Afternoon summary
- The Treasury and the Bank of England have revealed more details of the extent of David Cameron’s lobbying on behalf of Greensill Capital last year. This morning Sir Tom Scholar, the permanent secretary at the Treasury, told a committee that he took a call from Cameron about Greensill because he would always respond to a call from a minister he had worked with in the past. (See 10.54am and 11.02am.) And the documents released by the Bank of England show that Cameron told Jon Cunliffe, his Europe adviser when he started as PM and now the deputy governor at the BoE, that it was “incredibly frustrating” that the Treasury would not agree to including Greensill in its Covid corporate financing facility (CCFF). (See page 23 here.) But Cameron’s lobbying efforts failed, he could not get the Treasury to change its mind, and Greensill subsequently went bust.
- The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said Scottish Labour’s election manifesto contains “an enormous number of pledges”, including a significant expansion of childcare and social provision, and hefty investment in public services. But, as Severin Carrell reports, the IFS questions in a briefing how Labour would pay for it, estimating the £4.5bn which Labour says it would cost, exceeds Holyrood’s current budgets. Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, insisted today it was costed; much came from existing spending pledges, but borrowing would also be needed.
That’s all from me for today. But our coronavirus coverage continues on our global live blog. It’s here.
Updated
![Sir Keir Starmer (left) talking to AONB [Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty] Partnership chair Andy Worthington during a walkabout in Llangollen in Wales.](https://media.guim.co.uk/f20a4236b6eef4a7b4d9f09d01cf2605935b58a0/154_119_2238_3024/740.jpg)
Updated
The equality watchdog accused the authors of the controversial Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report of creating a “false dichotomy” about the underlying reasons for racial disparity before it was published, my colleague Aubrey Allegretti reports.
'I must be missing something here' – how Cameron asked his former No 10 adviser now at BoE for help winning round Treasury
The emails released by the Bank of England (see 3.54pm) show how David Cameron’s tone changed considerably as it became clear that his firm, Greensill Capital, would not get access to the Covid corporate financing facility (CCFF).
When he first contacted the Bank of England, on 5 March, he pitched his approach in terms of “how can we help”. This is what he wrote in an email to Jon Cunliffe, the bank’s deputy governor.
I have a quick question for you, concerning what the governor meant in his remarks about supply chain finance.
I do a lot of work with Greensill Capital, now the world leaders in this space. We would be keen to help ...
Cunliffe was the EU adviser in No 10 when Cameron became PM and later worked as the UK’s ambassador to the EU before joining the bank. In his email Cameron invites Cunliffe to call “on my old number”.
But in April, after Greensill has been turned down, Cameron starts sounding more aggrieved. This is what he wrote to Cunliffe on 3 April.
Jon
Am writing to ask for your help. Greensill – who I work with – have had numerous conversations with HMT but have failed to get anywhere.
The request is simple – please include in the CCFF the ability to purchase bonds issued in respect of supply chain finance. These allow us to pump billions into SMEs, (including every pharmacy that works with the NHS).
We have dealt with every objection. You use foreign currencies? We will only issue in sterling. You support foreign supply chains? We will only use the facility for those that are predominantly British.
HMT seem to be hung up on the fact that the CCFF is there for “non-financial” corporates and these bonds are being issued by a financial institution. This is surely irrelevant – the money goes straight into non-financial corporates, mostly SMEs.
At a time when we are rightly worried about how quickly banks can get loans out to small businesses, why are we potentially cutting off a market that already pumps cheap credit directly into SMEs?
I think I must be missing something here. Am obviously talking to HMT, but would be grateful for any light you could shed on this .....
All good wishes. Dc
Updated
Bank of England publishes details of how David Cameron lobbied it on behalf of Greensill Capital
The Bank of England has released details of the calls and emails it had from David Cameron, the former prime minister, when he was lobbying it on behalf of Greensill Capital last year.
In a statement summarising the contacts, the Bank says Cameron contacted it twice in March last year to set up a meeting with Lex Greensill, the Greensill Capital boss. A call then took place on 17 March involving Greensill, Cameron and Bank officials.
