coutts bank raised concerns internally that nigel farage was xenophobic and racist, and cancelled his account. well, he's here, and he's not best pleased. the former brexit leader has found an ally in rishi sunak, who has promised a crackdown on banks denying accounts to customers on the basis of their opinions. we'll ask, should financiers be free to choose their customers?

also tonight... women have been out on the streets of afghanistan today facing down water cannon and tear gas, protesting about the tabilan�*s closure of every beauty salon in the country by the end of friday, which will leave more than 50,000 beauticans without a wage. we'll be speaking live from kabul to the feminist activist mahbouba serja. in our latest nhs investigation, we ask serious questions about one of the companies making millions from the nhs to review trusts. when we see there is millions of pounds being spent on consultants, we have to ask why that money is being spent, where it is being spent and on who is being spent. and it's time for the world cup again. no, not that one — this one. 0n the eve of the womens�* world cup, its notjust the england team that are lionesses. we'll be joined by an atlas lioness from morocco, the first arab team to take part, competing for the first time, and, one of the lost lionesses,

from the england squad who played in the 1971 unofficial world cup in mexico. good evening. nigel farage investigated why coutts, part of the nat west group, suddenly closed his bank account, and found out that what was being reported by the bbc and others wasn't the whole story, and the final decision about his account was a subjective one. the bank decided that his views "do not align with our values," citing examples such as his alleged links to russia, a retweet of a ricky gervais joke and in view of his friendship with novak djokovic who was opposed to covid vaccinations. now the financial conduct authority is talking to the nat west group about its handling of the account. in a moment we'll be hearing from a banking commentator who thinks coutt�*s actions werejustified, and nigel farage himself, but first, here's sima.

should your views or comments be taken into consideration by your bank? that is the question many have been discussing after nigel farage says he was let go by coutts bank because of his political views. a a0 page dossier obtained by him from coutts appears to show some of the bank's views on the former politician. it says... bbc news has previously reported a coutts source claimed that his account was being closed because he fell below the financial threshold. he believes that is not the real

reason. the bank says it did offer him another account in the wider company. this dossier claims that nigel farage is a fan of enoch powell, that he is an ally of donald trump. yes, undoubtedly two controversial characters. but should liking them or agreeing with them play a part in who you can bank with? newsnight understands that mr farage�*s commercial circumstances fa rage�*s commercial circumstances triggered a farage�*s commercial circumstances triggered a two pronged process, where the reputation of someone can be considered, where there are other factors at play. nigel farage describes it as a stasi style surveillance, and says he finds the language in the document abusive and offensive. tory ministers and mps lined up to say the bank's actions where an attack on free speech. taking somebody�*s bank account away or shutting it down is a really hostile act. want to do it because you don't agree with his opinions, which is what has become apparent in

the last 2a hours, is frankly outstanding, it's undemocratic. farage is not by himself in this, there are thousands of people who have faced this sort of problem down the years. if they have taken a bank account away from somebody for any other than a commercial reason, the government should know about it at the bank should have to justify. the bank should have tojustify. it is not clear who makes the rules for the natwest group, or who has formed the natwest group, or who has formed the values that they say nigel farage does not abide by. but some make the argument that businesses have the right to have a say in who their customers are, and that is in line with democratic values. a leading businessman who wished to remain anonymous because he is worried about criticism from free—speech advocates told newsnight, if a free—speech advocates told newsnight, ifa bank, orany other business believes that one of its customers could negatively affect their own reputation, then i feel it is reasonable for that business to separate itself from that client.

remember that a public can decide who he or she serves. 0ne remember that a public can decide who he or she serves. one source who works in private wealth at a leading bank also told us it is normal behaviour to review client profiles, the impact they have on their brand. coutts says it is not coutts�*s policy to close customer accounts solely on the basis of legally held political and personal views. decisions to close an account are not taken lightly, and involve a number of factors including commercial viability, reputational considerations and legal and regulatory requirements. we understand the public concern that the processes for ending a customer relationship and how that is communicated are not sufficiently transparent. in recent weeks, others have come forward claiming their banks objected to their business because of various reasons, including relationships they have and personal views. when it comes to choosing a bank, we would expect them to look after our money and

