now on bbc news, tuesday in parliament. hello again and welcome to tuesday in parliament. in this programme: a lockdown warning for ministers: if you open up too fast, a lot more people die. a lot more people die. advice on what to do when that pandemic order of protective equipment doesn't arrive. will the minister commit to recovering public money from the companies which did not meet their contractual obligations? and experts say football's handling of head injuries is a shambles. we find that the risk of dementia is about four times higher than it should be. but first, england's chief medical officer, chris whitty, has warned that lifting the lockdown too quickly would lead to a substantial surge in covid infections. professor whitty told mps that would be dangerous and risk lives among the many vulnerable people not yet protected by the vaccine. the day after the full return of schools in england, he told the science and technology committee that despite vaccines there would still be a "significant number" of deaths from covid. even with a gradual lifting of restrictions, modelling suggests there could be another 30,000 deaths before the summer of 2022. what we will see is as things are opening up, what all the models suggest is some point we will get a surge in the virus. and whether that happens, we hope it doesn't happen soon, but it might happen later in the summerfor example if we open up gradually, or if there is a seasonal affect it might open up over the next autumn and winter. but i think all of the modelling suggests there is going to be a further surge and that will find the people who either haven't been vaccinated or where the vaccine has not worked. and some of them will end up in hospital and sadly some of them will go on to die. that 30,000 presumably comes from those who either haven't been vaccinated or for whom the vaccine has not been effective. but actually we know, happily, that they group is much smaller than modelers with the best information they had at the time predicted. so does that cause you to revise your view as to what we should be preparing for for the summer? zeroing in on particular numbers, every number will be incorrect. what they are doing is only giving an indication of general principles, and the first and most important principle that the models demonstrate is if you open up too fast, a lot more people will die. a lot more people die. the main point i would say of the modelling is to demonstrate the really profound difference between opening up too quickly, which leads to very large numbers of deaths, and opening up more slowly in a steady way, in the way sir patrick was describing early on and i was laid out on the road map, which doesn't lead to no deaths, and i think it is really important that we do not give any impression that what we are expecting just goes away and there is no further deaths. that is not realistic and i think to pretend that to the public would be completely wrong. it isn't the case. there will be further deaths. but by going steadily, what the models demonstrate is you will have many fewer deaths. if we are to be driven by data, does it follow that if the data is better than anticipated, then we can bring forward some of those reopenings? it takes at least three weeks possibly to get the data and to get the data and to analyse it properly and remembering there is a at least a ten day lag before you can start to seek cases coming through. and the pm and ministers have said they want to give people a week's notice before major changes are taken so people can make proper preparations and don't have to do handbrake turns or sudden stops out of nowhere. if you do that, you will not want to reduce the time between the various steps. i think a lot of people may think this is all over, i would encourage them to look at what is happening in continents of europe at the moment were a lot of countries are going back into rates going up and having to close things down again, having not been in that situation before and i think it is very easy to forget quite how quickly things can turn bad if you don't keep a very close eye on it. 104 days until. the 21st ofjune. i understand your natural caution. l but the lesson from last year is obviously not just things i can turn bad quickly, - the idea of predciting the path of the virus 100 days ahead seemed to be something. of fools errand. so i understand your natural caution, but are we really. saying that 21st ofjune date i is set in stone and there is no way we can possibly go quicker? chris whitty said it was a decision for ministers but he offered advice based on principles. do not try and concentina the five—week breaks because if you want to be based on data, you will have to use those five weeks if you wish to give people a week's notice. you simply cannot see the effect size any time that is shorter than that. the chief scientific adviser was equally cautious. the estimate is that, after three weeks, you can start to get a real handle on this and it is probably between three and four weeks to really get a decent handle on what is happening. and that is the week that the ministers want to be able to alert businesses and others to what will happen. i think if you truncate that, you are essentially flying blind. you might feel i can smell it going in a certain direction and looks like