After Greensill Capital was told it was not eligible for the Covid corporate financing facility (CCFF), Cameron contacted the Bank again twice in April “asking for clarity” on why Greensill did not qualify and pushing further meeting with Greensill. That led to the Bank having a further conversation with Greensill on 24 April.
After this the Treasury launched a consultation, after discussions with the Bank, on broadening the scope of the CCFF so that supply chain finance firms like Greensill Capital might be included. Greensill had several meetings with the Bank and the Treasury as part of this process. But ultimately no changes were made to the CCFF scheme.
A 24-page file with copies of the relevant emails and letters is here (pdf).
Updated
In the Commons MPs are debating a backbench motion tabled by the Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani saying that the Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, China are “suffering crimes against humanity and genocide”. Addressing a Uyghur protest in Parliament Square to coincide with the debate, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader and a supporter of Ghani’s campaign, said:
We are determined that parliament today will set a historic moment in calling out what I believe is genocide and which I believe parliament will decree today is genocide.
Even though the government has said only a court can declare genocide, parliament is independent and can declare it as it wishes.
And I hope today at the end of the debate it will be clear that nobody in parliament disagrees, and therefore parliament agrees that what is happening to the Uyghur people is genocide.
Updated
Sir Keir Starmer has praised Mark Drakeford, the Welsh first minister, for his leadership on a joint election visit in north Wales today. Starmer said:
[Drakeford’s] leadership has been extremely good in this pandemic and I’ve been talking to people of all different political persuasions who say that Mark Drakeford and Welsh Labour have led through this pandemic very carefully in a reassuring way, that has taken Wales through a very, very difficult period.
And that is his record that he’s proudly standing on. Coupled with that he’s got the ambition for the future.
Andy Street, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, has a nine-point lead over his Labour rival, Liam Byrne, ahead of next month’s election, according to a poll by Redfield and Wilton Strategies.
West Midlands Mayor Voting Intention (18-21 April 2021):
— Redfield & Wilton Strategies (@RedfieldWilton) April 22, 2021
Andy Street (Conservative) 46%
Liam Byrne (Labour Co-Op) 37%
Jenny Wilkinson (Liberal Democrats) 6%
Steve Caudwell (Green) 5%
Pete Durnell (Reform UK) 4%
Other 3%https://t.co/rkB8cN1Qqk pic.twitter.com/Fy8KF9eQBr
Updated
Kate Garraway has said there have been “lots of little positives” since her husband, Derek Draper, returned home recently after a year in hospital where he was very seriously ill with Covid-19. Speaking on Good Morning Britain, she said:
It’s been wonderful having Derek home and there are lots of little positives. There are little moments of reaction and he actually said something the other day.
I walked in the other morning ... and he said, ‘New dress?’ which was just amazing. And it was, actually!
So I thought it was amazing on so many levels because he recognised it [and] he realised and remembered that I need a lot of flattery, so there was some emotional connection there.
It was just a little moment and then, of course, there was nothing.
Garraway said it was unclear whether the “positives” were because being at home was “genuinely helping his cognition” or “because I’m there to see the little things”.
As PM Media reports, Draper has been taken off all machines and breathing apparatus but receives care at home, which Garraway adapted in his absence to make it more accessible. Last month ITV broadcast Finding Derek, a documentary exploring his illness and its effect on their two children. One scene saw Garraway recall being told by Draper’s doctors that he was the most seriously ill person they had seen who remained alive.
Updated
David Cameron lobbied top Treasury official by phone, MPs told
Here is my colleague Rajeev Syal’s story about the public accounts committee hearing on Greensill Capital earlier.
A total of 37,238,073 Covid-19 vaccinations took place in England between December 8 and April 21, according to NHS England data, including first and second doses, which is a rise of 432,476 on the previous day.
As PA Media reports, NHS England said 27,891,208 were the first dose of a vaccine, a rise of 92,703 on the previous day, while 9,346,865 were a second dose, an increase of 339,773.