keep it safe, and our activity confidential. but some will be asking, do they have a right to factor into account your personal views, and who draws the line? in a few minutes we'll speak to frances coppela, a banking commentator, but first nigel farage. good evening, nigel farage, first of all. what for you is the most surprising accusation in the coutts reputational report? the surprising accusation in the coutts reputational report?— reputational report? the vitriol, the bias, reputational report? the vitriol, the bias. the — reputational report? the vitriol, the bias, the prejudice. - reputational report? the vitriol, the bias, the prejudice. it- reputational report? the vitriol, the bias, the prejudice. it readsj the bias, the prejudice. it reads like a report written by a postgraduate corbynista, the hate everybody with a conservative view. i was shocked, i was literally shocked. i thought i might get, he is politically exposed, so there is increased cost.— increased cost. which happens regularly- _ increased cost. which happens regularly- we _ increased cost. which happens regularly. we understand - increased cost. which happens| regularly. we understand that, increased cost. which happens - regularly. we understand that, those rules need to — regularly. we understand that, those rules need to be _ regularly. we understand that, those rules need to be addressed, - regularly. we understand that, those rules need to be addressed, the - rules need to be addressed, the european directive need to be looked at. i'm pleased to say that andrew griffiths, the city minister, says he will do so. this was a personal

hitjob. it was like a brief to a barrister before a criminal trial. i have read most of the report, it must have taken some people quite a long time to go through stuff, to find these examples. all of these references?— references? many of which, 144 references _ references? many of which, 144 references to _ references? many of which, 144 references to russia, _ references? many of which, 144 references to russia, and - references? many of which, 144 references to russia, and manyj references? many of which, 144 i references to russia, and many of the guardian articles referred to in this have now been beaten by arron banks in a libel case in the high court in this country.— banks in a libel case in the high court in this country. coutts have said that decisions _ court in this country. coutts have said that decisions are _ court in this country. coutts have said that decisions are not - court in this country. coutts have said that decisions are not taken | said that decisions are not taken lightly, they are commercial, reputational, legal and regulatory. to be fair, all of these things could be true.— to be fair, all of these things could be true. , ., , could be true. they can all be true, but read the _ could be true. they can all be true, but read the report. _ could be true. they can all be true, but read the report. read - could be true. they can all be true, but read the report. read the - but read the report. read the conclusions. they say that russia is a risk for them. they say that my views do not align with the bank's. how on earth a bank, that is a0% owned by the british taxpayer, after they agreed incompetence, which is

bailing them out, i do not know. this bank are behaving now like a political campaigning organisation. have people been getting in touch, saying they have been treated similarly? saying they have been treated similarl ? ~ ., ., , saying they have been treated similarl ? ~ ., ., ., saying they have been treated similarl ? ~ ., ., , ., ., ., similarly? went two months ago i got a hone similarly? went two months ago i got a phone call— similarly? went two months ago i got a phone call to _ similarly? went two months ago i got a phone call to say — similarly? went two months ago i got a phone call to say that _ similarly? went two months ago i got a phone call to say that after 43 - a phone call to say that after a3 years of a relationship with a personal account and a variety of businesses, including a city brokering business and a modern day media, various other things that i do, it was to be closed, initially i... i'll be honest with you, ifelt a sense of shame. how could i talk about this in public?— about this in public? where you worried about _ about this in public? where you worried about your _ about this in public? where you worried about your financial - worried about your financial situation? i worried about your financial situation?— worried about your financial situation? ~' ., ., situation? i knew if i wanted to enter into _ situation? i knew if i wanted to enter into any _ situation? i knew if i wanted to enter into any future _ situation? i knew if i wanted to enter into any future financial. enter into any future financial arrangement, one of the questions would be, have you ever been closed down by a bank or any other institution? going public involved a degree of risk, and a degree of embarrassment and shame. but what persuaded me was, in the intervening six weeks, i spoke to so many other

