... .,. . .. i could perhaps bring rachel hopkins in,... , ., , in,... to pre-empt what you may be about to say- _ in,... to pre-empt what you may be about to say. rachel. _ in,... to pre-empt what you may be about to say. rachel. thank - in,... to pre-empt what you may be about to say. rachel. thank you, i about to say. rachel. thank you, chair. it about to say. rachel. thank you, chair- it is _ about to say. rachel. thank you, chair. it is to _ about to say. rachel. thank you, chair. it is to build _ about to say. rachel. thank you, chair. it is to build of _ about to say. rachel. thank you, chair. it is to build of the - about to say. rachel. thank you, chair. it is to build of the chair i chair. it is to build of the chair of the — chair. it is to build of the chair of the committee _ chair. it is to build of the chair of the committee on - chair. it is to build of the chairi of the committee on standards chair. it is to build of the chair. of the committee on standards in pubiic— of the committee on standards in public life. — of the committee on standards in public life, written _ of the committee on standards in public life, written to _ of the committee on standards in public life, written to the - of the committee on standards in public life, written to the prime i public life, written to the prime ministers — public life, written to the prime ministers suggesting _ public life, written to the prime ministers suggesting amongst l public life, written to the prime - ministers suggesting amongst other the independent _ ministers suggesting amongst other the independent adviser— ministers suggesting amongst other the independent adviser be - ministers suggesting amongst other. the independent adviser be empowered to initiate _ the independent adviser be empowered to initiate their— the independent adviser be empowered to initiate their own _ the independent adviser be empowered to initiate their own inquiries _ the independent adviser be empowered to initiate their own inquiries into- to initiate their own inquiries into alleged _ to initiate their own inquiries into alleged breaches— to initiate their own inquiries into alleged breaches of— to initiate their own inquiries into alleged breaches of the - to initiate their own inquiries into. alleged breaches of the ministerial codes. _ alleged breaches of the ministerial codes. so — alleged breaches of the ministerial codes. so it—

alleged breaches of the ministerial codes. so it is— alleged breaches of the ministerial codes, so it is this _ alleged breaches of the ministerial codes, so it is this part— alleged breaches of the ministerial codes, so it is this part of- alleged breaches of the ministerial codes, so it is this part of it, - codes, so it is this part of it, says— codes, so it is this part of it, says a — codes, so it is this part of it, says a change _ codes, so it is this part of it, says a change you _ codes, so it is this part of it, says a change you would - codes, so it is this part of it, - says a change you would welcome? sorry. _ says a change you would welcome? sorry. in— says a change you would welcome? sorry, in relation— says a change you would welcome? sorry, in relation to _ says a change you would welcome? sorry, in relation to the _ says a change you would welcome? sorry, in relation to the previous i sorry, in relation to the previous question, the premise of�*s as part of identify doing a new adviser, we've been looking at the remit of the job and we will be announcing any changes at the same time as announcing the new independent adviser. of course, the changes are ultimately a decision for the pm, but i know he has been paying close regard to the u referred to, lord evans' later, and i myself have been in discussion with lord evans about how the remit and role might work. we will set out any changes when we make the announcement. ii i we will set out any changes when we make the announcement.— we will set out any changes when we make the announcement. if i may push on that question _ make the announcement. if i may push on that question about _ make the announcement. if i may push on that question about your _ make the announcement. if i may push on that question about your views - make the announcement. if i may push on that question about your views of. on that question about your views of whether it is a positive thing that the independent adviser could initiate their own investigations, may be drawing on the fact that at

current times it is the prime minister who decides whether to investigate others, i would be interested in whether that means he is immune from being investigated unless there is an independent adviser with their own remit to be able to investigate the prime minister? ., ., ~' able to investigate the prime minister? ., ., ~ , able to investigate the prime minister? , , ., ., minister? look, this is one of the key changes _ minister? look, this is one of the key changes that _ minister? look, this is one of the key changes that was _ minister? look, this is one of the key changes that was brought - minister? look, this is one of thej key changes that was brought out minister? look, this is one of the i key changes that was brought out in lord evans' letter. i think it has to come to the point you're making, it has made it to it. precisely how it has made it to it. precisely how it works is something... again, it all needs to flow from the core constitutional principle that the prime minister advises the sovereign on who to call to be her ministers. i think it is something that we are looking at, and will set out changes when we make the announcement. any

changes. when we make the announcement. any chanres. . .. when we make the announcement. any chanres. ., ,, ,., when we make the announcement. any chanres. . ~' ,., . ., when we make the announcement. any chanres. . ~. ., changes. thank you. john mcdonald, - lease. changes. thank you. john mcdonald, please- thank— changes. thank you. john mcdonald, please. thank you, _ changes. thank you. john mcdonald, please. thank you, chair. _ changes. thank you. john mcdonald, please. thank you, chair. while - changes. thank you. john mcdonald, please. thank you, chair. while the i please. thank you, chair. while the chair of the — please. thank you, chair. while the chair of the committee _ please. thank you, chair. while the chair of the committee asked - please. thank you, chair. while the chair of the committee asked you i chair of the committee asked you about where you concerned about your own position dominic and you are challenging ministers, basically, you answered very firmly no. but beyond that, how proactive a role do you and does the party team take, in relation to the enforcement of ministerial code? did you trigger action? what is the circumstances in which you would do that? i will give these examples because i am mystified at the moment and why there hasn't been more proactive engagement from yourself and your team. we have had the examples, i

will give these examples, the chancellor of the exchequer, his text being published where he has been pushing civil servants to act on a private lobby. donations for the conservative party from a number of firms with the donations to the conservative party are reported at least on a ratio of ten: one with contracts. we have had the secretary of state for health met police will be hugely to someone who has received a contract, and then we have had the ministerial register of interest delayed some considerable time. surely some of that would have triggered you into action, wouldn't it, if you have been proactive? i think the first thing to consider is, think the first thing to consider is. we — think the first thing to consider is. we don't _ think the first thing to consider is, we don'tjust_ think the first thing to consider is, we don't just wait _ think the first thing to consider is, we don't just wait first - think the first thing to consider is, we don't just wait first of i think the first thing to considerl is, we don't just wait first of the come _ is, we don't just wait first of the come to— is, we don't just wait first of the come to us— is, we don't just wait first of the come to us stop _ is, we don't just wait first of the come to us stop as _ is, we don't just wait first of the come to us stop as i— is, we don't just wait first of the come to us stop as i said - is, we don't just wait first of the i come to us stop as i said earlier, the vast — come to us stop as i said earlier, the vast majority _ come to us stop as i said earlier, the vast majority of _ come to us stop as i said earlier, the vast majority of our - come to us stop as i said earlier, | the vast majority of our casework comes— the vast majority of our casework comes from — the vast majority of our casework comes from ministers _ the vast majority of our casework comes from ministers seeking, i comes from ministers seeking, proactively _

comes from ministers seeking, proactively seeking _ comes from ministers seeking, proactively seeking advice - comes from ministers seeking, proactively seeking advice up i comes from ministers seeking, - proactively seeking advice up front. ithink— proactively seeking advice up front. i think it _ proactively seeking advice up front. i think it is — proactively seeking advice up front. i think it is important, _ proactively seeking advice up front. i think it is important, the - i think it is important, the ministerial— i think it is important, the ministerial code _ i think it is important, the ministerial code is- i think it is important, the ministerial code is clear, i i think it is important, the i ministerial code is clear, just i think it is important, the - ministerial code is clear, just for ministers — ministerial code is clear, just for ministers to— ministerial code is clear, just for ministers to satisfy _ ministerial code is clear, just for ministers to satisfy themselvesl ministerial code is clear, just for. ministers to satisfy themselves that they are _ ministers to satisfy themselves that they are following _ ministers to satisfy themselves that they are following the _ ministers to satisfy themselves that they are following the ministerial. they are following the ministerial code _ they are following the ministerial code it — they are following the ministerial code it is — they are following the ministerial code. it is even _ they are following the ministerial code. it is even more _ they are following the ministerial code. it is even more explicit - they are following the ministeriall code. it is even more explicit that this is— code. it is even more explicit that this is not— code. it is even more explicit that this is not for— code. it is even more explicit that this is not for the _ code. it is even more explicit that this is not for the cabinet- this is not for the cabinet secretary— this is not for the cabinet secretary or— this is not for the cabinet secretary or eye - this is not for the cabinet secretary or eye to - this is not for the cabinetj secretary or eye to police this is not for the cabinet- secretary or eye to police the this is not for the cabinet— secretary or eye to police the code. that is _ secretary or eye to police the code. that is for— secretary or eye to police the code. that is for ministers, _ secretary or eye to police the code. that is for ministers, and _ secretary or eye to police the code. that is for ministers, and the - that is for ministers, and the ultimate _ that is for ministers, and the ultimate arbiter— that is for ministers, and the ultimate arbiter of— that is for ministers, and the| ultimate arbiter of ministerial conduct — ultimate arbiter of ministerial conduct as— ultimate arbiter of ministerial conduct as the _ ultimate arbiter of ministerial conduct as the prime - ultimate arbiter of ministeriall conduct as the prime minister. ultimate arbiter of ministerial - conduct as the prime minister. that set. conduct as the prime minister. that set we _ conduct as the prime minister. that set we don't— conduct as the prime minister. that set we don'tjust _ conduct as the prime minister. that set. we don'tjust sit _ conduct as the prime minister. that set. we don't just sit there - conduct as the prime minister. that set. we don'tjust sit there and - conduct as the prime minister. that set. we don'tjust sit there and letl set. we don'tjust sit there and let things— set. we don'tjust sit there and let things go— set. we don'tjust sit there and let things go by — set. we don'tjust sit there and let things go by we _ set. we don'tjust sit there and let things go by. we will— set. we don'tjust sit there and let things go by. we will get - set. we don'tjust sit there and let things go by. we will get involvedl things go by. we will get involved in specific— things go by. we will get involved in specific cases _ things go by. we will get involved in specific cases when _ things go by. we will get involved in specific cases when we - things go by. we will get involved in specific cases when we see - things go by. we will get involved i in specific cases when we see them, as necessary. — in specific cases when we see them, as necessary or— in specific cases when we see them, as necessary or at _ in specific cases when we see them, as necessary, or at the _ in specific cases when we see them, as necessary, or at the request- in specific cases when we see them, as necessary, or at the request of. as necessary, or at the request of the prime — as necessary, or at the request of the prime minister. _ as necessary, or at the request of the prime minister.— the prime minister. would you rovide the prime minister. would you provide advice _ the prime minister. would you provide advice on _ the prime minister. would you provide advice on any - the prime minister. would you provide advice on any of - the prime minister. would you provide advice on any of those | provide advice on any of those instances which might have you provided advice? i instances which might have you provided advice?— provided advice? i don't think i want to get _ provided advice? i don't think i want to get into _ provided advice? i don't think i want to get into individual - provided advice? i don't think i i want to get into individual cases, that is— want to get into individual cases, that is ok — want to get into individual cases, that is ok with _ want to get into individual cases, that is ok with the _ want to get into individual cases, that is ok with the committee. i want to get into individual cases, | that is ok with the committee. —— want to get into individual cases, i that is ok with the committee. —— if that is ok with the committee. —— if that is— that is ok with the committee. —— if that is ok _ that is ok with the committee. —— if that is ok with— that is ok with the committee. —— if that is ok with the _ that is ok with the committee. —— if that is ok with the committee? - that is ok with the committee. —— if| that is ok with the committee? how can we _ that is ok with the committee? how can we tell— that is ok with the committee? how can we tell if — that is ok with the committee? how can we tell if you're _ that is ok with the committee? how can we tell if you're doing _ that is ok with the committee? how can we tell if you're doing your- that is ok with the committee? how can we tell if you're doing yourjob i can we tell if you're doing yourjob if we _ can we tell if you're doing yourjob if we ask— can we tell if you're doing yourjob if we ask you — can we tell if you're doing yourjob if we ask you a _ can we tell if you're doing yourjob if we ask you a specific _

can we tell if you're doing yourjobj if we ask you a specific question... ask you _ if we ask you a specific question... ask you a — if we ask you a specific question... ask you a specific— if we ask you a specific question... ask you a specific question - if we ask you a specific question... ask you a specific question about i ask you a specific question about whether you are doing a job and you tell us you can tell us whether you're doing yourjob? i tell us you can tell us whether you're doing yourjob?- tell us you can tell us whether you're doing yourjob? you're doing your 'ob? i don't want to comment — you're doing your 'ob? i don't want to comment on _ you're doing yourjob? i don't want to comment on any _ you're doing yourjob? i don't want to comment on any ongoing - you're doing yourjob? i don't want i to comment on any ongoing casework the team _ to comment on any ongoing casework the team are — to comment on any ongoing casework the team are doing _ to comment on any ongoing casework the team are doing for— to comment on any ongoing casework the team are doing for top— to comment on any ongoing casework the team are doing for top 50- to comment on any ongoing casework the team are doing for top— the team are doing for top so you are engaged _ the team are doing for top so you are engaged in — the team are doing for top so you are engaged in some _ the team are doing for top so you are engaged in some of _ the team are doing for top so you are engaged in some of the - the team are doing for top so you l are engaged in some of the matter the team are doing for top so you - are engaged in some of the matter is i have listed? we are engaged in some of the matter is i have listed?— i have listed? we are engaged in a ranre of i have listed? we are engaged in a range of issues _ i have listed? we are engaged in a range of issues that _ i have listed? we are engaged in a range of issues that are _ i have listed? we are engaged in a range of issues that are live - i have listed? we are engaged in a range of issues that are live at - i have listed? we are engaged in a range of issues that are live at the | range of issues that are live at the moment — range of issues that are live at the moment. . .. range of issues that are live at the moment. ., ,, , ., ., ., ., ., moment. thank you for that. that at least moves — moment. thank you for that. that at least moves us _ moment. thank you for that. that at least moves us a _ moment. thank you for that. that at least moves us a bit _ moment. thank you for that. that at least moves us a bit further - least moves us a bit further forward. the issue around permanent secretaries and the role that they play is equally important. how important do you think the role of a departmental secretary is in ensuring the relevant codes are adhered to, because my fear is the one that the chair raised, relay, which is in a recent experience, suggest that permanent secretaries are displeased, the secretary of state don't last very long. so how does a permanent secretary act as a

permanent regulator while keeping theirjobs? permanent regulator while keeping their 'obs? �* . ., , permanent regulator while keeping their'obs? ~. ., , ~ ., their 'obs? actually, as you know, theirjobs? actually, as you know, the role permanent— theirjobs? actually, as you know, the role permanent secretaries i theirjobs? actually, as you know, the role permanent secretaries in| the role permanent secretaries in the role permanent secretaries in the ministerial code is clearly set out. some specific examples on security of government business, matters relating to ministers' constituencies, and also supporting ministers and making sure that they avoid conflict or perception of conflict. i think on the point about the role of permanent secretaries in relation to such, i think this came up relation to such, i think this came up when i was in front of the committee last time. actually, the overwhelming majority of experience of the relationship between ministers and civil servants, and between secretaries of state and permanent secretaries is incredibly collaborative. as darren says, the vast majority of cases, actually

ministers actively seek the support of their permanent secretaries and other officials. like dieting. in upholding their obligations under the ministerial code. —— like dad in. the ministerial code. -- like dad in. ~ ., , the ministerial code. -- like dad in. when it came to philip ruckman, has advised — in. when it came to philip ruckman, has advised does _ in. when it came to philip ruckman, has advised does not _ in. when it came to philip ruckman, has advised does not follow - in. when it came to philip ruckman, has advised does not follow them i in. when it came to philip ruckman, has advised does not follow them to | has advised does not follow them to maintain his integrity had no choice but to resign. it sounds permanent secretaries may not be so robust and challenging their secretaries of state, and that is how they survive. personally, i don't, state, and that is how they survive. personally, idon't, i state, and that is how they survive. personally, i don't, i don't, state, and that is how they survive. personally, idon't, idon't, i don't share that view full stop permanent secretaries i know are robust as they need to be, where they need to be, in making sure that they need to be, in making sure that the minister's obligations under the ministerial code are upheld. as i said, issues around the ministerial

