house of commons and that committee uses our report to hold to account for the senior civil servants who are responsible for the areas we are reviewing. in this case, the publicwhere they seek evidence from the civil servants who oversaw these processes. that is a chance for a public accountability process that everybody can tune in to and understand the answers given. i think there is a crucial part of the way in which government is held to account by parliament for its spending. i mean, the chair of the public accounts committee has said this could be the tip of the iceberg. how damaging could these findings be for the government? the important thing is to act on the findings. so already some of the processes government is findings. so already some of the processes government is following, it is out of the initial incredibly pressured phase of the pandemic but we are still dealing with extreme demands on public services. so it is good that the department has tightened up the due diligence processes that were carried out on the companies. we have seen evidence of that. what we now need to see is the backlog of publication of these contracts cleared quickly,

the officials were appearing before the public accounts committee, which has been looking at how prepared 12 reports as a committee. the national audit office has called over this. so why are we still facing some of the same issues and asking the same questions about preparedness this late on? in march, the watchdog the national audit office said eight of the nine major government programmes were "high—risk" or red. that score today stands at one of those nine programmes that is still red, which is trade readiness. so we think that's a measure of the degree of progress that we have made in relation to the systems, and infrastructure, customs intermediaries, and data sharing all these other important necessary aspects of being ready for the border at the end of the year. we are five weeks away from the end of the year. so what are your biggest worries? i think first of all i would pick out, as the nao did, just the sheer scale of the operation means that there are literally many moving parts. so many things have to change at one time that inevitably there is going to be some difficulties f

been raised notjust on these benches, but by the national audit office in the cross party public accounts committee making this issue political of reminders and the benches of us that we are not the only ones who have questions this process. the reason why it's pretty political is because the government made it so in the first place by gerrymandering this fund. to follow the advice rest of it severance, are excellent civil service in the department, it's a pity they tried to cast aspersions over them. follow their advice by slashing the 40 most highly ranked towns and smaller cities that their methodology grew up. it's a surprise to me he is such great enthusiasm for algorithm —based policymaking, i think we learned of the last year a degree of judgement and qualitative analysis is useful. is that in addition to those 40 places we must also use ourjudgement to select other places to be included. why did the secretary of state of his own constituents i helped to secure a £25 million town steel which will make the town centre more attractive pace to spend time in despite claiming not to have been inv

well, i, if, when i was on the public accounts committee of public spending watchdog here in parliament, i looked at certain events detail and, you know, have a look at exactly how they do things. and of course, sometimes they've made mistakes. you make the point around minister of justice, but of course it is right and completely proper. they have a contract, but company who is trying to deliver what it's been asked to do. and nobody is saying that the reason why the testing traces them is not. is because of circuit it is because of the huge complex you're doing, trying, but what this country is trying to do any deep what lots of other countries are also struggling with doing it is wrong to suggest that somehow there's something in a judgment about using an offensive efficient private company to try and help deliver public goods. because if you don't believe any private company should be involved with any, then you should say, well, why such an interesting is you've set an interesting precedent here. a record of gross misconduct is no bar to getting contracts from this government. i'm

well, i, if, when i was on the public accounts committee of public spending watchdog here in parliament, i looked at certain events detail and, you know, have a look at exactly how they do things. and of course, sometimes they've made mistakes. you make the point around minister of justice, but of course it is right and completely proper. they have a contract, but company who is trying to deliver what it's been asked to do. and nobody is saying the reason why the testing traces them is not, is because of circuit it is because of the huge complex you're doing trying, but what this country is trying to do, and indeed what lots of other countries are also struggling with doing it is wrong to suggest somehow there's something in a judgment about using an offensive, efficient private company to try and help deliver public goods. because if you don't believe that any private company should be involved with anything, then you should say, well, why such an interesting steve set an interesting precedent here. a record of gross misconduct is no bar to getting contracts from this government. and i