people who had also been summarily closed down by the banks, that i felt at last somebody must be a champion for this. but felt at last somebody must be a champion for this.— felt at last somebody must be a champion for this. but you have said that ou champion for this. but you have said that you cannot _ champion for this. but you have said that you cannot get _ champion for this. but you have said that you cannot get a _ champion for this. but you have said that you cannot get a bank— champion for this. but you have said that you cannot get a bank account. | that you cannot get a bank account. i have been turned down by ten other uk banks. ~ ., ~ , i have been turned down by ten other uk banrs-_ not- i have been turned down by ten other uk banks._ not going . i have been turned down by ten other uk banks._ not going to| uk banks. what banks? not going to name them- — uk banks. what banks? not going to name them. why? _ uk banks. what banks? not going to name them. why? i don't _ uk banks. what banks? not going to name them. why? i don't need - uk banks. what banks? not going to name them. why? i don't need to i name them. why? i don't need to fiuht name them. why? i don't need to fi . ht the name them. why? i don't need to fight the world, _ name them. why? i don't need to fight the world, and _ name them. why? i don't need to fight the world, and just - name them. why? i don't need to fight the world, and just fighting coutts and natwest at the moment. some of these banks, and i'm not asking you to name them now, they are like natwest and involved with public money? the are like natwest and involved with public money?— are like natwest and involved with public money? the whole industry, throu . h public money? the whole industry, through the — public money? the whole industry, through the sub-prime _ public money? the whole industry, through the sub-prime crisis - public money? the whole industry, through the sub-prime crisis that l through the sub—prime crisis that engulfed the financial world, they nearly brought us down. we bailed them out. our taxes went up and now they can treat us with contempt. frances coppela, we just heard that nigel farage was refused because of coutts of�*s policy towards diversity and inclusion. iwonder coutts of�*s policy towards diversity and inclusion. i wonder how inclusive it is if you don't accept nigel farage?—

nigel farage? having read the reort, i nigel farage? having read the report, i actually don't - nigel farage? having read the i report, i actually don't think that is the _ report, i actually don't think that is the reason why they closed his account. the report makes it clear that the _ account. the report makes it clear that the reason they closed his account— that the reason they closed his account was that nigel paid off his mortgage, and the house was released as a security, _ mortgage, and the house was released as a security, that brought him below— as a security, that brought him below the _ as a security, that brought him below the criteria for an account at that bank, — below the criteria for an account at that bank, which we should remember is a specialist provider of private banking — is a specialist provider of private banking services to very rich people _ banking services to very rich people. |f— banking services to very rich --eole. . banking services to very rich eo . le, ., ., , banking services to very rich --eole. ., ., people. if that was the case and solely the _ people. if that was the case and solely the case, _ people. if that was the case and solely the case, why _ people. if that was the case and solely the case, why did - people. if that was the case and solely the case, why did the - solely the case, why did the reputational committee have to use it and presumably trawl through newspapers and tweets, and conversations, and his relationship with novak djokovic? he was doing that stuff? why was it necessary? banks, particularly private banks like this, — banks, particularly private banks like this, they do have to look at the profiles of the people they are doing _ the profiles of the people they are doing business with. they have a

requirement to know your customer, do anti—money laundering. there requirement to know your customer, do anti-money laundering.— do anti-money laundering. there is to different — do anti-money laundering. there is to different things, _ do anti-money laundering. there is to different things, if— do anti-money laundering. there is to different things, if they - do anti-money laundering. there is to different things, if they were - to different things, if they were refusing and terminating the relationship on the basis that he was not banking enough money, why go through all the detail of producing what was meant to be an internal report? just for their comfort? i think it'sjust for their information. it's clear from the report— information. it's clear from the report that they made the decision some _ report that they made the decision sometime — report that they made the decision some time ago not to continue the relationship when the mortgage came to an end _ relationship when the mortgage came to an end. ~ . , relationship when the mortgage came to an end. ~ ., , ., to an end. what they said enough re ort, to an end. what they said enough report. read _ to an end. what they said enough report. read pages _ to an end. what they said enough report, read pages three - to an end. what they said enough report, read pages three and - to an end. what they said enough report, read pages three and ten | to an end. what they said enough i report, read pages three and ten of that report, it is available in the mail 0nline, they say he is, they say it three times, a financially viable account. what we don't like