code, the difficulty is more than not are ministers asking civil servants actively asking for support in making sure that they uphold their obligations under the various codes. ,., . their obligations under the various codes. . . their obligations under the various codes. . ' . their obligations under the various codes. , , . ., their obligations under the various codes. , f. .,... , codes. gas is difficult to accept when the ministerial _ codes. gas is difficult to accept when the ministerial registeri codes. gas is difficult to accept| when the ministerial register of interest has been delayed yet again —— that seems difficult to accept. there is the existing transparency scheme, and that covers meetings, hospitality... is that the one at this publish quarterly? with all the figures on a? sign like that is right. just checking i have the right. just checking i have the right thing in my mind. does it cover phone calls and text messages that senior ministers or senior civil servants make in relation to

these sorts of things, do they need to declare them? what it these sorts of things, do they need to declare them? what— to declare them? what it doesn't cover phone _ to declare them? what it doesn't cover phone calls, _ to declare them? what it doesn't cover phone calls, unless - to declare them? what it doesn't cover phone calls, unless the - to declare them? what it doesn't i cover phone calls, unless the phone call is _ cover phone calls, unless the phone call is in _ cover phone calls, unless the phone call is in place — cover phone calls, unless the phone call is in place of— cover phone calls, unless the phone call is in place of a _ cover phone calls, unless the phone call is in place of a meeting - cover phone calls, unless the phone call is in place of a meeting stop i call is in place of a meeting stop it does— call is in place of a meeting stop it does not— call is in place of a meeting stop it does not include _ call is in place of a meeting stop it does not include texts. - call is in place of a meeting stop it does not include texts.- it does not include texts. given everything _ it does not include texts. given everything we _ it does not include texts. given everything we have _ it does not include texts. given everything we have been i it does not include texts. given | everything we have been talking about today, and the public interest any loss of that, if those sorts of calls and text messages aren't included, how can we ensure that standards are upheld, ministerial code is enforced, cetera, in relation to these sorts of things? good question. actually, i think the underpinning principles are there to answer your point, which is that government business is government

business, however it is conducted, by whatever means of communication. and anything that is government business has to be handled in line with the codes, foia, public records act, etc, etc. these things have to be retained, declared to officials, as per the code. however, whatever the means of communication. that is really helpful- _ the means of communication. that is really helpful. some _ the means of communication. that is really helpful. some of— the means of communication. that is really helpful. some of the _ the means of communication. that is really helpful. some of the issues i really helpful. some of the issues coming up that they mention briefly earlier is about the prime minister saying he is going to publish text messages between himself mr dyson and other business leaders in the public interest. not come to light just yet, so when can we expect them, in the spirit of what you have just said? has. them, in the spirit of what you have 'ust said? �* . , ., just said? as i understand it, downinr just said? as i understand it, downing street _ just said? as i understand it, downing street published i i just said? as i understand it, i downing street published i think on friday a document fulfilling the

prime minister was my commitment to the house. i think it was last friday. again, iwill the house. i think it was last friday. again, i will have to check. 0k. friday. again, i will have to check. ok. there is other senior ministers who probably should follow suit if thatis who probably should follow suit if that is the case with the prime minister. would you agree it is appropriate they should publish all text messages and those sorts of messages in order to ensure they are being transparent in accord with the ministerial code? i being transparent in accord with the ministerial code?— ministerial code? i think processes are there for _ ministerial code? i think processes are there for the _ ministerial code? i think processes are there for the purposes - ministerial code? i think processes are there for the purposes of- are there for the purposes of transparency, so for example, the freedom of information act as a way of getting hold of material relating to government business. that can be released under whatever the means of communication. 50 released under whatever the means of communication. sol released under whatever the means of communication. 50 i think there are vehicles there forfull vehicles there for full transparency.- vehicles there for full transparency. vehicles there for full transaren . ., ,., , vehicles there for full transaren . ., , �* transparency. one of the points i'm very conscious _ transparency. one of the points i'm very conscious of _ transparency. one of the points i'm very conscious of is _ transparency. one of the points i'm very conscious of is around - very conscious of is around government business. it usually

takes place with the pressures present and therefore there will be a record or a no and it discovered that way, but sometimes you seem to imply as well that government business takes place over the phone, through a message. and it is obviously for ministers to then subsequently declare. we have picked up subsequently declare. we have picked up that there have been reports that the prime minister still uses a personal mobile phone, despite a request of the civil service to do so, to make sure it can be managed and that it is secure. what has been your advice about this? how have you helped maybe prevent inappropriate requests, lobbying through personal mobile phones, if officials aren't present? fin mobile phones, if officials aren't resent? , , . . ,., present? on the specific point, you will be well — present? on the specific point, you will be well aware _ present? on the specific point, you will be well aware that _ present? on the specific point, you will be well aware that the - present? on the specific point, you will be well aware that the prime i will be well aware that the prime minister set out his account in the house last week, including making

clear, as he is required to do, that any contact to get through a personal phone, he has got to officials. he set out in the house. the question about personal mobile phones is a good one. the communications security is obviously important, and ministers get advice on that. for example, we regularly do sessions at cabinet on security. the committee will understand by long—standing convention that i won't go into the sort of detail of the advice i have given the pm, or my predecessors have, but actually, the thing about changing telephone numbers and personal phones can be a bit of a redhead income if i am honest. —— a bit of a red herring,

if i'm honest. ministers like parliamentarians actually need to be in touch with a very large number of people, culture and the house, across government etc. so, i mean, i won't invite you to comment, but i think most parliamentarians, the reality is your telephone number will become quite widely known, just because of how you have to do your business. so the question is how do you protect overall security, and there is a range of measures on that. and as for the question about lobbying, the processes are sort of well established. if it is government business and an official was not there to record the, in the moment at the first opportunity, ministers should be dictating this to their officials to make sure it is recorded. i to their officials to make sure it is recorded-— to their officials to make sure it is recorded. i am pleased to hear ou sin is recorded. i am pleased to hear you sing about — is recorded. i am pleased to hear you sing about declaring - is recorded. i am pleased to hear you sing about declaring it - is recorded. i am pleased to hear you sing about declaring it as i is recorded. i am pleased to hear you sing about declaring it as thej you sing about declaring it as the first opportunity, because as we know there are some recent issues they had to be teased out. one of my

big concerns, you touch them and they are, by security and whether personal phones are sufficiently encrypted or a secure as a government issued ministerial phone. if seen in other cases, some people have hacked into significant people's phones and used it as a means to blackmail or embarrass, in that respect. can we be assured, what is to stop our prime minister being vulnerable to inappropriate loving of blackmail, in that respect, if he is using a personal mobile phone? aye obviously we put security packages around all the communications that ministers... br; communications that ministers... by whatever means. you may well actually know that the levels of encryption and standards of security on everybody�*s mobile phone are increasing all the time, because it

is in the interest of the manufacturers. customers all around the world demands it now. but everybody needs to follow the basic cybersecurity advice about how to protect your devices. it is the same advice to the public as it is to ministers, to be honest. obviously government issued it is, in most instances, slightly more secure, robbie sadie highly classifies that much more secure, but actually, the levels of encryption and security on most people's mobile phones is really pretty good. if you use it in the right way, two factor authentication and all that sort of stuff, standard psychic security advice, you can end up with secure devices on everybody�*s hands and pockets. devices on everybody's hands and ockets. ., . ., devices on everybody's hands and ockets. ., , , ,, , pockets. people do business in this new way with _ pockets. people do business in this new way with messages, _ pockets. people do business in this

new way with messages, mobile i new way with messages, mobile phones, as you are saying. as the ministerial code suitably robust in relation to all this new technological communication development has backed us to it sufficiently?— development has backed us to it sufficiently? yes, i think it does, the principles — sufficiently? yes, i think it does, the principles are _ sufficiently? yes, i think it does, the principles are there - sufficiently? yes, i think it does, the principles are there to - sufficiently? yes, i think it does, i the principles are there to underpin this. if it is government business, it is government business. needs to be declared and recorded in the proper ways. that is set out in the ministerial code. i think, proper ways. that is set out in the ministerial code. ithink, i proper ways. that is set out in the ministerial code. i think, i will... i can't think that technology fundamentally changes the requirements. it is a means of communication, ratherthan requirements. it is a means of communication, rather than the fundamentals of needing to maintain recording of public, government business, sorry.— recording of public, government business, sorry. thank you. thank ou, business, sorry. thank you. thank

you. chair- — business, sorry. thank you. thank you, chair. you're _ business, sorry. thank you. thank you, chair. you're going _ business, sorry. thank you. thank you, chair. you're going to - business, sorry. thank you. thank you, chair. you're going to move i business, sorry. thank you. thank i you, chair. you're going to move on now to look — you, chair. you're going to move on now to look at _ you, chair. you're going to move on now to look at the _ you, chair. you're going to move on now to look at the greensill - now to look at the greensill episode. _ now to look at the greensill episode, so open questions on that. my colleague, david jones. was episode, so open questions on that. my colleague, david jones.- my colleague, david jones. was lex greensill employed _ my colleague, david jones. was lex greensill employed as _ my colleague, david jones. was lex greensill employed as a _ my colleague, david jones. was lex greensill employed as a special- greensill employed as a special adviser of downing street? before i to on, the adviser of downing street? before i go on, the answer _ adviser of downing street? before i go on, the answer to _ adviser of downing street? before i go on, the answer to your - adviser of downing street? before i go on, the answer to your question | go on, the answer to your question is he wasn't employed as a special adviser, but if i may, just at the outset, we know the committee is looking into this, we are here to help as much as we can on that. as you know, the pm set up the boardman review, so what we will do today is give you as many of the facts as have got. some of those we have obviously only be able to have a cursory look at, in terms of handing over to mr boardman. so we won't be able to give you all of the answers, we will give you what we've got and

stomach sign that get given a clear answer to mrjones' first question, that mr greensill was not employed as a special adviser at downing street. is that right? yes. mr greensill's — street. is that right? yes. ij�*i greensill's business street. is that right? yes. m greensill's business card was that he was an advisor of the payments are�*s office, so what was the nature of his role? gray i'm happy to pick up. as we said, he was not a special adviser. ihis up. as we said, he was not a special adviser. , .,. up. as we said, he was not a special adviser. , .. , . , up. as we said, he was not a special adviser. , , . , i, , adviser. his exact status was unclear- _ adviser. his exact status was unclear. that _ adviser. his exact status was unclear. that is _ adviser. his exact status was unclear. that is one - adviser. his exact status was unclear. that is one of - adviser. his exact status was unclear. that is one of the i adviser. his exact status was - unclear. that is one of the things we've _ unclear. that is one of the things we've asked _ unclear. that is one of the things we've asked nigel— unclear. that is one of the things we've asked nigel boardman - unclear. that is one of the things we've asked nigel boardman to i unclear. that is one of the things. we've asked nigel boardman to look at. we've asked nigel boardman to look at he _ we've asked nigel boardman to look at he was _ we've asked nigel boardman to look at. he was appointed _ we've asked nigel boardman to look at. he was appointed as _ we've asked nigel boardman to look at. he was appointed as an - we've asked nigel boardman to look at. he was appointed as an unpaid l at. he was appointed as an unpaid adviser_ at. he was appointed as an unpaid adviser on— at. he was appointed as an unpaid adviser on supply _ at. he was appointed as an unpaid adviser on supply chain _ at. he was appointed as an unpaid adviser on supply chain finance - at. he was appointed as an unpaid adviser on supply chain finance ini adviser on supply chain finance in january— adviser on supply chain finance in january 2012. _ adviser on supply chain finance in january 2012. he _ adviser on supply chain finance in january 2012. he did _ adviser on supply chain finance in january 2012. he did that - adviser on supply chain finance in january 2012. he did that until. january 2012. he did that until 2015 — january 2012. he did that until 2015 in — january 2012. he did that until 2015 in 2013— january 2012. he did that until 2015. in 2013 he _ january 2012. he did that until 2015. in 2013 he also - january 2012. he did that until 2015. in 2013 he also became i january 2012. he did that untill 2015. in 2013 he also became a january 2012. he did that until- 2015. in 2013 he also became a prime representative, — 2015. in 2013 he also became a prime representative, which— 2015. in 2013 he also became a prime representative, which lasted - 2015. in 2013 he also became a prime representative, which lasted until- representative, which lasted until 2016 wherr— representative, which lasted until 2016 when he _ representative, which lasted until 2016 when he left _ representative, which lasted until 2016 when he left the _ representative, which lasted until 2016 when he left the cabinet - 2016 when he left the cabinet office — 2016 when he left the cabinet office his _ 2016 when he left the cabinet office. his status _ 2016 when he left the cabinet office. his status as - 2016 when he left the cabinet office. his status as a - 2016 when he left the cabinet. office. his status as a democrat 2016 when he left the cabinet - office. his status as a democrat and adviser, _ office. his status as a democrat and adviser, it _ office. his status as a democrat and adviser, it is— office. his status as a democrat and adviser, it is unclear—

office. his status as a democrat and adviser, it is unclear what— office. his status as a democrat and adviser, it is unclear what basis- adviser, it is unclear what basis that— adviser, it is unclear what basis that has, — adviser, it is unclear what basis that has, that _ adviser, it is unclear what basis that has, that is _ adviser, it is unclear what basis that has, that is something - adviser, it is unclear what basis that has, that is something wei adviser, it is unclear what basis- that has, that is something we have asked _ that has, that is something we have asked nigel— that has, that is something we have asked nigel boardman— that has, that is something we have asked nigel boardman to _ that has, that is something we have asked nigel boardman to look - that has, that is something we have asked nigel boardman to look at. that has, that is something we have asked nigel boardman to look at ——i asked nigel boardman to look at —— his status _ asked nigel boardman to look at —— his status as — asked nigel boardman to look at —— his status as an _ asked nigel boardman to look at —— his status as an adviser. _ asked nigel boardman to look at —— his status as an adviser. was - asked nigel boardman to look at -- his status as an adviser.— his status as an adviser. was he resent his status as an adviser. was he present in _ his status as an adviser. was he present in downing _ his status as an adviser. was he present in downing street - his status as an adviser. was he l present in downing street present his status as an adviser. was he - present in downing street present to the contract? irate present in downing street present to the contract?— present in downing street present to the contract? ~ . , . , ., the contract? we have been unable to find a contract. _ the contract? we have been unable to find a contract, we _ the contract? we have been unable to find a contract, we have _ the contract? we have been unable to find a contract, we have found - the contract? we have been unable to find a contract, we have found an - find a contract, we have found an appointment— find a contract, we have found an appointment letter— find a contract, we have found an appointment letter and _ find a contract, we have found an. appointment letter and subsequent reappointment _ appointment letter and subsequent reappointment letters, _ appointment letter and subsequent reappointment letters, which - appointment letter and subsequent reappointment letters, which set. appointment letter and subsequent. reappointment letters, which set out some _ reappointment letters, which set out some conditions— reappointment letters, which set out some conditions on _ reappointment letters, which set out some conditions on his _ reappointment letters, which set out| some conditions on his appointment. things— some conditions on his appointment. things like _ some conditions on his appointment. things like the — some conditions on his appointment. things like the official _ some conditions on his appointment. things like the official secrets - things like the official secrets act, confidentiality, _ things like the official secrets act, confidentiality, using - things like the official secrets act, confidentiality, using the| act, confidentiality, using the trusiness— act, confidentiality, using the business appointment- act, confidentiality, using the business appointment rules . act, confidentiality, using the - business appointment rules when he leaves _ business appointment rules when he leaves but— business appointment rules when he leaves but so— business appointment rules when he leaves. but so far _ business appointment rules when he leaves. but so far we _ business appointment rules when he leaves. but so far we have _ business appointment rules when he leaves. but so far we have been - leaves. but so far we have been unable — leaves. but so far we have been unable to— leaves. but so far we have been unable to identify _ leaves. but so far we have been unable to identify a _ leaves. but so far we have been unable to identify a contract. i leaves. but so far we have been l unable to identify a contract. iiriiiho unable to identify a contract. who si t ned the unable to identify a contract. signed the appointment letter? unable to identify a contract. who signed the appointment letter? a| signed the appointment letter? a director in what was called then the efficiency— director in what was called then the efficiency and — director in what was called then the efficiency and reform _ director in what was called then the efficiency and reform group - director in what was called then the efficiency and reform group of- director in what was called then the efficiency and reform group of the i efficiency and reform group of the cabinet _ efficiency and reform group of the cabinet office. _ efficiency and reform group of the cabinet office. we _ efficiency and reform group of the cabinet office. we have _ efficiency and reform group of the cabinet office. we have had - efficiency and reform group of the| cabinet office. we have had some evidence _ cabinet office. we have had some evidence the — cabinet office. we have had some evidence the appointment - cabinet office. we have had some evidence the appointment was - cabinet office. we have had some . evidence the appointment was signed off by evidence the appointment was signed off try the _ evidence the appointment was signed off try the then — evidence the appointment was signed off by the then minister— evidence the appointment was signed off by the then minister for— evidence the appointment was signed off by the then minister for the - off by the then minister for the cabinet — off by the then minister for the cabinet office _ off by the then minister for the cabinet office and _ off by the then minister for the cabinet office and the - off by the then minister for the cabinet office and the then - cabinet office and the then permanent— cabinet office and the then

