General once again. Did the cabinet have sight of the legal advice, and did the Prime Minister chief adviser, Dominic Cummings have sight of the legal advice . She will know that i cannot disclose whether i give advice, or the content of any such advice. It has covered by the law offices convention. The question is was the advice shown presumes there was advice. So it simply contradicts the law offices convention. I wish i could answer, but i cant. Following yesterdays Supreme Court judgment, the but i cant. Following yesterdays Supreme Courtjudgment, the Prime Minister presumably got in touch with the Buckingham Palace and offered his apologies to her majesty the queen for unlawful advice. My question is that the attorney general speak to the Prime Minister before that conversation took place . I didnt, no. Seems he cant remember would he agree with me that any reasonable attorney general acting with due care would challenge and perhaps even laugh at any suggestion that five weeks of prorogation was necessary in order to prepare for a queens speech . think i understood the question but i dont agree with his premise. Has accepted thejudgment i dont agree with his premise. Has accepted the judgment that the government acted illegally, but will he add accept his duty, his fundamental duty to uphold the rule of law and democracy and not fan the fla mes of law and democracy and not fan the fla m es of of law and democracy and not fan the flames of hatred with the people against the court, the people against the court, the people against democracy, on the road to fascism, as he appears to be doing today, by making fun of the Supreme Court and saying they are making things up as they go along. We make the law, they interpret the law and he and all of us should obey the law. He really needs to listen more closely to what i sight. The Supreme Court was perfectly entitled to reach the view it did. It did so i reasoned decision. Decision making. It was entirely within the scope of its jurisdiction. It was entirely within the scope of itsjurisdiction. But it was entirely within the scope of its jurisdiction. But there it was entirely within the scope of itsjurisdiction. But there is no question it developed the common though in doing so, that is all i am saying. Common law. Though in doing so, that is all i am saying. Common law. It is not fear of the electorate that drives some of us in this house of the pit is ever determination to do the right thing by our commitments scratch my constituents against the government determined to deliver brexit at any price. You have government ministers saying that the judgment handed down has been distributed, but they did not see what they disagreed with. Could the attorney general let us know when ministers cast doubt on this judgment, what exactly the disagree with and why they are doing that in parliament . He asks me about why ministers might contest parts of the judgment. There is nothing wrong with the government or the honourable gentleman or any other member of the public, seeking to argue that parts of the judgment we re argue that parts of the judgment were either mistaken or pearly reasons, i dont necessarily agree with that, but there is no harm in people doing it because that is part of democratic debate. Poorly. What is wrong, and what irg all members not to do, is to impugn the motives of those who make the decisions. Because these are fine judgments who make their decision impartially on what they think is the best view of the law and i know thatis the best view of the law and i know that is what the Supreme Court did in this case. I am not going to go into all the areas of the judgment that are fragile or vulnerable to alternative arguments. The argument is where set out in government, the judgment of the lord chiefjustice in the provisional court was brilliantly reasoned, and in the governments view, entirely right. But the Supreme Court chose to disagree with it despite the repeated, it has been obvious that this attempt at prorogation was about brexit. Isnt the real reason why nobody would testify under oath as to what the governments reasons where was that, even in the government, no one believed that the Prime Ministers reasons where the truth . If the Prime Minister had wished to prevent this house from debating brexit, he would have prorogued it from the 5th of september two 14th of october. Because he allowed, even we knew, does it seriously suggest that the government was blind to the possibility that in the first few days of resumption after the 4th of september, it was not possible that exactly what happened would happen . If we had wished to close down all debate, and prevent the option of legislation, which was ultimately taken by this house, with the consent of mr speaker, we could have prorogued it from the fifth, but we didnt and furthermore, on the 14th of october, there would have been 2. 