Updated
In an article for the Spectator, Lee Cain, who was Boris Johnson’s director of communications until he left last year after losing out in a No 10 power struggle, says “class-based bias” is still prevalent in Westminster. Cain, who grew up in Ormskirk in Lancashire in a family where no one had been to university, praises Boris Johnson for his commitment to a “levelling up” agenda, but suggests others in government made him feel unwelcome. He says:
My experiences in Westminster made it easy to see why young working-class women and men struggle to get ahead. Class-based bias still exists. I lost count of the times I was branded a ‘bruiser’, ‘thuggish’ or even an ‘oik’ for the twin crimes of having a strong northern accent and shaved hair. Luckily I have a skin thicker than my accent. I also had employers, especially Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who judged me only on my abilities, not my background. But when I first entered Downing Street I got the distinct feeling that some senior officials thought I should be content simply to be there. The clear message was: you’ve come a long way, don’t overreach now.
Asked about Cain’s comments, the PM’s spokesman told journalists at the lobby briefing:
I think there’s a great deal of work going on across the civil service to improve diversity, that’s been going on for some time. And I think the civil service recognises there’s still more work to do.
Updated
It has emerged today that Sir James Dyson has moved his primary residency back to the UK from Singapore.
The Evening Standard’s Joe Murphy has a theory as to why.
Helo hello - this is surely a sign that a peerage has been lined up for the tycoon at the centre of the tax texts row.
— Joe Murphy (@JoeMurphyLondon) April 22, 2021
Why else would billionaire Sir James Dyson have quietly moved his primary address back to the UK .... https://t.co/HnflDwMxxk
No 10 refuses to deny claim that Johnson was told to change his phone number by cabinet secretary
Here are some more lines from the Downing Street lobby briefings.
- The prime minister’s spokesman refused to deny reports saying Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, advised Boris Johnson to change his mobile phone number. (See 9.25am.) After the Telegraph and the Times reported this last night, some No 10 sources were insisting that this was not true. (See here, or here.) But No 10 is obviously not confident denying these stories formally and on the record. Asked about the story, the spokesman just said: “As you know, we don’t get into the details of the advice provided between a cabinet secretary and a prime minister, and so I’m not going to do that in this instance.”
- The spokesman said No 10 would “very shortly” follow up on the PM’s promise yesterday to release details of his text messages relating to Covid contracts. The spokesman said Johnson “stands by what he said in the house”. But he would not say exactly what would be published. In PMQs, in response to a question about whether he would “publish all personal exchanges on these contracts before the end of the day”, Johnson said that he had “nothing to conceal” and that he was “happy to share all the details with the house”.
- The spokesman said the inquiry into the leak of Johnson’s text messages with James Dyson would not cover the separate leak of the PM’s text exchanges with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammad bin Salman. But the spokesman would not explain why that leak, which showed that Johnson asked an aide to look into a complaint from the prince about a Saudi bid to buy Newcastle United being held up, was not being investigated.
No 10 launches inquiry into leak of PM's text messages with Dyson that triggered sleaze accusations
Downing Street has announced that it is holding an inquiry into the leak of the prime minister’s text messages to Sir James Dyson. Yesterday No 10 said there were no plans for an inquiry. But at today’s lobby briefing, which has just ended, the PM’s spokesman said that the Cabinet Office would now be holding an inquiry. It is understood that the police are not involved.
Explaining the U-turn, the spokesman said:
We have instructed the Cabinet Office to look into this. The position has changed from yesterday. It was correct at the time yesterday. But, as usual, we keep these things under review and we’ve now decided to undertake this internal inquiry.
You might have assumed that only Johnson and Dyson had access to these messages. But, according to Alex Wickham in his London Playbook briefing this morning, Johnson forwarded his text messages “to a small circle of senior aides serving in Downing Street last year”.
I will post more from the lobby briefing soon.
Updated
Australian MP accuses UK of ‘amateurish’ tactics by insulting trade minister
An Australian MP from the governing Liberal party has blasted the British government’s “amateurish” tactics to influence trade talks between the two countries, suggesting post-Brexit negotiating inexperience could be behind the “megaphone” diplomacy, my colleague Daniel Hurst reports.
Updated
Robin Swann, health minister in the Northern Ireland executive, has voiced concern about the supply line of medicines to Northern Ireland as a result of a looming Brexit regulatory barrier, PA Media reports. PA says:
Under the terms of Brexit’s contentious Northern Ireland protocol, the region is to operate under different regulatory rules for medicines and medical devices than the rest of the UK.