this but you really won't know. sir patrick and professor whitty co—chair sage, the government's scientific advisory group on emergencies. but do ministers follow the science? scientific advice on this issue and on previous occasions in terms of advising the government to go into lockdown in the first and second waves and to not lift restrictions too early and to implement a circuit breaker lockdown in september and again as people mixing over christmas, these pieces of advice have seemingly been ignored by the government. do you agree that the government has a track record of ignoring scientific advice or at least using it inconsistently? our advice is there for all to see. our advice is clear. we have given it repeatedly and not always welcomed by all sorts of people and when we give the advice of all sorts of different parts of the community, but we give it as we see it and then of course it is up to others to try and interpret that with the other information that have and the other priorities they may have. sir patrick vallance. a health minister has defended boris johnson for saying that coronavirus contracts were "there for everyone to see", when the high court revealed hundreds were still to be released. 0pposition mps criticised the way the deals had been done. last month, a judge ruled the health secretary had acted unlawfully by not publishing contracts on time. ministers have said the remaining contracts will be made public as soon as possible. using an urgent question, labour called for their release this week. 0n the 22nd of february, in this house, the prime minister said, and i quote again, "the contracts are there on the record for everybody to see." but they are not. a judge confirmed through a court order last friday that 100 contacts are still to be published. so will the minister now take this opportunity to apologise for that statement and to put the record straight? and will the government now finally agree to publish all 100 outstanding contracts by the end of this week? the government was working, according to the minister, to ensure all contracts were published in line with the regulations. what matters i believe most and is most important is to recognise the situation we faced last year. with rising infection rates, rising hospitalisation rates, and the need to do everything we could to strain every sineu, i think to quote from one of her letters to the chancellor of the time, to make sure that we got from the front line of what it needed to keep those working flat out say. and he defended the prime minister. at the time of his statement, the details for all of these contracts under scrutiny i'm advised were published. there's failure in transparency, potential conflicts of interest, that the prime minister doesn't even appear to know what is going on, it simply feeds a perception of a government doing profitable deals with friends and cronies rather than delivering meaningful transparency, which will actually drive value for money for the taxpayer. edward argar said the government could award contracts without tendering in emergency situations. i do not see in these judgements and in this case or any of the other scrutiny of this by committees of this house or other organisations, anything that asserts or finds that inappropriate conflicts of interest influenced how these contracts were awarded. are we expected to believe the prime minister sought no reading after the high court found the secretary of state had acted unlawfully? if he sought no facts, why did he give such a category and wildly inaccurate reply? and why was that inaccurate replied not corrected it two days later by the minister here today? in the emergency phase - when it was desperate to get hold of ppe, the contracts. were negotiated and vetted by independent professional. civil servants and this was not a case of friends of ministers. will the minister commit to recovering public money from the companies which did not meet their contractual obligations and would he agree that those hundreds of millions of pounds might have been better spent on a decent pay rise for the nhs workforce? we are already pursuing a number of cases where if ppe was either not to the required standard or not delivered, we will recoup the money from that. the british people want us to focus on fighting this virus so we can protect the nhs as we roll out the vaccine and save lives. does my honourable friend agree that the political sniping of what people expect and want to see politicians doing? some people enriched themselves for phenominally during this pandemic. and many of them, surprise surprise, happen to be conservative party donors. it looks, i have to say, like corruption. and the only way that the government can wipe that slate clean is if it comes clean with all the contracts because otherwise itjust looks like a cover—up. these contracts as set out for the public council committee went to an eight stage assessment process undertaken by civil servants. i know well he would not be impugning the integrity of the civil service. i know he has great respect for the civil service. i will say very gently there has been no evidence no findings in court of any minister in terms of conflicts of interest or having behaved inappropriately. the health minister, edward argar. you're watching tuesday in parliament with