Matt Hancock resignation: Questions remain for PM

The prime minister is still facing questions about the circumstances around Matt Hancock's resignation as health secretary over an affair with his aide Gina Coladangelo.

Mr Hancock quit on Saturday after the couple were caught on camera kissing in his Whitehall office, breaking social distancing guidelines.

It is understood that the father of three has left his wife of 15 years, Martha, while his relationship with Ms Coladangelo is described as "serious".

Boris Johnson replaced Mr Hancock as health secretary with former Chancellor Sajid Javid, but Mr Hancock's actions and those of the government are continuing to come under scrutiny.

Mr Hancock has turned down the £16,000 payment - equivalent to three months' ministerial salary - that he was entitled to on leaving office.

But Labour questioned why the money should have been on offer in the first place.

When the affair came to light, the prime minister said, via a spokesman, that he had accepted Mr Hancock's apology and considered the matter "closed".

Many Conservative MPs did not agree and put pressure on the government to change tack.

Mr Hancock resigned on Saturday evening after meeting Mr Johnson at Chequers - the prime minister's official country residence.

Speaking on Monday, the prime minister defended the time taken for Mr Hancock to go.

"I read the story on Friday and we've got a new health secretary in post on Saturday, and I think that's about the right pace to proceed in a pandemic," he said.

Critics of the government are querying whether ministers are being adequately held to account for their actions.

Last year, the prime minister found Home Secretary Priti Patel had not breached the ministerial code - which sets out standards of behaviour - after a report detailed evidence of her "bullying" staff.

He also declined to sack Mr Hancock last month after he was judged to have committed a "minor technical breach" of the code for initially failing to declare his stake in an NHS supplier.

Downing Street has said ministers are judged by the proper standards.

The ministerial code states that they should be "professional in all their dealings", have "proper and appropriate" relationships with colleagues and that harassment and bullying "will not be tolerated".

And the seven principles of public life are listed as selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

Justice Secretary Robert Buckland has said that "if there was any connection or conflict" when Ms Coladangelo was appointed as a non-executive director of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) last September, "it should have been declared".

Mr Hancock and Ms Coladangelo, a former lobbyist, have been friends since they worked together on a student radio station while at Oxford University.

Mr Buckland told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't know when this particular relationship began, but I expect those looking at the process would indeed ask those questions to make sure that this appointment, like thousands made every year, would stand up to scrutiny."

Mr Hancock took on Ms Coladangelo as an aide in March last year. She moved on to the DHSC director role - which paid £15,000 a year for 15 to 20 days' work a year - six months later.

A government spokesman has said the appointment was "made in the usual way" and "followed correct procedure".

The Sunday Times reported that that Mr Hancock had potentially breached guidelines by using his personal email account for government business.

In a letter to the cabinet secretary, the UK's top civil servant, and the information commissioner, Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner demanded a "full-scale investigation" into whether private emails had been used to discuss government contracts, and if their use might have potentially broken the law.

Official guidelines state that where government business is conducted using private email addresses, steps should be taken "to ensure the relevant information is accessible".

They say a copy should be sent to a departmental email address for record-keeping purposes, but also so it can be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Labour also queried why Ms Coladangelo - who has now quit her DHSC role - obtained a parliamentary security pass.

The party's chair Anneliese Dodds has written to the House of Lords' commissioner for standards to "urgently" investigate whether it was issued according to the rules.

It was sponsored last year by junior health minister Lord Bethell, the Times reports. It adds that Ms Coladangelo is understood never to have worked for Lord Bethell.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said there are "huge questions still to answer".

It is not known how the Sun newspaper obtained footage of Mr Hancock kissing Ms Coladangelo, a married mother of three.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Mr Buckland said he believed "all colleagues in government" would now be asking officials to "make sure their offices are as safe as possible" from "unauthorised surveillance".

It was not the role of CCTV to "snoop" on ministers, he said, calling it a "a worry" because footage and material could end up in the "wrong hands, with states that wish us ill or wish the United Kingdom ill".

On a visit to a London hospital, Mr Javid said the DHSC had disabled the camera used.

"For security it's just common sense," he added. "I don't think as a general rule there should be cameras in the secretary of state's office.

But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said there appeared to have been a "serious security breach" and that the government had to "sort itself out".

The leak certainly raises security concerns, but it's not clear if it is a national security requiring MI5's involvement.

How did the camera came to be in a private office? If it had been placed there covertly that would raise serious issues about access and why it had not been spotted.

But if, as it seems, it was a regular departmental security camera the issue becomes more one of internal process and why the minister did not know about it.

The next issue is how the material got out.

Parliamentarians have raised questions about the use of CCTV from Chinese companies for fear material could be siphoned off. But there is no sign of that so far in this case with reports pointing to an insider leaking the material.

That still raises questions about access. The person may claim they were a whistle-blower revealing a minister breaking Covid guidelines but there will be fears this type of material could theoretically have been sold to a hostile state for blackmail.

The initial inquiry should answer whether this was a legitimate (but oddly placed) camera. If there is no further sign of outside interference then the national security implications likely remain low.

But even that won't stop ministers wondering where other cameras might be and what else might have been captured.