Northern Ireland currently secures 98% of its supplies from Great Britain.
A one-year grace period delaying the implementation of this aspect of the protocol is due to expire at the end of the year.
Swann told his assembly scrutiny committee this morning that the EU’s ill-fated attempt to suspend a part of the protocol in January, amid a dispute with vaccine manufacturers over exporting jabs out of the bloc, had impacted efforts to prepare for the end of the grace period.
“It is something that concerns me and that’s why we have been engaged quite significantly in regards to this,” he said.
“The derogation period for medicines was one of the longest that was actually agreed at the start which gave us to the end of this year actually to get things sorted out and in a better place.
“Everyone thought that work was progressing well until the EU triggered article 16 over vaccines - that unnerved people, that unsettled people and that has, I suppose, increased the level of concern that we’re seeing, especially from the smaller and the more intricate suppliers of medicines and medical devices.”
The UK is pressing the EU to agree to a further year extension of the grace period on medicines and medical supplies.
Here is the full report (pdf) from the special committee set up by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission covering what it describes as “historical inequalities in commemoration”.
And here is an extract.
Founded over a century ago to commemorate the First World War dead of the British Empire, from the outset the IWGC’s [Imperial War Graves Commission’s] work was defined by the principle of equality of treatment in death. Whatever an individual’s rank in social or military life, whatever their religion, they would be commemorated identically – with their name engraved either on a headstone over an identified grave or on a memorial to the missing. While that principle was admirable, and in Europe effectively achieved, this report finds that the promise of equality had limits elsewhere.
In conflict with the organisation’s founding principles, it is estimated that between 45,000 and 54,000 casualties (predominantly Indian, East African, West African, Egyptian and Somali personnel) were commemorated unequally. For some, rather than marking their graves individually, as the IWGC would have done in Europe, these men were commemorated collectively on memorials. For others who were missing, their names were recorded in registers rather than in stone.
A further 116,000 casualties (predominantly, but not exclusively, East African and Egyptian personnel) – but potentially as many as 350,000 – were not commemorated by name or possibly not commemorated at all. Most of these men were commemorated by memorials that did not carry their names – in part because the IWGC was never furnished with their names or places of burial by the military or colonial authorities, in part because it chose to diverge from its principles in the belief that the communities these men came from would not recognise or value such individual forms of commemoration.
This report finds that in the 1920s, across Africa, the Middle East and India, imperial ideology influenced the operations of the IWGC in a way that it did not in Europe, and the rules and principles that were sacred there were not always upheld elsewhere. As a result, contemporary attitudes towards non-European faiths and differing funerary rites, and an individual’s or group’s perceived ‘state of civilisation’, influenced their commemorative treatment in death.
Here are some of the passage from Ben Wallace’s opening statement about the failure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to commemorate African, Asian and other soldiers from what was then the British empire who died in the first world war.
- Wallace, the defence secretary, apologised for the failure to commemorate these soldiers properly. He said:
On behalf of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Government both of the time and today, I want to apologise for the failures to live up to their founding principles all those years ago and express deep regret that it has taken so long to rectify the situation. Whilst we can’t change the past, we can make amends and take action.
- He said there was “no doubt” prejudice played a part in the fact that more than 100,000 soldiers were not commemorated properly. (See 11.50am.) He said:
The IWGC [Imperial War Graves Commission] relied on others to seek out the bodies of the dead and where it could not find them, it worked with the offices of state to produce lists of those who did not return and remained unaccounted for. Given the pressures and confusion spun by such war, in many ways it is hardly surprising that mistakes were made at both stages.
What is surprising and disappointing, however, is that a number of the mistakes, the number of casualties commemorated unequally, the number commemorated without names and the number otherwise entirely unaccounted for is not excusable.
There can be no doubt prejudice played a part in some of the commission’s decisions.
In some cases, the IWGC assumed that communities of forgotten personnel would not recognise or value individual forms of commemoration. In other cases, they were simply not provided with the names or burial locations.
In some circumstances, there was little the IWGC could do, with neither bodies nor names, general war memorials were the only one way in which some groups might be commemorated at the time.
Nonetheless, there are examples where the organisation also deliberately overlooked the evidence that might have allowed it to find those names.