permanent secretary - cabinet office and the then permanent secretary of- cabinet office and the then permanent secretary of the cabinet office and the then - permanent secretary of the cabinet office _ permanent secretary of the cabinet office that — permanent secretary of the cabinet office. that would _ permanent secretary of the cabinet office. that would have _ permanent secretary of the cabinet office. that would have been - permanent secretary of the cabinet office. that would have been ian. office. that would have been ian what _ office. that would have been ian what more — office. that would have been ian what more at _ office. that would have been ian what more at the _ office. that would have been ian what more at the time, - office. that would have been ian what more at the time, any... i office. that would have been ian what more at the time, any... would ou be what more at the time, any... would you be able — what more at the time, any... would you be able to _ what more at the time, any... would you be able to publish _ what more at the time, any... would you be able to publish the _ you be able to publish the appointment letter quest you be able to publish the appointment letter quest back. i can't think _ appointment letter quest back. i can't think why _ appointment letter quest back. i can't think why not. _ appointment letter quest back. i can't think why not. obvious - appointment letter quest back. i | can't think why not. obvious that appointment letter quest back. i - can't think why not. obvious that we have given all this to nigel boardman —— obviously we have. mr boardman —— obviously we have. m greensill had a pass to work at number ten. greensill had a pass to work at numberten. green greensill had a pass to work at number ten. green monkey dead, he was given a pass and it... he number ten. green monkey dead, he was given a pass and it. . .— was given a pass and it... he did, he was given _ was given a pass and it... he did, he was given a — was given a pass and it... he did, he was given a pass _ was given a pass and it... he did, he was given a pass and _ was given a pass and it... he did, he was given a pass and it. - was given a pass and it... he did, he was given a pass and it. was l was given a pass and it... he did, l he was given a pass and it. was he iven the he was given a pass and it. was he given the same _ he was given a pass and it. was he given the same clearance - he was given a pass and it. was he given the same clearance as - he was given a pass and it. was he given the same clearance as other| given the same clearance as other staff? he given the same clearance as other staff? . ., , , ., , .,

staff? he did have the appropriate level of security _ staff? he did have the appropriate level of security clearance, - staff? he did have the appropriate level of security clearance, it - level of security clearance, it happened _ level of security clearance, it happened several— level of security clearance, it happened several months . level of security clearance, it . happened several months after appointment. _ happened several months after appointment, but— happened several months after appointment, but that - happened several months after appointment, but that is - happened several months after appointment, but that is not i appointment, but that is not unusual _ appointment, but that is not unusual. �* appointment, but that is not unusual. . . ., ., appointment, but that is not unusual. . . . ., ., ,, the fact he had a business card does not mean he actually worked from downing street, he had access. what downing street, he had access. what was he doing. — downing street, he had access. what was he doing, popping in for a cup of tea _ was he doing, popping in for a cup of tea or— was he doing, popping in for a cup of tea or what was he doing? we don't of tea or what was he doing? don't know. of tea or what was he doing? - don't know. we weren't involved. seismic indeed, just the purpose of the investigation to find out. i find extraordinary cucumber before this committee not really knowing anything about the terms upon which mr greensill managed to be installed in downing street, which members of the committee may find rather alarming. ibys the committee may find rather alarmin. . , , ., alarming. as darren set out, the prime minister... _

alarming. as darren set out, the prime minister... if _ alarming. as darren set out, the prime minister... if the - alarming. as darren set out, the i prime minister... if the committee is alarmed. — prime minister... if the committee is alarmed. are _ prime minister... if the committee is alarmed, are you _ prime minister... if the committee is alarmed, are you alarmed? - prime minister... if the committee is alarmed, are you alarmed? yes. prime minister... if the committee i is alarmed, are you alarmed? yes. so it was is alarmed, are you alarmed? so it was approved is alarmed, are you alarmed? iezs so it was approved by the is alarmed, are you alarmed? 1a; so it was approved by the minister, by the permanent secretary of the cabinet office? the the permanent secretary of the cabinet office?— cabinet office? the initial appointment— cabinet office? the initial appointment for - cabinet office? the initial appointment for three - cabinet office? the initial- appointment for three months was approved _ appointment for three months was approved by— appointment for three months was approved by the _ appointment for three months was approved by the minister- appointment for three months was approved by the minister and - appointment for three months was approved by the minister and the i approved by the minister and the permanent— approved by the minister and the permanent secretary. _ approved by the minister and the permanent secretary. we - approved by the minister and the permanent secretary. we have i approved by the minister and the - permanent secretary. we have found no evidence — permanent secretary. we have found no evidence that _ permanent secretary. we have found no evidence that subsequent - no evidence that subsequent extensions _ no evidence that subsequent extensions to— no evidence that subsequent extensions to the _ no evidence that subsequent . extensions to the appointment no evidence that subsequent - extensions to the appointment were approved _ extensions to the appointment were approved by— extensions to the appointment were approved by ministers. _ extensions to the appointment were approved by ministers. but- extensions to the appointment were approved by ministers. but that - extensions to the appointment were approved by ministers. but that is l approved by ministers. but that is one of— approved by ministers. but that is one of the — approved by ministers. but that is one of the things _ approved by ministers. but that is one of the things we _ approved by ministers. but that is one of the things we have - approved by ministers. but that is one of the things we have asked l one of the things we have asked nigel— one of the things we have asked nigel boardman _ one of the things we have asked nigel boardman to _ one of the things we have asked nigel boardman to look- one of the things we have asked nigel boardman to look into. . one of the things we have asked nigel boardman to look into. do you know the background _ nigel boardman to look into. do you know the background to _ nigel boardman to look into. do you know the background to his - know the background to his introduction to downing street and why was not it would be a good idea for him to work there? i why was not it would be a good idea for him to work there?— for him to work there? i think we are reasonably _ for him to work there? i think we are reasonably clear _ for him to work there? i think we are reasonably clear that - for him to work there? i think we are reasonably clear that jeremy | are reasonably clear that jeremy heywood — are reasonably clear that jeremy heywood was _ are reasonably clear that jeremy heywood was seeking _ are reasonably clear that jeremy heywood was seeking to - are reasonably clear that jeremy heywood was seeking to bring . are reasonably clear that jeremy . heywood was seeking to bring legs green _ heywood was seeking to bring legs green cell— heywood was seeking to bring legs green cell into _ heywood was seeking to bring legs green cell into work _ heywood was seeking to bring legs green cell into work in _ heywood was seeking to bring legs green cell into work in the - heywood was seeking to bring legs green cell into work in the cabineti green cell into work in the cabinet office _ green cell into work in the cabinet office to _ green cell into work in the cabinet office to bring _ green cell into work in the cabinet office to bring his— green cell into work in the cabinet office to bring his expertise - green cell into work in the cabinet office to bring his expertise of- office to bring his expertise of supply— office to bring his expertise of supply chain _ office to bring his expertise of supply chain finance _ office to bring his expertise of supply chain finance —— - office to bring his expertise of supply chain finance —— legs . supply chain finance —— legs greensill _

supply chain finance —— legs greensill. they— supply chain finance —— legs greensill. they had - supply chain finance —— legs greensill. they had worked i supply chain finance —— legs - greensill. they had worked together any private — greensill. they had worked together any private sector? _ greensill. they had worked together any private sector? they _ greensill. they had worked together any private sector? they both - greensill. they had worked togetherl any private sector? they both worked together— any private sector? they both worked together at _ any private sector? they both worked together at i— any private sector? they both worked together at i think— any private sector? they both worked together at i think it— any private sector? they both worked together at i think it was _ any private sector? they both worked together at i think it was morgan - together at i think it was morgan stanley — together at i think it was morgan stanley is — together at i think it was morgan stanle . . . together at i think it was morgan stanle . , ., ., ., ,, stanley. is it fair to assume it was jerem 's stanley. is it fair to assume it was jeremy's introduction _ stanley. is it fair to assume it was jeremy's introduction that - stanley. is it fair to assume it was jeremy's introduction that led - stanley. is it fair to assume it was jeremy's introduction that led to l stanley. is it fair to assume it was i jeremy's introduction that led to mr greensill being installed in downing street? i greensill being installed in downing street? 1' greensill being installed in downing street? ,, , ., greensill being installed in downing street? ,, ., ., street? i think so, although as i said, street? i think so, although as i said. nigel— street? i think so, although as i said, nigel boardman _ street? i think so, although as i said, nigel boardman is - street? i think so, although as i said, nigel boardman is looking j street? i think so, although as i - said, nigel boardman is looking into those _ said, nigel boardman is looking into those precise — said, nigel boardman is looking into those precise circumstances- said, nigel boardman is looking into those precise circumstances of- said, nigel boardman is looking into those precise circumstances of his . those precise circumstances of his access— those precise circumstances of his access to — those precise circumstances of his access to downing _ those precise circumstances of his access to downing street. - those precise circumstances of his access to downing street. you. those precise circumstances of his access to downing street. you said it was francis _ access to downing street. you said it was francis and _ access to downing street. you said it was francis and ian _ access to downing street. you said it was francis and ian that - access to downing street. you said it was francis and ian that made i access to downing street. you said | it was francis and ian that made the original— it was francis and ian that made the original three month appointment, yet he _ original three month appointment, yet he was — original three month appointment, yet he was there for three years. who— yet he was there for three years. who signed off on the reappointment? that is— who signed off on the reappointment? that is unclear. is who signed off on the reappointment? that is unclear.— that is unclear. is no documentation or a letter that _ that is unclear. is no documentation or a letter that says _ that is unclear. is no documentation or a letter that says that _ that is unclear. is no documentation or a letter that says that the - that is unclear. is no documentation or a letter that says that the three . or a letter that says that the three months _ or a letter that says that the three months you can carry on for another three _ months you can carry on for another three months doing whatever it is you're _ three months doing whatever it is you're doing? we three months doing whatever it is you're doing?— three months doing whatever it is you're doing? we are found further letters of appointment, _ you're doing? we are found further letters of appointment, either - you're doing? we are found further| letters of appointment, either from hr teams— letters of appointment, either from hr teams or— letters of appointment, either from hr teams or his— letters of appointment, either from hr teams or his then _ letters of appointment, either from hr teams or his then line _ hr teams or his then line management, _ hr teams or his then line management, which- hr teams or his then line . management, which change hr teams or his then line - management, which change from hr teams or his then line _ management, which change from one bit of the _ management, which change from one bit of the cabinet _ management, which change from one bit of the cabinet office _ management, which change from one bit of the cabinet office to _ bit of the cabinet office to another _

bit of the cabinet office to another. but _ bit of the cabinet office to another. but we _ bit of the cabinet office to another. but we haven't . bit of the cabinet office to - another. but we haven't found is bit of the cabinet office to _ another. but we haven't found is who authorised _ another. but we haven't found is who authorised above _ another. but we haven't found is who authorised above those. _ another. but we haven't found is who authorised above those. sign - another. but we haven't found is who authorised above those. sign that - authorised above those. sign that you may— authorised above those. sign that you may clear— authorised above those. sign that you may clear the _ authorised above those. sign that you may clear the first _ authorised above those. sign that you may clear the first part - authorised above those. sign that you may clear the first part of- authorised above those. sign that you may clear the first part of thej you may clear the first part of the oversight — you may clear the first part of the oversight was _ you may clear the first part of the oversight was the _ you may clear the first part of the oversight was the cabinet - you may clear the first part of the oversight was the cabinet office, | oversight was the cabinet office, which _ oversight was the cabinet office, which was — oversight was the cabinet office, which was the _ oversight was the cabinet office, which was the second? _ oversight was the cabinet office, which was the second? he - oversight was the cabinet office, i which was the second? he domestic affairs _ which was the second? he domestic affairs secretary. _ which was the second? he domestic affairs secretary. iirlfho _ which was the second? he domestic affairs secretary.— affairs secretary. who headed that? the erson affairs secretary. who headed that? the person named _ affairs secretary. who headed that? the person named as _ affairs secretary. who headed that? the person named as line _ affairs secretary. who headed that? the person named as line managerl the person named as line manager there _ the person named as line manager there was— the person named as line manager there was a — the person named as line manager there was a clear— the person named as line manager there was a clear sum _ the person named as line manager there was a clear sum there. - the person named as line manager there was a clear sum there. did. the person named as line manager there was a clear sum there. did she not si t n a there was a clear sum there. did she not sign a tap? _ there was a clear sum there. did she not sign a top? was _ there was a clear sum there. did she not sign a top? was enough - there was a clear sum there. did she not sign a top? was enough for - there was a clear sum there. did she not sign a top? was enough for a - not sign a top? was enough for a minister— not sign a top? was enough for a minister to — not sign a top? was enough for a minister to sign not sign a top? was enough for a ministerto sign up not sign a top? was enough for a minister to sign up given that it had been — minister to sign up given that it had been done by a minister in the first post? — had been done by a minister in the first ost? �* . 1' had been done by a minister in the first ost? �* . ,, ., , first post? again, i think that is unclear. to be clear, mr greensill was in the business of selling services to hm government? green ambien i'm not sure i can answer that. at that point can be had onlyjust set up his own company. that is how it

transpires, isn't it? that he was selling services to the government? we need to look into the detail but my understanding _ we need to look into the detail but my understanding is _ we need to look into the detail but my understanding is that _ we need to look into the detail but my understanding is that greensill| my understanding is that greensill capital— my understanding is that greensill capital didn't— my understanding is that greensill capital didn't have _ my understanding is that greensill capital didn't have any— my understanding is that greensill capital didn't have any contracts . capital didn't have any contracts with government _ capital didn't have any contracts with government until— capital didn't have any contracts with government until much - capital didn't have any contracts . with government until much later, until 2018~ — with government until much later, until2018~ ls— with government until much later, until 2018. , with government until much later, until2018. , ., ., ., until 2018. is it fair to say that he would _ until 2018. is it fair to say that he would have _ until 2018. is it fair to say that he would have been _ until 2018. is it fair to say that he would have been in - until 2018. is it fair to say that he would have been in a - until 2018. is it fair to say that i he would have been in a position until 2018. is it fair to say that - he would have been in a position to acquire information during his period of employment in that government, forgive me, not employment, working with the downing street. that would have been assistance to him in deciding the basis upon which he would offer commercial services to the government? i commercial services to the government?— commercial services to the overnment? ,, �*, , government? i think it's exactly that potential _ government? i think it's exactly that potential conflict _ government? i think it's exactly that potential conflict of - government? i think it's exactly| that potential conflict of interest we have — that potential conflict of interest we have asked _ that potential conflict of interest we have asked mr— that potential conflict of interest we have asked mr boardman- that potential conflict of interest we have asked mr boardman to| that potential conflict of interest - we have asked mr boardman to look at. ., , we have asked mr boardman to look at. ., ., . ., at. you say potential conflict of interest, at. you say potential conflict of interest. to _ at. you say potential conflict of interest, to set _ at. you say potential conflict of interest, to set not _ at. you say potential conflict of interest, to set not look - at. you say potential conflict of interest, to set not look a - at. you say potential conflict of l interest, to set not look a glaring conflict of interest?—