what he stands for, you conflicts with the values of the organisation. goodness knows what it means, he conflicts with our diversity agenda and when the mortgage ends, we will not renew it. iii and when the mortgage ends, we will not renew it— and when the mortgage ends, we will not renew it._ that - and when the mortgage ends, we will not renew it._ that was - not renew it. if i mid-off that was not renew it. if i mid-off that was not a commercial— not renew it. if i mid-off that was not a commercial decision. - not renew it. if i mid-off that was not a commercial decision. three | not a commercial decision. three times they said it was a commercially viable account. fin times they said it was a commercially viable account. on page ten it sa s commercially viable account. on page ten it says that _ commercially viable account. on page ten it says that when _ commercially viable account. on page ten it says that when the _ commercially viable account. on page ten it says that when the mortgage i ten it says that when the mortgage comes_ ten it says that when the mortgage comes to _ ten it says that when the mortgage comes to an end, what is called the commercial— comes to an end, what is called the commercial viability of the account will fall, _ commercial viability of the account will fall, and they made the decision— will fall, and they made the decision to terminate the decision on that— decision to terminate the decision on that basis. so your account was commercially viable while you had a mortgage — commercially viable while you had a mortgage. but once it was paid off, it was— mortgage. but once it was paid off, it was no— mortgage. but once it was paid off, it was no longer commercially viable — it was no longer commercially viable. that is what the report says — viable. that is what the report says i— viable. that is what the report sa s. . . viable. that is what the report sa s. ., ., ., . viable. that is what the report sas. ., ., ., . says. i had a large current account surlus says. i had a large current account surplus sitting _ says. i had a large current account surplus sitting with _ says. i had a large current account surplus sitting with that _ says. i had a large current account surplus sitting with that bank, - surplus sitting with that bank, through that period of time. they were using the ending of the mortgage... and what was made clear to me in a phone call from the head of private clients was because i no

longer owed them money, that was their convenient get out. and should banks bejudging individuals by holding legal views? lets banks be judging individuals by holding legal views?— holding legal views? lets 'ust re - hrase holding legal views? lets 'ust rephrase that, i holding legal views? lets 'ust rephrase that, because h holding legal views? lets 'ust rephrase that, because i h holding legal views? lets just j rephrase that, because i want holding legal views? lets just i rephrase that, because i want to holding legal views? lets just - rephrase that, because i want to ask you, should banks be refusing customers on the basis of their political views? depends on the kind of bank, to be frank _ depends on the kind of bank, to be frank. ~ . depends on the kind of bank, to be frank. . ., ., depends on the kind of bank, to be frank. ~ ., ., ., , ., frank. what about them all? they are all remainers! _ frank. what about them all? they are all remainers! what _ frank. what about them all? they are all remainers! what kind _ frank. what about them all? they are all remainers! what kind of - frank. what about them all? they are all remainers! what kind of bank - all remainers! what kind of bank refuses people on the basis of their political views? refuses people on the basis of their politicalviews? if refuses people on the basis of their political views? if these are all held in a perfectly legal way. what is the skew of the bank? the held in a perfectly legal way. what is the skew of the bank?— is the skew of the bank? the point that i'm is the skew of the bank? the point that i'm trying _ is the skew of the bank? the point that i'm trying to _ is the skew of the bank? the point that i'm trying to make _ is the skew of the bank? the point that i'm trying to make is - is the skew of the bank? the point that i'm trying to make is that - that i'm trying to make is that banks— that i'm trying to make is that banks which are commercial enterprises, who they do business with is— enterprises, who they do business with is their decision in a free market —

with is their decision in a free market. is _ with is their decision in a free market. , , ,, .,~ with is their decision in a free market. , ,, ~ ., with is their decision in a free market. , ,, ,, ., ., market. is rishi sunak like to have an inquiry? — market. is rishi sunak like to have an inquiry? he is— market. is rishi sunak like to have an inquiry? he is going _ market. is rishi sunak like to have an inquiry? he is going to - market. is rishi sunak like to have an inquiry? he is going to ask- market. is rishi sunak like to have an inquiry? he is going to ask the l an inquiry? he is going to ask the fca to look _ an inquiry? he is going to ask the fca to look at _ an inquiry? he is going to ask the fca to look at it, _ an inquiry? he is going to ask the fca to look at it, |_ an inquiry? he is going to ask the fca to look at it, i confidently - fca to look at it, i confidently predict — fca to look at it, i confidently predict that they will say there is nothing — predict that they will say there is nothing to look at. is predict that they will say there is nothing to look at. is it this is the latest is —— since they came to power years ago. job, incomejustice. these of the slogans have canned musicians were chanting today —— afghan

beauticians. footed show water cannon dispersed. their educational aspirations were confined to primary schools, their access to universities blocked and their ability to appear freely in public severely restricted. even the simple act of using public bathhouses, a common practice in the country, has been denied to them. the decision to shut down the beauty salons was announced three weeks ago for now. translation: first of all, - in this bad economic situation, a lot of money were wasted in these hair salons. also, according to sharia, it is not permitted to use other people's hair to style another person. and finally, women's eyebrows are blacked in these salons,