In others, commission officials in the 1920s were happy to work with local administrations on projects across the empire that ran contrary to the principles of equality in death.
- Wallace, a former soldier, said true soldiers were “agnostic to class, race or gender”. He said:
True soldiers are agnostic to class, race or gender because the bond that holds us together is a bond forged in war. When on operations we share the risk, we share the sorrow and we rely on each to get through sometimes the toughest of times.
The friendships I made in my service are still strong. Those common bonds were what lay behind the imperial war grave commission’s principles and it is truly sad that on the occasions identified by the report those principles were not followed.
I feel it is my duty as a former soldier to do the right thing by those who gave their lives in the first world war across the Commonwealth and take what necessary steps we can to rectify the situation.
Wallace said the Commonwealth War Graves Commission will search out inequalities, and act on what it found.
It will renew its commitment to equality in commemorations, he said.
And it would act to ensure the hidden history of former empire communities, and their contribution in the two world wars, is brought to life, he said.
Defence secretary says prejudice led to more than 100,000 world war one soldiers not being commemorated properly
Wallace says when the Imperial War Graves Commission was set up, it was supposed to commemorate all soldiers equally.
But this did not happen, he says. He says there were cases where it deliberately overlooked evidence that might enable the discovery of names of the dead.
He says after the first world war in parts of Africa, the Middle East and India, the dead were not treated equally.
He said the graves of up to 54,000 soldiers, who were mostly Indians, east Africans, west Africans, Egyptians and Somalis, were not marked by individual headstones.
Some were only remembered in inscriptions or in registers, and another 116,000 personnel, mostly east Africans and Egyptians, were not named, or even commemorated at all, he says.
He says there is no doubt that prejudice played a part in that.
Updated
In the Commons Ben Wallace, the defence secretary is now making a statement about the failure of the Commonweath War Graves Commission to properly commemorate black and Asian solidiers.
Here is my colleague Rajeev Syal’s preview story about this announcement.
The section of the public accounts committee hearing devoted to Greensill is now over.
Public accounts committee chair warns of 'danger of government by WhatsApp' as MPs hear details of Cameron's lobbying
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Con) goes next.
Q: People need a safe space where ministers and officials can have private conversations. What impact will this have on that?
Scholar says he would go back to the public interest point. The public has a right to know about certain things. But the public interest is also served by government business being conducted effectively. He says the Freedom of Information Act sets out to balance those two principles.
He says there is a question as to at what point the balance shifts, and the public interest tips in favour of disclosure.
Q: Are these stories having a chilling effect?
Scholar says it is too early to say.
Q: How did the chancellor’s text messages to Cameron come out?
Scholar says Rishi Sunak decided to release them.
Q: Would he have had to do so under the Freedom of Information Act?
Scholar says that is a legal question. He cannot answer that, he says.
Q: Ministers are constantly assailed by people giving them advice. It would be odd if they weren’t. Does this mean every person they have contact with is subject to scrutiny. If so, all these contacts would become public interviews.
Scholar goes back to the Nolan report of 1995. People have a right to lobby ministers. But it is for government to decide how these approaches are handled appropriately.
Q: Do you have rules about WhatsApp?
Scholar says Treasury officials have clear rules in their heads about the need to record conversations, and the basis on which decisions were taken.
Meg Hillier, the committee chair, says there is a “danger of government by WhatsApp”.
Updated
Q: Greensill came back to you time and time again. Did other businesses do that?
Roxburgh says Greensill were persistent.
In the second stage of the process (see 10.46am), the Treasury thought it was worth considering whether there was an industry-wide solution to supply chain issues that might work.
Nick Smith (Lab) is asking the questions now.
Q: Did David Cameron speak to Michael Gove or the governor of the Bank of England about this?
Scholar says he does not know.
Roxburgh says he is not aware of any contacts like that. He says Cameron spoke to Scholar, Rishi Sunak and John Glen. Details of those contacts will be released soon.
Q: Were people listening in?
Scholar says some were minuted conversations, and some were unsolicited calls where the contents were then passed on.
Q: How many calls were there in total?
Scholar says he and Roxburgh were on one call with Cameron. Scholar took another call. There were also calls to Sunak and Glen.