looking into the matter, the commons spending watchdog, the public accounts committee, found that thetransparency, the report said, could fuel accusations of political bias — accusations made forcefully by labour's shadow communities secretary. there is growing public concern that the secretary of state may have misused taxpayers' money from the 5.6 billion towns fund to boost the conservative party's general election campaign. but he can easily clear the matter up. will he publish in full the accounting officer's advice and the full criteria that he and the former minister of state used when they blocked funding for towns ranked amongst the 100 most deprived, and instead funnelled millions of pounds to each other‘s constituencies ahead of the general election? well, mr speaker, the department has already made clear that a robust process was established — in fact, established before i became secretary of state. it was followed to the letter, and we will not apologise — we will not apologise for investing in communities that have been under—invested in and undervalued by the party oppo

well, i, if, when i was on the public accounts committee of public spending watchdog here in parliament, i looked at certain events details. and, you know, have a look at exact how they do things. and of course, sometimes they've made mistakes. you make the point around minister of justice, but of course it is right and completely proper. they have a contract, but company who is trying to deliver what it's been asked to do. and nobody is saying the reason why the testing traces them not is because of circuit it is because of the huge complex you're doing or trying what this country's trying to do and in the what lots of other countries are also struggling with doing it is wrong to suggest that somehow there's something in a judgement about using an offensive, efficient private company to try and help deliver public goods. because if you don't believe any private company should be involved with any, then you should say, well, why such an interesting is you've set an interesting precedent here. a record of gross misconduct is no bar to getting contracts from this government. i'm puzzled t

well, i, if, when i was on the public accounts committee of public spending watchdog here in parliament, i looked at certain events details and, you know, have a look at exactly how they do things. and of course, sometimes they've made mistakes. you make the point around minister of justice, but of course it is right and completely proper. they have a contract, but company who is trying to deliver what it's been asked to do. and nobody is saying that reason why the testing traces them not is because of circuit it is because of the huge complex you're doing or trying what this country's trying to do . i mean, the lots of other countries are also struggling with doing it is wrong to suggest that somehow there's something in a judgement about using an offensive efficient private company to try and help deliver public goods. because if you don't believe that any private company should be involved with anything, then you should say, well, why such an interesting is you've set an interesting precedent here. a record of gross misconduct is no bar to getting contracts from this government. i'm

well i, if, when i was on the public accounts committee of public spending watched or here in parliament, i looked at certain events detail. and, you know, have a look at exact how they do things. and of course, sometimes they've made mistakes. you make the point around minister of justice, but of course it is right and completely proper to give a contract, but company who is trying to deliver what it's been asked to do. and nobody is saying the reason why the testing traces them. it's not, it's been cause a circle, it is because of the huge complex you're doing, we're trying, but what this country is trying to do, and indeed what lots of other countries are also struggling with doing it is wrong to suggest that somehow there's something in a judgement about using an offensive, efficient private company to try and help deliver public goods. because if you don't believe any private company should be involved with any, then you should say, well, why such an interesting is you've set an interesting precedent here. a record of gross misconduct is no bar to getting contracts from this governm

account by parliament for its spending. the chair of the public accou nts spending. the chair of the public accounts committeese findings be for the government? the important thing is to act on the findings. so already, some of the processes the government is following, clearly it is out of the initially incredibly pressured phase of the pandemic but we are still dealing with extreme demands on public services. so it is good that the department here have tightened up the department here have tightened up the due diligence processes that we re up the due diligence processes that were carried out on the companies we have seen evidence of that. what we now need to see is the backlog of publication of these contracts cleared quickly, so that everything is in the public domain, and then for consistent standards of documentation and transparency to be maintained from now on. thank you, gareth davies, the head of the mao. this is, as he said, about public trust. people want to see a transparent system, or some people at least that we have been speaking to say they want to know what steps have been taken. there will

well i, if, when i was on the public accounts committee, public spending watchdog here in parliament, i looked at certain events detail and, you know, have a look at exactly how they do things. and of course, sometimes they've made mistakes. you make the point around minister of justice, but of course it is right and completely proper gave a contract, but company who is trying to deliver what it's been asked to do. and nobody is saying the reason why the testing traces them to not is because of circuit it is because of the huge complex you're doing or trying what this country's trying to do . i mean, the, what lots of other countries are also struggling with doing it is wrong to suggest that somehow there's something in a judgment about using an offensive efficient private company to try and help deliver public goods. because if you don't believe any private company should be involved with anything, then you should say, well, why such an interesting is you've set an interesting precedent here. a record of gross misconduct is no bar to getting contracts from this government. i'm puzzle