which is against the sharia. according to the afghanistan chamber of commerce, the decision will affect more than 60,000 women, many of whom are the sole earners in the family. today, the women were determined to stay put. they're calling on each other to stay on the streets to the very last minute. i'm joined now by mahbouba serja, a woman's right�*s activist in kabul. these women were put in great danger during a protest, is this about women only being the winner what about the taliban trying to stop woman congregating in safe places for women to talk together? both. for women to talk together? both, actuall , for women to talk together? both, actually. both. _ for women to talk together? both,

actually, both. it is— for women to talk together? both, actually, both. it is both, - for women to talk together? both, actually, both. it is both, for- for women to talk together? both, actually, both. it is both, for both | actually, both. it is both, for both of them. at the same time, with all of them. at the same time, with all of these beauty salons, each woman working there and each family and each family and... there are going to be more than 250,000 people, individuals are, are going to be affected, douglin, husbands, wives, not wives, by people that are, actually, you know... —— not wives, by people that are, actually, you know... —- tare not wives, by people that are, actually, you know... -- we do not have a great _ actually, you know... -- we do not have a great line, _ actually, you know... -- we do not have a great line, but _ actually, you know... -- we do not have a great line, but let's - have a great line, but let's persevere for a bit longer. when the beauty salons close, as it undoubtedly looks like they will, will there be any places left where a woman can get together, congregate and have an open conversation? absolutely not. this is becoming

like, it is the same from the culture of this country. woman cannot go to the bathhouses any more, they cannot go to the beauty salons, women cannot go anywhere. so the only places going to be maybe their houses and at some point, that most, of some women sitting together in a place. so this is something for everybody. in a place. so this is something for everybody-— in a place. so this is something for eve bod . ., , , ., ,, ., , everybody. you were speaking to us from kabul. — everybody. you were speaking to us from kabul. you _ everybody. you were speaking to us from kabul, you said _ everybody. you were speaking to us from kabul, you said you _ everybody. you were speaking to us from kabul, you said you felt - from kabul, you said you felt in more danger talking to us than you felt generally everyday. you have faced down the —— the taliban, have you spoken to them about this new, draconian rule? this you spoken to them about this new, draconian rule?— draconian rule? this is one of the thins draconian rule? this is one of the things that _ draconian rule? this is one of the things that i _ draconian rule? this is one of the things that i would _ draconian rule? this is one of the things that i would like _ draconian rule? this is one of the things that i would like to - draconian rule? this is one of the things that i would like to be - things that i would like to be able to do is sit down with them and really have a talk, and find out, what is the reasoning behind all of this? what is it that they really want to do to the women of

afghanistan? because now it is completely confusing. i don't get it. this is no longer being a raised, this is annihilation of the afghan women. i don't understand it. why is it so? why are we suddenly, the society, the people of this country, of the 35 million, a0 million or whatever, and we are not supposed to be even acknowledged? we are supposed to just disappear. how, what? what have we done? thank you ve much what? what have we done? thank you very much for— what? what have we done? thank you very much forjoining _ what? what have we done? thank you very much forjoining us _ what? what have we done? thank you very much forjoining us tonight. - very much forjoining us tonight. thank you. for almost a year, newsnight has been investigating serious problems and governance failings at university hospitals birmingham, one of the biggest nhs trusts in the country. in the course of our investigation we came across an organisation that reviewed the trust in 2019, around the time it was facing serious problems.

but that review by management consultants the good governance institute found there were no significant issues of concern. how could that be? and who are the good governance institute? one of the interesting features of our investigation into one of england's biggest and worst— performing trusts is how often it was assessed as "well run" by external reviewers, despite serious and ongoing problems. i and other consultants have raised concerns about patient safety. and we realised if you do that you will get punished quite quickly and quite harshly. in 2019, uhb's leadership was rated as "outstanding" by the care quality commission. the same year, an organisation called the good governance institute found no serious concerns about the way it was led. however, as a result of our investigation,

the trust has been completely restructured with a new chief executive, a new trust chair and several new board members and board structures. we wanted to understand how the problems at uhb had been apparently unnoticed for so long. there is a growing market for nhs reviews that is costing taxpayers millions. what's not clear is whether patients and nhs staff are being well served. the use of external consultants in the nhs has grown in recent years. we carried out a study looking at nhs trusts in england and they on average used consultants and spent about 1.2 million each per year. we're going to be bringing you the most up to date news on the governance that matters for the nhs, for higher education and all the clients we work with. the good governance institute may sound like an academic or regulatory body, but it's not. it's a private company.