Updated
Q: Should supply chain finance be regulated?
Scholar says business lending in general is not regulated.
Clifton-Brown says the Greensill proposal sounds to him like Ponzi scheme. Again, he expressed surprise that the Treasury was looking at it.
Scholar stresses that the Greensill plan was not taken forward.
Q: Did you know that Greensill was leveraging future income? Would you have had a conversation if you did?
Scholar says they were learning about what Greensill was doing.
Q: If you knew then what you know about them now, would you have had a conversation with them.
Scholar says if he knew everything they found out by the time they took a decision, the answer would have been no.
Q: Would you have even taken the phone call if you had known what you know now?
Scholar says if they had known what they had to find out, that would have saved a lot of time. But they did not know.
He says it is not the job of the Treasury to make assessments of private companies - except where that is relevant to the Treasury’s responsibilities. It considered if Greensill was eligible for its scheme, and rejected it.
Updated
Clifton-Brown turns to Scholar.
Q: Did you know of all David Cameron’s contacts with Treasury ministers?
Scholar says they knew Cameron was an adviser to the company, because that was mentioned in an original letter from the company. He says Rishi Sunak declared his call with Cameron after it happened.
He says he thinks Cameron’s contacts with John Glen, the economic secretary, were recorded around the same time. He says the details will be set out in the Treasury’s response to a freedom of information request.
Updated
Roxburgh explains why Greensill Capital was not given access to the Covid corporate financing facility (CCFF). He says the scheme was for firms able to offer commercial paper that was investment grade. But Greensill Capital was not in this category, he says. He says it wanted the CCFF to buy commercial paper on non-standard terms.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Con) says that it sounds as if it should have been obvious that Greensill was not eligible. He says he is surprised the Treasury spent so long considering this.
These are from Sky’s Sam Coates on the significance of Sir Tom Scholar saying that he would always take a call from a former minister he had worked with. Scholar implied that this was just a matter of common courtesy. (See 10.54pm.) But, as Coates points out, this illustrates why former ministers are not in the same position as others engaged in corporate lobbying and why their involvement implies favouritism is in play.
Treasury permanent secretary Tom Scholar says that he took a call from David Cameron because he used to work for him.
— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) April 22, 2021
"If a former minister asked to talk to me I will always do that."
Says he also takes calls from other private sector people he previously worked with
The issue in this inquiry is whether Cameron had an advantage as a lobbyist because he was an ex PM.
— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) April 22, 2021
The answer seems yes.
Sir Tom Scholar - quoting Nolan principles - argues it is the right of "everyone" to lobby but for Whitehall/minister to filter what matters
But officials today are eloquently explaining why the private sector employs ex ministers and ex PMs to advance their case in government - because they get a hearing by the civil service where other people may not
— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) April 22, 2021
Treasury permanent secretary tells MPs he would always take call from former minister he has worked with
Meg Hillier is speaking to Sir Tom Scholar again?
Q: Did you take the call from David Cameron because he was a former PM?
Scholar says he would always take a call from a minister he has worked with.
But he did not have a substantive discussion with Cameron about the scheme, he says.
He says he knew Cameron was an adviser to Greensill Capital.
He says he was only involved in one call with the company about its application for the corporate finance facility. Otherwise Roxburgh dealt with it, he says.
He quotes from the original Nolan report in 1995, which said that everyone has a right to lobby parliament and ministers. It is for institutions to decide how they handle these approaches, the report said. It said institutions should consider the public interest. Scholar says this is what the Treasury did.
Scholar says since Cameron left office, he has seen him two or three times, but never to discuss government business.
Updated
Q: Why did you talk to Greensill?
Roxburgh says his job involved talking to a lot of companies. It is normal for him to discuss proposals like this.
Charles Roxburgh, second permanent secretary, says he had nine meetings with Greensill.
He says the meetings fell into three phases.
He says there were two calls in late March when Greensill wanted to join the corporate financing facility. The Treasury rejected that application.
He says the second phase was from early April to mid-May, when Greensill wanted the Treasury to help it offer support to firms with supply chains. There was a consultation on an industry-wide scheme. But the Treasury decided not to go ahead with it.