5 more weeks for this house to act. With respect, all this talk about a coup isjust act. With respect, all this talk about a coup is just nonsense inflamed political tripe, invented and inflated so that this gang can justify clinging to their green benches for another few undeserved weeks. That is what it is all about the authors of this failed political trick, the Prime Minister and Dominic Cummings, have fallen in treating parliament with contempt. What is truly contemptible is Dominic Cummings refusing to give evidence to a select committee and being in contempt of parliament, and no hiding behind the skirts of the Prime Minister, which is, who is supporting an individual who is working for the government in not giving evidence to a select committee. Does the attorney general think that is a respectable position . I am not sure it is a question for the attorney general. I am sure the honourable gentleman can find somebody who is able to deal with it better than i, but what i would say, that attacking people who cannot answer for themselves in this houseis cannot answer for themselves in this house is not appropriate. And i would not, myself, choose to do it. The attorney general explained why thatis the attorney general explained why that is a lack of signed witness state m e nts that is a lack of signed witness statements or is it the case, we although, seven servants could not defend indefensible and they thought the government was at it all along. Asi the government was at it all along. As i have said, i cant answer questions about witness statements or the internal preparations of the government case for this Supreme Court. The Attorney Says that this parliament doesnt want to do any work, does not wish to legislate. He is wrong. There are very many important issues that we are desperate to legislate on. None more important than the Domestic Abuse belt, the members across this place and the other plays have worked together for two years and could easily come before the space, get this into law and make this, and improve the lives of tens of thousands across the country. Will the attorney put aside his confected outrage and speak to his honourable friend, the leader of the house, and asking to schedule tomorrow and next week, the important stages of this crucial bill . I certainly will talk to the chief whip about it if there isa to the chief whip about it if there is a consent on all sides from the south, we might as well do something while were waiting for them to make up while were waiting for them to make up their minds to go for an election. The queen has been misled, the law has been broken and scotlands Supreme Court has ruled that the Prime Minister has been less tha n that the Prime Minister has been less than honest. Yet there is not a hint of humility from the benches opposite. What sanctions does the attorney general think the Prime Minister playing fast and loose with Democratic Institutions merits . And is it, ac coming for us to tell us the Prime Minister is position is terrible. Is it not the case that the decent thing for the Prime Minister to do is go . Can i encourage her to ensure that we vote for the election motion that will be coming shortly . That way she can ensure that what she hopes she thinks, no doubt will take place. But the reality is i dont agree. The Supreme Court found no impropriety. The Prime Minister or anybody else. Does the attorney general believe that the judgment has left 17. 5 Million People feeling more disenfranchised and they have ever been. I completely agree. The actions of the sows are bringing it into discredit. It is abandoning all reasonable precedent. Of this house. The time has come to have a general election and to resist it is undemocratic but that is a decision this opposition has taken. Let us wait and see. What the electorate make of it. But i hope that they will understand that what this government is doing is trying to fulfil the mandate of those 17. 4 Million People. And we will never cease until we succeed Million People. And we will never cease untilwe succeed it is reassuring to see we are indeed carrying on where we left off. As a Senior Lawyer himself, well the attorney general agree with me that any attempts to describe the considered unanimous and unambiguous decision of the Supreme Court as a constitutional coup, are nothing more than constitutional ball. Bull. This was a proper decision of the Supreme Court. We should be proud of ourjudiciary, proud of its independence, in alljurisdictions, i apply that to the inner house, the outer house, the divisional court, lawyers will disagree on some of these complex and fundamental principles, and that is what has happened here. If the point of order relates to the matter of which you have just treated, that is to say, this statement, then i will, at my discretion, take it. During that question and answer session, the attorney general made a joke about the phrase when did you last stopped beating your wife. But of the reason people are so upset about the prorogation is because i Domestic Violence bill has fallen as my honourable friend has just mentioned. Can i seek your advice on how the attorney general can learn to moderate his language and not makejokes to moderate his language and not make jokes about Domestic Violence . Two it is open to him to respond if he so wishes although he is not obliged to. Let me say if i have given a defence, i did not mean to. It is an old saying of the bar which. No, no, no, listen. Which simply relates to a cross examination technique of asking a question that presumes the premise. And it is the way in which we were taught, if i had given offence, i apologise. Disgusting ithank the attorney for responding. This is a matter of extreme sensitivity. And what i would say to the honourable lady and more widely to the house is that it lady and more widely to the house is thatitis lady and more widely to the house is that it is incredibly important. That we are sensitive to the wider implications and interpretation of what we say. And the mores of society do change and sometimes one can find that things one has said in the past without causing offence can no longer be said without causing offe nce. No longer be said without causing offence. But each member must make his or her own judgment. Offence. But each member must make his or her ownjudgment. The attorney has made his and said what he has said and i thank him for that. I apologise for not giving advance notice for this. It is