as well as producing videos like this, it also serves the huge and growing market for nhs reviews. according to their website, they've reviewed 600 nhs boards in the last 12 years. according to figures we've obtained through freedom of information requests, since 2015 the nhs has spent nearly £10 million with the good governance institute. in 2019, the good governance institute was paid £72,000 by uhb to, among other things, conduct a developmental, well led review into how the trust was run. it found no significant issues of substance or immediate concern, although it did make 16 less serious recommendations on cultural and governance issues. and yet we know from subsequent official inquiries and reviews that uhb did have significant issues

of concern, particularly on the way it was governed. we wanted to understand how the nhs could spend so much public money on a well—led review of a struggling trust and yet not uncover any issues of substantial concern. but, as we discovered, there are several different sorts of review with different — and sometimes overlapping — criteria. the nss requires trusts to carry out a so called developmental, well—led review every three to five years. that's to look at leadership and to identify areas for development. ggi point out that a developmental, well—led review is forward—looking, examining how the board's performance can be improved in the future, and that these past failures were outside the scope of the review. if true, it raises the question as to why the nhs has put in place a review system, provided by external companies and paid for by public money,

which is so narrow in scope that it is incapable of identifying some of the serious governance issues that occurred at uhb, especially when the cqc or care quality commission's own quality checks, done either side of ggi's 2019 review, failed to pick up these issues. this means that not enough attention was focused on patient safety concerns. we found no evidence that the good governance institute did anything wrong in its assessment of uhb. but beyond the question over the way the nss commissions reviews, newsnight has discovered information which raises questions, too, about the nature of some of the organisations they're choosing to commission. this is andrew corbett—nolan, who's chief executive of the good governance institute. we wanted to understand who exactly

this organisation is and how it became so embedded in nhs governance reviews. its registered address is a flat inside this luxury residential block on the banks of the thames in london. to stop business owners misleading people about the standing of their company, using the word institute in the uk requires the permission of the secretary of state for business, who will only give approval for organisations that typically undertake research at the highest level or are professional bodies of the highest standing. that doesn't seem to apply to the good governance institute. andrew corbett—nolan appears to be trying to get round the rules by having registered a shell company under the name good governance institute, in the irish republic, where there's no such naming restriction. according to the latest available accounts, the irish company has no assets or staff. indeed, it doesn't appear to conduct any business whatsoever. it's difficult to understand

the reason for this irish company, other than for mr corbett—nolan to use the term "institute" and therefore exaggerate the academic or professional standing of his company. the uk government agency that regulates company names and registrations is companies house. in a statement, they told us it is an offence to use the word "institute" in a trading name without prior approval. they told us they have written to the good governance institute requesting they stop using "institute" and we await their comments. as for the apparent use of an irish company to get around the rules, they told us, "the law around use of the word institute in other "jurisdictions has no bearing on this case." in a statement, mr corbett—nolan told us...

very grateful... according to the ggi website, andrew corbett—nolan is a professor. here he is titled professor on this good governance institute youtube video from march this year. according to his linkedin profile, andrew is a visiting professor at the university of chester. the university told us that he had been a visiting professor, but this arrangement ceased a year ago. mr corbett—nolan told us he hadn't been informed that his visiting professorship had ended a year ago and has now removed the title from his website. prior to using the title "professor", mr corbett—nolan was repeatedly and wrongly referred to publicly as dr andrew corbett—nolan. in a health care journal article that he wrote in 2008, at this

medical conference in edinburgh in 2016, which was sponsored by the good governance institute. at this good governance institute event at a health care conference in 2017, his colleague from the good governance institute, who also only held a bachelor's degree, was also billed as a doctor. and in a conference and event and report in 2018, written by the good governance institute, in conjunction with the royal college of physicians of edinburgh. mr corbett—nolan told us that this title was the result of an honest mistake by the college. regarding the other occasions, he told us it is not uncommon for people in the health world to be mistakenly referred to as "doctor" when speaking publicly. the director of consultancy and principal consultant of the good governance institute, and also the company's ethical compliance officer, is mason fitzgerald. in 2021, mr fitzgerald was due to become chief executive of the norfolk and suffolk nhs trust.