And then the final phase came when Greensill proposed another supply chain facility. The Treasury decided not to go ahead with that.
At the public accounts committee Meg Hillier, the chair, is now asking questions about Greensill Capital.
Q: How many meetings did you have with Greensill Capital?
None in person, says Sir Tom Scholar, the permanent secretary.
He says he took part in one conference call.
The Treasury is making a list of other meetings, in response to a freedom of information request.
And at around the same time, Scholar says he had a call with David Cameron (who was working for Greensill). That was around the end of March, the beginning of April.
Scholar says he spoke to Cameron on his mobile phone. But it was an official mobile phone; Scholar was working from home. And he says Cameron had his number because Scholar used to work for him when he was PM.
Updated
SNP could narrowly miss winning outright majority at Holyrood election, poll suggests
The SNP could miss out on a majority at the Holyrood election, according to a new poll. As PA Media reports, the Savanta ComRes survey for the Scotsman predicts the party will return 63 MSPs - two short of a majority and the same number as in 2016. PA says:
However there would still be a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, with the Scottish Greens forecast to return eight MSPs, two more than in 2016, and secure 7% of the list vote.
Only 1% of voters said they plan to vote for Alex Salmond’s Alba party, which would leave it without a single MSP.
The poll projects the SNP will return a constituency vote of 46% and a list vote of 38% on May 6.
It predicts the Scottish Conservatives will achieve 25% of the constituency vote and 23% of the regional list, which would see it return 32 MSPs - one more than in 2016.
Scottish Labour is forecast to return 20% on the constituency and 17% on the list vote and is predicted to return 21 MSPs, three fewer than in 2016.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are predicted to return five MSPs, the same number as in 2016, with 6% of the constituency and 5% of the list vote.
The poll of 1,001 Scottish adults also found that support for Scottish independence is split, though support for No has increased since a survey at the start of April.
The latest poll found 48% would vote No in an independence referendum, while 44% would vote Yes, with the remainder undecided.
When “don’t knows” are excluded, 52% support No and 48% said they would vote Yes.
Here are the Savanta ComRes charts.
🏴New Holyrood Constituency VI
— Savanta ComRes (@SavantaComRes) April 22, 2021
SNP 46 (-3)
Conservative 25 (+2)
Labour 20 (+2)
LD 6 (-)
Other 2 (-1)
16-20 April
(chg from 2-7 April) pic.twitter.com/eR4cX8ZYfx
🏴New Holyrood List VI
— Savanta ComRes (@SavantaComRes) April 22, 2021
SNP 38 (-2)
Conservative 23 (+2)
Labour 17 (-1)
Green 7 (-2)
LD 5 (-1)
Other 8 (+2)
16-20 April
(chg from 2-7 April) pic.twitter.com/Gch75Jdcee
🏴New #indyref VI
— Savanta ComRes (@SavantaComRes) April 22, 2021
No 48 (+3)
Yes 44 (-1)
Undecided 8 (-1)
Excl. undecided
No 52 (+2)
Yes 48 (-2)
16-20 April
(chg from 2-7 April) pic.twitter.com/bHwLCVOqe1
Updated
Covid stopped being main cause of death in England and Wales in March, ONS says
Coronavirus was no longer the leading cause of death in both England and Wales in March for the first time since October, PA Media reports. PA says:
Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows that Covid-19 was the third leading cause of death in both countries in March, accounting for 9.2% of all deaths registered in England and 6.3% in Wales.
It was previously the leading cause of death each month from November to February.
The leading cause of death was dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in England, accounting for 10.1% of all deaths registered in March, and in Wales it was ischaemic heart diseases, at 11.8% of all deaths.
Updated
The public accounts committee hearing has started, but Meg Hillier, the chair, says they will start with questions about Equitable Life. That means the Greensill section will start a bit later.
Updated
Treasury officials give evidence to MPs about Greensill Capital
The Commons public accounts committee is about to take evidence from Treasury officials about Greensill Capital, and other topics. The Greensill section is only due to last about 15 minutes, but it should come up first.
The witnesses are Sir Tom Scholar, the permanent secretary; Cat Little, director general, public spending; Charles Roxburgh, second permanent secretary; and Martin Clarke, the government actuary.