conflict of interest? yes, it does. and 'ust conflict of interest? yes, it does. and just rrot _ conflict of interest? yes, it does. and just not look _ conflict of interest? yes, it does. and just not look appalling - conflict of interest? yes, it does. and just not look appalling on - conflict of interest? yes, it does. | and just not look appalling on the part of those senior officials who recommended he be installed in downing street?— recommended he be installed in downing street? recommended he be installed in downin street? ~ . . �* , downing street? what we haven't seen is evidence of— downing street? what we haven't seen is evidence of how _ downing street? what we haven't seen is evidence of how that _ downing street? what we haven't seen is evidence of how that conflict - downing street? what we haven't seen is evidence of how that conflict was - is evidence of how that conflict was to be _ is evidence of how that conflict was to be managed _ is evidence of how that conflict was to be managed and _ is evidence of how that conflict was to be managed and that _ is evidence of how that conflict was to be managed and that is - is evidence of how that conflict was to be managed and that is what - is evidence of how that conflict was to be managed and that is what we j to be managed and that is what we have asked — to be managed and that is what we have asked nigel— to be managed and that is what we have asked nigel boardman - to be managed and that is what we have asked nigel boardman to - to be managed and that is what we | have asked nigel boardman to look into. . 1' have asked nigel boardman to look into. . ~' ,, have asked nigel boardman to look into. . 1' i have asked nigel boardman to look into._ i wonder, - have asked nigel boardman to look into._ i wonder, mr - have asked nigel boardman to look. into._ i wonder, mr capper into. thank you. i wonder, mr capper case, on into. thank you. i wonder, mr capper case. on one — into. thank you. i wonder, mr capper case. on one of— into. thank you. i wonder, mr capper case, on one of the _ into. thank you. i wonder, mr capper case, on one of the areas _ into. thank you. i wonder, mr capper case, on one of the areas of- into. thank you. i wonder, mr capper case, on one of the areas of alleged. case, on one of the areas of alleged conflict _ case, on one of the areas of alleged conflict of— case, on one of the areas of alleged conflict of interest were mr greensill, i am wondering whether you were _ greensill, i am wondering whether you were aware that the contracts were _ you were aware that the contracts were open — you were aware that the contracts were open to competitive kent tender? — were open to competitive kent tender? �* , ., ., ., ., tender? i'm sorry, i am not familiar with that. tender? i'm sorry, i am not familiar with that- but _ tender? i'm sorry, i am not familiar with that. but the _ tender? i'm sorry, i am not familiar with that. but the board _ tender? i'm sorry, i am not familiar with that. but the board to - tender? i'm sorry, i am not familiar with that. but the board to review l with that. but the board to review will be looking _ with that. but the board to review will be looking at _ with that. but the board to review will be looking at that? _ with that. but the board to review will be looking at that? of - with that. but the board to review| will be looking at that? of course, all these questions _ will be looking at that? of course, all these questions are _ will be looking at that? of course, all these questions are one - will be looking at that? of course, all these questions are one is - will be looking at that? of course, all these questions are one is that| all these questions are one is that the prime minister's asked mr boardman to look at. ibyre the prime minister's asked mr

boardman to look at. are people working with _ boardman to look at. are people working with government - boardman to look at. are people working with government who i boardman to look at. are people | working with government who are boardman to look at. are people - working with government who are not paid by government, and if so, how many are there?— paid by government, and if so, how many are there? other people working in government — many are there? other people working in government who _ many are there? other people working in government who aren't _ many are there? other people working in government who aren't paid - many are there? other people working in government who aren't paid by - in government who aren't paid by government? so, unpaid adviser is? guess, there will be people who have unpaid adviser status. i would think. to unpaid adviser status. i would think. ., ., ., , ., ., think. to have any indication as to how many — think. to have any indication as to how many there _ think. to have any indication as to how many there are? _ think. to have any indication as to how many there are? oh - think. to have any indication as to how many there are? oh i - think. to have any indication as to how many there are? oh i don't i think. to have any indication as to - how many there are? oh i don't know, it would be something _ how many there are? oh i don't know, it would be something we _ how many there are? oh i don't know, it would be something we would - how many there are? oh i don't know, it would be something we would very l it would be something we would very happily look into and come back to you on that. happily look into and come back to you on that-— you on that. you walk in front of the committee _ you on that. you walk in front of the committee how— you on that. you walk in front of the committee how many - you on that. you walk in front of the committee how many there | you on that. you walk in front of- the committee how many there are? as much as we can determine. i don't think there's anybody who would be in a similar position to lex greensill but there may be other on paid advisers in government and we can... . ~' paid advisers in government and we can... . ~ i.

paid advisers in government and we can... . ~ ,, . paid advisers in government and we can... . ~ , can... thank you. are these individuals _ can... thank you. are these individuals then _ can... thank you. are these individuals then subject - can... thank you. are these individuals then subject to l can... thank you. are these l individuals then subject to the can... thank you. are these - individuals then subject to the same regulatory regime as those who were paid by the civil service? is a covered by the same regulatory regime? covered by the same regulatory reime? , ., , regime? so, if they are employed reen r813 regime? so, if they are employed green r&b and — regime? so, if they are employed green r813 and civil _ regime? so, if they are employed green r813 and civil servants, - regime? so, if they are employed | green r813 and civil servants, then green r&b and civil servants, then they will be. so, ministers can make make direct appointments. band they will be. so, ministers can make make direct appointments.— make direct appointments. and if the are make direct appointments. and if they are rrot _ make direct appointments. and if they are not civil— make direct appointments. and if they are not civil servants, - make direct appointments. and if they are not civil servants, they l they are not civil servants, they are not covered by the same regime, is that correct? if are not covered by the same regime, is that correct?— is that correct? if they are not civil servants, _ is that correct? if they are not civil servants, to _ is that correct? if they are not civil servants, to have - is that correct? if they are not civil servants, to have their. is that correct? if they are not i civil servants, to have their own codesi _ civil servants, to have their own codes, if — civil servants, to have their own codes, ifthey— civil servants, to have their own codes, if they are _ civil servants, to have their own| codes, if they are nonexecutive, there _ codes, if they are nonexecutive, there is— codes, if they are nonexecutive, there is a — codes, if they are nonexecutive, there is a separate _ codes, if they are nonexecutive, there is a separate code - codes, if they are nonexecutive, there is a separate code that- there is a separate code that governs _ there is a separate code that governs their— there is a separate code that governs their conduct- there is a separate code that governs their conduct as - there is a separate code that. governs their conduct as well. there is a separate code that governs their conduct as well. could the be governs their conduct as well. could they be included _ governs their conduct as well. could they be included in _ governs their conduct as well. could they be included in the _ governs their conduct as well. they be included in the register special advisers? they be included in the register specialadvisers? ida. they be included in the register special advisers?— special advisers? no, to be a secial special advisers? no, to be a special adviser _ special advisers? no, to be a special adviser is _ special advisers? no, to be a special adviser is a _ special advisers? no, to be a special adviser is a distinct i special adviser is a distinct process, _ special adviser is a distinct process. they— special adviser is a distinct process, they have - special adviser is a distinct process, they have a - special adviser is a distinct i process, they have a distinct special adviser is a distinct - process, they have a distinct legal status _ process, they have a distinct legal status and — process, they have a distinct legal status and we _ process, they have a distinct legal status and we keep _ process, they have a distinct legal status and we keep a _

process, they have a distinct legal status and we keep a register- process, they have a distinct legal status and we keep a register of. process, they have a distinct legal i status and we keep a register of who said special— status and we keep a register of who said special advisers— status and we keep a register of who said special advisers are. _ status and we keep a register of who said special advisers are. so - status and we keep a register of who said special advisers are.— said special advisers are. so how could we then _ said special advisers are. so how could we then find _ said special advisers are. so how could we then find out _ said special advisers are. so how could we then find out exactly i said special advisers are. so how i could we then find out exactly who they are? i’m could we then find out exactly who the are? �* ., , , ., they are? i'm not sure there is a se arate they are? i'm not sure there is a separate list _ they are? i'm not sure there is a separate list for _ they are? i'm not sure there is a separate list for direct _ separate list for direct appointments. - separate list for direct appointments. so- separate list for direct appointments. separate list for direct anointments. . ., . , appointments. so that a potentially un aid appointments. so that a potentially unpaid advisers _ appointments. so that a potentially unpaid advisers to _ appointments. so that a potentially unpaid advisers to government - appointments. so that a potentiallyj unpaid advisers to government that we have no idea about and are unable to ascertain who they are? i we have no idea about and are unable to ascertain who they are?— to ascertain who they are? i think, potentially. _ to ascertain who they are? i think, potentially. yes. — to ascertain who they are? i think, potentially, yes, but _ to ascertain who they are? i think, potentially, yes, but as _ to ascertain who they are? i think, potentially, yes, but as the - to ascertain who they are? i think, | potentially, yes, but as the cabinet secretary _ potentially, yes, but as the cabinet secretary said. _ potentially, yes, but as the cabinet secretary said, i— potentially, yes, but as the cabinet secretary said, i don't _ potentially, yes, but as the cabinet secretary said, i don't think - potentially, yes, but as the cabinet secretary said, i don't think there i secretary said, i don't think there are secretary said, idon't think there are very— secretary said, idon't think there are very many— secretary said, idon't think there are very many of— secretary said, i don't think there are very many of them. _ secretary said, i don't think there are very many of them.— are very many of them. does it matter if there _ are very many of them. does it matter if there are _ are very many of them. does it matter if there are two - are very many of them. does it matter if there are two or - are very many of them. does it i matter if there are two or three. .. matter if there are two or three... studio: : were going to go to the floor of the house itself, michael gove answering in a written question from the snp. michael gove:

it advisers how standard should be a old. this goes to the overarching duty on ministers to comply with and protect the integrity of public life. the current version of the code was unveiled by the prime minister in 2019 shortly after he assumed office. what the code sets out standards and offers guidance, it is ministers who are partially responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the code. and, of course, justifying their actions to parliament find the public. that is as it should be in a robust democracy such as ours. ministers are not employees of the government but officeholders are hot their office for as long as they have the confidence of the prime minister, as head of government. it is always the prime minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of an individual minister and of the appropriate consequences were a brooch of those standards to a car. the code also sets out a role for an end of on minister's

interest. important role, the principal duty of which is to provide independent advice to ministers on the arrangement of their private interest. the independent writer also has a role independent writer also has a role in investigating alleged breaches of the ministerial code. as the house will be aware, sir alec stepped down from his role towards the end of last year and following a practice of successive administration, the prime minister will appoint a successor. house was understand that the process of identifying such a successor can take time, however an appointment is expected to be announced shortly and the house will be informed in the usual way, as soon as that is confirmed. it will clearly be an early priority for the new independent adviser to oversee the publication of an updated list of member's interests and that will happen shortly after new independent adviser is appointed. i can reassure the house of the process of managing ministers' interest is continuous in the absence of an independent adviser, in line with the ministerial code, which are out that

the permanent secretary has a role. ministers remain able to seek advice from their permanent secretary and the cabinet office. the mysterio code has served ex—successive administrations well has been an important tool in upholding standards in public life. it will continue to do so.— standards in public life. it will continue to do so. letters go to the snp spokesperson _ continue to do so. letters go to the snp spokesperson with _ continue to do so. letters go to the snp spokesperson with the - continue to do so. letters go to the snp spokesperson with the urgentl snp spokesperson with the urgent guestion. — snp spokesperson with the urgent question, alison thewlis. order, can i question, alison thewlis. order, can iiust_ question, alison thewlis. order, can iiust say— question, alison thewlis. order, can iiust sayto— question, alison thewlis. order, can ijust say to members that there should _ ijust say to members that there should be — ijust say to members that there should be wearing a mask in the chamber — should be wearing a mask in the chamber. forthe should be wearing a mask in the chamber. for the two member site here1_ chamber. for the two member site here, please, just not my decision, it is the _ here, please, just not my decision, it is the decision of public health england — it is the decision of public health england that we should be wearing masks~ _ england that we should be wearing masks~ if— england that we should be wearing masks. if you don't wish to, please leave _ masks. if you don't wish to, please leave the _ masks. if you don't wish to, please leave the chamber. alison thewlis. thank _ leave the chamber. alison thewlis. thank you — leave the chamber. alison thewlis. thank you mr speaker... leave the chamber. alison thewlis. thank you mr speaker. . .— thank you mr speaker... order, i think we're _ thank you mr speaker... order, i think we're going _ thank you mr speaker... order, i think we're going to _ thank you mr speaker... order, i think we're going to have - thank you mr speaker... order, i think we're going to have to - thank you mr speaker... order, i i think we're going to have to suspend a sitting _ think we're going to have to suspend a sitting members aren't going to wear— a sitting members aren't going to wear them. a sitting members aren't going to wearthem. it's not a sitting members aren't going to wear them. it's not my orders, it's the ordersm — wear them. it's not my orders, it's the orders... sorry about that, alison— the orders... sorry about that, alison thewlis.

the orders. .. sorry about that, alison thewlis.— alison thewlis. thank you, mr speaker. _ alison thewlis. thank you, mr speaker. for _ alison thewlis. thank you, mr speaker, for granting - alison thewlis. thank you, mr speaker, for granting this - alison thewlis. thank you, mr i speaker, for granting this urgent question. in his foreword to the ministerial code, the prime minister says to win back the trust of the british people mow must uphold the very high standards of preparatory through no misuse of taxpayer money, no actual or perceived conflicts of interest in the precious principles of public life in triton the code must be uphold and on it at all times. this uk tory government is failing on all counts. they are riddled with conflicts of interest and allegations of corruption and indeed, 37% of the public think the prime minister is corrupt. 33% think that in scotland, not us before we get into the latest of what the prime minister is alleged to have said, he would rather see bodies pile up in their thousands and order a third lockdown. despicable, cruel and callous, word is not befitting the office of prime minister. a

report raised serious questions on 73 government contracts worth £3.7 billion and of these 211 ppe contracts have been handed to those with no political connections with further millions on testing services. we need to know who has benefited, what their links are to ministers, especially in the light of the vip lane that was identified as a risk where people are ten times more likely to earn a contract if they were on that list. the vip lane has been identified as a potential systemic and partisan bias in the award of ppe contracts, so what the minister stop hiding behind confidentiality and publish the details of these contracts, along with who recommended them? it's our money, we have a right to know. will be also finally publish the updated register of ministers' interest?