instead, he was sacked from the nhs after a bbc investigation discovered that he didn't actually possess a master of laws qualification that appeared alongside his name in trust documents. at the time, mr fitzgerald said he was dismissed for "neglect in not correcting an error "about my profile in annual reports". he said it was a decision he fully accepted and that he was determined to use the experience to help others avoid the mistakes he made. in a statement, mr fitzgerald told us, i've worked at ggi for two years and no concerns have ever been raised about my performance in my role. mr corbett—nolan describes him as talented and experienced, but does point out that on some assignments, clients have asked that he is not used, and we respect that — but this is rare. the patients' lives depend on probity and sound governance. minh alexander is a former consultant psychiatrist

who now campaigns on whistle—blowing in the nhs. she's used numerous freedom of information requests to try to get information about mason fitzgerald and the good governance institute. if it does work for the nhs, which it seems to do, what are the probity implications? if this organisation purports to review the governance of nhs organisations, it should be utterly trustworthy and beyond reproach, because ultimately lives may depend on it. and yet there is this huge question of what it was doing, hiring this person who had been sacked by the nhs. there is no suggestion that ggi, andrew corbett—nolan or mr fitzgerald have done anything wrong in relation to any of the several hundreds of nhs reviews that they say their organisation has done. but some believe questions over the organisation and its leadership team have wider implications

for the nhs. rachael maskell is vice chair the commons health and social care select committee. i think there's two things that we need to look at. first of all, we need to look at the due diligence which is exercised over the procuring of services from management consultants, and ask the big question, why do we need to put that to an external private provider as opposed to seeing a proper statutory route in order to investigate organisations and to ensure that they are then following a course of recovery and improvement. and, secondly, we need to look at the costs. do you think the taxpayer is getting value for money out of this? well, when we see that there's millions of pounds being spent on consultants, we've got to ask the question why that money is being spent, where it is being spent, and on who it is being spent. so the research that i'm doing is looking at the role of management consultants in the nhs. andrew sturdy is a professor of organisation and management. his research suggests

something surprising that use of management consultants, far from saving hospitals money actually increases their inefficiency. consultancies are a business. when you're selling something that's difficult to evaluate, it relies on relationships and trust. otherwise you have to cold sell each time, i suppose. so they have a strong interest in repeat business, selling on more business to to clients. so that encourages them not to say things that might upset clients. the phrase that's often used is they're servants of power. it's very difficult for people to be paid to tell the client that they're incompetent, not doing things properly. there is clearly a value in making sure that the organisations on which we depend to treat us when we fall ill are healthy and well—run themselves. it seems that badly dysfunctional trusts can receive favourable reviews. one question that perhaps needs asking is the system designed to test nhs governance itself well governed?

the investigation produced by sean clare. university hospitals birmingham said ggi were chosen to carry out the well led review in 2019 because of their understanding of the nhs and uhb. they said changes were introduced in january to strengthen oversight and scrutiny arrangements at the trust. an nhs england spokesperson said all funding given to third parties is scrutinised and in line with public contracting regulations. procurements led by nhs trusts like uhb would have been managed at local and regional levels, they added. the fifa women's world cup opens in australia and new zealand tomorrow with 32 nations taking part, and england play theirfirst match on saturday against haiti. the big message that the un in partnership with fifa are promoting is gender equality. the women's game has come

a long way but still has a very long way to go — and our two guests reflect both these truths. chris lockwood in the england team in 1971 when they were barred by fifa from the world cup and had to play an unofficial tournament in mexico. and mahy kawtar is an under—23 player for morocco. the national team is playing in its first world cup and in another first is the only arab country to take part. good evening to both of you. first of all, mahy kawtar, what has it been like growing up in a country that backs women's football so well, and girls football?— and girls football? first, morocco is the most _ and girls football? first, morocco is the most popular _ and girls football? first, morocco is the most popular sport, - and girls football? first, morocco l is the most popular sport, football, everybody likes to play and watch football, that is how we grow. play