me, david cornock. to the lords now, where another health minister has insisted that nurses are well paid for the job they do and many people look at nhs jobs with envy. lord bethell was responding to fury from opposition peers over the 1% pay rise for most health service workers in england. a labour peer called it a kick in the teeth. nurses and other health care professionals have had to work in some of the most difficult, demanding and dangerous circumstances and they have done so with astonishing care, compassion and commitment. the government has got this wrong. badly wrong. and i urge them to reconsider their meagre, miserly, measly 1%. a good employer first of all, would offer a substantial bonus to a staff before taking time to negotiate a fair and sensible pay award. if we can pay a bonus to local publicans for sourcing obtainable files, surely a bonus to those who have saved our lives should be a no—brainer for this government. i would gently remind him that there are millions - of people out of work out - of the back of this pandemic. there are lots of people - who have had an extremely tough time and are facing a tough period of unemployment. l nurses are well—paid - for the job, they have a secure job and they have other benefits. i my lords, there are many people in this country who look - upon professionaljobs- in the nhs with some envy and we should not forget the fact that some public sectorjobs are in fact extremely well—paid.| nurses get i don't know 70p a day, billions wasted on crony contracts along with the £200,000 to titillate a downing street living room to replace decorations that are barely three years old. does the minister or chancellor for that matter know what living on £25,000 a year is like? i would also remind - the noble lord that many in the private sector have i lost theirjobs and prospects altogether and that there - is a massive economic challenge on the horizon and we fool i ourselves, we absolutely fool ourselves if we close our eyes to that and we regard - sector as a somehow sacrosanct and immune to the larger- economic challenge we have. and the pay rise was the first thing the head of nhs england, sir simon stevens, was asked about when he appeared before the health committee. at the time, the working assumption was that there would be available 2.1% to the costs of the agenda for change pay group in 2021-22. in a publicly funded democratically accountable health service, the government at the end of the day gets to decide what nhs pay should be but you would expect me as the head of the health service to obviously want to see properly rewarded nhs staff particularly given everything that they have been through over the last year, and so i think the right way to resolve this is the path that actually the government has set out which is to ask the independent pay review bodies to look at all of the evidence in the round, the evidence from government and staff side and be able to independently make a fair recommendation so that nhs staff can get the pay and the reward that they deserve. sir simon stevens. scotland's first minister, nicola sturgeon, has announced what she calls a "modest" easing of covid restrictions. up to four adults from two different households will be able to meet outdoors in scotland from friday. restrictions on young people aged between 12 and 17 will also be eased and outdoor non—contact group sports for adults will restart as well. the welsh government is also expected to announce an easing of restrictions on friday. at first minister's questions in the virtual senedd, the leader of the opposition tried to find out more. the minister for mental health and wellbeing has said lockdown and people in wales that if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. can i first check whether this is your assessment, do you agree with her, or do you take my assessment that it's the hard work of the people of wales over this lockdown period that will allow you now to lift some of these restrictions? and can you confirm what type of announcements we might be looking at on friday, in particular on nonessential retail? will you be opening up gyms like the minister for wellbeing has previously suggested? and will you as you alluded to in the press over the last few days be lifting the stay—at—home rule and introducing a five—mile rule like we saw last summer? well, i'm afraid the leader of the opposition will have to wait until friday, that is when the three—week cycle ends and the cabinet will continue to discuss a package of measures that we will be able to propose, then do in the remainder of this week. but he's right to say that at the end of the last three—week review, i said that i hoped this will be the last three weeks in which we have to ask people in wales to stay at home, that we would be able to move beyond that, and i said then as well that we would continue to make the return to education as quickly and as safely and that alongside that, we would look to find ways of allowing people to do more in their personal lives and to begin the reopening of new aspects of the welsh economy. mark drakeford. the chancellor has been challenged over one of the headline announcements in his budget — a plan to raise taxes on large company profits as a first step to plugging the gaping coronavirus hole in the nation's finances. taking part