through several examples of cronyism, we now have a question some of the prime minister's funding for furthering some of the prime minister's funding forfurthering his downing street nest. i want if the minister were to agree with me that this is a clear pattern of behaviour and it absolutely stinks. this uk tory government is about to prorogue this house to talk further scrutiny. in the absence of an independent adviser, we can no longer trust them to investigate themselves, and that much is clear, so with a minsterfor the cabinet office instead instruct a full, independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of this grubby cabal in charge of the uk? i £1111 cabal in charge of the uk? i am rateful cabal in charge of the uk? i am grateful to _ cabal in charge of the uk? i am grateful to the _ cabal in charge of the uk? i am grateful to the honourable - cabal in charge of the uk? i am grateful to the honourable lady for racing a number of issues. she raised the question of the procurement of ppe. it is a fact well attested that less than 0.5% of

the ppe procured did not meet the standards we had set out. it is a fact that every single recommendation for the procurement of ppe went through an independent, eight stage process, verified by independent civil servants. it is the case that the government operated at a time when the pandemic was raging, did everything possible, and we make no apology for it, to ensure those of the front they deserved. the techniques were used in the processes we followed not only stand up to scrutiny, they were the same techniques and processes used by the welsh government, by the scottish government and by the northern ireland executive. she raises the greensill question. the truth is, all the efforts on behalf of that company in order to push the treasury and others were rejected. she raises the issue of sirjames dyson, she does acknowledge the fact that sirjames spent going to pounce of his own money in order to try and

ensure that we had a ventilator is to save those on the front line. she doesn't mention at the event title challenge was investigate by the public accounts committee who said it was a model of public procurement. she doesn't mention the fact that the changes to the prime minister's flights were paid for by the prime minister himself and she repeats a line from a newspaper but ignores the fact that the prime minister not only instituted a second but also a third lockdown to keep us safe. what she doesn't mention is that she and other opposition members are criticised the appointment of a vaccine is a vaccines are as cronyism when it came bingham has been responsible for saving millions of lives. what she doesn't say is that opposition from mps criticised kate ben when that money was there to make sure that money was there to make sure that people from bame backgrounds were there to get the vaccinations they required. what she doesn't

acknowledge is the efforts made by this government instead she tries to score political points in a way that, sadly, which causes regret. i commend a great deal of the things my right honourable friend has just said but, let's face it, there is not a great deal of public confidence in priority and ethics in politics in this country, and that is to be laid at the tour of all political parties over a very long period. what would begin to restore public confidence in these matters would be to have more genuine discussion about principles and values and how conflicts of interest should be better managed have rather less quibbling about whether they were inside or outside certain rules and have fewer vaccinations, perhaps less blaming as well. can i commend my right honourable friend to the letters sent by the chair of the

committee on standards in public life to the prime minister last week, which recommended a number of changes to the role, that he should be able to initiate his or her own inquiries, should be able to publish a summary of their findings and also recommended that the prime minister should retain the right to decide on any sanction for a breach of the code and that it is proportionate for the prime minister — disproportion for the prime minister to always require a reservation for the breach of the code, should be able to use a range of sanctions to deal with the breaches of the code. weather government accept these recommendations? mr; weather government accept these recommendations?— weather government accept these recommendations? g ., ., ., , recommendations? my right honourable friend makes a — recommendations? my right honourable friend makes a excellent _ recommendations? my right honourable friend makes a excellent series - recommendations? my right honourable friend makes a excellent series of - friend makes a excellent series of points and i think the points he makes are certainly points we should reflect on. it is the case that the process of holding ministers and others to account is always in illusionary process. we should look at thoughtful recommendation such as those that have been made by lord evans and others and consider what

more can be done. but i think it's important to stress that this government is already introduced a series of changes in order to ensure greater transparency in public life but of course, we always seek to do that. . but of course, we always seek to do that. , , ., , , ., that. there must be no bullying or harassment. _ that. there must be no bullying or harassment, no _ that. there must be no bullying or harassment, no leaking, - that. there must be no bullying or harassment, no leaking, no- that. there must be no bullying or| harassment, no leaking, no misuse that. there must be no bullying or - harassment, no leaking, no misuse of taxpayers' money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest. these words are from the prime minister's forward to the ministerial code. i don't know if you believe them when he wrote them but he's certainly trampling all sorry man —— trampling all over them today. the prime minister is expected high standards and she tries to cover up the payments for the luxury refurbishment of his flat, feathering his own nest and possibly breaking the law through undeclared loans. through the leaks we are seeing the pipes burst with

sewerage allocations. for save the fish rots from the head down, there is a reason why there is no independent adviser on ministerial standards and there is a reason why the government one to publish the long overdue list of ministerial interests, and that reason is because the prime minister hasn't wanted them. this is a prime minister who would rather let the bodies pile high than act on scientific advice. mr speaker, they are not to bodies, they are people, they are loved ones and they are deeply missed. can i ask the minister to engage with the issues at hand? when whether government published the register of ministers' financial interest? who pay the invoices for the prime minister's flight refurbishment in the first place and when with those funds repaid? and when with a review by the cabinet secretary into this fiasco be complete? when with a vacancy for the independent adviser on ministerial standards be filled and will they be given the powers to

trigger independent investigations as recommended by lord evans? and finally, will be immense to apologise for the stomach churning comments that have come out today and urgently announce a public inquiring into the current government's handling of the pandemic? because this is all about conduct, characterand pandemic? because this is all about conduct, character and decency. and frankly, our country is an awful lot better than this. i’m frankly, our country is an awful lot better than this.— better than this. i'm grateful to the honourable _ better than this. i'm grateful to the honourable lady— better than this. i'm grateful to the honourable lady for- better than this. i'm grateful to the honourable lady for her- the honourable lady for her questions and, as ever, she raises a number of significant issues. on the question of number 10 downing street is refurbishment, i think it is important to stress that previous prime ministers have used taxpayers' money in order to refurbish number 10 downing street. op till 1999, in real terms, the prime minister spent £73,000 per year of taxpayers' money on refurbishment. in 2001, 50

£5,000, in 2008, 30 £5,000, all taxpayers' money. this prime minister has spent his own money on refurbishing downing street, and i think that is a distinction that the honourable lady should pay close attention to. the honourable lady also suggest the government did not act on scientific advice when dealing with this pandemic. i hope she'll reflects on those words and realise that is completely wrong. this government is not initiated a second but i third lockdown aired response to scientific advice and this government, working with doctors and scientists has ensured that we have the fastest vaccine roll—out in europe and that we have also developed many of the therapeutics and many of the tools necessary to ensure that those who are suffering in pain at last received relief. of course, the ventilators that this government

procurement are helping to save lives. the honourable lady is right to say we should appoint an independent adviser on ministerial interests as soon as possible but as i mentioned earlier, that appointment is due within eight days and that independent adviser will have the freedom to carry out their role in exactly the way that they should. scrutiny is always welcome but it is also the case that, as the honourable lady should recognise, that scrutiny should extend beyond those who are our political opponents and also to the parties that we ourselves are leading or members of. i can only quote from the times at the weekend, when one of their columnist talk about, quotes, one on a proper bit of suspected corruption in this country in labour—led liverpool. she must look at the beam in her own eye

before criticising the boat in others. . . before criticising the boat in others. . , , ., others. can i pick up on the excellent — others. can i pick up on the excellent point _ others. can i pick up on the excellent point made - others. can i pick up on the excellent point made by i others. can i pick up on the j excellent point made by my others. can i pick up on the - excellent point made by my right honourable friend about the powers of the next occupant of the position of the next occupant of the position of the next occupant of the position of the prime minister's advice on the ministerial code on encouraging him to go down that road, the chairman of the committee exactly matches the recommendations i might as committee about a month and a half ago and it strikes me where to point where strengthening the entire system so its commands across party confidence and trust is a point which we have now reached and this will be very welcome, widely appreciated all sides, if this is a step we could ultimately take. mr; step we could ultimately take. my riht step we could ultimately take. my right honourable friend makes an important point of the work he has done to improve standards in public life has been applauded across this house. it is important to government at the new independent adviser will want to reflect on lord evans'

recommendations and other points to make sure we can have the maximum confidence in our system. flan make sure we can have the maximum confidence in our system. 133ml confidence in our system. can i thank my _ confidence in our system. can i thank my honourable _ confidence in our system. can i thank my honourable friend - confidence in our system. (115ng i thank my honourable friend from glasgow central for securing this important and urgent question. the ppe contracts awarded to donors and cronies without a robust tender process, nhs contracts partly awarded to a firm partly owned by the health secretary. secret communications between the former prime minister and the chancellor and james dyson and the current prime minister could signal a fondness for oligarchs and the tory donors funding the prime minister's home improvements. there is no point the minister sitting there hoping this stench of cronyism will simply pass. it is far too late for that. let me ask, went of this government

judge that integrity, probity, transparency and the ministerial code were obstacles to be overcome rather than principles to always be adhered to? the rather than principles to always be adhered to?— adhered to? the right honourable entleman adhered to? the right honourable gentleman is _ adhered to? the right honourable gentleman is always _ adhered to? the right honourable gentleman is always a _ adhered to? the right honourable gentleman is always a skilled - adhered to? the right honourable gentleman is always a skilled and j gentleman is always a skilled and gifted in his rhetoric but as i pointed out to his colleague, if you look at ppe, the processes by which ppe have been procured by this government have been independently validated and assured through an eight—step process to make sure contracts were only wanted to those who could provide the right equipment, and there is no variance in the approach taken by this government than that taken by the welsh and scottish governments. he talks about a tory fondness for oligarchs and makes reference to text messages and so on. i can only point out that our mutual friends, the rural economy secretary in the scottish governments, dined with mr lex greensill and mr gupta in one of

glasgow's finest restaurants. if there is a particularfondness glasgow's finest restaurants. if there is a particular fondness for turning with oligarchs, it is not the preserve of any one individual or party in this house. and as for suggesting that the ministerial code is something to be got round or overlooked and suggesting that propriety might be something that needs to be looked at, i would simply refer him to the report of the independent committee of the scottish parliament into the investigation into the former first minister. people want to see a story of obstruction, obfuscation, prevarication a waste of taxpayers' money, they can find it there. constituents are sick and tired of this endless tittle tattle, they just want their lives to go back to normal, which is what this government is helping them achieve. they couldn't care less about the prime minister's christian or his curtains. when will we have an opposition that cares about the actual priorities are not who the

downing street decorators are? mr; downing street decorators are? my honourable friend makes a very important point, it does seem sometimes as though the opposition and some critics are more concerned about the world of interiors that the real world in which the rest of us live. the really important thing is that we welcome scrutiny when it is that we welcome scrutiny when it is there to ensure that we are serving the public. so it's quite right there should be scrutiny over how we respond to the pandemic, it is quite right we should resolve to learn lessons from everything this government has done, but it is also right for those in this house to have the opportunity to scrutinise the way in which taxpayers' money is spent to look effectively at the delivery of public policy rather than necessarily seeking to make partisan points. the than necessarily seeking to make partisan points.— partisan points. the minister has 'ust said partisan points. the minister has just said public _ partisan points. the minister has just said public scrutiny, -

partisan points. the minister has just said public scrutiny, scrutinyj just said public scrutiny, scrutiny is always welcome, so instead of all these reliance of leaks in the newspapers and dominic cummings' blog, doesn't the most agree that the best way to would be to get all the best way to would be to get all the facts straight, an independent public inquiries into the government's the handling of the pandemic, and what he urge the prime minister to go ahead with it without delay? i minister to go ahead with it without dela ? 1' minister to go ahead with it without dela ? ~' ., ., ., , ., , delay? i think the honourable lady makes a fair— delay? i think the honourable lady makes a fair point, _ delay? i think the honourable lady makes a fair point, i _ delay? i think the honourable lady makes a fair point, i think- delay? i think the honourable lady makes a fair point, i think we - delay? i think the honourable lady makes a fair point, i think we do i makes a fair point, i think we do needin makes a fair point, i think we do need in due course and into better public inquiries into dealing with the pandemic but i think it's important we concentrate now on the successful vaccine roll—outs, making sure the road map and lifting of restrictions, to which so many people quite like rightly looking to terror, is in place by looks it will be time for an independent public inquiries and lessons will be learned, mistakes have been made, it is important we look note that our economy is restored to health, that public services get back to level they should be and also that we deal

with this virus once and for all. there's no doubt the allegations made by the honourable memberfor glasgow central are serious and there is also very little doubt that we work in a profession where claims and counter claims are often made to and counter claims are often made to a scanned reliance on evidence. transparency and openness are important to maintain trust in this house from the people that put us here. so can my honourable friends tell me that donations will be entered and traditions returned and made transparent through the regular processes? it is made transparent through the regular rocesses? . made transparent through the regular rocesses? , . ., , made transparent through the regular rocesses? , .. , ., ., processes? it is the case that all of us have _ processes? it is the case that all of us have a _ processes? it is the case that all of us have a responsibility - processes? it is the case that all of us have a responsibility to - of us have a responsibility to declared political donations. there is a clear means of doing so and i know of all donations received by all politicians in this house will be declared appropriately. last week, be declared appropriately. last week. the _ be declared appropriately. last week, the government claimed that the prime minister funded the

upfront cross of decorating downing street flat himself. this afternoon, the prime minister did not deny that the prime minister did not deny that the upfront costs were met by conservative party donors. this is not the first but the third time in the space ofjust one week when the prime minister has been caught out. how many more times will that government ministers accept that their leader, our prime minister, has misled the public, the press and parliament before they declared him unfit for office? i parliament before they declared him unfit for office?— unfit for office? i have enormous resect unfit for office? i have enormous respect for _ unfit for office? i have enormous respect for the — unfit for office? i have enormous respect for the right _ unfit for office? i have enormous respect for the right honourable | respect for the right honourable lady, a brave and courageous fighter for many courses and veryjust it was former select committee chairman. but i think the specific allegation she makes against the prime minister she may wish to reflect upon. and the broad substance, as i said earlier, the prime minister paid for the costs of

renovation, declarations are probably made about political donations, and the cabinet secretary pointed out, when questioned by the committee earlier, that he is making sure that everything what that was done was done in accordance with the rules. . . ., , . ., , rules. canada secretary confirmed that this conservative _ rules. canada secretary confirmed j that this conservative government has taken more steps to reform and regulate lobbying and public procurement than any previous labour governments, and that was indeed the case of the last general election the labour party intended to scrap the labour party intended to scrap the same lobbying law that they now want to strengthen, does this not show the hypocrisy of captain hindsight? fist show the hypocrisy of captain hindsight?— show the hypocrisy of captain hindsiht? . , ., ., ., , hindsight? at my honourable friend is absent right! _ hindsight? at my honourable friend is absent right! it _ hindsight? at my honourable friend is absent right! it was _ hindsight? at my honourable friend is absent right! it was the - hindsight? at my honourable friend is absent right! it was the case - hindsight? at my honourable friend is absent right! it was the case of i is absent right! it was the case of this government banned the use of taxpayers' money for quango lobbying, its banned taxpayers' money being used in grants for other organisations lobbying. it

introduced a registrar of lobbyists and has also shown at transparency measures that we have introduced on government spending, salaries, tenders. it is quite right. party opposite said they wanted to scrap that legislation as well. it is for the party opposite to justify two people in redcar place and hartlepool why they want to scrap lobbying legislation and will be interesting to have a conversation on doorsteps. npm q npm 0 two weeks ago, the prime minister agreed with me that politicians must not lie, p cues. a host of recent events, comments regarding lockdown is, there are serious questions about the government was mike adherence to that very ministerial code. is he confident that his answers today are

sufficiently comprehensive and sufficiently comprehensive and sufficiently robust to lay these matters to rest?— sufficiently robust to lay these matters to rest?- i - sufficiently robust to lay these matters to rest? yes. i read through the ministerial— matters to rest? yes. i read through the ministerial code this morning. it took me longer than most members, because i am slower. but i could see absolutely nothing in that that would make me think the prime minister hasn't had anything wrong. why don't we leave it to the system —— done anything wrong. why don't we leave it to the system to investigate this matter, if there is a requirement for it, rather than dance to the tune of a media frenzy? my dance to the tune of a media frenzy? my honourable friend is a gentleman and puts the point very well, there are tried and tested procedures and for supposed to make sure that ministers and others in this house behave inappropriately. judgments can be made of course by all of us

