Lobbyists knew about plans for lockdown days before leak

BORIS JOHNSON’S plans for a second national lockdown were known to lobbyists days before they leaked to the press, prompting a mole hunt that has engulfed Downing Street.

The Cabinet Office is conducting an inquiry after newspapers reported that Mr Johnson planned to introduce a second national lockdown, before MPS or the public were informed.

But lobbyists brought in by the Department of Health to consult on Test and Trace shared the news with their own clients even before it leaked to the press, it has emerged.

The Sunday Times reported that George Pascoe-watson, a Westminster lobbyist, offered advice to ministers for six months before he told clients the Prime Minister would “announce next week that he is prepared to ‘sacrifice November to save December’”.

Three days later, the news leaked and Mr Johnson ordered an inquiry.

Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, both part of the so- called “Quad” that made the lockdown decision, have denied they were the source of the leak.

Lee Cain, Mr Johnson’s former director of communications, also denied any knowledge of the disclosure.

Yesterday, the Labour Party called for an inquiry into the appointments of the unpaid lobbyists, which were not publicly announced when they began work in April.

Angela Rayner, the Labour deputy leader, wrote to Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, urging him to investigate the roles of Mr Pascoe-watson and James O’shaughnessy, his colleague.

Mr Pascoe-watson said he had advised the Government on its Test and Trace programme in a personal capaci ty as an unpaid adviser and had declared his professional interests to the Department of Health.

The lobbyist said the information passed to his clients did not originate in the Test and Trace calls he had been invited to.

Mr O’shaughnessy said his role had been “approved by the permanent secretary and declared in [his] register of interests”.

A Department of Health spokesman said the Government had “rightly... drawn on the expertise of a number of private-sector partners who provided advice and expertise to assist in the Government’s vital work” but stressed that relevant sign-off procedures had been followed.