Here is an excerpt from Harry Yorke’s story in the Daily Telegraph (paywall) about the concerns in No 10 about Boris Johnson’s willingness to hand out his phone number. Yorke says:
A well-placed source said that Mr Johnson’s use of the WhatsApp messaging service was a “perennial problem” and had been a source of frustration among some figures in Number 10.
“The problem with Boris is that he replies to everyone,” another said. However, they suggested Mr Johnson was often attempting to get people “off his back” rather than succumbing to any requests for his personal assistance.
Others joked that the prime minister was too liberal in handing out his phone number to people he meets, leading to an ever-burgeoning list of people able to contact him.
One claimed there had been at least one occasion last year when the prime minister held a conference call with a small number of regional politicians, after which he gave out his number, seemingly not realising that the call was being listened to by a larger group of people.
And here is an extract from Steven Swinford’s story in the Times (paywall) on the same theme.
Simon Case, the top civil servant, is said to have recommended [that Johnson change his phone number] last year because of the ease with which MPs, lobbyists and others from the business world were able to contact the prime minister.
Johnson, who has had the same phone number for more than a decade, was reluctant to change it and rejected the advice. A Whitehall source said the extent of the contact was a consistent cause for concern among officials.
Sarah Champion, the chair of the committee, starts by asking why Raab did not make an oral statement to the Commons about the aid spending for 2021-22.
Raab says these figures would not normally be published at the start of the financial year. But he published the written statement so the committee could ask him about that today, he says.
Raab gives evidence to Commons international development committee
Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, is about to give evidence to the Commons international development committee. He is, of course, now secretary of state for foreign, Commonwealth and development affairs after the Department for International Affairs was merged with the Foreign Office.
He will be asked about the aid spending announcement made last night in the form of a Commons written statement.
Minister defends right of business people to contact PM direct by phone
Good morning. As my colleagues Jessica Elgot and Dan Sabbagh report, after yesterday’s revelations about Boris Johnson agreeing by text message to amend tax rules at the request of Sir James Dyson to make it easier for his firm to get involved in the emergency ventilator production effort, there is increasing concern about extent to which Johnson is operating “government by WhatsApp”. This might seem innocuous, but it means the usual rules about the disclosure of contacts with third parties are much harder to apply.
There is a new twist to the story today with reports, in the Telegraph and in the Times, that Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, suggested Johnson should change his mobile phone number to stop people using it to lobby him.
As the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg points out, No 10 is denying this - although, given that there is a big difference between Case “telling” the PM to change his number and Case “floating the idea” it is not quite clear yet how comprehensive the denial is.
As per @HarryYorke1 , sources confirm Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, suggested PM should change his phone number recently, in part due to concerns he appeared to willing to share his contact details
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) April 21, 2021
This particular claim now being officially denied, but clearly there has been concern as we reported earlier about contacts at that level of govt
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) April 21, 2021
This morning Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, defended the right of ministers to communicate with people outside government in this way. He said it was “very good” that business leaders and constituents had “direct access” to ministers and those making decisions in Whitehall. He told Sky News:
I think that in the real world, in reality, people are contacting ministers, contacting MPs, all the time.
Business people are contacting MPs all the time, constituents also contact me on my phone.
I think that in a modern democracy it’s very good that people actually can have direct access to ministers and people who are taking responsibility.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, gives evidence to the Commons international development committee.
9.30am: The ONS publishes its latest figures on coronavirus infections in schools.
10am: Sir Tom Scholar, permanent secretary at the Treasury, and other Treasury officials give evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about Greensill Capital.
Around 11.30am: Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, gives a statement to MPs about the failure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to properly commemorate thousands of mostly African and Asian soldiers who died in the first world war.
12pm: Downing Street is due to hold its daily lobby briefing.
After 1pm: Boris Johnson is due to speak at the virtual leaders’ climate summit hosted by the US president Joe Biden.
Covid is the issue dominating UK politics this year and Politics Live is often largely or wholly devoted to coronavirus at the moment. But I will be covering non-Covid politics too and - depending on what seems most important and most interesting to readers - sometimes these stories will take precedence.
For global coronavirus news, do read our global live blog.
I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
Updated