any democracy. i would say that his reading of the ministerial code this morning may of course be a prelude to him being appointed as a minister in due course, but i cannot for speculate on these matters. thank ou, mr speculate on these matters. thank you. mr speaker- _ speculate on these matters. thank you, mr speaker. contrary - speculate on these matters. thank you, mr speaker. contrary to - speculate on these matters. thank you, mr speaker. contrary to what| you, mr speaker. contrary to what one mount government minister said at the weekend, concerns about the prime minister and ministerial code are not tittle tattle. people care deeply about this, which is why the video on the prime minister's relationship with the truth has been viewed nearly 13 million times on social media. my question is this, if the ministerial code says that any inadvertent error should be corrected at the earliest opportunity, what should be done about systematic deliberate errors which mac and f, seems to be the case with our archaic and dysfunctional rules, it is the prime minister himself who decides whether the ministerial code should be

broken, she would really be trusting this one is a mark his own homework should the whole system not be urgently revised? honourable lady makes a number of important points. she is absolutely right that the public to have a right to expect that those who. .. public to have a right to expect that those who... dare public to have a right to expect that those who... are responsible for spending _ that those who... are responsible for spending taxpayer's _ that those who... are responsible for spending taxpayer's money i that those who... are responsible for spending taxpayer's money to | that those who... are responsible - for spending taxpayer's money to sew conflict with the public values. and the point about reviewing the mechanisms of scrutiny to which government are subject... as is pointed out earlier, there is an opportunity to look again, with the appointment of a new independent adviser on ministerial interests, and how that role and indeed perhaps other rules can be strengthened, if necessary. other rules can be strengthened, if necessa . ~ . other rules can be strengthened, if necessa . . , , ., , necessary. whilst these matters should always _ necessary. whilst these matters should always be _ necessary. whilst these matters should always be open - necessary. whilst these matters should always be open and - should always be open and transparent. one can only amuse our

other world leaders think of the uk payments are having to pay for his own refurbishment and additional tax for the benefit in kind, and of course, the running costs that we insist he stays in question actually my right honourable friend greeted me the ridiculous situation here is why our prime minister shouldn't be paying anything at all, unlike other world leaders, when it is us, the taxpayer who demand they live above the shop? hilt; taxpayer who demand they live above the sho? g ., ., .,, taxpayer who demand they live above thesho? y ., ., , the shop? my honourable friend makes a very important _ the shop? my honourable friend makes a very important point. _ the shop? my honourable friend makes a very important point. it _ the shop? my honourable friend makes a very important point. it is _ the shop? my honourable friend makes a very important point. it is the - a very important point. it is the case that there are existing trusts that are responsible for looking after chequers, where labour, liberal democrat, parties have useless facilities to discharge their duties. derek tracey

government building, —— downing street is a government building. there is might assure the premise and others work in that building can perform their duties as appropriate. when we are spending taxpayer money, we must have care and recognised this money entrusted to us, but when it comes to government buildings, particularly like downing street, there is a role for public funding or making sure the function effectively on all perhaps. does my right honourable friend agree that if the leader of the opposition was really serious about tackling corruption, he would start by cracking down on the labour government in wales, which handed nhs contracts worth more than £650,000 to a labour activist without any kind of competitive tendering process? i’m

without any kind of competitive tendering process? i'm gratefulto my honourable — tendering process? i'm gratefulto my honourable friend _ tendering process? i'm gratefulto my honourable friend for- tendering process? i'm gratefulto my honourable friend for bringing | my honourable friend for bringing the case to my attention, i wasn't aware of it, but i am sure that the leader of the opposition and others will want to make sure that all the correct procedures have been followed. mr correct procedures have been followed. ~ .«r ., , followed. mr speaker, weather is the prime minister's _ followed. mr speaker, weather is the prime minister's refurbishment - followed. mr speaker, weather is the prime minister's refurbishment of. prime minister's refurbishment of his flat, day after day, more sordid and cc details are on earth about this incompetent conservative government, which is now, frankly, becoming an embarrassment for our nation, giving the billions wasted on crony covid contracts. tory donors have been profiteering at the british taxpayer expense in the midst of widespread public misery. can he inform the house, why he is blocking and delaying the public enquiry into the handling... so we can ascertain for yourself just enquiry into the handling... so we can ascertain for yourselfjust how many ministers have broken the ministerial code by texting or handing out government contracts to

their tory charms? ibis i handing out government contracts to their tory charms?— their tory charms? as i pointed out earlier, it their tory charms? as i pointed out earlier. it is — their tory charms? as i pointed out earlier, it is the _ their tory charms? as i pointed out earlier, it is the case _ their tory charms? as i pointed out earlier, it is the case that _ their tory charms? as i pointed out earlier, it is the case that every - earlier, it is the case that every single ppe contract that was award went on a stage process, supervised by independent civil servants, and the idea that there was any dommett how can can i put it, the imputation that lies behind his comments i think is unfairto that lies behind his comments i think is unfair to those dedicated public servants who worked incredibly hard at a difficult time incredibly hard at a difficult time in order to make sure those on the front line received exactly what they needed. of course, just in case there needs to be an enquiry in due course, but that enquiry should cover every aspect of the handling of the pandemic, and we shall all be humble in recognising that that enquiry will necessarily make recommendations all she us should take account of as we prepare for future health and other challenges. can my right honourable friend confirm that all ministers, both at

the treasury and bays, followed the ministerial code in all of their dealings with greensill capital. ? yes, and mr greensill was making representations to government in an appropriate way, and the efforts they were soliciting were rejected. attached to the ministerial code or the seven principles of public life, and indeed, the first of these are selflessness. is this that holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. today we have had a number of sources state that the prime minister shouted any rage that she would rather see the bodies piled high in their thousands, than order a third like them. does the not

accept that minister who does not put public health first is no premise at all? i was in the meeting that afternoon with the premise and other ministers that like as we looked at what was happening with the virus, with the we are dealing with one of the most serious decisions aspirants are any government has had to face. people have been pointing out quite readily that tens of thousands of people were dying. the prime minister made a decision in that meeting to trigger a second lockdown. he made a subsequent decision to trigger a third log in. this is a prime minister who was any hospital himself in intensive care. the idea that he would see any such thing i find incredible. iwas that he would see any such thing i find incredible. i was in that room, i never heard language of that kind, and i am afraid that the author of full by seeking to make the point in the way that he does, i think diverts attention from the fact that so many people who have been

affected by this pandemic rely on the government, the nhs and others to strain every sinew. these decisions are never easy, but the government made the decision and the prime minister made the decision to have a second and third lockdown, and i think we can see the evidence of the leadership that he showed then, notjust in the courage that he show hosts also on the success of the vaccination programme which people from across this whole united kingdom have benefited. does people from across this whole united kingdom have benefited.— kingdom have benefited. does my riht kingdom have benefited. does my right honourable _ kingdom have benefited. does my right honourable friend _ kingdom have benefited. does my right honourable friend agree - kingdom have benefited. does my| right honourable friend agree that people in glass houses should not throw stones? does my right honourable friend also agree that there is an election next week and that the party opposite or behind in the polls and they have chosen to wheel out a monitor from 20 years ago that they thought work now and perhaps works now miss and if we are talking about wheeling out glasshouses, may i mention the

member under criminal investigation for florida, the liverpool mayor arrested for fraud and a past labour prime minister who pocketed millions from advising big businesses and foreign governments? mr; from advising big businesses and foreign governments? my honourable friend makes — foreign governments? my honourable friend makes an _ foreign governments? my honourable friend makes an important _ foreign governments? my honourable friend makes an important point. - foreign governments? my honourable friend makes an important point. i. friend makes an important point. i think it is this, we all have a responsibility to learn lessons, learn from the past, do our best to make sure that we collectively maintain high standards in public life, acknowledge there are human frailties and individuals who represent all the parties in this house and do our very best to learn from the past. house and do our very best to learn from the past-— from the past. does the minister know the identity _ from the past. does the minister know the identity of _ from the past. does the minister know the identity of the - from the past. does the minister know the identity of the person i from the past. does the minister- know the identity of the person gave the premise of the money to pay for the premise of the money to pay for the refurbishment of the downing street flat? either he doesn't know which, which means you should not be at the dispatch box saying there is no problem, or he does know and he should just tell us. what about the

person who paid for the renovations in the downing street flat was boris johnson. , , ., ., ., , johnson. does my right honourable friend agree — johnson. does my right honourable friend agree that _ johnson. does my right honourable friend agree that this _ johnson. does my right honourable friend agree that this uk _ johnson. does my right honourable l friend agree that this uk government is almost painfully transparent by any yardstick and while sessions such as this may be an inevitable part of the disinfecting oxygen of publicity, it is a bit rich for the honourable memberfor publicity, it is a bit rich for the honourable member for glasgow central to raise concerns when they want the uk to rejoin the eu, a body that hasn't had its audit signed off for decades? mr; that hasn't had its audit signed off for decades?— that hasn't had its audit signed off for decades? my honourable friend makes an important _ for decades? my honourable friend makes an important point. - for decades? my honourable friend makes an important point. the - makes an important point. the government is of all stripes and can always do better, but it is fair to say that over generations and across parties, there's been a determined effort by our prime minister is to do everything they can in order to

make sure our democracy stays healthy. of course prime ministers in the past have made mistakes, but it is important that we recognise that overall, overall, we can have confidence in institutions like this house of commons to hold them to account. there is a specific duty for transparency in government through the freedom of information act is a that transparency last year identified nine on remedy breaches of ministerial code? wise information withheld in government responses more often than not and it is still running his moi clearing house to delay and filter foia responses?— responses? the freedom of information _ responses? the freedom of information clearing - responses? the freedom of information clearing house| responses? the freedom of. information clearing house are responses? the freedom of- information clearing house are sadly not mine, it was set up under a labour government. what it existed there is to make sure that freedom

of information responses are effectively coordinated, and we do everything we can in order to make sure we comply with the terms of the legislation, but one of the points with the freedom of information legislation is that there needs to be a safe space for frank advice to be a safe space for frank advice to be offered by officials to ministers, and it is important for the good conduct of government that that safe space remains. brute the good conduct of government that that safe space remains.— that safe space remains. we do need to et the that safe space remains. we do need to get the system — that safe space remains. we do need to get the system of— that safe space remains. we do need to get the system of regulation - that safe space remains. we do need to get the system of regulation and i to get the system of regulation and accountability right, but i echo the point made earlier by my right honourable friend, the chairman of the liaison committee, that most of all we need a cultural values and public service to run throughout ministers, expenditures and officials though. it will never write role superbly people don't have to make judgments about who they see and what they do. to sort that out we need a culture of transparency. looking from the independent review into the greensill affair will have full access to all the documents involved? —— will he confirm?

access to all the documents involved? -- will he confirm? yes, he makes — involved? -- will he confirm? yes, he makes a — involved? -- will he confirm? yes, he makes a good _ involved? -- will he confirm? yes, he makes a good point _ involved? —— will he confirm? yes, he makes a good point about culture, fermenting reels and the review being undertaken by nigel portman. nigel portman will be given all the details he needs —— boardman. the details he needs -- boardman. the cabinet office _ details he needs —— boardman. tie: cabinet office secretary says that he welcomes this question today, and for once i actually believe him. there is nothing that he likes more than seeing the remaining shreds of the prime minister's credibility being blown into the wind, but we know that he will look forward to an opportunity to finally get his own head down in that lavishly furnished apartment above number 10 downing street, so can he tell us, when we come to the next conservative party leadership contest, once again he will be persuaded to put his hat in the ring, is he really saying that

the ring, is he really saying that the way that this government has operated is acceptable and is the way that we should really expect a government to operate? is he really able to say that?— government to operate? is he really able to say that? yes. in the last 12 months. _ able to say that? yes. in the last 12 months, honourable and right honourable members from both sides of the house have stood up and shared support two reach ministers at the right time in the right way, because that is how we have supported people across the country. with my right honourable friend agree that doing that and making sure those got to the right place at the right time has been an important part of getting ppe and vaccines to people across the united kingdom when they needed them most? mr; when they needed them most? my honourable friend is actually right. the government was operating, as all governments where, to be fair, in difficult circumstances, with a clear demand that we do everything possible to source ppe. as has been pointed out, the overwhelming majority of the ppe resource was

sourced anyway that was rigorous, so that the equipment was fit for purpose, and so that those at the front could benefit. i purpose, and so that those at the front could benefit.— purpose, and so that those at the front could benefit. i wonder, does the secretary _ front could benefit. i wonder, does the secretary of _ front could benefit. i wonder, does the secretary of state _ front could benefit. i wonder, does the secretary of state agree - front could benefit. i wonder, does the secretary of state agree with i front could benefit. i wonder, does i the secretary of state agree with me that a version of a ministerial code should apply to the leaders of new political parties who might possibly be receiving payments from the arms of oversea governments who don't hold dear to their heart the best interest of the united kingdom? i don't want to embarrass the honourable gentleman too much by saying that almost every time he asked a question or makes a point in this house of commons, i think how lucky his constituents are to have him as their member of parliament. i think even though we disagree on many issues, he puts his finger on an important point to public scrutiny at this time as people decide how to cast their votes. there is only one party in the size

that stands guilty of ignoring those any parliament to which it is responsible, that withholds legal advice, that spends thousands of pounds trying to cover its backs any porch court case and whose leader has been found guilty by a cross—party committee of the parliament of misleading that parliament. not this party, but the party of the honourable lydia brought this question today, the scottish national party... i couldn't put it better myself... the surprising thing is, where are the snp mps now? some people might think that turning up, reading out a question and leaving before the debate is concluded was the perfect demolition of a cynical political stunt, but i will leave it for other people to decide.— people to decide. thank you, mr seaker. people to decide. thank you, mr speaker- the — people to decide. thank you, mr speaker. the minister _ people to decide. thank you, mr speaker. the minister is - people to decide. thank you, mr speaker. the minister is trying i people to decide. thank you, mr| speaker. the minister is trying to say that there is absolutely nothing to see here over contracts for cronies, shady deals for decorating,

text messages for tax breaks and peerages. currently public entitled to see this examined any full independent public enquiry? if not, what is he afraid of?— what is he afraid of? there are a number of _ what is he afraid of? there are a number of issues _ what is he afraid of? there are a number of issues which - what is he afraid of? there are a number of issues which might i what is he afraid of? there are a. number of issues which might be, what is he afraid of? there are a - number of issues which might be, as i'm sure the honourable gentleman is aware, appropriate to the subject of aware, appropriate to the subject of a full independent inquiry. we can all think of appropriate issues. i can say, in response to the member for glasgow central, i ran through the points about ppe, i explained why it was that james dyson had done so much in order to ensure the ventilators could be available to all, and it is also the case, as i mentioned to a number of members earlier, that an enquiry, because coming to the handling of the pandemic is appropriate, but the important thing is we should not pre—empt its findings. in

important thing is we should not pre-empt its findings. in january 2020, pre-empt its findings. in january 2020. the _ pre-empt its findings. in january 2020, the government - pre-empt its findings. in january 2020, the government was - pre-empt its findings. in january 2020, the government was a - pre-empt its findings. in january i 2020, the government was a party pre-empt its findings. in january - 2020, the government was a party to the new decade, new approach agreement, which restore devolution to northern ireland. the agreement included a commitment to a panel of ministers for ministerial standards. recently the northern ireland assembly is given a role to the assembly is given a role to the assembly commissioner for standards. why isn't the government prepared to support that much more rigorous approach of ministerial standards in storming but not in whitehall? it is the case i applaud the cross—party work which a storm and has exhibited in making sure the executive ministers work well. as i pointed out earlier, the independent adviser on ministerial standards we hope will be appointed very shortly, it will be appointed very shortly, it will be appointed very shortly, it will be the case of course, following on from a number of questions that been put by right honourable and honourable members, that we will review then what changes, if any are needed, comments improve that. hill i'm sure that