and there's been very critical reports from people like the national audit office and the public accounts committeento the frame now and take responsibility. yes, of course local councils have their own responsibilities, but ultimately, if thatis responsibilities, but ultimately, if that is not happening, the government needs to step up and make sure that they know how many places are needed, that there is a plan in place and importantly, funding is there to back the creation of the places. anne longfield, thank you very much. the high court is due to start considering whether an american woman implicated in the death of a british teenager had diplomatic immunity. harry dunn, who was 19, died after his motorbike collided with a car being driven on the wrong side of the road in northamptonshire. anne sacoolas was driving. she's the wife of a us intelligence officer and she returned to the us after the crash last year. mr dunn's parents are disputing the foreign office's insistence that she was entitled to claim immunity. the treasury is being challenged to help thousands of home owners trapped on le

there have been very critical reports from people like the national audit office and the public accounts committeemately, if that is not happening, government needs to step up and they need to make sure they know how many places are needed, that there is a plan in place and importantly, funding there. the north of england has been hit harder by coronavirus than the rest of the country, according to a new study. the research, led by the universities of newcastle, manchester, york and liverpool found that pre—existing inequalities were made worse by the pandemic. the report also found more people in northern england died of the virus between march and july than elsewhere in the country. dying of all causes and also specifically of covid—19. we'll be speaking to the author of that report later this hour. conservative backbenchers have formed a group to oppose any extension to the lockdown in england. the covid recovery group, made up of 50 mp5, says shutdowns are destroying the economy and leading to "untold" health problems. the group also wants more scrutiny of the government's scientific advisers.

effort on the part of the public, and we need to have greater public accountability and meetings to gather public input, but that's what this committeehould be doing, and we don't have to set up subcommittees, in my opinion, to do that. >> i have a question for you. are you okay with the liaison proposal that we have on the table? >> i like the liaison proposal that we have on the table very much, and i would be reluctant to identify five or six different areas of liaison right now unless we know very clearly what we expect these liaisons to do. for example, housing pipeline, let's say we want to really wrap ourselves around this might be good, tell someone to appoint someone to go and do a little digging. it 'seems like that's going to be do with mohcd and h.s.h. we work with controller's office to draw whatever type of dashboard we want related to that, and we go back to committee, but i'd say more on an ad hoc basis -- if we need a housing pipeline liaison, for two months, we get it, rather than set it in place and somebody for the next year has to figure out what to do. i think we all have too much to do in any of our current act

i am interested in your role on the parliamentary committee that scrutinises, holds to account the government on all things publicng central to that. the head of amnesty international, kate allen, she said this of the record of the government on care homes and protecting the most elderly and vulnerable in the uk community. she said, "the government has made a series of shockingly irresponsible decisions which effectively abandoned care home residents to die. discharged without being tested, thousands of older people were sent to care homes at great risk to themselves, to other residents, and to staff. the appalling death toll was entirely avoidable. it is a scandal of monumental proportions." where is the accountability for what happened in the care homes? well, i think the government is being held to account by my select committee, but by people like kate allen, by the media. and it is very clear that there were lots of things done in other countries that we should have done here and we didn't. for example, in germany, care homes weren't allowed to receive patients from hospitals unless they could quarantine the

committee played. in the particular way in which america reacted. congressional form, designed with the transparency and accountability, in combination with the very public fall from grace, opened the door for increased public participation in tax policy. perhaps most important, however, politicization of tax policy. with the collapse of the democratic coalition, after hubert humphrey defeat that year, a widely interpreted as the deviation of the free states society. after that defeat, after the strategist of the secrets both on left in the right, sought out ways to have a political bible or when you order. while leading democrats look for ways to reinvent barney, and offer a coherent post great society agenda, gop leaders sought out ways to consolidate their build off the party's recent accessible to the white house in the middle classes. something richard nixon famously called the silent majority. they held out hope for both the left and right, he had not in this post 16th period. and as you can see from this chart, they became increasingly important to both party platforms after -- between 1960 and 1980. going up from sort of republican platform here