football, that is how we grow. play football in any place, on the beach, on the field, on the street. teiiii on the field, on the street. tell me, on the field, on the street. tell me. there _ on the field, on the street. tell me. there is — on the field, on the street. tell me, there is no _ on the field, on the street. tell me, there is no distinction, no preference given to boys over girls in morocco, am i right in saying? there is as much attention given to girls football boys football? yes. girls football boys football? yes, that was before. _ girls football boys football? yes, that was before. before - girls football boys football? yes that was before. before the media put more light on girls playing football. but in the last few years, they put more games on tv. more people watch the games, and go to watch the games on the field. that wasn't before. bhd watch the games on the field. that wasn't before.— wasn't before. and do you think all the publicity _ wasn't before. and do you think all the publicity around _ wasn't before. and do you think all the publicity around this _ wasn't before. and do you think all the publicity around this world - wasn't before. and do you think all the publicity around this world cup will expand women's football in the arab world? 0bviously morocco is a leader in this. arab world? obviously morocco is a leader in this.— arab world? obviously morocco is a leader in this._ chris i leader in this. yes, ithink. chris lockwood. _ leader in this. yes, ithink. chris lockwood, this _ leader in this. yes, ithink. chris lockwood, this is _ leader in this. yes, ithink. chris lockwood, this is a _ leader in this. yes, ithink. chris lockwood, this is a completely l lockwood, this is a completely different generation. growing up in

a country where women's football and girls football is embraced. i wonder, when you went to mexico, you were 15 years old. explain what happened. were 15 years old. explain what happened-— were 15 years old. explain what ha ened. ~ ., ., happened. well, the manager came round to my — happened. well, the manager came round to my house, _ happened. well, the manager came round to my house, and _ happened. well, the manager came round to my house, and asked i happened. well, the manager came round to my house, and asked my l happened. well, the manager came i round to my house, and asked my mum and dad if i would like to go and play in mexico. i'd previously been to sicily for the qualifying rounds. and one of our players, she was only 13, sewed off so and one of our players, she was only 13. sewed of— 13, sewed off so you went there unofficially? _ 13, sewed off so you went there unofficially? unofficially, - 13, sewed off so you went there unofficially? unofficially, yeah. | unofficially? unofficially, yeah. what was the _ unofficially? unofficially, yeah. what was the response - unofficially? unofficially, yeah. what was the response when i unofficially? unofficially, yeah. l what was the response when you unofficially? unofficially, yeah. - what was the response when you went there unofficially? what happened? they took us as british independents, because there was not an england team anyway, but there was some argument. you an england team anyway, but there was some argument.— was some argument. you are not allowed to — was some argument. you are not allowed to be — was some argument. you are not allowed to be an _ was some argument. you are not allowed to be an england - was some argument. you are not allowed to be an england team. ij was some argument. you are not i allowed to be an england team. i was 15 and i

allowed to be an england team. i was 15 and ijust— allowed to be an england team. i was 15 and i just wanted _ allowed to be an england team. i was 15 and i just wanted to _ allowed to be an england team. i was 15 and i just wanted to play _ 15 and ijust wanted to play football. so i wasjust 15 and ijust wanted to play football. so i was just happy to go. but we didn't know the magnitude of what it was when we got to mexico. although we called ourselves british independents, as soon as we got there, we were england, and it was massive. the crowds were massive. it was a complete success.— was a complete success. there you are. it was a complete success. there you are- it was — was a complete success. there you are. it was commercial, _ was a complete success. there you are. it was commercial, huge i was a complete success. there you i are. it was commercial, huge crowds. and then when you came back to england, you came back with a bump? yes, because we were out there, and it was like stardom, there were 85,000 when we played mexico in the stadium. and the final, which was mexico in the 85,000 when we played mexico in the stadium. and the final, which was denmark and mexico, 115,000. so, denmark and mexico, 115,000. so, when we came home, we thought we had when we came home, we thought we had cracked it and women's football had cracked it and women's football had just started flying. and when we just started flying. and when we came back, we came back to nothing. came back, we came back to nothing.

not only did you come back do nothing, you were banned for three months. and fifa took two decades to allow women's football. in that intervening period, was it frustrating and depressing? brute intervening period, was it frustrating and depressing? we 'ust wanted to play. fl frustrating and depressing? we 'ust wanted to play, some i frustrating and depressing? we 'ust wanted to play, some of i frustrating and depressing? we 'ust wanted to play, some of the i frustrating and depressing? we just wanted to play, some of the older. wanted to play, some of the older girls got a six—month ban, some of them did not carry on playing. but three of us, the three younger ones carried on. ~ , three of us, the three younger ones carried on-— carried on. why were you banned, because you _