many members of the site, i spent the last few days locking on hundreds of dollars. ibs, the last few days locking on hundreds of dollars. a number of issues were _ hundreds of dollars. a number of issues were raised _ hundreds of dollars. a number of issues were raised with _ hundreds of dollars. a number of issues were raised with me. - hundreds of dollars. a number of issues were raised with me. the | issues were raised with me. the roll—out of vaccines. —— knocking on hundreds of doors. the lifting of restrictions. as we follow the road map that enables them to see loved ones again and get back to life as normal. the one thing nobody raised with me at all were the arrangements for refurbishing the administer�*s five. can it be assured that we will remain focused on the things that really matter to the people of this country? really matter to the people of this count ? ,, , ., ., ., really matter to the people of this count ? ., ., ., country? spot on. today i had meetings _ country? spot on. today i had meetings on _ country? spot on. today i had meetings on the _ country? spot on. today i had meetings on the vaccine - country? spot on. today i had - meetings on the vaccine roll-out, on meetings on the vaccine roll—out, on making sure that ourjustice system operates more quickly after the pandemic, or making sure that we can deal with the backlogs and energies as a result of elective operations having to be put aside because of

the dynamic, and also looking at how we can ensure that the educational opportunities of our young people, scarred by the pandemic, are restored. i think, scarred by the pandemic, are restored. ithink, others scarred by the pandemic, are restored. i think, others may disagree, that there is —— those are all more important issues than curtains and soft furnishings. but i will leave it to others to decide. dominic cummings has described the prime minister's plans to get tory donors to pay for the lavish refurbishment of the downing street flat as, and i am quoting, unethical, foolish and illegal. so either the former chief adviser is a liar and fantasist, or the prime minister is not being entirely straightforward with the house or the country. which is a? ibis straightforward with the house or the country. which is a? as someone once said in — the country. which is a? as someone once said in a — the country. which is a? as someone once said in a different _ the country. which is a? as someone once said in a different context, - once said in a different context, recollections may vary. the

questions _ recollections may vary. the questions that _ recollections may vary. the questions that relates - recollections may vary. tie: questions that relates in the ministerial code and to government ministers, but has my honourable friend reflected in the fact that while the honourable lady was asking her questions, a number of own front bench members are employed by prominent and well—known companies? if we are to look at the rules governing minutes ago, we should look at the ones covering shadow spokesmen miss that look at the ones covering shadow spokesmen mis- look at the ones covering shadow spokesmen miss that seems to be an im ortant spokesmen miss that seems to be an important point _ spokesmen miss that seems to be an important point to _ spokesmen miss that seems to be an important point to consider— spokesmen miss that seems to be an important point to consider for - spokesmen miss that seems to be an important point to consider for the i important point to consider for the house. ~ . important point to consider for the house. ~ , ., ., house. the minister made a virtue that the premise _ house. the minister made a virtue that the premise had _ house. the minister made a virtue that the premise had paid - house. the minister made a virtue that the premise had paid for- house. the minister made a virtue that the premise had paid for the l that the premise had paid for the refurbishment of the downing street flat. there have been several weeks of speculation about this, and it was only last friday downing street confirmed that he had. could the minister clarify, did the prime minister clarify, did the prime minister paid the original invoices for this or did he reimburse the donors who donated money allegedly to this fund or to the conservative party? why mark as i pointed out

earlier, the prime minister pay for the renovation of the flat... istill the renovation of the flat. .. all donations _ the renovation of the flat... all donations to the prime minister or any other member of parliament or other political parties will be declared properly and are properly and the cabinet secretary may clear in his interview with the packet committee, the background to this issue. , , ., ., issue. does my right honourable friend not find _ issue. does my right honourable friend not find it _ issue. does my right honourable friend not find it ironic _ issue. does my right honourable friend not find it ironic that - issue. does my right honourable friend not find it ironic that the i friend not find it ironic that the very same people attacking the government for the process of procurement where attacking the government for the slow process of actually achieving supplies of ppe and other equipmentjust about a year ago today. isn't it right that actually the government has moved heaven and earth, ministers and civil servants have worked literally through the night often comment to make sure that we get through this covid pandemic as safely as we

possibly can? the covid pandemic as safely as we possibly can?— possibly can? the honourable gentleman — possibly can? the honourable gentleman makes _ possibly can? the honourable gentleman makes a _ possibly can? the honourable gentleman makes a very - possibly can? the honourable gentleman makes a very fairl possibly can? the honourable - gentleman makes a very fair point. it was the case, entirely legitimately and appropriately, that opposition members were criticising us for the slow procurement of ppe. and the honourable lady for at least west wrote to me in order to encourage us to go faster, made a number of suggestions about companies which followed, which we did do. now the allegation is that when political figures pressed as to procure ppe more quickly for those at the front that was a mistake. so either labour's last spring was wrong stronger the position now is wrong, but they both can't be right. may i conclude by wishing the honourable gentleman a happy birthday. it is, i understand, a very significant date. i'm afraid the official secrets act forbids me from revealing how significant. irate from revealing how significant. we all from revealing how significant. - all know that the delay in locking

down the country and lock one, two and three led to a higher toll in terms of lives and livelihoods. what i don't think anyone expected mr reid on the front page of the daily mail today the quote that the prime minister said "let the bodies piled high in their thousands.. a claim that has been subsequently verified independently by otherjournalists. i think the minister take statements made at that dispatch box more seriously than the payments does. can i ask him to be absolutely categorical that he has never heard of the prime minister say those words? that the premise didn't say those words, and that prior to arriving and now afternoon, he received assurances from the prime minister that he did not use those words? can he be absolutely clear and straightforward and honest about that? ., ., , ~ , and straightforward and honest about that? ., ., , ~, and straightforward and honest about that? ., ., , ~ , ., that? totally. as i pointed out earlier, that? totally. as i pointed out earlier. in _ that? totally. as i pointed out earlier, in response _ that? totally. as i pointed out earlier, in response to - that? totally. as i pointed out earlier, in response to the -

earlier, in response to the question, i made the point i had been any meeting with the cabinet room with the prime minister. i wouldn't ordinarily go into discussions that take place in cabinet committees, for reasons you would well understand. i never heard the prime minister see any such thing. we were all faced with an incredible and difficult decision, but the prime minister not only concluded at the end of the discussion we had, a sober, serious and detailed discussion, that it was necessary to have that second lockdown. he also concluded it was sadly necessary to have a third lockdown as well.— sadly necessary to have a third lockdown as well. according to the observer, lockdown as well. according to the observer. 5296 _ lockdown as well. according to the observer, 5296 in _ lockdown as well. according to the observer, 5296 in scotland - lockdown as well. according to the observer, 5296 in scotland think. lockdown as well. according to the | observer, 5296 in scotland think the observer, 52% in scotland think the prime minister is corrupt. whether it is covid contracts for his cronies, tax breaks over tx, the premise is leading a government roars into the core and fast losing

public trust. any healthy democracy must have leaders with red ability put up with the minister do the right thing and ensure a public enquiry happens and recognise that people in scotland have a right to decide their own future, a future free from tory sleaze and corruption that they did not vote for? i free from tory sleaze and corruption that they did not vote for?— that they did not vote for? i think we are grateful _ that they did not vote for? i think we are grateful for— that they did not vote for? i think we are grateful for that _ that they did not vote for? i think we are grateful for that party - we are grateful for that party election broadcast. i think the most important thing to stress is that on each of the detailed questions raised quite understandably by the honourable memberfor raised quite understandably by the honourable member for glasgow central, explained the position, and it is not as the snp would wish to be. ~ . . it is not as the snp would wish to be. . ., , ., it is not as the snp would wish to be. ~ . , ., ., be. we have seen a growing divergence _ be. we have seen a growing divergence between - be. we have seen a growing divergence between what i be. we have seen a growing - divergence between what government ministers say in public and their true intentions that they share in private. the public perception of what minister said to manchester united's chairman before the super league was announced, because it

gave the impression the payments that supported the plans to stop without full transparency, questions remain about each of ministerial code. can all details be published relating to this meeting? i code. can all details be published relating to this meeting?- code. can all details be published relating to this meeting? i think it was clear from _ relating to this meeting? i think it was clear from what _ relating to this meeting? i think it was clear from what the _ relating to this meeting? i think it was clear from what the prime - was clear from what the prime minister and the secretary of state for the department for culture, media and sport said in the wake of the suggestion that there should be a european super league, that they were wholly opposed to that venture. my were wholly opposed to that venture. my understanding, i was not there at the time, that the conversation with ed woodward of manchester united related to the broader opening up of sporting events, and what they necessary social distancing and other measures might be to allow more of us to be able to enjoy going back to football matches. i itohy back to football matches. i now susend back to football matches. i now suspend the — back to football matches. i now suspend the house _ back to football matches. i now suspend the house for - back to football matches. i now suspend the house for three i back to football matches. i now suspend the house for three minutes. order. _

the speaker of the house bringing to an end the session concerning the urgent question to the minister for the cabinet office, michael gove, relating to the ministerial code. let's go over to our political correspondent at westminster. lots to chew over there. much of it critical of the government and its handling of all these allegations over cronyism and sleaze and lobbying. but the cabinet office minister, michael gove, putting up a robust defence for the government. as you said, an awful lot of allegations that have been made over the course of the last few days and all sorts of different areas. proper the one most striking this morning and getting a lot of people talking is the suggestion that the prime minister had said at a meeting back in the autumn, in a heated discussion about the second lockdown

in england that he would let the bodies pile high. this was reported in the daily mail, it has been said he made these remarks during a heated discussion, this was put to the prime minister earlier. ida. heated discussion, this was put to the prime minister earlier. no. but the prime minister earlier. no. but the important _ the prime minister earlier. no. but the important thing _ the prime minister earlier. no. but the important thing i _ the prime minister earlier. no. but the important thing i think- the prime minister earlier. no. but the important thing i think people | the important thing i think people want us _ the important thing i think people want us to— the important thing i think people want us to do as a government is to ensure _ want us to do as a government is to ensure the — want us to do as a government is to ensure the lockdowns work and they have. _ ensure the lockdowns work and they have. and _ ensure the lockdowns work and they have. and i— ensure the lockdowns work and they have. and i really pay tribute to the people of this country, this whole — the people of this country, this whole country of ours, that they have _ whole country of ours, that they have really heard together and working — have really heard together and working with the vaccination programme, we had the disease under control. _ programme, we had the disease under control. the _ programme, we had the disease under control. the number of deaths in hospital— control. the number of deaths in hospital shuttles are currently very low. he _ hospital shuttles are currently very low. . . hospital shuttles are currently very low. ., , ., , ~' hospital shuttles are currently very low. . , ., ., ., low. he was asked again if he said this and he _ low. he was asked again if he said this and he said _ low. he was asked again if he said this and he said no, _ low. he was asked again if he said this and he said no, he _ low. he was asked again if he said this and he said no, he didn't. - low. he was asked again if he said| this and he said no, he didn't. this came up in the commons this afternoon, labourvery came up in the commons this afternoon, labour very cross about this, they asked michael gove if he

were to apologise for what they said was stunning churning comments that had come out and announce a public inquiring into the government's handling of the pandemic. michael gove putting up a robust defence, he said he had never heard the prime minister say those words. she innores minister say those words. she ignores the — minister say those words. she ignores the fact _ minister say those words. she ignores the fact that the prime minister— ignores the fact that the prime minister not only institutions a second — minister not only institutions a second but third locked up to keep us safe. _ second but third locked up to keep us safe, what she doesn't mention is that she _ us safe, what she doesn't mention is that she and — us safe, what she doesn't mention is that she and other opposition members criticised the appointment of a vaccine is tsar as cronyism. when _ of a vaccine is tsar as cronyism. when kate _ of a vaccine is tsar as cronyism. when kate bingham has been responsible for saving millions of lives. _ responsible for saving millions of lives. what she doesn't say is that opposition— lives. what she doesn't say is that opposition mps criticised kate bingham for spending money on pr when _ bingham for spending money on pr when that— bingham for spending money on pr when that money was there to make sure that _ when that money was there to make sure that people from bame backgrounds were able to get the vaccines— backgrounds were able to get the vaccines they required. what she doesn't _ vaccines they required. what she doesn't acknowledge is the time and effort _ doesn't acknowledge is the time and effort by— doesn't acknowledge is the time and effort by public servants in this government and others to deal with the pandemic and save lives, and said she — the pandemic and save lives, and said she tries to score political

points— said she tries to score political points in— said she tries to score political points in a _ said she tries to score political points in a way, sadly which causes regret. _ points in a way, sadly which causes rearet. ., ., ~ . ., ., ,, regret. you heard michael gove talk about a second _ regret. you heard michael gove talk about a second lockdown _ regret. you heard michael gove talk about a second lockdown and - regret. you heard michael gove talk about a second lockdown and there | about a second lockdown and there are other allegations made that the prime minister has been denying today, one of those that he intervened into an inquiry into finding out who was the source of a leak about the details of that second lockdown back in late october last year. the claim was that the prime minister had intervened to avoid implicating a friend of his fiance. today, he said that was not true. . . fiance. today, he said that was not true. , ., ., , ., ., true. these have also been made to simon case — true. these have also been made to simon case today, _ true. these have also been made to simon case today, he _ true. these have also been made to simon case today, he said - true. these have also been made to simon case today, he said the - simon case today, he said the inquiring was still ongoing but with the amount of time gone, he said it was improbable they would find the source, although the results will be given to parliament. and another thing around today, simon case asked about this as well, and that is the

funding behind a refurbishment of the prime minister's flat in downing street, where he lives with his fiance. there have been allegations about how this revamp had been funded, it has not been entirely clear what the process for that has been, the prime minister said he paid the money but there have been suggestions perhaps somebody else might have been involved earlier along. there have been reports that at one point the prime minister was looking at getting political donors to pay for that refurbishment. this was put to simon case earlier, this is what he said. the was put to simon case earlier, this is what he said.— was put to simon case earlier, this is what he said. the prime minister has asked me _ is what he said. the prime minister has asked me to _ is what he said. the prime minister has asked me to conduct _ is what he said. the prime minister has asked me to conduct a - is what he said. the prime minister has asked me to conduct a review, | has asked me to conduct a review, because _ has asked me to conduct a review, because i— has asked me to conduct a review, because i had not been involved directly— because i had not been involved directly in — because i had not been involved directly in theirs, the prime minister— directly in theirs, the prime minister is asked me to conduct a review... — minister is asked me to conduct a review... �* , ., , review... i'm sorry to interrupt, i asked you _ review... i'm sorry to interrupt, i asked you whether _ review... i'm sorry to interrupt, i asked you whether you _ review... i'm sorry to interrupt, i asked you whether you were - review... i'm sorry to interrupt, ii asked you whether you were aware whether or not any private donations had been used to refurbish the flat? that's straightforward yes or no,

really. ibis that's straightforward yes or no, reall . �* . really. as i said, the prime minister — really. as i said, the prime minister is _ really. as i said, the prime minister is asked _ really. as i said, the prime minister is asked me - really. as i said, the prime minister is asked me to - really. as i said, the prime - minister is asked me to conduct a review— minister is asked me to conduct a review into — minister is asked me to conduct a review into how this has been done and asked — review into how this has been done and asked that i share the details of those — and asked that i share the details of those conclusions with the committee. of those conclusions with the committee-— of those conclusions with the committee. ~ . of those conclusions with the committee. ~ , ., , committee. the prime minister has said any donations _ committee. the prime minister has said any donations would _ committee. the prime minister has said any donations would be - committee. the prime minister has i said any donations would be declared in due course. labour wants a full investigation by the political donations regulator.- investigation by the political donations regulator. investigation by the political donations reaulator. . 1' , ., ~ donations regulator. thank you. we will aet donations regulator. thank you. we will get more _ donations regulator. thank you. we will get more of _ donations regulator. thank you. we will get more of a _ donations regulator. thank you. we will get more of a wider, _ donations regulator. thank you. we will get more of a wider, historicali will get more of a wider, historical perspective now, let's talk to the historian, the author of the impossible office, the history of the british pm at. thank you for joining us. i was struck by a comment in the commons just now during that urgent question to michael gove. it came from sir bernard jenkin, obviously a senior member of the conservative party, clearly, no friend of the