accountability in the campaign-finance system but commissioners are public figures and have a broader response body to promote the integrity in our elections. >> i know i don't often get to make committees and have gone beyond my time so i will ask my last question so thank you. >> there will be a chances for questions for the record as well. >> i also want to thank senator warner for his work.te it's worth mentioning him. >> duly noted. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank everyone for being here today. it's really important we have this position. 's been in the for a while. i ju have a question on, how will your personal views or evious work affect decisions you might make onuestions that come before you a commissioner and how do you go aut recusing yourself if you thought there was a need? >> thank you. i'll take the first shot at that because i am the person appear who has represented clients most recently. in terms of the recusal process, i expect my clients, colleagues to file letters of the coission, outlining responsibility's to recuse. i would add just personally, i consider those roles, i imagine cases in which the perception of entanglement would lead me to recuse. that would

committees. the department is also required to conduct mandatory audits of public financing audits. however, those are conducted by a private accounting firm on behalf of the ethics commission. so for the 2016 election cycle, it took the audit division approximately 21 months on average to complete these audits. and the last audit wasn't issued until december 2019 and more than three years after the election. long audit timeline reduce the reliantcy of audit findings for the public. the investigation division has to complete an investigation after the audit is completed. we did compare the 2016 election cycle to the 2018 election cycle, as you can see here. at the time of our review, only one audit had been completed. but it did appear as though the department was on track to reduce these audit timelines considerably, in particular they reduced the amount of time to start a given audit from about 14.4 months in 2016 to 4.3 months. or a reduction of ten months. however, we do think that there's still improvements are needed in reducing these timelines. the ethics commission is also required to conduct at least one lobbyist audit per ye

committees. the department is also required to conduct mandatory audits of public financing audits. however, those are conducted by a private accounting firm on behalf of the ethics commission. so for the 2016 election cycle, it took the audit division approximately 21 months on average to complete these audits. and the last audit wasn't issued until december 2019 and more than three years after the election. long audit timeline reduce the reliantcy of audit findings for the public. the investigation division has to complete an investigation after the audit is completed. we did compare the 2016 election cycle to the 2018 election cycle, as you can see here. at the time of our review, only one audit had been completed. but it did appear as though the department was on track to reduce these audit timelines considerably, in particular they reduced the amount of time to start a given audit from about 14.4 months in 2016 to 4.3 months. or a reduction of ten months. however, we do think that there's still improvements are needed in reducing these timelines. the ethics commission is also required to conduct at least one lobbyist audit per ye

committees. the department is also required to conduct mandatory audits of public financing audits. however, those are conducted by a private accounting firm on behalf of the ethics commission. so for the 2016 election cycle, it took the audit division approximately 21 months on average to complete these audits. and the last audit wasn't issued until december 2019 and more than three years after the election. long audit timeline reduce the reliantcy of audit findings for the public. the investigation division has to complete an investigation after the audit is completed. we did compare the 2016 election cycle to the 2018 election cycle, as you can see here. at the time of our review, only one audit had been completed. but it did appear as though the department was on track to reduce these audit timelines considerably, in particular they reduced the amount of time to start a given audit from about 14.4 months in 2016 to 4.3 months. or a reduction of ten months. however, we do think that there's still improvements are needed in reducing these timelines. the ethics commission is also required to conduct at least one lobbyist audit per ye

committees. the department is also required to conduct mandatory audits of public financing audits. however, those are conducted by a private accounting firm on behalf of the ethics commission. so for the 2016 election cycle, it took the audit division approximately 21 months on average to complete these audits. and the last audit wasn't issued until december 2019 and more than three years after the election. long audit timeline reduce the reliantcy of audit findings for the public. the investigation division has to complete an investigation after the audit is completed. we did compare the 2016 election cycle to the 2018 election cycle, as you can see here. at the time of our review, only one audit had been completed. but it did appear as though the department was on track to reduce these audit timelines considerably, in particular they reduced the amount of time to start a given audit from about 14.4 months in 2016 to 4.3 months. or a reduction of ten months. however, we do think that there's still improvements are needed in reducing these timelines. the ethics commission is also required to conduct at least one lobbyist audit per ye