advice i think is very relevant to this debate. We have heard much of how the Supreme Court has extended its remit into the actions of the executive, and how that may play out into the future. I wondered if you could give advice, perhaps to your successor, whether the actions and decisions of the speaker of this house should be similarly subject to judicial review and how that may work in the future. I am extraordinarily grateful, but as an attempted point of order, frankly, in Old Fashioned or level terms, with which i am familiar and of which the honourable gentleman is probably aware, that would get an unqualified. Im afraid. It wasnt even a good try. I dont bear any elbow to the honourable gentleman but people are going to have a go at these things, neilwill. There is a grade and i am afraid it is way, way below the grade. Point of order, if it is on these matters but not beyond. Apologies i did not give you advanced notice. During the exchange before, the attorney general said this parliament is a dead parliament. He said it repeatedly. And it should no longer sit, it has no moral right to sit on the screen benches. Can you advise me to how to ensure the attorney general retracts those statements. I was sent here by the people of livingston in scotland as when i colleagues and our position should not be undermined by, frankly, such flippant and ridiculous language. There is an important issue here. As something that causes offence required to be withdrawn . The answer to that, i must say in all candour, whose sincerity i respect, is no. Lots of things are said which may cause offe nce, things are said which may cause offence, provoke and bridge and about which there will be disputed, but there was nothing disorderly about what the attorney said. She has registered her view with considerable force and alacrity and it will be on record for her constituents to observe. No impropriety has taken place. I think we can now proceed to the urgent question. To ask the secretary of state of digital sport will she make a statement on how would her department manages possible conflicts of interest. I thank the honourable lady for raising this question today and diane answering it because it is my portfolio. I am answering. My department runs a cybersecurity Immediate Impact fund. It is one of a range of programmes this designed to increase the numbers of people pursuing careers in cybersecurity. And we want to support new creative and innovative delivered by a range of projects including start ups. We have supported a variety of initiatives awarding grants of between £20,000 and £500,000, since march, 2018. Hacker house is one of the businesses that was awarded a £100,000 grant, in february 2019. As pa rt £100,000 grant, in february 2019. As part of our second funding round. To date, they have been paid some £47,000 for work completed. This is a grand met was awarded by officials from the department for education, and others. Including people from the National Cybersecurity sense. If she wishes to impugn the motives of those officials, i would invite to think very carefully before she does so. Think very carefully before she does so. To date, we have awarded 11 companies to deliver 12 initiatives. Over 400 people have benefited from support through this fund and our objective is that even more people will benefit as the businesses with him we partnerfurther will benefit as the businesses with him we partner further invest in a sector that i know she agrees is vital to the future of security and our economy. This is part of our mission as a department, to identify untapped talent, and to have a broader range of individuals with talent and attitude to develop their career in cybersecurity. I would assure the house, all grants are awarded through a competitive and transparent process. Each grant is judged on specific assessment criteria and is approved by a panel i referred to earlier with cross departmental and industry representation. We are, of course, aware of the claims raised recently by the sunday times and the department is reviewing the decision that was taken. We monitor all Grant Funding and treat any impropriety with the utmost seriousness and as soon with the utmost seriousness and as soon i have any further information to share on this matter, i will update the house at the earliest possible opportunity. update the house at the earliest possible opportunity. I thank the minister for his reply. I should make clear, i care very little about the personal life of the Prime Minister, but i care a lot about how this government manages conflicts of interest and how it spends taxpayer money. On that basis, i am concerned that the department appears to have given hacker house a £100,000 grant injanuary 2019 given hacker house a £100,000 grant in january 2019 as part of the cyber skills Immediate Impact fund. A grant met was open to initiatives based in and that operate from britain. And that furthermore these grants should not exceed 50 of the company revenue. We now know that hacker house is not based in the uk. The sunday times reports that its owner moved back to the usa injune 2018. These grants went open for application until november. The registered address of the company is, in fact, house on chester which she used to rent. And the current occu pa nt she used to rent. And the current occupant sends any post addressed to her back to sender. Where is the Due Diligence . What steps did the department take to ensure that hacker house was, indeed, based in and operating in the uk . Why did officials waive the rule that the grant could not exceed 50 of the Company Collective income . Grant could not exceed 50 of the Company Collective income .