in a discussion outside parliament, one of his predecessors, george osborne warned the move would have "consequences". whilst in the commons at treasury questions, labour reminded the chancellor what he'd said in the past about raising the tax. in 2017, the chancellor asked a member of this house if labour's proposed increase on our corporation tax would make it more or less likely that international investors would want to invest here in the uk? what's the answer, chancellor? i'm delighted that the honourable lady is raising the topic of corporation tax. i think we have heard various versions of this policy from labour on this issue. we are honest with the british people about the challenges facing our public finances, we set out a fair and honest way to face this challenges, this will remain one of the most internationally competitive places in the world to invest, grow businesses and create jobs and this government will always deliver on that promise. well, that exchange came just ahead of the last day of the budget debate. the business secretary said the government had a "laser like" approach to levelling up after the pandemic. we have the means, the tools necessary to continue our trajectory towards recovery in the next year. we will be embracing innovation, creating winning and spreading opportunities. and i finally mr deputy speaker, we look forward to building back better throughout the entirety of the united kingdom. his labour shadow quoted a speech by ernest bevin from 19114. ed miliband argued while times were different now after covid the question was the same — how do we do right by the british people? what does building back better mean when unemployment is higher than the eye can see, the welfare state goes back to what it was, the green revolution is done, the public sector is cut? this fails the bevin test, the build back better test. little noticed in the budget was a plan to scrap the industrial strategy and its advisory group set up under theresa may in 2018. if we want an innovation economy, what we need to do is to invest and support investment in areas that encourage growth and innovation. and that meant investing in research and development or r and d. what we need is an investment in innovation, not in chief executive's jacuzzis. there was an announcement of support, but what was not announced was what the chancellor didn't say was that he did not say nearly enough about permanent support about the millions of families living in poverty and not enough about supporting small businesses and self—employed people who continue to be excluded. the lib dem leader said brexit would make the uk's recovery weaker than other countries. because this government chose to erect new barriers to trade and it hit our exporters with the biggest rise in red tape ever. just as british business is struggling in the deepest recession for 300 years. this budget does nothing to make our country a fairer and greener economy. it fails those who most need our support right now. those who have been working tirelessly to keep us safe during the coronavirus crisis and the businesses fighting desperately to stay afloat. an expert on brain injuries has told mps that football's protocol for dealing with suspected concussion on the pitch is a "shambles". professor willie stewart led research which indicated that professional footballers run more than three times the risk of dying of neurological disease such as dementia compared with the general public. but he dismissed international football's new system of bringing on a permanent "concussion substitute" as more about tactical advantage than protecting players. i think at last football is at last introducing temporary substitutes although it is way late in the day, isn't it? and fortunately it's not temporary substitutes. i wish they were. football has a habit of whenever it speaks about having to develop a rule, and try to develop something unique to everyone else, as if the problem never occurred before. what football has introduced is a shambles in 2021. you said before that - the protocols in football are a "shambles" is - the word that you used. in what way- are they a shambles? why specifically the word "shambles"? that makes it sound absolutely catastrophic. why is that? it is because the medics and physios on the pitch have no more time and no more opportunity, no more tools, and 0 more assistance to assess players with potentially complex brain injury. so, it hasn't improved assessment of players with brain injury or potential brain injury. what it has always done is taken care of the perceived tactical disadvantage of a player removed. so they put one more player on the pitch. in 2021 of all the ways that a sport might have addressed the issue of head injury in its game, i think that has been just a dreadful shambles. the former england striker, jeff astle, was the first footballer known to have died from a brain condition linked to heading the ball. jeff astle died in . 