opposition, and he said, let's face it, there's not a lot of public confidence in the preparatory and public ethics of politicians of all stripes. —— proprietary and ethics. justice concern what we've seen in lobbying and greensill and so on, to feet into a general mood that too many politicians are in it for themselves?— many politicians are in it for themselves? . ,, ,., themselves? yeah, i think so. there was a very — themselves? yeah, i think so. there was a very deferential _ themselves? yeah, i think so. there was a very deferential culture - themselves? yeah, i think so. there was a very deferential culture and i was a very deferential culture and then,in was a very deferential culture and then, in 1963, the profumo scandal broke and 1973, there were two lords who were involved in sexual scandals. 1983, cecil parkinson, a scandals. 1983, cecil parkinson, a scandal with a secretary. 1993—911, scandal with a secretary. 1993—94, the back to basics scandals that helps create an atmosphere to a lack of confidence in the major government. but the tempo was really

sped up with cash for questions, cash for honours, cash for influence. is cash for honours, cash for influence.— cash for honours, cash for influence. , ., ., ., influence. is there more of a problem _ influence. is there more of a problem concerning - influence. is there more of a problem concerning the - influence. is there more of a i problem concerning the current allegations because a lot of the points being made about sleaze and so on are being made by the conservative former apparatchik in the conservative government himself, dominic cummings, ratherthan the conservative government himself, dominic cummings, rather than this coming from outside? i dominic cummings, rather than this coming from outside?— coming from outside? i think so, es, that coming from outside? i think so, yes, that certainly _ coming from outside? i think so, yes, that certainly never - coming from outside? i think so, yes, that certainly never helps. i coming from outside? i think so, | yes, that certainly never helps. if you look historically, it's easier to pat it away if it's the other side making the allegations. at the end of the day, it's the substance that counts. how significant are the allegations, how serious are they, if they are proven, and often the

cover—up of, as we famously saw with the watergate scandal in 1970 that brought down president nixon, it is the cover—up which is often worse than the original sin. but there have been a lot of things that have gone wrong for government in the last year. borisjohnson gone wrong for government in the last year. boris johnson clearly gone wrong for government in the last year. borisjohnson clearly is now leaning on a new team, a team of officials, a much more tried and tested way of governing, rather than the almost cowboy style that he adopted of anything goes in his first nine or 12 months, he's settled down. the question is, will the sins of those first months bring him down, will they haunt him? it's very hard to predict the trajectory of a scandal and, historically, surprising ones have come and blown

away and once it looked very bake off and don't. a lot depends on the counter and quality of the response and the sincerity of the determination to get to the truth. is that the key, then, to the government arresting and dealing with this whole situation? and ipsos mori poll that has just come out suggest a consensus firm have gone down five points recently, now at 40%, down five points recently, now at 110%, three points ahead of labour, but a fall of five points. the conservative argument is the public don't care, they are not interested in soft furnishings and the colour palette of the prime minister and so on, but are there any lessons for the government from history on how to arrest the slide that seems to be taking place in their popularity because of this controversy? 50. because of this controversy? so, lona because of this controversy? so, long serving _ because of this controversy? ’irr, long serving party is because of this controversy? srr, long serving party is in because of this controversy? s17, long serving party is in office are

vulnerable. the 13 years of the tories at the profumo scandal in the 60s help bring it down. the long—running 17 years, 18 years of tories with the major scandals in the 90s created an atmosphere that brought it down. labour, the scandals, not least the cash questions and silly mps expenses helps create an atmosphere that brought down labour in 2010. this is now getting onto the 12th year of a conservative government, so the lesson there is, even though there is a new prime minister, that doesn't seem to matter. long—suffering administrations, parties in power, attract lot of negative baggage —— long serving administrations. if you let it drag

on, as the snp have done it or some of those early administrations have done, and you might not escape. oh—so, longevity is the real issue here, even though borisjohnson's beenin here, even though borisjohnson's been in powerfor a little more than a year? been in power for a little more than a ear? . �* . been in power for a little more than a ear? . �*, been in power for a little more than a ear? ., a year? that's absolute right and that happened — a year? that's absolute right and that happened to _ a year? that's absolute right and that happened to the _ a year? that's absolute right and that happened to the tories - a year? that's absolute right and that happened to the tories in i a year? that's absolute right and i that happened to the tories in 1963, it happened to the tories again in 1990 with their new prime minister, john major, tap labour in 2007 with gordon brown. it does seem to be a symptom of long—suffering administrations that they find it hard to escape accumulated commerce noble—like allegations of sleaze and insider dealing and unfair practice. —— snowball—like allegations. thank -- snowball-like allegations. thank ou for -- snowball-like allegations. thank you forjoining _ -- snowball-like allegations. thank

you forjoining us. _ sport now. former arsenal striker ian wright has joined many of the clubs' fans in calling for current owner stan kroenke to leave after his involvement in the european super league. it comes as reports that a consortium, which includes the founder of spotify and three former arsenal players, are mounting a bid to takeover the club. supporters gathered outside the emirates last week to protest at arsenal's involvement in the failed european super league, with many calling for kroenke to sell. lifelong arsenal fan, daniel ek, who's the co—founder and chief executive of the music streaming service spotify, has joined with thierry henry, dennis bergkamp and patrick vieira to help him purchase the club. supporters gathered outside the emirates ian wright was speaking on last night's match of the day 2. iam i am with the fans, i would like them to go, i would like the kroenkes out. butjoss kroenke has

already said they are not going anywhere. now it's up to the governments make the change to these owners that has to have fan involvement, because it cannot carry on like this. we can't have owners like that, they're invisible to us. chelsea manager thomas tuchel has criticised the new champions league format, saying coaches and players have not been consulted on plans to add more games to an already busy schedule. the number of teams participating in the group stage of the champions league will increase from 32 to 36. it comes after the collapse of plans for a european super league. all these discussions about super league may forget that we have now a new form at a champions league very soon. did they ask any coach about this, i don't think so. didn't ask me, that they ask any player? i don't think so, it's just more games, it is not more quality, just

more games. who will play these games? at the same time, we had three substitutes here in the premier league in the toughest competition. no, iam not happy about this format, not at all. reading and former england player fara williams has announced she will retire from professional football at the end of the season. the 37—year—old is is england's most capped player with 172 appearances for the lionesses. williams said on social media that it had been a pleasure and a privilege to have had a career of more than 20 years within the women's game. the icc says it's monitoring the coronavirus situation in india, and the effect it has on the indian premier league, after several australian cricketers and the india all rounder ravi ashwin left the competition amid rising cases in the country. adam zampa, kane richardson and andrew tye have ended their season early to return home. the ecb said they're not currently aware of any england players planning to leave the ipl. the icc say it's too early to say

if there will be a knock—on for the men's t20 world cup, which is due to take place in india in october and november. there were four quarterfinal places up for grabs at the world snooker championship today, and two of them have already been claimed this afternoon. world number onejudd trump needed two frames for victory, but was made to work for them by david gilbert, 13—8 the final score. trump will play the winner of tonight's match between shaun murphy and yan bingtao. and 2015 champion stuart bingham wasted no time in getting the two frames he needed to beat welsh qualifierjamiejones13—6. he'll now face scotland's anthony mcgill, who beat ronnie o'sullivan in the second round. that's all the sport for now. we'll have more in the next hour. the british—iranian woman, nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe, has been sentenced to a year in jail

in iran after a court found her guilty of propaganda against the regime. nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe completed a five—year sentence in march on spying charges, which she denies. borisjohnson said that the government will be working very hard to secure her release. and the foreign secretary dominic raab has called the latest sentence inhumane and unjustified. earlier we heard from our correspondent caroline hawley who said her family had said it's the action they had feared. i spoke to her husband richard, i set this is a bad sign, what the family had really feared. there hasn't been a summons to appear in prison yet but this is a court case which came about a week after her five year sentence on charges of working against the regime had ended and her ankle tag had been removed. what happened this morning is that her lawyer was summoned to the office of thejudge her lawyer was summoned to the office of the judge who had tried her and he was told about this

vertex, the one—year sentence, one year travel ban. it has been condemned by the foreign secretary is totally inhumane and wholly unjustified, and by the prime minister isjust plain unjustified, and by the prime minister is just plain wrong. people in scotland and in wales are enjoying new freedoms as more coronavirus restrictions have been eased. in scotland, shops, gyms, pubs and restaurants are back open after a four—month lockdown. and in wales, outdoor hospitality is back up and running. in a moment, we'll hear from tomos morgan in cardiff, but first the latest on the changes in scotland from alexandra mackenzie. the first pint to be heard at this pub in glasgow since october. food can now be served inside until 8pm, but if you want to enjoy that pint, you must sit outside in the beer garden. we were really excited about this day coming around. at last!

our customers are excited. a huge amount of support from the local community. which is really encouraging, and that has given us just the energy to get on and throw everything at it, really. nonessential retail can also reopen. forjanice, that is a huge relief. it is very hard to put into words without breaking down, which sounds silly for some people. but this is my life, my clients are my life. a lot of people have bought online, like nicole my client, and made so many mistakes. i am not knocking online, it is a big thing for people, but interior design, you cannot buy that online, it has to be done here. her clients are also delighted to be back. to come into the shop, to see people, to chat, to be able to look at things and touch things, it is wonderful. for those who want to enjoy the great outdoors and head for the highlands, nevis range and fort william will reopen this week. the gondola has been

idle all winter. the ski season may be over but the mountains remain enticing. we have done lots of preparation to make the place as covid—safe as we possibly can. sanitiser points everywhere, temperature checks in the gondola hall. but we have big, open spaces for everybody to come and enjoy, so we just want everybody to come, use the gondola, ride on your bike, get on the mountain and enjoy yourself. fort william attracts visitors from around the world and there is a determination for the weeks ahead. for the first time in months, it is now possible to book an overnight stay, though staying with friends or family is not yet an option. i think it will be very busy this season. i think everybody needs to go somewhere, and they would like to go somewhere. foreign travel has been more

difficult, so i am hoping they are all going to come here. this is a marvellous place. the last few months may have seemed endless, but as the country begins to cautiously re—emerge, it's hoped there will be brighter days ahead. after being shut for the best part of five months, having a bite to eat or a casual drink with a friend is welcome once again here in wales. oh, very nice. yes, and lovely food as well and the sun is coming out, so enjoying myself again. it'll be interesting because i know quite a few people who have been shielding and actuallyjust going out at the moment, communicating is going to be quite an issue. the 160 seats outdoors at the botanist in the welsh capital is fully booked all week. open forjust six weeks before the first lockdown last year, it feels like the third grand opening here today. it is viable for now.

you have to get back open, it's nice to gradually open and then hopefully on may the 17th when we can open inside we can go full whack on everything seating wise. as well as groups of six being able to sit outside in hospitality venues today, outdoor weddings of up to 30 are allowed, two people can visit care homes together, and outdoor organised activities of up to 30 are also allowed. and that includes fitness classes like this one at six o'clock this morning. but it's a bittersweet moment for the industry in wales. they are still feeling exasperated that gyms have another week before they can open. there is added frustration for the fitness industry here in wales, the fact that our counterparts in england are able to operate as normal. so, although hospitality welcomes that six people can meet outside for a coffee, a meal ora pint again, many places across wales don't have this outdoor space, so will have to remain closed

for at least another three weeks until they can hopefully reopen. but before then there is the small matter of the welsh assembly election and how will the result of that vote impact the unlocking of the rest of welsh society? it was a good night for brits at the oscars last night. sir anthony hopkins took home the award for best actor while daniel kaluuya won best supporting actor and emerald fennell scooped best screenplay for promising young woman. nomadland took home several awards, with chloe zhao becoming the first woman of colour to win best director. the pandemic meant it was a pared down ceremony, as our entertainment correspondent colin paterson reports. the year the oscars were held in a train station, best picture went to a film about a van. nomadland! frances mcdormand plays a woman who has lost herjob and her husband, so takes to the road to find work and community.

no, i'm not homeless. i'm just... ..houseless. she celebrated by encouraging people to go back to the cinema, and then paid tribute to the film's sound mixer, michael wolf snyder, who took his own life last month. we give this one to our wolf. she howls. she also won best actress for a third time. the film's director, chloe zhao, became only the second woman in the 93—year history of the oscars to win best director. at the age of 83, sir anthony hopkins became a double oscar winner, and the oldest ever winner of an acting oscar, for playing a man with dementia in the father. i am not leaving my flat! butjust like at the baftas, he wasn't there. the academy congratulates anthony hopkins and accepts the oscar on his behalf. it was the final award of the night, and meant the oscars had a very flat ending. but four hours later he posted his acceptance speech on instagram.

here i am in my homeland in wales. and at 83 years of age, i did not expect to get this award, i really didn't. i am very grateful to the academy and thank you. and i want to pay tribute to chadwick boseman who was taken from us far too early. earlier, britain's daniel kaluuya was named best supporting actor for playing the black panther fred hampton injudas and the black messiah... the black panthers are forming a rainbow coalition of oppressed brothers and sisters of every colour. ..and managed to thoroughly embarrass his sister. like, it's incredible. my mum, my dad, they had sex. it's amazing. like, do you know what i'm saying? i'm here! do you know what i mean? so, i'm so happy to be alive. there was a very different feel to this year's oscars. it was far less star—studded, there were very few laughs and very few film clips. the opening was designed to look like a movie, although had it not been live,

regina king would have asked for take two. ooh! live tv, here we go. and on the night glenn close tied with peter o'toole for having the most acting nominations without ever winning — eight — she showed she wasn't too downhearted by taking part in a film quiz and doing a dance. there were british wins in eight categories. emerald furnell was nurse patsy in call the midwife and camilla in the crown. now she's an oscar winner — best original screenplay for her female revenge film, promising young woman. i'm trying very hard not to cry, which is very difficult as an english person, because we don't cry, ever. goodnight. all in all, it was a very strange and rather muted oscars. hollywood will be hoping they can leave the train station, and normal service is resumed next year. colin paterson, bbc news. now it's time for a look at the weather with susan powell.

hello. after all the dry weather so far this april, finally, things are changing through the week ahead is. we have some rain in the forecast pushing in from the north. i think almost all areas should see at the summit but perhaps not that much for some southernmost counties. through the remainder of monday, some very wet weather sitting across eastern scotland, slightly more showery this front as it pushes down across northern england and into north wales, producing some showers in northern ireland as well. but with the breeze on into eastern scotland, here we will get our highest rainfall totals. across the northern half of the uk, with all the cloud, it will be a plan to start to tuesday. we are looking at a frost across southern england, particularly the south east. on tuesday, the best of the sunny weather and remaining dry as well. elsewhere, much more cloud around,

showers in many areas, perhaps a few for the fire southwest, relentless rain across the east coast and chilly, 7 degrees in aberdeen. this era of low pressure sinks southwards for wednesday, things clearing up somewhat across scotland, the greater chance of showers across wales, the south west of england and the midlands. still rain elusive across the south east, perhaps the odd shower throughout the day. much drier in scotland, brighter but some showers on the breeze across the tops of the mountains, the air is cold enough that we could still see some snow. still chilly on the north sea coast. as there is low dose across the continents, finally some rain for the southeast of england, and then the chilly northeasterly wind kicked the north sea. attracts us into artic air, there ice appears open up, the winds for your lights,

showers developing through the day but rather slow moving, particularly across eastern england. the other thing that will stop a talking point through the end of the week is the risk of us seeing a fairly widespread frost. that is among something for gardeners to keep in mind.

this is bbc news. the headlines. more questions about leaks and behaviour in downing street as sources say borisjohnson did suggest that "bodies could pile high" during a discussion about lockdown. he denies it. no, but again, i think what people want us to get on and do as a government is make sure that the lockdown works. meanwhile britain's top civil servant answers questions from mps about leaks from number ten and allegations that the refurbishment to the prime minister's flat was paid for by private donations the prime minister has asked me to

conduct a review on