2002,19 years ago. yet here we are talking | about football protocols being a shambles. you said yourself that - the majority of funding comes from the united states. why are we letting - people down in this way? what is our problem in terms of our sporting bodies? - i share with you the frustration that it's taken 20—odd years to get to the point where we're sitting down and discussing this today. is there any difference between incidents or risks in men or women? now, for example, we know that women are more likely to suffer from migraines and headaches as a result of concussion protocols. so, are there any potential long—term differences between the two genders? the rules for women's football and men's football are exactly the same. the risk of concussion in women's football is about twice that as in men's football. so, the risk of brain injury is double. is there any evidence - to suggest that the heading of a ball has got less - dangerous over the years because of the change in the ball? _ i mean, in the '60s and '70s, the balls were very heavy, i they had laces in them, they were leather. - now they're polyurethane, different materials. - is there ever any evidence to suggest that effectively that sort of change in - technology has had an effect? so, the weight of a ball probably doesn't change the impact that much. and of course if you think of the modern ball zipping through the air because it comes off of the foot slightly faster, then maybe you could almost argue that the problem is greater in the more modern football than it is in the older football. the reality is we just don't know. several members of england's 1966 world cup winning squad developed dementia. is there an acceptable level of risk that people take playing elite sport? to put it another way, more crudely — would the team of '66 rather they hadn't been part of football and achieved what they achieved, is there a balance to be struck therefore between prevention, mitigation and managing risk? the assumption in the way the question's phrased is an either/or — either you can be a world cup—winning footballer or you don't play football. i think there's somewhere in between where you can still participate at the highest level but you haven't put yourself at as great of risk of damage as current footballers might be and former footballers would be and that's by adjusting how we engage with the sport. so, cutting back on unnecessary head impacts during the week and dealing better with brain injury. willie stewart. that's it for tuesday in parliament. i do hope you canjoin me tomorrow for wednesday in parliament with the highlights from prime minister's questions. until then, from me, david cornock, bye for now. hello there. the transition from winter into spring can often be peppered with some pretty turbulent weather, and that's going to be the story over the next few days. notjust heavy rain, but gale—force gusts of winds which have the potential to cause some disruption, particularly across england and wales. the heaviest of the rain and the strongest of the winds over the last few hours have been through scotland, but as we move into wednesday, you can see the next low pressure waiting out in the wings, to arrive later on in the day. so, a spell of heavy rain and pretty much an unsettled day across england and wales. we might get a drier interlude briefly through the afternoon, but there'll be more wet weather to come. heavy rain gradually pushing into western scotland as well. sunny spells and scattered showers developing into northern ireland, with highest values peaking between 8—12 degrees. but as we move through wednesday afternoon, into the evening, that next low moves in. and it's here to the southern flank of that low where we're going to see the strongest of the winds gathering. so, particularly across england and wales, we could see widespread gusts in excess of 60—70 mph. so the met office has issued a warning. it'll still be windy further north, across england and wales. and quite widespread through wednesday night into thursday. so, there'll also be some rain across parts of western scotland, north west england and wales, gradually drifting its way eastwards. sunny spells and scattered showers will gradually develop as we go through the day into thursday, but it's going to be a windy afternoon and temperatures, well, they should peak generally between 8—11 degrees. there's little change in the trend of the weather as we head towards the weekend. friday, still that significant low to the north. plenty of isobars on the charts, driving in weather fronts from the atlantic. so, it stays pretty unsettled. sunny spells and scattered showers the order of the day through friday. another blustery afternoon to come for many. dodge the showers, get some sunshine. we may again see temperatures peaking into double figures with highs of 11 degrees. little change as we head into the weekend. it's still going to stay windy. you'll still need to dodge those showers, i'm afraid, and there will be some sunshine from time to time. that's it. take care. welcome to bbc news. i'm mike embley. our top stories: reporter: sir, can i ask what you thought of the interview? | as prince charles makes his first public appearance following the explosive interview by his son and the duchess of sussex, there's a response to the allegations from buckingham palace. the firstjurors are chosen in the trial of a policeman accused of killing george floyd. violent clashes escalate again in myanmar. we'll look at how unarmed protesters manage to take on the security forces. and, a week after a meteor lit up skies over the uk, meet the family who woke up to find a priceless chunk of it sitting in their driveway.